• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Focuser smoothness on NL Pure? (1 Viewer)

BabyDov

Well-known member
United States
I see. Yes, I have always looked for the larger exit pupil. But, I am told that after a certain age our eyes don't dilate enough to take advantage? Still, it seems that a larger exit pupil is easier as far as positioning your eyes for a good view? I will look at these.
You probably have given me the answer to why I see no difference in eye placement ease between my 8xNl and 12xNl, or brightness differences betwwen the two. I guess at age 78 years, my eyes can't dilate enough to be able to appreciate the differences.
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
United States
For budget wise, look like if someone encounters with the NL itches, It might be a good idea to get the NL 12x42 first and then either stop there or work backward...I owned both SV 10 and 12x50 in the past and can tell for the eyeglasses wearers, the NL lines works much better on eye relief and eye placement comforts, lighter in weight and wider FOV as well as better 3-D effects.
I wonder what eye glass wearers experience with their Nls after having cateract surgery and being able to give up their glasses. Do they then have problems with their Nls which seem to favor the eye glass wearer?
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
United States
I strongly believed that Swarovski pays close attention on the NL 12x42 when they produced the NL lines since this is their first on this format! and It's truly NOT a disappointed but a greatest one iaw my eyes! Some experts expressed that the optic was stretched too much on the 12x in comparing with the 10 or 8 but I still try to figure out what they meant. I don't see any lack in performance characteristics of the 12! in the contrary, I see the 12x is the best among NL line including optical characteristic. It's even better contrast than the 8x and of cause the gloring details of the birds, waterfowls and wildlife around the park and lakes where I frequently take a walks. Two major factors I wasn't happy with the EL 50 series were the eye relief and weight. Even with 10x50 with 20mm ER as Swarovski claim, I never felt comfortable with the view or the eye placement when having my glasses on. I felt like Swarovski took my complain in when designing the eye pieces for NL lines. It's "close" to perfect for me (19/20mm eye relief would be perfect). And amazing that across the entire NL lines 8 or 12 or 10, I don't feel any differences regarding the easy and comfort of eye relief and eye placement although the technically differences in exit pupils! I like my NL 10x32 for size and weight and portability but the NL 12x42 is my most valuable bino and the best!
I thought it might be my imagination or that I didnt have a cherry pair 8xNl, that its contrast and colorvsaturation pailed, a bit, in comparison to my 12xNl. I am glad to see others appreciating the difference iwith respect to contrast and that there is nothing wrong with my 8xNl. But why is that the case?
Wouldn't you expect the opposite i.e. Less contrast with thicker higher magnification lenses?
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
You probably have given me the answer to why I see no difference in eye placement ease between my 8xNl and 12xNl, or brightness differences betwwen the two. I guess at age 78 years, my eyes can't dilate enough to be able to appreciate the differences.

I have seen many posts on here that like to promote the 12x size. It does not matter what make or model, a 12x binocular is a nice size,
but for handheld use, it is not going to be enjoyable for normal use. It is simply going to offer too much shake, and an unstable image.

I see the age of 78, cataract surgery, etc. Another reason to go with a lesser power, such as 8x, even 10 can be more difficult when you start
getting shaky............

The 12x and larger do best when tripod mounted. That is a matter of physics.

Jerry
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
United States
I have seen many posts on here that like to promote the 12x size. It does not matter what make or model, a 12x binocular is a nice size,
but for handheld use, it is not going to be enjoyable for normal use. It is simply going to offer too much shake, and an unstable image.

I see the age of 78, cataract surgery, etc. Another reason to go with a lesser power, such as 8x, even 10 can be more difficult when you start
getting shaky............

The 12x and larger do best when tripod mounted. That is a matter of physics.

Jerry
When it comes to the 12x42Nl, it is a game changer for me. Any binocular.would be more steady with a tripod. but the 12xNl can be held steady enough without one, because of its unique ergonomics and balance. I was very surprised that I have no more shake issues with it than I do with the 8xNl. With the head rest it might be even better. (I just ordered one.) I am 78 and never even tried a binocular that was more powerful than 8x, because I imagined what your warned me about, the shakes. It just wasn't an issue. If you haven't tried the 12xNl, perhaps you should,. ( However, you should be warned, that if you try it, you are likely to buy it. That's what happened with me.)

Currently, I wear glasses. My only concern, now, is whether, without needing glasses after future cataract surgery, I might have eye placement issues that I currently don't have. I have been told that the design of the Nl favors eye glass wearers in that regard. We'll see.
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
Baby:
I have experience with several 12x binoculars. Your claim of special things going on with the Swaovski NL 12x42 are largely
BS, in other words nonsense. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it...... ;)

Jerry
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
United States
Baby:
I have experience with several 12x binoculars. Your claim of special things going on with the Swaovski NL 12x42 are largely
BS, in other words nonsense. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it...... ;)

Jerry
I am not the first person who has made this claim. Just check out the reviews from people who are far more reputable than I am.

