NL Pures Optically superior? (1 Viewer)

[limonabe]

I also hate the Field Pro System.

It's a deal-breaker for me, alas...

 

[Elpha8888]

Two examples should suffice for you: After Zeiss released the Victoty 10x40 BGAT*P, they quickly changed the way the straps were attached and the baffles, making the binocular far more glare resistant. Canon changed the size of one of the baffles in the 10x42 because it was too narrow, effectively turning the 10x42 into a 10x37.

That many manufacturers continuously improve their coatings is so well known that I'm surprised you don't know about it.

I don't have to explain myself "properly". If you don't like (or understand ) what I post that's your problem, not mine.

That said, just to satisfy your curiosity: I tried a friend's 8x32 NL for half a day, and I found four things I didn't like:
1. Too much glare. And yes, I've been around long enough to know about the importance of setting the IPD and the eyecup extension right. It had still too much glare.
2. The Field Pro Sytem is IMO idiotic. I found it idiotic when I got my first binocular with it. I still do.
3. The armour showed quite a bit of wear and tear. Far too much for a binocular that was 6 months old at the time.
4. The focuser had developed a rough spot after it got very wet on two occasions.

Happy now?

Hermann

No not really, again...the original point being was that there were about 4 or 5 major changes mentioned by another forum member that was possibly changed to the NL within 2 years after release, I found this highly unlikely and you suggested that manufacturers have done this before hence why I've asked you for examples.... you need to go back and read the post, which were not my observations or experiences btw. So maybe you should have took it up with that forum member?
Writing about a strap change on a vintage Zeiss from the 50s and a baffle on a Canon which btw I'll take your word for it and how would one know what optical difference this makes and how much better glare is by adding a strap? this is not comparable to the changes mentioned and that could have been possibly made to the NL. Also you gave no time frame after the original release to these changes. At least make your responses watertight. So either answer my original question or let it go and admit you cannot give examples of these major changes.
Of course manufacturers make changes, of course they get things wrong but the whole point of this debate has been completely missed by your good self.
I have no problem that you do not like the NL, again you are comparing an NL 8x32 to my NL 8x42, different animals. I've looked through both and had the 10x32NL for long periods of time and not two hours, imo the NL 8x42 is supreme, which of course is meaningless as much as these posts we are engaged in. A few hours with a mates NL is probably not enough time and maybe you should try the NL8x42. Anyhow, I understand the NL is not your cup of tea.
These kind of debates with words are silly and meaningless, we are in the realm of la-la land and I feel you are here more to fluff your own feathers than to add any kind of positivity or constructive thoughts to the thread.
Regards

 

[ticl2184]

I'm not sure how Gijs measures magnification, but our results with the same binoculars have been in good agreement.

I used a simple method to measure my 8x42 NL. First I made a photo of a distant target through a DSLR using manual focus. Then, without changing the camera focus I made a photo of the same target through the binocular eyepiece, using the binocular to focus. Then, I measure the difference in the target sizes in the two photos on my computer screen. Because the magnification is affected by distortion across both the binocular and camera lens fields I use a small target that only subtends around 7-8º of AFOV near the center of the binocular field to minimize magnification variation from distortion.

Hi Henry .

Just bought a pair of 8x32 NL's...

Just thought I'd let you know....

Cheers

Tim

 

[Hermann]

No not really, again...the original point being was that there were about 4 or 5 major changes mentioned by another forum member that was possibly changed to the NL within 2 years after release, I found this highly unlikely and you suggested that manufacturers have done this before hence why I've asked you for examples....

Well, let's wait what Tim finds ... 😀 Manufacturers do release models without prolonged testing nowadays and then make some changes. This has happened before, and it will happen again.

Writing about a strap change on a vintage Zeiss from the 50s and a baffle on a Canon which btw I'll take your word for it and how would one know what optical difference this makes and how much better glare is by adding a strap?

