SF 8x32 v NL Pure 8x42 (1 Viewer)

[dries1]

Glass

The only correct answer is get both.

You are not helping this support group.:-O

Andy W.

 

[Dennis Mau]

You are not helping this support group.:-O

Andy W.

It is not a bad answer though. If you get both the Swarovski NL 8x42 and the Zeiss SF 8x32 you get the newest and best 8x42 mm and the newest and best 8x32 mm. The NL 8x32 may never come to fruition.

 

[Chosun Juan]

It is not a bad answer though. If you get both the Swarovski NL 8x42 and the Zeiss SF 8x32 you get the newest and best 8x42 mm and the newest and best 8x32 mm. The NL 8x32 may never come to fruition.

Why wouldn't you get one 10x and one 8x ? :cat:

Two 8x seems like an awful lot of duplication .......








Chosun :gh:

 

[jremmons]

I've come within an inch of pre-ordering each but haven't done so. It is appealing to own the best instrument for the job at hand for sure. I'm the worlds worst at wanting to do just that. But in REALITY I have to ask myself how many times did I find a SV 8X32, a SLC 8X42, a FL 7X42, a UVHD+ 7X42, et al lacking in performance in any appreciable way while birding? If I'm honest with myself the answer is ZERO. In fact while the latest/greatest ALWAYS improve in some areas, they will also suffer by comparison in a few other areas. Trust me....I've owned the latest/greatest several times! LOL!

It would be REALLY hard for me to not recommend a Swarovski EL 8X32 Swarovision(SV 8X32). It's literally a THOUSAND DOLLARS less than the NL. Its still probably one of the best birding binoculars out there and only a month or so was the best Swarovski had to offer. Let that sink in for a bit.

I would agree if you replaced the 8x32 with the 8.5x42! I wanted to love the 8x32 but the glare was too much for me. I almost want to try one again...

Justin

 

[Dennis Mau]

Why wouldn't you get one 10x and one 8x ? :cat:

Two 8x seems like an awful lot of duplication .......








Chosun :gh:

I like 8x better for the greater DOF, it is easier to hold steady and has a bigger FOV than 10x. A 8x42 and a 8x32 would be a good combination with the smaller glass for hiking longer distances. I have tried a lot of different magnifications but I always come back to 8x. I think it is the best all around magnification for hand held use unless you have IS or a tripod. It is hard to decide between a 8x32 or 8x42 if you only want one binocular. If you do a lot of hiking and observe mainly in the day a 8x32 would work but for lower light say in the jungle or under canopy a 8x42 is better. Probably the best all-rounder for any lighting conditions in any place in the world would be the 8x42.

 

[Chosun Juan]

I like 8x better for the greater DOF, it is easier to hold steady and has a bigger FOV than 10x. A 8x42 and a 8x32 would be a good combination with the smaller glass for hiking longer distances. I have tried a lot of different magnifications but I always come back to 8x. I think it is the best all around magnification for hand held use unless you have IS or a tripod. It is hard to decide between a 8x32 or 8x42 if you only want one binocular. If you do a lot of hiking and observe mainly in the day a 8x32 would work but for lower light or under canopy a 8x42 is better. Probably the best all-rounder for any lighting conditions would be the 8x42.

Agree about the 8x. I think it would be super hard to justify an 8x32 if you already had a great 8x42 - like the Swaro NL.

You'd be better off pairing that with something truly useful for hiking - like an 8x30 CL. When you get to the point that you're cutting your toothbrush in half - even ~600grams is probably too much ......







Chosun :gh:

 

[Dennis Mau]

Agree about the 8x. I think it would be super hard to justify an 8x32 if you already had a great 8x42 - like the Swaro NL.

You'd be better off pairing that with something truly useful for hiking - like an 8x30 CL. When you get to the point that you're cutting your toothbrush in half - even ~600grams is probably too much ......







