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

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="adhoc" data-source="post: 3527665" data-attributes="member: 131373">Bruce, Lee, it is not the long close focus that makes some reviewers rate the SLC well below the Swarovision. Allbinos in their 10x42 rankings place the Swarovision 2nd, scoring 90%, the current SLC (with long close focus) 18th with 82%, and the SLC HD (with good close focus) 19th with 82%. The pre-2010 EL is 11th scoring 84%, and the SLC 'Neu' is 5th with 86%! Tobias Menle in his Greatest Binoculars states in 2015: "I suspect the SLC has been downgraded a bit compared to its predecessor to conquer a new niche below the premium model Swarovision. The SLC looks a bit softer than the others, especially below 10 meters, and does not quite achieve the wowing view of an alpha bin. ... The focuser is squeaky and rough, and the industrial design looks strange and old fashioned, lacking appeal. Swarovski should really let the SLC be a premium alternative to the Swarovision for those prefering curved fields. In Europe, street price is way to close to the superior Ultravid and HT to make the SLC a good buy ..." I personally find that in nature observation the SLC HD 8x42 conveys more detail (very slightly more) than the Swarovision 8.5x42 (note, despite the latter's greater x). My visual acuity is better than 20/20. Something subjective is going on here that I have not seen explained. Adding in edit: I should point out that, with ref. to my post #22, in the Allbinos scoring, compared with the Swarovision, the two newer SLCs lose 3.6% each for "distortion" (and the SLC Neu 3.0%).</blockquote>

Verification