SLC 7X42 vs. Ultravid 7X42 (1 Viewer)

308CAL,

Thanks for the insights on the SLC New. I'm inching quite close to that same choice.

BTW what is "YMMV"?

APSmith

P.S. Nice flag.

YMMV is an abbreviation for "your mileage my vary."

I am contemplating a 7x42 and am leaning towards 7x42 SLC because it has the most eye relief of any 7x42.
I like 18mm of ER found in Swarovski EL 8.5x42, and I think 19mm is even better. This is important for eyeglasses users, less important or wholly irrelevant without eyeglasses.

For comparison, Leica 8x42 Trinovid has 15.5mm of ER which I find just barely enough, or just a bit insufficient depending on circumstances. I see that 8x42 Ultravid has 15.5mm ER and 10x42 Ultravid 16mm, which is basically the same thing.

Swarovski 7x42 SLC: 19mm ER
Leica Ultravid 7x42: 17mm ER
Zeiss T*FL 7x42: 16mm ER

etc said:

... 15.5mm of ER which I find just barely enough, or just a bit insufficient depending on circumstances. ...

Click to expand...

I think this is an interesting point, and perhaps a little misunderstood. There's much more to the question of eye relief than just the focal point distance from the occular -- namely, even with glasses, where are your eyes naturally positioned relative to this point? And how do the eye cups affect that placement?

Many people wear glasses that are "close in", like "John Lennon specs", for example. This means you can get in closer to the focal point; sometimes much closer than necessary; (a friend with "coke bottle glasses" recently tested my 10x32 HDs with 13.5 mm eye relief, and found them to be "just fine"). Another factor, with or without glasses, is how shallow or deeply set your eyes are on you face - deep set eyes require more eye relief regardless of whether you wear glasses or not. And I have found yet another important design feature - namely, how wide the eye cups are. When I place my eyes for optimal distance on the 10x25 Ultravids, for example, it is the narrow circumference of the eyecups, and not the eye reief per se, that I find limiting.

Bottom line for me -- once eye relief is minimally sufficient, I'll opt for significant optical improvements in other features from that point on, such as resolution, color neutrality, CA, flare control and so forth. That means, for the time being, Leica Ultravids overall.

Perhaps it's time for the Big Three to joint venture the perfect binocular!

These are valid points.


>(a friend with "coke bottle glasses" recently tested my 10x32 HDs with 13.5 mm eye relief, and found them to be "just fine")

Has he seen binos with proper ER? Does he have a reference standard? I used to think my Leica was good until I saw proper ER.

I have "normal" eyeglasses. I estimate I can see about 95% of the field through 8x42 Trinovid with 15.5mm of ER and maybe 99% of the field throgh Swarovski 8.5x42 EL with 18mm of ER but I can see the whole field with Swaro's eyecups fully raised and not using eyeglasses. The edges are totally sharp, unlike with glasses, where they are just a bit blurry and you have to position the binos just right. I think 19mm ER will hit the nail on the head and be even better with glasses.

Of course the ultimate is not using eyeglasses and instead use raised eyecups, you get a better more precise fit. Usually that's not practical.

That's why for me focus overdrive past infinity is such a big deal, given myopia of -5.5D. If the binoculars don't have about 6D of overdrive, I basically cannot use them without glasses, with raised eyecups and have to rely solely on glasses and hope they have sufficient eye relief. If they don't have enough ER (about 16mm for me), it greatly diminishes the optical experience as you cannot see the full field.

One concern I have is that stated specs may not be accurate. All Zeiss T*FL binos state they have 16mm of ER, Leica varies greatly so does Swarovksi. But Swarovski appears to have models with most ER - i.e. 7x42 SLC has 19mm of ER.

The pic shows Swaro EL with EL's stock eyecup on the right and Swaro SLC 8x50 eyecup on the left. The stock eyecups don't offer enough height to accomodate 18mm of ER, in my experience and circumstances, but upgraded to 8x50 SLC eyecups with 21mm of ER, they work great.

I have a feeling stock eyecups of Swaro 7x42 SLC will also have to be ugpraded...

FWIW, on ER:

Here is Swaro EL with 8x50 SLC eyecup (for 21mm of ER) on the left, and stock eyecup (for 18mm of ER) on the right, both raised to the max. In actuality, for me, 21mm eyecups works well with 18mm of ER and 18mm ER eyecups doesn't really accomodate 18mm of ER.

I have stack tested the 7x42 SLCnew against the ultravid 7x42 and 8x42 and I preferred the ease of view and edge ot edge sharpness of the SLC. I also liked the eyecups better and the size for my big hands was a plus. Resolution was good in all and the swaro gave up nothing. Brightness was a toss up. Flare resistance went to swarovski over the ultravids

I've once owned the 7x42FL and 7X42 Trinovid. I currently own the 7X42SLC. For me, it provides the most comfortable view of all of them. They never seem to be finicky about when the eye lines up. I'd like it if they were a bit lighter but I understand that they have a large prisms which cause the extra weight. They're often my "go to" bins when I run out the door to the park or go for a hike.

Patriot222,

It's interesting to read your opinion. I am very satisfied with my SLCnew 7x42 and don't really have anything to complain for the optics. But yes; sometimes I had wished they were 200g lighter. They really are reliable binoculars who radiate quality in every respect!

According to some opinion Zeiss and Leica provide even sharper image on-axis, but Swarovski is the clear winner when it comes to total image quality. Do you have any opinion about that? (I have tried all these models but not side-by-side)

I will declare that I really don't feel that Swarovski SLC lacks of sharpness, they are very sharp...
And my experience is the same as several other users of this model: SLC 7x42 have an "ease of view" and "open image" which is outstanding even with eyeglasses on. Also the holding comfortablity is the best of all 7x42 I have tried.

Regards, Patric

Swedpat said:

Patriot222,

It's interesting to read your opinion. I am very satisfied with my SLCnew 7x42 and don't really have anything to complain for the optics. But yes; sometimes I had wished they were 200g lighter. They really are reliable binoculars who radiate quality in every respect!

According to some opinion Zeiss and Leica provide even sharper image on-axis, but Swarovski is the clear winner when it comes to total image quality. Do you have any opinion about that? (I have tried all these models but not side-by-side)

Click to expand...

I had two problems with the 7X42FL, one was off axis sharpness which seemed more noticable to me than even my current 8X42FL. I still don't quite understand why but maybe it had something to do with the apparent FOV. They also required an exact eye placement for the best view. Once the eyes were in that position the view was marvelous and very bright. I would say even brighter than my 2004 7x42 SLC's.

The 8x42BN was very nice although not as bright as the other two. The difference in brightness between them and the FL's was shocking actually. They had a very slightly cool color to them whereas the FL's seemed neutral, including my currently owned 8x42FL. Eye placement wasn't as critical as the FL, but they black out much easier than the SLC.

Although I never looked at resolution charts with the 7x bins, the SLC's provided the best overall image and ease of view. Like you stated, it's possible that the other brands might score higher on axis but I never looked through the Swarovski and thought, "gee, I wish I had more sharpness." It has never even occurred to me. I suppose the weight penalty is worth the view that I get from them. I wouldn't want to carry them all day on my neck but I usually don't use them in that manner. Usually they're my "run up to the park" bin or "morning walk around camp" bin. When I need something lighter in a 42mm, I grab the 8xFL.

Regarding the EL's, I consider myself pretty critical of optical imperfections because I'm always the one in the group to notice small differences between bins. Along with birding I also enjoying hunting and astronomy which allows me to "nit pick" certain areas of performance. I've never really felt that the EL's lacked center sharpness compared to the others. I have my own 10X42EL and often use an 8.5EL of my uncle's and they both perform very well. I notice that the color rendition of the 8xFL is more true but in every other area it's a toss up. My uncle and I agree that we can't tell which image we like better but the EL provides a slightly more relaxed view.

Swedpat said:

I am very satisfied with my SLCnew 7x42 and don't really have anything to complain for the optics. But yes; sometimes I had wished they were 200g lighter. They really are reliable binoculars who radiate quality in every respect!

I will declare that I really don't feel that Swarovski SLC lacks of sharpness, they are very sharp...
And my experience is the same as several other users of this model: SLC 7x42 have an "ease of view" and "open image" which is outstanding even with eyeglasses on. Also the holding comfortablity is the best of all 7x42 I have tried.

Regards, Patric

Click to expand...

Patric,

Spot on observations. I too enjoy my 7x42B SLCs but also wish they were a tad bit lighter. I also concur with ease of view and clarity. I picked mine over the other "big" names and have zero regrets. But I must confess that the wide fields of view I get from my vintage porros is something I dearly wish the high end roofs, like these Swaros, exhibited. Alas, not; nor is there any real potential that the future would bring such either.

