SF 10x32 vs NL 10x32 Blackouts (1 Viewer)

[Trinovid]

The botch is also in the lowest position.
For long-sighted people with convex glasses, you inevitably end up with the metal frames of the eyepieces, which for me is a flawed design.
There should be a "click" between position "0" and "1".

Maybe the '0' position should have started just high enough to prevent contact?

 

[kimmik]

Maybe the '0' position should have started just high enough to prevent contact?

EL cup - 3mm from glass
EL eye relief - 20mm from glass
Usable for glasses wearer - 17mm
NL eye relief - 18mm from glass
NL cup - 2mm from glass
Usable for glasses wearer - 16mm

These were my measurements, which leads me to think the flatter cups on NL are to recover some eye relief, at the expense of worse lens protection.

 

[ReinierB]

Darker conditions - thats why you don’t get blackout. Wider eye pupil compensates.

Bright daylight and small exit pupil is where blackouts occur.

No blackouts at daylight as well. My only issue is glare.

 

[Paultricounty]

In turn I find it odd that you think that if 7 steps are sufficient for you then they're enough for everyone else. Swarovski realized that the NL binos needed eyecups with more steps than for any other binos (which I am aware of) but for some/many people the optimal adjustment falls between the click stops: you're too close to the eye lenses and you get blackouts, and if you twist the eyecups just one step up then you notice glare.

I’m a little confused here as well, are you saying the 7 stops of NL’s are not enough or not accurate enough to adjust to a proper fit , but binoculars with 3 stops are? 🤔

 

[Paultricounty]

So while the exit pupil size is conserved across all 10x32s, some do seem to have better control of kidney beaning as reported in this review and comparison of the 10x32 Conquest HD to the 10x32 SF. I read this was mostly due to spherical aberrations at the eyepiece that are harder to correct with a very wide apparent FOV (which the SF and NL both have), and given that there's a 10x32 NL listed on classifieds right now I was just curious if it was worth the switch. I have read some anecdotal reviews here that it improves on the kidney beaning a bit but it is going for a third more than what I paid for with my used SF. I can also generally avoid the beaning if I pan with the binoculars instead of my eyes and not look near the field stop. It would just be great to be able to actually use the whole FOV. As for 8x32, I actually own a Vortex Diamondback HD and while it is a budget pair I would rather not have two binoculars of the same power. The 10x32 SF and NL both also have more aFOV on paper than their 8x32 counterparts, and while the whole FOV is not comfortably usable in the SF I would think a wider apparent view does make looking straight on more immersive.

Amy of the top premium 10x32 binoculars are going to give the best possible accommodation for a position. I don’t think the NL will be much different from the SF. Some here say the EL10x32 is better.
Paul

 

[ReinierB]

One advantage of the NL Pure is that you can buy the headrest. That will help avoiding blackouts as well as the 7 stops of the eyecups.

 

[Paultricounty]

One advantage of the NL Pure is that you can buy the headrest. That will help avoiding blackouts as well as the 7 stops of the eyecups.

The headrest on the NL’s don’t really help with eye position. If someone is having problems with the NL’s getting good eye position the headrest won’t make it for them.

Paul

 

[pm42]

A very weird post…

I think so too.

The headrest on the NL’s don’t really help with eye position.

It does for me.

 

[Paultricounty]

I think so too.

It does for me.

For blackouts?

 

[lilcrazy2]

In turn I find it odd that you think that if 7 steps are sufficient for you then they're enough for everyone else. Swarovski realized that the NL binos needed eyecups with more steps than for any other binos (which I am aware of) but for some/many people the optimal adjustment falls between the click stops: you're too close to the eye lenses and you get blackouts, and if you twist the eyecups just one step up then you notice glare.

Buy some o-rings and solve the problem if you are between stops.

