• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

SF 8x32 v NL Pure 8x42 (1 Viewer)

PYRTLE said:
Along with finding a good match, also comes adaptation and familiarisation. We do this with every tool, instrument or procedure we happen to come across. To some it is second nature, whilst others struggle with this. Designers attempt to overcome most of these hence "new" styles and features. This is what we are seeing and hearing with the NL, along with the science.
Click to expand...

Very much so! This is one reason why I think the quick "side by side" test is a poor way to evaluate binoculars, especially if one of them is familiar to you.

Swapping to a binocular with totally different ergonomics can feel jarring, and it takes time to get used to a different grip, different eyecups, different focus knob, etc.

Just as a recent example, I've been mostly using Trinovid (pre HD) 10x42 lately, and I just picked up a Kowa Genesis 10x33 to test as a lighter weight option for walks where I still want long-distance resolution. At first, I really struggled to get a "clean" view with the Kowas, not just the smaller exit pupil but they are strikingly different in terms of the eyecup shape and focus knob feel. However, after spending a couple of days using them in the field, I've found the sweet spot where I can consistently get good views without effort, and now I really enjoy using them.
 
pbjosh said:
Henry, Ed, and others - I really appreciate these discussions, thank you for your contributions. They arguably have more value than most of this thread :)

I have a question / part of this I do not understand, if you'll suffer through my lack of ability with the proper terminology.

When we look out of our eyes and see the whole view in front of us, we perceive depth and perceive a curved focal plane - this makes sense. But when we use a binocular, we're not really just moving everything closer, because our perspective isn't from a point 8 or 10 or however many times closer. The image is compressed (the term I know from photography), and due to depth of field (and I don't remember what the natural "F stop" of the eye is), a distant scene tends to all be in focus at once. If we were 8-10x closer, we might see that scene more curved, more 3D, and better perceive differences in distance/focus between the objects. But from the distance we are, a small 6-10 degree angular slice of our vision applied to a distant bit of our FOV is going to cut out a pretty flat scene that, it seems to me, the mind wants to perceive as flat and not curved. If the above poorly-worded logic holds any water, doesn't it make sense that the brain wants to see the enlarged scene through a binocular/telescope entirely in focus? At times, using bins with smallish sweet spots, I have the sensation that objects at the edge of the field of view "should be in focus, because they're at the same distance / part of the same distant object." When they're not in focus, it then seems unnatural. Of course pincushion, AMD, and many other artifacts of the view through a telescope or lens can seem unnatural as well, but I'm curious as to whether this idea that the mind naturally "wants" to see the entire distant scene in focus is correct.
Click to expand...

Hello pbjosh,

Right now I'm as busy as a one-armed paper hanger, so I'll try to answer briefly.

Your comments/questions are well considered, and I'm not spouting gospel since I know of no visual or psychophysical research into this particular perceptual topic.

We tend to draw analogies from cameras, which project images onto flat focal planes, and later produce flat pictures that are optically uncoupled to our eyes. Binoculars, however, are optically coupled with our eyes and project modified images onto large, curved areas of the retinas, which correspond with the binoculars' angular "apparent" field. That is typically 60-70º, roughly all of the natural visual overlap area between the two eyes.

So, the question becomes: What does the brain want when its retina's are stimulated in this way? Does it want to retain a 3D spatial perception, or does it want to experience a 2D surface? The answer, of course, could be both — some brains preferring one and some the other. I just prefer the former. There's no right or wrong here.

Ed
 
chill6x6 said:
Though an endorsement....he never said that was the best binocular he had ever tested....he said he had never seen a better optical instrument. So there may be some it's equal...,.but none better.
Click to expand...
I think he just messed his wording up. I will bet the NL will be ranked 1st in the 8x and 10x category when fully tested.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[email protected] said:
I think he just messed his wording up. I will bet the NL will be ranked 1st in the 8x and 10x category when fully tested.
Click to expand...

Glare handling is still an open question in the NL it seems. Just wonder why Swaro didn't do more on blackening the inner tubes.

"The imperfections concerning blackening, described above, inflence the appearance of exit pupils. In a perfect case you should see a round pupil against an ink-black background. In this case you can notice some lighter areas and arcs so the result is not as perfect as it should be."

