NL Pure 8x32 field of view (1 Viewer)

[aix123]

Though I'm only a rank amateur, I decided to buy these binoculars. I know a little bit about optics, but have relatively little experience compared with many here. Hopefully the following won't sound too odd.

Pleased I bought them. The build quality and image are stunning. A stark contrast to the Vortex Crossfire 8x42 I've been using for some time
For viewing birds in flight, the wide FOV on the NL Pure is especially impressive. And for birds roughly 30 or 40 feet away they're also great. But when I'm viewing birds in the mid-distance, not in flight, looking at the centre of the image, part of of my brain thinks why do I need such a huge image. It sometimes feels a bit unusual - though maybe I'll get used to it.

Funnily enough, comparing the Crossfire to the NL Pure, although there is a significant difference in the FOV, both on paper and in the feel of seeing such an expansive view, when I make a point of looking at which parts of a landscape are included in each image, there isn't a massive difference between the two pairs. Swarovski describe them as having 'almost indiscernible edges'. By that I suppose they mean the FOV is so wide that you are less aware of it, though of course it is still there.

A friend has a pair of CL Companion 8x30. The image is excellent, but maybe not quite as satisfyingly bright as the NL Pure. And the FOV is less than the NL Pure, of course. But for birds in the mid-distance, on the ground, they almost feel more natural than the NL Pure - despite the narrower FOV.

I suppose my point here is that despite the NL Pure's incredible FOV, has anyone found a much wider FOV takes a bit of getting used to?

 

[tehri]

Concerning myself, and if I had to take a metaphor, I would always prefer to see "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Dune", etc etc on a huge cinema screen, rather than on my TV... And that's all the 'magic' that these NL's bring me !

 

[tenex]

has anyone found a much wider FOV takes a bit of getting used to?

I have the budget option, Nikon E II 8x30, and instantly liked its 8.8° field -- but individual taste differs. Some posters here, esp. the 7x crowd since AFOV is so narrow there, say they like the way that focuses attention on the subject, rather than being "distracted" by busy surroundings. But most people do appreciate a wider FOV, since it helps with finding birds in the first place, or tracking motion.

But I'm a 10x guy, so the E II gets only occasional use. One reason I've avoided NLs (which I have tried) is fear that if I got used to one, I'd no longer be able to enjoy others as much. Of course if you have (as yet) only one bin, there's no problem.

As to "more natural", FOV may not be the culprit after all: remember also the other standout feature of NL design, the flat field. Crossfire, Companion etc are more conventional designs with field curvature that blurs the edges a bit, and different distortion when panning. Some people do find that somehow... more natural.

 

[aix123]

Concerning myself, and if I had to take a metaphor, I would always prefer to see "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Dune", etc etc on a huge cinema screen, rather than on my TV... And that's all the 'magic' that these NL's bring me !

That's a good way of putting it. They really are superb.

 

[aix123]

I have the budget option, Nikon E II 8x30, and instantly liked its 8.8° field -- but individual taste differs. Some posters here, esp. the 7x crowd since AFOV is so narrow there, say they like the way that focuses attention on the subject, rather than being "distracted" by busy surroundings. But most people do appreciate a wider FOV, since it helps with finding birds in the first place, or tracking motion.

But I'm a 10x guy, so the E II gets only occasional use. One reason I've avoided NLs (which I have tried) is fear that if I got used to one, I'd no longer be able to enjoy others as much. Of course if you have (as yet) only one bin, there's no problem.

As to "more natural", FOV may not be the culprit after all: remember also the other standout feature of NL design, the flat field. Crossfire, Companion etc are more conventional designs with field curvature that blurs the edges a bit, and different distortion when panning. Some people do find that somehow... more natural.

All good points, which have given me food for thought, thanks. I can certainly see how some would feel that narrower FOV focuses attention. I hadn't thought of it quite in that way.

