-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
So I took the plunge... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter chill6x6
- Start date
I am having a hard time picturing the binos a bit to the side coming from the waist, yet residing on the chest. A photo might help. ThanksI
And when I was doing metalwork at school I used a planishing hammer. Smoting sounds good too.
Last edited:
Gimme a bit.. Gotta find someone to take it!
Take a selfie.
edwincjones
Well-known member
Have you tried?
Don't be shy Tommy.
Don't want to walk all over "So I Took The Plunge" theme, so hopefully its OK if I diverge from the carry strap convo for a bit.I told myself I wasn't going to do it. I've got good 10X42 binoculars. I use them mostly in the winter and when I go to the Gulf. It's kind of funny what I started out birding with 10X42s but soon realized for me a 7X/8X binocular with a larger FOV suited me best, especially where I usually go birding. The NL lineup kind of complicated my thoughts in this respect. They trumped every other 42mm binocular in FOV and usually by a good margin. The NL 10X42 has ten more feet of FOV than my Leica UVHD+ 8X42s that I like so much! More FOV even than the Zeiss SF 10X42s. I actually considered getting a SF 10X42 which I could have bought for less. But I decided if I'm going for more FOV I might as well so all the way. I got the NL 10X42 on Wednesday and have been birding with it in some of my normal spots Thursday and yesterday.
On opening the box I had two first impressions. First was I thought it was on the heavy side. They are exactly the same weight as my Noctivid 10X42, 30.4 ounces. That's a little heavy IMO by 2023 standards. That was one of the reasons I considered the SF 10X42. Here are the weights of the 10X42 I have:
NL 10X42- 30.4 ounces(no objective cover and with the non-FP strap attachment)
Noctivid 10X42- 30.4 ounces
SV 10X42- 29.5 ounces(non FP)
Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42- 28 ounces
Zeiss FL 10X42- 27.5 ounces
Second impression....overall I just don't like the Field Pro system. Too many fiddly parts. I'll take just a plain ol lug on the side of my binocular any day.
So I've only been birding two days since I've had the NLs. And this time of year I'm using a spotting scope probably at least 30% of the time. I didn't pick up another binocular except to take a few pictures. So far I found the NL pretty dang impressive. The focus adjustment is just super. ER was perfect for me with my RayBan eyeglasses. Swarovski says the close focus is 6.6 feet. I didn't check this yet but I had no issues focusing on some winter wrens and kinglets at probably 10 feet. There were a few times when I felt like I couldn't get on a bird as quickly as I could with the NL 8X32 or SFL 8X40 I've been using lately but I got better the more I used the NL 10X42.
So that's about all I have to say so far. I'm planning on using the NL only for the next couple of months and I'll compare it to a couple of the others. In the meantime, I did take a few pictures so you can get a perspective of the size of the NL 10X42 and here they are via Sony RX-10 III:
I to took the plunge, and last week took delivery of Chuck's favorite, an NL 832! As some will know, I am an avowed fan of 10X and skeptic about the value of wide FOVs. Neither do I see glare. Yes I get I just bought the opposite of all that I have stood for. While Chuck who repeatedly has declared either his EL or now NL 832 to be his favorite all round birding bino, bought what would prolly be my favorite if I didnt already own the EL.
The good news is I don't need to take pictures, as thanks to Chuck, he has done that so beautifully above.
I love 10X, having used it almost exclusively for 40 years. This latter, time at it point, is a partial explanation for how/why. I dont get "wide" FOV in any of its forms. Ive written many times that the linear FOV difference at practical birding distances even of the latest and greatest NLs and SFs seem a bit underwhelming on paper and when I actually go birding. Having tried various NLs and SFs over the past year many times, I always walked away and thought, "hold on you did it again, you forgot to notice that super wide FOV everyone talks about!" My apologies to those of you who dont agree. Im not trying to start a revolution, just supply a bit of perspective for those reading here who may wonder.
I bought the NL832 for a couple reasons. First, I got my need for more X fix this fall when I bought my first spotting scope and tripod. With 18-54X in tow, who needs a 12 or 15 bino? BUT, lugging the blasted scope and tripod around while trying not to trip over it or knock it down, seemed a reasonable rationalization to buy a new smaller, lighter bino as compliment to a system. Second Im not deaf or that stubborn. I really do wonder what it was so many of you see that I dont. There seemed only one way to answer that question. So yes I just spent 2500 bucks as an experiment to see if I could appreciate what Chuck and many of you see in these underpowered and barely wider FOV things.
Is there a smiley face thing here somewhere?
