Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

The new Swarovski SLC 56's under the stars

  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#76 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,951
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 09 March 2015 - 03:08 PM

Good to hear that the Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56 work so well for eyeglass wearers and that there is a good alternative to the Swaro SLC 15x56's.

Thanks for sharing your experience with them here.


Edited by Erik Bakker, 09 March 2015 - 03:25 PM.


#77 ryderc1

ryderc1

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2006

Posted 09 March 2015 - 03:56 PM

"There is no finer 15x56 binocular  available on the planet at any price"...if you don't wear speactacles that is!

 

The true ER of the new Swaro is close to 13mm (just like the old one), nowhere near enough to see the whole FOV.

The Zeiss conquest HD 15x56 on the other hand has a wider FOV  than the Swaro and a genuine 18mm ER which makes it fully accessible to spectacle wearers (most of us).

 

One more thing: boasting FL glass does not mean it's apochramatic, for proof the CA in the 15x56 SLC HD is still quite noticeable, at 15x only!!

 

Cheers.

I have a pair of the new Swaro 15x56 SLC's and have no problem seeing the entire field while wearing my glasses. I haven't noticed the CA in these binoculars but admit that I haven't gone searching for it.


  • Erik Bakker and Foobaria like this

#78 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,951
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 09 March 2015 - 05:15 PM

There is almost no CA in these new SLC's. I've tested them with my Zeiss 3x12 booster on a tripod and found them just a tad less corrected in the red than the FL's, but that was when comparing the 8x and 10x models of the SLC's and the FL's. The 15x SLC are really good for their magnification. None of these binoculars had visible/distracting CA at their native magnification to my eyes. As a side note, CA is tested on-axis. But what can happen is that one sees some lateral color in wide field eyepieces when positioning the eye off-axis. but that is lateral color in the eyepiece, not CA in the objective. Eyerelief is a very personal thing, with a users'  experience with it depending not only on the eyepiece' optical characteristics, but also on the interaction between an observers' individual facial topography and the design of the eyecups and width of the eyepieces. it is of great importance to test the personal fit of a bino with ones' own face and the specific glasses one is using, if at all, when observing.


  • Stellarfire likes this

#79 Swedpat

Swedpat

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,501
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia

Posted 10 March 2015 - 01:49 PM

Im a big fan of large roof prism binoculars, and a proud owner of Nikon Monarch 5 16x56. It was a big financial stretch for me, but i will never regret getting it. It gives me immense pleasure looking at such crystal clear image that i could not see in many lower class highly recommended models i tested.

 

I found this short comparison review of the five big 56mm 15x and 16x Roofs, just to spice things up. 

 

Swarovski SLC 56

Oculus 5.0 15x56

Vortex Vulture HD 15x56

Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56

Nikon Monarch 5 16x56.

 

Interestingly, Zeiss did not score too well. Swarovski took the 1st prize!

 

This is really strange. Nikon Monarch 5 16x56 is claimed to be as well sharper and brighter than Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56, and at half the price. 56mm Conquest HDs with Abbe König prisms are claimed to have 93% light transmission so how in the world would the Nikon be better at low light? Not even the highest possible light transmission will be noticable brighter than 93%.
I would like to read more opinions about the difference between these binoculars!


  • MarkHart likes this

#80 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 37,784
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 10 March 2015 - 02:38 PM

Hi Patric,

 

Like yourself, I've spent many, many hours reading about other people's "opinions", and find it a very relaxing and interesting way to pass away the leisure hours on cold, dark nights.

 

This is not just with optical instruments, but musical instruments and associated equipment, too.

 

But what we must always remember is that interesting as they usually are, "opinions" are just that - "opinions"!

 

For example, a couple of days ago a comment was made in a thread in this forum that more than one person had expressed opinions to the posting member that the Nikon Monarchs were THE very best binoculars available- period.

 

I remain mildly surprised that until now, no other member seems to have even challenged that statement, which I certainly wouldn't agree with, having looked through at least ten other models that in my opinion are far superior in every regard.

 

Terms such as "brightness" and "sharpness" can prove very difficult to quantify, and not only that, for example in the case of binoculars, I discovered years ago that brightness and sharpness I personally perceive through my RIGHT eye, is significantly different to what I see through my left eye!

