It’s May!—has anybody bought/tried out a NL Pure 32 yet? (7 Viewers)

[dries1]

The NLs are selling like hot cakes so it appears like any great instrument, there will always be a few who just won't or cannot adapt.

 

[b_reynolds_ak]

Canip, can you tell me which optics forum that review was from?

 

[zzzzzz]

Canip, can you tell me which optics forum that review was from?

Good place to read up on Holger Merlitz post’s

Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 - Streulicht Problem

 

[james holdsworth]

The photos in that thread show bright crescents right up to the edge of the exit pupil, much like the el sv.

 

[Maljunulo]

If they're "selling like hotcakes" it would seem that Swarovski hit the jackpot yet again.

 

[dries1]

The photos in that thread show bright crescents right up to the edge of the exit pupil, much like the el sv.

Oh my god Houston!, we have a problem.

 

[Cliff1002]

Have been using my 10x32 NLs for a couple of weeks now, still own my old pair of 8.5x42ELs. The reason for the new purchase was simply I wanted a smaller/lighter pair plus the need for increased magnification as a lot of my birding is coastal or open environments rather than woodland. I'm extremely impressed with the NLs in all departments, they feel very well balanced when held to the eyes and very comfortable to hold and adjust in use. Not a huge fan of all the technical specifications etc but I can say they are better (for me) than any other binocular I have owned or looked through at optic shops or at Birdfair etc.

 

[Hermann]

Tested a pair of 8x32 NL's.
I must admit I was impressed... <snip>

The feel and balance was amazing plus the focus was beautifully smooth, plus it was nice and light..

" ... the focus was beautifully smooth ..." Wow. So they finally appear to have caught up with the Nikon HG/HGL dating back ~20 years or so.

That's progress, I guess.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

Good place to read up on Holger Merlitz post’s

Here are the relevant parts of what Holger wrote:

"Streulicht sehe ich eigentlich immer, wenn die Augenmuscheln voll ausgezogen sind, aber das ist ohnehin nicht die optimale Stellung für mich. Wenn ich sie eine Stufe rein drehe, dann ist das Streulicht schon reduziert. Ich drehe die Augenmuscheln noch eine weitere Stufe rein, und hier ist das Streulicht in vielen Situationen ganz weg. Leider bin ich dann mit den Augen so nah am Okular, dass ich gelegentlich bereits Abschattungen bekomme. Ich lerne also gerade, das Fernglas in dieser Stellung der Augenmuscheln zu verwenden und gleichzeitig die Abschattungen zu vermeiden. Das Streulichtproblem verlagert sich somit in ein Einblickproblem, das man mit etwas Übung wohl in den Griff bekommen kann. [...]

Die Ursache sind die Aufhellungen nahe der Austrittspupille [...]. Je nach Lichteinfall variieren die Positionen dieser Aufhellungen, meist befinden sie sich im unteren Bereich, wenn der Himmel über dem Sehfeld aufgehellt ist. Vor einigen Tagen hatte ich bei trübem, wolkigem Wetter häufig mit diesen Aufhellungen zu kämpfen. [...] An trüben Tagen sind die Augenpupillen erweitert und kommen sehr viel häufiger in Kontakt mit diesen Aufhellungen, in denen sich die weißen Wolken spiegeln. Unter blauem Himmel ist das Problem dann wie weggeblasen."

Source: Ja, es gibt Probleme

Hermann

 

[Canip]

So, this will be an interesting debate.

We have experienced users who know a thing or two about optics in general and binoculars in particular, and they seem to fall into three categories:

• those who say there is a (substantial) problem with glare (e.g.Henry, Holger)
• those who say that glare is absolutely no issue (e.g.Gijs)
• those who admit glare is there (or can be provoked), but it can easily be avoided resp. prevented with proper positioning of the bino

I believe that too many knowledgeable people have recognized a certain issue with glare in the NL for it to be just ignored.
For me, the main question will be whether glare is inevitable in daily use (unless you experiment with eyecup extension, and other things), or whether it can EASILY be prevented/avoided so that it‘s not really a problem (the latter is my position).

I don‘t mind adjusting my viewing position, I probably have several different ones for the various binoculars I use, but other users my find this to be a „deal-breaker“.

Opinions?

fwiw Canip

 

[GrampaTom]

I'm a newbie. Ive been reading Birdforum for about a year. The subject of glare is a constant. Why?

Glare is almost exclusively associated with one brand of binocular, reportedly the best selling alpha in the world. Is this Fair?

I feel bad, that I, (and some others), have tended to not really acknowledge that for some, glare is a thing.

Having read Holger, it seems visual issues are a potential problem for some, do to anatomy and personal eye/brain biology.

I get for those folks being denied, they have a right to feel... dissed.

I notice, folks show up here to learn, read the critical posts, and become convinced glare is a thing to do with a binocular.

How many, who don't know better, become convinced by these posts, and never learn its their technique thats to blame?

Those folks potentially get denied an otherwise wonderful tool.

Human nature being what it is, in this case, should we be blaming the tool?

I worry I dont know what glare is. Im skinny, dumb, and happy just using my binos. Please dont educate me and wreck the thing.

Companies have to deal with a potential PR problem, that maybe isn't to do with their product. Is that cool?

It seems a tricky subject, too often discussed without qualification, or calibration. That's not helpful.

 

[GrampaTom]

"Streulicht sehe ich eigentlich immer, wenn die Augenmuscheln voll ausgezogen sind, aber das ist ohnehin nicht die optimale Stellung für mich. Wenn ich sie eine Stufe rein drehe, dann ist das Streulicht schon reduziert. Ich drehe die Augenmuscheln noch eine weitere Stufe rein, und hier ist das Streulicht in vielen Situationen ganz weg. Leider bin ich dann mit den Augen so nah am Okular, dass ich gelegentlich bereits Abschattungen bekomme. Ich lerne also gerade, das Fernglas in dieser Stellung der Augenmuscheln zu verwenden und gleichzeitig die Abschattungen zu vermeiden. Das Streulichtproblem verlagert sich somit in ein Einblickproblem, das man mit etwas Übung wohl in den Griff bekommen kann. [...]

Die Ursache sind die Aufhellungen nahe der Austrittspupille [...]. Je nach Lichteinfall variieren die Positionen dieser Aufhellungen, meist befinden sie sich im unteren Bereich, wenn der Himmel über dem Sehfeld aufgehellt ist. Vor einigen Tagen hatte ich bei trübem, wolkigem Wetter häufig mit diesen Aufhellungen zu kämpfen. [...] An trüben Tagen sind die Augenpupillen erweitert und kommen sehr viel häufiger in Kontakt mit diesen Aufhellungen, in denen sich die weißen Wolken spiegeln. Unter blauem Himmel ist das Problem dann wie weggeblasen."

From Google Translate,
"I actually always see stray light when the eyecups are fully extended, but that is not the optimal position for me anyway. If I turn them in one step, the stray light is already reduced. I turn the eyecups in one more step, and here the stray light is completely gone in many situations. Unfortunately, my eyes are so close to the eyepiece that I occasionally get shadows. So I'm currently learning to use the binoculars with the eyecups in this position and at the same time to avoid the shadows The stray light problem is thus shifted to an insight problem that one can get under control with a little practice. [...]

The cause is the lightening near the exit pupil [...]. The positions of these bright spots vary depending on the incidence of light; they are usually in the lower area when the sky above the field of view is bright. A few days ago, in cloudy, cloudy weather, I often had to struggle with these bright spots. [...] On cloudy days, the pupils of the eyes are dilated and come into contact with these lightened areas much more frequently, in which the white clouds are reflected. The problem is blown away under a blue sky. "

 

[sfphoto]

In post #103 we see Holger's Franz's photo of these bright spots near the exit pupil. The position of these spots must depend on the orientation of the prisms as everything else in the optics is otherwise symmetric. I assume that these spots become more or less apparent depending on the lighting: In most conditions, the top half of our image is brighter (because that is where the sun is) than the lower half (trees, grass,..). If there are certain spots that then become more apparent and negatively influence the image and cause glare, what if you flip the binocular upside down and look through it with the spots now being in a different location and potentially less susceptible to the bright parts of the FOV?

So my questions are:
1) Do you see the same amount of glare with the bino upside down?
2) Consequently, what if the glare issue in the NL is due to the fact that they have rotated the prisms to give us the wonderful ergonomic shape?

 

[Conndomat]

In post #103 we see Holger's photo of these bright spots near the exit pupil.

Hello sfphoto, the photo is not from Holger, but from the thread opener. His question was whether this is normal with the secondary pupils in the Swarovski. Just so that there are no misunderstandings.

Andreas

 

[FrST]

Hi, it's Franz from the other forum seems to be a small world around binoculars...

I have read (or better scrolled) basically through all threads related to the new Swarovski NL series binoculars here. Including the insanely long "Swarovski NL 8x42 - first impressions" thread (after posting in the jülich-bonn forum).

Long story short: Correct, I am entirely new to binoculars, thus no expert by any means. The NL 8x32 is the first one I owe. I went pretty fast from Leica Trinovid 8x42 (a lot of CAs visible, too much magnification) to the Ultravid 8x32 (a bit difficult in handling regarding ER) to the EL 8.5x42 (which introduced me to the rolling-ball effect, to which I am apparently quite sensitive) to finally the NL 8x32. The NL 8x32 had the most appealing image (no CAs, absolutely no rolling ball effects, large field of view, nice white balance etc.) of all I compared. In the shop I had also the chance to look through the Zeiss SF - the NL was by far the most enjoyable one for me. Probably mostly due to the complete absence of rolling ball effect combined with a very sharp large field of view.