 

[kimmik]

So while the exit pupil size is conserved across all 10x32s, some do seem to have better control of kidney beaning as reported in this review and comparison of the 10x32 Conquest HD to the 10x32 SF. I read this was mostly due to spherical aberrations at the eyepiece that are harder to correct with a very wide apparent FOV (which the SF and NL both have), and given that there's a 10x32 NL listed on classifieds right now I was just curious if it was worth the switch. I have read some anecdotal reviews here that it improves on the kidney beaning a bit but it is going for a third more than what I paid for with my used SF. I can also generally avoid the beaning if I pan with the binoculars instead of my eyes and not look near the field stop. It would just be great to be able to actually use the whole FOV. As for 8x32, I actually own a Vortex Diamondback HD and while it is a budget pair I would rather not have two binoculars of the same power. The 10x32 SF and NL both also have more aFOV on paper than their 8x32 counterparts, and while the whole FOV is not comfortably usable in the SF I would think a wider apparent view does make looking straight on more immersive.

A suggestion is to try the NL 8x42, if you want to look around more in the bino. If you can find something better for your criteria of wide-AFOV and eye-panning, I am genuinely interested to try it too.

If you drop one of your criteria, then the search and price becomes much more manageable.

 

[Conndomat]

Maybe the '0' position should have started just high enough to prevent contact?

Yes, it would have had to be just a little bit higher!

I have no idea what Swarovski was thinking of making the borders almost flush with the metal frames at the lowest level, for me that's bungling!
In the case of long-sighted spectacle wearers, the lenses convex forward and thus inevitably come into contact with the metal frames, which is bad for the frames and the lenses.
Not really well thought out by Swarovski, no problem for short-sighted (concave) people, far-sighted people have to tinker, a reason for me not to buy another NL.

Andreas

 

[Conndomat]

I’m a little confused here as well, are you saying the 7 stops of NL’s are not enough or not accurate enough to adjust to a proper fit , but binoculars with 3 stops are? 🤔

I find the comment of @PeterPS quite justified, the eyepiece of the NL is a very complex construction, several people have already reported that an intermediate position fits best, including not entirely inexperienced binocular users, maybe the price of the huge fields of view.

Andreas

 

[William Lewis]

It's a strange modern problem getting the eye cups set just so. Most binoculars from the last century only ever had 2 positions, up and folded.

I do tend to find more kidney beans with the older bins in general though, so maybe it's just something we used to live with, you do get the odd peach though where blackouts are never a problem. I used the same old opticron porro's from the age of 7 till my mid 20's and still do from time to time, there not great but they do fit.

 

[Paultricounty]

I find the comment of @PeterPS quite justified, the eyepiece of the NL is a very complex construction, several people have already reported that an intermediate position fits best, including not entirely inexperienced binocular users, maybe the price of the huge fields of view.

Andreas

What am I missing here Andreas , if there are more intermediate steps in adjustability , then those steps are closer together to dial in ,if you will, the precise setting for each individual. If I have a NL with 7 setting and an EL with 3 settings (both 10x42 for this example ) and let’s say they both have 18mm of eye releif , wouldn’t I be able to find a more accurate eye setting position with the one with more settings?

Or are we saying , because of the complexity of the oculars brought on by the huge FOV design that we need more setting? But the setting positions are already very narrow. Are we saying some people need 10 or 12 setting to find comfort without blackouts?

Paul

 

[PeterPS]

I’m a little confused here as well, are you saying the 7 stops of NL’s are not enough or not accurate enough to adjust to a proper fit , but binoculars with 3 stops are? 🤔

Hi Paul,
In a recent poll 47% of the respondents said they are bothered by glare in the NL:

Poll: does NL glare depend on eyeglasses?