So the 10x40 BGAT*P is of 50s vintage? You certainly know your stuff ... 😀 BTW, I wrote Zeiss also changed the baffling, not just the strap attachment. May I suggest you read my post again?

this is not comparable to the changes mentioned and that could have been possibly made to the NL. Also you gave no time frame after the original release to these changes. At least make your responses watertight.

Look, I don't have to make anything "watertight" just because you say so. Who do you think you are?

So either answer my original question or let it go and admit you cannot give examples of these major changes.

I gave examples of major changes, whether you like it or not.

Of course manufacturers make changes, of course they get things wrong but the whole point of this debate has been completely missed by your good self.

Not really. I rather think you're miffed because you paid a lot of money for a binocular only to find Swarovski may have made some changes quite soon after releasing it. Whether they actually did remains to be seen.

I have no problem that you do not like the NL, again you are comparing an NL 8x32 to my NL 8x42, different animals.

I'm not comparing anything to your 8x42. I commented on the 8x32 I tried. However, 3 of the 4 points I raised apply to any model of the NL range.

I've looked through both and had the 10x32NL for long periods of time and not two hours, imo the NL 8x42 is supreme, which of course is meaningless as much as these posts we are engaged in. A few hours with a mates NL is probably not enough time and maybe you should try the NL8x42.

Perhaps. I was mainly interested in the 8x32 though. And I've been around long enough to know if a binocular works for me after half a day's birding or not.

Anyhow, I understand the NL is not your cup of tea.

Correct. At least you got that right.

These kind of debates with words are silly and meaningless, we are in the realm of la-la land and I feel you are here more to fluff your own feathers than to add any kind of positivity or constructive thoughts to the thread.

I think I'll let this stand as it is. I hope it makes you feel important.

Hermann

 

[Paultricounty]

What if...
Swaro thought, ELs getting long in the tooth, marketing not performance-wise, time for new and improved?
Optical quality-wise, there is essentially/almost no difference - same glass, same coatings?
For most people specifically those who dont read BF, glare's not an issue?
If it aint broke?
A larger FOV was doable?
An improvement to flat field was doable?
A sexy new wasp waisted body feels AND looks cool as hell and will bring it on home?
Higher price infers new and improved, (even if its mostly to pay for the new body)?

Isn’t that the exact evaluation of most if not all the manufactures. SF just has larger FOV, is it really something evolutionary from FL or even HT (Abbe K). Leica BR to BN to Ultravi, I’d say there more of an evaluation with Leica from 20 years ago to today, BR to Nocs..

Was just reading Tobias comparing six premiums, hope it’s ok to quote from the review, specifically referring to 8.5EL (typo he had 8x42) “But for most birders I see this as a big disadvantage.” He was refering to the flat 2 dimensional FOV, aren’t the eight. 8.5 x 42 one of the most popular birding binoculars of all time?

Did Swaro listen , and after so many years of success with EL make incremental improvements just pertaining to some complaints of the EL’s. It seems that even if the manufacturers could make monumental improvements to the lineups, why would they if they already have a very successful product line?

Paul

 

[Mac308]

Apart from how good the light transmission or resolution of the NL's may be, I still find the view unsettling, though, I have only used the 10x42's.

The EL Swarovision was non-usable for my eyes due to Rolling Ball. I find the NL's similarly unusable for my eyes. I assume it still has field flatteners? Perhaps the wide angle view is accentuating the unsettling effect? Dunno.

Swarovski seems determined to set them selves apart from other binoculars - and often, in my view, with gimmicks - be it color, styling, accessories, field flatteners, overly wide FOV, etc. I'm also quite certain Swarovki's are not up to the durablitiy of, say, Leica.

I've owned Swaro's in the past, but they have completely lost me...

 

[GrampaTom]

Isn’t that the exact evaluation of most if not all the manufactures. SF just has larger FOV, is it really something evolutionary from FL or even HT (Abbe K). Leica BR to BN to Ultravi, I’d say there more of an evaluation with Leica from 20 years ago to today, BR to Nocs..

