Swedpat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/18/05
Posts: 1033
Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia
|
|
etc,
Nice to meat you here also. Yes, the SLC 7x42 is heavy, and I had rather prefered a 200g lighter weight. The 950g of the SLC 7x42 is 255g heavier than my former Pentax 8x43 DCF SP. This is a difference which I experience more noticable than I had expected before I got it.
I suppose that Swarovski sooner or later will decrease the weight of the SLC-line, maybe with the next true uppgrading. The question is if the relatively low price in comparison to Leica and Zeiss then can be kept.
The lighter EL-line is "full-priced".
I understand the popularity of the SLC-line is based on a combination of the comfortable holding, ease of view and the good value for the money.
Regards, Patric
--------------------
*2,3x40 Constellation View Wide-Bino
*Leupold 6x30 Yosemite
*Leupold Katmai 6x32
*Swarovski SLCNew 7x42B
*Bresser (Lidl) 10x50
*Oberwerk 11x70
*No name (Kunming) 15x70
*Scopos ED APO 66
*Meade 5000 26mm Plössl, Vixen LV 10/5mm
Psalm 19:2
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
Swedepat,
The Leica Trinovid 8x42 weights about the same, and I don't think "it's too heavy". I think "it's a premium quality optical instrument. It ought to be heavy vs. cheap $99 special". Same goes for SLC. There is about 2 oz of weight difference between 8x42 Trinovid and 7x42 Swaro SLC.
The value of Trinovid or SLC is definitely higher than the EL line... and I say that having an EL.
Thanks for the report.
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1006
|
|
etc.,
I got the 8.5x42 EL yesterday, and it is of extremely high optical and mechanical quality, with slick-as-glass ergonomics. I'll post some detailed impressions soon.
But, doggoned if you weren't right about the excessive eye relief. It's still quite usable to be sure, but I like to really snuggle up to the eyepiece, and doing so results in moderate blackouts, and my wife has the same opinion. (I now wonder if the one I tried in the store had the eyecups swapped out already!)
So, I think I'll get the taller 8x50 SLC eyecups that you recommend. Where do I get them? Since they extend taller, I'd suspect that they are also taller when screwed down, making them less appropriate for use with glasses. Am I right or wrong on that?
Any experience with the winged eyecups? I'm thinking if the taller cups rule out eyeglasses, I might as well get the very comfortable-looking winged jobs, provided they are tall enough to prevent the blackouts.
Thanks,
Ron
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
Do you wear glasses? If so, I think winged eyecups are not an option. Otherwise, they might be great, and I suppose offer a better seal with less ambient light getting in. I am theorizing, no personal experience with them.
I wish I had perfect eyesight and didn't have to accomodate for eyeglasses. For me, 18mm of ER of Swaro EL is just great when the eyecups are in the down position. For astro viewing, I hate eyeglasses and then you need a taller eyecup to accomodate for this super long ER.
I wrote to the engineers, they need to redesign this eyecup thing, plus add click stops.
Swaro EL is a great (greatest) 8x optik wrapped in some crummy packaging (the case is near useless, the ocular cap is some horrible cheap plastic with sharp edges that I think can scratch the lense if you hit it at just the wrong angle, in the dark or just plain tired and not focusing, the eyecups are too short...) you have to replace all of it. The strap is OK though. At least the ER is great if you have myopia.
I sent you via PM the contact info of the Swarovski person I've been working with, who can assist you.
|
edwincjones
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 4423
|
|
A different point of view-hopefully not too OT
Going from the SW 8.5x42 to the 10x50 SLC, seems like you will spend a lot of money for a small amount of improvement for astronomy. Going to a fuji 16x70 or equal binocular with tripod would greatly improve astronomical viewing and could be used for some birding/general binocular viewing.
--------------------
n w arkansas
Binocular, Solar, General Amateur Astronomy
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
You do make a great point... going from 8.5x42 to 10x50 does not make a lot of sense, financial or otherwise.
I do think most people have issues hand-holding anything above 10x... I suspect most have issues holding 10x, including myself. For me, the comfort level is at 8x.
I think I will stick with my 8.5x42 for now.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
etc ,
If hand - holding is your " thing " then why not consider one of the Canon IS binoculars for higher powered viewing ?
