NDhunter
Experienced observer
John:
Agreed, reviewers only receive cherry units, of course. Nice to point that out.
Jerry
-
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.
NL 14X52 vs SLC 15X56 a new review from Rockslide posted today. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter GLOBETROTTER
- Start date
John:
Agreed, reviewers only receive cherry units, of course. Nice to point that out.
Jerry
Us with vested interest in 15x56:
Matt Cashell, Rokslide, linked above. "...increased resolution benefit of...14Ă—52 NL...apparent...as the light faded...as twilight approached, I could see the form and branches of the tree better at all times...until [no] longer visible..."
Is that the last straw of hope gone! (a) 56 brings in only 16% more light than 52. (b) I am aware "increased resolution" is disputed.
Canip:
Thanks. I read that, of course. Cannot think how I forgot. Maybe, like the 15x56 format, my faculties are going obsolete. Maybe the shock of that unhinged me.
Canip, other careful observers:
Myself, like, I am sure, many others (with no access to both instruments), will much appreciate it if the comparison in the OP title is done also by you.
Hopefully, Adhoc
Matt Cashell, Rokslide, linked above. "...increased resolution benefit of...14Ă—52 NL...apparent...as the light faded...as twilight approached, I could see the form and branches of the tree better at all times...until [no] longer visible..."
Is that the last straw of hope gone! (a) 56 brings in only 16% more light than 52. (b) I am aware "increased resolution" is disputed.
Canip:
First image of NL x52's!
Eye relief is listed as only 17mm...10x42 NL Pure has 18mm and as the eyecup (for once!) goes as down as possible and it didn't give me enough for total comfort, it seems likely that these x52 models will be even slightly worse for someone like me (who needs about 19-20mm real eye...www.birdforum.net
Thanks. I read that, of course. Cannot think how I forgot. Maybe, like the 15x56 format, my faculties are going obsolete. Maybe the shock of that unhinged me.
Canip, other careful observers:
Myself, like, I am sure, many others (with no access to both instruments), will much appreciate it if the comparison in the OP title is done also by you.
Hopefully, Adhoc
I've said this before in other contexts, but in my experience when binoculars or telescopes of like magnification and aperture show differences in perceived ability to "cut through heat haze" or appear to have different depth of field despite similar magnification, the better one turns out to be a cherry individual and the less good one more average or poor. Aberrations compound, and both heat haze and defocus before and beyond the plane of best focus can be considered aberrations also. Therefore, optics with average or more aberrations which in good conditions have aberrations below the visible threshold will start to show them sooner and more clearly when conditions degrade than a cherry sample would.
This is easier to see with telescopes, where one regularly operates close to or beyond diffraction limit and which are solidly mounted, than in binoculars, but it influences binoculars as well.
This is easier to see with telescopes, where one regularly operates close to or beyond diffraction limit and which are solidly mounted, than in binoculars, but it influences binoculars as well.
I will do a comparison for my own benefit, so happy to share. Will take a few days.
Should have clarified there that the reason I harp on this is entirely size and weight, a bit of an OCD with me. In other parameters the 15x56 cannot be that inferior, to the new Swaro. 52 or other new ~14-15x`~50-52s which will soon turn up, to nag me.
Canip: thank you. Do try not to make it elitist, capitalist, etc. And please conduct your tests outside those glass cases ;-)
Thank you kabsetz. Maybe there is a worthwhile reason for boosted tests, then...
(from the Rokslide review)
I would tend to treat this with a good dose of healthy scepticism, but at the same time the difference between x56 and x52 is only 4mm. This reminded me of something Holger Merlitz noted a while back (link):
Obviously the binoculars are different, one would expect the quality of coatings of both Swaros to be much closer (resolution does seem better on the NL, given that Matt C tested this against a chart). But the difference between 14.5 (or whatever) x 52 and 15x56 in terms of the larger objective gathering more light may not actually be that great, and could be offset by other factors.
Last edited:
tenex
reality-based
So regarding claims about atmospheric seeing, we have to doubt that 52 vs 56mm is really a significant difference, and wonder whether being stopped down by the human pupil makes it irrelevant anyway (anyone care to weigh in on this?). Interestingly, Holger suggests (p.165 of Binocular Handbook) that the objective diameters of handheld binoculars aren't large enough for seeing to be a problem anyway, only in larger scopes. I have to say that I have noticed it myself though. As to potential differences in how binoculars seem to handle it, I think Kimmo's observation about sample variation must be spot on.
Can you elaborate on the „etc“ ?
No. Lost the story at that point. Added as precaution.Can you elaborate on the „etc“ ?
I very strongly believe there is sometimes quite considerable 'sample variation' between examples of same model binoculars and that 'cherry' examples do exist, optically, not just mechanically, even amongst the premium brands. I won't elaborate, but I've made a proper nuisance of myself at times, because of this.
Hard to disagree with that, given the tolerances involved. I do think that the minimum quality level you can expect from something like a Swarovski NL is almost certainly still pretty good though.
The big question though is whether most of us can see that a "cherry" is one, especially without things like tripods and boosters. Of course we all think we can, but I'll bet not all of us are capable of it. I mean most of us are in our 40s (if we're lucky) and work at office jobs - we're not 20-year old wardens at Yellowstone...
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I agree, maybe Henry will chime in, he has posted about this many times over the years in his reviews and
examination of scopes and binoculars. It is quite common it seems. Henry likes the star point focusing test.
I recall a few years back I had 2 Zeiss 7x42 Dialyts, one was a T* and one a T*P*. They both needed service
and had gone back to Zeiss. I always thought the view was better with the T* to my eyes. After a fresh
service and work done they should have been equal, and some say the P* should have been better.
Jerry
I was hoping for a bit more...
For 18 months, I have used an Opticron MM4 77 (18-54X), in combination with a very nice 832. The combo has been a sort of birding revelation. Over salt marsh, open water, large adjacent fields, during winter migration... Hard to imagine a more useful pair of tools.
I have seen what is referred to as atmospherics described above, through each of my binoculars. Light, weather, wind, debris (I live close to sea level in a busy city with lots of vehicle traffic, construction) effects what I see, depending.
The "hope" alluded to above refers to something that happens with the scope when X is rolled up towards 54. 18 to 25ish things are gorgeous, sharp, clear. Keep going, hoping the extra X will reveal even more details, the quality of view falls off, negating the hoped for benefit.
I wonder, how much of this is the magnification of air quality and how much the optical quality of a mid priced spotter? Sunday had the chance to view things through a Kowa 883. In a familiar place, looking at the usual suspects, at lower X, hard to tell a difference between it and the Opticron. Regret I did not roll the Kowa's magnification to max.
Anybody know how to think of this?
I don't use a scope very much at all, but when I've used my brother's ATM 80 HD (Swaro) with 20-60x eyepiece, I've noticed sometimes that around 35 to 45x, tops, is the sweet spot, definitely for digiscoping, and also to some extent for observation. Going up from 45x you can get a larger image (which can sometimes be useful) but image quality seems to fall off and become less satisfying. The image can be more fiddly as the exit pupil shrinks, and the higher the mag the more affected the view becomes by shake/wobble, too, even with a pretty solid tripod. One caveat: the closer your target the better high magnification seems to work, image quality doesn't fall off as much and the effect of atmospheric conditions (heat haze etc) is lessened.
I haven't tried a Meopta S2 or very many spotters, frankly, so cannot really offer an opinion on whether the S2 really cuts through heat haze in the way Nethero has observed with his. But conditions definitely do affect what you'll see through the ATM 80 HD and I would expect most scopes. Even with binoculars (much lower in magnification), heat haze in summer, and all the other things that reduce visibility at other times of the year, very definitely make themselves noticed at the distances I observe over. I well remember at the 2022 Birdfair there was so much heat haze that it didn't matter if you were looking at trees a field or two away (to determine sharpness by how well branches and leaves were defined) through a NL, the image was terrible.
You can’t look at a distant object without looking through the intervening atmosphere, unless you go for a spacewalk.
I’m skeptical about a claim that one instrument can “cut through” atmospherics or haze better than another, given equal aperture and magnification.
Does anyone who knows what he is talking about care to comment?
I’m skeptical about a claim that one instrument can “cut through” atmospherics or haze better than another, given equal aperture and magnification.
Does anyone who knows what he is talking about care to comment?
dalat
...
For terrestrial observations like birding, I think it is mostly the atmospheric turbulence occurring because of different temperatures of the ground and the air above, that impair the view. I've rarely seen other factors like dust in the air making a big difference, apart from obvious situations with fog.
If you observe under conditions, when atmospheric turbulence is low, the view at high mags is usually very good. Then you will see how much is down to the quality of your scope. Typically, early morning when it is still cool, viewing conditions are good, but as the day gets warmer and the sun heats the ground, turbulence start to appear and affect the view. I've also seen strong turbulence on very cold days observing over the warmer lake water.