 

Erik is absolutely correct of course in stressing the vital importance of actually TRYING any particular model for oneself before passing judgment. I can't imagine many people in any case spending around £2000 on a binocular before even trying it out for themselves.

 

Even if I were looking to buy any more binoculars, these days in cases of eye - relief any less than 16mm, no matter how glowing the reports, I would choose to save myself the time, trouble and frustration of even trying them out.

 

Kenny


Edited by KennyJ, 10 March 2015 - 05:15 PM.

  • hallelujah likes this

#81 hallelujah

hallelujah

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,949
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2006
  • Loc: North Star over Colorado

Posted 10 March 2015 - 02:43 PM

Hi Patric,

 

Like yourself, I've spent many, many hours reading about other people's "opinions", and find it a very relaxing and interesting way to pass away the leisure hours on cold, dark nights.

 

This is not just with optical instruments, but musical instruments and associated equipment, too.

 

But what we must always remember is that interesting as they usually are, "opinions" are just that - "opinions"!

 

For example, a couple of days ago a comment was made in a thread in this forum that more than one person had expressed opinions to the posting member that the Nikon Monarchs were THE very best binoculars available- period.

 

I remain mildly surprised that until now, no other member seems to have even challenged that statement, which I certainly wouldn't agree with, having looked through at least ten other models than in my opinion are far superior in every regard.

 

Terms such as "brightness" and "sharpness" can prove very difficult to quantify, and not only that, for example in the case of binoculars, I discovered years ago that brightness and sharpness I personally perceive through my RIGHT eye, is significantly different to what I see through my left eye!

 

 

Kenny

:like:

 

Stan



#82 Swedpat

Swedpat

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,501
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia

Posted 10 March 2015 - 03:04 PM

Thanks for sharing your(always) insightful thoughts Kenny! 

 

Yes, I think you are really right. And there are more examples of doubtful statements. In a swedish hunting magasin a few years ago Nikon Monarch 8x42(predecessor to the present models) was claimed to be sharper than Swarovski SLC 8x30, and because I had personally tried both of them I really didn't find that as correct.
According to the reviews I have read are Conquest HD 32 and 42mm models of high class for the money and in a review Conquest HD 8x42 received slightly higher score than Monarch 7 8x42. I have not tried that Monarch 7 model so I can't have an opinion about it.
​Still I was reacted that if the Monarch 5 56mm models are better than Conquest HD 56mm models the 56mm models of Zeiss should be of significantly lower class than the smaller models in the series. But as you say: I need to try them personally to really know what I think about it!


Edited by Swedpat, 11 March 2015 - 10:29 AM.


#83 Milos1977

Milos1977

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Woodside - New York

Posted 10 March 2015 - 04:38 PM


Im a big fan of large roof prism binoculars, and a proud owner of Nikon Monarch 5 16x56. It was a big financial stretch for me, but i will never regret getting it. It gives me immense pleasure looking at such crystal clear image that i could not see in many lower class highly recommended models i tested.

I found this short comparison review of the five big 56mm 15x and 16x Roofs, just to spice things up.

Swarovski SLC 56
Oculus 5.0 15x56
Vortex Vulture HD 15x56
Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56
Nikon Monarch 5 16x56.

Interestingly, Zeiss did not score too well. Swarovski took the 1st prize!


This is really strange. Nikon Monarch 5 16x56 is claimed to be as well sharper and brighter than Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56, and at half the price. 56mm Conquest HDs with Abbe König prisms are claimed to have 93% light transmission so how in the world would the Nikon be better at low light? Not even the highest possible light transmission will be noticable brighter than 93%.
I would like to read more opinions about the difference between these binoculars!
I choose Monarch 5 56mm because it was higher quality optics model of the trusted brand i like, and specs including the size/weight I was looking for, for the price i could reach. Definitely NOT because I thought it is better than Zeiss, or Swarovski x56.

Big factor was also that I could actually justify the price. That is a personal decision, and a fine balance between quality and price you can combine.

