• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

A noob's view from a Swarovski NL Pure 12x42 and a Kowa Genisis 8.5x44. (1 Viewer)

kimsrk

Just a newbie
United States
I know it's not a true apple to apples comparison the Kowa's are my main bins that I've had for a few weeks, but I couldn't pass up a "reasonably" priced ($2700) used pair of NLs in excellent condition originally purchased about 14 months ago. They looked like they had never been used, although after some time I noticed some very minor signs of wear on the strap, and that's about it. When comparing binoculars, I typically just start with some unimpressive back yard nature viewing. Nothing fancy, I check for flatness or curvature in big leafy trees with multiple focal planes in one spot, where it's easiest for me to see. And I have a couple of bare trees contrasted by bright clouds to look for CA and other issues that creep up in extreme situations. I like to then field test on a forested trail with all sorts of dark and bright lighting and the beach for some sea bird viewing in extremely bright lighting conditions and long viewing distances. Nothing particularly objective, but somewhat well-rounded, I think.

Swaro's:
Fit, finish, and feel:
-For my preferences, top of the line. I like the feel of Swaro's, I like the eyecups, I like the eye cup and lens protectors, the bag...you get it. Everything has a nice luxury feel.
-I was immediately impressed with the size and weight for a 12X bino. It doesn't even seem real that they are that light and small with such a great view.
-Overall, they kind of remind me of what, maybe, a Lamborghini is to cars. Artistically and tastefully designed from the ground up. Could be very divisive if you have particular tastes, but still pretty great.
-Right in line with the Lamborghini analog, these feel a bit finicky and like they might need to be babied. Now, I don't know how they were handled by the previous owner, but it couldn't have been that bad, because there was basically no evidence of abuse, everything including the box and paperwork is cherry. BUT the central hinge is super loose, so is the focusing knob, providing a sloppy, annoying, hard to handle experience (more accurately: almost unusable in their current condition and not something that showed itself before purchasing). The eye relief cups were very difficult to extend, often having to re-thread them to be able to twist them back out into position. All in all, not fun and exacerbated by sharing with someone who had to adjust them every time they were used.

In the back yard:
-Seemed slightly brighter but not so much that I would fault the Kowa's, very difficult for me to notice a noteworthy difference. But if you forced me to pick it's the NL's.
-Very flat FOV that is clear all the way to the viewing edge, really impressive.
-CA was perfect in the center, but just like the EL's I've used, pretty noticeable outside of the center focal point. I really thought that the NL's would handle CA better, it might be slightly better than EL's but still very much there/moderately prominent starting approximately 30% from the viewing edge at its worst. I did only notice it under very specific conditions and honestly, it's more than good enough (read perfect), especially in the main viewing area.
-excellent sharpness and clarity

In the woods:
-it was somewhat rainy when I went, popping the lens covers on and off to keep the lenses dry was easy and painless (Kowa's lens protectors might be the worst and I truly despise them).
-Here I found the slightly slower focus and the 12X made it difficult to ID the flitty little forrest birds quickly. The latter obviously not a fault of the brand but the magnification.
-The slight edge in clarity the extra magnification did help when I found more stationary subjects.
-nothing else particularly notable

The Beach (probably the reason I wrote this):
-Not good, Not good at all. Now I don't know all of the terminology, but if I had to guess, stray light and internal reflections made for a very messy and washed out view. Light halo just inside the outer most viewing edge and other artifacts were a big problem. In every other usage case, I found myself barely noticing the glass, it is the real beauty of these Swaro's, but on the beach with bright sun high in the sky, the glass and flaws jump out. Despite the 12X I much preferred using the Kowa's on the beach.

