NL 8X42 (1 Viewer)

[Gijs van Ginkel]

bkdc, post 20,
That long????
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[SueO]

The reviewer probably doesn’t understand the “flawless” rubber armor of a Swarovski bino lasts about 6 months with regular use.

I don't know about anyone else's Swaros, I can only speak for myself. I got mine in 2009. I used them nearly every day in Panama. I lived there for three years. I was usually out for a minimum of three hours per day. I can't tell you how many times I got rained on. I did put them under my shirt during downpours to protect them as much as I could. Even if it wasn't raining, the humidity of the jungle could be brutal. They made the sail up the west coast with me, and were subjected to salt spray as I scanned for birds at sea. Now they are in Southern California with me. I can only say that these are well used binoculars. Except for some missing paint behind the lettering, they are still perfect. The only reason I want another pair of binoculars is because I want a larger field of view and maybe something a little lighter.

 

[dries1]

SueO,

The 10X32 has served you well, however you want a 8X42? with a larger field of view (FOV). You also stated you wanted something a little lighter. That last requirement could be difficult. If you want a light 8X with a larger FOV then perhaps you might consider the Swarovski SV 8X32 which has an 8 degree FOV VS the 6.5 degree FOV or so in the 10X32. The weight would be very similar to the 10X32 you now possess and the durability has been proven over time. The other possibility is the Nikon Monarch HG 8X42 it has a 8.3 degree FOV, and very light for a 8X42, it is half the cost of a SV 8X32. Just some suggestions.

Andy W.

 

[[email protected]]

I think the best thing for me to do in this instance is to try a pair of 8x56 in low light and compare the view with my 8x42s. Only then, will I know if I see any perceivable difference between the two

I don't think you will notice much difference between the two even in low light. When you get older it is like dwever says transmission makes more difference than exit pupil because the brightness of the light cone coming into your eye from the binocular makes more difference than the diameter of it because as you get older your eyes need brighter light to see. If you can try a high transmission binocular like a Swarovski Habicht 7x42 which has 96% light transmission. Even though the exit pupil is smaller than the 8x56 I bet you would find the Habicht to have higher apparent brightness. It is the same reason you need a brighter light bulb to read as you age.

 

[SueO]

SueO,

The 10X32 has served you well, however you want a 8X42? with a larger field of view (FOV). You also stated you wanted something a little lighter. That last requirement could be difficult. If you want a light 8X with a larger FOV then perhaps you might consider the Swarovski SV 8X32 which has an 8 degree FOV VS the 6.5 degree FOV or so in the 10X32. The weight would be very similar to the 10X32 you now possess and the durability has been proven over time. The other possibility is the Nikon Monarch HG 8X42 it has a 8.3 degree FOV, and very light for a 8X42, it is half the cost of a SV 8X32. Just some suggestions.

Andy W.

Thanks, dries. I got a PM that also recommended the Monarch's. My husband just walked in and said there was one pair left at a sales site and asked if I wanted them. I said yes. So, by Friday I should have my new bins. If I feel they're too much of a step-down, I can fix that pretty easily. I'm sure I'll be happy with them. I'm not sure I would be able to distinguish and I have birded with much worse!

 

[dries1]

SueO,

Let us know what you think of them, I am sure you will not be disappointed.

Andy W.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Hello,

the contribution by "dwever" is basically correct, but too apodictic and too much based on any statistics to draw a macabre comparison:

In Germany, the male part of the population lives on average around 79 years old, if an 81 year old asks for a new TV, one could say that it is definitely no longer worthwhile because statistically they have been dead for 2 years, nevertheless there are many 90 and even 100 year olds.

In addition, there are many people who prefer a large eyepupil for binoculars because of the more relaxed view, regardless of how big their own eyepupil is, and, as good as the SLC 8 / 10x42 are, optically the 56mm IMO are even better, so also a pure one optical improvement.

Andreas

Phew! The US cavalry got there just in time. I was on the verge of trashing all my large objective glass as redundant for my age category... I have an excuse to keep those bins after all.

Got to listen to someone who uses the word 'apodictic'. Such a good word it can also be spelt 'apodeictic' - whichever takes your fancy

Thanks, Andreas.

Tom

 

[Conndomat]

Such a good word it can also be spelt 'apodeictic' - whichever takes your fancy

Tom

Hi Tom,

please enlighten me, I'm afraid my english is not good enough to decipher any synonyms.
As far as the English language is concerned, you are definitely far superior to me!

Andreas

 

[Gray C]

Apodictic = Beyond all doubt, or very similar as I recall, without looking it up.

 

[Conndomat]

yes but what means 'apodeictic'?

Andreas

 

[Swissboy]

yes but what means 'apodeictic'?

Andreas

Apodeictic | Definition of Apodeictic at Dictionary.com

Thus no difference!

 

[Gray C]

Apodeictic | Definition of Apodeictic at Dictionary.com

Thus no difference!

I was pretty close with my (from memory) definition I reckon lol

 

[tenex]

An apodeictic judgment Kant be doubted.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Hi Tom,

please enlighten me, I'm afraid my english is not good enough to decipher any synonyms.
As far as the English language is concerned, you are definitely far superior to me!

Andreas

Hi Tom,

please enlighten me, I'm afraid my english is not good enough to decipher any synonyms.
As far as the English language is concerned, you are definitely far superior to me!

Andreas

Hi Andreas, sorry I'm late to the party and others (Tenex et al.) have already answered you; I was only enjoying that you used this wonderful word as I haven't seen it used by any native English speakers since I was learning Greek at school - 45-50 years ago. As teachers working with pupils both native and also often from countries such as Germany my colleagues and I in the classics and the modern language departments often seriously remarked that you could tell foreign school pupils apart by the fact their English was more accurate and elevated -- gehobener -- than that of the locals!

The ancient Greek verb ἀποδείκνυμι (apodeiknumi), which the adjective 'apodictic' is based on, means 'to exhibit, show forth, prove or attest' and is used in Biblical Greek. Apodictic and apodeictic are not synonyms but just alternative correct spellings of the same word. In German the basic meaning of the verb would be 'zeigen, ausstellen, beweisen' if I remember correctly; whence 'bewiesen' or of course 'apodeiktisch' for the adjective you used.

All the best,

Tom

Sorry everyone for the interlude; I know this is a thread on the NL Pure... ...

 

[[email protected]]

Isn't this a binocular forum? Let's get back to the thread. I don't care about a complete explanation of what apodeictic means, and I am sure most birders don't either.

 

[Conndomat]

The ancient Greek verb ἀποδείκνυμι (apodeiknumi), which the adjective 'apodictic' is based on, means 'to exhibit, show forth, prove or attest' and is used in Biblical Greek. Apodictic and apodeictic are not synonyms but alternative correct spellings of the same word. In German the basic meaning would be 'zeigen, ausstellen, beweisen' if I remember correctly.

Hello Tom,

thank you for the wonderful explanation!

Andreas

 

[Conndomat]

Isn't this a binocular forum? Let's get back to the thread. I don't care about a complete explanation of what apodeictic means, and I am sure most birders don't either.

Dennis, a little educational excursion can never hurt, in the next guessing game on television for the $ 10,000 question you will now know the answer.🤿

Andreas

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis, a little educational excursion can never hurt, in the next guessing game on television for the $ 10,000 question you will now know the answer.🤿

Andreas

I don't think the greatest majority of birders are interested in your educational excursion. If I wanted an English lesson I would go to class for it. I think a lot of these threads that get off-topic become a waste of time for somebody trying to get information on the NL and instead, they get a tutorial on the definition of a word. You have to filter through all kinds of useless posts which becomes a waste of time. Stay on topic. I am sure Lee would agree.

 

[dries1]

Dennis,

Whoa, easy does it - besides you have the NL, what more could you learn for your eyes than having it in your possession.
A little excursion off course is OK in my book, as some of these threads can go into beating a dead horse, rinse repeat.

Andy W.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,

Whoa, easy does it - besides you have the NL, what more could you learn for your eyes than having it in your possession.
A little excursion off course is OK in my book, as some of these threads can go into beating a dead horse, rinse repeat.

Andy W.

I agree a little excursion is ok but not post after post. I get tired of it honestly when you try to research a binocular by reading a thread and you get post after post of useless off-topic trivial information. It is like that on Cloudy Nights also. There will be 50 posts and maybe 5 will contain useful information. If you just want to chat that is ok but there are other places for that. I disagree that just by owning the NL I can't learn anything else about it. I learn a lot from these threads when others birders express their opinions on different binoculars. There is always a different angle and that is what I look for and I find other users opinions on binoculars very interesting but not what apodeictic means. I can refer to a Thesaurus or Dictionary if I want a full definition of a word. It is just junk I have to filter through.