Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (1 Viewer)

[james holdsworth]

The glare is dependent on if you still own the NL. If you sold it then the truth comes out and the admission of glare and difficult eye placement. If you still have them you want to keep the potential value up by not admitting to any problems.

This has been the modus operandi for some here for a decade...not naming names but we all know.

 

[Canip]

Will non-glare Nl owners please stand up, particulary those who own the x10 or x12 versions?

Parhaps, there is glare absolutism with the higher magnificatons, but not necessarily with the 8x42? So far, the few who have come forward, without glare complaints, seem to be the x8 owners.

I own the 8x and the 10x.
In contrast to Gijs, I can produce glare in both.
But as I had explained much earlier, with the eyecups extended at a suitable intermediate click-stop, both are virtually glare-free, even in the most challenging situations (sun above or below FOV, glittering water below, etc etc) I could test. I appreciate Henry‘s findings (many many thanks fir the diligent work!!!) but for me, I haven’t found them to be relevant for my regular uses of the NL (yet ).
Canip

 

[Aquaplas]

What´s about the Bridge? Anyone here who uses the NL that have the Problem that the Bridge moves to light? The Bridge in my EL is much stiffer. When i put on the Objective covers the Bridge somtimes moves. Anyone here who have this problem too? Is it normal because its a nother Bridge Design than the EL? Or is it to leight adjustet, only in my NL or in others too?

 

[jan van daalen]

All NL samples have the same stiffness and move lighter compared to my SV's.
I don't understand your objective cover problem.
I take the right tube in one hand and use the other hand to move/remove the cover. The other tube the same way. If the bridge tension is so light the tubes move spontaneously you have to send the NL to Swaro. Maybe you live in Absam? They can do it while you wait.

Jan

 

[Aquaplas]

All NL samples have the same stiffness and move lighter compared to my SV's.
I don't understand your objective cover problem.
I take the right tube in one hand and use the other hand to move/remove the cover. The other tube the same way. If the bridge tension is so light the tubes move spontaneously you have to send the NL to Swaro. Maybe you live in Absam? They can do it while you wait.

Jan

Thank´s for Info. I live 2 hours from Absam away... But when its normal that all NL moves lighter than the SV i would do nothing. In normal Use i Havent this Problem, but only when puttin on the Covers. With your technique it would work...
Thanks for Info.

 

[ticl2184]

It is worse in the 12x than the 8x? Smaller exit pupil probably.

It was worse in the 12x..
You can actually see the glare in the pic...

Cheers
Tim

 

[PeterPS]

Moving your eye upward means you view through the upper area of the exit pupil, avoiding the brighter glare inducing 'nasty' at the bottom of the exit pupil.

You're correct. But the main question was why a camera has to be moved in the opposite direction to avoid glare, please see Henry's post below. The answer is not obvious: in a previous discussion of this aspect I tried to suggest that the camera might be placed farther from the EP than the eye, and when the camera is moved downward the reflections are masked by the field/aperture stop, but it's still open if this is true.

Hi Peter,

Yes, binocular down to avoid the glare when you're looking through it, but bino up when you are photographing the glare at edge of the exit pupil. Obviously there is an extra inversion somewhere. When trying to describe how to eliminate the glare, I've been thrown off more than once by the nonintuitive movement needed when looking rather than photographing.

Henry

Someone with knowledge about the difference between the human eyes and camera lenses might be able to resolve this dilemma. Come on Henry, you can do it.

 

[ticl2184]

You're correct. But the main question was why a camera has to be moved in the opposite direction to avoid glare, please see Henry's post below. The answer is not obvious: in a previous discussion of this aspect I tried to suggest that the camera might be placed farther from the EP than the eye, and when the camera is moved downward the reflections are masked by the field/aperture stop, but it's still open if this is true.

Someone with knowledge about the difference between the human eyes and camera lenses might be able to resolve this dilemma. Come on Henry, you can do it.

I'm an Astronomer and use my averted vision to see Faint stars and Galaxies....

The rods are located on the peripheral area in the eye and can improve the resolution of faint objects between 20 and 40x.
This could be a an explanation as to why the Flare is more visible when you avert your vision...