Kowa:
I'm going to quickly summarize the Kowa's from my experience. Although they weren't quite there in almost every category, they weren't as far off as other people sometimes make them seem. I don't know if it's preference or bias, but I don't understand the people who don't give much love to the Kowa's. They were very clear, but not flat. But the curvature is not so prominent that it takes away from the view, at least in my opinion it's actually not that noticeable until you look for it. Very bright, but very slightly tinted, really only noticeable side by side with the NL's and even then it's nothing prominent. CA is basically on par with the Swaro's, and better overall IMHO, although it seems like dead center there can some times be a razor thin color band, the outer edges show far less prominent CA with the Kowa's. The fast, slightly stiff focus was exactly to my liking. They are truly a pleasant tool to use. So for 1/3 the price you get probably 90-95% of the experience. A large chunk of the missing experience that I noticed was in the fit/finish and accessories. Swaro runs away in this area, but it's not like the Kowa's are cheap feeling.

I went into this comparison with a strong bias towards Swarovski. I am, admittedly, a sucker for high-end finishing and perceived quality, and of course actually quality. But I have only seen one or two posts of people being critical of the best models of this high-end brand. They aren't perfect, they're close, but I'm incredibly concerned about the need for maintenance after about 1 year. I have other used bino's that have been treated with very little love that show no sign of the mechanical issues the Swaro's do and are significantly older and cheaper (5 year old Prostaff 5). I would say it's unacceptable at almost $4k, bino's need to be somewhat rugged. I want to feel like they'll be fine if I drop them, not like I'll be out almost $4k. The performance in harsh bright lighting was down right lousy. The Kowa's weren't perfect here but I found them to be much more tolerable. I don't know, the more I use them the less I want to keep them. When the glass shines, it truly is top tier but they don't do it for me. Surprised to feel alone with this perspective.

Happy trails.
Steve
 
Last edited:
Hi Steve,

That was an interesting comparison.
As regards CA, there are two types, longitudinal and lateral.
Eyepieces usually have fields of view (the AFoV you see in your binocular or scope) of >40° up to as much as 100° in some astronomical eyepieces.
They all have off-axis aberrations and lateral CA cannot be adequately corrected and is always present to some extent.
Longitudinal CA is caused by the objective lens(es) where different colours from a white point light source are focussed at differnt points on the optical axis.
Often one would have to boost the binocular's magnification to see it. The Kowa Genesis binoculars are outstanding in this respect and probably unsurpassed.

If the eyecups on the NL have not been cross-threaded, you only need to screw them down firmly and they should not loosen again.
Swarovski's service is legendary, so I'm sure that SONA would qickly fix those other minor mechanical issues free of charge.

John
 
Hi Steve,

That was an interesting comparison.
As regards CA, there are two types, longitudinal and lateral.
Eyepieces usually have fields of view (the AFoV you see in your binocular or scope) of >40° up to as much as 100° in some astronomical eyepieces.
They all have off-axis aberrations and lateral CA cannot be adequately corrected and is always present to some extent.
Longitudinal CA is caused by the objective lens(es) where different colours from a white point light source are focussed at differnt points on the optical axis.
Often one would have to boost the binocular's magnification to see it. The Kowa Genesis binoculars are outstanding in this respect and probably unsurpassed.

If the eyecups on the NL have not been cross-threaded, you only need to screw them down firmly and they should not loosen again.
Swarovski's service is legendary, so I'm sure that SONA would qickly fix those other minor mechanical issues free of charge.

John
Thanks for the instructive response, I think my naive expectations for CA are just that; naive.

The eye cups were firmly threaded repeatedly, I'm not sure what was causing the repeated tendency to loosen instead of extending. It seems to not be as much of an issue after I swapped eye cup places. But I had similar issues with unthreading, on a brand new pair albeit not nearly as annoyingly. Maybe I don't have the "touch" but when it happened again, I couldn't help but think there must be a slight disadvantage to this design, or perhaps just room for improvement. It doesn't feel correct to say I was doing something wrong. It was far too easy to mess up, and too fussy for my liking.

It is nice they'll fix it for free, the issue isn't with their customer service, rather the need to repair within 1.5 years of being sold. Maybe just an anomaly? But it hasn't happened with any other cheap pairs I've owned throughout my life.

