Are the Swarovski NL 8x32s the best birding binoculars? (2 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

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.

I don't know I can see the edge of the FOV and if it is smeary or fuzzy due to field curvature or whatever, it bothers me. If nobody sees the edge of the FOV why did Swarovski spend so much money on R&D and make such a big deal out of the new flat field sharp edged El's when they came out. Every time I scan, I see the edge of the FOV. IMO, sharp edges and bigger FOV are the biggest advancements to come along in binoculars in years.

 

[GrampaTom]

I don't know I can see the edge of the FOV and if it is smeary or fuzzy due to field curvature or whatever, it bothers me. If nobody sees the edge of the FOV why did Swarovski spend so much money on R&D and make such a big deal out of the new flat field sharp edged El's when they came out. Every time I scan, I see the edge of the FOV. IMO, sharp edges and bigger FOV are the biggest advancements to come along in binoculars in years.

Its called marketing..

 

[dorubird]

Personally, I find the new 32mm's almost as big as the same 42mm brothers. Zeiss and Swarovski changed the standards of the 32mm class by increasing the FOV but sacrificing the compactness of binoculars! Personaly I dont like this! I prefer a 32mm to be as small as possible because I have bigger binoculars anyway. This is exactly why I love the M HG so much, because it is extremely small (almost like an 8x25!!!) but without sacrificing either the field of view (8.3deg.) or the eye relief (16.2mm). In terms of size, these new 32's NL and SF are enormous vs the old 32mm ones (Zeiss FL, Swaro CL, Nikon M HG or Leica Ultravid). Yes, the olders one have some issues for someone, but the new 32mm are optically not by much better than olders one to justified this issues of larger volum for me.

Indeed, if someone wants to own only one pair of binoculars, then these large NL or SF 32mm are fully justified because these are great optically. But if we have their great 42mm bigger brothers also, 32mm are redundant in my opinion.

 

[kimmik]

Why fully sharp? Camera phones.

Swaro thinks digiscoping is replacing gen z’s big camera.

Eyes however don’t need sharp to the edge, most people accept that.

 

[[email protected]]

Personally, I find the new 32mm's almost as big as the same 42mm brothers. Zeiss and Swarovski changed the standards of the 32mm class by increasing the FOV but sacrificing the compactness of binoculars! Personaly I dont like this! I prefer a 32mm to be as small as possible because I have bigger binoculars anyway. This is exactly why I love the M HG so much, because it is extremely small (almost like an 8x25!!!) but without sacrificing either the field of view (8.3deg.) or the eye relief (16.2mm). In terms of size, these new 32's NL and SF are enormous vs the old 32mm ones (Zeiss FL, Swaro CL, Nikon M HG or Leica Ultravid). Yes, the olders one have some issues for someone, but the new 32mm are optically not by much better than olders one to justified this issues of larger volum for me.

Indeed, if someone wants to own only one pair of binoculars, then these large NL or SF 32mm are fully justified because these are great optically. But if we have their great 42mm bigger brothers also, 32mm are redundant in my opinion.

I agree that outside of the bigger FOV and arguably ergonomics the new 32 mm NL and SF are not that much better than the older FL and EL, and they are bigger. You pay a price in size and weight for the big flat field FOV, so you really have to want it. The huge FOV of the SF and NL requires a big, long 7 element eyepiece. The Nikon MHG does have a pretty big FOV at 8.3 degree, but it is not corrected at the edge there being quite a bit of fall off even though Nikon claims it is flat field, so Nikon can use a less complex and smaller eyepiece and keep the binocular smaller. A big FOV with sharp edges like the NL and SF have takes a big, long, complex, usually 7 element eyepiece. That is the reason the SF 8x32 is longer than the SFL 8x40.

 

[[email protected]]

Its called marketing..

It also sells binoculars. There are a lot of birders and hunters that want a big FOV with sharp edges. Hunter's like a big FOV because they can scan quicker, taking in more are at each scan, and it helps them find game. Swarovski knows this.

 

[GrampaTom]

It also sells binoculars. There are a lot of birders and hunters that want a big FOV with sharp edges. Hunter's like a big FOV because they can scan quicker, taking in more are at each scan, and it helps them find game. Swarovski knows this.

Thats what marketing does Dennis...

 

[CharleyBird]

Given that the 12x42 was taking 60% of initial sales over the 10x42 and 8x42, will hunters really be interested in an 8x32?

If Swarovski binocular production is in the tens of thousands as theorised in an earlier thread, are they supplying a niche market for the wealthy?

 

[[email protected]]

Thats what marketing does Dennis...

Marketing is advertising. What I meant was that a huge FOV with a flat field and sharp edges sells binoculars. I was referring to the product itself, not the advertising of it.

