is there still demand for SLC 10x42? are they still relevant?

[Sako300]

Crazy how the Swarovski 10x42 SLC HD’s started at $2100 a few years back. Then they were on sale the past couple years for around $1600 brand new. Swarovski claims they didn’t change anything either on them. Now, You can find them more then any other alpha 10x42 used here for $12-1300. Almost half the price of what they once sold for. Probably the best 10x42 out there now for the price! I would buy a pair if I was just starting hunting and had the funds or for a second pair to add to my arsenal at these

 

[Takem]

Love my SLCs. I'm not going to let myself look at another pair of binos for many, many more years.

Agree. Mine are 20 years old and I have no desire to replace them.

 

[Ramcharger]

I think this is the likely outcome, the CL line is going to expand to 42mm and that will be another
great option.

 

[WRO]

Crazy how the Swarovski 10x42 SLC HD’s started at $2100 a few years back. Then they were on sale the past couple years for around $1600 brand new. Swarovski claims they didn’t change anything either on them. Now, You can find them more then any other alpha 10x42 used here for $12-1300. Almost half the price of what they once sold for. Probably the best 10x42 out there now for the price! I would buy a pair if I was just starting hunting and had the funds or for a second pair to add to my arsenal at these

I liked the older ones better (2100 dollar model) they had better edge to edge clarity and were equally as clear. I also liked the body and housing better.

 

[Sako300]

I agree!

 

[kaku3428]

Swarovski down grades existing models to make new models look better. Same with Leica.

 

[JGRaider]

What specific downgrades are you referring to with regards to Swaro?

 

[kaku3428]

What specific downgrades are you referring to with regards to Swaro?

they increase the close focusing distance and usually people say that edge clarity is not the same.

 

[JGRaider]

Well be careful what you read.......optics are identical in the original SLC HD, and the "current" SLC. My son has the 10x42's, I have the 8x42's and they are identical to us and everyone else who looks through them. Close focus is a difference, but hardly a downgrade unless you're a diehard birder dude who looks at bugs and butterflies.

 

[Nethero]

they increase the close focusing distance and usually people say that edge clarity is not the same.

From my understanding, they changed the focus distance between the last two SLC generations and that was it. This was simply to further distance the SLC from the EL line when they introduced the Field Pro package.

The same thing has been done with the EL now after the introduction of the NL. They are making tweaks to further differentiate the models.

In both referenced instances the glass and coatings remained unchanged. Hell, the SLC had the same glass as the EL. The EL just offered an open bridge design and field flattener with the field pro package.

 

[kaku3428]

From my understanding, they changed the focus distance between the last two SLC generations and that was it. This was simply to further distance the SLC from the EL line when they introduced the Field Pro package.

The same thing has been done with the EL now after the introduction of the NL. They are making tweaks to further differentiate the models.

In both referenced instances the glass and coatings remained unchanged. Hell, the SLC had the same glass as the EL. The EL just offered an open bridge design and field flattener with the field pro package.

Coatings are not same! ELs have more of cold tint where as SLCs have slightly warm tint. When I say tint, it is barely noticeable but that's what makes ELs look brighter in the day. You can see pinkish color on SLC glass coatings where as ELs coatings are greenish.
Glass is a big deal but optical design is what matters most. SLCs have amazing view but wider field of view, slightly longer eye relief and better depth of field in ELs makes a huge difference.
But for some reason my eyes like SLCs a lot.
I have EL 8.5x42, SLC 10x42, EL 12x50 and SLC 15x56. My SLC 10x42 is used everyday!

 

[Nethero]

Coatings are not same! ELs have more of cold tint where as SLCs have slightly warm tint. When I say tint, it is barely noticeable but that's what makes ELs look brighter in the day. You can see pinkish color on SLC glass coatings where as ELs coatings are greenish.
Glass is a big deal but optical design is what matters most. SLCs have amazing view but wider field of view, slightly longer eye relief and better depth of field in ELs makes a huge difference.
But for some reason my eyes like SLCs a lot.
I have EL 8.5x42, SLC 10x42, EL 12x50 and SLC 15x56. My SLC 10x42 is used everyday!

Right, my point was you stated that Swarovski downgraded the SLC. They just did the same to the EL, i.e change the focus distance a few yards.

If you consider the EL downgraded now, then so be it. I was simply pointing out that they tweak small things to differentiate the latest and greatest models from their current offerings.

 

[Sako300]

Things don’t get cheaper by getting better!

 

[kaku3428]

Right, my point was you stated that Swarovski downgraded the SLC. They just did the same to the EL, i.e change the focus distance a few yards.

If you consider the EL downgraded now, then so be it. I was simply pointing out that they tweak small things to differentiate the latest and greatest models from their current offerings.

yes i am with you but why do they do that? they can keep the current models as is and try to bring new improved models all they want. Yes i consider Els downgraded now. Even though i dont use the close focus distance but my 2015 ELs are superior than current ones. it is a better design.

 

[kaku3428]

Things don’t get cheaper by getting better!

yes sir. if people think they are getting a great deal on Els then they are mistaken, it is not the same design as few years ago.

 

[Q child]

It is a little weird that Swarovski does that downgrading thing. I wonder if they can save on manufacturing costs by making certain optical parameters worse? Or, is it just that they want the best stats on their most expensive models?

 

[JGRaider]

It is a little weird that Swarovski does that downgrading thing. I wonder if they can save on manufacturing costs by making certain optical parameters worse? Or, is it just that they want the best stats on their most expensive models?

Once again, it's NOT a downgrade. The only reason this is tossed around is because of something some read somewhere and not experienced personally. IF you had these side by side, on tripods, you'd never see one iota's difference between the "old" and "new" models, with the exception of close focus distancing, which is irrelevant to 99% of users out there. Optics are identical.

 

[kaku3428]

Once again, it's NOT a downgrade. The only reason this is tossed around is because of something some read somewhere and not experienced personally. IF you had these side by side, on tripods, you'd never see one iota's difference between the "old" and "new" models, with the exception of close focus distancing, which is irrelevant to 99% of users out there. Optics are identical.

if our eyes cannot detect it, it does not mean the optical design is same. It IS a downgrade and that is WHY it is cheaper. If you dont use the close focus distance, it is up to you but if ELs had better performance earlier then why Swarovski tempered with It? I can challenge that majority on this forum cannot tell difference in looking through EL and NLS until until compared side by side at the same time, But they are ready to pay $800 extra because they THINK it is an upgrade.

 

[kaku3428]

It is a little weird that Swarovski does that downgrading thing. I wonder if they can save on manufacturing costs by making certain optical parameters worse? Or, is it just that they want the best stats on their most expensive models?

IT is both. They save money and they try make latest models look better in specs. That's the selling point of NLs now wider FOV and shorter close focus. Rest is the same.

 

[Q child]

I liked the older ones better (2100 dollar model) they had better edge to edge clarity and were equally as clear. I also liked the body and housing better.

Once again, it's NOT a downgrade. The only reason this is tossed around is because of something some read somewhere and not experienced personally. IF you had these side by side, on tripods, you'd never see one iota's difference between the "old" and "new" models, with the exception of close focus distancing, which is irrelevant to 99% of users out there. Optics are identical.

WRO above points out a change made in the SLC line to make room for the more field-flattened EL. He claims the edge to edge clarity got worse, and I'll take him at his word. That'd be a downgrade that hunters care about.
Other users care about close focus -that's why they publish it. You identified them earlier in this thread. Moving it out is a downgrade, one that you have made clear you do not care about, and that is ok.
Identical means that two things are exactly alike. So two things that are alike in most respects but not all are not identical. Very similar though.