My main goal was to be someone who actually spoke legitimate criticism because it seems like every review goes like this:

Pros:
Literally everything
0 CA
Perfect in every setting

Cons:
Price?!?!!

I can give some examples from one NL review but have been often repeated:

"The focuser action is among the best, diopter adjustment the very best".
I personally think the EL diopter and the Kowa diopter are better. I saw the Kowa diopter action before using and thought it was dumb, until I used it.
I really like the locking mechanism. I prefer the Kowa focuser much more than the NL's I used. I think something like this is so incredibly subjective it should always be clearly presented as such.

"Freedom from false colour is effectively total. I’m fussy, but even crows on the wing against a clear sky are just black-meets-blue, with nothing in between. Focusing through silhouetted branches reveals almost no false colour either. Only in the last ~10% of field width does some false colour creep in (the purple in the photo above is mainly from the camera lens)."
Again, not my experience. 'Only in the last 10%' may have been true for his glass, but I tried two separate pairs and this was nowhere near the case.
Much closer to 20-30%, and quite apparent, more so than even the Kowa's. Dead center, I do think EL's and NL's were a touch better but it ends there, I don't think they are as far ahead as people want to believe.


When reviewing Kowa:
"I really struggled to force any false colour out of these at all." vs Freedom from false colour is effectively total.
That's not even that subtle. As far as the Kowa's, this is exactly how I feel using them. It is difficult and you have to force the false color. It is no less impressive than Swaro, and I actually think Kowa provides a better experience, but the review doesn't drool all over them. He goes on to say, "one of the best at handling CA". Dude, they might actually be the best. Just say it, others have.

"For everyone else it might come down to price. If the real world price difference between these and a pair of Swarovski 10x42 SLC HDs is large enough, they are well worth trying out."
It's an odd way to recommend them. Just say they are good. A less biased way of saying this might be: These provide 90% percent of the experience and optical quality of Swaro's and half the price. If you must have the best Swaro's are it but for most use cases you'll likely be satisfied with Kowa(or whoever). This isn't specific to Kowa, I have only been able to side by side Kowa's with Swaro so that's why I keep referring to them.

Brightness.." Is much lower then EL. Genesis doesn't show an advantage of +1mm lens both in daylight and dark.
It is one of the darkest bino I seen around 1000$ or more.
"
This one I don't understand unless they just got bad glass. Allbinos measurements have shown Kowa's are at worst equal to Swaro. Darkest $1k Bino? No way.

"To Summarize, Kowa genesis 10x33 is not even close to Alpha bino optically to me. "
Other than flatness I find this statement hard to believe. They are as close as you can get imho, especially at $1k. But again, maybe he got bad glass.

Ehhhh, even after typing this all out it reads a bit pedantic, but I think I just bought into all of the Swaro hype, only to be mildly impressed. Don't get me wrong they are the best optically that I've seen, but there are plenty others that are very close and could be drooled over too. When you look for the subtle bias, you will see it. Most reviewers give nice well-rounded reviews of everything but Swaro in my humble opinion.
 
Most reviewers give nice well-rounded reviews of everything but Swaro in my humble opinion.
Well that‘s a pretty interesting opinion. Am I to understand you saying „most“ reviewers apply different standards when reviewing Swaro than when reviewing other binos?
 
Well that‘s a pretty interesting opinion. Am I to understand you saying „most“ reviewers apply different standards when reviewing Swaro than when reviewing other binos?
I think that's how bias works and it creeps in, in tons of different ways.

My interpretation of a lot, if not most, is that the culture and mystique around Swarovski's leads to a lot of people biasing parts of the review.

This is one of many examples I have found:
I really struggled to force any false colour out of these at all. vs Freedom from false colour is effectively total.

Maybe it doesn't look like much as one sentence but when the entire review reads this way, speaking in absolute terms throughout when there has to be some room for improvement or criticism. And then you look at another review of something "lesser" and you see a much more balanced language and final thoughts. A lot of the high-end Swaro reviews seems like they are basically written before they look through them, confirmation bias seems to run throughout. Like I said, for my eyes the view has been the best of the few comparisons I have been able to make. But there are legitimate criticisms to be made that I haven't seen. I made mine as well as I could.

