-
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.
Look what I found! New from Tobias (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter GrampaTom
- Start date
CharleyBird
Well-known member
A first look, "It's a shockingly good image".
A phrase which seems to sum up all I've read about the NL x42 trio; the 8x42 being probably the best birding bin currently on the market.
A phrase which seems to sum up all I've read about the NL x42 trio; the 8x42 being probably the best birding bin currently on the market.
dorubird
The unskilled mechanic blames his tools!
I enjoy watching Tobias Mennle's articles, he has very good and interesting articles. But I must say that an involuntary mistake was sleeped twice in this article (in introduction and conclusion). The article states that 10x binoculars has "much smaller apparent fields of view" than same version 8x binoculars. The situation is exactly the opposite: in the same series of binoculars 10x has a clearly larger apparent field of view. This is exactly the aspect which I like 10x much more than 8x fellow. 10x has a larger apparent field of view, and more immersive than 8x because 10x gives you the impression that you are looking out of a larger window than 8x
Last edited:
Im a 10X guy. Don't experience the popular complaints, e.g. shakes, limited FOV, others report. That said, Ive read this idea other places but admit I don't understand it. Can someone with bit of science background explain please?
AFOV is where it's at, jack! The bigger, the better. It is what gives a binocular that wow factor when you first look through it. Tobias didn't test for glare because he said there was no sun. Too bad, I would be curious to hear what he had to say about it in the NL.
Last edited:
Nice! Very helpful.
While your illustration is graphically correct, the exact numbers should not be relied on. Although one can get a rough idea of AFOV by multiplying magnification power and angle, it is not a precise calculation. The actual numbers given by Swarovski are 69° for 8x42, 70° for 10x42, and 71° for 12x42. The AFOV differences between these three are too small to notice in real-world usage, but technically the higher magnifications do give a slightly larger view in the 42mm line.
Last edited:
dorubird
The unskilled mechanic blames his tools!
Yes, I chose the simple, rapid and inaccurate calculation method for AFOV (not the tangential one) to simplify and only to show in an exaggerated way that the binocular with higher magnification will always have a wider AFOV than lower magnification in the same line of binoculars
Wanting to know more, I found this Nikon | Sport Optics | Field of view, which I bet is not news to many of you. Indeed I see dorubird used a different formula, (simpler to be sure/make point). Comparing his with the Nikon/ISO supplied formula example the difference seems small enough and the distinction a sort of "technical" (if more accurate), one?
Dorubird, I thank you for the response and sketch, the exaggerated black outer ring, kinda threw me, so I went looking for above. The sketch on Nikon's page helped a great deal. I have at the mo, a glowing, foggy, slowly clearing idea of the thing. This perhaps why after 35 years of 1040/42s, I like 10X so much but could never explain why. Ill catch up in a bit.
Dorubird, I thank you for the response and sketch, the exaggerated black outer ring, kinda threw me, so I went looking for above. The sketch on Nikon's page helped a great deal. I have at the mo, a glowing, foggy, slowly clearing idea of the thing. This perhaps why after 35 years of 1040/42s, I like 10X so much but could never explain why. Ill catch up in a bit.
Denco, not to attack you in any way, but a request. Please could you rest the swaro glare thing for awhile? I'm not sure what that added here, what its relevance. I do observe you like to bring it up whenever. Some of us don't share your experience and don't understand the constant challenge. Please?
Not relevant! If some people see glare in the NL, I think it is totally relevant and other people want to know about it because they could experience it also as many already have. You don't want to hear about it because you have the NL's and for you, they are great, but they are not great for everybody and there is no reason to sweep it under the rug. You're like a father that loves his NL and doesn't want to hear about any problems with it. Get over it. This is a binocular forum, not everybody loves the NL. Swarovski's binoculars have superb optics, but they have some of the highest glare I have seen in certain models. Those are the Habicht 8x30 W, 8x32 EL. 10x32 EL and now the 8x42 NL, 8x32 NL. Even Holger agrees about the glare in the NL. He saw exactly what I saw.
"Stray light: The tendency to develop stray-light in some situations remains the only considerable weakness in both binoculars. In difficult light conditions, bright spots are emerging around the edges of the exit pupils, which tend to create partial whiteouts (in most cases a crescent-shaped glare in the lower half of the field) when the eye-pupils accidentally get in contact with them. A careful setting of eye cup positions and a certain discipline in the way and angle at which the instrument is held in front of the eyes go a long way to avoid these whiteouts in the vast majority of situations. Observer's reports vary wildly about the severeness of the glare, ranging from 'irrelevant' to 'irritating'. Fact is that there exist binoculars (including the Zeiss 8x32 SF) with a superior resistance against stray light."
"Nonetheless, there exists only one binocular which could currently challenge its pole position, the Zeiss Victory SF. In comparison, the SF has the advantage of an even wider field, a lower weight and - yes - a superior stray light protection."
Last edited:
Your illustration was great and for the purpose your calculations were fine.
Well, actually, no I dont.
Not certain there was anything new or unique observations about the NL Pure in Tobia’s review. I don’t own one but had access and spent a bit of time sampling and comparing. I will say that I found it interesting that Tobias did his review on an overcast day. Personally found the NL view simply spectacular and at its best under cloudy conditions - at least to my eyes. I’m not saying it sucks in bright sunlight but felt the view excelled in comparison when cloudy.
I’d like to know what shop he was visiting. Did anyone else find it a bit odd that the 2 of 3 best comparative units available were a busted FL and a lesser, out of production SF with a gritty focuser?
As a black-skinned SF owner I have no idea what he was talking about in calling the SF focuser gritty. Having compared them side-by-side, IMO the SF is at least as slick/smooth/refined and better overall than the NL. Gritty - maybe just another bad/malfunctioning sample from the Land of Misfit Toys he was apparently visiting.
I’d like to know what shop he was visiting. Did anyone else find it a bit odd that the 2 of 3 best comparative units available were a busted FL and a lesser, out of production SF with a gritty focuser?
As a black-skinned SF owner I have no idea what he was talking about in calling the SF focuser gritty. Having compared them side-by-side, IMO the SF is at least as slick/smooth/refined and better overall than the NL. Gritty - maybe just another bad/malfunctioning sample from the Land of Misfit Toys he was apparently visiting.
Dennis (?),
If you're going to quote Holger, (folks really should read the whole on their own), at least you could've included his summary paragraph to put the subject into a bit of perspective. Let me help you here:
"In my opinion, the NL Pure represents a successful evolutionary step above the El WB. Among its improvements are most of all its haptic, its expanded field of view, as well as its rather pleasant panning behavior. It is nonetheless just an evolutionary step forward and differences in optical performance are usually subtle if visible at all. Who already owns the EL WB would hardly gain from an upgrade to the NL Pure, since both are virtually playing in the same league. The stray light issue which has occasionally been reported to plague the EL WB has not been resolved with its successor, and this is going to remain a matter of dispute whenever the NL Pure's merits are discussed. Nonetheless, there exists only one binocular which could currently challenge its pole position, the Zeiss Victory SF. In comparison, the SF has the advantage of an even wider field, a lower weight and - yes - a superior stray light protection. On the downside, I am having some issues with the SF's ease of view (hard to find a proper eye-cup setting to view over the entire field) and its somewhat unpleasant panning behavior. Moreover, it appears that the colors offered with the SF display a somewhat lower saturation when compared to the NL. At the end of the day, it remains a matter of individual preferences which of these high end binoculars would suit somebody's needs best. To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior."
Numbers help refine words. Do I dare say even for Holger... At 50 yards, (a more representative birding distance I offer) the SF 832 field of view advantage over the NL832 is 23.25-22.5 or .75'. Really? Thats it? The AFOV, we were talking about above favors the SF 67 vs 65. The weight difference? SF 21.2 oz vs NL 22.8 oz or the SF is lighter by 1.6 oz. Whew! 1.6 oz/190 lbs (my weight)... looks like .05%. Looking at the numbers, (he did not include), rather than just the words we can get a sense of how Holger valued these 2 attributes in his summary above, "To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior."
Then theres Canip's, you can read it here, Swarovski NL Pure 8×32 – Binoculars Today I to will excerpt.
"To glare or not to glare – that seems the question. As already on the x42 NLs, the waves surge high on the subject of glare and stray-light. While some users maintain there is little to no glare in the 8×32, others claim that there is virtually no observing without serious stray-light effects. Even renowned experts such as Holger Merlitz found the NL to be wanting in terms of stray-light suppression.
BINOCULARS TODAY’s verdict: it all depends on how you hold and use the binocular. Depending on factors such as your face anatomy, you may need to pay a bit of attention to the proper positioning of your eyes behind the eyepieces. Testing the binocular over many days, we found that you can trigger lots of glare when observing e.g. against a low-standing sun, but you can also totally eliminate glare by adjusting eyecups and properly positioning your eyes behind the eyecups. Compare the NL to a pure-bred racehorse or a sophisticated racecar: learn how to get the best out of it, and you will be highly rewarded with wonderfully wide, crisp, edge-sharp images with an excellent panning experience, superior contrast and color fidelity. The best 8×32 BINOCULARS TODAY has ever held in hand (we found the otherwise excellent Zeiss SF 8×32 to be rather unexciting when compared side-by-side with the NL), but perhaps not a binocular for the indiscriminate user who cannot be bothered to adjust eyecups and IPD appropriately."
or
There's this one, https://www.birdforum.net/threads/it’s-may-—has-anybody-bought-tried-out-a-nl-pure-32-yet.408425/page-2#post-4184676 see #30.
Starting mid page, "And finally: stray-light (just admit that you have been waiting for it)." you can read down for the whole discussion. Ill add the summary sentences here,
"To sum up:
The 8x32 NL overall combines splendid ergonomics, superb mechanics and a wonderful bright and sharp image with excellent panning experience.
For me, glare can totally and easily be handled. It’s not worse than in some other premium binoculars (and yes, there are some with an even better stray-light suppression).
I so far had a strong preference for 8x42 models over 8x32; with the NL, I am not so sure any more – I like it a lot."
So no Dennis, I dont own NLs of any ilk. I'm hardly defending them. I am pointing out theres been lots of discussion by the most credible reviewers we have here at BF on the subject of glare in NLs. You can in fact sense the.. dare I say... exasperation with the topic? Folks can read through these two examples on their own, go try one and decide.
I believe my request as potentially impolitic as it was, and I apologize for that, was I think clear enough.
G'Tom
If you're going to quote Holger, (folks really should read the whole on their own), at least you could've included his summary paragraph to put the subject into a bit of perspective. Let me help you here:
"In my opinion, the NL Pure represents a successful evolutionary step above the El WB. Among its improvements are most of all its haptic, its expanded field of view, as well as its rather pleasant panning behavior. It is nonetheless just an evolutionary step forward and differences in optical performance are usually subtle if visible at all. Who already owns the EL WB would hardly gain from an upgrade to the NL Pure, since both are virtually playing in the same league. The stray light issue which has occasionally been reported to plague the EL WB has not been resolved with its successor, and this is going to remain a matter of dispute whenever the NL Pure's merits are discussed. Nonetheless, there exists only one binocular which could currently challenge its pole position, the Zeiss Victory SF. In comparison, the SF has the advantage of an even wider field, a lower weight and - yes - a superior stray light protection. On the downside, I am having some issues with the SF's ease of view (hard to find a proper eye-cup setting to view over the entire field) and its somewhat unpleasant panning behavior. Moreover, it appears that the colors offered with the SF display a somewhat lower saturation when compared to the NL. At the end of the day, it remains a matter of individual preferences which of these high end binoculars would suit somebody's needs best. To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior."
Numbers help refine words. Do I dare say even for Holger... At 50 yards, (a more representative birding distance I offer) the SF 832 field of view advantage over the NL832 is 23.25-22.5 or .75'. Really? Thats it? The AFOV, we were talking about above favors the SF 67 vs 65. The weight difference? SF 21.2 oz vs NL 22.8 oz or the SF is lighter by 1.6 oz. Whew! 1.6 oz/190 lbs (my weight)... looks like .05%. Looking at the numbers, (he did not include), rather than just the words we can get a sense of how Holger valued these 2 attributes in his summary above, "To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior."
Then theres Canip's, you can read it here, Swarovski NL Pure 8×32 – Binoculars Today I to will excerpt.
"To glare or not to glare – that seems the question. As already on the x42 NLs, the waves surge high on the subject of glare and stray-light. While some users maintain there is little to no glare in the 8×32, others claim that there is virtually no observing without serious stray-light effects. Even renowned experts such as Holger Merlitz found the NL to be wanting in terms of stray-light suppression.
BINOCULARS TODAY’s verdict: it all depends on how you hold and use the binocular. Depending on factors such as your face anatomy, you may need to pay a bit of attention to the proper positioning of your eyes behind the eyepieces. Testing the binocular over many days, we found that you can trigger lots of glare when observing e.g. against a low-standing sun, but you can also totally eliminate glare by adjusting eyecups and properly positioning your eyes behind the eyecups. Compare the NL to a pure-bred racehorse or a sophisticated racecar: learn how to get the best out of it, and you will be highly rewarded with wonderfully wide, crisp, edge-sharp images with an excellent panning experience, superior contrast and color fidelity. The best 8×32 BINOCULARS TODAY has ever held in hand (we found the otherwise excellent Zeiss SF 8×32 to be rather unexciting when compared side-by-side with the NL), but perhaps not a binocular for the indiscriminate user who cannot be bothered to adjust eyecups and IPD appropriately."
or
There's this one, https://www.birdforum.net/threads/it’s-may-—has-anybody-bought-tried-out-a-nl-pure-32-yet.408425/page-2#post-4184676 see #30.
Starting mid page, "And finally: stray-light (just admit that you have been waiting for it)." you can read down for the whole discussion. Ill add the summary sentences here,
"To sum up:
The 8x32 NL overall combines splendid ergonomics, superb mechanics and a wonderful bright and sharp image with excellent panning experience.
For me, glare can totally and easily be handled. It’s not worse than in some other premium binoculars (and yes, there are some with an even better stray-light suppression).
I so far had a strong preference for 8x42 models over 8x32; with the NL, I am not so sure any more – I like it a lot."
So no Dennis, I dont own NLs of any ilk. I'm hardly defending them. I am pointing out theres been lots of discussion by the most credible reviewers we have here at BF on the subject of glare in NLs. You can in fact sense the.. dare I say... exasperation with the topic? Folks can read through these two examples on their own, go try one and decide.
I believe my request as potentially impolitic as it was, and I apologize for that, was I think clear enough.
G'Tom
Last edited:
CharleyBird
Well-known member
Denco, here's a link to a discussion on the 8x32NL which I found interesting, and includes straightforward comments and opinion by Dr Merlitz:
(The link ought to automatically translate to English language)
Ja, es gibt Probleme
Hallo zusammen, ich besitze seit zwei Tagen ein Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 (mein erstes Fernglas). Ich habe mich in relativ kurzer Zeit nach einigem Ausprobieren im Fachhandel (Leica Trinovid/Ultravid, Zeiss Victory SL, Swarovski EL) für das NL pure in 8x32 entschieden. Unter Testbedingungen war hier d
www-juelich--bonn-com.translate.goog
(The link ought to automatically translate to English language)
