I went into the local Sportsman’s Warehouse store today. To my complete astonishment what did I see in their display case? A Swarovski NL Pure in 10x42. Again to my nearly equal astonishment the new Store Manager actually seemed to know something about optics. Klamath Falls is just about the last place you can expect to see any sort of top end optics, al least those not named Swarovski. However this one does stock some Swarovski glass, so I suppose it was not completely surprising. We went outside (with the NL and a 10x42 SV EL) for about a half an hour, not enough time for any sort of definitive statements, but enough to form some general impressions.
I suppose it is no surprise for me to state I have never been a big Swarovski fan. In my experience beginning with the original EL in 2002, to the new SLC, to the EL SV, I never felt they came anywhere close matching the hype they seemed to be generating. To be fair I always liked the SLC and think it is the best Swarovski offering, at least prior to the NL. So I read all of the posts here about the new NL with some interest, for the hype train was building up its steam. All this was in my head as I took a hold of the NL.
Store views of a binocular do have their limitations, but they are more useful than many people give them credit for. Their value depends strictly on how well the viewer knows what they need, how well that viewer knows what to look for, what kind of disposable money they might have at hand, and what kind of salesman they are dealing with. A store session can easily define whether or not a binocular warrants serious further consideration.
The first thing I noticed was the ergonomics. The wasp waist is certainly effective. It feels not at all like any other full size binocular I have ever held. It feels more like a much smaller glass than it is. It also looks smaller than it is. I used feels twice here. It both feels smaller, both in mass and in apparent weight. It does not feel much more than a smaller binocular in hand, seeming to fill a space that falls somewhere intermediate to the SV 32 and 42 mm binoculars. I wonder if Zeiss missed the boat here. There was some tweaking of the prisms in their SF, making me wonder if the same wasp waist could have been used there as well.
The second thing I looked for was rolling ball, as this was what killed the SV EL for me. This is where my only slight disappointment arises. For me there was no rolling ball per say as in traditional expression of the phenomena. While the image did not roll during panning, there was a slight dis-orienting sensation of the feeling like I was standing on the top rung of a ladder that was barely stable enough. This is something I need to look further into before taking this any further. I suspect this is something perhaps unique to me in some way. I can get the same sensation at times in my Kruger Caldera, which measures 460’ fov, making it another binocular with a quite wide fov, which may be something that somehow affects me.
While I looked for RB, the thing I noticed was the very wide apparent fov. A 10x binocular with a typical 8x fov will get your attention. The edge sharpness seems to be as advertised. For my personal use and needs these are a couple of things that are pretty far down the ladder for me as far as either one being a deal maker. Personally, I’m fine with a binocular that meets the traditional (magnification x angular fov) 60* afov. The edge only needs to be sharp enough as not to interfere with peripheral vision. A bit less may be OK, as well as a bit more, but individual preferences will vary. Actually looking at the edge of this NL fov or for than matter any other wide field binocular will show kidney beaning, some glare and other off axis distortions, it is not particularly easy on the eye. This makes me wonder if there are some human eye differences here. I for one cannot fathom those who claim to like to dart their eyes to the edge for ID purposes. I’ll give them credit, but that is something that is not for me. As for more efficient use of the peripheral vision, then there is useful improvement there.
The focus is just about perfect, the focus travel is maybe a bit slow, but that is a pretty small nit to have to pick.
I could not see, nor could I induce, any glare issues. I could use this glass with the eye cups in either of the last three extended positions. I would prefer either of the outer two positions for all around use. I agree that inadvertent movement of the diopter will not be an issue. The NL does show a couple of false exit pupils, but the internal blackening appeared as an improvement over the SV EL. I did not try either the winged eye cups or the head rest, although they had both in stock.
I have not used the strap attachment system, so other than thinking it looks sort of absurd, it certainly didn’t seem to be placed in a spot where it would interefere with holding the binocular.
It seems a bit brighter than the EL SV, but frankly I could not see any more detail with the NL over the SV. The target was a giant Blue Spruce tree, laden with cones about 400 yards or so away. There was no obvious difference in the ability to count cones at that distance with either the SV or the NL. The color balance is different and may come down to strict personal preference.
This is one excellent binocular. The first top end binocular to give me any sort of a WOW since I looked at the Leica Trinovid BN decades ago. I readily acknowledge the technical advances of the wider field, and appreciate the work that had to go into their coating/glass combinations used to get the color balance and apparent brightness they have, but for me the ergonomics of the NL are its biggest draw. Next is the color presentation and apparent brightness, and the width is third.