Do I think it is one of the best 15/16x56/60mm Binoculars in the price range, and even somewhat above $800. Yep, it probably is.
Do I think it is THE BEST. No. I'm sure it is not.
Do I think the difference between its amazing look and Swarovski or Zeiss 16x56 amazing look is huge? No, and logic dictates advantage goes to Zeiss and Swaro. How it wouldn't?
I looked through Meopta and Swarovski btw. Amazing, and breath taking! I wanted my binocular to give me that look, that feeling when i look through it, so I returned Nikon Action Extreme, and ordered Monarch 5, that i could barely afford. I was so happy when i got it!! I still feel like i cant get enough of it, and i hate clouds more then ever now :-)
Unfortunately I never had Monarch 5 next to others to compare, but when I got Monarch 5 afterwards, I did not feel is better nor worse. Its one of those things.

Meopta 15x56 is $1600
Zeiss 15x56 is $1400
Swarovski 15x56 $2250

See, I could not spend that much.

Most of us here don't want (or can't) spend even $800 for set of binoculars.
$1400 would be out of question for me now. Im glad i didnt have to.

Edited by Milos1977, 10 March 2015 - 05:51 PM.

  • StarDustBin likes this

#84 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 37,784
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 10 March 2015 - 06:04 PM

Having just read through my previous post again, I feel my personal opinion on this matter would be far more accurately represented by adding that I consider the Nikon Monarch 5 to be a fine choice for it's price, and very similar in relative terms of value for money / compared to the VERY best available, to several items of both optical and musical equipment I've purchased over the years.

 

In other words, count ME amongst the majority here who either "don't want or can't" spend even $800 for a set of binoculars.

 

As with most things, there is usually a quite distinct "price zone", often in the vicinity of around 30% of the street price for what are generally considered to be " THE very best ", within which the discerning shopper can obtain a very respectable, perfectly useable item and remain more than satisfied with it for years.

 

Generally speaking, and sadly for the great majority of people who genuinely CANNOT afford to buy anything better, it's the items that are produced to be sold (for a worthwhile profit), for less than 3% of the price of "the very best" comparitive items, that tend to represent the least true value for money.

 

For example, a $20 "junior sized" acoustic guitar may look great in the window of a cash convertor's shop, but will be so badly made that it would be impossible to tune the strings in such a way as to produce even a single open chord that sounds remotely desirable. Furthermore, even if it were, a strummed or plucked chord on the 7th fret would be almost a semi-tone out of true pitch, representing a COMPLETE waste of money.

 

Yet, amazingly, for as little as around $100, these days, one CAN actually purchase an ELECTRIC guitar, mass produced somewhere in the far east, that is perfectly playable, occasionally even straight out of the box, without even having to make any slight adjustments.

 

I some ways, binoculars and guitars have quite a lot in common!

 

Kenny


Edited by KennyJ, 10 March 2015 - 06:06 PM.

  • Milos1977 likes this

#85 Milos1977

Milos1977

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Woodside - New York

Posted 10 March 2015 - 11:15 PM

Cheers to that !

Music to our ears, and "music" to our eyes! 


Edited by Milos1977, 10 March 2015 - 11:19 PM.


#86 Grimnir

Grimnir

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,145
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2010
  • Loc: London, England.

Posted 12 February 2017 - 10:58 AM

HD glass is no glass type, just marketing words. You cannot buy it in any glass catalog from any glass manufacturer. They are just trying to lift on the HD TV marketing efforts  ;)

 

 

From: http://uk.swarovskio...ski/innovations

 

"Our HD optics feature fluoride-containing lenses, which virtually eliminate color aberrations. The scatter is considerably less with fluoride than with even the best types of optical glass. This enables maximum color fidelity and leads to a significant improvement in resolution and contrast."

 

Graham


Edited by Grimnir, 12 February 2017 - 10:58 AM.


#87 Rich V.

Rich V.

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,343
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Lake Tahoe area, Nevada

Posted 12 February 2017 - 12:07 PM

 

HD glass is no glass type, just marketing words. You cannot buy it in any glass catalog from any glass manufacturer. They are just trying to lift on the HD TV marketing efforts  ;)

 

 

From: http://uk.swarovskio...ski/innovations

 

"Our HD optics feature fluoride-containing lenses, which virtually eliminate color aberrations. The scatter is considerably less with fluoride than with even the best types of optical glass. This enables maximum color fidelity and leads to a significant improvement in resolution and contrast."

