NL Pure 8x32 and NL Pure 10x32! (1 Viewer)

[Bart in the Netherlands]

I'm by no means an expert, but with respect to the "aligned photo"... I have the feeling that the "green part" between the bridge and the eyepiece of the 42 is slightly longer then the corresponding part of the 32. That could be because of for example one bino opened slightly more then the other one. But in the specs I noticed another small difference.... the max pupil distance of the 42 is 74 mm and for the 32 that is 72 mm. Is that an indication that both designs have marginal difference or is there another explanation for that?

 

[Maljunulo]

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.

I can't either

I cannot imagine that there is either a new and proprietary Swarovski glass, or any dramatic advance in coatings which will only be used in or applied only to the NL.

I am at a loss as to how there can be a mind-boggling advance over the existing SF or SV.

Perhaps the reviews will uncover something, or there will be a strong consensus developing that yes, the NL 8X32 is a "breakthrough" optic.

They have a sexy new body, and they have fiddled with the focus mechanism, and twiddled the optical train to increase the field of view.

Oh, and they come in Burnt Orange.

 

[Mark9473]

I noticed another small difference.... the max pupil distance of the 42 is 74 mm and for the 32 that is 72 mm. Is that an indication that both designs have marginal difference or is there another explanation for that?

With an identical bridge connecting them, it is unavoidable that a pair of narrower tubes cannot open to as wide an IPD as a pair of wider tubes can.

 

[wdc]

I'm sure it is a fine binocular, but the specs are not game changing anymore, and you can buy little used el's, and victories of that size for almost a thousand dollars less, in the case of the el, well over a thousand dollars less. Hard to justify that price. But of course if I can get my hands on one, I'd be happy to look through it...

-Bill

 

[GrampaTom]

But in the specs I noticed another small difference.... the max pupil distance of the 42 is 74 mm and for the 32 that is 72 mm. Is that an indication that both designs have marginal difference or is there another explanation for that?

Wouldn't that just be math, as distinct from feature/spec? Assuming the hinge/focuser hardware is the same for both 32 and 42, then the spacing between the outside diameter of the tubes is the same. But since the diameters of the tubes are different, 32 being smaller, the distance to the center line of it, from outside diameter will be less. Center to center of the 2 tubes is then less.

 

[wdc]

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.

I've got both of them as well. I find the handling of glare to be noticeably improved in the SF than the Swaro. At the same time, I find the large diameter eyepiece glass and eye relief of the Swaro works just a little better for me as a fit. It may be that the AFOV of the SF is just a bit too wide for me, as I can't get the crisp outer edge without pressing the glass against my own eyeglasses more than I care to.
First world bino problems... They are both really good instruments, no matter what I say about 'em. My wife uses the Swaros every time we got out together, so I get 'stuck' with the Victories, if I'm hauling a scope around. ;-)

...And now there's a new kid on the block. I just want to look through them to see if I can acquire the whole field comfortably.

-Bill

 

[John A Roberts]

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?

Hi Tom,

At this point, as we have minimal information about the NL x32’s, I’ve necessarily been limited and qualified in my comments

Traditionally with comprehensive binocular lines (with x32, x42 and x50/56 offerings) from the 'Big 3', there’s been a concentration on keeping the x32’s as compact as possible e.g. especially with the Leica Ultravids and the Zeiss FL’s

So the x32’s typically have smaller prisms and eyepieces than their larger counterparts, while the x42 and x50/56 models may share components

When Swarovski commenced planning the NL line, among many other things, they presumedly would have worked out the mechanical and optical spec's for a full lineup e.g. x32, x42 and x50 (or perhaps x56). And as part of production efficiencies they would have decided on what the shared components would be

It seems that Swarovski may have taken a different approach with the NL line in relation to the x32 and x42 commonalities - but we need more information before we can be certain e.g. units in hand


John


p.s. FWIW, the FRP forehead rest fits both the NL x32 and x42, indicating that the rear of the axle housing is the same size on both
See an interesting three part image of the FRP from a Chinese review of the NL x42, courtesy of range,
at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/a-very-comprehensive-review-of-nl1242-vs-el1250.396657/


p.p.s. My assumption that Swarovski would reasonably have planned for a full NL lineup, does not mean that it will necessarily eventuate
Who knows what considerations may come into play between initial planning and actual execution?

 

[Yeti Man]

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. I think we may see something like this happen here, a glass that needs to be thrown around, taken on a boating trip or to the beach, and can get lost or stolen needs to be ... reasonably replaceable.



Edmund

There is also the fact that the 1D pro bodies, even the 1DX mkIII released on 2020 is still only 20.1 megapixels.

I gave up on the 1D series after the 1Dmk4 and moved to a 50mp 5Ds and a lower resolutionbut quite exceptional 5D4 after that.

 

[eronald]

There is also the fact that the 1D pro bodies, even the 1DX mkIII released on 2020 is still only 20.1 megapixels.

I gave up on the 1D series after the 1Dmk4 and moved to a 50mp 5Ds and a lower resolutionbut quite exceptional 5D4 after that.

I really like the color I've seen on samples from the R5 and R6 - it looks like Canon is improving the quality of the pixels.

Edmund

 

[opticoholic]

Hi Tom,

At this point, as we have minimal information about the NL x32’s, I’ve necessarily been limited and qualified in my comments

Traditionally with comprehensive binocular lines (with x32, x42 and x50/56 offerings) from the 'Big 3', there’s been a concentration on keeping the x32’s as compact as possible e.g. especially with the Leica Ultravids and the Zeiss FL’s

So the x32’s typically have smaller prisms and eyepieces than their larger counterparts, while the x42 and x50/56 models may share components

When Swarovski commenced planning the NL line, among many other things, they presumedly would have worked out the mechanical and optical spec's for a full lineup e.g. x32, x42 and x50 (or perhaps x56). And as part of production efficiencies they would have decided on what the shared components would be

It seems that Swarovski may have taken a different approach with the NL line in relation to the x32 and x42 commonalities - but we need more information before we can be certain e.g. units in hand


John

50mm NL's would be welcome. Especially 8X50 or 7X50. Of course Swarovski and all the other major makers are seemingly permanently and religiously opposed to 7X now, so 8X is probably the most I can hope for. ... And in the Swarovisions they didn't even offer that. I'm sorry, 12X50 is a tripod binocular for me, head rest or not...

Dave

 

[rpg51]

I was persuaded to go with 8x32 binos years ago when I acquired my first really good binos - Nikon 8x32 Venturer. I still use them a great deal and I like them a lot. They have been through hell and back all over the far north on canoe trips. I have not babied them. Quite rough treatment. They have never failed me once. But, circumstances have changed a bit for me, (retirement is approaching rapidly and I am not getting any younger). I've decided to get something new to supplement these great 8x32s and to take me through retirement which will likely involve fewer rough canoe trips etc. After shopping around and trying different things I have decided to get a pair of alpha 8x42 binos. Some of these modern 8x42 binos are honestly very easy to carry and manage. The ergonomics are excellent and that makes up a lot for weight. I still like the 8x32 format, and I will not be getting rid of them, but there is no doubt the modern alpha 8x42s give a better view. My next decision down the road will be what to do about those times when I am watching birds that are fairly stationary and at great distance. Mud flats and seaside type of stuff. Scope? I have used a scope in the past but I found it unwieldly. Lately I have been considering a pair of 12x binos - maybe the Swaro NL 12x42 combined with a tripod when needed. They are certainly more compact than a scope. Not as much magnification. But, the other features are appealing, and they would probably meet my needs very well. As was said before - first world problems.

 

[Maljunulo]

I was persuaded to go with 8x32 binos years ago when I acquired my first really good binos - Nikon 8x32 Venturer. I still use them a great deal and I like them a lot. They have been through hell and back all over the far north on canoe trips. I have not babied them. Quite rough treatment. They have never failed me once. But, circumstances have changed a bit for me, (retirement is approaching rapidly and I am not getting any younger). I've decided to get something new to supplement these great 8x32s and to take me through retirement which will likely involve fewer rough canoe trips etc. After shopping around and trying different things I have decided to get a pair of alpha 8x42 binos. Some of these modern 8x42 binos are honestly very easy to carry and manage. The ergonomics are excellent and that makes up a lot for weight. I still like the 8x32 format, and I will not be getting rid of them, but there is no doubt the modern alpha 8x42s give a better view. My next decision down the road will be what to do about those times when I am watching birds that are fairly stationary and at great distance. Mud flats and seaside type of stuff. Scope? I have used a scope in the past but I found it unwieldly. Lately I have been considering a pair of 12x binos - maybe the Swaro NL 12x42 combined with a tripod when needed. They are certainly more compact than a scope. Not as much magnification. But, the other features are appealing, and they would probably meet my needs very well. As was said before - first world problems.

Laugh if you will, but in addition to my 8X32, I sometimes take along a pair of Fujinon FMT-SX 16X70.

Like looking through a pipe, but they definitely show more .... the view is not as "pleasing" though.

I bird from a car, so a scope is a pain.

 

[tenex]

I have used a scope in the past but I found it unwieldly. Lately I have been considering a pair of 12x binos - maybe the Swaro NL 12x42 combined with a tripod when needed.

An excellent idea. Depending on circumstances, you may also find SLC 15x56 worth considering. I pair it with 10x32 UV myself, and have learned to handhold it quite effectively. It's the most impressive bin I've ever owned, though I remain very fond of the Leica also.

 

[quincy88]

An excellent idea. Depending on circumstances, you may also find SLC 15x56 worth considering. I pair it with 10x32 UV myself, and have learned to handhold it quite effectively. It's the most impressive bin I've ever owned, though I remain very fond of the Leica also.

I second that. Handholding can be done pretty darn effectively. My SLC 15x56s are also one of my favorite pairs of binoculars. Tied with my Leica 7s.

 

[rpg51]

I think I may be forced to decide between the NL 12x42 and the SLC 15x56. Not a big price diference. Both good binos.

 

[rpg51]

After reading this review I think I know which direction I am going to go. I just dropped nearly 3k US on NL 8x42 for general birding and wildlife viewing. Can I spend another $3k on the 12x42? Best wait a bit.

 

[Maljunulo]

Does anyone have any information on when we can expect a comprehensive review of the 8X32 and a comparison with the corresponding SF?

 

[Loddar]

I just got a mail from swarovskI:
the NL 32s are now available. I have pre- ordered on. I am excited when it comes to compare it the Leica UV 32.

 

[rpg51]

One of several internal debates am having is what to do for a pair of 10 powers. NL 10x32 v. NL 10x42. Smaller exit pupil of the 32s is the only thing that gives me pause, and not because of brightness. At my age I doubt I will suffer brightness wise. But, will the 32 be less forgiving when trying to orient my eyes to get a good clear look at the entire field of view. I have a pair of good 8x32s and they are fine, but the exit pupil is bigger on the 8s. So I am unsure. Only one way to find out I suppose. I will say that I find the new NL 42s to be compact and comfortable. The weight and size don't really bother me. So, maybe that is the way I will go.

 

[nzwild]

One of several internal debates am having is what to do for a pair of 10 powers. NL 10x32 v. NL 10x42. Smaller exit pupil of the 32s is the only thing that gives me pause, and not because of brightness. At my age I doubt I will suffer brightness wise. But, will the 32 be less forgiving when trying to orient my eyes to get a good clear look at the entire field of view. I have a pair of good 8x32s and they are fine, but the exit pupil is bigger on the 8s. So I am unsure. Only one way to find out I suppose. I will say that I find the new NL 42s to be compact and comfortable. The weight and size don't really bother me. So, maybe that is the way I will go.

I had the 10x32 ELSV. Very forgiving view compared to other 10x32s and a nice wide FOV, but for me extended viewing just wasn't comfortable. I wouldn't use that format again (as is the general consensus).