-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Swarovski SLC 8x56 or Canon 10x42L IS for Astronomy? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gmkirk130
- Start date
I haven't used SLC 8x56 but have tried several other 8x bins. The most pleasant was, surprisingly, Nikon 8x30EII despite its small aperture. But it fogged easily and that was its only serious flaw. When you try the Canon after any non-stabilized bino, you will have a bit of a revelation. Stability improves the view so much that it's hard to exaggerate the difference. You see stars that weren't there before. Others gain a different colour or shade that was barely perceptible. It also lets you observe so much more detail, like a planet and its satellite or a double star. It's a cool experience and 10x42L is probably the best handheld bino for astronomy. That was one of the main reasons I bought it for, but I have never really used it much nor have I learned anything about the stars.
No doubt, SLC will be the best standard binocular you can use for stargazing, but it would benefit greatly from some form of support. Once you enjoy the stars without the shake, image stabilization or simply a tripod, it's hard to go back.
No doubt, SLC will be the best standard binocular you can use for stargazing, but it would benefit greatly from some form of support. Once you enjoy the stars without the shake, image stabilization or simply a tripod, it's hard to go back.
I have an 8x56 SLC, which is a delightful binocular with some outstanding qualities and a weight that is not to everyone's taste. 
Although astronomy is not my main interest I took it down to a dark site in the Eifel at new moon and had some wonderful views of the Milky Way and also picked up the Andromeda galaxy. I was however using a bino adapter on a tall tripod.
Nevertheless, I would have to admit that for your requirements the Canon 10x42L IS might be the better choice.
John
Although astronomy is not my main interest I took it down to a dark site in the Eifel at new moon and had some wonderful views of the Milky Way and also picked up the Andromeda galaxy. I was however using a bino adapter on a tall tripod.
Nevertheless, I would have to admit that for your requirements the Canon 10x42L IS might be the better choice.
John
Pretty big difference between these two...beyond the stabilization. The Canon is 7 ounces lighter and has a much smaller exit pupil. From a dark site, the SLC will have spectacular views of the Milky Way star clouds, a 42mm will never compete IMO. (No, I haven't used the Canon, sorry ).
I'd much rather have the SLC 56mm. The optics are spectacular, a milestone achievement in 56mm binos for astronomy. I've got the 10x56 SLC and it's plenty stable when I set up on my adjustable lounge chair. The views of M31 are amazing. My 42mm binos don't come close. The views are stable when I prop my elbows against my knees or the armrests of the lounge chair.
I guess it comes down to what you like to do with these. I've got a Stowaway for zooming in for more detail on DSO's or planets, that's not why I'm out there with binoculars. The Canon would compete against other 42's, it's just too small to be in the conversation with the 56mm SLC's. And this is without touching on the optical quality - I have no idea what the Canons are like, and yet I'm already sure the SLC blows them away because they're basically perfect optics IMO.
). I'd much rather have the SLC 56mm. The optics are spectacular, a milestone achievement in 56mm binos for astronomy. I've got the 10x56 SLC and it's plenty stable when I set up on my adjustable lounge chair. The views of M31 are amazing. My 42mm binos don't come close. The views are stable when I prop my elbows against my knees or the armrests of the lounge chair.
I guess it comes down to what you like to do with these. I've got a Stowaway for zooming in for more detail on DSO's or planets, that's not why I'm out there with binoculars. The Canon would compete against other 42's, it's just too small to be in the conversation with the 56mm SLC's. And this is without touching on the optical quality - I have no idea what the Canons are like, and yet I'm already sure the SLC blows them away because they're basically perfect optics IMO.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
The Swaro is an amazing premium level glass, but for astronomy , hand held id consider the Canon 15x50IS . That would be a better option than the SLC or the 10x42L.Pretty big difference between these two...beyond the stabilization. The Canon is 7 ounces lighter and has a much smaller exit pupil. From a dark site, the SLC will have spectacular views of the Milky Way star clouds, a 42mm will never compete IMO. (No, I haven't used the Canon, sorry
I'd much rather have the SLC 56mm. The optics are spectacular, a milestone achievement in 56mm binos for astronomy. I've got the 10x56 SLC and it's plenty stable when I set up on my adjustable lounge chair. The views of M31 are amazing. My 42mm binos don't come close. The views are stable when I prop my elbows against my knees or the armrests of the lounge chair.
I guess it comes down to what you like to do with these. I've got a Stowaway for zooming in for more detail on DSO's or planets, that's not why I'm out there with binoculars. The Canon would compete against other 42's, it's just too small to be in the conversation with the 56mm SLC's. And this is without touching on the optical quality - I have no idea what the Canons are like, and yet I'm already sure the SLC blows them away because they're basically perfect optics IMO.
Paul
denis0007dl
Member
I had all of these binoculars, and Canon 10x42 IS is far sharper than Swarovski.
When Image Stabilisation is ON, Canon EAT Swaro even more.
Here is one of my numrous reviews and comparations I did
www.cloudynights.com
Kind regards
Denis
When Image Stabilisation is ON, Canon EAT Swaro even more.
Here is one of my numrous reviews and comparations I did
Swarovski 15x56 SLC vs Canon 18x50 IS ***my take*** - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights
Page 1 of 3 - Swarovski 15x56 SLC vs Canon 18x50 IS ***my take*** - posted in Binoculars: Lets see how these binoculars finally compare 😎
Kind regards
Denis
denis0007dl
Member
Hi Richard,
check my above review: Canon 18x50 IS is way better binocular in every aspect!
