• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

SF 10x32 vs NL 10x32 Blackouts (2 Viewers)

PeterPS

MEMBER
Here's a discussion of the 8x42 NL's eyecup adjustment from two years ago.


There is plenty of space between the point of kidney beaning from the eye being too close to the eyepiece and the point of FOV loss from the eye being too far away from the eyepiece. Unfortunately only a little of that space allows a view with both no kidney beaning and almost no glare. After finding my personal sweet spot I have had no kidney beaning and very little glare during the past two years of use.
And how small that space is, or even if it exists at all, depends on your facial features.
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
Here's a discussion of the 8x42 NL's eyecup adjustment from two years ago.


There is plenty of space between the point of kidney beaning from the eye being too close to the eyepiece and the point of FOV loss from the eye being too far away from the eyepiece. Unfortunately only a little of that space allows a view with both no kidney beaning and almost no glare. After finding my personal sweet spot I have had no kidney beaning and very little glare during the past two years of use.
Im assuming you were talking about NL's here. Then the seven positions were adequate for you once you found the right combination.

Paul
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
Im assuming you were talking about NL's here. Then the seven positions were adequate for you once you found the right combination.

Paul
???
@henry link
"My particular sweet spot setting of the eye cups falls between the the first click in from fully extended and the second click in."

At least long-sighted people need another level between "0" and "1" or Swarovski makes the eyecup edges a little higher, so it remains unsatisfactory.

Andreas
 

henry link

Well-known member
Im assuming you were talking about NL's here. Then the seven positions were adequate for you once you found the right combination.

Paul
Paul,

The eyecup positions provide plenty of range from too short to too long, but no one of the seven positions is optimal for me. I need to set the eyecup between two positions to simultaneously avoid kidney beaning and reach minimum glare.

Andreas,

I'd suggest to people who want this binocular, but whose eyeglasses make contact with the eyelens, that they look for an o-ring that provides just enough separation when placed between the eyecup and the binocular body. It doesn't seem like a difficult fix.

Henry
 

kimmik

Well-known member
United Kingdom
I just tested the SF but in 8x42, not the 10x32, though probably similar eyepiece characteristics.

There was near 0 SAEP. Possibly less than my NL 8x42 but didn’t have them side by side.
 

samp1800

Member
United States
When I get the chance next couple of weeks, will test the SAEP of your model, SF 10x32, and post back.


Here’s my test of SAEP for NL and EL (8x versions). You can try the same technique if you like - can search cloudynights for details.

So I couldn't find any specific instructions on cloudynights but tried to recreate your test on my SF. At slightly different heights from the right eyepiece:

IMG_9146.jpeg
IMG_9148.jpeg

Personally, it looks pretty close to the view you had in the NL. At this point with the price, weight/balance, and focuser advantages the SF has I think I will just stick with the SF.. If the eye placement is similar due to the small exit pupil I am not sure if $600+ more for better sharpness past 95% to the field stop and very slight increases in light transmission is worth it in the NL. Thanks all for your input.
 
Last edited:

kimmik

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Very precisely tested, well done - and to me also this result looks to be in the same ball park as NL.

What camera did you use? It has worked better than my iphone 13 at taking a clear picture of the EP.
 

Trinovid

mountain and glacier watcher
United States
iPhone 13 mini but with a Phone Skope attachment, nothing too fancy.
Will that also fit my 12 mini, and do they adapt to any binocular? Just saw a bunch of bears, eagles and gulls, but too far away for any decent pictures.
While I was watching I couldn't help but wishing that I could take the pictures I was seeing through the binoculars.
 

samp1800

Member
United States
So Phone Skope 3D prints cases that are specific to your phone, and they also make attachments that fit specifically to your binoculars that then snap on your case (12 mini should be supported). The attachment portion centers your main camera directly over the eyepiece provided that you get the right phone case and so good pictures are more consistent than the generic phone adapters for binoculars you see on Amazon. Can be bought in the US from phoneskope.com.
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
So Phone Skope 3D prints cases that are specific to your phone, and they also make attachments that fit specifically to your binoculars that then snap on your case (12 mini should be supported). The attachment portion centers your main camera directly over the eyepiece provided that you get the right phone case and so good pictures are more consistent than the generic phone adapters for binoculars you see on Amazon. Can be bought in the US from phoneskope.com.
That site doesn’t work for me. Is anybody else have an issue?
 

b_reynolds_ak

Well-known member
Alright, theres some uninformed opinions on this thread.

Samp, I have owned both the SF and NL 10x32's and have extensive field experience with both.
As much as I wanted to love the SF's, I could not get over the blackout issue as well. Despite trying every possible option, it was always there.
I now have the NL's. They are significantly better in regard to the blackout/kidney bean issue. Also, with the FRP forehead rest, you can stay at a lower eyecup position for a truly immersive viewing experience and fine tune your eye position with the rest. Just because they have the same size exit pupil does NOT mean that they behave in the same manner.
I have not looked through the SFL's, but if you prefer Zeiss handling over Swaro and appreciate the fact that Zeiss deals with glare better, you might try the 10x40's. I personally preferred the handling of the SF's over the NL's.

In short, I could not live with the SF 10x32 but absolutely love the NL 10x32 for what it is.


I currently own the SF 10x32 and am finding that they are optically excellent except some frequent blackouts/beaning when looking around despite optimal eyecup/IPD settings. Can anyone who has used both the SF and NL comment on whether the NLs offer any significant improvement in this regard? I would like to avoid 10x42s due to weight and cost.
 

kimmik

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Any chance you could post an exit pupil photo like OP did? I tested the binos in a store which wouldn’t be as thorough an opinion as you since you owned and used them both at the same time. What do you propose to be reason for the difference in blackout?
 

Bentley03

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Alright, theres some uninformed opinions on this thread.

Samp, I have owned both the SF and NL 10x32's and have extensive field experience with both.
As much as I wanted to love the SF's, I could not get over the blackout issue as well. Despite trying every possible option, it was always there.
I now have the NL's. They are significantly better in regard to the blackout/kidney bean issue. Also, with the FRP forehead rest, you can stay at a lower eyecup position for a truly immersive viewing experience and fine tune your eye position with the rest. Just because they have the same size exit pupil does NOT mean that they behave in the same manner.
I have not looked through the SFL's, but if you prefer Zeiss handling over Swaro and appreciate the fact that Zeiss deals with glare better, you might try the 10x40's. I personally preferred the handling of the SF's over the NL's.

In short, I could not live with the SF 10x32 but absolutely love the NL 10x32 for what it is.
I came to the same conclusions as you, spent hours with the (10x32) SF's, but they were (for me) unusable, and the NL's an absolute dream, in terms of effortless positioning.

In the hand, the SF's win, no question, which makes their lack of control of blackouts (for me) doubly frustrating.

I 'get' that there are those who have issues with glare and that some find their glasses scraping the surface of the eye lenses, but I'm lucky and the NL's do work perfectly for me, 'Blackouts? What blackouts?', they just don't handle as nicely as the SF's.
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
I have both SF8x32 and 10x32. I wear spectacles and have adjusted the positions of the eyecups using rubber o-rings and have absolutely zero blackouts.

Lee
 

Bentley03

Well-known member
United Kingdom
I have both SF8x32 and 10x32. I wear spectacles and have adjusted the positions of the eyecups using rubber o-rings and have absolutely zero blackouts.

Lee
Yes, Lee, it's well documented on here that you are lucky enough to have been able to successfully adapt your SF x32's to eliminate blackouts. This is simply not possible for all of us though, these binoculars are very tight on their positioning flexibility, which the equivalent NL's are not. I now have 3 boxes of unused o-rings (which you are very welcome to have 😉) laughing at me each time I open one of my cupboard doors, but at least I tried to force SF x32's to fit me, and I know that they are definitely not for me.

Some of us find blackouts to be a deal breaker, others glare and flare, some a too slow focus mechanism, etc. etc. etc...🙃
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
Because of what reason do you say the people who answer a poll on BirdForum are not exactly the best population to get a statistically significant result? What is the bias? Age, gender, the purpose of use, or the number of individuals? I don't think any of this matters for a statistically significant result. We do statistical tests even on populations bellow 30.
In my opinion the issue with some of these polls, is they will have the same issues as some of the responses to questions asked, and answers given by people who have never tried the optic. How many times have you and I read post threads in a discussion by some individuals speaking of some attribute of an optic, only to find out after numerous posts they haven’t tried the optics, and they we’re going by things they read on forums.

It’s not a Scientific poll if we don’t have or know the control group. Do NL‘s have a glare problem that’s really a problem? Or is the number skewed by older members with eyesight limitations , eye operations, binoculars that don’t fit certain peoples facial construction. I’m not saying the glare on NL’s is not a problem, or it is a problem, I’m just saying that in this case that 47% doesn’t really mean or have the significance of that large number unless we had more knowledge of the people polled.

Consider the age demographic , is there an equal number of 20-30 year olds here buying $2500 binoculars, if there were then I think that 47% number would be much lower. So I’m with PM42 on this one.

Just my 2 cents.

Paul
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top