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
DJB
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1267
|
|
Hi etc,
The only binocular that I can/enjoy hand holding around 10x is my OB 11x56. There is just something about the weight vs. ergonomics that appeals to me in a great way. FWIW.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
Canon IS would certainly be tempting, either 10x or 12x.
As to why not -
I have reservations about electronics in it, which will become obsolete in a few years, plus are likely more fragile if you dropped it than a conventional roof with cemented lenses in it...
I do love the IS feature in the Canon camera I have, it enables me to do what I otherwise wouldn't be able to do. But I don't want to depend on the batteries in a bino.
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1501
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Hi etc,
I assume you are thinking of cemented prisms not lenses. Cemented lenses can be found in binos of any prism design, not just roof prisms.
I'm not sure if most roof prisms are cemented. The few I've taken apart all have air gaps between the elements. This includes Schmidt-Pechan and Abbe-Konig prism assemblies.
There have been other roof prism designs that have used cemented elements. Most notably the original trinovids from Leitz used Uppendahl prisms which consisted of three elements cemented into a single unit. Trinovids these days use high quality Schmidt-Pechan prism assemblies.
There are reasons why roof prisms are less fragile than porro prisms, but not because they're cemented. Robust Porro binoculars can and are made such as the Fujinon series.
You're probably correct about the added complication of IS may make them vulnerable to impacts. I think the fact that you don't want to depend on batteries makes a stronger argument.
Peter
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
At least it's a good thing they use AA cells instead of some weird proprietory cell.
All my devices are AA-based, and I use NiMH. I imagine they would work really well in it, as well as Lithiums.
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1501
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
I agree with you there! I'd much rather have an easy to replace AA battery than a hard to find and probably more expensive lithium cell.
Peter
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 1660
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mt. High
|
|
This is one of my favorite websites:
http://www.ccrane.com/more-categories/batteries-chargers/nimh-batteries.aspx
--------------------
Pentax 12x50mm PCF WP II FMC/WP/FP
Pentax 16x60mm PCF WP FMC/WP/FP
Pentax 20x60mm PCF WP II FMC/WP/FP
Orion 12x63mm Mini Giant FMC/JAPAN
Orion 15x70mm Little Giant II FMC/JAPAN
Orion 16x80mm Giant FMC/JAPAN
Orion 20x70mm Little Giant II FMC/JAPAN
Orion 30x80mm MEGAView FMC/JAPAN
Barska 30x80mm X-Trail LW FC
Burgess Optical Series II 20x90mm FMC/WP/FP
Handel's Messiah**Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
pcad,
Thanks for the perspective -
Quote:
I assume you are thinking of cemented prisms not lenses. Cemented lenses can be found in binos of any prism design, not just roof prisms.
I'm not sure if most roof prisms are cemented. The few I've taken apart all have air gaps between the elements. This includes Schmidt-Pechan and Abbe-Konig prism assemblies.
There have been other roof prism designs that have used cemented elements. Most notably the original trinovids from Leitz used Uppendahl prisms which consisted of three elements cemented into a single unit. Trinovids these days use high quality Schmidt-Pechan prism assemblies.
There are reasons why roof prisms are less fragile than porro prisms, but not because they're cemented. Robust Porro binoculars can and are made such as the Fujinon series.
|
John F
sage
Reged: 02/16/04
Posts: 308
Loc: Washington State
|
|
The Swarovski 10x50 SLC is a superb 10x binocular. Even though they cost a lot more the the Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50s I'd opt for the Swarovski's over them because of their lighter weight and better ergonomics. However, if I were primarily going to be using the 10x binocular with a mount then Fujinon is a much better deal and as good or even better optically.
The one time that I had a chance to the Swarovski 10x50s I also had a chance to compare them to the Leica 10x50 Ultravids. The Swarovski's were a little sharper out towards the far edge of the field. However, the Leica had a very large sweet spot and I could be happy with them. Of the two, if I had to choose I would have went with the Leica because they're 6 ounces lighter than the Swarovski SLCs and overall I'd preferred their ergonomics. If Swarovski were to bring out a pair of 10x50 ELs that weighed 36 ounces or less I'd be very tempted.
John Finnan
--------------------
Leica 7x42 Ultravid
Nikon 7x50 Prostar
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL
Nikon 10x70 Astroluxe
Leica 12x50 Ultravid
Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT
Takahashi 22x60 Astronomer
NP-127 w/Bino Vue
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