I generally dont like at all any roof type of binoculars.
check my above review: Canon 18x50 IS is way better binocular in every aspect!
I generally dont like at all any roof type of binoculars.
I'm a birder first, only occasionally look at the night sky but to my eyes the Canon wasn't anywhere near as good optically as the SLCs and I wouldn't want the Canon's round my neck for a three mile walk. I'm not dismissing your findings and certainly wouldn't suggest people don't try for themselves.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Absolutely 100%. I’m completely dismissing his findings. I’ve had the 10 x 56 SLC and the Canon 10 x 42ISL in direct comparison and optically these two on a different level. The Swarovski is a premium alpha level optic and the Canon (which I still own) is the upper end of the mid level bins like MHG, Conquests etc. etc. Hand held I will admit that you can see more detail on a specific object once the IS is engaged, but to really see the difference in optical quality, as soon as you put the Swarovski on a tripod or brace it in someway you clearly can see the optical level difference between these two.
I’m so confident in my findingsm that I would be willing to wager any amount of money to put these on tripods and focus them on resolution charts. As far as brightness their not even close, which would be expected considering the exit pupal.
Paul
Conndomat
United States of Europe
If you don't like roof binoculars in general, the verdict was probably already predetermined?!
What's wrong with roofs?
Andreas
Image stabilization is a great thing IMO, there's no need to sully the Canons, between the different weight and size of these two it just seems like comparing apples to oranges for me. Big difference between 42mm and 56mm. I wonder what Gary decided to do on this purchase???
Well, I already had the Canon 10X42L IS so was really just interested to hear what others would say about the comparison between that and a Swaro that should be relatively easy to handhold steadily.
I agree with much of what others have written on both sides but tend toward the IS as allowing me to actually see more because of the steadiness. In fact, I once had a Swaro NL Pure 12x42 (with the forehead rest) and was just dazzled by it. But a month later, when I got my Canon 10x42L IS, I quickly sold the NL Pure because the steadiness of the Canon just made the viewing (again, for me) much better. I also didn't want the extra weight of a tripod or even a monopod.
Since I haven't had a lower magnification Swaro, I was just wondering what those who have used both thought. Last thought: Of my non-IS lower power (< 10x) binos, I actually like my Nikon EDG 7x42 the most. As I expressed in an earlier post, they check off most off the boxes for me: Great eye relief (I wear glasses), excellent sharpness edge to edge, great color rendition, good FoV, wonderful focusing mechanism, etc. They've held their own against the larger magnification Swaros I've owned from the NL Pure, EL, and SLC families in my opinion.
I agree with much of what others have written on both sides but tend toward the IS as allowing me to actually see more because of the steadiness. In fact, I once had a Swaro NL Pure 12x42 (with the forehead rest) and was just dazzled by it. But a month later, when I got my Canon 10x42L IS, I quickly sold the NL Pure because the steadiness of the Canon just made the viewing (again, for me) much better. I also didn't want the extra weight of a tripod or even a monopod.
Since I haven't had a lower magnification Swaro, I was just wondering what those who have used both thought. Last thought: Of my non-IS lower power (< 10x) binos, I actually like my Nikon EDG 7x42 the most. As I expressed in an earlier post, they check off most off the boxes for me: Great eye relief (I wear glasses), excellent sharpness edge to edge, great color rendition, good FoV, wonderful focusing mechanism, etc. They've held their own against the larger magnification Swaros I've owned from the NL Pure, EL, and SLC families in my opinion.
I read the full thread in post #7.
I have used 14 or 15 IS binoculars.
I have probably used 50 large high magnification binoculars.
My two Pentax 20x60 are as I have said previously, junk.
They are obviously lemons, but I have used over ten 20x60 binoculars and my two Pentax 20x60 are the worst.
The Pentax 16x60 is O.K.
Despite my Canon 18x50 IS binocular being fabulous, it has faults, as do all the other IS binoculars.
I very much doubt that any of the Canon 18x50 IS are as perfect as suggested, although many conclusions in the review are correct.
Regards,
B.
I have used 14 or 15 IS binoculars.
I have probably used 50 large high magnification binoculars.
My two Pentax 20x60 are as I have said previously, junk.
They are obviously lemons, but I have used over ten 20x60 binoculars and my two Pentax 20x60 are the worst.
The Pentax 16x60 is O.K.
Despite my Canon 18x50 IS binocular being fabulous, it has faults, as do all the other IS binoculars.
I very much doubt that any of the Canon 18x50 IS are as perfect as suggested, although many conclusions in the review are correct.
Regards,
B.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
How do you get along with the Canon 10x42, it doesn't fit me!
Unfortunately, almost all IS binoculars have too small an eye relief for me, I need at least 16mm.
Andreas
I was referring to the Nikon EDG 7x42 with that comment, although I’m able to use the Canon 10x42 as well if I remove my eyeglasses.
"Far sharper" is a subjective assessment, or did you measure the resolution of both binoculars? At unboosted magnification the central resolution of any decent binocular should exceed the capabilities of the human eye.
Way better in every aspect? That sort of generalization deprives you of the right to be taken seriously.
John
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Yes, it was already clear to me it was about the observation with the Canon!
So it's bad for you with eyeglasses too?!
The problem with the IS glasses is that practically all of them are not completely suitable for spectacle wearers, which should also deter quite a few people.
Andreas