Chosun :gh:

You are probably right about it being hard to justify a 8x32. I might just use the NL 8x42 it should be light enough for most hiking I do and it should be versatile enough for just about anything. I had the CL 8x30 and it is just not as good as the EL 8x32 for the couple of oz. you save so it is just not worth it. I am without any binoculars at the moment because I sold my EL 8x32 because I think it is going to pale in comparison to the NL and I feel the value is going to go down once the NL is on the market. I actually made money on those because I picked them up new for $1550.00 and sold them for $1700.00 in one day. That is one thing about Swarovski's. They have good resale, and they sell faster than any binocular. So I am just waiting for the NL's. Maybe that will be my only binocular unless an NL 8x32 is a reality then I would try it and compare it to the 8x42 and keep one or the other.

 

[CharleyBird]

I've come within an inch of pre-ordering each but haven't done so. It is appealing to own the best instrument for the job at hand for sure. I'm the worlds worst at wanting to do just that. But in REALITY I have to ask myself how many times did I find a SV 8X32, a SLC 8X42, a FL 7X42, a UVHD+ 7X42, et al lacking in performance in any appreciable way while birding? If I'm honest with myself the answer is ZERO. In fact while the latest/greatest ALWAYS improve in some areas, they will also suffer by comparison in a few other areas. Trust me....I've owned the latest/greatest several times! LOL!

It would be REALLY hard for me to not recommend a Swarovski EL 8X32 Swarovision(SV 8X32). It's literally a THOUSAND DOLLARS less than the NL. Its still probably one of the best birding binoculars out there and only a month or so was the best Swarovski had to offer. Let that sink in for a bit.

Absolutely. Here are some current alternatives on which to spend the cash:

The new NL 8x42 with stabilising attachment will cost a total £2478
A new SLC 8x42 is £1125 and SLC 10x42 is £1170, a total £2295.

The new SF 8x32 will cost £2065
A new EL 8x32 is £1395 and a Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 £649, total £2044.


Hmmmmm......

 

[Torview]

Come on Den, you`v quoted replies to Chosun, Chuck and everybody else, its plain rude to leave Bill out in the cold, lets have a reasoned response.

Are you desperate to be the first owner to post a review on these pages ?

 

[jan van daalen]

Alex,

You may always disagree, but you're not alone. It may be noted in the first attachment that the human's two visual fields overlap only 50-60º and that everything outside that range is single vision. A top-tier binocular presents an image to the retina corresponding to its "apparent" field (AFOV), which is typically in the 60-70º range. The 10 degree area from 60-70º (and anything beyond), therefore, is pure monocular vision and can only be seen by one eye. **

The upper panel of the second attachment shows that optimum eye rotation is ±15º, which corresponds to a 30º AFOV. The maximum eye rotation that is possible to center an object of interest is ±35º, but beyond 15º of rotation the view will become increasingly uncomfortable and the head will naturally move to compensate. Not mentioned is the fact that with binoculars when the eye rotates vignetting is unavoidably introduced into the image, which also motivates head motion to center the object of interest.

Generally speaking, head and eye rotation occur simultaneously in a coordinated fashion, although the head lags the eyes because of inertial effects.

However, I do have to disagree about the virtues of flat field optics. The third attachment (more fully explained in the .PDF file) shows what is called the visual horopter, i.e., the locus of points in space that represents corresponding points on the left and right retinas. For an ideal spherical eye these points would fall on a circle, or sphere in 3D, not a straight line or flat plane. Therefore, optics that present linear or planar images will necessarily distort 3D spatial perception, which in my case is extremely objectionable.

Ed

PS. For the 8x, 10x and 12x models the angular AFOVs are 72º, 76º and 78º, respectfully, which explains why the edges are said to "disappear." That's because the outer fields on either side are increasingly beyond the limits of binocular vision.

PPS. I jury rigged a head-rest simulator shown in the last attachment for my Swaro 8x42 SLC-HD. Preliminary conclusion: the headrest will primarily reduce vertical angular motions, which should be beneficial.

Thanks for this Ed,

I learned a lot this Sunday morning with my cup of coffee and BF class as breakfast:t:

Jan

 

[paddy7]

Agreed absolutely - science, and understandable science! Thanks Ed....
I think - should anyone ever ask me - i could explain now why i'm not keen on flat fields, why i don't mind a little in the way of 'edge issues' but welcome a large sweet-spot - bright, contrasty and with good resolution.

 

[WJC]

Agreed absolutely - science, and understandable science! Thanks Ed....
I think - should anyone ever ask me - i could explain now why i'm not keen on flat fields, why i don't mind a little in the way of 'edge issues' but welcome a large sweet-spot - bright, contrasty and with good resolution.

It has been my experience that some people go weak in the knees at the mention of a wide FOV, even if the outer third to half of that field is—based on field curvature—of low resolution and contrast. It seems they look no further than PUBLISHED specs.

Attached is an image of a garden variety 7x50 binocular that was advertised as a 120x120. Does that look like a 35-pound binocular with a 4.77-inch aperture to anyone on this forum? In addition, the image of a 120x120 binocular would be as bright as the view of a black cat ... in a cave ... at midnight.

But, do the people who fall for this kind of SCAM understand these realities. They do not. After the money has been wasted, the instruments are often relegated to the sock drawer and only used as conversation starters when visitors arrive. :cat:

Bill

 

[henry link]

I'm going to have to express a contrarian view to what I'm reading here on the subject of "field flatteners".

Can we agree that the ideal situation is for light to arrive at the eye through a binocular exactly as it would have done with no binocular in front of the eye, except of course for the change in magnification? Astigmatism and field curvature simply don't exist in the natural light that falls on the eye, so how would adding them to a binocular image make it appear more natural? It's only when those aberrations are eliminated that we see a faithful analogue to the image space as if it were being viewed through a hollow tube.

I can only believe that the completely inoffensive result of correcting field curvature and astigmatism is being falsely conflated with a pattern of low pincushion and high angular magnification distortions that viewers may find unnatural. Unfortunately, some of the best known binoculars with field flatteners, like the Swaro SV and Zeiss SF just happen to coincidently have those kinds of distortions, but the distortions themselves have nothing to do with the field flattening function. That can be accomplished with any combination of distortions the designer chooses to use.

Henry

 

[Hermann]

I can only believe that the completely inoffensive result of correcting field curvature and astigmatism is being falsely conflated with a pattern of low pincushion and high angular magnification distortions that viewers may find unnatural. Unfortunately, some of the best known binoculars with field flatteners, like the Swaro SV and Zeiss SF just happen to coincidently have those kinds of distortions, but the distortions themselves have nothing to do with the field flattening function. That can be accomplished with any combination of distortions the designer chooses to use.

Like the Nikon SE and the Nikon HG-L?

I very much prefer the view through them over the SV and the SF.

Hermann

 

[Steve C]

I don't know anything about any Weber's Law but I know I had a Nikon EDG 8x32 at the same time as a Swarovski 8x32 EL and without a doubt the EL had a bigger FOV. It is called "Mau's Law". It is based on what I see through my own eyes.

It should be the Mau Syndrome. It is where one assumes what they want to see and then proceeds to sound off like an expert proving their imaginary point. The more expert they think they can sound, the more likely they are to convince themselves of their self fulfilling prophecy. The more they convince themselves, the more they become convinced they are right, and that they have convinced everyone else as well.

With all due respect of course

 

[paddy7]

I'm going to have to express a contrarian view to what I'm reading here on the subject of "field flatteners".

Can we agree that the ideal situation is for light to arrive at the eye through a binocular exactly as it would have done with no binocular in front of the eye, except of course for the change in magnification? Astigmatism and field curvature simply don't exist in the natural light that falls on the eye, so how would adding them to a binocular image make it appear more natural? It's only when those aberrations are eliminated that we see a faithful analogue to the image space as if it were being viewed through a hollow tube.