I tried to show what I mean with examples, if you disagree, that's ok. I know I'm not explaining my perspective as well as I probably could.
 
My interpretation of a lot, if not most, is that the culture and mystique around Swarovski's leads to a lot of people biasing parts of the review.
In my opinion, this is not always the case.

On the one hand, the culture and mysticism surrounding Zeiss and Leica is similarly high, and on the other hand, look at the endless contributions that connect Swarovski equal to “scattered light”.
There are really bad reviews especially about the NL, so Swarovski is not beyond reproach.

Andreas
 
My main goal was to be someone who actually spoke legitimate criticism because it seems like every review goes like this:

Pros:
Literally everything
0 CA
Perfect in every setting
Actually most online reviews of binoculars at any price level are like this, because sites make money from click-through to purchase the product, so the "reviewer" doesn't want to make negative comments. (One can argue that binoculars are tools and they all serve the purpose, but that does defeat the purpose of reviews.) And yes, some others are like this because of individual personality or bias, but really just as often in favor of cheaper brands (what value for money!) as pricier ones.

As to NL, its major problems are glare, which is tricky because many people seldom encounter conditions that provoke it, and a finicky eyebox, which many don't even understand, so many reviews may not address them at all.
 
@kimsrk
Steve,

I agree that many reviews are governed by expectations, but some on this forum perform measurements or conduct objective tests. Henry Link's test of the Zeiss 8x54 HT and display of CA progression towards the field edge, or Canip's eye relief measurements come to mind.

There are, however, dubious discussions on colour bias with implications that it might influence an ID (!!!) and also on transmission differences of 2-3%, or even less plausible discussions on the "brilliance" of HT glass. They ignore that there is a light loss at the field edge in many binoculars in the order of 30% due to vignetting. I can't recall anyone ever having noticed this. ;)

Nevertheless, mechanical quality and service back-up are strong arguments for the top three. There are many here enjoying their 30 year-old Leica Trinovids or Zeiss Dialyts. How many of today's mid-range will be around in 30 years?

John
 
Am I to understand you saying „most“ reviewers apply different standards when reviewing Swaro than when reviewing other binos?
I don't know about "most" reviewers, but when I try a Swarovski I definitely have higher expectations than most binoculars. The excellence of their previous and current products, quality maintained over decades (the odd blip, like the armouring issue, apart), and yes, their price, means they are judged to a different and indeed higher standard.

So yeah - if/when I try a x52 NL I'll most certainly apply a different standard than when trying a 1950s era binocular, or something that costs half or a third the price.

There are many here enjoying their 30 year-old Leica Trinovids or Zeiss Dialyts. How many of today's mid-range will be around in 30 years?
Honestly, I think we will only know that in 30 years. I don't see why eg. a Conquest HD (if that's what you mean by "mid-range") shouldn't give a decade or more of good birding service. Of course the other thing is how optics improve. In 30 years time you might be able to get NL performance in something that costs the equivalent of what a Terra does now...
 
Last edited:
BUT the central hinge is super loose, so is the focusing knob, providing a sloppy, annoying, hard to handle experience (more accurately: almost unusable in their current condition and not something that showed itself before purchasing). The eye relief cups were very difficult to extend, often having to re-thread them to be able to twist them back out into position. All in all, not fun and exacerbated by sharing with someone who had to adjust them every time they were used.
Anyone else with these binoculars having those problems, seems like that’s an individual example that has some major out of the ordinary issues.
 
Anyone else with these binoculars having those problems, seems like that’s an individual example that has some major out of the ordinary issues.
I have to say I haven't had anything of those problems. Focus fast, even and accurate. Hinge suitably stiff. Eye cups no problem. Does sound like OP has a bit of a lemon. No issues with CA either and that is something I am sensitive to.
 
