Has anybody done an extensive comparison between the two ?
Is the increase in Fov from the 120m of the SF to the 133m of the NL directly noticeable to you ? or show up positively in any other intangible way ?I've compared the 10x42 NL to the 10x42 SF.
The build quality of the NL is superior to the SF.
As far as optical performance - the NL is more neutral, with better contrast and color accuracy. The image sparkles, whereas the SF seemed quite dull and lifeless in comparison. I also experienced a green tint to the SF's image, which became more pronounced when I switched back and forth between it and the NL.
Is the increase in Fov from the 120m of the SF to the 133m of the NL directly noticeable to you ? or show up positively in any other intangible way ?
This is the question I perhaps most want answered about comparisons between these two, along with any comments on CA and glare handling. Thanks to anyone who can chime in.
Chosun :gh:
Simple answer: No
The benefits of the extra % of FOV in the NL are grossly over exaggerated (IMO).
Simple answer: No
The benefits of the extra % of FOV in the NL are grossly over exaggerated (IMO).
The huge FOV of my NL 8x42 8x42 has spoiled me for any other binocular. Once you are used to the bigger FOV of the NL you don't really notice it UNTIL you try another binocular with a smaller FOV. I sold my Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 and my Kowa Genesis 8x33 because the FOV felt tunnel like after using the NL. It was almost depressing to go back to them. The NL is much more transparent and has better more neutral colors than either the Nikon HG or the Kowa Genesis also. Don't believe the naysayers. They are just finding excuses not to buy the NL because they don't want to or can't spend the money. There is a BIG difference between the NL and other lesser binoculars. The SF has no chance against the NL because of the big difference in FOV and ergonomics.Simple answer: No
The benefits of the extra % of FOV in the NL are grossly over exaggerated (IMO).
Well, I was wondering about that "No", so I tested the NL and the SF side-by-side (literally half a foot apart), since that's the only way I trust my senses when comparing binos (I have always been admiring people who can make reliable statements from memory like "I also once had an xx bino, and it was much less bright than the one I have now").
Side-by-side, the difference in FOV between the NL and the SF appears considerable to me. That should be no surprise, since 133m vs 122m is more than 8% difference, and that should be easily recognizable by anybody.
Of course, out in the field, you don't really "miss" much when you only have the SF with you, since it already has one of the widest FOVs of current 10x42s.
My view therefore is: if you have an SF and are happy with it, you don't have to start looking for a new bino just because there is now a new one out with an even wieder field.
If, however, you are in the process of evaluating a new purchase, I bet the FOV of the NL will impress you when you compare with the SF.
fwiw Canip
NZbinodude, what did you think about the ergonomics as well as the ease in dialing in the “correct” eye relief distance at the eye cups? The SF is known for long term holding comfort with its weight distribution. I only read great reviews about the change in ergonomics from the EL to the NL. Not build quality but LONG TERM COMFORT IN GLASSING.
NZbinodude, what did you think about the ergonomics as well as the ease in dialing in the “correct” eye relief distance at the eye cups? The SF is known for long term holding comfort with its weight distribution. I only read great reviews about the change in ergonomics from the EL to the NL. Not build quality but LONG TERM COMFORT IN GLASSING.
Hi, i've only compared SF 8x42 vs NL 8x42..
Piergiovanni