• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

SLC range to be discontinued by Swarovski! (1 Viewer)

tenex

reality-based
Antarctica
Also see the positive comments about the current production SLC 8x42 verses the NL 8x42, from the Polish poster 3mnich...
Interesting. Curious that he wasn't equally impressed by the latest (or was it?) 10x42 SLC. Is this once again the mysterious beauty some see in lower power models, like many 7x, or the 8x56 SLC?
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
I think it will be interesting to see the new CL models, in both 8 and 10x42 when they are introduced.

The SLC model was not without issues. I recall asking to see a 10x42 SLC model from the showcase a
few years ago at a retailer. I was amazed when first handling this one, the focuser was stuck, and needed
some force to get it going. I told the clerk, and told him it should be sent back to Swarovski, as this was
not normal.

I like Swarovski binoculars, and have around a dozen here someplace......;)

Jerry
 

Tobias Mennle

Well-known member
In the end most will eventually go for the NL, it is just a matter of time.

Andy W.

Yes, because people and sheep have a lot in common. The grass seems always greenest where the crowds are.

The NL being a flat field will have the same horrible rendering of space as their predecessors. Whereas the SLC 8x42 almost renders as deep as an AK prism glass.
 
Last edited:

dries1

Member
For some the flat field and compression out, that is fine, however there are sufficient not flat field glass to use. I just do not get the hype of the SLC in 42mm models, I have the 10X56, and 15X56 SLCs and to me the large aperture models are superior to the 42mm class. I feel that the Meopta Meostar models are as good as the SLC models in 42mm.
Also I will take a Noctivid over the SLC every day of the week. My 2C.

Andy W.
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Hi Tobias,

You've summarized my thoughts very well, although I have no issue with the focuser on my 8x42 SLC-HD.

Long live field curvature! B :)

Cheers,
Ed

I'd have to say I feel the same if not quite so passionately. I absolutely love everything about my SLC 8x42 and also 10x - even if some say the cosmetic appearance is one only a mother could love! The focus is more resistant but still feels very good - it's just different, to my way of thinking. Colour and contrast are gorgeous, and definition and view far out to the edges.

Tom
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Interesting. Curious that he wasn't equally impressed by the latest (or was it?) 10x42 SLC. Is this once again the mysterious beauty some see in lower power models, like many 7x, or the 8x56 SLC?

Interestingly, Roger Vine of Scope Views, normally quite a flat field advocate (astronomy), writes a very positive review of the SLC 10x42. It's a lovely bit of glass and easy to handle if you are OK with slow focusing.

Tom
 

tenex

reality-based
Antarctica
I think it will be interesting to see the new CL models, in both 8 and 10x42 when they are introduced.
Is a CL 42 known to be coming, to replace the SLC? I still haven't heard confirmation (from Swaro) that SLC 42s are being discontinued, in fact there have been denials.
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
Is a CL 42 known to be coming, to replace the SLC? I still haven't heard confirmation (from Swaro) that SLC 42s are being discontinued, in fact there have been denials.

That discussion has been around, so some day, we may have the CL, EL and
the NL series of Swarovski binoculars.

Those should fill the current lineup, except for 56mm, and Swarovski will keep
making the big eyes, the 15x56, the leader in class. ;)

Jerry
 

Tobias Mennle

Well-known member
For some the flat field and compression out, that is fine, however there are sufficient not flat field glass to use. I just do not get the hype of the SLC in 42mm models, I have the 10X56, and 15X56 SLCs and to me the large aperture models are superior to the 42mm class. I feel that the Meopta Meostar models are as good as the SLC models in 42mm.
Also I will take a Noctivid over the SLC every day of the week. My 2C.

Andy W.

Interesting, of course it is both a matter of taste, but - as always - also of sample quality.

I have dismissed the SLC8x42 when I tested it in 2015 as not being up to the quality of other alpha bins. A good upper middle class bin but overpriced here in Germany. I only ordered one recently because the dealer claimed to have the previous model as a demo, but the latest model arrived.

The SLC I have now makes my Noctivid´s images look a bit oppressive, oversharp, dark and flat where the SLC´s imagery is friendly, deep, airy, transparent. SLC almost has an AK prism look. Quite an achievement. Nikon EDG is outclassed, too. Ease of view is by far the best in the SLC, as Nocti gives me black outs in very bright light and Nikon EDG always needs precise IPD.

Now that was all very unexpected, but I am not complaining.
 

dries1

Member
Tobias,

That is good that you prefer the SLC 8X42 to the others, perhaps your eyes have found the one.

Andy W.
 

Sollas

Well-known member
Interesting, of course it is both a matter of taste, but - as always - also of sample quality.

I have dismissed the SLC8x42 when I tested it in 2015 as not being up to the quality of other alpha bins. A good upper middle class bin but overpriced here in Germany. I only ordered one recently because the dealer claimed to have the previous model as a demo, but the latest model arrived.

The SLC I have now makes my Noctivid´s images look a bit oppressive, oversharp, dark and flat where the SLC´s imagery is friendly, deep, airy, transparent. SLC almost has an AK prism look. Quite an achievement. Nikon EDG is outclassed, too. Ease of view is by far the best in the SLC, as Nocti gives me black outs in very bright light and Nikon EDG always needs precise IPD.

Now that was all very unexpected, but I am not complaining.
I happen to think these things are sometimes less about chemistry or physics but just pure biology....something that feels right on the eye and brain but cannot always be explained or reasoned by normal scientific analysis. I guess that's what's makes us human!
 

Tobias Mennle

Well-known member
Tobias,

That is good that you prefer the SLC 8X42 to the others, perhaps your eyes have found the one.

Andy W.
Maybe as I'm always looking for 3D pop, no matter which glass - stills, cinematography, binoculars. But I suspect a more technical evaluation of image high fidelity would also suggest the SLC is a better bin than the Nocti...
 

Steve C

Well-known member
As quoted by Sollas above

"I happen to think these things are sometimes less about chemistry or physics but just pure biology....something that feels right on the eye and brain but cannot always be explained or reasoned by normal scientific analysis. I guess that's what's makes us human!"

I tend to agree, but think that psychology is an equally important driving factor. Our brain is the the end optical instrument and our experience, expectations, education, and notions I think are of equal importance in driving what we see.
 
Last edited:

Tobias Mennle

Well-known member
As quoted by Sollas above

"I happen to think these things are sometimes less about chemistry or physics but just pure biology....something that feels right on the eye and brain but cannot always be explained or reasoned by normal scientific analysis. I guess that's what's makes us human!"

I tend to agree, but think that psychology is an equally important driving factor. Our brain is the the end optical instrument and our experience, expectations, education, and notions I think are of equal importance in driving what we see.
I´m not sure your point of view makes much sense from the standpoint of evolutionary biology - too much of your notions etc. influencing your vision and you're dead or in psychiatry.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top