So although my "go to" bins are my Swaro 7x42B SLC and vintage Leupold 9x35IF Gold Rings (with the Pentax 8x32 and Minox 6.5x32IF ready to step up should size/weight considerations dominate a selection for use), I sneak one of my 7x35 ultra wide FOV vintage porros out every chance I get just for their super immersive views.

Add me into the 7x42 Swaro SLC club. Though I had owned a pair briefly a year or two ago it wasn't until yesterday that I decided to jump back on the wagon. I always enjoyed the huge sweet spot of the SLC and was never really disappointed in any of its other optical qualities (maybe a little CA in the outer fringe but then which bin doesn't exhibit this to some extent?). The physical weight was always the bins' biggest drawback but to its credit it is excellently balanced.

I look forward to comparing it directly to my 7x42 FL especially on the hawkwatch this week. If the weather clears up I might actually head out later today for a bit.

Great bins!

Thank you for the comments, though I had to wait some months... ;-)

FrankD,

I am looking forward to your comparison!

Regards, Patric

Patric,

No luck on the hawkwatch today as the weather was miserable. I am going to sneak up a bit tomorrow and Friday so a head to head comparison in this type of environment is a definite.

This should prove interesting especially if I can get John Traynor up there with his 7x42 Ultravids one of the days as well.

weight: carrying vs. viewing

In looking back through this excellent thread, I noticed that the weight issue with the SLC 7x42 is mentioned repeatedly. As I continue to consider purchasing this model, I'm concerned with the this issue. My main concern is the effect while viewing (as opposed to carrying).

Incidentally, within reason, I find that I'm not bothered so much by carrying a little extra weight. I use a cross shoulder strap carrying method which seems to work perfectly. It a)removes weight from neck, b)is easy to remove for sharing bins (unlike harnesses), c)holds bins close to body (while standing upright), minimizing hanging angle issues, and d) sometimes adds stabilizing effect while viewing. Note - the strap is just about fully extended with this technique. It doesn't really seem to have a downside. I'm always surprised that it isn't mentioned when the harness topic arises.

Back on topic - for those still following the thread (or anyone really), is the SLC 7x42 weight particularly bothersome while viewing?


Thanks, Smith

No, not in my opinion. The weight, coupled with the balance and 7x magnification, actually provides for a much steadier image.

APSmith said:

... I use a cross shoulder strap carrying method which seems to work perfectly. It a)removes weight from neck, b)is easy to remove for sharing bins (unlike harnesses), c)holds bins close to body (while standing upright), minimizing hanging angle issues, and d) sometimes adds stabilizing effect while viewing. Note - the strap is just about fully extended with this technique. It doesn't really seem to have a downside. I'm always surprised that it isn't mentioned when the harness topic arises. ...

Click to expand...

Oh, I mentioned it several times but it's too simple a solution to get much interest. And then there is the humiliation factor. You know, having the answer all along but not realizing it. BTW, the downside is where the objectives are, usually. |:d|

Ed

Thanks for the replies.

Frank: Did you ever get up to hawkwatch with the SLC and the FL?

Ed: It is amazing how a simple solution is often shunned in favor of the unnecessarily complex and/or universally frustrating but accepted method.

Smith

AP,

Yes. I took them both up on two occasions. I plan on taking them up shortly with the FLs again along with possibly an EL or two for further comparison. I also have a "anonymous" new 8x42 that I am going to be comparing them to tomorrow afternoon. The latter is something that Doug at Cameralandny is sending my way.

I hesitate in making any comments yet as I have not totally formed an opinion. I will post more shortly.

Now as for the comparison. As expected they are two different animals (splitting hairs somewhat). The SLC has noticeably better control of edge distortion. Truth be told the size of the sweet spot in the 7x42 SLC might even be better than either of the ELs. I am guessing this may have something to do with the magnification but I may also be way off base. The SLCs image appeared quite sharp and quite bright as well. Only compared to the FLs and Els was I able to notice a difference. It wasn't huge but I was able to notice it.

The FL is sharper, brighter, is more neutral in terms of color (slight warm bias on the SLC) and has a noticeably larger true and apparent field of view. The latter definitely contributes to a more "picture window" viewing experience.

...and, ofcourse, there is significantly less CA in the FL's image.

That is a fairly brief but accurate summary of the optical differences. Ergonomically it is a toss up. The FL is significantly lighter but I find the weight of the SLC to help in steadying the binocular. The thumb indents work for me so they help to balance and distribute the weight quite well also.

Eyecups, focusing speed and tension, diopter, etc... would be a toss up. Both seem to be equally well designed and equally as durable.

Let me know if there is anything in particular you might question.