Your experience might differ, if you were to try them, but you probably won't. Why bother, if you are already convinced you are right and others, like me, must be dishing out B.S.?

Furthermore, if you want to disagree without trying them, that's fine. But why do you have to be so offensive, when you do so?
 
Last edited:

dries1

Member
BabyFov,

How are you using the 12X42?, is it primarily standing and then walking or seated - just curious, I have used the NL all three models in the field, I have the 8X42, and I do not wear glasses.
 

rpg51

Well-known member
The fact that the 12x42 NL has the same fov as the 10x42 EL could perhaps make it a bit easier to handhold compared to other 12x binos? Just thinking out loud a bit. There is always going to be some shake. I wonder though, hypothetically, if you have the exact same bino in every way, except the FOV in one is significantly wider, will the impact of shake on observation of a centrally located subject be reduced? Or put another way, if you have the same sized subject in view, but with one bino there is a wider total view, so the subject represents a smaller percentage of the total field of view - does that make a difference in the impact that shake has on the ability to get a good usable view of the subject?
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
United States
BabyFov,

How are you using the 12X42?, is it primarily standing and then walking or seated - just curious, I have used the NL all three models in the field, I have the 8X42, and I do not wear glasses.
I wear glasses. I have only had my 12 x 42NL a few days. I have been using them primarily standing, looking out into my back yard at my feeders or walking with them a short distance from my house. It is unlikely that I will return them, because I like them so much. Furthermore, I do have 30 days to carefully check them out, and if necessary (no defects have been discovered so far), I can return them. I will wait a bit more, before I register them and then take them into the woods on a hike. I do occasionally sit with them in my living room, looking around at my wife's plants, flowers, etc. I really like that the close focus is about 2 meters, although a bit more than my 8x42NL.

Did you try all 3 models, before you settled on the 8 x 42NL?
I wish I would have had that opportunity. I don't regret owning the 8 x 42NL. It's great, but I might have bought the 12x first, had I been able to try all of them before. I bought the 8x42NL, first, because of it's record setting FOV that sets it apart from any other of the NL's, not to mention any other roof prism binocular..
 

jcnguyen09

Well-known member
I am not the first person who has made this claim. Just check out the reviews from people who are far more reputable than I am.

Your experience might differ, if you were to try them, but you probably won't. Why bother, if you are already convinced you are right and others, like me, must be dishing out B.S.?

Furthermore, if you want to disagree without trying them, that's fine. But why do you have to be so offensive, when you do so?
Look like Swarovski had tried to denounce the rule of physics with the NL 12x42! I am in no way to promote any branches or makers! Honestly as a long time fan of 12x powers, I have to admit Swarovski did succeed and made by far a huge lift to the user's friendliness and field usefulness and performance of any 12x format. I am more than happy to give them a big round of applause for making the NL 12x42. It is handheld-able, less shake, huge FOV/AFOV, 18mm ER, within 30oz, Sharp to the edges, beautiful color rendition (closer to Leica's), excellent depth of field for a 12x format, FRN eye placement assist accessory, and the list goes on......Very sorry that all of these goodnesses made someone feels offensive!
 
Last edited:

BabyDov

Well-known member
United States
The fact that the 12x42 NL has the same fov as the 10x42 EL could perhaps make it a bit easier to handhold compared to other 12x binos? Just thinking out loud a bit. There is always going to be some shake. I wonder though, hypothetically, if you have the exact same bino in every way, except the FOV in one is significantly wider, will the impact of shake on observation of a centrally located subject be reduced? Or put another way, if you have the same sized subject in view, but with one bino there is a wider total view, so the subject represents a smaller percentage of the total field of view - does that make a difference in the impact that shake has on the ability to get a good usable view of the subject?
That makes a lot of sense. However, some people have found that, besides FOV, the ergonomics and balance affect ease of use, even more. For example, I owned the 8.5 x 42 EL for a short time and found it difficult, because of its bulk and balance, to hold anywhere near as steady as I can with my 8 x 42NL. You might argue that the lesser magnification and greater FOV of the NL, favors it. Both might be true. However, when it comes to FOV differences, you always have to take into consideration the distance between you and your subject. FOV differences, or how it might affects your perception of shake, may not be important at closer distances, because the difference in FOV may only be a few feet. At a 1000 feet where the differences are more, obvious, that may not be the case.
 

dries1

Member
It is shocking that the 12X42 NL has a excellent depth of field, that was not my observation.

