That is what I thought about the scale. This was the first video I saw on the NL's where they don't look that big and long. His comments on the ergonomics and how the edges seem to disappear was interesting also.
-
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.
Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Canip
- Start date
SuperDuty
Well-known member
So, any casual viewer is going to see a significantly better overall view through the NL than they will through the SF, It doesn’t come down to the basic personal preference situation, the NL is just simply markedly and very notably superior to the SF ? If you go back and forth between them, when the NL hits your eyes, you’re going to go wow is that ever a better view ?
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
I repeated the calculations for the 10x and 12x models. In all cases the angular real field is obtained by simply dividing the advertised linear field by 52.4. This means that the linear field is not the length of a straight line but rather the length of a curved perimeter section.
Calculating the AFOV using the angle and ISO methods:
Model | Angular | ISO | Average | Advertised
8x42 | 73º | 64.9º | 69º | 69º
10x42 | 76º | 67.1º | 72º | 70º
12x42 | 78º | 68.5º | 73º | 71º
So, for the 10x and 12x models the advertised AFOV is 2º less than the average and must have been determined by some other means — hopefully direct measurement.
I'm sure that we'll hear all about it bye n' bye.
Ed
Last edited:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Hi SD,
I can only speak for myself.
The view through the SF, NV and ELSV is top notch. The view and handling of the NL is IMHO an improvement of the best what those three offer.
It has the balance of the SF but with a much nicer grip/handling. Suddenly the SF feels bulky and foremost big.
It has the (perception?) sturdy feel of built quality of the ELSV.
It has that contrast performance of the NV but then more pronounced.
Regarding the NV I had to work from memory but the other two were there for comparison.
I think that the WOW factor will hit anybody who gets his hands for the first time on each of these bins.
For me, based on overall performance, if I had to choose one out of these four it will be the NL for sure.
Jan
Robert Wallace
Well-known member
I had a Skoda Octavia (diesel) from 2000-2010 completed 152,000 miles with no problems apart from the fan belt failing about a month before I traded it in. The Skoda was perfectly functional, but like many sub alpha binoculars are not cool.I think you’ve just highlighted the difference between a need and a want Rob. I need a car for my job. I want an Ariel Nomad. I have a Skoda.
Rich
I sometimes wonder if binoculars are becoming "Bling" because I'm sure there are many , many sub alpha binoculars which are "fit for purpose".
That said I have:-
Swarovski 8x25 - they fit in my camera bag and are used on "non birding " holidays.
Swarovski 8x32 ELs supposedly my default birdind binoculars
Zeiss 10x42 SF bought because I wanted a pair rather than needing them (quote from my dear wife)
During lock down I paid more attention to the BTO GardenBirdwatch scheme and decided to rotate my binocular usage. I have a modest collection because I have never traded in my old bins.
I rediscovered my Zeiss 7x42s bought in 1997, they were brilliant! Can't understand why I stopped using them.
I still like the aesthetics and feel of my Zeiss 10x40 (1986), although not phase corrected are still fit for purpose, for me anyway.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Regarding the 7x42, this is what Zeiss told me when the last 8x56 classic Dialyt came out in that nice wooden giftbox and I asked why they didn't include the 7x42 with it.
Since ages the chassis of the classic 8x56 and 7x42 Dialyts were made for Zeiss by a company based in Munich.
Suddenly there was no response after ordering a new batch of chassis's and after a while Zeiss found out that the owner had died and the widow sold all the machinery to an iron scratch farmer and closed shop without informing Zeiss (and presumably others).
The sales volume of these "old" classic models weren't by far enough to make the business wise decision to built them again with new machinery.
The tragic death of an icon.
Jan
Since ages the chassis of the classic 8x56 and 7x42 Dialyts were made for Zeiss by a company based in Munich.
Suddenly there was no response after ordering a new batch of chassis's and after a while Zeiss found out that the owner had died and the widow sold all the machinery to an iron scratch farmer and closed shop without informing Zeiss (and presumably others).
The sales volume of these "old" classic models weren't by far enough to make the business wise decision to built them again with new machinery.
The tragic death of an icon.
Jan
jan van daalen
Well-known member
The tan colored 8x32ELSV armoring can be made like new with it.
I know. It doesn't answer the question why the NL is equipped with it but that's the answer I got.
So what's good for the tan is good for the green:t:
Jan
edwincjones
Well-known member
the NL will get the attention and envy of fellow birders
that extra % may make the difference between seeing and not
but ----------- no
wish I would have learned that 20 years ago
edj
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
I repeated the calculations for the 10x and 12x models. In all cases the angular real field is obtained by simply dividing the advertised linear field by 52.4. This means that the linear field is not the length of a straight line but rather the length of a curved perimeter section.
