Here is a good question for everybody. If it weren't for costs, why would you prefer a binocular with a smaller FOV and less sharp edges over a binocular with a bigger FOV and sharper edges if they were equivalent in other areas?
-
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.
Are the Swarovski NL 8x32s the best birding binoculars? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Great. You don’t like the Leica 7x42, or any 7X for that matter. Doesn’t hurt my feelings, or make me question my own choices just because “[email protected]“ disagrees with them.
And you think the NL8x32 is the “best birding binocular”. And you’re certainly entitled to proclaim your preference. That is true for YOU (at least today…..we’ll see when your next flavor of the month comes along).
But the arrogance in proclaiming it‘s the best for “99% of average birders” is laughable, almost as if you feel the need to make that statement in order to establish your status as the most knowledgeable optics expert on this forum and the one who knows what’s best for everyone else (except, of course, that 1% of us who are clueless).
Ah, but that’s the rub…….they aren’t equivalent in other areas.
It depends upon your priorities. If you are a big FOV maniac, you buy an NL or SF. If you like saturated colors, you buy a Noctivid. I guess I am a big FOV maniac. But why wouldn't you want a bigger FOV? I guess you would rather have saturated colors than a big FOV. But it seems a big FOV is more important for birding than saturated colors because it is helpful finding the bird and keeping them in the FOV. I guess the birders that like the Noctivid will sacrifice the size of the FOV for a smaller FOV that they feel is higher quality. Sorry, I am just thinking to myself. It is hard to understand sometimes why people choose what they do, but it comes down to personal preference I guess. It would be nice if the Noctivid had a 9 degree FOV, but maybe then it would lose some of its other qualities. In binocular design, I guess everything is a tradeoff.
Actually, Dennis, that is a very well thought out response. And it contradicts (appropriately) your earlier assertion that the NL8x32 is the “best for 99% of the average birders”.
wdc
Well-known member
I'm sure those bins work great for you, even though I own none of them.
In the last 5-6 years I have purchased many bins, just looking for ones that fit me, meaning eye relief for use with eye glasses and an accommodating narrow IPD for my mildly crossed eyes. Surprisingly those two issues eliminate an enormous amount of product out there, most commonly many older porros and roofs, including the NIkon E series, much to my regret. Even contemporary roofs often will fall short in one or both categories.
There are roofs in the last 10 years or so, which offer usable eye relief as well as a narrow IPD, so my needs have been met by a variety of mid to absurdly priced binoculars...
I use a Canon IS 15x50 for star gazing, most often in the mountains, along with a laser to point out the objects.
I purchased it well before I started wearing eyeglasses WITH optics, but it still does a wonderful job scanning the milky way, and letting others see the sights with a handheld optic. A use specific workhorse in that regard, even if it is only used a few times a year.
Zeiss Victory 8x25 pocket for backpacking, and going out painting. Fiddly size for me, but it does the job well, and fits in my shirt pocket.
Swaro EL32, Zeiss Victory SF 8x32: Travel, and painting. Plus a regular bin for my wife. The Swaro is a great fit, while the SF is a tiny bit short on eye relief for me. Ergos on both are excellent, imho.
Leica Noctivid 10x42: My main birding bin. The AFOV and eye relief, for me, are excellent. Love the view.
Bins that don't get used much (by me) lately:
Zeiss Victory 8x42: Love this one, but I prefer the 10x42, and don't need to buy a Zeiss version to see what I'm missing, if that makes sense. When I do use it, it is fine. No complaints at all.
Leica 8x32 Ultravid plus: For my wife, as not enough eye relief for me. Great size. But a Rick Young Harness element broke and haven't fixed it, so she's been using the SF 8 x 32...
Swaro NL 8x32: Its good, but I actually like the SF 8x32 better for the ergos and size. The NL is big for an 8x32. Eye relief is excellent, easy to use. I do get glare in it, even if the contrast is good outside of the glare artifact at the bottom of the field.
Price is absurd. But yes, I did buy one...
Leica 7x35 Retrovid: This is a great little binocular, and I do haul it around, but primarily as a loaner for friends that go birding with me. This is not the binocular's fault.
Car bin: Nikon HG 8x30. Fits in the secure center box between the front seats. Works great!
There are more, including a few on semi-permanent loan to friends and family, but that covers enough...
