The entirely fair comparison to that SF would be an 8x32 NL, if Swaro eventually makes one. If it increased FOV over the 42 in proportion to the Zeiss, it could have 510 ft (170 m)... though one can't be sure of course. (At the moment I'm seeing the NL 8-10-12 as a standalone model, 42 only. I don't expect a Noctivid 32 either.)To be entirely fair Dennis, the 8x42 NL has a 4.3% greater AOV (Area of View) than the 8x32 SF .....
Jan. Was the new NL better than the EL with glare or did you get a chance to test that? Thanks!
Thanks. I am looking forward to trying out the new Swaro. It will be interesting to see how much the headrest helps steady the binocular. Nice review.Dennis,
To support future sales I could full harted say that I did not see any sign of glare while looking through the NL but maybe the Dutch weather had something to do with thatB .
I imagine the NL are great binoculars, but I do wonder how many people will give up the SV EL for them. The ergonomics of the NL are highly touted, but so too were the ergonomics of the EL series considered something of a breakthrough, and I don't regularly recall people complaining about that before. The only complaints compared to other alphas that I regularly saw were focused on the glare/stray light control (which I noticed excessively in the 8x32 SV I owned) and, to a lesser extent, CA control outside the central view.
Hi Gijs,Justin, post 186,
I always ask Swarovski if our measurements fit their transmission data and it generally does, so our older measurements can be trusted.
Gijs van Ginkel
Lately, I have been liking 8x. Easier to hold and a bigger FOV. I just think 8x is about the best all-around magnification. 10x just shakes a little more and you don't see much more detail with it. I keep going back to 8x.A somewhat curious combination as the 8x32 should be good enough in most situations. Why not an NL 8x32 and an NL 10x42?
. . .
Compared to the SV, the same view through the NL makes the SV dull.
IMHO the NL is a serious step up in contrast. Black is deep black and looking at tree leaves it seems they pop up in my view
. . .
I don't think the close focus on the SLC stopped anybody from buying them nor will it the EL. I don't think too many people buy a $2K binocular for bug's. If you want a bug binocular just buy a Papilio for $129.00. Hunter's and birder's will still buy the EL's because they are priced considerably lower than the NL and they know they are an excellent binocular and a 10 foot close focus is fine for both sport's. If you want the best then you buy the NL. Swarovski will sell a lot of the NL's in 10x42 and 12x42 for the bigger FOV because you can glass faster with it covering more area and with the head rest you can use it one handed holding your bow or gun in the other hand. Birder's will like the 8x42 NL for the huge FOV, head rest and fast focuser. There are 22.5 million birder's and 12.5 million hunter's so together they are a big market compared to the bug watcher's. Swarovski doesn't care about bug watcher's because they are such a small market segment!
Dennis, I think your read on the hunting market is accurate, but your read on the birding market is way off base. The EL 42 is now dead in the birding market or will be when the 1.5m versions run out. Most birders are not only birders, we are naturalists. We look at all of nature and we don't want to carry multiple optics to do our viewing. The Papilios are great for their close-up views, but they are virtually worthless as a birding binocular and their optical quality is light years from being an alpha glass.
Close focus is essential to most naturalists. Here in SoCal, there are 14 Audubon chapters. Most have at least one person teaching beginning birders. At Optics4Birding, we get people from these classes frequently coming in with a list of features their teacher told them to look for in a birding binocular. Every list says close focus under 8 feet. 10' just doesn't cut it for birding these days. Go ask Leica why the current Trinovids and the Noctivids focus down to 6'. Ask them how Ultravid sales are doing in the birding market. They resisted a better close focus for a long time and we hardly sold any Leicas. Market pressure drove that decision at Leica.
IMO Swarovski should have found a different way to reduce the cost of the ELs. Perhaps losing the field flattener lenses or going back to standard strap attachments. There was a huge void in the birding optics market between $1500 and $2700 which the EL was going to fill nicely. Oops.
This was also of interest to me. I know a lot of people mentioned this in relation to the Noctivid vs. UV HD+ (superior baffling, better contrast).I found this comment of Jan’s in relation to his initial impression of the 10x and 12x NL’s, particularly interesting:
That ‘Black is deep black . . . ’, would indicate that Swarovski has taken a new approach to contrast control (blackening, baffles, etc) compared to both the EL and SLC series
It seems that the immediately appreciable difference between the image of the EL and the NL, may be be due to significantly different perceived contrast,
rather than significantly different objective brightness