Calculating the AFOV using the angle and ISO methods:
Model | Angular | ISO | Average | Advertised
8x42 | 73º | 64.9º | 69º | 69º
10x42 | 76º | 67.1º | 72º | 70º
12x42 | 78º | 68.5º | 73º | 71º
So, for the 10x and 12x models the advertised AFOV is 2º less than the average and must have been determined by some other means — hopefully direct measurement.
I'm sure that we'll hear all about it bye n' bye.
Ed
Hi Ed,
I think it's probable Swarovski either calculated their AFOV specs to include an adjustment for distortion or actually measured the AFOV, which would naturally include distortion. The 8x42 probably just happens to fall near the average between the ISO and the simple calculations.
If we assume Swarovski's AFOV specs are correct we should be able to use them to infer something about the balance between pincushion distortion and angular magnification distortion in the NLs. If the specs had perfectly matched the ISO calculation then in the simplest distortion scheme there would be no pincushion distortion at all and very high AMD. As it turns out the AFOV of each model shows a different departure from the ISO calculation. The 8x42 is 6.3% larger, the 10x42 is 4.3% larger and the 12x42 is 3.6% larger. In a simple distortion scheme where there is a straightforward decrease in angular magnification distortion as pincushion distortion increases we could expect the 8x42 to have the highest pincushion and lowest AMD and the 12x42 to have the highest AMD and lowest pincushion.
Unfortunately, Swarovski employed a compound mustache distortion in the SVs and may have done the same thing in the NLs. That kind of distortion profile results in an unpredictably larger amount of pincushion than would be expected in the inner part of the field, which then reverses in the outer field resulting in high AMD near the field edge that may eliminate pincushion completely or even introduce barrel distortion at the field edge. We'll need some grid pattern photos to properly map the NL's distortion, but I think just from the raw AFOV numbers we can reasonably assume that the 12x42 will have a lower contribution to the overall distortion from pincushion than the 10x42 and the 10x42 will have a lower contribution from pincushion than the 8x42.
Henry
Last edited:
Henry,
re distortion of the NL (and other binos):
The attached is Holger Merlitz‘ go at the subject (you may or may not have seen it), he published it here:
https://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,447795,447812#msg-447812
Canip
re distortion of the NL (and other binos):
The attached is Holger Merlitz‘ go at the subject (you may or may not have seen it), he published it here:
https://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,447795,447812#msg-447812
Canip
Attachments
Last edited:
Regarding the expected distortion mapping in the new Swarovski NL models and to elaborate on Canips post just now and the link to Holger Merlitz's new graph showing the NL binoculars:
The published values for AFOV appear to be the actual design values since they are not the ISO (tangent mapping) and not the previously common estimations of AFOV = M x FOV (angle mapping) used in the past by many manufacturers.
These AFOV numbers would therefore not be estimates but actual values for the AFOV based on the design of the respective optical systems for the 8X42, 10X42 and 12X42 NL models. The optical design engineer would know exactly what these values are for the nominal design and may have had target values in mind in the design optimization process.
Holger Merlitz has published some informative technical work on the topic of distortion mapping in binoculars:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html
In this work, Dr. Merlitz has proposed a “distortion parameter” K to characterize the distortion seen by the user of an individual binocular. In this work the K value can vary from 0 to 1.
K = 0 Imaging with the angle condition resulting in pincushion distortion
but uniform panning effects
K = 1 Imaging with the tangent condition resulting in rectilinear correction
(straight lines) but with rolling ball effect (or GE, globe effect) when
panning
Merlitz tested various observers with a simulated view of different K values and concluded that the optimal view with minimum perceived distortion and minimal rolling ball effects was achieved with a K value between 0.6 and 0.7.
Based on the published magnification, real FOV (m/1000m) and AFOV values the Merlitz distortion parameters for the Swarovski NL models is:
8 X 42 NL ------ K = 0.65
10 X 42 NL ------ K = 0.80
12 X 42 NL ------ K = 0.81
Based on these K values we might expect that the 8X42 will have close to optimal distortion with slight pincushion and minimal rolling ball effect. The 10X and 12X may well have less pincushion and some noticeable rolling ball based on these calculations.
However, the Merlitz K value is based on the assumption of a simple uniform proportion between object angle and image angle. If the binocular optical design has the so called “mustache distortion” (present in some previous Swarovski binoculars) where the distortion might vary from pincushion to barrel distortion as the field angle increases then the Merlitz K parameter does not strictly apply.
This observer is looking forward to evaluating the new NL binoculars, especially the 8X42 NL which might just have optimal distortion correction combined with high definition across the field of view.
Stephanie
The published values for AFOV appear to be the actual design values since they are not the ISO (tangent mapping) and not the previously common estimations of AFOV = M x FOV (angle mapping) used in the past by many manufacturers.
These AFOV numbers would therefore not be estimates but actual values for the AFOV based on the design of the respective optical systems for the 8X42, 10X42 and 12X42 NL models. The optical design engineer would know exactly what these values are for the nominal design and may have had target values in mind in the design optimization process.
