The colors and NL Pure late at night. (1 Viewer)

[bockos]

The colors of NL Pure late at night.

How does the new Swarovski NL Pure binoculars work late at night and what colors and contrast are there (8x42NL or 10x42NL)? I know the beautiful and vibrant colors of the legendary Swarovski 10x50EL in the dark, in the last 30 minutes of light, after sunset, in the evening. What will someone who has used NL Pure in the evening say? I've only seen NL Pure for a few hours on a sunny day. But I didn't have a chance to look through them late at night. Thanks for every comment.

 

[bockos]

How does the new Swarovski NL Pure binoculars work late at night and what colors and contrast are there (8x42NL or 10x42NL)? I know the beautiful and vibrant colors of the legendary Swarovski 10x50EL in the dark, in the last 30 minutes of light, after sunset, in the evening. What will someone who has used NL Pure in the evening say? I've only seen NL Pure for a few hours on a sunny day. But I didn't have a chance to look through them late at night. Thanks for every comment.

Swarovski EL10x50 fieldpro is hard to beatfrom other binoculars in the evening

 

[Gray C]

How does the 10x50 EL stack up to the SLC 10x56 for viewing in the evening/twilight?

 

[NZbinodude]

I used to own a pair of NL Pure 10x42's.

From memory: in lowlight conditions, they performed much like any other alpha binos I have used with 4.2mm exit pupils (Leica Geovid, Zeiss FL, and Swarovski EL SV). I'm sure if you compared them side by side with other binos, you might pick up on some minute differences, but using the NL's during low light (in isolation) didn't bring about any extraordinary results.

The NL's are innovative in some respects, but they're not physics-defying.

If I wanted something for low-light use, I'd get a thermal imaging device or a dedicated low-light glass - 8x50/56, 7x50 etc.

For a general-purpose binocular (if you really value a large FOV and quick focusser) then the NL's are very good.

If you're in the market for a pair, I'd recommend you wait 6-12 months or so just in case there are some bugs that need to be ironed out by Swarovski. Furthermore, if there happens to be a problem with your NL's (as in my case), a replacement may take months, because demand is exceeding supply at the moment. Just something to consider.

 

[nzwild]

I used to own a pair of NL Pure 10x42's.

From memory: in lowlight conditions, they performed much like any other alpha binos I have used with 4.2mm exit pupils (Leica Geovid, Zeiss FL, and Swarovski EL SV). I'm sure if you compared them side by side with other binos, you might pick up on some minute differences, but using the NL's during low light (in isolation) didn't bring about any extraordinary results.

The NL's are innovative in some respects, but they're not physics-defying.

If I wanted something for low-light use, I'd get a thermal imaging device or a dedicated low-light glass - 8x50/56, 7x50 etc.

For a general-purpose binocular (if you really value a large FOV and quick focusser) then the NL's are very good.

If you're in the market for a pair, I'd recommend you wait 6-12 months or so just in case there are some bugs that need to be ironed out by Swarovski. Furthermore, if there happens to be a problem with your NL's (as in my case), a replacement may take months, because demand is exceeding supply at the moment. Just something to consider.

I guess thats where individual experience and interpretation varies. I have always found the Geovid HD-B seems 'darker' and gives me 'less' in the shadows than others. Is this what some describe as more saturation? For me the older Zeiss FL 42 always provides a 'bright' view (extra transmission?) but some of the effect may be from the smaller zone of central sharp focus. I have yet to get the opportunity to give a pair of NLs the shadows and twilight test.

 

[Robert Moore]

My 10x50 EL is also my favorite in low light but oddly my Leica 7x42HD plus seams brighter in bright sunlight. I compared my Zeiss 10x42 SF with the 10x42 NL only in the store and thought my SF was brighter but the NL was really sharp and had an excellent view at close focus that I really liked. I have not looked through the 8x42 NL but I am sure I would like it even more.

 

[NZbinodude]

I guess thats where individual experience and interpretation varies. I have always found the Geovid HD-B seems 'darker' and gives me 'less' in the shadows than others. Is this what some describe as more saturation? For me the older Zeiss FL 42 always provides a 'bright' view (extra transmission?) but some of the effect may be from the smaller zone of central sharp focus. I have yet to get the opportunity to give a pair of NLs the shadows and twilight test.

Yes, I agree. Debating binoculars sometimes feels like debating shoes. The only thing that truly matters is how they fit you.

As an example - I find the view through the Zeiss SF to be somewhat lifeless (with an obvious green tint), yet most people love them and cannot see the green at all. All the power to them!

In a side-by-side comparison, the most pronounced difference I noticed between the Geovids and EL's was slightly more sharpness/resolution in the EL's. The EL's just seemed a hair crisper. How that translates to making out more detail, or better low-light performance...I do not know.

When used in isolation, however, I didn't find myself wishing for a different binocular. Alpha glass is alpha glass. Well - until you get sick of a binocular and want something else just for the sake of having something new.



Interested to know how more or less saturation helps with low-light viewing.

 

[NZbinodude]

My 10x50 EL is also my favorite in low light but oddly my Leica 7x42HD plus seams brighter in bright sunlight. I compared my Zeiss 10x42 SF with the 10x42 NL only in the store and thought my SF was brighter but the NL was really sharp and had an excellent view at close focus that I really liked. I have not looked through the 8x42 NL but I am sure I would like it even more.