'more natural' - I should have said more like what I'm used to, because, if anything the NL Pures have a strong claim to have a more natural feel to the image, compared with binoculars with narrower FOV and field curvature. There are pros and cons for each, I suppose. On balance I think I tend towards preferring the Pure's wide FOV. Overall, they really have a huge wow factor for me. And it's such a bright, warm image. I also do a bit of general photography and I've always set the white balance to produce slightly warmer-looking images.

 

[Owlbarred]

Rest assured with NLs you are at the top of the binocular summit. For what it's worth, my 8x42 NLs have an even wider FOV than the NL 8x32s and their large FOV, for me, is a big advantage with no downside.
Give yourself time to adjust to your new binoculars.

 

[Viraj]

@aix123 Quite honestly I feel the same about my NL 8x42 which has even more FOV. When I bought it, I thought the wide FOV of 8x42 is better than the bit bigger picture gives with 10x42. However, when use in real life situations I didn’t find the big and flat FOV of NL 8x42 appeals me very well specially for small birds. I think that I represent the minority who likes conventional binoculars such as UV 10x32 with field curvature and find them more immersive. At the same time I don’t feel the FOV of NL 8x42 is very big when using it and feels the birds are too smaller to find. It doesn’t happen with binoculars such as UV 10x32 or SFL 10x40 or even M7 8x30 which are having either less FOV or more field curvature. Interestingly I find the binoculars are with small and flat field are more appealing to me. For example Curio 7x21 impressed me the most and I didn’t find x7 power restrict me seeing more details. I think it is all because of the objective filling the higher percentage of FOV. So now I regret not buying NL 10x42, however afraid to sell NL 8x42 because I will not be able to buy one in the future. Having said that today I pulled the trigger on Habicht 7x42 which is having a very small and conventional field. Perhaps it will get more use than NL 8x42 in the future.

 

[grackle314]

I tend to view a bird of interest in the middle of the field of view. As such, the wide field of view provides little in aiding the observing and identification for a bird in the middle of the field of view. I like a wide field of view as it makes me feel a bit more that the observing is not taking me out of the direct touch with Nature.

In practical terms the wide field of view improves the chances of getting on a bird rapidly and then bringing it to center of view.

 

[ReinierB]

Having said that today I pulled the trigger on Habicht 7x42 which is having a very small and conventional field.

Keep us informed about what you think of it. 🙂
The black or the green one?

 

[Viraj]

Keep us informed about what you think of it. 🙂
The black or the green one?

You and your Habicht thread are the reasons behind my decision to try one 😂 I followed the thread and saw the photo of your new purchase. The leatherette 8x30 is beautiful. Then I found a 0% installment option for Swaros in a German shop. Wanted to try the My Junior but went for the adult version of x7 bins that Swarovski offers. Unfortunately, in the past, Habicht 10x40 didn’t work for me however I am still regretting about my decision to sell it. So it was ruled out for now. Habicht 7x42 was also in my long list of binos because I needed to have one for low light conditions. This is the leatherette version because GA version of 10x40 was a bit too chunky for me (even though I really like in some ways). I would like to try 8x30 as well however there are no options around me to go and try. Only way to try is buying one.

I am sorry for deviating the topic a bit. However, it seems my eyes like the FOV around 110-140 m /1000 m range with conventional field.

 

[aix123]

@aix123 Quite honestly I feel the same about my NL 8x42 which has even more FOV. When I bought it, I thought the wide FOV of 8x42 is better than the bit bigger picture gives with 10x42. However, when use in real life situations I didn’t find the big and flat FOV of NL 8x42 appeals me very well specially for small birds. I think that I represent the minority who likes conventional binoculars such as UV 10x32 with field curvature and find them more immersive. At the same time I don’t feel the FOV of NL 8x42 is very big when using it and feels the birds are too smaller to find. It doesn’t happen with binoculars such as UV 10x32 or SFL 10x40 or even M7 8x30 which are having either less FOV or more field curvature. Interestingly I find the binoculars are with small and flat field are more appealing to me. For example Curio 7x21 impressed me the most and I didn’t find x7 power restrict me seeing more details. I think it is all because of the objective filling the higher percentage of FOV. So now I regret not buying NL 10x42, however afraid to sell NL 8x42 because I will not be able to buy one in the future. Having said that today I pulled the trigger on Habicht 7x42 which is having a very small and conventional field. Perhaps it will get more use than NL 8x42 in the future.