It is not 'fairly small and light' relative to other smaller, lighter, and less expensive 8x32s (zeiss SF, Leica Ultravid +, Swaro EL). There are many bright, high quality, and ergonomically excellent binoculars on the market. The cost of the NL is so great, that even you have to 'disregard' it to make your point.
over and out.
Correct. So the answer to your questiion at the head of this thread is 'No', because there is no such thing as 'the best' only what suits different people for different reasons.
Lee
CharleyBird
Well-known member
If there is a problem with such an excellent binocular as the NL 8x32 clearly is, it's this:
It's nowt nor summat.
Not small enough to replace the UV, nor a proper x42
I haven't tried the NL 8x32, but I agree with most that say that this might be "the best for @[email protected]", which doesn't mean it has to be of relevance for many other people or be "the best overall"... because I think such thing simply doesn't exist. You can quantify things like FOV, light transmission, weight, etc. But those are just facts, we could say: binoculars X have the widest FOV, and we can all agree on that. However, "best" implies an assessment of value, which is by nature subjective and personal
In my case, even if it was priced according to other nice 8x32 like EL/UVHD/FL, I still wouldn't be interested in the NL, simply because for me it is huge and heavy for a 8x32, which kind of defeats the purpose of having an 8x32 in the first place. Some people might find it ideal, but 640 g in a 8x32? No, thanks. As a matter of fact, good as it might be, to me (and this is just a personal and subjective opinion, obviously) a 640 g 8x32 which is as big as some 8x40 is simply a flawed design... but that's just me, my personal taste, and I don't mean to imply I have the best taste. To me, a 8x32 is all about size and weight; otherwise I'd chose an 8x42, wouldn't I?
There's no denying that the NL is the current top of the range of one of the top manufacturers of the world. As such, it should offer state of the art technology and performance, which I think it does. If it wasn't so, then something would be very wrong.
However, if you ask me, my personal opinion about the NL, I'm not interested in it. To my eyes, the point of 8x32 is dimensions and weight. I would have praised Swarovski if they had managed to squeeze the performance of the NL (or even the performance of the ELSV) in the body of a CL, or even in the body of a Monarch 7/Traveller. Now, THAT would have caught my attention, and that would have led me to think it was the best. But a 640 g 8x32... equipped with Field Pro accessories. Sorry, but even if I was ready to spend all that cash, it simply wouldn't interest me.
EDIT: Mind you, my "best birding binocular" is Swarovski and so is my scope. That is to say, I really value Swarovski as a brand and have nothing against it (although I don't have any brand loyalty and simply go by what I like).
In my case, even if it was priced according to other nice 8x32 like EL/UVHD/FL, I still wouldn't be interested in the NL, simply because for me it is huge and heavy for a 8x32, which kind of defeats the purpose of having an 8x32 in the first place. Some people might find it ideal, but 640 g in a 8x32? No, thanks. As a matter of fact, good as it might be, to me (and this is just a personal and subjective opinion, obviously) a 640 g 8x32 which is as big as some 8x40 is simply a flawed design... but that's just me, my personal taste, and I don't mean to imply I have the best taste. To me, a 8x32 is all about size and weight; otherwise I'd chose an 8x42, wouldn't I?
There's no denying that the NL is the current top of the range of one of the top manufacturers of the world. As such, it should offer state of the art technology and performance, which I think it does. If it wasn't so, then something would be very wrong.
However, if you ask me, my personal opinion about the NL, I'm not interested in it. To my eyes, the point of 8x32 is dimensions and weight. I would have praised Swarovski if they had managed to squeeze the performance of the NL (or even the performance of the ELSV) in the body of a CL, or even in the body of a Monarch 7/Traveller. Now, THAT would have caught my attention, and that would have led me to think it was the best. But a 640 g 8x32... equipped with Field Pro accessories. Sorry, but even if I was ready to spend all that cash, it simply wouldn't interest me.
EDIT: Mind you, my "best birding binocular" is Swarovski and so is my scope. That is to say, I really value Swarovski as a brand and have nothing against it (although I don't have any brand loyalty and simply go by what I like).
Last edited:
kimmik
Well-known member
NL 42 vs NL 32 spot the difference/similarity
My new theory on why NL 8x32 has smaller FOV than 8x42 - they needed to reduce the weight more, so cut down the prism size. Doesn't affect the 10x32 as explained elsewhere.
100g reduction per barrel, i'm guessing 80g from the front 4 elements and housing, 20g from the prism, rest identical.
Last edited:
A2GG
Beth
here’s a review by Neil English of Trinovid HD 8x32 which has a narrow fov compared to NL 8x32. Quoted below is his opinion why the narrow fov doesn’t matter to him:
“I realise that many binocular enthusiasts will be a little alarmed by the smaller field of view offered up by the Trinovid HD. Most 8 x 32 models have fields approaching 8 angular degrees or even a little higher, but this was a very deliberate choice in my case. I mean, if I wanted a wider field of view, I could have acquired the Zeiss Conquest or the Swarovski CL companion for about the same price I paid for the Leica glass. But I have discovered that I’m more interested in vignettes where I don’t have to resort to rolling my eyes around to take in the entire field rather than broader vistas. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that smaller fields are more conducive to study than overly large ones! I absolutely love the wonderful sharp field stops on the Trinovid and the way it frames each binocular scene I wish to image. I also understand from past experiences with instruments like the Nikon Prostaff 7s 8 x 30, which has an excellent 6.5 degree field, that optical engineers can deliver better edge to edge sharpness by cutting down the field of view. I think the folk at Leica are fully aware of this trick, opting for bigger sweet spots within a smaller field of view, rather than a larger, more conservative field of view but with the loss of critical definition as one moves from the centre to the edge of the field. Truth be told, a seven degree field is more than ample for virtually every scenario I’m likely to find myself in, and in field use I don’t ever get the feeling that the image is ‘restricted’ or ‘tunnelled.’ “
“I realise that many binocular enthusiasts will be a little alarmed by the smaller field of view offered up by the Trinovid HD. Most 8 x 32 models have fields approaching 8 angular degrees or even a little higher, but this was a very deliberate choice in my case. I mean, if I wanted a wider field of view, I could have acquired the Zeiss Conquest or the Swarovski CL companion for about the same price I paid for the Leica glass. But I have discovered that I’m more interested in vignettes where I don’t have to resort to rolling my eyes around to take in the entire field rather than broader vistas. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that smaller fields are more conducive to study than overly large ones! I absolutely love the wonderful sharp field stops on the Trinovid and the way it frames each binocular scene I wish to image. I also understand from past experiences with instruments like the Nikon Prostaff 7s 8 x 30, which has an excellent 6.5 degree field, that optical engineers can deliver better edge to edge sharpness by cutting down the field of view. I think the folk at Leica are fully aware of this trick, opting for bigger sweet spots within a smaller field of view, rather than a larger, more conservative field of view but with the loss of critical definition as one moves from the centre to the edge of the field. Truth be told, a seven degree field is more than ample for virtually every scenario I’m likely to find myself in, and in field use I don’t ever get the feeling that the image is ‘restricted’ or ‘tunnelled.’ “
No, the NL 8x32 is not as small as the UV 8x32, but the UV doesn't have an 8.5 degree FOV with sharp edges either. The NL is bigger because it has to have a bigger prism than the UV for the much bigger FOV and for the UV to be as short as it is it has to use a much simpler shorter 3 element Plossl eyepiece which limits the ER and FOV, whereas, the NL uses a much more complex longer WA 7 element eyepiece for more ER and a greater FOV. There are always tradeoffs in binocular design. Personally, I would rather have my binocular be a little longer and bigger and have a bigger FOV with sharp edges. For me a big FOV with sharp edges is my number one priority and that is why I like Swarovski binoculars in general. They usually have a big FOV with sharp edges.If there is a problem with such an excellent binocular as the NL 8x32 clearly is, it's this:
It's nowt nor summat.
Not small enough to replace the UV, nor a proper x42
"However, if you ask me, my personal opinion about the NL, I'm not interested in it. To my eyes, the point of 8x32 is dimensions and weight. I would have praised Swarovski if they had managed to squeeze the performance of the NL (or even the performance of the ELSV) in the body of a CL, or even in the body of a Monarch 7/Traveller. Now, THAT would have caught my attention, and that would have led me to think it was the best. But a 640 g 8x32... equipped with Field Pro accessories. Sorry, but even if I was ready to spend all that cash, it simply wouldn't interest me."
It is physically impossible to do that. For the NL 8x32 to have the ER and huge FOV that it has it has to have a bigger prism and a more complex longer 7 element WA eyepiece. When you reduce the size of a binocular, you usually give up performance.
You are probably correct. Swarovski also possibly used a shorter, less complex eyepiece in the NL 8x32 than the NL 8x42. The NL 8x42 and NL 8x32 are more different in design than one would think, being in the same family. I get a little glare in the NL 8x32 at the bottom of the FOV in certain situations, but not nearly as much as I did in the NL 8x42.
Last edited:
wdc
Well-known member
Dennis, Single minded (and ever changing) rationalization has been a hallmark of your posting style for years. One idea, repeated over and over, post after post, accompanied by such intentionally naive phrases as "I just don't understand why anyone wouldn't want the same thing that I (temporarily) value so highly.. golly gee" And then, in a few weeks, when you have sold the binocular, and acquired a new one, you'll present another narrow, revised, premise for why these new bins are the cats pajamas, etc.
When you owned the Tract Toric it was a relentless barrage of "why pay 4x more for a miniscule improvement? Who needs a larger field of view anyway? The alpha is dead" etc.
Admittedly, your calculated naivete does function as a way of dragging folks into a 'discussion', but with very few enlightening ideas emanating from the center, only from the periphery. Sort of a village idiot/socratic dialogue... But perhaps that is just the way of the internet, where individuals of your sort set up camp in a forum and relentlessly drive a thread with the basic underlying premise of "let's talk as long as possible about a binocular I currently own.." while you reiterate the same flimsy rationalizations as a sort of easy bait to draw folks in.
I guess it works from time to time, and we're just a bunch of suckers ;-)
Thank goodness there are other discussions here by and from folks with more experienced, useful, and thoughtful points of view.
-Bill
When you owned the Tract Toric it was a relentless barrage of "why pay 4x more for a miniscule improvement? Who needs a larger field of view anyway? The alpha is dead" etc.
Admittedly, your calculated naivete does function as a way of dragging folks into a 'discussion', but with very few enlightening ideas emanating from the center, only from the periphery. Sort of a village idiot/socratic dialogue... But perhaps that is just the way of the internet, where individuals of your sort set up camp in a forum and relentlessly drive a thread with the basic underlying premise of "let's talk as long as possible about a binocular I currently own.." while you reiterate the same flimsy rationalizations as a sort of easy bait to draw folks in.
I guess it works from time to time, and we're just a bunch of suckers ;-)
Thank goodness there are other discussions here by and from folks with more experienced, useful, and thoughtful points of view.
-Bill
wdc
Well-known member
Thanks for posting this Beth. Its a good explanation for how/why a narrower field can be satisfying to view. Its been my experience that a narrower field, combined with a large AFOV can be totally immersive.
The Trinovid HD 8 x 32 is a fine little binocular. Easy on the eyes. I have a pair that I loaned out to my son, and when I go over there, always grab them and head to the backyard to see what's up. Their AFOV is a tad narrow, but one gets used to it and just enjoys the view.
William Lewis
Wishing birdwatching paid the bills.
I did try to get some enlightenment on what had led to the current position or if there were any old binoculars that were still present and enjoyed but all I got back was nl 32 big fov, sharp to the edges. Nl nl nl 32 32 32. I think it was sfl sfl sfl then habicht habicht habicht before that if memory serves...
tenex
reality-based
CAN see, how? I don't believe one can tell whether the edge is entirely sharp while looking at the center. I was just testing that with my EII with a similar FOV: 60-70% out maybe, which is why a large sweet spot is desirable. But the edge, no. You would actually have to look out well away from the center to notice that the edge is a bit soft, which isn't optically ideal anyway, and most bins start to kidneybean when you try. So NLs are perhaps "best" for the birder who insists on doing this, but I'll bet most don't.
And even when momentarily noticed, modest edge softness due to field curvature is easy to forgive, unless you're somehow determined not to. After all, bins have been like that for ages. What can bother me is the level of astigmatism/coma I've seen (Zeiss FL comes to mind) where things start actually to look smeary around the edges. That does distract me, and it's even uglier when panning, so I avoid it.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I’d say, least reliable source of information, as everything positive you say about your latest love you later completely recant…mix and repeat for 10 years."in order to establish your status as the most knowledgeable optics expert on this forum."
I thought everybody knew that already.