Cheers
Tim

 

[PeterPS]

What´s about the Bridge? Anyone here who uses the NL that have the Problem that the Bridge moves to light? The Bridge in my EL is much stiffer. When i put on the Objective covers the Bridge somtimes moves. Anyone here who have this problem too? Is it normal because its a nother Bridge Design than the EL? Or is it to leight adjustet, only in my NL or in others too?

If you have to adjust the IPD of your NL when you remove the rainguard then the hinge is too loose. The two NLs that I had did not have that problem. If this problem bothers you I think you should contact Swaro---tightening up the hinge should be a simple job for them.

 

[Aquaplas]

If you have to adjust the IPD of your NL when you remove the rainguard then the hinge is too loose. The two NLs that I had did not have that problem. If this problem bothers you I think you should contact Swaro---tightening up the hinge should be a simple job for them.

No, with the rainguard i havent the problem. Only when i remove the Objective Covers from the left and hold the bino on the right tube, than this problem is...
But now i do it so why ticl2184 sayd. Think it works. But the Bridge is much leighter than on the EL. The EL is so stiff that adjusting is a bit heavy. But in use it stays very strong on point.

 

[WimDel]

With my 10x NL, I have only seen hints of flare in situations when the sun is low above a dark landscape. I know these are extreme light conditions, it does not bother me and I find it negligible compared to the amazing performance overall.

 

[ticl2184]

With my 10x NL, I have only seen hints of flare in situations when the sun is low above a dark landscape. I know these are extreme light conditions, it does not bother me and I find it negligible compared to the amazing performance overall.

I'll be testing another pair of 10x NL's next week..
AGAIN ! Lol
Hopefully I'll be able to get some pics of the glare...

If it's not there then it means not all of the NL units suffer from it.

Cheers
Tim

 

[henry link]

It was worse in the 12x..
You can actually see the glare in the pic...

Cheers
Tim

Tim, once again the photo in post # 926 does not show the sources of glare in the binocular. It shows light flooding in through eyepieces open to the sky and then reflecting back to the camera some distance away. That just does not happen in normal use when you head blocks light from entering the eyepiece when your face is up against the eyecups, and the internal surfaces in the photo mostly disappear behind baffles and the eyepiece field stop when your eye is placed at the correct distance behind the eye lens. ALL the glare problem is at the objective end, which isn't even visible in the photo.

Henry

 

[tenex]

But the main question was why a camera has to be moved in the opposite direction to avoid glare, please see Henry's post below.

Cameras record images upside-down on their film/sensor.

 

[nzwild]

With my 10x NL, I have only seen hints of flare in situations when the sun is low above a dark landscape. I know these are extreme light conditions, it does not bother me and I find it negligible compared to the amazing performance overall.

Even the best bino's have glare issues in extreme lighting (except the ultravid 8x32), and this is often worse if using a longer eye relief setting. The real issue is can glare be managed during use so the effect is minimised and the quality view can be obtained. Most users have stated they can manage the issues with correct eye placement. Maybe worth checking prior to purchase as Tim is doing.
Nothing like re-stating the obvious.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Yesterday it was an excellent day for birding: sun rather low over the pasture lands, most of them flooded, the river Rhine flooded in many places, hundreds may be thousands of different birds gathering on and around the flooded pasture lands. Sun and wind caused many relfecting aves over the water surfaces Ideal for using binoculars and investigating its possible problems.
It was a long and very enjoyable walk. I took the NL pure 8x42, hesitated bbecause of the severe glare problems discussed on this forum.
Shocking experience: whatever I tried: no glare, flare, internal reflections did turn up.
Fortunately my wife accompanied me and she could give immediate medical help, since I was completely devastated: I do not see any glare, unwanted reflections or anything other unwanted ghost images.
What to do? Return the binoculars to Swarovski and ask the company to insert a little glare, so I am accepted by the Birdforum community?
Then some questions arose in my mind, but I am not able to share them yet.
I think it is time for a nice coffee.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Aquaplas]