I have to say I haven't had anything of those problems. Focus fast, even and accurate. Hinge suitably stiff. Eye cups no problem. Does sound like OP has a bit of a lemon. No issues with CA either and that is something I am sensitive to.
Probably mechanically a lemon for sure. We'll see how SONA repairs go.

Interesting you don't notice the CA. I understand it doesn't get everybody the same way, but man, CA has been glaringly obvious with Both the the NL and the EL I've tried. Slightly worse with the EL. And so far the best I've seen is the Kowa's. Although, I've only looked through maybe 6 different mid-high end bins.
 
I know it's not a true apple to apples comparison the Kowa's are my main bins that I've had for a few weeks, but I couldn't pass up a "reasonably" priced ($2700) used pair of NLs in excellent condition originally purchased about 14 months ago. They looked like they had never been used, although after some time I noticed some very minor signs of wear on the strap, and that's about it. When comparing binoculars, I typically just start with some unimpressive back yard nature viewing. Nothing fancy, I check for flatness or curvature in big leafy trees with multiple focal planes in one spot, where it's easiest for me to see. And I have a couple of bare trees contrasted by bright clouds to look for CA and other issues that creep up in extreme situations. I like to then field test on a forested trail with all sorts of dark and bright lighting and the beach for some sea bird viewing in extremely bright lighting conditions and long viewing distances. Nothing particularly objective, but somewhat well-rounded, I think.

Swaro's:
Fit, finish, and feel:
-For my preferences, top of the line. I like the feel of Swaro's, I like the eyecups, I like the eye cup and lens protectors, the bag...you get it. Everything has a nice luxury feel.
-I was immediately impressed with the size and weight for a 12X bino. It doesn't even seem real that they are that light and small with such a great view.
-Overall, they kind of remind me of what, maybe, a Lamborghini is to cars. Artistically and tastefully designed from the ground up. Could be very divisive if you have particular tastes, but still pretty great.
-Right in line with the Lamborghini analog, these feel a bit finicky and like they might need to be babied. Now, I don't know how they were handled by the previous owner, but it couldn't have been that bad, because there was basically no evidence of abuse, everything including the box and paperwork is cherry. BUT the central hinge is super loose, so is the focusing knob, providing a sloppy, annoying, hard to handle experience (more accurately: almost unusable in their current condition and not something that showed itself before purchasing). The eye relief cups were very difficult to extend, often having to re-thread them to be able to twist them back out into position. All in all, not fun and exacerbated by sharing with someone who had to adjust them every time they were used.

In the back yard:
-Seemed slightly brighter but not so much that I would fault the Kowa's, very difficult for me to notice a noteworthy difference. But if you forced me to pick it's the NL's.
-Very flat FOV that is clear all the way to the viewing edge, really impressive.
-CA was perfect in the center, but just like the EL's I've used, pretty noticeable outside of the center focal point. I really thought that the NL's would handle CA better, it might be slightly better than EL's but still very much there/moderately prominent starting approximately 30% from the viewing edge at its worst. I did only notice it under very specific conditions and honestly, it's more than good enough (read perfect), especially in the main viewing area.
-excellent sharpness and clarity

In the woods:
-it was somewhat rainy when I went, popping the lens covers on and off to keep the lenses dry was easy and painless (Kowa's lens protectors might be the worst and I truly despise them).
-Here I found the slightly slower focus and the 12X made it difficult to ID the flitty little forrest birds quickly. The latter obviously not a fault of the brand but the magnification.
-The slight edge in clarity the extra magnification did help when I found more stationary subjects.
-nothing else particularly notable

The Beach (probably the reason I wrote this):
-Not good, Not good at all. Now I don't know all of the terminology, but if I had to guess, stray light and internal reflections made for a very messy and washed out view. Light halo just inside the outer most viewing edge and other artifacts were a big problem. In every other usage case, I found myself barely noticing the glass, it is the real beauty of these Swaro's, but on the beach with bright sun high in the sky, the glass and flaws jump out. Despite the 12X I much preferred using the Kowa's on the beach.