I can only believe that the completely inoffensive result of correcting field curvature and astigmatism is being falsely conflated with a pattern of low pincushion and high angular magnification distortions that viewers may find unnatural. Unfortunately, some of the best known binoculars with field flatteners, like the Swaro SV and Zeiss SF just happen to coincidently have those kinds of distortions, but the distortions themselves have nothing to do with the field flattening function. That can be accomplished with any combination of distortions the designer chooses to use.

Henry

A good point, well made - i can't say my experience of field flatteners is vast, being confined to one or two i've looked through or used.
I think though that a change in emphasis occurs when binoculars are lifted to the eye in a birding sense. That is usually to concentrate down onto a subject, or perhaps to pan through multiple subjects, concentrating on each in turn (or even in tern....)
So - perhaps only in my case, i'm prepared to admit - the binocular functions more as a 'field microscope'. I like a wide FoV if i can get it, but always instinctively put the subject of scrutiny at the centre; looking out to the side of the view would be contrary to my acquired behaviour when using bins, as it would be if just using my eyes.

 

[NDhunter]

I've come within an inch of pre-ordering each but haven't done so. It is appealing to own the best instrument for the job at hand for sure. I'm the worlds worst at wanting to do just that. But in REALITY I have to ask myself how many times did I find a SV 8X32, a SLC 8X42, a FL 7X42, a UVHD+ 7X42, et al lacking in performance in any appreciable way while birding? If I'm honest with myself the answer is ZERO. In fact while the latest/greatest ALWAYS improve in some areas, they will also suffer by comparison in a few other areas. Trust me....I've owned the latest/greatest several times! LOL!

It would be REALLY hard for me to not recommend a Swarovski EL 8X32 Swarovision(SV 8X32). It's literally a THOUSAND DOLLARS less than the NL. Its still probably one of the best birding binoculars out there and only a month or so was the best Swarovski had to offer. Let that sink in for a bit.

Chuck:
I agree with your thoughts. There are many fine binocular models, and these are just some of the new ones upcoming.

I have also learned to have some patience, let the bugs get worked out of
the new models, that often happens with changes, etc. Also let more reviewers get a chance to offer their thoughts.

Jerry

 

[eitanaltman]

can only believe that the completely inoffensive result of correcting field curvature and astigmatism is being falsely conflated with a pattern of low pincushion and high angular magnification distortions that viewers may find unnatural. Unfortunately, some of the best known binoculars with field flatteners, like the Swaro SV and Zeiss SF just happen to coincidently have those kinds of distortions, but the distortions themselves have nothing to do with the field flattening function. That can be accomplished with any combination of distortions the designer chooses to use.

Henry

I think you are dead on. One problem is the ambiguity of the terminology as used by many amateurs (myself included).

When someone says "flat field" they could be referring to:

1) a lack of rectilinear distortion (lines are straight = field is flat)
2) a lack of field curvature (don't have to change focus from center to edge)
3) edge to edge sharpness

I believe most who use the term "flat field" aren't exactly sure which of these specific phenomena they mean, but suspect they are imaging an image that is sharp across the whole field without any noticeable rectilinear distortion.

I know for ME the "unnatural" part is the AMD at the edges creating that strange compression of objects near the field stop.

 

[eitanaltman]

With all due respect of course

The secret is knowing how much respect is actually due.... :smoke:

 

[WJC]

I think you are dead on. One problem is the ambiguity of the terminology as used by many amateurs (myself included).

When someone says "flat field" they could be referring to:

1) a lack of rectilinear distortion (lines are straight = field is flat)
2) a lack of field curvature (don't have to change focus from center to edge)
3) edge to edge sharpness

I believe most who use the term "flat field" aren't exactly sure which of these specific phenomena they mean, but suspect they are imaging an image that is sharp across the whole field without any noticeable rectilinear distortion.

I know for ME the "unnatural" part is the AMD at the edges creating that strange compression of objects near the field stop.

And distortion curves the APPARENT field. So how many times do we hear about curvature of field when the observer actually is speaking of distortion. :cat: