• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

SF, Noctivid, EL and now NL (1 Viewer)

lmans66

Out Birding....
Supporter
United States
This seems like an appropriate time as the SF, Noc, EL have been around a while and the NL has had enough time for some to make some comparisons.
How is the NL now measuring up to the previous three which were the top, prior. Is it still hanging in there being the newest and greatest or has the NL made its' way to still somewhat of a tie between all 4 now; of course, all depending on your personal preference. I haven't had a chance to view an NL, so can't really respond to all 4 but will start out with my preference of Noctivid as 1, SF as 2 and EL as 3 (based upon my viewing of them this week).
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Just through reading a cross section of posts here on BF, it appears that one or two NL owners have moved on (sold / returned) their units.........https://www.birdforum.net/threads/nl-pure-problems.395989/
 

WJC

Well-known member
Just through reading a cross section of posts here on BF, it appears that one or two NL owners have moved on (sold / returned) their units.........https://www.birdforum.net/threads/nl-pure-problems.395989/
Hi, Pat,

Spreadsheets and computer graphics rarely tell the whole story ... do they?

BC
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Very true Bill. I am continually surprised by some of the actions and written statements regarding modern binoculars. Even with owning several pairs of "alpha" units from the 70s to very recent models I've yet to look through anything that wowed me many years ago when a work colleague brought in some US Naval binos once mounted on a 1950s/60s destroyer /frigate. Not sure if they were Japanes, but boy, what an image. They were something like 7 x 65 or above, still with protective casing and objective "hoods". I spent a couple of hours with them set up on our viewing platform looking over fields and a hillside with the test chart set at 1,000 metres.

Stay well Sir.
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
This seems like an appropriate time as the SF, Noc, EL have been around a while and the NL has had enough time for some to make some comparisons.
How is the NL now measuring up to the previous three which were the top, prior. Is it still hanging in there being the newest and greatest or has the NL made its' way to still somewhat of a tie between all 4 now; of course, all depending on your personal preference. I haven't had a chance to view an NL, so can't really respond to all 4 but will start out with my preference of Noctivid as 1, SF as 2 and EL as 3 (based upon my viewing of them this week).
I have tried the SF, Noctivid, EL and the NL and I think the NL is the best roof prism made, but I have decided I like the natural 3D view through a porro better. I sold my NL, and now I have Habicht, Fujinon and APM porros. I agree with Mac308 post 127. I think my $350 APM APO 7x50 porro has a better view than my NL 8x42 did. At first, I thought the Fujinon 7x50 was better, so I was going to sell the APM, and then I tried it tonite, and it was superb. No glare as the sun set and an amazing 3D view.

"I spent about 10 minutes with the 10x42 NL’s the other day. Apart from the excellent ergonomics I was completely underwhelmed. The view had an odd, almost “parallax effect” to it. I found it unnatural and bothersome. Once again, I think Swarovski is resorting to optical gimmicks for marketing’s sake. Just as the overly flat field of the EL renders them unusable for my eyes, the NL also is troublesome for my eyes."
 
Last edited:

bkdc

Well-known member
They are all fantastic binoculars. The downside of the NL might be lack of viewing ease both from eye positioning as well as your brain’s ability to process two extremely large and unnaturally flat images, but wow what an image. The Noctivid gives the most relaxed view and also the most real eye relief for eyeglass wearers.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
They are all fantastic binoculars. The downside of the NL might be lack of viewing ease both from eye positioning as well as your brain’s ability to process two extremely large and unnaturally flat images, but wow what an image. The Noctivid gives the most relaxed view and also the most real eye relief for eyeglass wearers.
Porros give the most relaxed view. Their much simpler optical system can be felt with your eyes. No phase coatings or optical trickery. Just a straight through light path with no loss of light through the porro prism creates a relaxing view no roof can match.
 

WJC

Well-known member
Porros give the most relaxed view. Their much simpler optical system can be felt with your eyes. No phase coatings or optical trickery. Just a straight through light path with no loss of light through the porro prism creates a relaxing view no roof can match.
“Porros give the most relaxed view.”

How do you quantify that, especially to the millions of observers with DIFFERENT visual acuities?

“Their much simpler optical system can be felt with your eyes.”

How is it possible for eyes to determine (FEEL) whether an image is delivered via a simple or complex optical system?

“No phase coatings or optical trickery.”

Are you implying there is something in the development of anti-phase shifting coatings that is somehow bogus and is just misleading “smoke and mirrors”? I assure you it is not.

“Just a straight through light path”


A “straight-through” light path would require no prisms.

“with no loss of light through the porro prism”

Considering the veiling and grazing glare in a Porro binocular, how hard it is protecting those prisms from their various angles of entry, the effects of un-slotted prisms or un-blackened edges, and the fact that a bit of light (regardless of AR coatings) is lost at each glass-to-air surface (16 in each Porro prism bino), I think one is hard-pressed to say, “there is no loss of light.”

“creates a relaxing view no roof can match.”


That takes us back to the non-quantifiable.

Denny, even though I have contested your previous comments about, KNOWING what you see,” compared to the science involved, I am not your enemy. I’m just trying to usher you into the coral of optical realities and help you avoid many of the barbs that have been thrust at you by others.

Finally, I, too, am a Porro prism enthusiast—for birding, astronomy, or time on the “big water.”

Cheers,

Bill
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
“Porros give the most relaxed view.”

How do you quantify that, especially to the millions of observers with DIFFERENT visual acuities?

“Their much simpler optical system can be felt with your eyes.”

How is it possible for eyes to determine (FEEL) whether an image is delivered via a simple or complex optical system?

“No phase coatings or optical trickery.”

Are you implying there is something in the development of anti-phase shifting coatings that is somehow bogus and is just misleading “smoke and mirrors”? I assure you it is not.

“Just a straight through light path”


A “straight-through” light path would require no prisms.

“with no loss of light through the porro prism”

Considering the veiling and grazing glare in a Porro binocular, how hard it is protecting those prisms from their various angles of entry, the effects of un-slotted prisms or un-blackened edges, and the fact that a bit of light (regardless of AR coatings) is lost at each glass-to-air surface (16 in each Porro prism bino), I think one is hard-pressed to say, “there is no loss of light.”

“creates a relaxing view no roof can match.”


That takes us back to the non-quantifiable.

Denny, even though I have contested your previous comments about, KNOWING what you see,” compared to the science involved, I am not your enemy. I’m just trying to usher you into the coral of optical realities and help you avoid many of the barbs that have been thrust at you by others.

Finally, I, too, am a Porro prism enthusiast—for birding, astronomy, or time on the “big water.”

Cheers,

Bill
Billy. You just try to twist what I said around to support your own claims. I think you have a lot of technical knowledge, but it is more in the area of binocular repair than what actually makes a person prefer one binocular over another. The members on the forum know what I mean. It isn't that hard to understand. I like a porro better simply because I prefer the view. I don't need to prove it to you or anybody else. There are a lot of things that make you like a binocular, and you don't need to quantify everything. As I have said before there is a reason Allbinos has porro prism binoculars ranked at the top of their 7x50, 10x50 and 8x56 classification and I trust their opinions much more than I do yours. With a porro prism binocular I feel it has a more relaxed view because I see fewer aberrations. A porro prism has a simpler optical system than a roof and doesn't require phase coatings, and it doesn't have to be built to as exacting specifications to be perfect hence the difference in cost. A porro prism prism is more efficient than an SP prism in a roof hence a porro usually transmits better. You will always get more value with a porro prism because they are less expensive to manufacture.
 
Last edited:

WJC

Well-known member
“Billy. You just try to twist what I said around to support your own claims.”

Is that what the many others on BirdForum are doing, as they try to replace so MANY of your opinions with facts, while you try to defend the indefensible.

EXAMPLE: Wasn’t it you who told us all that you don’t care what the textbooks or optical engineers say, ‘cause you “know what you see.” From my standpoint, that is Denny trying to create “Denco’s alternate optical realities.”

I think you first said that in connection with the erroneous notion that a person can observe axially and marginally in the same instant, without taking millisecond eye movement and almost instantaneous dioptric accommodation into consideration. I shared facts from the optical engineers and offered the quintessential test I have offered more than once (attached ... for the 3rd time). Not only that, but I have also offered some of the unbelievable optical illusions from Dr. Edward Adelson of MIT. Unbelievable BUT PROVABLE! (attached)

2) “I think you have a lot of technical knowledge, but it is more in the area of binocular repair than what actually makes a person prefer one binocular over another.”

Repair only!

Fifty years professionally, as of last September 10th with 9 years of investigation and experimentation before that ... starting in childhood. And do you think someone that opto-geeky got to be so by doing nothing but turning screws? I designed the Cook-Houghton telescope and Captain’s Baywatch telescope with Zemax; I was one of the first in the world to own a copy (attached). Furthermore, I have done optical engineering for the Smithsonian and the University of Chicago (attached) as well as having lectured the Ph.D.s of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, where I introduced terms into the vernacular of binocular optics, which was published in their magazine Proceedings in October 2012. Do you think I did those things because I knew one end of a screwdriver from the other? I think the final attachment will attest that that is another of your unfounded assertions.

“I trust their opinions much more than I do yours.”

It’s no skin off my nose who you believed. It is abundantly clear you support those who best support your pie-in-the-sky opinions over optical realities. No, I’m not a professional optical engineer. I just have to be thankful that some who are ask me to provide material for their books and that others send me Christmas cards.

If I had 2 days to spare, I might answer the rest of your assessment. However, I will not for two reasons. 1) you know everything there to know about optics and 2) experience has shown that trying to reason with you is as useful as peeing up a rope.

Cheers,

Bill

PS Rest assured I won’t be addressing any more of your comments. My excursions into Babble-on are over. They cause me to become the person I detest.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-01-09 at 6.08.31 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-01-09 at 6.08.31 PM.png
    376.2 KB · Views: 21
  • Screen Shot 2021-01-09 at 6.37.31 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-01-09 at 6.37.31 PM.png
    125.1 KB · Views: 26
  • scan0018 copy 2.jpg
    scan0018 copy 2.jpg
    171.3 KB · Views: 26
  • Scan0005 copy.jpg
    Scan0005 copy.jpg
    235.9 KB · Views: 31
  • Screen Shot 2021-01-10 at 11.30.10 AM copy.jpg
    Screen Shot 2021-01-10 at 11.30.10 AM copy.jpg
    248.5 KB · Views: 20

WJC

Well-known member
Thanks, John,

Our friend would have to use a forklift to carry my whole resume. But like the rattles on a snake, it is just for warnings. Sometimes people are too slow of thought to pick up on that warning! That forces me to be the person a few think I am. And I must admit, my nerves get closer to the surface with each birthday.

Are you from Odessa or Midland?

Pecos Bill
 

jgraider

Well-known member
I live in Midland Bill. Got 3" of snow today! Some people deserve to have their little feelers hurt at times, IMO.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
“Billy. You just try to twist what I said around to support your own claims.”

Is that what the many others on BirdForum are doing, as they try to replace so MANY of your opinions with facts, while you try to defend the indefensible.

EXAMPLE: Wasn’t it you who told us all that you don’t care what the textbooks or optical engineers say, ‘cause you “know what you see.” From my standpoint, that is Denny trying to create “Denco’s alternate optical realities.”

I think you first said that in connection with the erroneous notion that a person can observe axially and marginally in the same instant, without taking millisecond eye movement and almost instantaneous dioptric accommodation into consideration. I shared facts from the optical engineers and offered the quintessential test I have offered more than once (attached ... for the 3rd time). Not only that, but I have also offered some of the unbelievable optical illusions from Dr. Edward Adelson of MIT. Unbelievable BUT PROVABLE! (attached)

2) “I think you have a lot of technical knowledge, but it is more in the area of binocular repair than what actually makes a person prefer one binocular over another.”

Repair only!

Fifty years professionally, as of last September 10th with 9 years of investigation and experimentation before that ... starting in childhood. And do you think someone that opto-geeky got to be so by doing nothing but turning screws? I designed the Cook-Houghton telescope and Captain’s Baywatch telescope with Zemax; I was one of the first in the world to own a copy (attached). Furthermore, I have done optical engineering for the Smithsonian and the University of Chicago (attached) as well as having lectured the Ph.D.s of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, where I introduced terms into the vernacular of binocular optics, which was published in their magazine Proceedings in October 2012. Do you think I did those things because I knew one end of a screwdriver from the other? I think the final attachment will attest that that is another of your unfounded assertions.

“I trust their opinions much more than I do yours.”

It’s no skin off my nose who you believed. It is abundantly clear you support those who best support your pie-in-the-sky opinions over optical realities. No, I’m not a professional optical engineer. I just have to be thankful that some who are ask me to provide material for their books and that others send me Christmas cards.

If I had 2 days to spare, I might answer the rest of your assessment. However, I will not for two reasons. 1) you know everything there to know about optics and 2) experience has shown that trying to reason with you is as useful as peeing up a rope.

Cheers,

Bill

PS Rest assured I won’t be addressing any more of your comments. My excursions into Babble-on are over. They cause me to become the person I detest.
Billy. You obviously have a good resume when it comes to binoculars and optics, but you are missing my point. My point is when I choose a pair of binoculars I trust my own eyes more than I do any so-called experts opinions or review sites. BUT I have found that Allbinos rankings agree with what my eye tell me more than any other expert or reviewer. I have tried a LOT of different binoculars and when I go down the list of Allbinos rankings I agree with almost every binocular's ranking that they have tested. For example, I have never tried the Fujinon FMTR-SX 10x50 or the Fujinon FMTR-SX 7x50 before. The only reason I tried them is because they were ranked at the top of their list under 10x50 and 7x50 in Allbinos ranking. So I went out and purchased both of them. I thought man these things are big and bulky with IF focus, so they can't be that good until I looked through them. I was totally blown away. I go these darn things are only $800, and they are better than my NL! So I sold my NL the next week. So even though you and some people may not like Allbinos because you think they lack qualifications I do because I agree with their results. I think the people that don't like Allbinos are the ones that own binoculars that are not ranked very high, so they say oh Allbinos is full of it and that is their opinion. I respect your knowledge, but I will still let my own eyes pick the binoculars I like. Binocular choice comes down to personal preference, but it seems my preferences align very well with Allbinos. Whoever is doing their testing may not be qualified in your eyes, but I respect them for what they doing because I agree with them.
 
Last edited:

dries1

Member
"I think the people that don't like Allbinos are the ones that own binoculars that are not ranked very high, so they say oh Allbinos is full of it and that is their opinion."

"Binocular choice comes down to personal preference"

Dennis the first statement is your opinion, and the second statement which is true, is also inferred in the first statement.

Andy W.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
"I think the people that don't like Allbinos are the ones that own binoculars that are not ranked very high, so they say oh Allbinos is full of it and that is their opinion."

"Binocular choice comes down to personal preference"

Dennis the first statement is your opinion, and the second statement which is true, is also inferred in the first statement.

Andy W.
I agree with that. I just wanted to make sure my point was made.:)
 

Torview

Registered User
Supporter
"So called experts" are everywhere now thanks to Google IMHO, "Experts" however deserve our respect (glad we have your input on this forum Bill ).

I looked at the Allbinos rankings to see what I was missing, 7x50, 10x50 and 8x56, not a popular choice for Birding, 10x50 has made a comeback almost entirely down to the SV which is ranked just 0.4 points behind the Fujinon and would make a massively better Birding tool IMO.

The top popular Birding formats in 42 and 32mm are all premium roofs.

If you needed life saving surgery would you trust a Surgeon (with a resume like Bill in their field) or Dr Google who tells you Leaches have always proved effective ?
 

lmans66

Out Birding....
Supporter
United States
I don' like to go by what Allbino's states as their review is based on lab and not field application. I trust my own eyes and my own hands. If I like the bins, based upon my eyes and my knowledge, then I like the bin regardless of what Allbino's states. Also, Allbino fails to take into account ergonomics in my thinking which, are extremely important regarding the fun I derive from birding
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top