• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

It’s May!—has anybody bought/tried out a NL Pure 32 yet? (1 Viewer)

wdc

Well-known member
Peter,

What you don't know is that Gijs has had surgery and received transplanted Pure bionic eyes.
He is a modest man and doesn't say it normally out loud so when he confesses he has the NLPure behind his eyes, he is very open.

Jan
I was imagining that they might be behind his head as well, which would most certainly eliminate the possibility of seeing glare 'through' them... ;-)
 

Aquaplas

Well-known member
Austria
In my 8x42 the Eye Placement is very sensitive! On the 4th click stop there are no blackouts but some glare. On the third stop of the Eyecups there is no glare but some Blackouts. So I use the Headrest with the third stop. There is no glare and no Blackouts. I think Swarovski sells the Headrest not only for lower shaking, the advantage is for correct placing. To have a parallel view between the eyes and the glass. With this correct placing the NL for me works perfekt. Always when I look trough I think what a wonderful Glass! This Contrast, the 3D Effect and wow this 69 degrees! Who will give me that with this perfect handling?!? Only my NL.
 

Gijs van Ginkel

Well-known member
All jokes aside: it seems that the anatomy of some faces/position of the eye in the head does influence the observation of glare. That may explain why some users see glare and others do not at all (the the last part may be a large majority considering the enormous amount of NL pures and other Swarovski 's are sold compared with the ones of other top binocular producers. If I take the figures Jan has mentioned to me as an example: Swarovski 38:Zeiss: 1 and Leica : 0.
These numbers may not be very exact, but they illustrate at least that the quality Swarovski supplies has convinced many customers.
Gijs van Ginkel
 

Hermann

Well-known member
All jokes aside: it seems that the anatomy of some faces/position of the eye in the head does influence the observation of glare. That may explain why some users see glare and others do not at all [...]
Agreed. That's what I alluded to in post #178.
[...] the last part may be a large majority considering the enormous amount of NL pures and other Swarovski 's are sold compared with the ones of other top binocular producers.
An alternative proposition would be that these users are prepared to accept veiling glare because of the other advantages of the NL pures. Or - at least in some cases - they simply may not know that veiling glare isn't a universal property of ALL binoculars.

Hermann
 

Gijs van Ginkel

Well-known member
Hermann, post 205,
We can only speculate why people have a special preference for certain binocuar brands but quality and service level are solid arguments and not to forget a clever way to convince/seduce people. When I visited Jan van Daalen yesterday we spoke about that aspect also and one of the factors was the extremely well organised visiblity of Swarovski binoculars on (inter)national TV nature programs, partly stimulated by Swarovski itself, but not only that, also by mouth to mouth positive impressions of users.
Gijs van Ginkel
 

henry link

Well-known member
Henry,
I had blackout issues with my SF 10x42 but it was easy to get rid of the problem by placing washers under the eyecups.
I tried to do the same with the NLs but that was not possible as the eyecup tubes are conic and don't have a clear flat bottom. On top of it all, the view thru the NL is extremely sensitive to eye placement as you indicated yourself in the above post: "one millimeter too long and I see more glare than I want to see, a fraction of a millimeter too short and I begin to experience blackouts". My question: how did you make the yecups stay put at positions between the click stops?
Peter
Hi Peter, sorry for the late reply. I use Field Optics Research winged eyecups with any binocular they will fit. Happily they work perfectly for my purposes on the NL. They stretch tightly around the metal part of the eyecup and almost completely fill the space between the binocular body and the rubber rim of the eyecup at the setting I need for least glare, leaving just a tiny gap at the top. The tight fit prevents the eyecup from slipping.

I imagine Gijs has the good fortune for the length of the fully extended eye cup to be exactly at his sweet spot for glare cancelation. For my face that position is too long. I have to press too hard against the eyecup to avoid vignetting of the field stop and of course glare is at its maximum. One stop in would be perfect for me except for some residual glare that can be almost totally eliminated by moving the eyecup in another 1.5-2 millimeters.

Henry
 
Last edited:

PeterPS

MEMBER
Hi Peter, sorry for the late reply. I use Field Optics Research winged eyecups with any binocular they will fit. Happily they work perfectly for my purposes on the NL. They stretch tightly around the metal part of the eyecup and almost completely fill the space between the binocular body and the rubber rim of the eyecup at the setting I need for least glare, leaving just a tiny gap at the top. The tight fit prevents the eyecup from slipping.

I imagine Gijs has the good fortune for the length of the fully extended eye cup to be exactly at his sweet spot for glare cancelation. For my face that position is too long. I have to press too hard against the eyecup to avoid vignetting of the field stop and of course glare is at its maximum. One stop in would be perfect for me except for some residual glare that can be almost totally eliminated by moving the eyecup in another 1.5-2 millimeters.

