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

[David Swain]

I am, apparently, the very rare porro user, using either an E II or an SE 8x. For several years I have wanted a pair of 8x42 SLCs, but have kids going into college, etc., so they got relegated to the turning-60 gift list. Sad they are gone, and I hope the HGs will become the new go-to alpha roof for those of us who need a tool, not a toy.

David Swain
Concord, MA

 

[Xlr8n]

I am, apparently, the very rare porro user, using either an E II or an SE 8x. For several years I have wanted a pair of 8x42 SLCs, but have kids going into college, etc., so they got relegated to the turning-60 gift list. Sad they are gone, and I hope the HGs will become the new go-to alpha roof for those of us who need a tool, not a toy.

David Swain
Concord, MA

I can relate....I too envisioned I'd buy myself a set of new SLC's for a retirement gift when the time arrived (only 53 now)... but upon standing at the optics counter at Cabela's last weekend, I contempated the thought of them going away forever...they ony had one set left....I then experienced an overwhelming moment of greed, distress, panic, and excitement....and I bought them on the spot! :king:

 

[Patudo]

... I hope the HGs will become the new go-to alpha roof for those of us who need a tool, not a toy.

I'm struggling with the idea that the EL - or the NL for that matter - could be described as a toy, frankly...

 

[Sollas]

Maybe read “toy” as unnecessary excess.....

 

[SeldomPerched]

I can relate....I too envisioned I'd buy myself a set of new SLC's for a retirement gift when the time arrived (only 53 now)... but upon standing at the optics counter at Cabela's last weekend, I contempated the thought of them going away forever...they ony had one set left....I then experienced an overwhelming moment of greed, distress, panic, and excitement....and I bought them on the spot! :king:

What do you think of them if you've had time to use them in these last few days? And which size did you buy?

 

[elkcub]

I can relate....I too envisioned I'd buy myself a set of new SLC's for a retirement gift when the time arrived (only 53 now)... but upon standing at the optics counter at Cabela's last weekend, I contempated the thought of them going away forever...they ony had one set left....I then experienced an overwhelming moment of greed, distress, panic, and excitement....and I bought them on the spot! :king:

Good for you! I've owned a pair for several years and have no interest in anything else. They are superb. Money's only money, but a great binocular is a VIEW! :t:

Enjoy,
Ed

 

[Gray C]

I love my 8x42 SLCs

Someone asked me if I was considering trading them in to get the new NLs. The answer is NO!

I'd love a pair of NLs but I'll get them when I can afford them and use them equally with my SLCs

Now the SLCs have gone and the fact that I hardly ever see anyone using them for birding in the UK (nearly every pair of Swarovskis I see are ELs) I think the SLCs will become more sought after and get noticed more in the future.

Through my eyes the SLCs are every bit as good as the ELs.

 

[Xlr8n]

What do you think of them if you've had time to use them in these last few days? And which size did you buy?

10x42. So far they are superb. Great depth of field and crystal clear as expected. I prefer a traditional pin cushion glass to a flat field view. Seems to immerse you in the subject matter.
I bought them with the idea that I'd have 60 days to return them if I didn't like them(Cabela's), but thus far I'm thrilled.
I've been wanting this very glass for a few years now and being able to buy a brand new set is pretty rewarding. :t:

 

[David Swain]

I'm struggling with the idea that the EL - or the NL for that matter - could be described as a toy, frankly...

By "toy" I meant an object of fickle desire. The NL may indeed be simply a superior tool for some, and I meant no disrespect to those who want a pair. I look forward to your reports.

David

 

[elkcub]

10x42. So far they are superb. Great depth of field and crystal clear as expected. I prefer a traditional pin cushion glass to a flat field view. Seems to immerse you in the subject matter.
I bought them with the idea that I'd have 60 days to return them if I didn't like them(Cabela's), but thus far I'm thrilled.
I've been wanting this very glass for a few years now and being able to buy a brand new set is pretty rewarding. :t:

Note that (1) distortion and (2) field curvature are independent optical aberrations that are controlled in different ways. SV products use field flattener lenses to reshape field curvature, which probably accounts for your sense of lower perceived immersion in the subject matter, i.e., 3-D space.

Basically, field flatteners distort the normal perception of 'flatness' similar to the odd sensation of viewing stereographs printed on flat cards. The perceptual phenomenon probably has to do with changing the normal defocus gradient associated with flat objects, e.g., in viewing a flat wall only one point intersecting the visual axis is in true focus, the rest become defocused as a function of the off-axis angle (because they are further away). Ironic as it may sound, it is known that the brain actually uses such defocus information to perceive flatness.

Notice: I'm NOT saying it's wrong to use field flatteners. I am saying their benefits come at the expense of distorting spatial perception, which in my case is a deal breaker.