I can't tell you how useful your and several previous replies have been for me. Really helps me think this through. Everything you say hits home with me, with weighing things up. I still have the option of returning the NL Pure 8x32s, as I've taken great care with them, and the retailer is flexible and has a pretty long return period. Not that I dislike them, far from it. But maybe 10x will be better for me. But what I'm going to do is try the 10x32s to see if they're better for me, while hanging onto the 8x32s until I decide, over the next week or so.

I should add, that I was considering doing this before reading your reply, but it now seems an even better way to proceed.

 

[Viraj]

I can't tell you how useful your and several previous replies have been for me. Really helps me think this through. Everything you say hits home with me, with weighing things up. I still have the option of returning the NL Pure 8x32s, as I've taken great care with them, and the retailer is flexible and has a pretty long return period. Not that I dislike them, far from it. But maybe 10x will be better for me. But what I'm going to do is try the 10x32s to see if they're better for me, while hanging onto the 8x32s until I decide, over the next week or so.

I should add, that I was considering doing this before reading your reply, but it now seems an even better way to proceed.

I wish you good luck. It is all about finding the best optics which satisfy your liking. Please update us about your findings with the 10x32 once you get a chance to compare both.

 

[PatR]

I can't tell you how useful your and several previous replies have been for me. Really helps me think this through. Everything you say hits home with me, with weighing things up. I still have the option of returning the NL Pure 8x32s, as I've taken great care with them, and the retailer is flexible and has a pretty long return period. Not that I dislike them, far from it. But maybe 10x will be better for me. But what I'm going to do is try the 10x32s to see if they're better for me, while hanging onto the 8x32s until I decide, over the next week or so.

I should add, that I was considering doing this before reading your reply, but it now seems an even better way to proceed.

I must admit that I was in a similar quandary when deciding to invest in a Pure/SF/Ultravid Alpha last year and wanted to get it right before spending so much money. I was fortunate in being able to physically test each back to back (in all magnifications) at 32mm and 42mm and much to my surprise I preferred the 42mm. I say surprised only because I had a preconceived belief that there would be a substantial weight difference. There was a difference naturally, but not a marked one. That narrowed it down to magnification and the sweet spot for me was the 10x and then amongst the three, the unbelievable FOV of the NL’s. Absolutely no regrets, they have been superb. I have subsequently bought some Companion CL 8x30’s and whilst excellent, I do prefer 10x. Horses for courses as they say, if you can do try the 10x and if at all possible, give the NL 10x42’s a go. Take your wallet!

 

[chill6x6]

I don't THINK I'm that hung up on binoculars with a "huge" FOV but I am used to it. We'll say a huge FOV is >434ft@1000yds. I have a Leica Trinovid 8X20 that has a FOV of 341ft and I think that is the smallest FOV of any binocular I have that I really like....all the way up to 450ft of the Nikon E-II, FL 8X32, and the NL 8X32 with many in between. I can say in my case...that although I have quite a few binoculars I like with a FOV of less than the 450ft mark...I do MISS the large FOV when I go birding with a binocular with less FOV. ESPECIALLY when I remove the "huge" FOV AND flat field. I will also say that the minimum FOV I like before I start "missing" FOV HAS been steadily creeping UP and now it's probably around 400ft for an 8X binocular.

I say keep using it...it might take a little while to get acclimated to the NL 8X32. I bet you will what it has to offer when you go to something else!

