• 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.

NL Pure 8x32 and NL Pure 10x32! (3 Viewers)

Gijs van Ginkel

Well-known member
dwever, post 175,
I know that some big companies have consumer/user/expert panels with representation of among others of the hunting and birding community next to a panel of different disciplines as kind of an "advisory board"about the demands of the hunting/birding/user community, so I not think that the orange color is chosen as a kind of fashion design. Look at the new Swarovski rangefinder, that is also available in orange and I can not find "fashion"arguments for these instruments. If you loook at the designs of the different companies, they all have at a certain stage made "fashion inspired"instruments. Leica was very good at that but Zeiss also and despite the higher prices they were sold quite easily.
Gijs van Ginkel
 

pm42

Well-known member
so I not think that the orange color is chosen as a kind of fashion design. Look at the new Swarovski rangefinder, that is also available in orange and I can not find "fashion"arguments for these instruments.
43 out of 50 US states require hunters to wear an orange vest and the others recommend it. Unlike humans, deers do not see this color as something special but humans do.
As long as you wear such a vest, why not using orange binoculars too? I guess this is the same if you are on a boat and I remember Leica selling an orange floating neoprene strap.

Of course, birders have different requirements.
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
The obvious problem in discussing the NL x32 is that it's not yet in general circulation, and won’t be until next month
The exceptions being:
• some dealers such as Jan having had a short hands-on session, see post #22, and
• a very few such as Diego Calderon getting what may be a pre series production unit for field testing, see post #56

I was interested in Jan’s observation that in comparing the x32 and the x42 NL:
'. . . The waist of the 32 is 2 mm smaller compared to the 42 and one can hardly feel a difference. The balance is right beneath the thumb,
in other words for me excellent . . . '

So playing around with the one comparative image that we have from Swarovski, I aligned the rear end of the two bodies (ignoring the eyecups)
As can be seen, the rear half of the two binoculars appears the be externally identical - from the rear of the body to the front of the bridge,
both in length and width - at least with a front-on view
This may give x42 users some idea of how the x32 is also likely to feel and handle

However, the common external dimensions shouldn’t be taken as meaning that internally the x32 and x42 NL are necessarily identical
A likely difference would be the eyepiece lenses, and it’s possible that the focuser mechanism has been modified
The 2 mm difference noted by Jan may either reflect only a modification to the external RA covering, or perhaps also modification
to the underlying metal body shell


John


p.s. as can be seen from a side-on image of the x32, the bridge protrudes significantly above the barrels, similar to that of the x42
While your pictures show what may be a similar feeling of the 32NL and the 42Nl in the hands, it remains to be seen whether the front of the 32Nl allows enough barrel room below the bridge for very large hands. It could be a problem for some.
 

fazalmajid

Well-known member
If we merge Seldom Perched's idea, the NL sculpted tubes, and the pricing described in #148, what do we think happens to NL842 sales volume with the 32 now coming?
I cancelled my Zeiss 8x32 SF preorder (I ordered them for the FOV, not the smaller size) to get the NL Pure 8x42 instead, on paper the NL 8x32 isn't competitive with the 8x32 SF, let alone the NL 8x42, so I wouldn't expect a lot of cannibalization.
This pricing issue seems particularly relevant in the case of a 32 which is sort of supposed to be the "cheap" binocular compared to the 42.

Some years ago, I spoke to the Canon pro camera rep, who told me that basically pro photographers were buying prosumer models because the pricing of the "pro" EOS bodies had got out of hand.
The average pro photographer makes $24K a year in the US, it would be even less in Europe, so in all likelihood actual pros are less likely to afford "pro" models than amateurs.

I think 8x42 appeals more to hardcore users, more casual ones prefer the lesser bulk of a 8x32. Perhaps that's why the Leica Hermès limited edition Ultravids were 8x32, not 8x42.
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
So playing around with the one comparative image that we have from Swarovski, I aligned the rear end of the two bodies (ignoring the eyecups)
As can be seen, the rear half of the two binoculars appears the be externally identical - from the rear of the body to the front of the bridge,
both in length and width - at least with a front-on view
Interesting John. Looking at your pic, the hinge, focus mech comes to mind. What're the chances Swaro would've spent the money to redesign this rather expensive component just for the smaller 2mm barrels? If the same as the 42, that suggests a little about rearward dimensions and maybe even space between forward. Think maybe?
 
Last edited:

dries1

Member
On paper is different than real world experiences, lets see how the NL 8X32 performs when they actually are out being used. So far the NL 8X42 is no slouch. I would think that the NL 8X32 will be no different.
I was also hoping for another green color, an olive green - I even prefer dark gray/black to the green they use - too earthy crunchy for me as far as color goes.
 
