Swarovski EL with or without field flattener lenses (1 Viewer)

[michael97]

Hey all!
I´m just about to upgrade my binoculars ( 1970´s Habicht 7x42) and I have the opportunity to get used, but well preserved Swarovski EL 10x42 glasses for a good price (950 euros). The glasses were produced in 2014, but don´t have field flattener lenses technology. Does it still make sense to buy these kind of "older" glasses or wouldn´t you buy any glasses without Swarovison technology nowadays?

Best wishes,
Michael

 

[norway]

2014 ELs should have flat-field lens elements, no? Normally they’re optically identical to the newer Field Pro version.

Personally, I could do without the flattening effect, but they’re awesome binoculars either way.

 

[claves_10]

For that price go ahead. I got too a second hand EL production year 2008 and they are great. Even the focus wheel is much better than the actual ELs (production year 2021)
The ones that I am talking about are 8x32 EL year 2008 and they have great focus wheel, quite smooth even though it has little slack at mid point. I am sure sure Swarovski could fix it since guarantee for these binos is till year 2038, quite amazing a 30 year guarantee.

 

[John A Roberts]

To be clear, the EL x42 chronology is:

1999 - EL
- - - -
2009 - EL Swarovsion (all new optics including flat field eyepiece, new focuser mechanism and new body)
2015 - EL FieldPro (EL Swarovision with new neck strap and objective cover attachments and modified diopter lock)
2020 - EL Legend (EL FieldPro with simplified focus mechanism and increased minimum focus distance)

And in terms of easy visual identification:
A) Original EL verses EL Swarovision:


(from: http://www.fjbirds.org/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=16106 - this link has broken since I downloaded the image)


B) FieldPro update:




John


n.b. On the three main versions, the details of the RA and the placement of the logos differ.

 

[safaridreaming]

I throught Swaro had already transitioned to the SV variants of the EL’s in 2014? Are you sure its a 2014 manufacture?

 

[John A Roberts]

And dating of introductions by looking at the serial numbers for the EL x42 models:

EL - #L6925 05174 - earliest observed unit (mid 1999, 05000 start); last observed #L7938 92854

EL SV - #K7927 06254 - earliest observed unit (mid 2009, 06000 start); last observed #K8521 47410

EL FP - #K8524 47681 - per Swarovski Spare Parts catalogue (mid 2015)

EL Legend - #K9027 48841 - per Jan in post #6 at: Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (mid 2020)


John


n.b. Typically products are announced before the first units are available
e.g. while EL SV production commenced in mid 2009, it was projected to be first shipped in January 2010
- see Dale's comment in post #21 at: Swarovski EL 42 60th anniversary coating

 

[michael97]

Thanks for all the information! Apparently it is a original EL x42 model that were bought in 2014 and not produced of course...

10x42 6,3°, still worthwhile to buy?

Michael

 

[Rg548]

Thanks for all the information! Apparently it is a original EL x42 model that were bought in 2014 and not produced of course...

10x42 6,3°, still worthwhile to buy?

Michael

View attachment 1523146View attachment 1523145

Buy them.... Awesome

 

[claves_10]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
look up at te diopter you will find the serial number.
Have in mind 30 years guarantee too.

 

[Paultricounty]

And dating of introductions by looking at the serial numbers for the EL x42 models:

EL - #L6925 05174 - earliest observed unit (mid 1999, 05000 start); last observed #L7938 92854

EL SV - #K7927 06254 - earliest observed unit (mid 2009, 06000 start); last observed #K8521 47410

EL FP - #K8524 47681 - per Swarovski Spare Parts catalogue (mid 2015)

EL Legend - #K9027 48841 - per Jan in post #6 at: Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (mid 2020)


John


n.b. Typically products are announced before the first units are available
e.g. while EL SV production commenced in mid 2009, it was projected to be first shipped in January 2010
- see Dale's comment in post #21 at: Swarovski EL 42 60th anniversary coating

Lol your like AI, nobody really needs to reply to peoples questions about a specific binocular and it’s history. We can just post our questions and sit back and wait for you to post the info. 😆. Great job John.

By the way is that the link in post #4 still workin? I can’t open it.

Thx
Paul

 

[safaridreaming]

Thanks for all the information! Apparently it is a original EL x42 model that were bought in 2014 and not produced of course...

10x42 6,3°, still worthwhile to buy?

Michael

View attachment 1523146View attachment 1523145

I’m not sure about that for 1000Euro. It doesnt have HD glass or any of the newer coatings. Id say there is more competitive glass in that price range today than these EL’s that you may want to consider…

 

[tenex]

Lol your like AI...

Actually I keep being struck now by how often people resemble AI, but that isn't exactly a compliment...

 

[John A Roberts]

Regarding AI, and my compiled serial number information (as in post #6):

The information is primarily based on the numbers shown within images, mainly in sales listings, collected over nearly a decade.
As a simple repetitive task, it would seem ideally suited to an AI.

However, an AI is limited to currently accessible information, and many of the images have long ceased to be available *
So an AI operating now couldn't duplicate what I've done

. . . Though from now on, an AI can just vacuum up the text that I've posted!


(from: doh homer simpson )


John


* e.g. The earliest EL SV serial number is from a 2015 listing by Armiusate, an Italian sales site.

And added considerations include: sometimes an image needs to be optical enhanced for a number to be legible, or;
a complete number can only be obtained by combing the parts of it shown in different images.

 

[tenex]

Though from now on, an AI can just vacuum up the text that I've posted!

But one could never quite trust an AI's answer to questions like this, because you can judge the reliability of sources, have a sense of what's true or plausible, and know when there's a point needing further investigation, or a contradiction needing to be reconciled, as it would not.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi tenex,

And even more so, when there is any significant consequence to acting on information from an AI.

As 'an intelligence', an AI has the same basic problem as any human using the net:
How to evaluate what credibility and weighting should be given to a particular piece of information?

Setting everything else aside, as an AI lacks the benefits of any human lived experience,
it's likely to be at best 'book smart', but inevitably 'street stupid'.

And beyond that there’s always the ethical dimension . . . *


John


* An idea central to the TV series Person Of Interest. Where Harold's overriding concern was to ensure that his Super AI 'the machine'
was not only effective but also ethical - in stark contrast to the competing SAI, the ironically named Samaritan.

 

[tenex]

As 'an intelligence', an AI has the same basic problem as any human using the net:
How to evaluate what credibility and weighting should be given to a particular piece of information?

As currently implemented, AI has a much more fundamental problem: it doesn't even understand anything. (So wanting it to be ethical is ridiculous, even before considering how widely people now disagree about ethics.)

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi tenex,

Your increasingly selective literalism reminds me of something that I read recently.
Now what was it?

Oh yes, here we go:

Actually I keep being struck now by how often people resemble AI, but that isn't exactly a compliment...

John

 

[tenex]

Your increasingly selective literalism reminds me of something that I read recently.
Now what was it?

Oh yes, here we go:

tenex said: Actually I keep being struck now by how often people resemble AI, but that isn't exactly a compliment...

I don't get this.

I am not being oddly "selective", nor overly "literal". People have gone crazy lately in their enthusiasm for AI, carelessly attributing qualities it does not have (anthropomorphization). That really isn't what Turing had in mind with his test at all. If AI can replace some writers today, that reflects very poorly on them. It could not replace you, and I didn't expect saying so to provoke a negative reaction. And now you're comparing me to AI?