Isn’t there a third group who prefer “Other”, like myself? Of course there is; the NL is only the best for those who prefer them and suggesting that the only people who wouldn’t like them are those lowly types who can’t see the difference totally misses the mark.
-
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.
'The Big Three': NL Pure, Noctivid, Victory SF - A Brief Comparison (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Will K
- Start date
Please show me where I used the word “lowly” in my statement. It seems to me that you added that word in your own mind, and then attributed it to me.
Some see differently than others, and there is no better proof of that than this place.
Please show us how the only people who don’t choose the NL are those who can’t tell a difference, which is what brought the response that you’re so offended by.
The fact is that some people see a difference and yet still prefer something else, despite your claim that only people with bad vision wouldn’t choose your favorite.
Interesting you picked up on the optics as being the reason it divides the population. But I do agree with you that they divide the population (on Birdforum at least).
There may be other posts further along this thread saying this too, so apologies if I'm repeating what others might have said already, but my own perception is that what divides the population regarding the NL Pure is more generally the ergonomics (wasp waist in particular), 'glacial' speed of focus and GLARE (😉). I have read very few posts not acknowledging the exceptionally exquisite 'view' the NL's present. Whenever I take my NL's for a walk, I genuinely see a difference. For me, the view is technically(?) the very best of the very best, amongst all the binoculars I have ever used, just spectacular, although I'm aware that evaluation is entirely subjective. That does NOT, however, make them my favourite binocular. I am in awe of my NL's far more than I'm in love with them.
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
I can see the difference, which is exactly why I prefer....the SV/FP. I will never swap my SV 12x50 for the NL 12x42, my SV 10x50 for NL 10x42 or my FP 8x32 for NL 8x32. Of course for subjective reasons, what else.
wdc
Well-known member
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
Good advice! — and I very much do enjoy.
But, too, I sometimes enjoy chatting with like-minded folk about a common interest. I tend to do that - here - in “fits-and-starts”: when there’s something new I might be interested in (so want info on) or if I get something new (even if just new to me) where I think (more likely, hope) that others might be interested in what I’ve seen.
I try not to take it too seriously. If someone sees something I don’t, or dislikes something I like, well, most of that is down to individual differences and preferences. Mostly it doesn’t fuss me (I’d prefer “always”, but maybe that’s an unreachable ideal).
Yeah, I’m an enthusiast about binoculars. Most of the time I’m more interested in what I see through them than the instruments themselves. But some of the time I’m interested in the instruments.
…Mike
murmeltier
Active member
You can do the same with the NL as well. Btw I'm a retired italian teacher and have a low pension.
Attachments
BayAreaBirder
Member
Very interesting thread--I recently took the plunge and got myself a pair of NL Pure binoculars after birding for over 25 years, and I must say I’m absolutely blown away by the clarity and detail they provide. It feels like I’ve fallen in love with nature all over again--the details I now see every observation feel like a discovery. Like you, I find the term 'cinematic' captures the experience perfectly. These binoculars have rejuvenated my passion and I guess that makes me a proud 'Swarosucker' too! 
Will K
Too well-known member
I know the feeling! If there are no birds around, I'll just look at the foliage on the trees or the clouds in the sky. They seem to make everything slightly magical. And when it comes to mountains, ocean cliffs, panoramic views, etc., I've not seen anything better.
The early theorists in photography and film (Kracauer, Balazs, etc.) coined terms like 'microphysiognomy' to describe the way the camera penetrated into the physical world and was able to reveal things - quasi-religious aesthetic or ethical experiences - beyond the capacity of ordinary vision. It was just a form of rhetoric, of course, but it endowed objective reality with a form of expressive autonomy which shaped the way photography and film were received as independent art forms during the 20th century. It is interesting to think about the way optics (especially the 'alpha' class of products) can elicit comparable experiences. The whole idea probably goes back centuries, to the time when the science of optics (like most other sciences) was framing its discoveries within broadly religious metaphysics; transcending the limitations of the body, penetrating the secrets of creation, etc.
...pardon the pretentious academic stuff. Just thinking out loud
Last edited:
tehri
Well-known member
'Rich' optics are needed to access an optimal view of reality....and 'rich' words are also needed to fully describe a thought, you don't need to apologize for that, Will !!! There is no pretension to that !...pardon the pretentious academic stuff. Just thinking out loud
I was somewhat ridiculed on a recent club bird outing for getting excited about a big frog I spotted in the woods! It was a slow day for birds so my binoculars wandered off in search of something else. He was huge and beautiful, kind of beige with green highlights around his jawline. For me, it was just as good as a bird sighting. I think I'll keep those thoughts to myself next time though
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
You need a new club ;-)I was somewhat ridiculed on a recent club bird outing for getting excited about a big frog I spotted in the woods! It was a slow day for birds so my binoculars wandered off in search of something else. He was huge and beautiful, kind of beige with green highlights around his jawline. For me, it was just as good as a bird sighting. I think I'll keep those thoughts to myself next time though
Anyone I bird with would think that was cool!
Those who mocked you, should themselves be mocked in turn.I was somewhat ridiculed on a recent club bird outing for getting excited about a big frog I spotted in the woods! It was a slow day for birds so my binoculars wandered off in search of something else. He was huge and beautiful, kind of beige with green highlights around his jawline. For me, it was just as good as a bird sighting. I think I'll keep those thoughts to myself next time though
You need to look for a club with a better and smarter class of member.
Last edited:
tehri
Well-known member
