NL Pure condensation on eye pieces (1 Viewer)

[Torview]

Owamboland has stated he has 40 years experience with binoculars, I think we should respect his and his wife`s experience.

 

[[email protected]]

Owamboland has stated he has 40 years experience with binoculars, I think we should respect his and his wife`s experience.

I respect his experience but that is not the point. The condensation could be because the eye cups of the NL fit tighter in his eye sockets than other users because of the shape of his eye sockets. If he is not getting much light entering around the edges it could be the cause. it depends on what click stop you use the eye cups also. The closer the more condensation.

 

[PYRTLE]

Doesn't matter now Dennis. Owamboland has tried and tested the NL and it didnt work for him, he now has something else that works - so as we always say, nay preach...... it's a personal choice and what is okay for one may not be suitable for others. It's late, let sleeping dogs lie.

Goodnight.

 

[[email protected]]

I am glad Owamboland found a binocular that works for him, but I am just trying to understand what caused the fogging of the lenses out of curiosity. It just seems a mystery and it must be how the eye cups interact with his eye sockets. I agree binoculars are a very personal thing and what works for one may not work for another. There are a lot of things on a binocular that have to work for your facial structure or you won't like them that go well beyond the optics. In the end your choice is really just personal preference.

 

[NDhunter]

I can agree then, the new Swarovski NL has some problems. I really have not a care in any way.

These reports are troubling.

Jerry

 

[dries1]

For the majority of users like myself, there are just fine. Just because they do not work for some, that does not constitute - massive problems with the NL. The EL 10X42 is a very good choice and Owamboland I am sure will enjoy it. At least he tried the NL, unlike some who seem to criticize it/find problems as a reinforcement not to try/buy.

Andy W.

 

[bkdc]

i find that I have to hold the eye cups firmly around my eye socket to avoid the peripheral reflections and this could certainly promote trapping of humid air especially in an already humid climate. Eye placement with the NL is finicky. I cannot ease off on the eye sockets as someone suggested. This leads to a very bothersome peripheral glare toward the bottom. Everyone has stated that the glare is at the bottom, and this is probably a result of design. no doubt the optical engineers know this and accepted the compromise. No fogging for me though. But I live in dry California.

Two big improvements versus the EL - FOV and ergonomics. One step back - less forgiveness with eye placement. this is probably the compromise that needs to be made for such an expansive FOV. The view is so good that I would accept slightly less FOV for more forgiveness in eye placement. Now that I know where to place the binos I get a perfect view each time. After experiencing such an amazing apparent FOV, it’s hard to go back to older design binos that offer 20 to 30 percent reduced diameter without noticing the tunnel vision. Same for the Zeiss SF 8x32.

Now I appreciate even more the amazing forgiveness and ease of eye placement on the EL SV. Not enough to give up this NL Pure.

 

[nzwild]

Nice summation thanks.

 

[[email protected]]

i find that I have to hold the eye cups firmly around my eye socket to avoid the peripheral reflections and this could certainly promote trapping of humid air especially in an already humid climate. Eye placement with the NL is finicky. I cannot ease off on the eye sockets as someone suggested. This leads to a very bothersome peripheral glare toward the bottom. Everyone has stated that the glare is at the bottom, and this is probably a result of design. no doubt the optical engineers know this and accepted the compromise. No fogging for me though. But I live in dry California.

Two big improvements versus the EL - FOV and ergonomics. One step back - less forgiveness with eye placement. this is probably the compromise that needs to be made for such an expansive FOV. The view is so good that I would accept slightly less FOV for more forgiveness in eye placement. Now that I know where to place the binos I get a perfect view each time. After experiencing such an amazing apparent FOV, it’s hard to go back to older design binos that offer 20 to 30 percent reduced diameter without noticing the tunnel vision. Same for the Zeiss SF 8x32.

Now I appreciate even more the amazing forgiveness and ease of eye placement on the EL SV. Not enough to give up this NL Pure.

I have my NL set on the 5th click stop and it is perfect with no blackouts, no fogging, very little glare and a huge FOV. I recently tried an EL 8.5x42 and it was like looking down a tunnel in comparison to the NL. There is just NO comparison between a 400 foot FOV and a 477 foot FOV. It is like the difference between night and day! I would never, never, ever go back to the EL. I have been spoiled!

 

[Dutchbirder64]

I have a NL 10x42 and am happy with it. I am also still happy with my 34 year old Zeiss 10x40 BGA-T. I think it is pretty normal a bino fogs up in colder moist conditions on a winter morning. Your eyes are warm and this may fog up the lenses. I had it last week with my Zeiss. When you look just leave a crack next your eyes and it will clear.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

I am a bit surprised that condensation on the eyepieces is immediately diagnosed as construction problem, since it can only occur when the binocular temperature is low and the eyes produce enough water vapor. That can occur with every binocular.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

To get better information from those who suffer from condensation: how do you use your binoculars: are the eyecups fully pushed into your eyesockets, so the space between eye and eyepiece front lens is sort of a closed chamber. In that case I can understand fogging of the eyepiece of a colder binocular and 37 degree water vapor producing eyes. I have never had any condensation on an eyepiece form whatever binocular, but I never use it so that such a closed space is generated.
It might be a nice experiment to try; you do not have to pay Swarovski if you want new eyecups, so drill three little holes in the eyecup so water vapor can escape. May be it is a silly experiment but you could try it after all it is lockdown time almost everywhere in the world.
Simpler seems perhaps to not completely block the space of the eyecup by let the top rim of it rest against to top part of the "eyebox"(is that a correct term) so there can be an exchange of air from the eyebox with the outside world.
Gijs van Ginkel.

 

[Owamboland]

There are some very interesting thoughts and suggestions being shared, not sure if I will get my drill out just yet though, and I would need to commit to another NL to try it out. An interesting thought though for the future, if anyone has reason to try it out please do share if it makes a difference. I am thinking that a different eye placement technique is required for the NL (maybe more different from my normal in my case), but I did try a range of combinations at the time (although now beginning to doubt myself!) I think my decision to not stick with the NL was that for that money there were trade offs in my case and I was unwilling for too much compromise at that price bracket. I agree that once that FOV is seen its very difficult to rest easy with anything less in a 10x at least.

 

[Binastro]

My eyelids have frozen to the eyepiece when observing with a telescope at minus 15C or even a bit warmer.

One can remove the eyepiece and warm things up.

Hopefully the eyepiece doesn't have the old RAS screw thread.

Regards,
B.

 

[[email protected]]

There are some very interesting thoughts and suggestions being shared, not sure if I will get my drill out just yet though, and I would need to commit to another NL to try it out. An interesting thought though for the future, if anyone has reason to try it out please do share if it makes a difference. I am thinking that a different eye placement technique is required for the NL (maybe more different from my normal in my case), but I did try a range of combinations at the time (although now beginning to doubt myself!) I think my decision to not stick with the NL was that for that money there were trade offs in my case and I was unwilling for too much compromise at that price bracket. I agree that once that FOV is seen its very difficult to rest easy with anything less in a 10x at least.
[/QUOTE

No binocular is perfect for everybody no matter how much you pay for it. You have to accept some compromises even on the NL or any other alpha.

 

[NZbinodude]

Owamboland's experiences mirror my own.

I think this is a case of "buy what works for you - then stick with it and be happy".

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

PeterPS, post 18,
I have seen the quality control steps of many companies some which very close by, for example from Hartmann, Leica, Meopta, Steiner, Swarovski, Zeisss. And from none of these companies a binocular passes quality control with the issues you show with your pictures. What lacks in your report is that you do not inform us where you bought your NL. In a shop it would not pass control by the shop owner and certainly not by yourself as customer. Did you buy it through an internet supplier and did you receive it as shown? How do you know that the damage shown is due to failures of the quality control of Swarovski and not by the internet company or the postal teatment.
For now, I have a lot of questions about your conclusions, but you can help me/us a lot by informing us.
Gijs van Ginkel