Was just reading Tobias comparing six premiums, hope it’s ok to quote from the review, specifically referring to 8.5EL (typo he had 8x42) “But for most birders I see this as a big disadvantage.” He was refering to the flat 2 dimensional FOV, aren’t the eight. 8.5 x 42 one of the most popular birding binoculars of all time?

Did Swaro listen , and after so many years of success with EL make incremental improvements just pertaining to some complaints of the EL’s. It seems that even if the manufacturers could make monumental improvements to the lineups, why would they if they already have a very successful product line?

Paul

Paul,
Hopefully you noted I started with "What if...." the list that followed were all accompanied by question marks. I don't know. I'm guessing, suggesting, hoping for a dialogue here, thats a little different from the norm. Based on Swaro's track record they wont tell us. We're left to guess, conjecture, claim and argue, see things we think are there, but maybe aren't. I know you noticed my earlier post on NBE.

Not sure what you're saying in that first paragraph.

Tobias is cool. I dig his opinion, candor, willingness to change. He comes at things from a different point of view. Thats important contextually. He is a cinema photographer so sees optics differently, certainly from me, at least. You? I suggest you need to read his stuff with an eye to chronology. He's a long standing Leica fan, relating to a perspective from his profession. After his earlier condemning Swaro's flat field, then loving the SLC, he now likes the NL We're ll kinda moving targets. Seems important to not just take what fits our own narrative of a moment.

Did Swaro listen? I suspect the answer is of course, yes. But listened to what, is maybe more interesting.

Did they listen to Dennis and others complaint of glare in the EL, when it designed the NL? One wouldn't think so based on the same few BFers that cant let it go. Its been asked of contributors here to describe how many bino users actually see glare. No one has answered. Is everyone here even on the same page and KNOW/AGREE what glare is? How important is it then? Maybe Swaro doesn't read BF and missed it? Hardly. I'd bet they've asked that question and made a decision.

Did they listen to their own internal sales data? You bet they did. Do they dialogue with sellers down the food chain, interact at shows, have subject matter experts they trust? Of course. My for fun conjecture that Swaro thought the EL was getting long in the tooth, is a guess that would've come from marketing folks watching the competition, seeing what new and improved it has announced and looking for a corresponding impact on sales. Sales dip, time for their new and improved.

Id bet Swaro R&D is way ahead of us, has stuff they're working on thats destined for... next year, 5 years out, whenever the market conditions suggests, the time is right. Other than the body, most would agree the NL is an incremental improvement over the EL. That seems apparent. The body was there to sell it. Kind of a Steve Jobs Apple moment. The astronomers and camera folks here suggest there's a ways to go with optical quality, glass and coatings mere binocular users have yet to see. We can guess the bino makers know this full well, but believe we users, of these less sophisticated products wont value that stuff.... yet... til the other guy delivers and promotes.

The art here is getting when to make this or that change. When do market conditions require a company does that. I know youre an active participant in the recent thread on Image stabilized vs alphas. What if the whole magilla is about to change with an image stabilized Swarovski.. NLIS?
Ha!

 

[Vespobuteo]

Apart from how good the light transmission or resolution of the NL's may be, I still find the view unsettling, though, I have only used the 10x42's.

The EL Swarovision was non-usable for my eyes due to Rolling Ball. I find the NL's similarly unusable for my eyes. I assume it still has field flatteners? Perhaps the wide angle view is accentuating the unsettling effect? Dunno.

Swarovski seems determined to set them selves apart from other binoculars - and often, in my view, with gimmicks - be it color, styling, accessories, field flatteners, overly wide FOV, etc. I'm also quite certain Swarovki's are not up to the durablitiy of, say, Leica.

I've owned Swaro's in the past, but they have completely lost me...

8x is might be easier on the brain/eyes than the 10x when it comes to rolling ball.

