NL Pure 8x32 and NL Pure 10x32! (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

Hi rpg51 (post #219),

As you indicate, the 10x32’s exit pupil is getting small (at only 3.2 mm dia. > 8 mm sq. area). In terms of what that’s like in use, you may be able to approximate the experience if you have access to an 8x25 (3.1 > 7.6).

Though this does make the point that the EP size is one that we generally associate with specialised and occasional use (rather than general use for extended viewing sessions) i.e. where we accept compromises in optical comfort and performance for convenience of carry.

Particularly with smaller EP’s, a relatively minor increase in diameter produces much more of an increase in area - and among other things, viewing ease - than most seem to appreciate
e.g. comparing the 10x32 to 8x32:
• while the 10x has a 25% increase in magnification,
• the 8x has a 58% larger EP area!

So as you indicate you really do need to try the 10x32 NL for yourself. However, as nzwild cautions, a brief session such as in a shop may be insufficient to get a full appreciation of what use in the field will be like.

- - - -
Some common examples (EP diameter vs EP area):
8x20 and 10x25 (2.5 > 4.9)
10x30 (3 > 7.1)
8x25 (3.1 > 7.6)
10x32 (3.2 > 8)
12x42 (3.5 > 9.6)
8x30 (3.75 > 11) and 15x56 (3.73 > 10.9)
8x32 (4 > 12.6)
10x42 (4.2 > 13.9) and 12x50 (4.17 > 13.7)
10x50 (5 > 19.6)
8x42 (5.25 > 21.6)
7x42 (6 > 28.3)
8x56 (7 > 38.5)


And some EP area comparisons:
8x20 to 8x25, +55% for the 8x25
8x25 to 8x30, +45%
8x25 to 8x32, +66%
8x30 to 8x32, +15%
8x32 to 8x42, +71%

10x25 to 10x30, +45%
10x25 to 10x32, +63%
10x30 to 10x32, +13%
10x32 to 10x42, +74%
10x42 to 10x50, +41%

- - - -
And comparing the 12x NL to the EL:
12x42 to 12x50, +43%
And adding the big SLC to the mix:
12x42 to 15x56, +14%
15x56 to 12x50, +26%


So as always, swings and roundabouts. And the old phrase about there being no optical free lunch also springs to mind.


John

 

[Hermann]

Though this does make the point that the EP size is one that we generally associate with specialised and occasional use (rather than general use for extended viewing sessions) i.e. where we accept compromises in optical comfort and performance for convenience of carry.

Particularly with smaller EP’s, a relatively minor increase in diameter produces much more of an increase in area - and among other things, viewing ease - than most seem to appreciate

I agree - the bigger the exit pupil (within reason ... ) the better. For more than years I stuck to exit pupils of 4mm and more. However, the eyepieces also play an important role here. Some binoculars with small exit pupils are much easier to use than others with the same specification.

I find e.g. the CL 10x30 much easier to use than other 10x30s/10x32s. In fact, I found the CL 10x30 so comfortable in use that I got a pair years ago and used it almost exclusively on various trips abroad where I wanted to keep the weight down. Would I have preferred a larger exit pupil? Definitely. The ideal exit pupil is 6mm or 7mm IMO. But the 10x30 worked nicely on those trips.

Seems to me Swarovski got the eyepieces of those 10x30s just right, and I don't doubt the NL 10x32 will be similar.

Hermann

 

[tenex]

But, will the 32 be less forgiving when trying to orient my eyes to get a good clear look at the entire field of view.

This isn't really the issue. Larger EPs are more forgiving with eye placement generally, but ease of roaming the FOV without blackouts must depend on further details of optical design, and I gather it's worse with roof prism models generally than Porros. I don't find this any easier in my SLC 10x56 than my UV 10x32! (Of course I can see the entire FOV at once equally well in both, if that's all you meant.)

Ultimately, you just have to try 10x32s. The format doesn't seem to work for most; it does for me. I've been using it for over 20 years.

 

[jcnguyen09]

FWIW, the counter so far is 5x 8 and 2x 10.
No orange, only green.

Jan

Hi Jan,
is the image from the NL 10x32 as stabilized as the NL x42 ? 8x in 32 is ok but 10x is hard to keep it steady. Hope the FRP help a bit.

