The new 10x42 SLC HD's are lighter than the the new 10x42 EL HD's?

EL's=29.4 oz.

SLC's=28.0 oz.

Superman or is that correct?

Where did you get your info. The new 10x42 EL Swarovision weighs 27.5 oz. and the SLC HD is 28 oz. What is your post about, are you having trouble lifting either or ?
I am thinking they are both quality optics.

I am wondering about the source you are reading from, it seems
it is "not" correct.

Per the Swarovski Optik website:

EL 10x42 = 29.6 (the 8.5x42's weigh 29.4)
SLC 10x42 = 28.0

I have no problem lifting either, but I do have a problem shelling out the extra quan for nothing.

The Swarovision has been shown to be lighter than the previous
EL. So your numbers do not appear to be correct. I am wondering
what is the purpose of your post??

Have you had a chance to look through these? I have and they are
both very nice. And simply referring to the weight, really has
no value to most users looking to purchase a new binocular.

WTF is your problem Dick weed? I am simply asking if these numbers are correct. I know Swarovski makes good glass as I have 3 pair of SLC's (older) currently, 8x30, 10x42 and 15x56. What I am getting at is why would one pay more for the EL's when the SLC's are lighter and less expensive? Used to be the other way around (EL's were lighter than the SLC's). Also verified these numbers on Bear Basins site.

I don't think your numbers are correct. So, Mr. smarty, what
is this all about. Do your homework, buddy. Go to the Swaro.
website and learn about the differences in these models.

The EL has always been the flagship, and the SLC is the next.
There are differences, so get yourself educated.

Simply posting weight differences from a website, is not the way
to learn.

Dear Farmboy1,

Go [bleep] yourself and thanks for giving wonderful advice and insight.

Anyone else care to school me on the differences?

I have the swarovisions and was unaware of the weight difference issue. I just expected the ELs to weigh less. I will check it to it though.

From the info I have the new EL's are half an ounce lighter than the new SLC HD's and are touted as having a flatter field of view. They also have a smaller field of view so comparing the same FOV I would be suprised if anyone could see a difference. The EL's are also still abit larger.

From what I've read, mainly from the birdwatchers, is that the SLC HD is just as clear and sharp as the EL, but the EL is prone to "rolling ball" effects when panning across the horizon for example. I don't think the EL swarovision is worth the extra $$ from what I'm told, but some may disagree. I don't think the open bridge designs are as tough as the full hinge designs personally, and can tell you that the previous EL versions were not as tough as the SLC, Trinovid, etc.

All I know is I dig the SLC's

Me too. I looked at all of them and wound up with an SLCneu. Love it.

I've come close to pulling the trigger on a pair of 8x30's but haven't as of yet. Which SLC are you running, 10x42?

I've been running the 7x42 for several years and love them, albeit they are tank size but that ain't a bad thing when glassing.

I think the OP's point was that SLCs used to be much heavier than comparable ELs, something like 31 or 32 oz for a 42mm size SLC versus around 28 oz for an EL. Probably the main reason I choose a 27 oz Ultravid over either the heavier Trinovid or SLC. Now I find my 8x42 Ultravid still too heavy and use my 22 oz 8x32 SE most of the time. Other folks aren't bothered by heavier binos at all, so no big deal for them.

John

I don't think the weight difference has anything to do with whatever extra cost is involved. I think (as in JGRaider's) post that the difference is mainly in the supposedly flat fov of the EL. I don't think centerfield resolution is likely distinguishable between the two by the normal human eye. I know a lot of people think they "need" a flat, sharp to the edge fov, but I can think of nothing more unnatural to do to my eyes than spending time suquinting through the edge of the field. So I guess it gets down to how much you value a flat field (and if you are willing to experience rolling ball effect, some won't see that either) or whether a bit less edge sharpness with equal centerfield resolution for less money is more to your liking.

I disagree...they are worth it. I do realize though that the difference is small. Personally I prefer the ergonomics of the ELs over the SLCs. I can see that the SLCs may tend to be a little more durable, but I have never had a durability issue with either

I have the 7x42 SLCs that Swarovski just renovated for me (4 pages worth of upgrades) and couldn't be happier. A great bin for scanning crop fields here in the South from stand in either Archery or Firearms season which is exactly what I needed. Weight is not an issue here.

Bruz

I was told the same glass in each.

The prism system is completely different in the SLC and the EL. Both great, but different. As was said before, the difference in price doesn't have anything to do with weight. For practical purposes they are about the same. What is different is the image and the ergonomics. You'd have to look through both to see if you prefer one to the other. I'm a fan of the swarovision EL. If you can't tell the difference, and you like the SLC ergos, go with those.

I'm admittedly hardheaded, having used 10x42 glass for many years, which I believe is well suited to the open country I hunt. I've been very tempted to try a pair of 7x42 like yours, or an 8x32 even, since I do have and use a spotter a lot. Have you ever felt handicapped at all? I know you kill lots of game, so I'm guessing not.

No, never felt handicapped. As you know resolution is what is most important.

I find the 7's easier to drive all day long and can appreciate the wide view for catching movement. But I don't hunt wide open spaces in general.

I found them to be a complete joy to use whilst glassing beach bears from a moving boat.

Makes sense, thanks. Do I understand that Swaro doesn't make the 7x42 SLCneu anymore?

Hadn't looked, could be. I do also run 10x42's at times (Minox)

We have taken EVERYTHING to SE Alaska on bear hunts on the three trips up there, including such stuff as an 8x56 Zeiss; 10's, 8's,7's. The clear winner for glassing for Alaskan browns was a 7x42.If I ever go again, that's what I will have along.

The 7x42 SLC new is without flaw unless the 33oz weight bothers u

2009 was the final year of manufacture for the 7x42 SLC

SAKO: One of the 7x42's we used was the Swaro Porro Prism,which was fabulous BTW,and handled Alaska like a champ.

The other was a Zeiss Classic...fantastic!

I been using the 7x42 slc's and love em

The new SLC HD's, besides being lighter and much improved optically. are reshaped as well and in my hands feel as nice as the EL's and are certainly better feeling than the older SLC's. I really like the 8x42's I have been carrying the past season.

Phil, which do you like more optically, the 8x42 EL's or the new SLC HD's ?

I have only looked through the new EL's at the shows so don't feel qualified to comment but when comparing the new SLC HD's with the regular EL's I much prefer the SLC's.