However, having the binoculars out in the nature the first time, I was really shocked by the amount of veiling glare - as cited here in most situations with cloudy sky I could spot it in the lower 20-40% of the image. Sometimes painfully strong. I used the eyepieces fully out. Yes, I have learned from posts here and the other forum, that this is the position mostly susceptible to veiling glare. And I made the same experience, that at two positions in, I have the least amount of glare but blackouts start to appear. On the other hand, just one position in, veiling glare is still quite often visible. However, encouraged by Holger and Henry (apparently still owning the NL 8x42 despite the glare problematic, right?), I'm as well trying to educate myself to be able to handle those binoculars with the least amount of glare - I am not finally sure if that will be successful enough... Meaning optimising the eye distance and shifting the binos slightly downwards to avoid/reduce glare. You see, I am trying and learning. And it definitely got much better with more carefull handling, thus still not ideal to my feeling.

But there is, in my opinion at least, another side to it and that is: Why is the area around the exit pupil looking so badly illuminated with bright spots very close to the pupil, with very distinct false pupils and other diffuse reflections? Compare my image of the NL 8x32 with images on allbinos (different ambient conditions of course), to me that looks not favorable at all. Especially not at this price tag. I wonder how the NL 8x32 would score at allbinos in that category.

So, I am explicitly interested in other images of NLs 8x32, and the illumination around the exit pupil. Since for example my specimen 8x32 seems to be quite different with respect to the source of glare, compared to the images Henry posted here related to veling glare in the NL 8x42. Or do I see that wrong?

So finally, I must admit, that I am a bit puzzled why the perception or acceptance of the glare issue is so emotional. Of course, personal acceptance levels and perception differ, and obviously the eye placement plays an important role. But there seem to be objective differences too. E.g. distinct reflections close to the exit pupil and the degree of darkening etc. Thus to my understanding that implies, that some binoculars are far more demanding in handling than others.

Or maybe I need more tips on how to handle my binoculars to finally fully avoid glare 😉 since besides that glare, I also really like the image quality ergonomics and haptic of the NL.

 

[Maljunulo]

What/where is "the other forum"?

 

[jan van daalen]

He means the Juelich-bonn.com forum.
It's a German Forum, very well regarded and handles bins and all other stuff.

Jan

 

[Maljunulo]

He means the Juelich-bonn.com forum.
It's a German Forum, very well regarded and handles bins and all other stuff.

Jan

Thank you.

Alas, I have no German.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

FrSt, post 115,
I have never observed any glare phenomena using my NL pure 8x42 and I am not the only one, despite the long discussions about it on this forum.
I have looked at your photographs and other ones to prove glare. To be honest I am not impressed by these pictures. As I wrote I never have seen glare in the NL pure I have used, so now looking at your pictures and other ones, I think the way the pictures are made are wrong, since that is not how one uses the binoculars with the eyepieces fully exposed to light. In my opinion it should be done the way we do it when making microscopic pictures. That is to say, the space between camera and eyepiece is so to speak a black tube from the camera lens over the eyepiece, aim the binocular at a bright white surface and look then what happens with the signal leaving th eyepiece directly into the camera , without light entering the eyepiece from behind.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Canip]

Stray-light in general and glare in particular: Has Swarovski mis-designed?

I spent several hours outside yesterday, since it was a sunny day after weeks of rain and clouds.
I took along a number of Swarovski binoculars - SLC 8x42, CL (new) 8x30, EL SV 8.5x42, EL SV 8x32, NL 8x42 and NL 8x32 - and compared them as I observed against the sun, which was first very high in the sky and then got lower in the afternoon and evening. I paid particular attention to situations in which sunshine would directly hit the front lenses. Passing clouds also allowed me to also see what would happen when no direct sunlight was there.

My personal verdict: Glare is by no means worse in the NLs than in the ELs or CL. I get glare in all Swarovksi binoculars if I want; it all depends on how I position my eyes behind the eyepieces.

More importantly: I can easily avoid glare in all my Swarovski binoculars (exception: Habicht) by paying a tiny bit of attention to my handling of the binos. This is also true for the NLs ( also, b.t.w. for the NL 10x42; the 12x42 I cannot say).

Do Swarovski binoculars handle a bit differently than e.g. Leica Ultravids? I do in fact get that impression (I do have a number of Leicas to compare). I am almost tempted to say that the handling of the Leicas, esp. the Ultravids, is a bit more „robust“ than the one of the Swaros.

On the other hand, no Leica binocular that I know offers the immersive, crisp and brilliant image that the NLs offer. I do love my Ultravids, esp. 7x42, 8x42 and 8x50, but the width of the NL‘s FOV and their off-axis sharpness are unmatched. And, as I said, glare is not really an issue for me in the NLs. It is easily avoidable (an opinion probably shared by many; Jan can better talk about how well the NLs sell, but the local dealer here and the one I often use in Bern have complained about delivery times, so I guess the NLs are selling rather well).

Just my 2 ct. And now I shut up.

Canip