Kowa:
I'm going to quickly summarize the Kowa's from my experience. Although they weren't quite there in almost every category, they weren't as far off as other people sometimes make them seem. I don't know if it's preference or bias, but I don't understand the people who don't give much love to the Kowa's. They were very clear, but not flat. But the curvature is not so prominent that it takes away from the view, at least in my opinion it's actually not that noticeable until you look for it. Very bright, but very slightly tinted, really only noticeable side by side with the NL's and even then it's nothing prominent. CA is basically on par with the Swaro's, and better overall IMHO, although it seems like dead center there can some times be a razor thin color band, the outer edges show far less prominent CA with the Kowa's. The fast, slightly stiff focus was exactly to my liking. They are truly a pleasant tool to use. So for 1/3 the price you get probably 90-95% of the experience. A large chunk of the missing experience that I noticed was in the fit/finish and accessories. Swaro runs away in this area, but it's not like the Kowa's are cheap feeling.

I went into this comparison with a strong bias towards Swarovski. I am, admittedly, a sucker for high-end finishing and perceived quality, and of course actually quality. But I have only seen one or two posts of people being critical of the best models of this high-end brand. They aren't perfect, they're close, but I'm incredibly concerned about the need for maintenance after about 1 year. I have other used bino's that have been treated with very little love that show no sign of the mechanical issues the Swaro's do and are significantly older and cheaper (5 year old Prostaff 5). I would say it's unacceptable at almost $4k, bino's need to be somewhat rugged. I want to feel like they'll be fine if I drop them, not like I'll be out almost $4k. The performance in harsh bright lighting was down right lousy. The Kowa's weren't perfect here but I found them to be much more tolerable. I don't know, the more I use them the less I want to keep them. When the glass shines, it truly is top tier but they don't do it for me. Surprised to feel alone with this perspective.

Happy trails.
Steve
Great read, you are not alone as I share your thoughts on the NLs being washed out in certain scenarios and at other times being absolutely sublime in a way that only Swarovski can do.
I remember a summers day, very bright and standing looking along some cliffs, when I put the NLs up to my eyes I may as well have been looking through some £20 bins, the view was washed out completely.
I used mine mainly for astro where they truly came to life, however I did eventually sell them.
I have not used the Kowas but have always read positive reviews, however imo the best Japanese glass still belongs to the EDG, the colours and contrast are beautiful coupled with superb glare control too. I do wish it's FOV was slightly larger.
Leica is another story:)
 
Anyone else with these binoculars having those problems, seems like that’s an individual example that has some major out of the ordinary issues.
Absolutely, was thinking the same thing. I’ve had some experience with close to a dozen NL’s over the last few years, and I haven't come across any that had numerous issues the poster is describing. I’ve had two that had a focusers with a slight rough spot, but that’s about it.
 
I remember a summers day, very bright and standing looking along some cliffs, when I put the NLs up to my eyes I may as well have been looking through some £20 bins, the view was washed out completely.
I used mine mainly for Astro...
Thank you! Yes I was taken back in very bright lighting, they really looked bad. It was such a contrast to how amazing they are in normal or even dimly lit forest lighting. Haven't had a chance to use the for star gazing, but looking forward to it.
 
Last edited:
Thank you! Yes I was taken back in very bright lighting, they really looked bad. It was such a contrast to how amazing they are in normal or even dimly lit forest lighting. Haven't had a chance to use the for star gazing, but looking forward to it.
One of you were talking about a poor washed out view in bright sunlight, the other looking over water that had a lot of glare coming off of it ?
 
One of you were talking about a poor washed out view in bright sunlight, the other looking over water that had a lot of glare coming off of it ?
the view was washed out completely

This is what I said:
Not good, Not good at all. Now I don't know all of the terminology, but if I had to guess, stray light and internal reflections made for a very messy and washed out view.

Not sure what you're trying to say. I wasn't specifically saying glare from the water. I wasn't only looking out over water I was looking in all sorts of directions with lighting from different angles.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top