• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Swarovski NL vs Zeiss SF: a personal comparison of two 8x32s. (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
What follows is pure speculation, provided only for entertainment purposes. It is fiction, I make no claim to the truth of any of it.

Its fun to look at the NL, with its obvious physical change, promising different/better handling and a unique visual profile to set it apart from everyone else, and think about being a fly on the wall during product development meetings at Swarovski. What were they thinking? Here's a wild ass guess,

The boss leads it off.
"Its time to face facts, we all know the EL is getting a bit long in the tooth. Everyone is copying the look. Handling advantages of the dual hinge design are being neutralized. Zeiss SFs are threatening our market dominance, even if we doubt they possess true breakthrough performance advantages. They are getting too close and the Zeiss fanbase provides momentum. What can we do to regain momentum and stay ahead? The new improved better executed flat field design, we've got does not seem enough to set us apart again. The demand for wider FOV is back in style. Zeiss is hurting us there. We know how to fix that. The new coatings and glass upgrade seem subtle, maybe too subtle for some to notice. We need something more...."

Then consider this, what John Roberts found Jan 15, "Development Process for NL Pure" See here:
Development Process for NL Pure

Again, pure fiction...

The meeting continues, folks are processing. For 2, the light bulb goes off. Having talked off and on about an idea they had back in 2009, and anticipating the question, the 2 jump in.

"We need a new look, a new package to mix in with these small but important optical improvements we can offer. How about this?" At which point sketches of a new and improved wasp waisted binocular are projected on the overhead screen. "Think about it. By moving the prism from here to there, we can effect this fresh, modern look, that distinguishes a new binocular series visually. It promises a better more secure ergonomic grip for many, most of our customers. As well by moving the natural hand position back towards the eyes, away from the forward end, we effectively create our version of the rear balance thing Zeiss is touting, without messing with the optical performance from moving all those lens towards the eyes."

Then from the process engineer at the end of the table. "You guys have been talking about this for years. We've looked at it. We know this is going to be expensive. This radical a change to everything we do now, means costs will go up, how do we protect profit?"

They respond, "Well, we've done some market research. Here's the result of a study, we commissioned last year." Copies are passed around and summary comments are projected on the overheard. "We believe the market is ready for this. The package of improved optics, ergonomics, and styling will once again set us apart and restore our market dominance. Our customer's are affluent enough, passionate enough to be able to afford a higher price than we currently charge for the EL. We think, $3000.is a number that will fly. In fact we think the higher price will help convince customers this really is new and improved."

Then from, the VP sales, "I know you guys have been working on this. I agree it looks cool. But we've got a problem and I fear we need to deal with it less a negative myth spreads and starts to hurt sales. What're we to do about these folks over on Birdforum who keep talking about glare as if its something coming from the binocular, something we are ignoring? What do we have here that speaks to that?"
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
You may be correct, but look at the car industry, I find it hard to believe that the best engineers really want to make SUV`S, I like to think if they had their way we`d all be driving something more akin to an M5 or a Caymen.
A pal of mine, was a Cornell engineer, Wharton MBA, car buff and head of Saab product development years ago, before they were purchased by GM. Thats exactly what he was working on and believed where the market was going. Another very close friend just bought his second Mercedes SUV with the AMG performance package. There's smoke coming out his ears and huge grin on his face.....
 
Last edited:

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
I
You may be correct, but look at the car industry, I find it hard to believe that the best engineers really want to make SUV`S, I like to think if they had their way we`d all be driving something more akin to an M5 or a Caymen.
I’m in for an M5, make mine the competition version please. And I want the dark window tint so there’s no glare inside the car😏
 

Steve C

Well-known member
This is nothing new from Dennis. More than hanging his head in shame, which I wonder if he can do, this should illustrate once and for all that nothing he has posted, or will post in the future can ever be taken to have a grain of truth. Just a good example of his willingness to do whatever it takes to drive his post to prominence. If this is not enough to prove to the forum that he can't be believed, much less trusted, I don't know what will. That picture shows up on many more websites than Wikipedia.

Dennis, prove to us beyond the shadow of any doubt that you took the picture, then I will offer an apology.
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
Once again, history repeats itself and a thread Dennis has participated in (and originated) turns into a thread about Dennis.

It is really getting tiresome, and to my everlasting shame, I have been dumb enough to engage him in conversation.

No more.
 

birdcat

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
Once again, history repeats itself and a thread Dennis has participated in (and originated) turns into a thread about Dennis.

It is really getting tiresome, and to my everlasting shame, I have been dumb enough to engage him in conversation.

No more.
Someone mentioned the ignore feature on this forum recently and it has been VERY useful in this situation for me. Hover over the username, click ignore... in case anybody is wondering 😇
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
That is a partial solution at best, and as long as people quote him it does nothing.

We need to return to the (relatively) peaceful days of the hiatus.
 

birdcat

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
That is a partial solution at best, and as long as people quote him it does nothing.

We need to return to the (relatively) peaceful days of the hiatus.
When people reply, his quotes are hidden too, at least from what I have seen so far. It's amazing!!
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
When people reply, his quotes are hidden too, at least from what I have seen so far. It's amazing!!
My mistake. I have not used that feature here, and I hate to use it anywhere, so have not tried this one out.

Perhaps we won’t need it.
 

tenex

reality-based
I'd like to take a deep breath and ask whether we're sure that Henry's analysis of baffling in the NL 8x42 applies equally to the 10x32 under discussion here. Do the 32mm models really have exactly the same problem, to the same degree? Does the 10x model of either size do better? Is there some reason Swarovski might have hesitated to make the baffle slightly larger?
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
I'd like to take a deep breath and ask whether we're sure that Henry's analysis of baffling in the NL 8x42 applies equally to the 10x32 under discussion here. Do the 32mm models really have exactly the same problem, to the same degree? Does the 10x model of either size do better? Is there some reason Swarovski might have hesitated to make the baffle slightly larger?
I can’t imagine that would be relevant.

I believe that all refracting optical instruments require baffling to control off-axis stray light.
 
Last edited:

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
I'd like to take a deep breath and ask whether we're sure that Henry's analysis of baffling in the NL 8x42 applies equally to the 10x32 under discussion here. Do the 32mm models really have exactly the same problem, to the same degree? Does the 10x model of either size do better? Is there some reason Swarovski might have hesitated to make the baffle slightly larger?
Maybe Denis can answer that question 🤭. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
 

dries1

Member
I really do not take him seriously, I mean we should all know that that photo was a joke. It can be entertaining with Dennis, but I do not rely on his knowledge of optics for my decisions.
He is good at starting threads one has to admit, but to take him seriously....er no.
 

Hermann

Well-known member
I really do not take him seriously, I mean we should all know that that photo was a joke. It can be entertaining with Dennis, but I do not rely on his knowledge of optics for my decisions.
He claimed HE took the photo: "Here is a digiscope picture I took through the NL 10x32 on a fairly sunny day." That's no joke.

If I were the copyright holder, I wouldn't be amused. I trust the moderators of BF won't be amused either.

Hermann
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
I really do not take him seriously, I mean we should all know that that photo was a joke. It can be entertaining with Dennis, but I do not rely on his knowledge of optics for my decisions.
He is good at starting threads one has to admit, but to take him seriously....er no.
I think there is a finite chance that newcomers do.
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Dennis may have overestimated his ability to fly close to the sun on wings of wax.
And unfortunately for him, percolate through to his other optic forum haunts. I think Lee's post put it in context - I've rarely seen him use both bold and capitals, if ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top