Henry
Hi Henry,
Good to know that the Field Optics winged eyecups fit the NL. Another possible fix would be placing several o-rings around the metal tubes of the eyecups, but the problem is finding o-rings that are sufficienty thin to allow fine adjustment of the eyecups.
Peter
 

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist
These new 8x32s are getting too large and heavy for me, and that includes the sf and even my conquest HD..a bit of a brick. I’m fine with a heavier bin in cooler weather, with a thick collar to cushion the weight, but when it’s warm the weight becomes annoying. I find myself using an 8x25 more and more as I hardly notice them around my neck and optic quality is now excellent.
 

kabsetz

Well-known member
Andrea,

Thanks for the link to Holger's review. I find it perhaps the best comparison to date of not just the EL and NL but SF also, as the latter is mentioned in all the relevant places.

It is also nice in being balanced and putting things well in perspective. Indeed, while reading it I thought that perhaps in the NL 8x32, Swarovski might finally have a sort-of 2020's version of the Leica Trinovid 8x32 of the 1990's - a small and handy binocular giving away so little to full-size models as to being a viable only binocular for serious hard-core birders.

Also, based on the very limited trials I have had with the 32 mm NL Pure (10x model in my case, the 8 I still haven't seen), I agree with Holger's assessment of the ease of view, which for my eyes was exceptional, and easily better than in the other two binoculars mentioned. I very rarely get the feeling that nothing at all needs to be adjusted when I lift a binocular to my eyes, but with the NL it happened.

- Kimmo
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
Thanks for the link to Holger's review. I find it perhaps the best comparison to date of not just the EL and NL but SF also, as the latter is mentioned in all the relevant places.
Hello Kimmo,

I find Holger refreshingly neutral in comparison.

There is a wide range of evaluations of the new NL, ranging from "stray light monster", not really useful, to a miracle glass, which is why the NL in all respects (sharpness, contrast, CA suppression, brightness, etc.) by far think.

Holger has probably put these two extremes in a realistic light.
The NL has undisputed advantages in the haptics, the central drive and with the larger FOV, Holger could not determine any really far-reaching improvement in the optics and a change from EL to NL is not absolutely necessary from this point of view!

So I will continue to use my "old" EL with joy.

Andreas
 

Canip

Well-known member
There are several references to the „haptics“ of the NL (Holger mentions it too), but I am pretty sure what we are talking about here are „ergonomics“ … 😉
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Hello Kimmo,

I find Holger refreshingly neutral in comparison.

There is a wide range of evaluations of the new NL, ranging from "stray light monster", not really useful, to a miracle glass, which is why the NL in all respects (sharpness, contrast, CA suppression, brightness, etc.) by far think.

Holger has probably put these two extremes in a realistic light.
The NL has undisputed advantages in the haptics, the central drive and with the larger FOV, Holger could not determine any really far-reaching improvement in the optics and a change from EL to NL is not absolutely necessary from this point of view!

So I will continue to use my "old" EL with joy.

Andreas
Seems, letting all the various reports meld, 2 pretty big questions are beginning to emerge and be answered.

1. Should you replace your EL/SF 32 with an NL32?
2. If you do not possess an EL/SF 32, (and you're OK with the size and weight of these), is the NL the one to buy?
 

dries1

Member
I remember when the EDG 8X32 came out, many said it was too big and heavy - it was heavy for a few I guess. I am not sure if the original Swarovski (pre-SV) was as heavy though,( they were roughly the same size).
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
I think these will be popular going forward for those who want a small and light 8X32, if you can find one.
View attachment 1389922
I have 'rediscovered' that 8x32 FL glass, Andy; great walkabout and clear wide sharp view. Been lucky to get a very sharp 10x32 FL thru eBay as well - the easiest 10 to hold still in my limited experience. Don't notice it while walking around, plenty of eye relief, comfortable hold, good FOV and all round all I could want really. Glare if you go looking for it... (as normal). No idea why the previous owner parted with it; it's perfect. Have since sold off some bigger guns / glamour bottles that aren't really any better in practical use even at dusk.

Tom
 

sfphoto

Member
United States
Seems, letting all the various reports meld, 2 pretty big questions are beginning to emerge and be answered.

1. Should you replace your EL/SF 32 with an NL32?
2. If you do not possess an EL/SF 32, (and you're OK with the size and weight of these), is the NL the one to buy?
and 3. Should one just get a new EL32 on clearance while they are still available and significantly cheaper than a new NL32?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top