Holger Merlitz has published some informative technical work on the topic of distortion mapping in binoculars:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html
In this work, Dr. Merlitz has proposed a “distortion parameter” K to characterize the distortion seen by the user of an individual binocular. In this work the K value can vary from 0 to 1.
K = 0 Imaging with the angle condition resulting in pincushion distortion
but uniform panning effects
K = 1 Imaging with the tangent condition resulting in rectilinear correction
(straight lines) but with rolling ball effect (or GE, globe effect) when
panning
Merlitz tested various observers with a simulated view of different K values and concluded that the optimal view with minimum perceived distortion and minimal rolling ball effects was achieved with a K value between 0.6 and 0.7.
Based on the published magnification, real FOV (m/1000m) and AFOV values the Merlitz distortion parameters for the Swarovski NL models is:
8 X 42 NL ------ K = 0.65
10 X 42 NL ------ K = 0.80
12 X 42 NL ------ K = 0.81
Based on these K values we might expect that the 8X42 will have close to optimal distortion with slight pincushion and minimal rolling ball effect. The 10X and 12X may well have less pincushion and some noticeable rolling ball based on these calculations.
However, the Merlitz K value is based on the assumption of a simple uniform proportion between object angle and image angle. If the binocular optical design has the so called “mustache distortion” (present in some previous Swarovski binoculars) where the distortion might vary from pincushion to barrel distortion as the field angle increases then the Merlitz K parameter does not strictly apply.
This observer is looking forward to evaluating the new NL binoculars, especially the 8X42 NL which might just have optimal distortion correction combined with high definition across the field of view.
Stephanie
henry link
Well-known member
Excellent post Stephanie. I completely agree with all your points.
I don't mean to pry, but you write like someone with a professional knowledge of optics. Is that true? We amateurs and hobbyists need all the help we can get here!
Henry
Thanks for your comment Henry. My professional field is optomechanical design and engineering. I have worked with optics for large aerospace companies as well as some small companies over the years. My expertise is in mechanical design of optical systems but I have worked closely with some of the best lens design engineers in the world and have learned much from them. One of the things that directed my career was my early interest in binoculars.
Stephanie
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi Stephanie,
It's nice to see that your calculations agree with Holger's as shown in Catnip's attachment. And I think Henry and I reached a similar conclusion about the 8x42 vs the others.
Optimal as its distortion characteristics may turn out to be, however, my problem with the lot of them is the use of field flatteners, which I'm visually allergic to for terrestrial applications.
On the bright side, this affliction has already saved me quite a lot of money.
Ed
It's nice to see that your calculations agree with Holger's as shown in Catnip's attachment. And I think Henry and I reached a similar conclusion about the 8x42 vs the others.
Optimal as its distortion characteristics may turn out to be, however, my problem with the lot of them is the use of field flatteners, which I'm visually allergic to for terrestrial applications.
On the bright side, this affliction has already saved me quite a lot of money.
Ed
Last edited:
Hi Stephanie,
It's nice to see that your calculations agree with Holger's as shown in Catnip's attachment. And I think Henry and I reached a similar conclusion about the 8x42 vs the others.
Optimal as its distortion characteristics may turn out to be, however, my problem with the lot of them is the use of field flatteners, which I'm visually allergic to for terrestrial applications.
On the bright side, this affliction has already saved me quite a lot of money.
Ed
Hi Ed,
I hear you and I believe that for a handheld glass that a flat field is not essential since the central 50-60% of the field is most important and from there out to the edge does not need to be perfectly corrected. It is nice to have a flat field but not at the cost of too many distortion artifacts. For tripod mounted or for astro use the flat field is a distinct benefit.
Take a look at Holger’s distortion graph posted above and you will see how the 8X42 NL is a distinct departure from previous Swarovski SV designs (designs with field flatteners) when it comes to the distortion parameter. It remains to be seen how the 8X42 NL viewing characteristics are and how Swaro has designed for the wide AFOV. Various distortion effects are impossible to avoid in binocular optics so the design becomes a compromise and balancing act.
Also note from Holger's excellent distortion graph how all three of the NL binoculars are wide angle winners in the AFOV numbers when it comes to the current crop of alpha dogs. Only the coming SF 10X32 is in the same range of 69 deg AFOV and up. The SF 8X32 is not far behind at 67 degree AFOV.
The larger AFOV values for these binoculars will make distortion effects more apparent than ever to the user so it will be quite interesting to see how these new designs perform. I personally think that a 70 deg AFOV is ideal but rarely achieved in a satisfactory manner.
Stephanie
Do you imply that in case of moustache distorsion the user might be subjected to a ‘basketball’ effect, ie a rolling ball confined to a central zone?
Edmund
Similar threads
