Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (1 Viewer)

elkcub · Jul 12, 2020

[email protected] said:
Interesting! Even 6x is more efficient supported than handheld. The difference in efficiency between 8x supported and handheld is quite a bit.

Yup, and that's based on experimental/laboratory data. Furthermore, with regard to wide field binoculars, the attached material comes from Swift Instruments' 1969 Catalog. The 7x35 Holiday Mk2 had a real field of 11º, and an AFOV of 77º, which they say: "delivers an incredibly wide field, equal to that of the human eye, without distortion (578ft.)"*

That's just about the same apparent field as the new Swaros. And as can be seen on the right, the 8.5x44 Audubon had a 72º AFOV, which is the same as the 8x model.

So it's been done before. The big news in my opinion is that Swaro does this while providing 18mm eye relief! Now that is fantastic!

* Clearly an exaggeration. The maximum angle a human eye can see is 150-180º (depending on the source).

Ed

Patudo · Jul 12, 2020

elkcub said:
The 7x35 Holiday Mk2 had a real field of 11º, and an AFOV of 77º, which they say: "delivers an incredibly wide field, equal to that of the human eye, without distortion (578ft.)"*

That's just about the same apparent field as the new Swaros. And as can be seen on the right, the 8.5x44 Audubon had a 72º AFOV, which is the same as the 8x model.

So it's been done before. The big news in my opinion is that Swaro does this while providing 18mm eye relief! Now that is fantastic!

Ed

Not just that - the NL delivers a field of view that was once predominantly only found in extra-wide 7x35s (your 8x40 Linet is extremely interesting and I would love to look through one, but unfortunately also exceedingly rare) not only while offering long eye relief, but in a more practical magnification than 7x, and also (per the impressions noted above) with the edge sharpness Swarovski are famed for. Those are pretty remarkable achievements (as indeed Zeiss's 8x32 SF is).

I have this Swift model, and enjoy it very much. Even though I need to remove my glasses to use them, the birds appear further away in 7x than I would like, and I would guess the sweet spot is maybe only two thirds of the way out to the field stop (edge performance does seems better when focused on closer targets - say 60 yards), still, the sheer pleasure of experiencing such a wide field of view always makes me smile. But I'm certainly not going to kid myself that this binocular is even remotely comparable to something like the 8x32 SF or the 8x42 NL.

henry link · Jul 12, 2020

Swarovski's AFOV specs for the NLs appear to be actually measured rather than mathematically approximated, so they are not quite as impressive as they would be if there were more pincushion distortion. The measured AFOV of the 8x42 is 69º (not 73º), the 10x42 is 70º (not 76º) and the 12x42 is 71º (not 78º).

The old wide field Porros probably had more pincushion and consequently probably would measure somewhat closer to the simple mathematical calculation.

elkcub · Jul 12, 2020

henry link said:
Swarovski's AFOV specs for the NLs appear to be actually measured rather than mathematically approximated, so they are not quite as impressive as they would be if there were more pincushion distortion. The measured AFOV of the 8x42 is 69º (not 73º), the 10x42 is 70º (not 76º) and the 12x42 is 71º (not 78º).

The old wide field Porros probably had more pincushion and consequently probably would measure somewhat closer to the simple mathematical calculation.

Hi Henry,

I'm confused by what you mean by "actually measured," and regarding Porros "simple mathematical calculation."

Ed

henry link · Jul 12, 2020

Hi Ed,

By simple calculation I mean the old familiar Real FOV in degrees X magnification. It tends to overestimate the AFOV. The more recent ISO method tends to underestimate it. For the last few years Swarovski, Zeiss and possibly some others have given AFOV specs that fall somewhere between the two methods, so I assume they are either measured or calculated accurately to include the effects of distortion.

Henry

elkcub · Jul 13, 2020

henry link said:
Hi Ed,

By simple calculation I mean the old familiar Real FOV in degrees X magnification. It tends to overestimate the AFOV. The more recent ISO method tends to underestimate it. For the last few years Swarovski, Zeiss and possibly some others have given AFOV specs that fall somewhere between the two methods, so I assume they are either measured or calculated accurately to include the effects of distortion.

Henry

Henry,

This is very confusing. Here are the specs for the 8x42 NL listed under Technical Data.

The linear FOV is listed as 477 ft. If one divides by 52.4 the result is 9.1º, which is exactly the angular FOV listed.

But, instead of calculating 9.1 x 8 = 72.8º, they list the apparent field as 69º. How do they do that?

If I go through the ISO calculation using the real field as 9.1º, I get 64.9º.

When I average the two (72.8+64.9)/2 = 68.85 = ~69º. Smack in the center between the two methods as you said.
Q.E.D.!

Thanks,
Ed

NDhunter · Jul 13, 2020

Ed:

I think what Henry means is that there is probably nothing really new here. There seems to be some large
marketing largess, about this special view from the new Swarovski NL.

So, I suppose we should all just take a breath and relax. The initial reviews have been positive but all very
short term, and with no real comparisons.

Do you know about the term, "Rose colored glasses".

Jerry

elkcub · Jul 13, 2020

Yup, I actually have some:

These rose colored glasses
That I'm looking through
Show only the beauty
'Cause they hide all the truth.

Ed

* PS. They're commonly called Advertisements.

Steve C · Jul 13, 2020

I think the simple thing to do is to relax a bit. I realize that the spec sheets are often viewed viewed with reverence. Sadly that reverence is often misplaced. Spec sheets and web sites are often shot full of errors. It should not be that way, but it is. Swarovski is guilty as anyone. For instance in 2010 when the SV EL came out the Swarovski site claimed an astounding resolution of 2.2 arc seconds. The Dawes limit places the resolution much closer to 3.0 arc seconds. I don't remember the exact number, but 2.2 was impossible. I'd suggest just deal with the angular fov number and go from there. Things will wring out over a bit of time.

Hermann · Jul 13, 2020

NDhunter said:
So, I suppose we should all just take a breath and relax. The initial reviews have been positive but all very
short term, and with no real comparisons.

Amen to that. I personally feel I need a minimum of two weeks in the field to get a feeling of how a binocular performs in the field, and a minimum of three months before I am reasonably certain I really "know" it.

Hermann

Chosun Juan · Jul 13, 2020

elkcub said:
Henry,

This is very confusing. Here are the specs for the 8x42 NL listed under Technical Data.

The linear FOV is listed as 477 ft. If one divides by 52.4 the result is 9.1º, which is exactly the angular FOV listed.

But, instead of calculating 9.1 x 8 = 72.8º, they list the apparent field as 69º. How do they do that?

If I go through the ISO calculation using the real field as 9.1º, I get 64.9º.

When I average the two (72.8+64.9)/2 = 68.85 = ~69º. Smack in the center between the two methods as you said.
Q.E.D.!

Thanks,
Ed

Ed, that would be rather remarkable if in fact that is what Swarovski have been/are doing !! :eek!: :eek!:

Chosun :gh:

henry link · Jul 13, 2020

I thought the issues surrounding AFOV specs and how to accurately measure AFOV had been settled long ago. Here's a Cloudy Nights thread from 2010 in which Glenn LeDrew describes a method for measuring the true AFOV.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/294115-apparent-fov-a-quick-way-to-measure/#entry3745655

And here's a Birforum thread from 2009 in which two methods are described, one from Walter E Schon as described by John Russell and one from Ron (Surveyor) that uses a panoramic tripod head to accomplish the same thing.

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=146768&highlight=apparent+field

I've used both Glenn's and Ron's methods, but I usually use Ron's because it's easier.

Henry

SUPPRESSOR · Jul 13, 2020

henry link said:
I thought the issues surrounding AFOV specs and how to accurately measure AFOV had been settled long ago. Here's a Cloudy Nights thread from 2010 in which Glenn LeDrew describes a method for measuring the true AFOV.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/294115-apparent-fov-a-quick-way-to-measure/#entry3745655

And here's a Birforum thread from 2009 in which two methods are described, one from Walter E Schon as described by John Russell and one from Ron (Surveyor) that uses a panoramic tripod head to accomplish the same thing.

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=146768&highlight=apparent+field

I've used both Glenn's and Ron's methods, but I usually use Ron's because it's easier.

Henry

Henry,
you are a human computer!!
pete.

Binastro · Jul 13, 2020

My low price Minolta Standard MK 8x40 has a measured field of 9.4 degrees if I get very close to the eyepieces without glasses.
The magnification is about 8.1x.

The edge is soft.
The easily seen field without glasses is 9.3 degrees for me.

I have not measured the AFOV.

The view is good.

The 7x35 has a measured field of 11.05 degrees and gives a nice view. Again no glasses.

The 10x50 7.65 degrees easily seen. My main binocular for ten years. No glasses.

I just refound the Bresser Superwide 8.5x42. Field about 11 degrees. View awful distortions. It gives me a headache. Uses mirror prisms. Cost £50 new. Probably o.k. for children's eyes.

B.

denco@comcast.n · Jul 13, 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vy6CDFaVjM

dries1 · Jul 13, 2020

Dennis, what I got out of that was a better view/scale visually of the NL, but he spent 2:39 saying absolutely nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g!. There is some time one will never get back. Complete and utter gibberish.

jgraider · Jul 13, 2020

dries1 said:
Dennis, what I got out of that was a better view/scale visually of the NL, but he spent 2:39 saying absolutely nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g!. There is some time one will never get back. Complete and utter gibberish.

Yet he "agreed" with Dennis, and that's why Dennis posted it in the first place.

eronald · Jul 13, 2020

Is there some place here where people talk about actually using an existing device?
This thread has been so badly hijacked it’s got Stockholm syndrome.
Edmund

dries1 · Jul 13, 2020

Edmund,

The glass in this thread is the NL 8X42. To my knowledge only Jan, Gijs, and Canip are the only ones here on the forum that have handled the three models (pardon me if I forgot others) so be prepared for more videos.

GLOBETROTTER · Jul 13, 2020

Today I went to the largest sports optics store in Madrid, I have known them for years and some of the employees have been in the business for more than 20 years.
Last week they had the visit of the representatives of Swarovski and they could use for a short time the new NL.
More than the wider field of vision what surprised them most was the cleanliness and transparency of these new binoculars, it was very noticeable with respect to an EL FP who was used as reference, in addition they notice a greatest easy view with them.
No more details about Glare or CA as they dint have time to check it.

Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (1 Viewer)

Silicon Valley, California

Attachments

sub-200 birding aspirant

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Experienced observer

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread