SF 8x32 v NL Pure 8x42 (4 Viewers)

[PYRTLE]

It is almost like wearing a gold Rolex in Harlem. Maybe I am OCD.

Hmmmmm, first part probably a bit politically incorrect but your words. Second part, typo - hit a C instead of a D.

Seriously, why not take a small holiday break away from binocular forums.

(o)<(o)<(o)<

Regards

 

[Ries]

Cancelled it, yes. Worried about stock, nope.

I will wait and see which one I like better.

But erm...don't you need to USE them for that?

 

[dries1]

Dennis you should have said Portland instead.

Andy W.

 

[[email protected]]

Honestly if you walked around with an NL around your neck 99% of people would`nt have a clue what it was, let alone how much it cost, everybody, even from the farthest corners of the Earth know the Rolex brand.

Is it a matter of validation ?, If you need a binocular that 100% of people say is the best and without flaws you`ll be a long time without one.

I don't know about that. It is amazing how recognizable Swaros are in the field, especially by other birders. I agree with your second statement although 100% of the people will rarely agree what is best.

 

[[email protected]]

Hmmmmm, first part probably a bit politically incorrect but your words. Second part, typo - hit a C instead of a D.

Seriously, why not take a small holiday break away from binocular forums.

(o)<(o)<(o)<

Regards

No, OCD is correct! How is it politically incorrect? You need a break from Binocular Forum. You are beginning to slip!:smoke:

"Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder in which time people have recurring, unwanted thoughts, ideas or sensations (obsessions) that make them feel driven to do something repetitively (compulsions)."

 

[Graham Osborne]

I know that the lack of reference to Swaroclean on the NL Pure has been touched on briefly in another thread, and I am also aware that it is a coating that perhaps has no meaningful effect on the optical performance (hence may not have been identified as present by Swarovski in their technical data). However, the presence of an effective water repellent coating is actually quite an important factor for me (and I note that Zeiss are continuing to stress the benefits of Lotutec with reference to the SF 32 models).

I am mentioning this in particular because the benefit of Lotutec has become particularly noticeable to me in the use of my Zeiss FL 8x32 during the colder, wetter months. A few years ago I made use of the service provided by Zeiss Uk at Birdfair of carrying out free repairs (much appreciated Gary). The seal on one of the oculars had failed, letting in some moisture. A couple of weeks after my visit to Birdfair, my FL arrived with one brand new ocular. Because my FL was a pre-Lotutec model I now had one ocular with Lotutec and one without. The following Winter I noticed the difference. The mildly annoying factor of having one ocular that occasionally gets and stays misted up is actually the only significant deficiency of my FL, but it is enough to prompt me to consider a replacement binocular. At the moment the Zeiss SF 8x32 and the Swaro NL Pure 8x42 are the main contenders for my interest. The presence of an effective water repellent coating is likely to be a key consideration for me.

Does anyone have any more information or thoughts on this issue? (I apologise in advance if I have overlooked detailed discussion of this matter).

 

[tenex]

It was I who mentioned not having seen terms like Swarovision/clean in NL descriptions so far, but was corrected by John (I think?) who posted a page of literature that included all of them. So I'd be quite confident the NL has it, as I'm sure you can soon check.

SF 32 vs NL 42 should be a very simple choice, essentially determined (at 8x anyway) by weight.

 

[Graham Osborne]

It was I who mentioned not having seen terms like Swarovision/clean in NL descriptions so far, but was corrected by John (I think?) who posted a page of literature that included all of them. So I'd be quite confident the NL has it, as I'm sure you can soon check.

SF 32 vs NL 42 should be a very simple choice, essentially determined (at 8x anyway) by weight.

Thanks for that information - very helpful.

As you also say, weight is a major consideration. I hope to be able to try both models before too long.

 

[CharleyBird]

Cancelled it, yes. Worried about stock, nope. I find it hard to believe they are going to sell that many $3K binoculars. Even though I can afford the NL I am not sure I like the idea of carrying around a $3K binocular in the field either. $2K to me is not as bad. I worry about theft or dropping it. It is almost like wearing a gold Rolex in Harlem. Maybe I am OCD. $3K is really getting expensive for a binocular IMO. I think Swarovski is pushing the envelope of price. I will wait and see which one I like better. The lighter weight of the SF is really appealing and the lower price. Maybe it might not have quite the optics of the NL but the weight, cost and possibly better glare handling would make up for it.

It's a little sad really, worrying in that way, and not something I've considered. I suppose if you keep your x30/32 in your pocket rather than on a strap it could be dropped :eek!:
Agreed, these new alpha insturment prices are very steep, but that ought not deter use if you buy one. I'm guessing in the UK most folk would look in the local shop and think up to £500 (Nikon/RSPB bins) is quite enough price & quality.

Some people carry round the £6k Nikon, and why not when it brings enjoyment; if you are discreet how many people notice them, except being a bit bigger and a Nikon which is a well known brand. Won't your bins be used on a reserve or walking with family/friends, or at night in a remote location, not in a dangerous city slum?

Whole new subject I suppose

 

[Alexis Powell]

It's a little sad really, worrying in that way, and not something I've considered. I suppose if you keep your x30/32 in your pocket rather than on a strap it could be dropped :eek!:
Agreed, these new alpha insturment prices are very steep, but that ought not deter use if you buy one. I'm guessing in the UK most folk would look in the local shop and think up to £500 (Nikon/RSPB bins) is quite enough price & quality.

Some people carry round the £6k Nikon, and why not when it brings enjoyment; if you are discreet how many people notice them, except being a bit bigger and a Nikon which is a well known brand. Won't your bins be used on a reserve or walking with family/friends, or at night in a remote location, not in a dangerous city slum?

Whole new subject I suppose

The solution to the anxiety some feel is a good personal articles insurance policy.

--AP

 

[HeadWest]

Not to be contrary, but how impactful are these minor increases in FOV? I am truly asking, as I have never yet owned any of these "alpha" binoculars (I use Zeiss Conquest).

My point is, between the Victory SF and the Swaro NL, you're talking about roughly 30 feet at 1000 yards. 30 feet sounds significant. But we are talking about A THOUSAND YARDS. That's over half a mile. Is that a detectable difference in FOV at that distance? That translates to 3 feet at 100 yards. Are these huge and noticeable differences? It's hard to imagine that that they are, but I have no experience with it. Thanks.

 

[Troubador]

Not to be contrary, but how impactful are these minor increases in FOV? I am truly asking, as I have never yet owned any of these "alpha" binoculars (I use Zeiss Conquest).

My point is, between the Victory SF and the Swaro NL, you're talking about roughly 30 feet at 1000 yards. 30 feet sounds significant. But we are talking about A THOUSAND YARDS. That's over half a mile. Is that a detectable difference in FOV at that distance? That translates to 3 feet at 100 yards. Are these huge and noticeable differences? It's hard to imagine that that they are, but I have no experience with it. Thanks.

When you express the increase in fov in this simple linear way, 3 feet at 100 yds sounds barely big enough to capture a view of one extra goose. But this fails to take into account that that 3 extra feet is added to the circular field of view all the way around it. Your fov is a circle not a line and the added area gives an advantage in a number of different situations for example: scanning lakes or the ocean to find where a diving bird re-surfaces. Yes the naked eye can do this very well when the water is flat calm but when its rough and choppy binos can capture a glimpse that the eyes alone can't. This same scenario applies to re-surfacing seals, whales, dolphins and otters. Searching the skies for birds of prey that are drifting in and out of clouds, or indeed scanning distant hill sides for perched raptors or wandering deer. Nearby, that extra 3 feet all the way around the fov could help you grab a view of a fast flying warbler that is whipping past you or a dragonfly doing the same, before both disappear behind scrub. Or maybe you are out birding with friends who are not the most articulate when describing where exactly the drifting eagle or zooming swifts are in the sky that they are looking at. A wider fov can help compensate for their unhelpful 'guidance'.

FOV isn't 'everything' to all bino users but is helpful if your observation conditions are similar to those describe above.

Lee

 

[pbjosh]

Not to be contrary, but how impactful are these minor increases in FOV? I am truly asking, as I have never yet owned any of these "alpha" binoculars (I use Zeiss Conquest).

My point is, between the Victory SF and the Swaro NL, you're talking about roughly 30 feet at 1000 yards. 30 feet sounds significant. But we are talking about A THOUSAND YARDS. That's over half a mile. Is that a detectable difference in FOV at that distance? That translates to 3 feet at 100 yards. Are these huge and noticeable differences? It's hard to imagine that that they are, but I have no experience with it. Thanks.

First, Lee is spot on - it is a big advantage when you're scanning, when you're waiting for something to reappear and aren't sure exactly where it will reappear, or when you're tracking an erratically moving target.

However there are laws of diminishing returns - both absolutely, and as far as the ability of the eye to actually use the FOV.

To the first point, imagine you trade in an 8x42 Conquest HD for an 8x42 Victory SF, in increase from 128 to 148m at 1000m. That is roughly 15% greater linear FOV, but the actual area in view increases by 33,5%. That's a pretty meaningful number. The increase then from 148m of the SF to 159m of the NL is a 15,5% increase in area of view. I would wager that everyone will immediately notice the jump from 128 - 148, and most people will immediately notice the jump from 148 to 159. But whether this difference is necessary or useful to any given person is subjective. Again, as Lee pointed out, it has advantages. But perhaps you prefer a very compact or very light weight binocular that compromises on FOV. Though the FOV is less, you carry it with you more frequently and scan more actively due to the lighter weight, and see more than the person who is carrying around a large FOV beast.

Additionally there is a question of whether you can really even take advantage of an apparent FOV beyond about 70 degrees. It has been discussed here (by folks more knowledgable and eloquent than I) that the eye can really only see out to about 35 degrees off axis, yielding about a 70 degree AFOV that the eye can take in. So while that 70 might not be exact or the same for everyone, you can readily understand how the increase from a 50 to 70 degree AFOV would be dramatic, but from 70 to 100 you might not really be able to do as much with it, in terms of taking it in and your brain processing it.

 

[[email protected]]

First, Lee is spot on - it is a big advantage when you're scanning, when you're waiting for something to reappear and aren't sure exactly where it will reappear, or when you're tracking an erratically moving target.

However there are laws of diminishing returns - both absolutely, and as far as the ability of the eye to actually use the FOV.

To the first point, imagine you trade in an 8x42 Conquest HD for an 8x42 Victory SF, in increase from 128 to 148m at 1000m. That is roughly 15% greater linear FOV, but the actual area in view increases by 33,5%. That's a pretty meaningful number. The increase then from 148m of the SF to 159m of the NL is a 15,5% increase in area of view. I would wager that everyone will immediately notice the jump from 128 - 148, and most people will immediately notice the jump from 148 to 159. But whether this difference is necessary or useful to any given person is subjective. Again, as Lee pointed out, it has advantages. But perhaps you prefer a very compact or very light weight binocular that compromises on FOV. Though the FOV is less, you carry it with you more frequently and scan more actively due to the lighter weight, and see more than the person who is carrying around a large FOV beast.

Additionally there is a question of whether you can really even take advantage of an apparent FOV beyond about 70 degrees. It has been discussed here (by folks more knowledgable and eloquent than I) that the eye can really only see out to about 35 degrees off axis, yielding about a 70 degree AFOV that the eye can take in. So while that 70 might not be exact or the same for everyone, you can readily understand how the increase from a 50 to 70 degree AFOV would be dramatic, but from 70 to 100 you might not really be able to do as much with it, in terms of taking it in and your brain processing it.

Good point about not being able to use an AFOV beyond 70 degrees. That is probably correct. A binocular does not necessarily have to be a large beast though to have a larger FOV. The older Swarovski EL was about the same size as the new NL but the NL has a much bigger FOV and most of the time a 8x32 has a bigger FOV than a 8x42.

 

[eitanaltman]

Not to be contrary, but how impactful are these minor increases in FOV? I am truly asking, as I have never yet owned any of these "alpha" binoculars (I use Zeiss Conquest).

My point is, between the Victory SF and the Swaro NL, you're talking about roughly 30 feet at 1000 yards. 30 feet sounds significant. But we are talking about A THOUSAND YARDS. That's over half a mile. Is that a detectable difference in FOV at that distance? That translates to 3 feet at 100 yards. Are these huge and noticeable differences? It's hard to imagine that that they are, but I have no experience with it. Thanks.

My experience is that when the "true" FOV (TFOV) difference is slight, the "apparent" FOV (AFOV) is the dominant factor. Two binoculars with identical TFOV and magnification may have different AFOV due to different distortion profiles.

Some binoculars have "flatteners" which reduce pincushion distortion and straighten lines towards the edges (sometimes even reversing to slight barrel distortion), but this creates a phenomenon called "angular magnification distortion" (AMD) where objects become compressed / squished as you approach the edge (this is the source of the "rolling ball" concept, as the compression at the edges makes objects appear as though they are curving over the surface of a sphere).

For example, I currently have several 10x binoculars, two of which (Kowa Genesis 10x33 and Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32) have nearly identical TFOV (both spec'd at 6.8 degrees, with the Genesis listed at 119m and the Conquest at 118m @ 1000m). However, the Genesis has more severe AMD than the Conquest, with a lot of "compression" at the edges, and as a consequence the Conquest feels a bit more "walk-in" or "immersive" than the Genesis.

I also have the Nikon EDG 10x32 which has a 6.5 degree TFOV, but the Kowa subjectively feels like it's in between the EDG and Conquest in AFOV whereas in terms of TFOV it's identical, if not slightly better than, the Conquest. Because that extra wide FOV was achieved by basically "squishing" more stuff in at the edges, so the "return" on the extra TFOV translating to more AFOV isn't as high as you'd expect based on the specs.

Additionally, the EDG has an enormous sweet spot, it's sharp and clean virtually to the EDG (har har), whereas the Kowa gets considerably funkier in the outer 30-40% of the view. The huge sweet spot and near edge-to-edge clarity makes the FOV of the EDG subjectively feel like it "overachieves" its FOV spec, whereas the Kowa "underachieves" slightly.

Leaving that wrinkle aside and "all else equal" in terms of distortion profile, .... I find that an increase of ~3-5% in linear FOV (which works out to a ~10% increase in the total area of the circle) is subtly but clearly noticeable. For example, I have a Leica Trinovid 10x42 with a 6.2 degree FOV and when I switch to a 10x with a 6.5 degree FOV like the EDG or my old Tract Toric UHD I definitely notice the view feels a bit more "open" or "walk-in". When I physically test them side by side and examine where the edge is, you only actually see a tiny bit more stuff on the perimeter (the difference is ~320' vs ~340', so just an extra 10' or so on each side at 1000' distance) and yet the difference in "apparent" FOV is quite obvious when you switch. Same as with the 6.5 degree FOV of the EDG vs the 6.8 degree FOV of the Conquest HD, it's subtle but I definitely notice.

Once you get beyond that ~5% linear increase range, the difference becomes really obvious. For example the difference between the 6.2 degrees of the 10x42 Trinovid vs the 6.8 degrees of the 10x32 Conquest HD is impossible to miss.

 

[HeadWest]

Thanks everyone. Very interesting and informative about FOV.

 

[HeadWest]

Some binoculars have "flatteners" which reduce pincushion distortion and straighten lines towards the edges (sometimes even reversing to slight barrel distortion), but this creates a phenomenon called "angular magnification distortion" (AMD) where objects become compressed / squished as you approach the edge (this is the source of the "rolling ball" concept, as the compression at the edges makes objects appear as though they are curving over the surface of a sphere).

Curious, are there any "alpha" binoculars without flatteners (and thus without potential for rolling ball)? Is there anything in in the binocular specs that can indicate the extent to which one might expect flattening (and thus rolling ball)?

 

[Alexis Powell]

Curious, are there any "alpha" binoculars without flatteners (and thus without potential for rolling ball)? Is there anything in in the binocular specs that can indicate the extent to which one might expect flattening (and thus rolling ball)?

I think the only current production alphas with flatteners are the Zeiss SF and Swarovski EL and NL binoculars.

Flattener doesn't equate to presence of rolling ball; that is something having more to do w/barrel vs pincushion distortion. Flattener is more about achieving (a) off-axis sharpness in synchrony w/on-axis sharpness by correcting curvature of field, (b) good off-axis sharpness by correcting astigmatism, or (c) both of those things.

--AP

 

[eitanaltman]

That’s why I put “flattener” in quotes. The term is used imprecisely and I would bet many would naturally assume “flat” also implied lines are straight (less bending / rectilinear distortion).

I also used quotes because I didn’t want to imply literal “field flattener” elements in the optical system and make clear I was being more colloquial. The Swaro CL 8x30 in my possession currently do not advertise any “flatteners” but they have one of the best corrected FOV that I’ve ever seen, there is barely any field curvature or rectilinear distortion or astigmatism, and as a result it feels like >90% of the FOV is perfectly sharp without having to adjust focus. Is that a “flat field?”

Bottom line to the OP is the “rolling ball” is indeed a function of (1) the specific pattern of rectilinear distortion (pincushion vs barrel) and (2) your individual level of sensitivity to it. I fall into the category of “I can easily see it but it doesn’t really bother me unless it’s really bad”. But if you are really worried about it and want an “alpha” then look at the Leica Ultravid HD+, they have gentle pincushion and field curvature which people who dislike AMD find more “natural”.