For me with the right adjustments also Glare is no thing. When I move the eyecoups to far out so with the 4th position the glare began. But in the 3rd position who is generally the right for me there is no Glare here. I come now home for a 2 hour morning view an lake Wolfgangsee with real flat light and morning dust. Very difficult light situation. But the NL 8x42 was so stable that all angles works well. Without the glass was more bad sight, and always when I look trough the NL it was clearer than real life.
min general this was such a perfekt Bino in all Competitions with such a good micro contrast that it is just awesome!
everyone who reads here about Glare issue I can say try the NL yourself.
it’s possible that some people have the problem with the Glare and I can not say why. I can only say the NL 8x42 has no more glare for me than the Zeiss 8x42SF.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Aquaplas, post 937,
That is also my experience with both the Zeiss SF 8x32 and the NL pure 8x42. I have investigated many binoculars in my life and large water surfaces with a sun fairly low above the horizon generating many intense light sources by small waves were no problem with the NL pure 8x42 and I enjoyed the binocular very much. Many binoculars I have investigated under these experimental conditions showed light relfection problems, the NL pure yesterday did not.
The images were crystal clear, handling was very good and watching bird life in the large water ponds was a joy.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[oetzi]

"...Shocking experience: whatever I tried: no glare, flare, internal reflections did turn up.
Fortunately my wife accompanied me and she could give immediate medical help, since I was completely devastated: I do not see any glare, unwanted reflections or anything other unwanted ghost images.
What to do? Return the binoculars to Swarovski and ask the company to insert a little glare, so I am accepted by the Birdforum community?..."

Second most important when using and talking binos - most important factor being usuable money - is the human factor: eyes and face. Its also the most ignored factor.

 

[BabyDov]

I received my 8x42 NL yesterday. I had returned a pair of 8.5 x 42 EL FP, primarily, because the ergonomics were not for me. They felt bulky, heavy and imbalanced in my hands. I also didn't like the 11 ft close focusing. So, I thought the 8 x 32 el would be the perfect fit for me.
They were light, easy to hold, and had a wider FOV and a closer focusing limit. But I just had to try the NL, that a lot of people spoke so favorably about.

So here are my initial impressions of the NL. The ergonomics, for me are fantastic. They are so easy to grip and so well balanced, that its greater weight and length isn't a problem at all for me. In fact, I noticed that its ergonomics allow me to hold the binoculars much more steady than I can with my old Vortex HD 8 x 42, which is a lot shorter and lighter. I particularly love the position of the silky smooth focusing knob being directly under my index finger without having to reach upward. (I was concerned about the diopter adjuster, but there is no way, without trying, I could accidentally move it instead of the focusing knob. Unlike the focusing knob, you really have to reach for the diopter adjuster. Its greater moving resistance can't be mistaken for the easy moving focuser.)

While I think poor ergonomics might trump great optics, I don't think great ergonomics will trump poor optics. So what did I think about the optics of the Nl, whose ergonomics I found fantastic? In a word, I found the optics, amazing. I loved the wide field of view, bright clear image and neutral color rendition with no CA that I could detect.. While the 8 x 32 Els are great, the 8 x 42 NL is just a step above. Is it a giant step? Perhaps not, but the difference is noticeable, especially when going back to try the ELs. The Nl's are just much more immersive, perhaps because they a bit brighter and clearer, not mention their greater FOV.

This forum has been obsessed with the flare issues of all Swarovski binoculars, particularly of the 10 x 32 El and the NLs. While I am not denying they have that issue (are there any binoculars that are immune to that?), I had no flare issues with the 8 x 32 El, and no complaints, now with the 8x42 Nl, either. For what its worth my NLs were made in January 2021 and have the improved objective cover. Am I totally insensitive to glare? No. I easily can see glare with my 8 x 42 Vortex HD in situations where I couldn't with either the El or Nl. To be honest, last night, I was able to create a glare situation indoors where I did see glare with all of these binoculars. I was looking at a wall hanging to the right of my dining room table, which was illuminated by a chandelier that had 12 clear flame LED bulbs in it. I saw minimal flare or glare in that situation at the right corner of my FOV with both the El and Nl. With my Vortex it was quite severe. Perhaps, with more time spent outdoors, I may run into more of a glare problem with the NL, but I really want to enjoy these binoculars and rather not nitpick. I did just that , enjoying these Nls, but for only an hour or so, this morning. They were great! Just beautiful images and no problems even looking at trees backlit by the sun in the early morning. One other issue I should mention. Some people have complained that the Nl's were a bit finicky with eye placement, especially without glasses. I found no issue with that for me with my 8 x 42 Nl with and without my glasses. Correct eye placement is easy with the 6 position eye cups. Perhaps its more of a problem with the higher power Nls

So these are my first impressions of the NL pure. They are, of course subject to change. But for now, I am a happy camper.