• 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.

Swarovski nl 8x32 (1 Viewer)

matt green

matt green

Norfolkman gone walkabout
Jumping the gun somewhat here but just thought to start a wish list/speculative thoughts type thread!

The nl 8x42 sure looks very impressive, especialy regarding that huge field of view..but many folks like 8x32. I don't possess the indepth knowledge of optical mechanics of some on here but I have a simple question...

Is it physically possible/likely that swarovski could scale down that nl42 into a 32mm body with an even greater field of view (considering most 32mm binos have a greater field of view than their 42mm counterparts) and even closer short range focusing?

Though seeing as possible 32nl would be significantly smaller than the 42mm I think swarovski could be forgiven to not incorporate the wasted barrel design..might make for a less ugly bino..something more like a supercharged cl 8x30?

Matt
 
How much field of view is needed? I mean.....if you are trying to look at the bird in the middle, how much is just 'too much"...on either side? While I haven't looked at the NL and can't even comment on, I do know that if I look at a 420-430 FOV I am satisfied. Is Swaro trying to convince people that FOV is the way to go?
 
matt green said:
Jumping the gun somewhat here but just thought to start a wish list/speculative thoughts type thread!

The nl 8x42 sure looks very impressive, especialy regarding that huge field of view..but many folks like 8x32. I don't possess the indepth knowledge of optical mechanics of some on here but I have a simple question...

Is it physically possible/likely that swarovski could scale down that nl42 into a 32mm body with an even greater field of view (considering most 32mm binos have a greater field of view than their 42mm counterparts) and even closer short range focusing?

Though seeing as possible 32nl would be significantly smaller than the 42mm I think swarovski could be forgiven to not incorporate the wasted barrel design..might make for a less ugly bino..something more like a supercharged cl 8x30?

Matt
Click to expand...
The majority of the positive comments on the new NL have been on the improved ergonomics with the slimmed down barrels. I wouldn't knock them based on looks until you have tried them. I am pretty sure Swarovski will bring out an NL 8x32 within a year and it will look like a scaled down NL 8x42 with probably about a 520 foot FOV, similar close focus and will sell for about $2.5K. Probably be available in 8x32 and 10x32 and will incorporate the head rest also because even on a 32 mm it helps to be steady.
 
Last edited:
lmans66 said:
How much field of view is needed? I mean.....if you are trying to look at the bird in the middle, how much is just 'too much"...on either side? While I haven't looked at the NL and can't even comment on, I do know that if I look at a 420-430 FOV I am satisfied. Is Swaro trying to convince people that FOV is the way to go?
Click to expand...
Let's face it a bigger FOV is what sells binoculars. It is not that it needed but it is helpful and most buyers desire a bigger FOV. It helps you scan bigger areas at one time so you find more birds and hunters can find more game easier and faster and for most people it is more aesthetically pleasing to have a wider FOV. A big FOV is more immersive and less tunnel like than a smaller FOV. FOV for most is where it's at jack! I think once you try an NL you will never go back. Have you ever looked through the Nikon WX 7x50 or 10x50? That kind of huge FOV with sharp edges is a game changer.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Let's face it a bigger FOV is what sells binoculars. It helps you scan bigger areas at one time so you find more birds and hunters can find more game easier and faster and for most people it is more aesthetically pleasing to have a wider FOV. It is more immersive and less tunnel like than a smaller FOV. FOV for most is where it's at jack! I think once you try an NL you will never go back. Have you ever looked through the Nikon WX 7x50 or 10x50? That kind of huge FOV with sharp edges is a game changer.
Click to expand...

Not sure when I will be able to even look at a NL nor purchase:)... But I tend to disagree here just a bit for I feel the NL's 'FOV" is over and above what is realistically needed.

All products (cars, washing machines, optics etc), evolve as technology pushes forward. Now, how much of a need there is within this product evolution is up to the consumer, but no doubt the manufacturer will pull out the stops to convince you of a 'need'...Swaro is convincing you of that need.
 
[email protected] said:
The majority of the positive comments on the new NL have been on the improved ergonomics with the slimmed down barrels. I wouldn't knock them based on looks until you have tried them. I am pretty sure Swarovski will bring out an NL 8x32 within a year and it will look like a scaled down NL 8x42 with probably about a 520 foot FOV, similar close focus and will sell for about $2.5K. Probably be available in 8x32 and 10x32 and will incorporate the head rest also because even on a 32 mm it helps to be steady.
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to what is already in the works in other companies and if they might forestall changes just to compete ...IE Meopta, .... perhaps Leica, ...
 
lmans66 said:
Not sure when I will be able to even look at a NL nor purchase:)... But I tend to disagree here just a bit for I feel the NL's 'FOV" is over and above what is realistically needed.