 

[Mark Batten]

Picked up a pair today. Very comfortable in the hand. Huge field of view. Nice colours. A step up on the EL’s although always the subject of subjectivity and personal choice. For those who have not pre-ordered, Viking optics have received units for which some are destined for RSPB shops. The Titchwell shop will get one 8 and one 10 later today which I would expect to be gone almost immediately after arrival.

 

[jan van daalen]

Hi Jan,
is the image from the NL 10x32 as stabilized as the NL x42 ? 8x in 32 is ok but 10x is hard to keep it steady. Hope the FRP help a bit.

Hi JC,
For me there is no difference between the 32 and 42. It is most helpfull for spectacle wearers (which I am not).

Jan

 

[jcnguyen09]

Hi JC,
For me there is no difference between the 32 and 42. It is most helpfull for spectacle wearers (which I am not).

Jan

Thanks Jan.

 

[TALON TARGET]

Thanks Jan.

I am currently using a pair of 10x32 NL`s and for me, a person that is an old 8`s only snob, they are rock steady. The balanced weight spread and the `squashed beer can' ergonomics both help. With the rain guard on they clock in at about 700g which for a `compact' is a tad heavy but for me this does help with the stability. I certainly feel no need to add a forehead rest. Also `on paper' they should be diabolical in low light but I was happily using them up 45 minutes after sundown last night.

 

[b_reynolds_ak]

I am currently using a pair of 10x32 NL`s and for me, a person that is an old 8`s only snob, they are rock steady. The balanced weight spread and the `squashed beer can' ergonomics both help. With the rain guard on they clock in at about 700g which for a `compact' is a tad heavy but for me this does help with the stability. I certainly feel no need to add a forehead rest. Also `on paper' they should be diabolical in low light but I was happily using them up 45 minutes after sundown last night.

I feel the same as you. Curiosity got the better of me and I purchased the headrest for my 10x32's. At closer viewing distances, I dont feel a need for the headrest. However I do a lot of glassing at long distances in the mountains. This is where the rest really shines. It makes a noticeable difference! It also allows me to have the eyecups set at one lower position than I normally would, which creates an even greater sense of immersion into the view, without struggling with blackouts.

 

[jcnguyen09]

I feel the same as you. Curiosity got the better of me and I purchased the headrest for my 10x32's. At closer viewing distances, I dont feel a need for the headrest. However I do a lot of glassing at long distances in the mountains. This is where the rest really shines. It makes a noticeable difference! It also allows me to have the eyecups set at one lower position than I normally would, which creates an even greater sense of immersion into the view, without struggling with blackouts.

Same here. I use the headrest and feel it is really good for the glasses wearer like me. Beside helping to stabilize the views, it also helps to get a perfect eye positions every time. I did a side by side comparison between the NL 10x32 and the Leica NV 10x42 at sundown one night and astonished how bright the NL 10x32 can tad to tad catching up to the Noctivid 10x42 considered one of the brightest 10x

 

[wdc]

I was able to briefly try both the 8x32 and 8x42 NL's today. I wear eyeglasses, and could see the crisp field stop in its entirety with both bins, which is something I can't do with the SF 8x32 (or the Nikon HG 8x42), both otherwise excellent binoculars in their own right. The squished tube shape grip is a more natural shape than the EL bottom thumb indents. Its an expensive nit to pick, but I'm sold on the 8x32, and will probably pick one up next week. Then maybe I am done for a good while. (Leica, please don't make an 8x32 Noctivid...)

-Bill

 

[Robert Moore]

I was able to briefly try both the 8x32 and 8x42 NL's today. I wear eyeglasses, and could see the crisp field stop in its entirety with both bins, which is something I can't do with the SF 8x32 (or the Nikon HG 8x42), both otherwise excellent binoculars in their own right. The squished tube shape grip is a more natural shape than the EL bottom thumb indents. Its an expensive nit to pick, but I'm sold on the 8x32, and will probably pick one up next week. Then maybe I am done for a good while. (Leica, please don't make an 8x32 Noctivid...)

-Bill

Hi Bill,
Did you like the image better in the 8x32 vs the 8x42 or were you just looking for an 8x32 for the small size?

 

[wdc]

Hi Bill,
Did you like the image better in the 8x32 vs the 8x42 or were you just looking for an 8x32 for the small size?

