• 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.

Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (3 Viewers)

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
That brings up a point I have often thought about, and it is when you are selling a pair of binoculars like the NL and the prospective buyer asks you why you are selling them because they are considered to be among the best binoculars available. Do they think they are really going to get a totally honest answer? You are not going to tell them the binoculars have glare or the eye placement is finicky for you. I guess they are wondering if there is something wrong with them but how many people would really divulge the things they don't like about them and possibly ruin the sale.
 
Last edited:

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
Post #982.

That depends entirely on the personal integrity of the seller, doesn't it?
It would be difficult not to be honest with selling the NLs. After all, you can't tell them you are selling them in order to upgrade to someting better. What's better that's out there?
 

henry link

Well-known member
That was before I starting seeing the glare in the NL. After using the NL for a while I started seeing a lot of glare in the lower part of the FOV and even with continual eye cups adjustments I had difficulty adjusting the eye cups to get a comfortable position. One mm of adjustment makes a difference. I don't wear glasses and that was my opinion of them. That was the main reason I sold mine. Everybody might have a different experience with them. It depends on how they fit your face and eye sockets. They didn't work good for me. I also got tired of the almost "artificial" flat field after comparing them with other binoculars and I decided I didn't need that big of a FOV. The view doesn't seem "real" to me. It seems like it was created in a lab. It comes down to personal preference.
So now you’re recanting the statements you made about the NLs during the first month or two after you bought them, even though you had evaluated “hundreds of binoculars” before you declared them to be the best you’d ever looked through and it was the eyes in your eye sockets that found the glare to be “a small amount”. I’d say you’re just the kind of witness for the prosecution that every defence lawyer loves to cross-examine.
 

CharleyBird

Well-known member
Way back in 2020 our hummingbird also said this "It is really nice to have 7 different click stops because you can set the eye cups perfect for your eyes. If you are on the fence about the NL don't let the naysayers or the armchair optical engineers talk you out of trying it yourself with their nitpicking. Let your own eyes decide!"

Took my 12x42 out in the morning sunshine for an hour and didn't once think about flare/glare.
 

tenex

reality-based
I am not understanding the complaints of finicky eye placement, unless you mean finding the correct eye cup adjustment.
It's three-dimensional. Some (e.g. Henry) have been discussing the effects of imperfect centering on the optical axis.

That brings up a point I have often thought about, and it is when you are selling a pair of binoculars like the NL and the prospective buyer asks you why you are selling them. Do they think they are really going to get a totally honest answer? You are not going to tell them the binoculars are "glare monsters" or the eye placement is really difficult or the view is so flat it is like looking at a "pie plate" or "postcard". I guess they are wondering if there is something wrong with them but how many people would really divulge the things they don't like about them and possibly ruin the sale.
That depends entirely on the personal integrity of the seller, doesn't it?
That might be a bit harsh. While many classifieds give no reason for the sale and some simply say funds are needed, other sellers do describe pros and cons (especially of an older model) or even a particular reason they tired of them, which (cruciallly) tends to be somewhat subjective and therefore not necessarily a problem for a prospective buyer -- who should have done their homework on a model's reputation in any case. Only if the particular example is known to be faulty or damaged does a question of integrity arise.

No Dennis, crude phrases like "glare monster" or "pie plate" would not be helpful, but I hope you don't really believe that binos you've tired of are so worthless they require cunning to resell, or that you actually need to conceal your reasons for selling from buyers, especially since you do it so often.
 

jan van daalen

Well-known member
Taking the fact into account that a lot of people/birders come to this binocular section to learn and get integer advice, I wonder..........

Jan
 

bockos

Well-known member
Мисля, че всички го правим.
Не съм експерт. Имах EL SLC, Habit и други бинокли ... За мен NL е най-добрият бинокъл, който съм виждал ... живи цветове, контраст, прозрачност и красота. Извинявам се за превода.
 

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist
Taking the fact into account that a lot of people/birders come to this binocular section to learn and get integer advice, I wonder..........

Jan
That’s what moderation is for, to prevent repetitive hype or derision, especially from chronic repeat offenders....how this gets a pass for ten years is mind boggling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wdc

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Не съм експерт. Имах EL SLC, Habit и други бинокли ... За мен NL е най-добрият бинокъл, който съм виждал ... живи цветове, контраст, прозрачност и красота. Извинявам се за превода.
I'm not an expert. I had EL SLC, Habit and other binoculars ... For me NL is the best binoculars I have seen ... vivid colors, contrast, transparency and beauty. I apologize for the translation.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
It's three-dimensional. Some (e.g. Henry) have been discussing the effects of imperfect centering on the optical axis.



That might be a bit harsh. While many classifieds give no reason for the sale and some simply say funds are needed, other sellers do describe pros and cons (especially of an older model) or even a particular reason they tired of them, which (cruciallly) tends to be somewhat subjective and therefore not necessarily a problem for a prospective buyer -- who should have done their homework on a model's reputation in any case. Only if the particular example is known to be faulty or damaged does a question of integrity arise.