 

Graham

 

Erik is still making a good point, though.  While there are a number of low and extra low dispersion fluoride glasses produced by various glass makers around the world, the HD designation is still just a marketing term.

Like a number of optics makers, Swaro isn't saying specifically what glass types they're using in their products.  The range of fluoride glass specs is quite wide.

Rich



#88 Grimnir

Grimnir

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,145
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2010
  • Loc: London, England.

Posted 12 February 2017 - 01:32 PM

Yes, I agree HD doesn't mean much but at least we know Swarovski puts fluoride in them which is not the case for all manufacturers.

 

Graham


  • Rich V. likes this

#89 Rich V.

Rich V.

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,343
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Lake Tahoe area, Nevada

Posted 12 February 2017 - 02:23 PM

I've been very impressed by a friend's Swaro 80mm HD spotter.  Just excellent...     :waytogo:

 

Rich



#90 fjnlsa11

fjnlsa11

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 279
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2015

Posted 18 February 2017 - 01:48 AM

Out of curiosity I just rented Swarovski 15x56 SLC Binoculars.
When I took the Swarovski binoculars out tonight, I didn't see a big difference at first, but after my eyes had time to adjust I was blown away at how many stars I could see,  even living in a light polluted area.  I don't like using a tripod with binoculars.  However, I was ok holding the Swarovski's for short periods and for extended viewing I use a zero gravity chair.  After tonight’s experience, I would definitely consider getting them.


  • Stellarfire and Foobaria like this

#91 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,951
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 18 February 2017 - 03:34 AM

:waytogo:



#92 Boki

Boki

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Slovenia, EU

Posted 06 May 2017 - 09:46 AM

At present i have a fujinon 10x50 fmtr sx. It is an excellent instrument, but in bright daylight conditions i can clearly see some CA. It doesn't bother me too much, but it could be better. What bothers me, is flaring on jupiter. I can focus nicely to a small disc, but the disc has an elongated shape in one direction of approximately 1.5 diameter further out - worse in the right barrel than in left. I enjoy this binoculars extremely, and the whole system - tripod, fluid head, binoculars has so small footprint and it is lightweight, i use it far more than my telescope. So i have come to the conclusion that i want the best binoculars in this size that i can afford (that would be a 10x56 SLC, but i am open to other sugesstions also - maybe zeiss, leica?). I have put some money on the side and now i have some strange feeling in my chest when i start looking at those SLC binoculars . I surely want those binos, but i am afraid that my perfectionism will leave me disappointed. Are the SLC going to have less CA and is the flaring on jupiter going to be better controled? The FOV is somewhat smaller than the fujis, is this going to bother me? I have read somewhere about field illumination and that it is better in fujis? I honestly don't know what this means for an average observer and if this might present a problem for me?

I guess i need a nudge from you guys. CS, Boki



#93 SMark

SMark

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,512
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 06 May 2017 - 11:07 AM

At present i have a fujinon 10x50 fmtr sx. It is an excellent instrument, but in bright daylight conditions i can clearly see some CA. It doesn't bother me too much, but it could be better. What bothers me, is flaring on jupiter. I can focus nicely to a small disc, but the disc has an elongated shape in one direction of approximately 1.5 diameter further out - worse in the right barrel than in left. 

 

I guess i need a nudge from you guys. CS, Boki

I would just nudge you to just make sure that this isn't the result of astigmatism in your eyes. If you are wearing glasses or contact lenses while using your Fuji, then it should be already corrected, unless you haven't had your eyes tested in awhile. If you don't wear corrective lenses, then you should get your eyes tested. 

 

Even wearing my glasses, I had recently noticed flaring on Jupiter in my right eye. So I went to the eye doctor and it was confirmed that the astigmatism in my right eye had gotten worse since last year. New lenses for me should be here next week, and I expect all the flaring will be gone.