Image quality in the short period I viewed them was no different. But I wasn't trying to tweeze out a difference. It was really about whether I could see the entire field of view (which I could in both). For daylight viewing, the goal was the smaller, lighter bin, not hairsplitting issues between 32 and 42.

I'm good with the 8x42 I've got. Also with a 10x42, so was primarily focussed on 8x32. I did bring an SF 8x32 into the shop to compare, and the NL 32 was a better fit for me. End of story. It is purely subjective, and more about the physical differences in people than in the engineering excellence of these products.

-Bill

 

[rpg51]

Six weeks now since my last posts regarding my "optics for retirement" journey. I ended up with a scope. So I have my old Nikon 8x32s, Swaro 8x42 NL, and now a Kowa 883 scope. Plus a good tripod and a iPhone adapter for the binos and the scope. I would like one or two more items, but I have to pause. The bank account is looking a bit thin. Thanks for that long post re exit pupil. This is a great forum. I am new here but already you all have been a huge help to me and lots of good humor which can be lacking at some of the other forums.

 

[pm42]

Did you like the image better in the 8x32 vs the 8x42 or were you just looking for an 8x32 for the small size?

I have both. I like the image better in the 8x42 and find them more comfortable because of the bigger exit pupil I guess.
But the difference is not that big. So I'll keep the 8x32 because I will take them with me more often, the size & weight being important for my usage.

 

[ticl2184]

Just ordered a pair of 10x32 NL's Orange.

I sincerely hope they don't have dust inside or another problem with housing not being stuck down..
I've asked Swarovski to thoroughly check them before sending them out but they've refused..

I've tested several pairs of 10x32 NL's and the quality varies significantly...
Some have dust inside, others are clean.. Some have a image softening and others are sharp from edge to edge. Some have silky smooth focus and others vary.

I actually tested a pair of 8x32 NL's in Winchester at the weekend and the image softeness was just bloody horrible, might as well have binned them..The centre 40% part of the image was clear but the rest had random patches of softness and blurring.. I've never seen anything like it.
What a disaster. I actually told the manager to send them back...
WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING WITH QUALITY CONTROL AT SWAROVSKI......!

How unfortunate that it has come to this.. I used to be able to buy a pair of Swarovski binoculars and be confident that would be of the highest standard. But now I have to laboriously test several pairs before I find something suitable..


Cheers
Tim

 

[Parker]

Just ordered a pair of 10x32 NL's Orange.

I sincerely hope they don't have dust inside or another problem with housing not being stuck down..
I've asked Swarovski to thoroughly check them before sending them out but they've refused..

I've tested several pairs of 10x32 NL's and the quality varies significantly...
Some have dust inside, others are clean.. Some have a image softening and others are sharp from edge to edge. Some have silky smooth focus and others vary.

I actually tested a pair of 8x32 NL's in Winchester at the weekend and the image softeness was just bloody horrible, might as well have binned them..The centre 40% part of the image was clear but the rest had random patches of softness and blurring.. I've never seen anything like it.
What a disaster. I actually told the manager to send them back...
WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING WITH QUALITY CONTROL AT SWAROVSKI......!

How unfortunate that it has come to this.. I used to be able to buy a pair of Swarovski binoculars and be confident that would be of the highest standard. But now I have to laboriously test several pairs before I find something suitable..


Cheers
Tim

With the variety in quality you mention I’d be inclined to refuse to buy them if the didn’t check them for you.
Not very good advertisement for Swarovski, it’s like them denying there’s quite a broad range in quality between individual pairs of bins
I know they have a brilliant record with after sales service but surely it would make much more sense to make sure every pair that leaves the factory should be of the very highest standard. This would save them money from dealing with returns & give them an even better reputation, surely a win win for them & their customers.
These bins cost £2000+ so should be perfect.

 

[Maljunulo]

Perfection, state of the art, and production costs are all forces at work in different directions.

 

[GrampaTom]

Perfection, state of the art, and production costs are all forces at work in different directions.

Ahh, no, not really. Perfection may be unattainable. But no reason all 3 of these are not in fact in line as converging goals.

 

[Maljunulo]

Ahh, no, not really. Perfection may be unattainable. But no reason all 3 of these are not in fact in line as converging goals.

They are if you want to produce a $6,000 binocular.