Its raining here in California. While the winter migration is in full swing, getting outside to really check out the new NLs is a challenge, so this report will be limited. After two brief trips to the Richmond Marina, I can say this. With priorities straight, the birds are winning! They are here. Thank God for sun and getting to see many of the usual suspects, of only for a couple days. Not to be outdone by Troubador, here's what we saw - Female Surf Scoter, Female Goldeneye, Black crowned Night Heron, Pelagic Cormorants, Double Breasted Cormorant, Buffleheads, Green winged Teal, American Wigeon, Northern Shovele, Great Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, Red Tailed Hawk, Osprey, Coopers Hawk, Western Grebe, Horned Grebe, Whimbrel, Godwit, Avocet, Willet, Coots, Mallards, Canada Geese, Scaup, White Throated Swift.
The 832s? Well, nice. Not blow your socks off nice, but nice. My first impression, in the hands and around my neck is the size is more important than the weight. And its as much about girth as it is length. Im 6'3" and have largish hands. The little 832s with their wasp waist feel really good. Yep I cant place one hand directly opposite the other there's not enough finger room, between barrels but I don't do that with any bino. So just moving hands and fingers around it was easy to find a secure grip. While the AFOV is published at 5 degrees wider than my 1042s. I couldn't see it. In fact my first impression, which I now think to be a subliminal thing do to their size, is the little NLs at first seemed to confine the overall view a bit. I get thats weird. I could see the 34% promised wider linear FOV between these and the ELs... when I looked for it via say lining up one edge of the view and the other, against a wall with vertical lines. In practical use, not yet.
Optically these are gorgeous, right up there with my EL1042s, (yes I said that), except for the loss of 2X. Did I see the lack of wiggle so many here report when they try 10s and report this offsets the extra 2X for them? Ahh, well maybe? Sharp to the edge? Indeed. And I like that. Any signs of bouncing balls or mustaches? No. Chromatic aberration? None, nada, zip. The color representation was perfect. I was seeing through these what I was seeing with my naked eyes. Looking at that list of birds above and thinking about the possibilities for identifying and enjoying, colors, markings, seeing what's what is it for me, and these deliver.
On the way home, not feeling "Wow!" I was thinking... "are these keepers?" Do they add to what i own? Or are they redundant? Does the size and weight deliver on the hope these would be the better compliment to scope days, over the larger heavier 1042s? I think so. Looking more, back here, peering around the rain drops at the green space next door, the view is nice, really nice. As objects in and of themselves, do I enjoy looking at, handling and want to do more with them? You bet. I think I like these enough to commit to using them exclusively for a few weeks, to see if I can come to appreciate what so many here do. Im curious what will happen when after that, I go out for a day with my fav 10s....
Now that said, I cant wait to hear what Chuck has to say about those 1042s after a bit.
Last edited:
congrats, excellent choice
tenex
reality-based
No, you have that backwards, AFOV is 5° more on the 10x42 so of course the 8x32 seems a bit more limited (though I consider 65° about ideal myself). Are you really finding the weight of the 42s oppressive?
I too got curious and have been experimenting with 8x lately, Nikon EII. Wider FOV, and a bit less refocusing... does it really matter? Not that much to me, as I'm so used to 10x and often need all the magnification I can get. I hoped I could at least follow bats better, but it doesn't help much. I seem likely to keep it, but just because it's such a lovely instrument (and not very expensive). I actually considered 7x instead due to all the fans here, but since even the best have no wider a real field than the EII, decided I'm just never going to get the appeal of that.
Last edited:
From here: https://www.swarovskioptik.com/us/en/birding/products/binoculars/el/tech-spec/el-10x42
NL Pure 832 AFOV = 65
EL 1042 AFOV = 60
I get the usual posted formulas suggest AFOV is larger with more X. Unless I'm interpreting it backwards, Swaro says otherwise. If I have it wrong, that would explain my impression. Either way, I got used to it in seconds.
Re the weight, no, I love my 1042s. We are well bonded. On paper the diff is 7 0z + That would not be an incentive to spend like this, tho it is a component. As I wrote, it seemed size is more important than weight. Paper size dims don't tell the tale. Length is the most significant published spec. The EL is 6.3" vs NL at 5.7." That added to weight still seems less than compelling. Add in girth, not a published thing, but something written about with the new SFL 40s, and the case starts to become more clear. Set the bino to your IPD, measure around the circumference for what I'm calling girth. Add those 3 things and maybe there's an argument here, at least as part of an 832 scope/tripod/bino package. What I have noticed while admitting to be a novice with scope, is that when hiking about the relationship of the trail to the target, the wind, (not an inconsiderate thing), as well as handling/resetting the scope after moving, the heavier bigger bino can bang into things, and become a distraction when trying to get on a bird, even with an RYO setup.
Thinking about the above list of birds spotted Sunday, hopefully its clear those are mostly migratory waterfowl, shore birds and the raptors that follow them. My passion for 10s comes from mostly birding in places that supply that list. My birding is not at 60' but rather more like 60 yards and out. Telling the eye position on a Clark's vs Western Grebe to id which is which, requires X, optical quality, a practiced hold and eventually a scope. Hopefully this provides some context for why I am to now at least, a 10 guy. I still think exit pupil matters beyond just eye comfort and believe I see even in bright daylight there are things in shadow that makes 4 mm EP useful. So for me if its a 10, I like 40/42. If its an 8, 32 is great.
Can I grow to love an 8 as something more primary?
I have been using a VP 825 for couple years now. Have written here about it more than once. I love it, for specific things, reasons. A fair question would be why not the 825 with scope, that surely saves weight and bulk? I agree it is a question. The NL really is an experiment to see if I can see what others here report re FOV, DOF, less wiggle, etc. I wanted its larger FOV to see if i can learn to value that. I think the weight of the 832 will be an advantage over the 825s to help with wiggle wobbles. DOF? Im a skeptic, but willing.
Hi Tommy,
You and I have discussed the value of wide fov many times so I won't repeat all of that here. I value a wide fov for a practical reason: it enables me to scan large areas of sea and sky more quickly and more thoroughly.
Go to: Equipment observations , what do others see. and take a look at the photo on post 5 and ask yourself which binocular would enable you to more quickly search that view for hawks and eagles, swifts and swallows: a binocular with a narrow fov, or one with a wide fov?
Lee
crinklystarfish
Well-known member
I agree it's a close call and until the NL came along I relied on a high-end 10x as an all-rounder.
But... the NL 12x42, for me anyway, was a bit of a game changer. The combination of the higher magnification and a very impressive (for a 12) FOV - which is also highly practicable (i.e. largely devoid of aberrations) - raised the bar.
Add in the intoxicating AFOV and such pleasantries as a decent close-focus (obtained through a focuser that just plain works) and I, at least, have found that this bin is just fantastic for getting on to birds very quickly and very reliably; no matter where I am or what I'm doing.
And when you're on them, then every sighting is a WOW sighting.
As per other threads, I'm no Swarophile and have more than a few criticisms but if we're talking genuine all-rounder than I've personally seen nowt better.
Nearly two and a half thousand pounds/dollars.... and ZIP TIES 😨So I just attach via a zip-tie. I've tried all the fancy loop/split ring setups. I found this works just as good and not nearly as time consuming to connect. Of course one twist with some pliers and you're completely disconnected!
I feel you. I have the same. I want to love my SLC 8x42 more, but still miss a 10 power when I use them. I do not see a lot of difference in stability when using a 8 power, maybe because I am so used to 10 power? Only in very dark woods I might prefer 8 power.
I overrated the huge FOV/AFOV of the NL 10x32 as well. Yes, it's nice not having a tunnel view, but the AFOV of the SLC 8x42 is big enough. First I was just thinking "I want an as large as possible FOV/AFOV", but now I do not rate it as high anymore. Comfortable eyecups, weight, sharpness, natural colours, smooth focuser. All things I rate higher lately.
I think the NL 8x32 is a nice addition to your EL 10x42. The weight is really nice. I mostly carry a 42 bandolier style, but the 32 is lightweight enough to wear it in front of you. The position and the smoothnes of the focuser of the NL 32 are also really nice. You might be able to hold the binoculars with one hand, which is a good thing, when you are carrying a scope in the other hand.
I would like to hear your experiences after a couple of weeks/months. I wonder if you are going to see the glare as well.
Last edited:
Will K
Too well-known member
My thoughts exactly, thus far.
You do get that the zip ties are an accommodation/replacement for the RYO circlips....
While I understand why you need a less bulky pair of binos, why give up the magnification that you need and love? The 10x32 Nl might check all the boxes for you, except, perhaps its 3.2 EP, which is about the same as your 8x25 VP. You might wish for a bigger EP with a 10x32 Nl, but its better light transmission (93%) will certainly help. Furthermore, owning now the 8x32 Nl, makes your 8x25 VP a bit redundamt for birding, don't you think? (You might argue the VPs can still be used in situations where the Nls would be too conspicuous, e.g. concerts.)
For now, since you have the 8x32 Nl, I would spend a lot of time comparing them to the VPs. If the comparison is not blowing your socks off, favoring the Nl, it is probably because neither is giving you the magnification you need with the kind of distance viewing you do, FOV differences.not withstanding since that has never been a big deal for you.
You could come back and argue that 8x makes more sense, because I am also carting along the spotting scope, so I don't need 10x. If that's the case, why not use the 8xVP when scoping, unless you think the 8xNl is so much better?
Decisions,decisions! It's not easy, is it?
Indeed we have Lee, and I guess still are. Spending $2500 to acquire an attribute that others like, but isnt important to moi doesnt seem too practical... Ha! At least Im willing to explore what you like.
I dig the quote over that pic Dries posted, "The last time I observed many folks over a two day period at Hawk Mountain, Pa. most of the glass I observed were Nikon and Vortex. (Pic from website)." Thats the way it is here as well. Are we nuts?
When I want a panoramic view, I put down my binos and look. This is what I want to see and pay the big bucks for (pics from birding pal Lew).
OR
