• 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 Pure 10x42 Are there supply issues? (1 Viewer)

CharleyBird

Well-known member
England
1616996255118.png

But look, 12x provides a sharp image and 42 is the appropriate diameter ;).
Dump those old 8x50 and get an Oriscam :D


Buy today and they arrive... 1st April


Back in reality I'm also very surprised to read that the 12x NL are selling so well (even though I bought a pair myself). I've decided to stand fast on the 8x and wait for the next 8x32 offerings from Swaro & Leica
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Somewhat surprised by the breakdown of NL sales recorded by Jan and the amount of headrests. Interested to know if hunting ( including stalking and wildfowling ) is as popular a pastime in the Netherlands as say other European countries such as Germany and Italy.
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
I have decided to stand fast, since I dumped my 10X42s and now use 8X32.

The NL is about the same weight as what I got rid of, so it wouldn't be a very wise purchase for me.

Even if they release an 8X32, I don't intend to bite.

(alas)
If you haven't given the 8 x 42 NL a serious try, I would. I initially tried 8.5 x 42 EL, which felt bulky and poorly balanced in my hands. So I exchanged them for the 8 x 32 EL, and thought I had found the perfect fit for me. But I had to try the Nl's that many raved about. Immediately, I fell in love with them. Because of the great ergonomics and balance of the NL, they felt little different from the 8 x 32 El even though the EL was lighter. In fact the NL's, like the El's, were a breeze to hold steady in one hand, especially with the FHR. The enhanced brightness, colors, contrast, FOV was noticeably better with the 8 x 32 ELs and well worth the weight increase around the neck. Even that was increase weight felt minimized by a better padded neck strap that comes with the NL. So the 8 x 32 El's went back. Now if a x 32 NL comes out, I might not bite either, although a 10 x 32 NL might be a tempting addition to what I already have. I am a bit concerned that the narrowed middle might be a problem on a smaller x32 NL.
 
Last edited:

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
Hi Andy,

12x comes first by far. I would say it takes 60%, followed by the 10x at 30% and 8x with 10%.
Headrest is sold on almost every model because people just experience the difference.
FWIW, everybody wonders why it doesn't come within the package and with everybody I mean 99% of all customers.
100% of the buyers leave the shop with mixed feelings with their NL because all feel a bit disappointed to have to pay round 2.900,00 euro for their bin and have to pay 130,00 euro extra for something they feel that is a part of the bin.
Swarovski throws tons of money into the "we improve the best" marketing strategy but in this particular case the customer feels........stolen, so I would say it is counter productive.

Having said all this, sales figures of the the NLPure is one steep line uphill and demand is bigger compared to production.

Jan
I think that part of the customer expectation that the headrest is included in the price are the pictures of the Nls that are on-line on the Swarovski Optic web site as well as on most of the Swaro dealers. In every listing of the binoculars there is always a picture showiing the headrest installed. There is no mention that the headrest is NOT included in the price, even though it is pictured. I guess Swarovski expects you would figure that out, just because they don't describe it in the list of accessories that come with the binoculars. But why picture it on the binocular if it isn't to be included? ( For example, they don't show a picture of the tripod mount attached. So there is no confusion that it's an extra.)
 

tenex

reality-based
12x comes first by far. I would say it takes 60%, followed by the 10x at 30% and 8x with 10%.
Headrest is sold on almost every model because people just experience the difference.
...So here I've been thinking of the 12x42 as some sort of strange outlier when in fact it may be the best seller, the essential NL, whose appeal for most people (even some birders) won't be increased FOV, but increased magnification without losing FOV, and the headrest is there if needed. (It's no coincidence that the 12x FOV matches a typical 10x, etc.) The NL is about getting closer. The 8x and to some extent 10x models are for the minority(?) who see it the other way around (including many birders), while of course one gets the same immersive AFOV with any of the three. I've been stumbling around this and finally got it. Roger Vine got it, declaring the 12x42 his "favourite binoculars ever". No wonder only the 8x can be found to try.
 
Last edited:

CharleyBird

Well-known member
England
Tenex, the question in my mind has been about just how good the 8x42NL are, including making any 7x42 redundant?

For those that own the 8x42NL, do you feel your 7x42FL/UV will now be sat on the shelf superfluous to requirements?
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Got my first look at, and hands on, 842NL couple days ago. Like Tenex and CharleyBird here, Ive been trying to understand just how to think of them. The paper specs are intriguing enough to pose the questions, both here have described. I get we'll all eventually come to our own understanding. Being a 10x fan I was following Tenex logic of awhile back that maybe these 8s are the ultimate 7/8 bino with wide and deep fields of view for that "immersive" thing folks describe.... on steroids, and so maybe, just maybe were a worthwhile compliment to our 10s.

I didn't see that. I did see crystal clear optics, viewing alongside my favorite EL1042s, besting them by a bit. Dang! My eye/brain combo must be missing something as I couldn't appreciate the wider FOV folks talk about, and the data suggests is there, (at least at 1000 yds, if not 50).

What I did experience and for the first time appreciated was the physical experience of holding and handling the NLs, many have described. The dealer believed the new NLs, (I think maybe this was his first pair), were lighter. This I gather based on opening the box and handling, not reading Birdforum. I, knowing the weight was essentially the same as my EL42s, had to agree. They sure felt lighter. Curious, we got a pair of EL 32s. The sense of it is, the NLs fell somewhere between a 42 and 32 EL, weight-wise. I know, I know thats not true. Ive climbed enough ropes and done enough pull-ups in my life to know that the difference between 1" and 1.5" has a large effect on outcome and sensation/confidence. What Gils and Jan wrote, early on, about this ergo/interactive experience of the NL seems about right.