 

[Elpha8888]

I found the magic was in the 12 x NL Pure, still had glare issues though. It's about finding what works for you but that's not easy.

 

[Maljunulo]

I remain absolutely delighted with my, 8X32 SF, although I must admit that the voices in my head do start up when I read about the NL.

Remembering Swarovski’s characteristic veiling glare in my EL SV 10X42 (pre-fieldpro) quiets them right back down again.

 

[aix123]

Just reporting back to say that I got hold of the NL Pure 10x32, as I said I would - so that I could compare it with the NL Pure 8x32 which I already had (still within the return period). I treat them with great care, so don't feel too bad trying them at home.
As I say above, I wanted to try the 10x because I although I love the 8x I wondered if the narrower fov would suit me more.

Most of you will already know much of the following, but I'll say it anyway, in case it's of interest. Spent a long time today comparing the two. I live overlooking fields and a hill, with a fair number of features at different distances, plus gulls, geese, crows and a couple of swans today. So not bad as a way to try them out.

Initially when I got the 10x, earlier in the week, I very briefly had a look through them and thought, nope, definitely sticking with the 8x. But today I wasn't so sure, as I was tempted by the 10x magnification. In a way a difficult decision, but long story short, I'm sticking with the 8x, and am very happy with that decision.

Although I had some reservations (see original post) about the wide fov, it is definitely an advantage, I now realise. I can understand why some might prefer a narrower and perhaps less flat fov, and at times the wide fov of the 8x may feel too wide for me. But the pros will greatly outweigh the cons . And while it might be a little bit frustrating not having the 10x magnification, for me there are so many reasons to keep the 8x. The wide fov and flat view provide a really immersive, almost dramatic view at longer distances, if that makes sense. And also great when following birds in flight, or even when not in flight, but at a distance. And easier to find birds, once you're looking through them, compared to the 10x, of course. Also, maybe psychological, but the 8x seem to have a warmer tone, which I like. In fact, it's probably just that they're somewhat brighter. And the depth of field is greater with the 8x. What else? When viewing garden birds, while the fov doesn't appear too different between the two if you study the edges to see what's included in the view, the 8x feel quite different and better for me - again, more immersive. Stunning, tbh. Both pairs are excellent (in my limited experience) but for me the 8x are astonishingly good.

Haven't tried them out yet for woodland birds, but I know they'll be more suitable than the 10x in that environment. I'm sure the 10x will be suitable for some, depending on what they use them for.

I now own three items which I think are marvels of design and build: NL Pure 8x32, a Sony A6400 camera, and several Samsung external T7 SSD drives.
Okay, I know the last two aren't optics, and I apologise. But all three are objects of beauty and do what they're supposed to do superbly. Btw, I don't really do much bird photography, more landscape.

 

[aix123]

While I'm on this topic of comparing 10x with 8x, can anyone recommend a good lowish to mid-priced 10x binocular. 32 or 42. Flat or flattish view an advantage, but not of course necessary.

Just to be awkward, I've never really liked Zeiss (sorry). I've borrowed a pair in the past, and tried a few out, but didn't click with me.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Just reporting back to say that I got hold of the NL Pure 10x32, as I said I would - so that I could compare it with the NL Pure 8x32 which I already had (still within the return period). I treat them with great care, so don't feel too bad trying them at home.
As I say above, I wanted to try the 10x because I although I love the 8x I wondered if the narrower fov would suit me more.

Most of you will already know much of the following, but I'll say it anyway, in case it's of interest. Spent a long time today comparing the two. I live overlooking fields and a hill, with a fair number of features at different distances, plus gulls, geese, crows and a couple of swans today. So not bad as a way to try them out.

Initially when I got the 10x, earlier in the week, I very briefly had a look through them and thought, nope, definitely sticking with the 8x. But today I wasn't so sure, as I was tempted by the 10x magnification. In a way a difficult decision, but long story short, I'm sticking with the 8x, and am very happy with that decision.