I pan very slowly, or in steps, which makes RB less of a problem

When not panning/moving the bin around to much, peripheral sight has much easier to pick up anomalies like birds etc.

And the edge sharpness is a bit addictive...

 

[Paultricounty]

Paul,
Hopefully you noted I started with "What if...." the list that followed were all accompanied by question marks. I don't know. I'm guessing, suggesting, hoping for a dialogue here, thats a little different from the norm. Based on Swaro's track record they wont tell us. We're left to guess, conjecture, claim and argue, see things we think are there, but maybe aren't. I know you noticed my earlier post on NBE.

Not sure what you're saying in that first paragraph.

Tobias is cool. I dig his opinion, candor, willingness to change. He comes at things from a different point of view. Thats important contextually. He is a cinema photographer so sees optics differently, certainly from me, at least. You? I suggest you need to read his stuff with an eye to chronology. He's a long standing Leica fan, relating to a perspective from his profession. After his earlier condemning Swaro's flat field, then loving the SLC, he now likes the NL We're ll kinda moving targets. Seems important to not just take what fits our own narrative of a moment.

Did Swaro listen? I suspect the answer is of course, yes. But listened to what, is maybe more interesting.

Did they listen to Dennis and others complaint of glare in the EL, when it designed the NL? One wouldn't think so based on the same few BFers that cant let it go. Its been asked of contributors here to describe how many bino users actually see glare. No one has answered. Is everyone here even on the same page and KNOW/AGREE what glare is? How important is it then? Maybe Swaro doesn't read BF and missed it? Hardly. I'd bet they've asked that question and made a decision.

Did they listen to their own internal sales data? You bet they did. Do they dialogue with sellers down the food chain, interact at shows, have subject matter experts they trust? Of course. My for fun conjecture that Swaro thought the EL was getting long in the tooth, is a guess that would've come from marketing folks watching the competition, seeing what new and improved it has announced and looking for a corresponding impact on sales. Sales dip, time for their new and improved.

Id bet Swaro R&D is way ahead of us, has stuff they're working on thats destined for... next year, 5 years out, whenever the market conditions suggests, the time is right. Other than the body, most would agree the NL is an incremental improvement over the EL. That seems apparent. The body was there to sell it. Kind of a Steve Jobs Apple moment. The astronomers and camera folks here suggest there's a ways to go with optical quality, glass and coatings mere binocular users have yet to see. We can guess the bino makers know this full well, but believe we users, of these less sophisticated products wont value that stuff.... yet... til the other guy delivers and promotes.

The art here is getting when to make this or that change. When do market conditions require a company does that. I know youre an active participant in the recent thread on Image stabilized vs alphas. What if the whole magilla is about to change with an image stabilized Swarovski.. NLIS?
Ha!

Then would all be reading post after post , in the hundreds I’m sure, with the utmost anticipation. They’ll be to expensive, the FOV will be to flat, the FOV will have to much distortion, the color rendition is not vivid or saturated enough, the ergonomics are not right, they don’t balance a good as they should , there not really alphas etc. etc. Need I go into the 2032’s don’t last long enough 😉🙏🏼

Good read on your post Tom
Paul

 

[GrampaTom]

What if the whole magilla is about to change with an image stabilized Swarovski.. NLIS?

Then would all be reading post after post , in the hundreds I’m sure, with the utmost anticipation. They’ll be to expensive, the FOV will be to flat, the FOV will have to much distortion, the color rendition is not vivid or saturated enough, the ergonomics are not right, they don’t balance a good as they should , there not really alphas etc. etc. Need I go into the 2032’s don’t last long enough 😉🙏🏼

Good read on your post Tom
Paul

Dare I say it? You forgot glare...

