jeremysmith
Member
I doubt it. Too shaky. I have mine now so am happyJan,
Is the demand for the 12X42 as high as the other formats (8&10)?
Andy W.
I doubt it. Too shaky. I have mine now so am happyJan,
Is the demand for the 12X42 as high as the other formats (8&10)?
Andy W.
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.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)
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.)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
...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.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.
Funny you should mention that.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).
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).Tenex, the question in my mind has been about just how good the 8x42NL are, including making any 7x42 redundant?
I couldn't appreciate the wider FOV folks talk about, and the data suggests is there
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 had the same experience with my 8X32 SF.
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, 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? 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 ..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.
I am not sure, as I find them inextricably woven together.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.
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%...I wonder whether you're talking about apparent field or true here? The first seems really obvious, the second somewhat less so.