Babydov,
As stated in my first post, I spent many a time in the field with all three before deciding on the 8X42. The 10X42 was nice also, but I am so used to the 10X50 format ( I use those in 10X the most frequent) and I already have a few premium 10X42s, it was not needed. In 12x I am more than content with my 12x50s.
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
However, when it comes to FOV differences, you always have to take into consideration the distance between you and your subject. FOV differences, or how it might affects your perception of shake, may not be important at closer distances, because the difference in FOV may only be a few feet. At a 1000 feet where the differences are more, obvious, that may not be the case.
I find this statement confusing, as field of view is angular. and an eight degree field of view is still an eight degree field of view, whether across a room or at the stars at (optical) infinity.

Can you explain your idea in a different way?
 

rpg51

Well-known member
Not sure how depth of field is determined in binos v. cameras. Also not sure great depth of field is necessarily better than shallow. It might depend on what you are looking at. Certainly in photography you manipulate the depth of field to achieve different results. Sometimes you want shallow depth of field to make the in focus subject really pop.
 

SUPPRESSOR

Well-known member
England
I have seen many posts on here that like to promote the 12x size. It does not matter what make or model, a 12x binocular is a nice size,
but for handheld use, it is not going to be enjoyable for normal use. It is simply going to offer too much shake, and an unstable image.

I see the age of 78, cataract surgery, etc. Another reason to go with a lesser power, such as 8x, even 10 can be more difficult when you start
getting shaky............

The 12x and larger do best when tripod mounted. That is a matter of physics.

Jerry
poppycock, twaddle, fiddle-faddle,claptrap,fustian,tommyrot,etc.
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
United States
I find this statement confusing, as field of view is angular. and an eight degree field of view is still an eight degree field of view, whether across a room or at the stars at (optical) infinity.

Can you explain your idea in a different way?
I believe you explained it exactly. Angle of view expressed in degrees, affects maximum FOV that is expressed in Feet/Meters at a 1000yards or 1000 meters. The angular expression affects the dimension of the actual field you see at different distances, which constantly increases the further away you are looking. On the other hand, the angle of view stays the same, regardless of the distance.

Think of it this way:

With respect to understanding angular view, and how it affects FOV at any given distance, envision yourself, holding your binocular and being the apex of a triangle, an apex angle being either wide or narrow.. Imagine, then, two angular lines extending outward from where you stand, that complete a triangle with a line that connects these sides while passing horizontally through the subject matter you are viewing. The width of that connecting line in front of you is the FOV at that subject distance. Its size depends not just on the angle at the apex, but on the size of the triangle that is formed. If the angle of the apex is wide, the FOV line, increases rapidly in width as you look at subjects further out, as you form a broader, larger triangle. But if the angle of the apex is narrow, the FOV increases less rapidly as you look out further. It becomes a larger but skinnier triangle. In either case, when you are closer to the apex, there isn't as much difference in the size of the line {FOV) in actual feet between the sides when the triangles are smaller. So a maximum FOV of 399 yards vs one of 330 yards, will only be 69 feet more at 1000 yards. It may be only a few feet different when looking 10 yards away.

All this means means is that we can best appreciate a wider FOV when viewing subjects further away from us, than we can with subjects that are close up. Angle of view, on the other hand, never changes with distance. By itself, without taking distance into account, angle of view doesn't tell the whole story, at least in a practical way. FOV which it affects is more important. Confusion comes when you try to equate angle of view with FOV.
I hope this now makes some sense.
 
Last edited:

jcnguyen09

Well-known member
It is shocking that the 12X42 NL has a excellent depth of field, that was not my observation.

Babydov,
As stated in my first post, I spent many a time in the field with all three before deciding on the 8X42. The 10X42 was nice also, but I am so used to the 10X50 format ( I use those in 10X the most frequent) and I already have a few premium 10X42s, it was not needed. In 12x I am more than content with my 12x50s.
Depth of field is not a major factor for me to consider a binoculars ! However, I compared the depth of field of the NL 12x42 to the NV 10x42 and SLC 15x56, I found the NL provided a much more sharpness of the same views behind or in front of the point zero ! For me it's an excellent for a high power bino. Of cause, can't compare to the less power NL 8x. It's very subjective! If you are in photography, you sure know depth of field is very useful for landscape but for portrait or street photography, sharpness of the field of view is the least important. Leica for sure know very well about this with their premium bino with a big sweet spot but fuzzy toward the edges, all would contribute to the whole picture which is excellent 3-D depth of views!
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top