Let's find out...

www.birdforum.net

Personally I am bothered by glare in the NL (8x42 and 10x42, haven't tried the 32mm models) more than in the SV (and the FP models seem to control glare even better than the SV, so it appears that Swaro has tweaked the design of the FP a bit, hopefully they'll do the same with the NLs). With the eyecups of the NL fully twisted out I don't have any blackout problems, but the view is significantly affected by glare. To mitigate the glare I must get closer to the eye lenses but I reach a point where I still notice glare and if I turned the eyecups down just one more step I get blackouts, therefore an intermediate step would help---several people have made comments to the effect that the optimal adjustment for them falls in between the existing steps of the eyecups. Thus, the problem is not only extending the eyecups to fit the ER, but also adjusting them to avoid glare, an operation that indeed requires fine adjustment----have you wondered why Swaro has made eyecups for the NL with more steps than for any of their other binos?

As you can see from the above poll 53% of users are not bothered by glare in the NL. Indeed the NL eyecups fit their eye sockets much better than for the other 47%. Just as an example of the fact that facial features matter a lot: while many people have complained about the blackout issues of the SE binos, I have never had any such issues with either the SE
8x32 or 10x42.
Peter

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi Paul,
In a recent poll 47% of the respondents said they are bothered by glare in the NL:

Poll: does NL glare depend on eyeglasses?

Let's find out...

www.birdforum.net

Personally I am bothered by glare in the NL (8x42 and 10x42, haven't tried the 32mm models) more than in the SV (and the FP models seem to control glare even better than the SV, so it appears that Swaro has tweaked the design of the FP a bit, hopefully they'll do the same with the NLs). With the eyecups of the NL fully twisted out I don't have any blackout problems, but the view is significantly affected by glare. To mitigate the glare I must get closer to the eye lenses but I reach a point where I still notice glare and if I turned the eyecups down just one more step I get blackouts, therefore an intermediate step would help---several people have made comments to the effect that the optimal adjustment for them falls in between the existing steps of the eyecups. Thus, the problem is not only extending the eyecups to fit the ER, but also adjusting them to avoid glare, an operation that indeed requires fine adjustment----have you wondered why Swaro has made eyecups for the NL with more steps than for any of their other binos?

As you can see from the above poll 53% of users are not bothered by glare in the NL. Indeed the NL eyecups fit their eye sockets much better than for the other 47%. Just as an example of the fact that facial features matter a lot: while many people have complained about the blackout issues of the SE binos, I have never had any such issues with either the SE
8x32 or 10x42.
Peter

I was responding more to the black out and/ or kidney beaning issues, but I understand adjustments for glarebalso come into play. It’s just such a small incremen now with the 7 steps that throws me. How minute a step do some need? And if it’s that small of an increment that allows someone to use these NL’s then the slightest movement of your eye position would nock it off again. That sounds very uncomfortable for extended periods of observing, I’d pick another binoculars at that point, but that me.

Of course we agree each person is individually different. I have absolutely no problem with glare with the 42mm NL’s than some other bins. And I’m one of those people who do get some blackout with the SE’s.

Paul

 

[pm42]

People who answer a poll on BirdForum are not exactly the best population to get a statistically significant result.

 

[Viraj]

People who answer a poll on BirdForum are not exactly the best population to get a statistically significant result.

Because of what reason do you say the people who answer a poll on BirdForum are not exactly the best population to get a statistically significant result? What is the bias? Age, gender, the purpose of use, or the number of individuals? I don't think any of this matters for a statistically significant result. We do statistical tests even on populations bellow 30.

 

[henry link]

Here's a discussion of the 8x42 NL's eyecup adjustment from two years ago.

Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions

Dennis, post 796, I measured a close focus of 1,86 m for the 8x42 NL pure and 1,84 m for the Zeiss Victory SF. The FOV is 159m/1000m for the NL pure 8x42 and 155m/1000m for the SF 8x32. The blue ring around the field edge of the SF 8x32 is very thin, but it is there and I also saw it in the...

www.birdforum.net

There is plenty of space between the point of kidney beaning from the eye being too close to the eyepiece and the point of FOV loss from the eye being too far away from the eyepiece. Unfortunately only a little of that space allows a view with both no kidney beaning and almost no glare. After finding my personal sweet spot I have had no kidney beaning and very little glare during the past two years of use.