  • hallelujah likes this

#94 Boki

Boki

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Slovenia, EU

Posted 06 May 2017 - 12:04 PM

Hi Mark,

 

It has crossed my mind also, that it may be just my eyes. In fact i will try the astigmatism test tonight if the weather is clear. I know, that if i turn my head and the flare rotates it is my eyes. I haven't had my eyes checked recently (maybe 2 years ago), so this might just indicate i ought to. If it is the problem with my eyesight, is there an option to correct it? Other than that i have a good eyesight and i would like to avoid glasses if i can. Would i still benefit from a slc binos in any way if i decided to get them? What might be the couse of this flaring in binoculars assuming my eyes ar ok? Thanks, boki



#95 Grimnir

Grimnir

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,145
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2010
  • Loc: London, England.

Posted 06 May 2017 - 01:11 PM

Hi Boki,

 

Have you tried inverting your Fuji and then checking for flaring on Jupiter? If so, what was the result?

 

Graham



#96 Boki

Boki

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Slovenia, EU

Posted 06 May 2017 - 01:24 PM

Hi graham,

 

Not yet, i will try tonight if the weather will allow, some clouds are rolling in. I use my binos mounted, so i was planning to rotate my head. But taking the binos  down and rotating them upside down, may give also an information about both eyes and barrels, so i will try that also. I will let you know how it went :-). Thanks, boki



#97 hakann

hakann

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,170
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2015

Posted 07 May 2017 - 05:41 AM

How is this 56 vs the EL 50 mm in optics at night.
Great whit this 56 is a compact bino.
As I learned binos its all what one like.
I enjoy my Zeiss 2060 S more and more.
I bought a EL10X 32 mm but even so the great optics I sold them as my use is astronomy.
I bought them vs walkings and the 600 gram.
32 mm is nothing for astronomy and Pleiades did not come alive etc.
I dont want 80-100 mm binos.
Now I'm waiting on the astro 50 mm Nikons. Big.. but I hear of great wievs vs their data evenso only 50 mm.
If not it might be a EL 50 as sometimes the Zeiss is to big get out vs trips.
I really enjoy the jet black background and 3 mm pupil and I can se 3 stars ( almost ) in Orion and hole Andromeda almost.
Problem is if go way over 10X binos is hard to hold less IF.
The Canon IF are ok but.
The new Nikons ( not out yet ) is tripod use.

#98 Boki

Boki

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Slovenia, EU

Posted 07 May 2017 - 03:00 PM

Hi again,

 

And this time i am back with the results of flaring. I have to admit, that you guys were right all along. It seems, that my eyes are to blame for the flaring. 

 

I have put jupiter nicely into  the center of FOV, and what i imediately observed was, that the flaring was barely noticable today. I guess my eyes weren't so tired 🤔. Weird.

 

As i can mount my binos i pointed at jupiter and observed with right eye throug the right barrel, since i get more flaring there. Then i moved my left eye to the right barrel and you guessed, the flaring was extremely small and in the other direction.😮

 

Then i went with my right eye to the left barrel and even the flaring was small, it was in the same direction as in the right barrel, so my right eye seems to introduce that.🤓

 

I have to say, that when i use both eyes and i position myself comfortably, the flaring nearly disappears, really a very small amount. 

 

This is not what i remembered the last time i was observing. It was stronger and it started to bother me, so i thought, maybe a better binoculars would solve this problem and i started to look at the Swarovski SLC. 

 

Today I even tried to make a photo of jupiter trough binoculars. I don't have the adapter so i photographed freehanded, but i managed to get shots through both barrels. No flaring evident in both photos. Nice small ball. I dont know how well focused the image was, bit it seems sharp enough.

 

Well i guess i have learned something today... 😉 again.

 

Cs, boki



#99 Mad Matt

Mad Matt

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,429
  • Joined: 20 May 2003
  • Loc: Frankfurt, Germany

Posted 07 May 2017 - 03:46 PM

Boki, astigmatism at larger exitnpupils is normal. IIRC the human eye is not diffraction limited above 3mm

A trick I sometime use is to move the eyepiece off axis slightly to the see if you can find a "sweet spot" where the astigmatism introduced my doing that compensates the astigmatism in your eyes.
  • Boki likes this

#100 Foobaria

Foobaria

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2017
  • Loc: New Mexico, USA

Posted 07 October 2018 - 04:50 PM

Anyone use this SLC 56 with glasses?   Does it work okay? 




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics