grackle314
Well-known member

In addition to online sales, my local dealer, Optics4Birding, has the option for in-person visit for sampling optics. Yesterday they gave me a call to say some Swarovski NL Pure x52 were delivered and I could come try out. I went in late afternoon on a bright, cloudless Southern California day. I sampled the NL Pure 14x52. Since my eyes do not dilate to more than slightly above 4 mm diameter under any lighting conditions where I might use binoculars, I did not sample the NL Pure 10x52 as I would not be purchasing them for myself. With an exit pupil of 3.7 mm, the 14x52 is of interest to my eyes.
The 14x52 sampled had the forehead rest attached. My most commonly-used binocular is an NL Pure 10x42 with forehead rest. I very much like the forehead rest which gives me three point stability on the head with the binocular pressed against my glasses and forehead.
Wow, the 14x52 gave wonderful seeing and could be handheld for bird identification and viewing. The handheld shake certainly is more than my 10x42 and the weight is larger also, but not too noticeable unless making immediate change between the two. I use the Swarovski harness with the 10x42 and would expect to use the harness for the 14x52 on longer walks also. When watching a hawk on the wing at about 750-1000 m out, the 14x52 gave a more pleasant viewing than the 10x42, primarily because the bird was larger in my vision. At about 300 m out, the 14x52 gave more minute spatial detail than the 10x42. In closer than about 100 m, the 10x42 could get on flying birds while I was not quick enough to find them in the 14x52. Part of that in-close difference is because the 14x52 has a narrower field of view (279 ft/1000 yds) than the 10x42 (399 ft/1000 yds) and part was due to unfamiliarity of the 14x52 in my hands and eyes. When birds were on a tree, under 100 m the 14x52 was fine for identifying.
The 14x52 shake when handheld was tolerable to me. Clearly the view would be improved by putting the 14x52 on a tripod. My personal experience has been that 10x is not too shaky but is improved by the forehead rest, and 12x and above does need the forehead rest. For viewing birds at less than 100 m, the 14x52 would be best for stationary birds and trying to follow flying swallows or swifts at under 100 m would not be my cup of tea. And having some kind of stabilizer would be useful.
In terms of image intensity to the eyes, the 14x52 has the expected luminance increase compared to the 10x42 and this increase was great enough to see. For anyone wishing to see my further thoughts on how light entering the eyes may be calculated for binoculars used with human eyes in daylight, please see my entries in the nearby thread "Comparing 10x32 NL with 8x42 NL, some (not ground breaking) thoughts ...". The reason I did not even try the 10x52 is that it will present no more light to my eyes than my current 10x42. For those with eyes that can dilate more than 4.2 mm diameter and will use the binocular in low light conditions, the 10x52 may prove magnificent.
The 14x52 sampled had the forehead rest attached. My most commonly-used binocular is an NL Pure 10x42 with forehead rest. I very much like the forehead rest which gives me three point stability on the head with the binocular pressed against my glasses and forehead.
Wow, the 14x52 gave wonderful seeing and could be handheld for bird identification and viewing. The handheld shake certainly is more than my 10x42 and the weight is larger also, but not too noticeable unless making immediate change between the two. I use the Swarovski harness with the 10x42 and would expect to use the harness for the 14x52 on longer walks also. When watching a hawk on the wing at about 750-1000 m out, the 14x52 gave a more pleasant viewing than the 10x42, primarily because the bird was larger in my vision. At about 300 m out, the 14x52 gave more minute spatial detail than the 10x42. In closer than about 100 m, the 10x42 could get on flying birds while I was not quick enough to find them in the 14x52. Part of that in-close difference is because the 14x52 has a narrower field of view (279 ft/1000 yds) than the 10x42 (399 ft/1000 yds) and part was due to unfamiliarity of the 14x52 in my hands and eyes. When birds were on a tree, under 100 m the 14x52 was fine for identifying.
The 14x52 shake when handheld was tolerable to me. Clearly the view would be improved by putting the 14x52 on a tripod. My personal experience has been that 10x is not too shaky but is improved by the forehead rest, and 12x and above does need the forehead rest. For viewing birds at less than 100 m, the 14x52 would be best for stationary birds and trying to follow flying swallows or swifts at under 100 m would not be my cup of tea. And having some kind of stabilizer would be useful.
In terms of image intensity to the eyes, the 14x52 has the expected luminance increase compared to the 10x42 and this increase was great enough to see. For anyone wishing to see my further thoughts on how light entering the eyes may be calculated for binoculars used with human eyes in daylight, please see my entries in the nearby thread "Comparing 10x32 NL with 8x42 NL, some (not ground breaking) thoughts ...". The reason I did not even try the 10x52 is that it will present no more light to my eyes than my current 10x42. For those with eyes that can dilate more than 4.2 mm diameter and will use the binocular in low light conditions, the 10x52 may prove magnificent.