Image in 10 x 42 EL vs. 10 X 42 NL Pure (1 Viewer)

[Avron]

Hi,

My wife recently bought a pair of 10 X 42 NL Pure. I was surprised to find that when I compared them to my EL 10 x 42 binoculars the image in the NL Pure was somewhat smaller than in the ELs. Has anyone else had the opportunity to make this comparison and, if so, I'd be interested to know what you found. I hope that I'm not repeating a discussion that was had some time ago on this forum. I did my best to search for the topic but did not find it.

Best,
A

 

[leviathan]

The wider field of view of NL might create this impression.

 

[Avron]

Thanks, leviathan. I'll keep your suggestion in mind when I next have the opportunity to compare the two binos and I'll report back.

 

[Yarkho]

Allbinos quote measured magnification of NL pure 10x42 to be 9.98 +- 0.05, while for EL 10x42 (non-FP Swarovison) they give 10.16 +-0.05:

Swarovski NL Pure 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovision - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

I however doubt that you'd be able to detect this. It is likely the effect of the FOV.

 

[Maljunulo]

Isn’t this a matter of of “real” field of view vs apparent field of view?

If two binoculars have the same AFOV, and one sees a wider view of the world, the wider-angled image will show individual objects as smaller.

(I think)

 

[tenex]

Isn’t this a matter of of “real” field of view vs apparent field of view?

If two binoculars have the same AFOV, and one sees a wider view of the world, the wider-angled image will show individual objects as smaller.

No, it's not. EL and NL 10x42 don't have the same real or apparent field. Both are bigger in NL, 19% and 17% respectively. That 2% would make only a tiny difference in object size, near the field edge due to AMD. Only a difference in actual magnification would affect the central field. So if the OP has an impression of smaller object size, it does seem likely to be an illusion relative to a larger FOV.