Although I had some reservations (see original post) about the wide fov, it is definitely an advantage, I now realise. I can understand why some might prefer a narrower and perhaps less flat fov, and at times the wide fov of the 8x may feel too wide for me. But the pros will greatly outweigh the cons . And while it might be a little bit frustrating not having the 10x magnification, for me there are so many reasons to keep the 8x. The wide fov and flat view provide a really immersive, almost dramatic view at longer distances, if that makes sense. And also great when following birds in flight, or even when not in flight, but at a distance. And easier to find birds, once you're looking through them, compared to the 10x, of course. Also, maybe psychological, but the 8x seem to have a warmer tone, which I like. In fact, it's probably just that they're somewhat brighter. And the depth of field is greater with the 8x. What else? When viewing garden birds, while the fov doesn't appear too different between the two if you study the edges to see what's included in the view, the 8x feel quite different and better for me - again, more immersive. Stunning, tbh. Both pairs are excellent (in my limited experience) but for me the 8x are astonishingly good.

Haven't tried them out yet for woodland birds, but I know they'll be more suitable than the 10x in that environment. I'm sure the 10x will be suitable for some, depending on what they use them for.

I now own three items which I think are marvels of design and build: NL Pure 8x32, a Sony A6400 camera, and several Samsung external T7 SSD drives.
Okay, I know the last two aren't optics, and I apologise. But all three are objects of beauty and do what they're supposed to do superbly. Btw, I don't really do much bird photography, more landscape.

Would you have the chances to compare the 8x32 with the 12x42 NL? If yes, let us know what do you think of it from 8x to 12x...

 

[jackjack]

CL Pocket 8x25 6.8 FOV stated


CL companion 8x30 7.6 FOV stated


EL SV 8x32 8.05 FOV stated


NL 8x32 8.5 FOV stated


NL 8x42 9.1 FOV stated


I think the best way to feel FOV diffrence is to see bino with big FOV first then see smaller one. such as seeing NL 8 8x32 and then seeing CL 8x30

larger FOV can leads to more apparent brightess at night especially in the area with many light sources such as lamp post, windows...because it can show more light sources around then smaller FOV

I can't say bigger real fov is always better.
bigger fov pronounce more rolling ball if the didtortion rate is similar.
and just my opinion, have more trouble viewing the object I exactly want to view.
like I was lost in the huge FOV.
have felt that in NL 8x42 because it have too large well corrected real fov (but it's central sharpness and resolution is still among the best.)


and feel of the width also not only depends on numbers of FOV.
if the fov is same. bino with larger lens size feel more wider.
zeiss victory 8x25 and nikon 8x42 EDG has similar FOV but latter feel more immerse to many users

and high 3D rendering (combined with apatyer of lenses and distortion amount) lead to feel of width.

I think thats why many people feels 7x50 porro which usually have only around 50 AFOV not as narrow as stated.





Nighthunter 8x56

EDG 8x42


Nighthunter 8x56


EDG 8x42


these are digiscope of Steiner nighthunter 8x56 and nikon edg 8x42 I have.

the FOV seem similer. actually, bit wider in EDG. but nighthunter feels more immerse in my sight. because it have bigger lens diameter and higher 3D rendering because of porro prism structure.

also

digiscope sample of Kowa genesis 10x33 and Leica Trinovid BN 7x42



Genesis 6.8 FOV stated 68 AFOV

Trinovid BN 8 FOV stated 56 AFOV


Genesis 6.8 FOV stated, 68 AFOV

Trinovid BN 8 FOV stated, 56 AFOV

Genesis have more the 10 degree of AFOV then Trinovid BN but BN has more real FOV (6.8 / 8) and bigger lens diameter. so in real feel, BN feel not as narrower as shown in specs and photos
(still, genesis feels bit more immersive )