 

[[email protected]]

Given that the 12x42 was taking 60% of initial sales over the 10x42 and 8x42, will hunters really be interested in an 8x32?

If Swarovski binocular production is in the tens of thousands as theorised in an earlier thread, are they supplying a niche market for the wealthy?

I didn't say that hunter's prefer the 8x32. I said hunter's like birder's like a big corrected FOV even though they usually do prefer the 10x and 12x magnification for additional detail. The 10x42 is probably the most popular size for hunter's. Scheel's don't even hardly stock any 8x32's because they cater to hunter's and almost all their inventory is 10x42's.

 

[GrampaTom]

Marketing is advertising. What I meant was that a huge FOV with a flat field and sharp edges sells binoculars. I was referring to the product itself, not the advertising of it.

Ahem.. As a former senior marketing exec at a once largish US firearms and ammunition company, I beg to differ.... on both fronts, what marketing is and what hunters want.

 

[tenex]

Why fully sharp? Camera phones.

Swaro thinks digiscoping is replacing gen z’s big camera.

Interesting proposal, but I'm not sure I buy it. Won't rectangular cropping for sharing eliminate soft edges?

I don't know I can see the edge of the FOV and if it is smeary or fuzzy due to field curvature or whatever, it bothers me. If nobody sees the edge of the FOV why did Swarovski spend so much money on R&D and make such a big deal out of the new flat field sharp edged El's when they came out. Every time I scan, I see the edge of the FOV.

Hunter's like a big FOV because they can scan quicker, taking in more are at each scan, and it helps them find game.

Just as many birders would. But it doesn't need to be tack sharp at the edge, except for the sort of hunter who fears he could miss a twelve-pointer if it isn't. Or the sort of owner who fears he hasn't bought the finest binocular if it isn't. Sharpness to the field edge is all about psychology and marketing.

Of course choice is good, but why are we still having this argument a dozen years after the introduction of Swarovision? Because its utility remains so debatable. Excuse me, I need to take my SLC out for a walk...

 

[GrampaTom]

Me to. Going birding...

 

[WJC]

WDC, your posts are so oozing with conceit and elitism they actually make me sick. You obviously by your writing style think you are better or know more than everybody else on Bird Forum, and you don't. You make a lot of statements that are contradictory and really make no sense. I try to avoid your posts at all costs because usually they have no substance but are just another attack on me because obviously you don't care for my posts or me. You say you don't like the NL 8x32 because it is too big, yet your main birding binocular is the Leica Noctivid 8x42 which is probably the biggest, heaviest 10x42 binocular out there! Where is the logic in that? When you start a thread, they go nowhere because you try to talk over people's heads without really knowing what you are talking about. You responded to Beth by saying a binocular with a narrow FOV and a large AFOV can be very immersive. What binocular has a narrow FOV and a large AFOV? That doesn't even make sense. The AFOV of the Leica Trinovid HD 8x32 is 54 degrees! That is NOT a big AFOV, and it is NOT immersive. Your "Know it All" attitude would be ok if you actually knew something, but you don't, and you don't you bother me with your insults because I know where they are coming from.

Denny,

By the tone of your verbiage, I think you are confusing W D C with me ... W J C. Would I be wrong in thinking you simply attack anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR narrow-minded, egocentric, constantly shifting, "I KNOW what I see," philosophies? I believe your words would get a lot more traction if you would back off the throttle a little. But, that's just a thought.

Also, please feel free to assail ME all you want.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” — Dr. Richard Feynman

 

[dries1]

The post is gone, however archived in Bills post.

 

[jgraider]

Ahem.. As a former senior marketing exec at a once largish US firearms and ammunition company, I beg to differ.... on both fronts, what marketing is and what hunters want.

Right Grampa. Den has no clue what he's talking about in the hunting arena. He's just regurgitating his perpetual BS.

 

[wdc]

My responses in blue:

[email protected] said:
<snip>
.... You say you don't like the NL 8x32 because it is too big, yet your main birding binocular is the Leica Noctivid 8x42 which is probably the biggest, heaviest 10x42 binocular out there! Where is the logic in that?

My point, Denco, is that for an 8x32, the NL is big. A lot of folks think of an 8 x 32 as a more portable alternative to a 42, and there are in fact much smaller 8x32's out there than the NL. The Noctivid is rather large and heavy, but it is a 10x42. However it only weighs 10 grams more than an NL 10 x 42. Not too much of a difference when you compare apples to apples.


....You responded to Beth by saying a binocular with a narrow FOV and a large AFOV can be very immersive. What binocular has a narrow FOV and a large AFOV? That doesn't even make sense.

Answer: The 10 x 42 Noctivid! It has a 6.39° FOV and an AFOV between 58 and 63.9° depending on how you calculate it.
I was referring to the Noctivid when I made that comment. You didn't actually read what I wrote.