I also wonder how much of the FOV that actually will be visible with glasses.

SF 8x32 look very tempting as well considering the smaller size and weight.
 
starforgedape said:
........... I have a 10x42 IS, but I've decided that I will only use it for astronomy.

I know they're different binos completely, thus it will probably be all down to 32 vs 42... But if you were just say shopping for a new bino, which would you go for first?
Click to expand...


NL vs SF -- I have no personal experience but my guess is both are outstanding binoculars and most would be very happy with either.

42 vs 32 -- The larger 42mm gives more light collection and better low light performance,
the 32s are smaller, easier to carry and perform just as good/almost as good in most conditions,
but it all comes down to your personal preference

My choice, not seeing or holding either, would be the 32s as more complementary to the Canons

edj
 
Last edited:
For me the big deciding factor between the two will be which one controls glare better. I lean towards the Zeiss SF 8x32 for it's smaller size and weight but I like the Swarovski NL for it's bigger FOV. But a big FOV does you no good if it is washed out with veiling glare. I think I am waiting till we have had a few reviews on both of them.
 
I've said this before. I just hope Dennis isn't in charge of much of anything, because his ideas/opinions are like a tennis match. Heads turn left, heads turn right, ad nauseum.

PS: Dennis, you've always been entertaining, and I guess that's something, or something else.
 
Last edited:
I don't like glare because it ruins contrast and I have seen it in the SV 8x32. I dumped my SV 8x32 and SV 10x32 because of glare. After 3 comments on glare in the NL I have decided to wait and see if the NL 8x42 or the SF 8x32 handles it better. I really thought Swarovski would get the glare under control better in a $3K binocular. Maybe not.
 
Last edited:
Cancelled it?

[email protected] said:
No, I just pre-ordered the 8x42. I like 8x42 the best. Best DOF, biggest FOV, most stable, bright in low light and enough magnification for just about everything. I did order the head rest also. I think it will help even with 8x.
Click to expand...

Not afraid you'll have to wait a year for new stock of new production?
 
Ries said:
Cancelled it?



Not afraid you'll have to wait a year for new stock of new production?
Click to expand...
Cancelled it, yes. Worried about stock, nope. I find it hard to believe they are going to sell that many $3K binoculars. Even though I can afford the NL I am not sure I like the idea of carrying around a $3K binocular in the field either. $2K to me is not as bad. I worry about theft or dropping it. It is almost like wearing a gold Rolex in Harlem. Maybe I am OCD. $3K is really getting expensive for a binocular IMO. I think Swarovski is pushing the envelope of price. I will wait and see which one I like better. The lighter weight of the SF is really appealing and the lower price. Maybe it might not have quite the optics of the NL but the weight, cost and possibly better glare handling would make up for it.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Cancelled it, yes. Worried about stock, nope. I find it hard to believe they are going to sell that many $3K binoculars. Even though I can afford the NL I am not sure I like the idea of carrying around a $3K binocular in the field either. $2K to me is not as bad. I worry about theft or dropping it. It is almost like wearing a gold Rolex in Harlem. Maybe I am OCD. $3K is really getting expensive for a binocular IMO. I think Swarovski is pushing the envelope of price. I will wait and see which one I like better. The lighter weight of the SF is really appealing and the lower price. Maybe it might not have quite the optics of the NL but the weight, cost and possibly better glare handling would make up for it.
Click to expand...

Honestly if you walked around with an NL around your neck 99% of people would`nt have a clue what it was, let alone how much it cost, everybody, even from the farthest corners of the Earth know the Rolex brand.

Is it a matter of validation ?, If you need a binocular that 100% of people say is the best and without flaws you`ll be a long time without one.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

MaunaKea
Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 vs CL Companion 8x30
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Dr. K
D
H
8x32 NL Pures vs SF 8x32
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
Will K
Will K
J
Hello from South Korea!
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
jackjack
J
M
No black ring please
Replies
10
Views
860
BOKEH
B
T
Zeiss SF 8x30 vs SFL 8x40
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
tian1227
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top