Paultricounty
Well-known member
Well said. Some don’t get this or don’t want to.
-
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.
Have you compared the best Kowa (Genesis Prominar XD) side by side against the best Nikon (Monarch HG)? (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter mauriciolacruz
- Start date
Paultricounty
Well-known member
It always come down to that , but let’s not leave out the money considerations.
The NL's are no doubt some of the best binoculars around, if not the best, but the trouble is they are just too big, heavy and bulky for their aperture for a lot of people. The NL 10x42 is probably the best binocular I have ever looked through, but it is one of the biggest and heaviest 42 mm at 33 oz. binocular in its class. It was just too much weight for me to deal with anymore.
Even the NL 8x32 is big and heavy for a 32 mm at 25 oz. when the Leica UVHD+ 8x32 is less than 19 oz. and way smaller. I almost prefer the 8x32 EL Swarovision, especially, the pre-field pro model over the NL 8x32 as an overall package. I would like to see Swarovski make something to compete with the Zeiss SFL 8x40 with a moderate $1800 price tag and a 20 oz. weight.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
NL 42 29.9 oz
EL 42 29.5 oz
Noctivid 30.3
UVHD 42 27.8 oz
NL 32 22.8 oz almost same as EL 32.
UHD 42 32.2 oz
Id like to see a lightweight Swaro as well.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
Or an 8x32 Nocti which had undergone bariatric surgery ;-)
This thread reminds me of audiophiles (I am one) . I own two CD players from the same company , one is a $1000 player and the other is a $3000 player . Is there a huge difference between the two ? Some audiophiles say yes and defend there opinion with vigor, I say no but the difference is there nonetheless and worth the extra $$ for me .
When I compared my 8x42 MHG to the 8.5x42 EL I felt the differences were not huge between them but still there , some might say otherwise . In this case I am not willing to pay the extra for these differences but others are more than willing . YMMV.
When I compared my 8x42 MHG to the 8.5x42 EL I felt the differences were not huge between them but still there , some might say otherwise . In this case I am not willing to pay the extra for these differences but others are more than willing . YMMV.
With the eye cups, rain guard and strap attached my NL 10x42 weighed 33 oz. and my NL 8x32 weighed 25 oz. on my desk scale which is very accurate. They are both big, bulky and heavy for their aperture. The Leica UVHD+ 8x32 weighs 19 oz. and makes the NL 8x32 look like the Titanic, and the Nl 8x32 is bigger than the EL 8x32 by a considerable margin.
Swarovski over does everything. The case is big and bulky, and I don't like the side load case, the straps are big and bulky and unnecessarily complicated, the Field Pro attachments are unneeded and a PIA because they twist all the time, and you don't know which way to untwist them, and you are never sure the lugs are locked. The rain guard is way too tight, and the armour has creases in it which it shouldn't have in a $3000 binocular.
When I buy a 32 mm I want it to be small, light and compact. Swarovski needs to make a simpler binocular in an 8x32 or 8x40 with thinner glass and a thinner magnesium frame that weighs about 20 oz. like the Zeiss SFL and get rid of the Field Pro baloney and supply rain guards that fit correctly, a simpler lighter strap and a simpler top load case. They need to get back to basics and get the price out of the stratosphere.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Now the NL are shit again, a few weeks ago the NL 8x32 was the best birding binoculars ever and was recommended to anyone who wasn't up the trees by 3, the half-life of binocular ratings continues unabated, let's see when the IS are shit again.
Andreas
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Maybe your ears are better than your eyes 😂✌🏼
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Ultravid 32 is no good for you, no sharp edges, not a large FOV and short eye relief, that’s not good for your glare prone eyes. 😝
What Andreas said , ditto.
my 1980's Magnovox CD player is finally dying - can you recommend a decent new one? Like $1000 or less? I've been combing the thrift stores for one and finding only DVD players.
FWIW I definitely come down on the side of light weight. Back in the 50s-80's light weight was huge. I've been thrilled with my 80's Nikon 7x35E's, only 19 ounces, and the 12x40's only 21 ounces. I'm out in the woods on a 3-hour hike, a big clunker on the neckstrap is not good. There are times when weight doesn't matter and there are times when it does. Driving along in the car, getting out to view a spot for 10-15 minutes, that's a different story. My 10x56 don't even have a neckstrap, I never use them on walks or long sessions.
I like the focuser in the EDG so much more than MHG, I've got the EDG because I'll take another 3 ounces for the focuser. Nothing wrong will selling out for lightest bino though, the MGH 42's do feel like a featherweight and that's nice. The brightness jumped out at me with those, it seems at least equal to something like a Swaro EL, so the glass and coatings are up to par IMO.
Last edited:
I like the optics on the NL, but I developed some arthritis in my shoulder, so I have to use lighter binoculars now. I still think the NL's are some of the best binoculars around optically but when I compared the NL 10x42 to my Canon 8x20 IS I could see more detail on the bird and could ID them easier and farther away with the Canon and I only have to carry 15 oz. I decided to go to the dark side and use IS binoculars. I never realized before that IS made such a huge difference in seeing detail, but it does.Now the NL are shit again, a few weeks ago the NL 8x32 was the best birding binoculars ever and was recommended to anyone who wasn't up the trees by 3, the half-life of binocular ratings continues unabated, let's see when the IS are shit again.
Andreas
I had an SF 8x32. It had too much glare for me. I couldn't even see the goats at Yellowstone in the canyon on the way to Gardiner, Montana. Besides, I can see more detail with the Canon IS 8x20, and it is only 15 oz. and has less glare than the SF 8x32.
Last edited:
I really liked the UVHD+ 8x32, but the eye cups were not long enough for the ER with my shallow eye sockets. For my regular binocular, I use a Nikon SE 8x32. It has sharp edges and that stereoscopic porro view. Outside of a smaller FOV it is as good as the NL 8x32 and way lighter at 21 oz.
Yes. Paultricounty said there was a like new Nikon SE 8x32 listed on eBay, so I threw in a bid because I wanted to try one again, and I won it. I forgot how good they are. I used to think the E2 was better, but I don't think so after having the SE. It has sharper edges, better build quality and better contrast than the E2. It really is as good as an NL with a smaller FOV, but it has that stereoscopic view that only a porro with wide objective spacing can give you. I have no trouble with blackouts either. It is also light and only weighs about 21 oz, and it is a 504 S/N, so it has leaded glass with less CA than the newer ecoglass. I picked it up for $800. Not bad. I also picked up a like new Swarovski Habicht 7x42 for $580. Good deal. I have a Sig Sauer Zulu 6 16x42 on order. I hear they are a good high power IS binocular.
Last edited:
WOW! 15.8 degrees! That is huge. HaHa!
My eyes work well . My passion is good sound so that's where I'm willing to spend extra to get that extra information/detail . With binoculars it's different mostly because of how often I use them . If I used them 10-20 hours a week I would probably migrate to an "alpha" . I used to have a nice set of televue naglers when I used to lug a big scope around , I do appreciate good glass . If I had a bigger budget , well you never know .
Similar threads