....The AFOV of the Leica Trinovid HD 8x32 is 54 degrees! That is NOT a big AFOV, and it is NOT immersive.

I didn't say it was. In fact I mentioned the AFOV of that binocular was a bit narrow. But it is still a nice view!

 

[[email protected]]

Right Grampa. Den has no clue what he's talking about in the hunting arena. He's just regurgitating his perpetual BS.

You sound like a parrot, sometimes jgraider. Don't you have any thoughts of your own or anything useful to contribute to the thread? I know more about hunting than you will ever know. If you think everything I say is BS, get off my thread, bro. Go start your own. I promise I won't post any BS on it.

 

[[email protected]]

My responses in blue:

[email protected] said:
<snip>
.... You say you don't like the NL 8x32 because it is too big, yet your main birding binocular is the Leica Noctivid 8x42 which is probably the biggest, heaviest 10x42 binocular out there! Where is the logic in that?

My point, Denco, is that for an 8x32, the NL is big. A lot of folks think of an 8 x 32 as a more portable alternative to a 42, and there are in fact much smaller 8x32's out there than the NL. The Noctivid is rather large and heavy, but it is a 10x42. However it only weighs 10 grams more than an NL 10 x 42. Not too much of a difference when you compare apples to apples.


....You responded to Beth by saying a binocular with a narrow FOV and a large AFOV can be very immersive. What binocular has a narrow FOV and a large AFOV? That doesn't even make sense.

Answer: The 10 x 42 Noctivid! It has a 6.39° FOV and an AFOV between 58 and 63.9° depending on how you calculate it.
I was referring to the Noctivid when I made that comment. You didn't actually read what I wrote.


....The AFOV of the Leica Trinovid HD 8x32 is 54 degrees! That is NOT a big AFOV, and it is NOT immersive.

I didn't say it was. In fact I mentioned the AFOV of that binocular was a bit narrow. But it is still a nice view!

My point, Denco, is that for an 8x32, the NL is big. A lot of folks think of an 8 x 32 as a more portable alternative to a 42, and there are in fact much smaller 8x32's out there than the NL. The Noctivid is rather large and heavy, but it is a 10x42. However, it only weighs 10 grams more than an NL 10 x 42. Not too much of a difference when you compare apples to apples.

There are smaller 8x32's but not many with an 8.5 degree FOV and tack sharp edges. You have to have a bigger, longer eyepiece to get that kind of performance, so it makes sense that the binocular is going to be bigger. 10 grams is a LOT heavier! I had a Noctivid 8x42 and I sold it because it was a brick! The thing is HUGE! It is as heavy as many 50 mm binoculars.

Answer: The 10 x 42 Noctivid! It has a 6.39° FOV and an AFOV between 58 and 63.9°, depending on how you calculate it.
I was referring to the Noctivid when I made that comment. You didn't actually read what I wrote.

A 6.4 degree FOV is actually pretty big for a 10x. That will give you an AFOV of 64 degrees, which is quite good for a 10x. The Leica Trinovid 10x42 is much narrower with a 6.1 degree FOV, and it follows that the AFOV is small also at 61 degree. Your logic makes no sense!

I didn't say it was. In fact, I mentioned the AFOV of that binocular was a bit narrow. But it is still a nice view!

Yes, it is if you like tunnel views. It has one of the narrowest FOV of any 8x32 out there. The NL 8x32 put's it to shame!

 

[wdc]

10 grams is a LOT heavier! I had a Noctivid 8x42 and I sold it because it was a brick! The thing is HUGE! It is as heavy as many 50 mm binoculars.

10 grams is about a third of an ounce. Not sure what you mean with that one...

Compare the weight of a 10x42 Noctivid to a 10x42 NL... the difference is 10 grams.

Answer: The 10 x 42 Noctivid! It has a 6.39° FOV and an AFOV between 58 and 63.9°, depending on how you calculate it.
I was referring to the Noctivid when I made that comment. You didn't actually read what I wrote.

A 6.4 degree FOV is actually pretty big for a 10x. That will give you an AFOV of 64 degrees, which is quite good for a 10x. The Leica Trinovid 10x42 is much narrower with a 6.1 degree FOV, and it follows that the AFOV is small also at 61 degree. Your logic makes no sense!

I never in any post mentioned or referred to a 10x42 Trinovid, so have no idea what you are carrying on about. Your question to me was what has a narrow FOV and a big AFOV, and my answer was the Noctivid 10x42. When I say 'narrow', it was in comparison with other 10x42s, like the NL, SF, MHG, Conquest. Go compare the FOV's on allbinos. The Noctivid is the narrowest of all those bins. The Trinovid HD's are all purposefully restrained in performance by design, so as not to compete with their higher priced models. Nice view, but yes, narrow. End of story.