I dont know, need more time, but If the main argument for a 32 binocular is size and weight, (given the choices to now), but we now have a 42 in the NL that changes that do to some ergonomic black magic.. How to think of it?

I keep thinking about that fun 60 something lady, all of 5'3" with the 12x50 Els around her neck, I chatted with while birding last week.
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
My eye/brain combo must be missing something as I couldn't appreciate the wider FOV folks talk about, and the data suggests is there, (at least at 1000 yds, if not 50).
Funny you should mention that.

I had the same experience with my 8X32 SF.

I took me an hour or two of driving around and peering at birds before I finally realized "Wow! I can really see a lot more here."
 

tenex

reality-based
Tenex, the question in my mind has been about just how good the 8x42NL are, including making any 7x42 redundant?
You shouldn't take my word for that because I never got the "7x magic" others describe, so we should await their opinion. I will say the 8x NL is beautiful, and has a larger FOV than any 7x they rave about (though not quite the DOF).

I couldn't appreciate the wider FOV folks talk about, and the data suggests is there
I had the same experience with my 8X32 SF.
I wonder whether you're talking about apparent field or true here? The first seems really obvious, the second somewhat less so. Comparison with another bin would help. And perhaps this gets at why many people are more impressed (more quickly?) by the NL's potential gain in magnification than in FOV.
 

bockos

Well-known member
Не бива да ми вярвате на думата, тъй като никога не съм получил "7-магията", която други хора описват, така че трябва да изкачаме тяхното мнение. Ще каже, че 8x NL е красив и има по-голям FOV от всеки 7x, за който се хвалят (макар и не съвсем DOF).



Чудя се дали тук говорите за очевидно поле или вярно? Първият изглеждаше наистина очевиден, втори малко по-малко. Сравнението с друго кошче би помогнало. Може ли това да се разбере защо много хора са по-впечатлени (по-бързо?) От потенциална печалба на NL в увеличение, независимо от FOV.
Само аз ли съм съм? За да харесате картината вечерта през бинокъл с по-голяма изходна зеница в слънчев ден. Някак си цялостната картина е WOW с по-голям изход лъч 5,3 mm в 8x42 ... след като 10x42 с 4,2 изход лъч и последният е 12x 42 с най-малката изходна лъч от трите NL .. За мен във всичко това е разликата в по-голямата лъч на изходния лъч .. което ми доставя повече удоволствие и УАУ. Само аз ли съм съм? Да, широкото поле. Да, те са ергономични. Говоря за гледане през деня ... някакъв си има повече WOW с бинокли с по-голяма изходна зеница ..
Не бива да ми вярвате на думата, защото никога не съм получил "7-магията", която другите описват, така че трябва да изчакаме тяхното мнение. Ще кажа, че 8x NL е красив и има по-голям FOV от всеки 7x, за който се хвалят (макар и не съвсем DOF).



Чудя се дали тук говорите за очевидно поле или вярно? Първият изглежда наистина очевиден, вторият малко по-малко. Сравнението с друго кошче би помогнало. И може би това се разбира защо много хора са по-впечатлени (по-бързо?) От потенциалната печалба на NL в увеличението, отколкото в FOV.
Само аз ли съм? За да харесате картината вече през бинокъл с по-голяма изходна зеница в слънчев ден. Някак си цялостната картина е WOW с по-голям изходен лъч 5,3 mm в 8x42 ... след като е 10x42 с 4,2 изходен лъч и последният е 12x 42 с най-малкия изходен лъч от трите NL .. За мен всъщност това е разликата в по-големия лъч на изходния лъч .. което ми доставя повече удоволствие и УАУ. Само аз ли съм? Да, широкото поле. Да, те са ергономични. Говоря за гледане през деня ... някак си има повече WOW с бинокли с по-голяма изходна зеница ..

Mod translation
Is that just me? To like the picture in the evening through binoculars with a larger exit pupil on a sunny day. Somehow the overall picture is WOW with a larger output beam 5.3 mm in 8x42 ... after 10x42 with 4.2 output beam and the last is 12x 42 with the smallest output beam of the three NL .. For me, in all this is the difference in the larger beam of the output beam .. which gives me more pleasure and WOW. Is that just me? Yes, the wide field. Yes, they are ergonomic. I'm talking about watching during the day ... some guy's got
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Maljunulo

Well-known member
I wonder whether you're talking about apparent field or true here? The first seems really obvious, the second somewhat less so. Comparison with another bin would help. And perhaps this gets at why many people are more impressed (more quickly?) by the NL's potential gain in magnification than in FOV.
I am not sure, as I find them inextricably woven together.

I strongly suspect the answer is "both" and at the same moment.
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
I wonder whether you're talking about apparent field or true here? The first seems really obvious, the second somewhat less so.
Could be. I had to go look it up. I was looking through/comparing the NL842 with the EL1042. Published True = 9.1 vs 6.4. Published Apparent = 69 vs 60, (NL8 vs EL10). Eyeballing, it looks like Apparent explains why the difference was less than expected, if I have this right? % diff for App. is 15%. True % diff is 29%...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top