 

[dorubird]

Precisely because we have different preferences, there are different companies that will not change their hard-to-reach optical signature so easily. Swarovski knows better what it's doing when it lets a little glare escape, Leica knows what it's doing when it doesn't use a flat field, and Zeiss knows too well what it's doing when it has a small greenish tint in its alpha binoculars. The big three could get easy rid of these small optical problems but maybe at the price of the appearance of others and thus they would change their own optical signature in their top range.
No matter which binoculars I choose from the big three, I would be happy and I would not complain like a child who sees another child's toy more beautiful, thus being continuously dissatisfied. Give me the El, NL Pure, Noctivid, SF or HT and I will learn to appreciate their qualities more than to overestimate their problems...There is no such thing as a perfect pair of binoculars regardless of price, all will have small problems. We choose which problems we can handle more easily!

 

[Troubador]

What if the whole magilla is about to change with an image stabilized Swarovski.. NLIS?


Dare I say it? You forgot glare...

When I was just beginning to use binoculars (several decades ago, ahem) I received earnest advice along the lines of 'looking at the sun through binos would destroy your eyesight so never look near the sun'. Sound advice of course and ever since this in normal bino usage I never look near the sun. I don't even think about it, after decades of doing this it is just programmed in. As a result I hardly ever encounter glare. Maybe many people are as cautious as me, and for good reasons, and maybe as a result 'glare' is easily forgotten......

Lee

 

[Viraj]

8x is might be easier on the brain/eyes than the 10x when it comes to rolling ball.

I thought x8 produces more RB than x10.

What if the whole magilla is about to change with an image stabilized Swarovski.. NLIS?

I have answered a questionnaire from Swarovski after using my NL for a few months. They didn't ask me anything about my experience with glare. However, they asked what electronic feature I like to have in Swarovski binoculars. My simple answer was image stabilization. Maybe now they are thinking more about improving their binoculars by adding electronic components rather than improving them optically.

 

[kimmik]

Food for thought, there is a lot more air space in Spotting scope/long monoculars, compared to packed-to-the-hilt 12 element roof binoculars.

20x50 hand held spotting scope:
1. Has more internal space to accommodate IS hardware
2. Has the magnification to maximally benefit from the IS
3. handheld scope is begging for revival imo
4. Single tube much easier to implement IS than double tube

Perhaps the first IS product for Swaro/Leica will be a 20x50 hand held scope?

It is a format that I want to see revived, and a perfect time to disrupt the market with euro IS. Canon can keep the IS bino market for now.

How much would you pay?

Edit: probably should have posted in the alpha vs is thread, sorry. Can move it later if worthwhile.

 

[Elpha8888]

Well, let's wait what Tim finds ... 😀 Manufacturers do release models without prolonged testing nowadays and then make some changes. This has happened before, and it will happen again.

So the 10x40 BGAT*P is of 50s vintage? You certainly know your stuff ... 😀 BTW, I wrote Zeiss also changed the baffling, not just the strap attachment. May I suggest you read my post again?

Look, I don't have to make anything "watertight" just because you say so. Who do you think you are?

I gave examples of major changes, whether you like it or not.

Not really. I rather think you're miffed because you paid a lot of money for a binocular only to find Swarovski may have made some changes quite soon after releasing it. Whether they actually did remains to be seen.

I'm not comparing anything to your 8x42. I commented on the 8x32 I tried. However, 3 of the 4 points I raised apply to any model of the NL range.

Perhaps. I was mainly interested in the 8x32 though. And I've been around long enough to know if a binocular works for me after half a day's birding or not.

Correct. At least you got that right.

I think I'll let this stand as it is. I hope it makes you feel important.

Hermann

Hermann, firstly we can all quote and wordplay to ones advantage but let's just stick with your original conundrum, once again... Tim cited at least 4 changes, these four changes granted may only be due to two or 3 physical or actual modifications.

Again.... Show me a manufacturer that has made these kinds of major changes (not just one, I think that's where you slipped up by assuming just one would suffice, I've already granted that this happens) within two years of releasing their flagship model?
That was my original uncertainty that a manufacturer would do this or has done this. You gave 1 example on two different binoculars and you also gave no time frame.