I'm sorry that Swarovski doesn't care about this, but YAHOO — You Always Have Other Options.
Ed

 

[Chosun Juan]

Ed,

Discounting any pincushion/barrel/angular magnification distortions, which may be able to be optimized for an individual's (or a percentile range of them) somewhat separately (for the purpose of discussion) , is there:-

Any type of curved surface (and/or field curvature) that would provide a SHARP view across the ENTIRE field of view for say folks 40+ with limited focus accomodation ?

When I look at a binocular view that is sharp across the entire field to the edge, I mostly find it more pleasing.
* I find it helps to pick up movement at the outer parts of the Fov when I am concentrating on the centre of the Fov.
* I find it gives a 'perception' of greater 'brightness'
* I find it's very handy for sudden, fleeting, snap off-axis viewing that may not be totally aligned with my glasses/eyes, provided of course that the design has sufficient randpupille (must also involve good SA control) and glare and CA control !

Within flat field designs I find there are differences to the flatness - the Canon IS range of models seem to be particularly sheet of paper flat. This at first seems a little unnatural, but becomes less noticeable over time. Not my preferred view though.





Chosun :gh:

 

[elkcub]

Hi Chosun,

Is there any type of curved surface (and/or field curvature) that would provide a SHARP view across the ENTIRE field of view for say folks 40+ with limited focus accomodation ?

All I can say is that the 8x42 SLC-HD's designers arranged the lens curvatures so that the final image appears very sharp to me across the entire field when looking through the center and its immediate surround, —noting that at my age (84) accommodative range must be near zero. If you haven't yet looked through one to make a comparison with the SV line, you really should before they are gone. All your other criteria are also met for me: peripheral movement detection, glare suppression, and quick of-axis viewing in advance of recentering. What is not supported particularly well is sustained unnaturally extreme off-axis viewing, e.g., > 15º that some folks feel is a feature.

Thanks for mentioning "...Within flat field designs ... there are differences to the flatness." Yes, indeed, we really don't know much of anything about the optimization criteria used for different products. Some designs may fit image curvature to a flat surface tangent to the retina; some may fit it to the curvature to the eye's Petzval surface; and others may fit it to curvature of the retina itself. Who knows? These things are kept secret.

Ed

 

[Chosun Juan]

Hi Ed,

I have looked through the 8x42 SLC-HD (the latest one) at length.
Unfortunately it wasn't for me. I was comparing side by side with the full Swarovski range plus my Zens. First up none of the Swaros even felt close in the hand to my Zens - the 10x50SV was about the best - though the focus wheel was smaller and a lot slower.

Optically, I felt the 8x42 SLC were a bit 'confined' in A/Fov compared to my Zens, the 8x32 SV, and the 8.5x42 SV.
The thing that really struck me though (apart from the field curvatures) was that the colour rendition of the SLC's seemed 'muddy' - particularly in relation to the SV's. So much so that I'm not sure they have the same level of AR coatings. In comparison the SV'S had a more 'crystalline' view - bright reds and blues at the extremities of the visible spectrum and a more neutral colour balance (whereas the SLC was ever so slightly warm - muddy).

I wonder if anyone else has this S-P SLC vs SV colour rendition impression ? Apart from the ergos it was the thing that put me off as much as anything else about the SLC ......

I suppose I did the SLC no favours by comparing to the SV's which due to the sharp to the edges view, I "perceived' as brighter. Objectively I don't think there's very much between the three of them in actual measured brightness. My Zens are weaker than the SV's with regard to blues - but hold their own elsewhere and against the SLC-HD.

As far as the intricacies of the SLC-HD's field curvature go - if there is something special there, it's a bit lost on me. The sweet spot was larger than my Zens and the pincushion in the outer field was less, but the edges were still fuzzy. I don't know how good my accommodation is - but at circa half your age, I have slightly improving myopia - though I'm sure if I was born thousands of years ago I'd be toast by now - a tasty morsel for some alpha predator !

If there was a way of having sharp edges too - I 'd be all for it.

Those sharp edges of the SV really are a nice luxury. While I like the field view through the Zeiss SF (black armour model with no blue ring) , and to a lesser extent, the Nikon MHG, and even the A-K prism 10x56 SLC-HD, they just lack that last fraction at the edge.

I hope that 'holy grail' sharp to the edge field curvature is something manufacturers pay a lot more attention to .... maybe an opening for Nikon with a new lightweight extra wide field alpha ?? :cat:

[EDIT]: As for the "secret sauce" curvature recipe - we all share the same DNA, and the bulk of normal distribution bell curve of our visual/eye/processing physiology is what the manufacturers must be (you would think) designing for (even if they don't know it, or understand it) - so there must be something of an optimal solution (or optimal range of solutions) ......