Last edited:

chill6x6

Well-known member
Over the last few days I've been using the SF 8X32 mostly. I like it. I've been using the SV 8X32 a little bit too switching between the two as I sometimes do. Truth is...REALLY the SF 8X32 is very little "move up" form the SV 8X32, if any. At least it has more FOV and a focus that is about as good as it gets. For sure I can't see how in the world the NL 8X32 would be any "move up" from either the SF or the SV.
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
Over the last few days I've been using the SF 8X32 mostly. I like it. I've been using the SV 8X32 a little bit too switching between the two as I sometimes do. Truth is...REALLY the SF 8X32 is very little "move up" form the SV 8X32, if any. At least it has more FOV and a focus that is about as good as it gets. For sure I can't see how in the world the NL 8X32 would be any "move up" from either the SF or the SV.
You could be right regarding the NL32 not being a major step up from the binoculars you own. However, the NL42 WAS a major step up, IMO, over the 42El, which I didn't expect, either. (I have no reference points with regards to the SF.) I guess we will all have to wait until May to find out what people, who really matter, think, after spending their hard earned cash on the 32 NLs.
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
The only detail that Swarovski has provided about the optical construction of the NL x32’s and x42’s, is that all five models have 10 lenses per side *
See the page from the technical data sheet. The original, in more languages, can be found at:
https://www.swarovskioptik.com/int/...ulars/nl-pure/nl-pure-binoculars/nl-pure-8x32

Fortunately, when the NL x42 was introduced mnich provided two x-ray images (both a front and a rear view)
The originals can be found on Arek’s site at: https://www.allbinos.com/282-news-Optical_construction_of_Swarovski_NL_Pure_binoculars.html

And following on from that, there was a discussion here on BF as to what could be concluded from the information
at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/nl-optical-construction.394611/

As part of that, I cobbled together an image aligning the external and internal features as seen below
It makes an interesting comparison with the image that I posted yesterday aligning the x42 and x32 versions, again shown below
Looking at the two paired images, it seems that the x32 could use many of the x42’s internal components, at least from the prisms rearward


* Although all have 10 lenses per side, necessarily some of the lenses need to differ. For production convenience, a manufacturer will often try to use parts in common across a model series; and often with the optics alter the magnification by varying the eyepiece construction
e.g. with the Leica BA x42 series (for which a variety of cutaway images are available):
• all share a common objective construction and prisms, and while
• the 7x42 has a 4 lens eyepiece, both the 8x42 and 10x42 have 5 lens eyepieces, though with clear differences in curvature, thickness and diameter
See the images in post #19 and 21 at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/what’s-your-favorite-7x42-binoculars.379534/


John
 

Attachments

  • Technical Data.jpg
    Technical Data.jpg
    488.2 KB · Views: 48
  • NL x42 External & Internal.jpg
    NL x42 External & Internal.jpg
    180.3 KB · Views: 49
  • NL x42 and x32 aligned.jpg
    NL x42 and x32 aligned.jpg
    321.5 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Over the last few days I've been using the SF 8X32 mostly. I like it. I've been using the SV 8X32 a little bit too switching between the two as I sometimes do. Truth is...REALLY the SF 8X32 is very little "move up" form the SV 8X32, if any. At least it has more FOV and a focus that is about as good as it gets. For sure I can't see how in the world the NL 8X32 would be any "move up" from either the SF or the SV.
As you have both the SF and SV 832, this seems perfectly reasonable. If you were starting from scratch though, (knowing that today the choice is purely hypothetical), would you wait to see the NL, or go buy the SV, save the bucks and go birding?

GT
 

jan van daalen

Well-known member
Over the last few days I've been using the SF 8X32 mostly. I like it. I've been using the SV 8X32 a little bit too switching between the two as I sometimes do. Truth is...REALLY the SF 8X32 is very little "move up" form the SV 8X32, if any. At least it has more FOV and a focus that is about as good as it gets. For sure I can't see how in the world the NL 8X32 would be any "move up" from either the SF or the SV.
Chuck,

It's gonna itch.
Mark my words, I give you 'till next month and you're sold.

Jan
 

chill6x6

Well-known member
As you have both the SF and SV 832, this seems perfectly reasonable. If you were starting from scratch though, (knowing that today the choice is purely hypothetical), would you wait to see the NL, or go buy the SV, save the bucks and go birding?

GT
Get an SV 8X32 and go birding!
 

bkdc

Well-known member
I hope the eyebox is a little more forgiving in the 32mm version! Interesting that the FOV is smaller than the 42mm version, and this makes me hopeful. I gave up my NL 8x42.

The orange armor screams “Look at me!” And then “Steal me!”
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top