"Not really. I rather think you're miffed because you paid a lot of money for a binocular only to find Swarovski may have made some changes quite soon after releasing it. Whether they actually did remains to be seen"

When did I ever say I was unhappy with my NL 8x42? Please quote me where I said I was unhappy? Again, read the comments before posting, maybe at least make sure you can back up your comments with facts before jumping in?

"Look, I don't have to make anything "watertight" just because you say so"

-Of course, but it would have made this less painful for you, the trouble with these types of debates is that the ego will come into play, I can sense your impending explosion 😘

"Who do you think you are?"

-A happy NL 8x42 owner.

I don't know why you keep going on about your 8x32? Our experiences are subjective and no relevance here. Stick with the question you jumped in on.

I am extremely happy with my NL specimen, best glass I have had to date.
I'm going out with it today infact and will enjoy it's splendor. 😊

 

[ticl2184]

Food for thought, there is a lot more air space in Spotting scope/long monoculars, compared to packed-to-the-hilt 12 element roof binoculars.

20x50 hand held spotting scope:
1. Has more internal space to accommodate IS hardware
2. Has the magnification to maximally benefit from the IS
3. handheld scope is begging for revival imo
4. Single tube much easier to implement IS than double tube

Perhaps the first IS product for Swaro/Leica will be a 20x50 hand held scope?

It is a format that I want to see revived, and a perfect time to disrupt the market with euro IS. Canon can keep the IS bino market for now.

How much would you pay?

Edit: probably should have posted in the alpha vs is thread, sorry. Can move it later if worthwhile.

I wasn't going to say anything but seeing you guys brought it up.....
Heard September or October something new will be released. "Rumour" is and before anyone says anything I mean "RUMOUR" a 50mm pocket scope is coming.... Might be stabilised might not..Not sure


Cheers

Tim

 

[pm42]

Did they listen to Dennis and others complaint of glare in the EL, when it designed the NL?

Internet forums are probably the worst source when it comes to an accurate evaluation of a product flaws. Not because you cannot get a good pictures by averaging the many useful comments but because some of them are blown out of proportion by a very active and usually angry minority.

P.S:I have no opinion about flare in the EL. My NL show none but I wear glasses. In the rare occasions I did not, I was under the impression that the eyecups were the main culprit. And that it depends a lot one eye placement. Like many "defaults", I've noticed that after a few days or week, I get used to my new binoculars, my muscle memory works and I do not see black spots or glare anymore. Just my personal experience of course.

 

[Thotmosis]

I wasn't going to say anything but seeing you guys brought it up.....
Heard September or October something new will be released. "Rumour" is and before anyone says anything I mean "RUMOUR" a 50mm pocket scope is coming.... Might be stabilised might not..Not sure


Cheers

Tim

Now THAT would be interesting!
I hope there will be also a GA version

 

[Paultricounty]

One thing that has become extremely apparent to me is different user’s perceptions of optics. Ive always knew there were differences in perception from my previous addictive (not anymore of course) days with astronomy and all the different eyepieces in combination with specific telescopes ( mostly apo refractors and some Dobs) But not as profound as the last few years when it comes to binoculars.

Of course binoculars are a completely different animal , and in astronomy it was more to do with with traditional Orthoscopic and Flossl medium FOV oculars compared with wide field and ultra-wide field (Panoptics and Naglars as examples, 40-80 degrees) and less to due with ergonomics, color rendition, flat fields and so on.

With binoculars my biggest surprise was how often that some see things that others do not and some don’t see things that others do. But this gap is huge. I’m convinced that its the most common reason there are so many discussions (and debates) as to why some people do or don’t see the value in the most expensive options from the big three as we’ve been calling them.