All products (cars, washing machines, optics etc), evolve as technology pushes forward. Now, how much of a need there is within this product evolution is up to the consumer, but no doubt the manufacturer will pull out the stops to convince you of a 'need'...Swaro is convincing you of that need.
Click to expand...
It is not about needing but wanting. Nobody needs a C8 Corvette that goes from 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds but that doesn't stop people from wanting one. It is the same with the Swarovski NL. Nobody needs that huge of a FOV but it doesn't stop people from wanting one. Human beings have always desired more than they need. It is in our genetic makeup. Look at all the huge houses in Beverly Hills or the fancy cars on Rodeo Drive or the Rolex Watches that people wear. Once people have money or have become successful they want other people to know it, so they purchase luxury items to show society that they are successful. Money sitting in a bank doesn't do that for you.
 
Last edited:
I watched the NL Introduction from the Austrian Reps. Very interesting. Somewhat convincing. They were actually asked (afterwards) about the possible introduction of the NL in 32mm format. Their answer, as I understood it, was a couple of years.

Thinking about the NL in 32mm....I'm sure it would have supreme optics, but somewhere in the back of my mind I wonder if we would be paying to have the petite 32mm tubes condensed even tighter at the grip area...and wondering if this concept loses some value at that size. Guess I'd have to try one.

Rob
 
Last edited:
Rob from Texas said:
I watched the NL Introduction from the Austrian Reps. Very interesting. Somewhat convincing. They were actually asked (afterwards) about the possible introduction of the NL in 32mm format. Their answer, as I understood it, was a couple of years.

Thinking about the NL in 32mm....I'm sure it would have supreme optics, but somewhere in the back of my mind I wonder if we would be paying to have the petite 32mm tubes condensed even tighter at the grip area...and wondering if this concept loses some value at that size. Guess I'd have to try one.

Rob
Click to expand...
That is a good point about the 32mm possibly being too condensed. You could be correct.
 
[email protected] said:
That is a good point about the 32mm possibly being too condensed. You could be correct.
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought the same! Maybe a compromise could be made by increasing the objective to a 36mm with only marginally waisted barrels..so they still feel like a 32mm or even a 30mm in the hand.

The gun has definately been jumped and bolted the field!

Matt
 
[email protected] said:
It is not about needing but wanting. Nobody needs a C8 Corvette that goes from 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds but that doesn't stop people from wanting one. It is the same with the Swarovski NL. Nobody needs that huge of a FOV but it doesn't stop people from wanting one. Human beings have always desired more than they need. It is in our genetic makeup. Look at all the huge houses in Beverly Hills or the fancy cars on Rodeo Drive or the Rolex Watches that people wear. Once people have money or have become successful they want other people to know it, so they purchase luxury items to show society that they are successful. Money sitting in a bank doesn't do that for you.
Click to expand...

Again, this is where you and I differ.... I regards myself more of a minimalist and really think of 'what I need' compared to what others blindly think they need.

Having that 'wide of a FOV" is not something I need....I also don't want nor desire a Rolex or a fancy car, so the NL to me is most likely not something I am going to do.
 
lmans66 said:
Again, this is where you and I differ.... I regards myself more of a minimalist and really think of 'what I need' compared to what others blindly think they need.

Having that 'wide of a FOV" is not something I need....I also don't want nor desire a Rolex or a fancy car, so the NL to me is most likely not something I am going to do.
Click to expand...

So you are a minimalist. Good for you:t:

Accepting that there are so many different people and so many different needs is something else as accusing all others they blindly think what they need just because their need is different than yoursB :).

There are hundreds of different models to choose from. It's up to you to pick the one which suits you most. And in all respect, let others do the same without blaming them they blindly think they need that one.

Jan
 
lmans66 said:
Again, this is where you and I differ.... I regards myself more of a minimalist and really think of 'what I need' compared to what others blindly think they need.

Having that 'wide of a FOV" is not something I need....I also don't want nor desire a Rolex or a fancy car, so the NL to me is most likely not something I am going to do.
Click to expand...
Minimalist are not good for the economy, but they are good for the environment having a smaller carbon footprint creates less pollution and uses less resources.;) There are always plenty of people that want the latest and greatest though and there will be plenty of buyers for the new NL.
 
Last edited:
It is way to early to speculate on other sizes. The 42's are not even out yet.

If there are other NL models, the 50mm will come first.

Jerry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 3 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

ticl2184
Swarovski NL 8x32 vs Leica Duovid 8+12x42 Brightness Mystery
2 3
Replies
58
Views
5K
tenex
tenex
J
Brief comparison between Swarovski AX Visio 10x32 vs EL 10x32 Swarovision
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
tehri
tehri
J
A strange 8x32 choice.
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Julian61
J
Owlbarred
A day afield with 8x42 NLs after 20 years using 8x32 EL and EL SVs.
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Gray C
Gray C
K
My new NL Pure 8x32
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
11K
Kazu
K

Users who are viewing this thread

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