No Dennis, crude phrases like "glare monster" or "pie plate" would not be helpful, but I hope you don't really believe that binos you've tired of are so worthless they require cunning to resell, or that you actually need to conceal your reasons for selling from buyers, especially since you do it so often.
The eye placement issue is three-dimensional, and I think the glare problems are three-dimensional also because the glare can be eliminated by changing the position of your eyes on the eye cups. I think the glare and the difficult eye placement are related to the huge FOV of the NL. If a buyer asked me why I am selling a binocular I am not going to tell them I had glare or eye placement issues because those problems are so unique to each person it is unlikely they will ever notice them. If there is something wrong with the binocular I always divulge it because sooner or later they will notice it.
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
Maybe an EL or SLC?
Do you really think the El or SLC is an upgrade over the NL? If so, what is your purpose in posting here so negatively and repeatedly in this Nl thread? Instead, might I suggest you go to an EL or SLC thread and positively post, there.

Of course, you are entitled to post your derisive opinion, but why do you need to express it more than once? If you think repetion will make your subjective negative opinion more justifiable, it won't, especially when you admitted your earlier positive impressions were mistaken. Furthermore, your negative opinion, no matter how often restated, will not negate the sum total of all the positive opinions expressed here and elswhere.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Do you really think the El or SLC is an upgrade over the NL? If so, what is your purpose in posting here so negatively and repeatedly in this Nl thread? Instead, might I suggest you go to an EL or SLC thread and positively post, there.

Of course, you are entitled to post your derisive opinion, but why do you need to express it more than once? If you think repetion will make your subjective negative opinion more justifiable, it won't, especially when you admitted your earlier positive impressions were mistaken. Furthermore, your negative opinion, no matter how often restated, will not negate the sum total of all the positive opinions expressed here and elswhere.
No, I don't think the EL or SLC are an upgrade over the NL. They are just different. The NL will always have the advantage of the bigger FOV, but my point is for me the bigger FOV was realized at a cost and that cost was glare and others noticed it also. Not everybody sees the glare obviously, but it is just something to be aware of when considering the NL. I think if enough people comment on it maybe Swarovski will fix the issue. The NL is overall a brilliant binocular, but no binocular is perfect. It is just one area Swarovski can improve. As Roger Vine put it in his review of the NL Pure 8x42.

"NL Pure is a significant step forward from EL, making it the world’s best birding bino’. It’s outstanding in almost every way except resistance to veiling flare. If you’re looking for a birding bino, and you want the very best view and handling, you just found it."
 
Last edited:

Lightbender

Well-known member
Re: Butterflies

I'm probably in the minority here, but I have enjoyed reading Dennis' posts ever since I joined this forum.

I take the liberty and read his comments as ever-changing “questions”, rather than formally contradictory statements. He is provoking instant reply and many-sided opinions. Seen from this angle, his communication strategy is not unsuccessful. At least it is entertaining.

And in case of doubt - I still see him as a polite and humorous person.
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Re: Butterflies

I'm probably in the minority here, but I have enjoyed reading Dennis' posts since I'm visiting this forum.

I take the liberty and read his comments as ever-changing “questions”, rather than formally contradictory statements. He is provoking instant reply and many-sided opinions. Seen from this angle, his communication strategy is not unsuccessful. It least it is entertaining.

And in case of doubt - I still see him as a polite and humorous person.
Thanks, for the complement! That is exactly my philosophy about posting. I try to get different peoples opinions because I think it creates a more interesting thread. Sometimes I push a little too hard or too repetitively, and it angers some members, but conversely it makes people really dig and think about the questions, and it makes the threads more thought provoking. My opinions do change, but usually it is because I have learned something new that causes me to think differently about the topic. Realistically every ones tastes and opinions change over time as they acquire more experience or knowledge. I will admit my taste in binoculars changes more often than the weather, but that is partly because I like to try new models and types and see how they perform. I have a keen interest in binoculars and optics in general.
 

Torview

Registered User
Supporter
I think its more simplistic, some people like to have what`s not generally owned by many so they can sing its praises with little contradiction, as these items become more widespread they move to something else less widespread to again hype that item, they like to be seen as leftfield, somehow as pioneers thinking outside the box.

I`ve seen this with nearly all consumer goods which have forums like this one be it cameras or watches etc. Its all harmless if irritating but rarely brings anything genuinely constructive to the conversation.
 

Renze de Vries

Well-known member
I think its more simplistic, some people like to have what`s not generally owned by many so they can sing its praises with little contradiction, as these items become more widespread they move to something else less widespread to again hype that item, they like to be seen as leftfield, somehow as pioneers thinking outside the box.

I`ve seen this with nearly all consumer goods which have forums like this one be it cameras or watches etc. Its all harmless if irritating but rarely brings anything genuinely constructive to the conversation.

Hey, that's me!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top