• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Are the Swarovski NL 8x32s the best birding binoculars? (1 Viewer)

Troubador said:
Its a shame that you don't do this Dennis. There is more to nature than just birds, and being someone who wants full value for money, using binoculars to examine subjects whether they are close or far away simply means getting more value from your binos.

Lee
Click to expand...
Bugs up close kind of scare me. I looked at a dragonfly once, and it looked like a 747 in flight!
 
lilcrazy2 said:
I bet I could find literally dozens upon dozens of posts by you thru the years justifying to others why your flavor of the month's narrower FOV is not that big a deal compared to other optical advantages. When you had the SFL's you posted that the SFL's had less glare and better colors than the NL's, and wondered why anyone would buy an NL for other than the wider FOV. Fast forward - and now that you got rid of the SFL's and have the NL's, I guess you have decided that more glare and worse colors are acceptable and not that big of a deal.
I would suspect that many members would prefer giving up a slight amount of FOV in order to have a bino that handles glare and colors better. I know I would.

I like to wear my flip flops on my feet and not continually publish them in BF
Click to expand...
"I would suspect that many members would prefer giving up a slight amount of FOV in order to have a bino that handles glare and colors better. I know I would."

That helps me wrap my head around why you would tolerate a smaller FOV. You give up quantity for quality. Got it. It is just every time a try smaller FOV binocular anymore, maybe I have changed, I get this tunnel feeling. I am addicted to the big FOV I guess. I wish there was a binocular that had a huge FOV WITH more color saturation and better glare handling. Why doesn't Leica increase their FOV because then they would lose those qualities they are known for? Until Leica does that, I would rather have the big FOV and a little glare with less color saturation, but that comes down to personal preference. Leica probably won't increase their FOV though because that would require a bigger, longer eyepiece, and then they would lose their compact size that they are famous for.
 
Last edited:
dorubird said:
Aesthetically speaking, I am one of those who also appreciates a small AFOV too, but of course with a few conditions: The edge of the field stop circle should be as clear as the edge of a knife, and easily visible at a glance. The transition between the AFOV image circle and the black on the edges should be clear and defined and with all the AFOV easily accessible at one glance, without moving the head in front of eyepieces. Another condition for me to like a small AFOV is that the clarity on the edges must be acceptable (I don't want it to be perfect, but it shouldn't bother me. For example, the Leica 8x20 Trinovid doesn't have 100% clarity up to the edges, but not so bad that to bother me). As an example: the zeiss pocket 8x25 has a very large AFOV and quite extensive clarity, and I can see its edges very easily. But the transition from the black edge to the AFOV circle is not as well defined as in Leica Trinovid 8x20 BCA, which even if the image is more tunnel-like and with less clarity on the edges, the circle of the AFOV is nicely defined, which I like aesthetically more than the Zeiss VP view. The Zeiss VP seems to have an undefined AFOV.
So, sometimes I can aestethically appreciate a small AFOV as much as a big and good one, if it meets certain conditions
Click to expand...
Very good post and I agree! Dorubird you have a deep understanding of binoculars. Very impressive. I can tolerate a smaller AFOV also if the edges are more defined, and I prefer the Leica Trinovid 8x20 BCA over the Zeiss Victory 8x25 for the same reason. In fact, I have the Trinovid as my compact binocular for that very reason.
 
[email protected] said:
The SE only has a 7.5 degree FOV. I don't consider that big anymore. A big FOV starts at 8.5 degree for an 8x.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to SE and neither were you when you put SF and NL together as top of the tree optics. Although you do change your mind quite often I don't think you would have changed it between your Post 88 (in which you say SF and NL are the best) and your Post 92 ( in which you only mention NL) only 34 minutes later!

Lee
 
[email protected] said:
Do you like IMAX or the regular movie theater? I have no trouble seeing the field stop with an NL, and it frames the image perfectly. It is just it gives you a bigger picture. I have a difficult understanding why somebody would want a smaller FOV. I guess if the smaller FOV brought other benefits, I could understand it. For example, with a Habicht 7x42, the image is very bright because of the high transmission. Or with a Leica you have very nice color saturation. But overall the NL image is very good, just big.
Click to expand...
There you go, you answered your own question , now we’re getting somewhere 😃. I’m proud of you🤣.
 
[email protected] said:
It is all about personal preference. If you prefer a big FOV with sharp edges you want an SF or NL, but if you like a smaller FOV with softer edges with nice color saturation you want a Leica. My problem is, I can't understand why if the image of the NL overall is pretty good. I guess you prefer the color saturation or something else about the Leica. My number one priority anymore is a big FOV with sharp edges for my main birding binocular.
Click to expand...
Your number one priority is big FOV with sharp edges? Is that for this week or just for today. 🤪
 
[email protected] said:
I never really cared for the SE. I always found it to be too finicky for eye placement. I would prefer a huge FOV like the E2 has even with smeary edges over a smaller FOV with sharp edges, but I what I REALLY like is a huge FOV with sharp edges. Only the NL gives me that.
Click to expand...
So let me see if I understand you correctly, you like large FOV with sharp edges (in November) but you like huge FOV of E2 with smeary edges, but only when the edges are not as sharp as a sharp edge (SE) when eye placement is finicky , but you don’t like large FOV and sharp edges with good eye placement in the SF 🤪.

By any chance are you having lunch with Kamala Harris anytime soon. 🫢
 
Paultricounty said:
So let me see if I understand you correctly, you like large FOV with sharp edges (in November) but you like huge FOV of E2 with smeary edges, but only when the edges are not as sharp as a sharp edge (SE) when eye placement is finicky , but you don’t like large FOV and sharp edges with good eye placement in the SF 🤪.

By any chance are you having lunch with Kamala Harris anytime soon. 🫢
Click to expand...
No, Trump before his trial. I am going to teach him how to confuse the jurors with tongue twisters.:LOL:
 
[email protected] said:
Until Leica does that I would rather have the big FOV and a little glare with less color saturation, but that comes down to personal preference.
Click to expand...
Dennis, you’re finally coming around to admitting that your original premise of this thread that “the NL 8x32 is the best for 99% of average birders” is incorrect.

I have read many of your posts assailing other optical characteristics of certain bins that drove you crazy at the time, i.e., ergonomics, eyecups, build quality, weight, GLARE (I was glad when I finally stopped reading about your consternation with veiling glare in the 8x30 Habicht while viewing goats from the bottom of a canyon - that example was in almost every post of yours for several months), and the list goes on. So, a large FOV and a flat image to the edge hasn't ALWAYS been the only two things that float your boat.

Other optical characteristics might be more important to others than a FOV that large and field flatteners (btw, I am not in the flat image camp, as it makes ME feel I am viewing a poster instead of reality, with no quality of depth to the image). But that doesn’t make the opinion of people who like a flat field any more or less valid than mine, or your’s for that matter.

You like a large FOV and a flat field to the edge. That’s great! And you want to proclaim it to the world. That’s great! And many will agree with you. But implying that the opinions of others who don’t agree with your’s reveals a certain level of arrogance or insecurity, especially when we all know it will change in another couple of months anyway.

Sometimes I actually enjoy reading your posts, as it makes the popcorn taste better 😉
 
razor6 said:
Dennis, you’re finally coming around to admitting that your original premise of this thread that “the NL 8x32 is the best for 99% of average birders” is incorrect.

I have read many of your posts assailing other optical characteristics of certain bins that drove you crazy at the time, i.e., ergonomics, eyecups, build quality, weight, GLARE (I was glad when I finally stopped reading about your consternation with veiling glare in the 8x30 Habicht while viewing goats from the bottom of a canyon - that example was in almost every post of yours for several months), and the list goes on. So, a large FOV and a flat image to the edge hasn't ALWAYS been the only two things that float your boat.

Other optical characteristics might be more important to others than a FOV that large and field flatteners (btw, I am not in the flat image camp, as it makes ME feel I am viewing a poster instead of reality, with no quality of depth to the image). But that doesn’t make the opinion of people who like a flattened view any more or less valid than mine, or your’s for that matter.

You like a large FOV and a flat field to the edge. That’s great! And you want to proclaim it to the world. That’s great! And many will agree with you. But implying that the opinions of others who don’t agree with your’s reveals a certain level of arrogance or insecurity, especially when we all know it will change in another couple of months anyway.

Sometimes I actually enjoy reading your posts, as it makes the popcorn taste better 😉
Click to expand...
Try fresh popped kettle corn. It is wonderful. The premise should have been "the NL 8x32 is the best for me this week":ROFLMAO:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

MaunaKea
Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 vs CL Companion 8x30
2 3
Replies
48
Views
4K
tenex
tenex
D
Zeiss SFL 8x40 This Year's Best New Birding Binocular!
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
AlphaFan
A
B
Companion pair to NL pure 12x42
Replies
15
Views
1K
Birdiee
B
N
Entry/Test 8x32 binoculars
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Patudo
P
G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Vinnie45acp
V

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top