ticl2184
Well-known member
No surprise there...
I've weighed dozens of Swarovski instruments over the years ....All have been over weight....
Cheers
Tim
-
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.
92% transmission of the NL Pure 32 measured? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReinierB
- Start date
I've weighed dozens of Swarovski instruments over the years ....All have been over weight....
Cheers
Tim
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Would then still be the question of whether your scale was tested by an independent body?!
Andreas
dorubird
The unskilled mechanic blames his tools!
The light transmission has nothing to do with the size of the binoculars' objectives. The light transmission is given by the quality and number of the lenses, and by the quality of the anti-reflective coating.
For example there can be 8x25 binoculars with 92% transmission, and much larger 8x56 binoculars with only 82% transmission. So I'm not surprised by this small difference of 1 percent between NL32 and NL42
Owlbarred
Well-known member
For sure, but as you may know, it is far from being that simple. The following is a bit (perhaps far)out of bounds for this thread, but see scholarly comments in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444174
E.g., "The primary product of a research inquiry is one or more measures of effect size, not P values."
tenex
reality-based
Weight without accessories is fairly straightforward, so this should be easily settled without unpleasantness. Swarovski states 640g for NL 10x32, Reinier measures 670 which is nearly a 5% difference. Have you weighed one, or can anyone else? On what other models has ticl2184 found a discrepancy?
Even if we have to speculate on how Swaro arrived at 640g, surely they didn't just make it up or lie, thus casting doubt on other specs too. One prominent and welcome feature is that they actually measure AFOV instead of using an inaccurate formula as other manufacturers do; that should earn some trust and respect. And as stated above, Gijs has essentially confirmed their transmission figure.
Edit: On my little Söhnle kitchen scale SLC HD 10x42 weighs ~790-800g depending on how I support the strap I'm not bothering to remove (which weighs ~50g), and SLC 15x56 is 1200-1210g. Stated weights are 790 and 1200g, spot on.
Last edited:
Here are 2 pictures. 1 with the strap attached and 1 without anything one it (totally bare). So still 20 grams more than stated.
I heard others that the NL pure weighs more than the specs suggest, the 32 as well as the 42.
20 or 30 grams doesn't bother me, but still.
It is true. I just measured my own.
The SLC 8x42 weighs around 800 grams, so that is accurate. I do not have it now, it’s in Absam to fix the focuser (a little grain of sand/dust in it and I asked to make it more smooth if possible)
I heard others that the NL pure weighs more than the specs suggest, the 32 as well as the 42.
20 or 30 grams doesn't bother me, but still.
It is true. I just measured my own.
The SLC 8x42 weighs around 800 grams, so that is accurate. I do not have it now, it’s in Absam to fix the focuser (a little grain of sand/dust in it and I asked to make it more smooth if possible)
Attachments
Last edited:
Interesting - I'm assuming the objective covers are also removed? I checked three different pairs (no NLs admittedly) and they all matched to within a few grams.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Tim, post 21,
I assume that you immediately contacted Swarovski after having weighed a lot of their binoculars and that according to you all their weight data were wrong: you found that they were all heavier than Swarovski indicated in their data. (for your information our data matched the Swarovski data). If so, what was the response of the company that all weight data given by them are wrong according to you?. If you did not contact them: why not, because it is a severe accusation on internet about the trustworthiness of a company.
Gijs van Ginkel
I assume that you immediately contacted Swarovski after having weighed a lot of their binoculars and that according to you all their weight data were wrong: you found that they were all heavier than Swarovski indicated in their data. (for your information our data matched the Swarovski data). If so, what was the response of the company that all weight data given by them are wrong according to you?. If you did not contact them: why not, because it is a severe accusation on internet about the trustworthiness of a company.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Reinier, post 35,
I know, it was with objective covers attached that may explain the difference with a bare NL 8x32/42 I assume. We also measured the NL 42 with objective covers attached. The cover weight is approx. 24 grams.
Gijs van Ginkel
I know, it was with objective covers attached that may explain the difference with a bare NL 8x32/42 I assume. We also measured the NL 42 with objective covers attached. The cover weight is approx. 24 grams.
Gijs van Ginkel
Yes, I measured 676 g incl lens covers. However, the lens covers are only 15/16 grams. Still, a bare NL 32 is 659/660 gram. Or maybe I have to remove the eyecups as well. 😀
I know, I am splitting hairs here. But still think it is curious that Swarovski claims 640 gram.
Hardly noticeable of course and I am still very happy with the NL 10x32! Very bright, sharp, nice FOV, nice ergonomics, smooth focuser. The glare that sometimes occurs does not really bother me. Mostly it is just at the edges of the huge FOV.
I know, I am splitting hairs here. But still think it is curious that Swarovski claims 640 gram.
Hardly noticeable of course and I am still very happy with the NL 10x32! Very bright, sharp, nice FOV, nice ergonomics, smooth focuser. The glare that sometimes occurs does not really bother me. Mostly it is just at the edges of the huge FOV.
Attachments
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
I have asked Swarovski to enlighten us.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
This is also curious. Sorry, it's in Dutch. I hope you do not mind sharing this, Gijs? I discovered you have measured a lot and I value what you did!
Swarovski states 88% transmission for the CL 8x25. Zeiss states 91% for the VP 8x25.
However, the measured transmission is higher for the CL 8x25! Not just 1 or 2% more than stated, but even 6 or 7% more. I know there is probably tested just one pair and there is sample variation. But I think this is a "huge" difference! I did not know the CL 8x25 as that bright, because Swarovki says it is "just" 88%. For me the brightness of the Victory Pocket (as well as the bigger FOV) was a reason for me to lean towards the Victory Pocket, but not anymore after seeing this.
Swarovski states 88% transmission for the CL 8x25. Zeiss states 91% for the VP 8x25.
However, the measured transmission is higher for the CL 8x25! Not just 1 or 2% more than stated, but even 6 or 7% more. I know there is probably tested just one pair and there is sample variation. But I think this is a "huge" difference! I did not know the CL 8x25 as that bright, because Swarovki says it is "just" 88%. For me the brightness of the Victory Pocket (as well as the bigger FOV) was a reason for me to lean towards the Victory Pocket, but not anymore after seeing this.