Chosun :gh:

 

[elkcub]

Chosun,

You are truly blessed in not being sensitive to distorted spatial perceptions. Maybe it's something like chromatic aberration (CA), which many are oblivious to until someone points out how to see it, and then they can't see anything else. On the other hand, I'm grateful that this edge sharpness fascination hasn't become an item of interest for me. Like the lady said: "It's just the way it is."

With regard to comparing the color filtering aspects of different instruments, I would note that although standard SPIE compatible methods for quantifying the luminosity, dominant wavelength, and excitation purity (brightness, hue, and saturation) of optical instruments have been available for years, the community simply ignores them, apparently preferring subjective hand-waving. So, in that spirit I simply love the natural color rendering of my SLC-HD. :hi:

Ed

 

[mbb]

So those of you with 10X SLC experience, how much of an improvement are the current"HD" models over a 2008 SLC NEU Model?

Does anyone have experience with comparing both that (s)he might share?

I am also curious about this, though more in comparison to the SLC NEU 10x42 from 2009 or after (with, I deduce from other threads, the most recent coatings).
In any case, the ‘NEU’ would be heavier than the current ones according to the specs, but I’m more curious about their handling and optical qualities in comparison to the current ones.

 

[eitanaltman]

My understanding is that the optical design of the SLC series is mostly unchanged over time, so whether it's an older SLC, the SLC NEU or SLC WB HD or the newest SLC W B you're getting fundamentally the same binocular other than changes to the exterior body / focus / eyecups and updated coatings over time.

The SLC HD replacement of the SLC NEU shaved off weight with the slimmer, less brick like body, and also greatly improved the close focus (from 3m to under 2m). Then, the SLC replacement of the HD again took the same binocular and saved some costs with cheaper rubber armor and a reversal of the close focus improvement so they could lower the price point (I presume to create more separation from the EL?).

I just looked at the Allbinos reviews of these three models and the optical scores Arek gave are virtually identical, category for category. So, in terms of "optical qualities", I'm betting you'd be hard pressed to tell much, if any, difference between the SLC NEU, SLC HD, and SLC W B other than potentially slight differences in color balance due to coatings changes.

 

[dries1]

The end of production of the SLC 8 and 10X42 was by reason from Swarovski, however what it was who really knows,(they surely sold many of the 10x42s for sure). I was always more impressed with the SLC 56MM glass, and who knows when their demise will occur.

Andy W.

 

[Xlr8n]

Does anyone have experience with comparing both that (s)he might share?

I am also curious about this, though more in comparison to the SLC NEU 10x42 from 2009 or after (with, I deduce from other threads, the most recent coatings).
In any case, the ‘NEU’ would be heavier than the current ones according to the specs, but I’m more curious about their handling and optical qualities in comparison to the current ones.

Beginning in 2010 the SLC line was upgraded to new HD fluoride glass, the same as EL's lineup and also received the same coatings as the EL. They received a stronger magnesium chassis as well as losing weight. The tubes are slimmer and tapered more than before making them easier to hold. The price increased sunstantially, jumping up to around $2200 for the 10x42.

When the SLC were again revamped in 2013, they lost the close focus lens element as a cost saving measure which theoretically made them optically brighter than before. The SLC's were marketed as Swaro's hunting line and a new rubber armour was designed to be more rugged than that of the EL
with no exposed metal, but may be considered a cost saving measure as well.

The 2010+ SLC HD and WB are considered by most to have better optics than any SLC's prior.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Eitan (post #96),

With 2 exceptions, the optics of the various models in the original series SLC’s did remain the same throughout production
The exceptions were the Mk II upgrade to the 7x30 and 8x30 models in 1989, see post #9 at: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=380550

However, the new SLC’s - the x42’s starting in 2010 and the x56’s in 2013 - are all new designs, including optically
(with the addition of HD glass, and the use of Abbe-Koenig prisms in the x56's)

See the attached image of:
- the original x42 SLC (Objective of 2 groups: 1 + 2 element focuser. Eyepiece of 3 groups: 2, 1, 2 elements)
- the 2010 x42 SLC (Objective of 3 groups: 1, 2 + 1 element focuser. Eyepiece a 3 groups: 2, 2, 1 elements)

- - - -

Hi Xlr8n (post #98),

In 2013, Swarovski increased the minimum close focus distance of the x42 SLC’s by simplifying the focuser mechanism, and at the same time introduced the all over RA covering
However, there’s no indication that the optics were changed. As can be seen from the most recent specification sheet, the x42’s have 11 optical elements per side
So 2 prisms plus 9 lenses, as in the 2010 SLC x42 cutaway view


John

 

[eitanaltman]

Thanks John. I knew the human Swarovski encyclopedia would appear shortly to correct the record