As observers along our path of knowledge we learn the differences of optical efficiencies , deficiencies and personalities of the binoculars. As I’ve shared in discussions , my wife doesn’t necessarily see some differences between upper mid grade and premium options, somethings yes, somethings no. Yet my son says its like going from HD to 4000k when comparing a MHG to a Leica UVHD. There lies a huge reason why some will not spend the additional money for something they can’t see or see enough to legitimize the cost difference. Or don’t even need or want a level any higher than what there purposes are.

I think the thing that got me to write this , is the never ending (and never will in the short term) is glare. Absolutely and unequivocally some binos by there inherent design suffer from this more than others. But I also believe this equally is an individual thing. An example the Swaro Habicht’s 8x30 described by some as glare monsters and is a deal breaker for them, yet others as well as my self see some glare sometimes and adjust position and find them delightful. Same can be said about other design idiosyncrasies , like globe effect, some see globe effect, others don’t see it at all and some others get sick from it.

Where I’m going with this is that these inherent design idiosyncrasies literally can be a flaw for one person and not even an issue for another. And that’s the reason I think this discussion never ends or even gets to anything resembling a consensus concerning any specific binocular, ( other than the green cast in the SF) Even when it does seeem to be some consensus on a specific bino there are those that have an issue. For example some say the UVHD 7x42 is an extremely comfortable bino, I find I can’t always line up the eye-box easily.

Then we go all over the place when it comes to IS or non-IS. My point here is that some are very brand loyal and spent lots on specific binos that it becomes a little bit like defending a territory. Good conversation and some banter is very enjoyable and helps a lot of people make choices and to help determine if there are issues with specific purchases. Let’s definitely keep that up. And who wouldn’t mis the back and forth and personal quips about eyesight and why one company is better than another from Dennis, Herman , Grandpa, Elpha8888 and others ( not me of course)😆.

Here I’ll continue the friendly sparing with my friends on BF. To me the Leica’s (even with the less than revolutionary changes) have the best build quality of the three, and for me the most enjoyable image quality, followed closely by Swarovski and Zeiss in last position. Isn’t it interesting that I enjoy the color saturation of a Leica and still enjoy the neutral color (& Glare😜) of the Swaros. I’m 100% sure (and would bet on it) that others would reverse that order.

Thank you

Paul

 

[Hermann]

Hermann, firstly we can all Tim cited at least 4 changes, these four changes granted may only be due to two or 3 physical or actual modifications.

Again.... Show me a manufacturer that has made these kinds of major changes (not just one, I think that's where you slipped up by assuming just one would suffice, I've already granted that this happens) within two years of releasing their flagship model?

The first Zeiss Victory T*P* 40mm was their flagship model when it came onto the market. It was the successor of the Dialyt 10x40 BGAT*P. There were four major criticisms of this model: The new strap attachments, the armour, problems with glare and CA. Within two years Zeiss changed the strap attachments back to a more traditional strap attachment and changed the baffles. People who complained about the strap attachment could have their binoculars modified. Zeiss then changed the baffles as well.

That model was short-lived BTW, it was replaced by the FL with much better CA correction and different armour.

That was my original uncertainty that a manufacturer would do this or has done this. You gave 1 example on two different binoculars and you also gave no time frame.

See above. BTW, the original grey SF, the successor of the FL, also had (at least) two major changes shortly after its introduction: The focuser was modified, and shortly after Zeiss changed the armour to the current black one.

When did I ever say I was unhappy with my NL 8x42? Please quote me where I said I was unhappy?

I did not say you were unhappy with your NL. You indicated that you were unhappy with a manufacturer supposedly making changes to a model within a short period of time after releasing it. I explained this sort thing happens quite regularly. And it does.

-Of course, but it would have made this less painful for you, the trouble with these types of debates is that the ego will come into play, I can sense your impending explosion 😘

"Impending explosion"? You got that wrong, yet again ... 😀

I am extremely happy with my NL specimen, best glass I have had to date.
I'm going out with it today infact and will enjoy it's splendor. 😊

Good for you ... 👍

Hermann