I found the exact opposite - that the NL was brighter than the SF. Just goes to show how different our eyes are.

So your 7x42HD Plus with a 6mm E.P seems less bright than your 10x50 EL with a 5mm E.P? I wonder if the extra 3x magnification in the 10x50 EL (and the additional detail that it resolves) gives off the impression of more brightness.

 

[Robert Moore]

I found the exact opposite - that the NL was brighter than the SF. Just goes to show how different our eyes are.

So your 7x42HD Plus with a 6mm E.P seems less bright than your 10x50 EL with a 5mm E.P? I wonder if the extra 3x magnification in the 10x50 EL (and the additional detail that it resolves) gives off the impression of more brightness.

It’s brighter in low light because of the bigger objective lens. 50 vs 42.

 

[NZbinodude]

It’s brighter in low light because of the bigger objective lens. 50 vs 42.

Wouldn't a 7x42 (with a 6mm exit pupil) transmit more light to your eyes than a 10x50 with a 5mm exit pupil?

Assuming your eyes don't dilate enough to make use of the extra light from the 7x42, then what is it which makes the 10x50 seem brighter?

I've heard that extra magnification can sometimes compensate for a lack of brightness, because it'll allow you to see more detail.

 

[[email protected]]

Wouldn't a 7x42 (with a 6mm exit pupil) transmit more light to your eyes than a 10x50 with a 5mm exit pupil?

Assuming your eyes don't dilate enough to make use of the extra light from the 7x42, then what is it which makes the 10x50 seem brighter?

I've heard that extra magnification can sometimes compensate for a lack of brightness, because it'll allow you to see more detail.

The 10x50 has a greater Twilight Factor than the 7x42 so you can see more detail in low light. Twilight Factor is estimated by first multiplying the magnification by the objective lens size, and then taking the square root of that product. Not to be confused with Relative Brightness which is calculated by simply squaring the exit pupil value. The Relative Brightness of the 7x42 is greater than the 10x50 because of the larger exit pupil. So the 7x42 will appear brighter but you can see more detail with the 10x50 in low light.

https://www.backcountrychronicles.com/binoculars-relative-brightness-twilight-factors/

 

[fazalmajid]

I used the NL 8x42 to watch London fireworks on Guy Fawkes' day (Thursday November 5th). The wide field of view was helpful in viewing multiple concurrent fireworks from different locations in the same view. I didn't have my Zeiss 8x42 HT at the time to compare. There was some multiple lens flare from the point sources of the fireworks, but also on my wife's Leica Ultravid 8x42 BL.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

NZbinodude, post 8,
That you found the NL 8x42 brighter than the SF 8x42 has nothing to do with miracles or the difference of eyes. The explanation is quite simple: the NL has a 3-5% higher light transmission and the spectrum is completely flat over a wide wavelength range and that is not the case for the SF. That is why whites with the SF look a bit "dirty white'compared with the NL, as I have written before.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[eronald]

NZbinodude, post 8,
That you found the NL 8x42 brighter than the SF 8x42 has nothing to do with miracles or the difference of eyes. The explanation is quite simple: the NL has a 3-5% higher light transmission and the spectrum is completely flat over a wide wavelength range and that is not the case for the SF. That is why whites with the SF look a bit "dirty white'compared with the NL, as I have written before.
Gijs van Ginkel

flat? what range? have you published the spectral transmission data?
enquiring minds want to know

Edmund

 

[NZbinodude]

NZbinodude, post 8,
That you found the NL 8x42 brighter than the SF 8x42 has nothing to do with miracles or the difference of eyes. The explanation is quite simple: the NL has a 3-5% higher light transmission and the spectrum is completely flat over a wide wavelength range and that is not the case for the SF. That is why whites with the SF look a bit "dirty white'compared with the NL, as I have written before.
Gijs van Ginkel

That's interesting. What's the overall light transmission of the NL?

Do manufacturers sometimes exaggerate the light transmission of their binoculars? Because Swaro markets the NL as having 91% light transmission (correct me if I'm wrong), and Zeiss suggests the SF has 92% transmission??

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Eronald, post 14 and NZ binodude, post 15,
None of the SF's we have measured showed a light transmission of 92% Not the 8x32, not the 8x42 and not the 10x42. I am working on all the test data and it will take a little while before it is finished, but it will come. Moreover it is Sint Nicolaas soon and for other cultures that Chrismas fellow is at the horizon, so you must know about happy feelings of anticipation.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[dries1]

This discussion is like groundhog day. So someone sent in the NL, it did not work for them, and now we are quibbling about 2% light transmission. While it is a privilege for us for Gijs to provide the difference in transmission of a select glass (I do appreciate his work), go try the glass, if you like it it keep it, use it, if not send it back try another premium glass.


Andy W.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Andy, post 17,
You made my day, I am working hard to finish around five different tests and reports, but that takes a little time, so please be patient.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[NDhunter]

I guess thats where individual experience and interpretation varies. I have always found the Geovid HD-B seems 'darker' and gives me 'less' in the shadows than others. Is this what some describe as more saturation? For me the older Zeiss FL 42 always provides a 'bright' view (extra transmission?) but some of the effect may be from the smaller zone of central sharp focus. I have yet to get the opportunity to give a pair of NLs the shadows and twilight test.

You are referring to the Geovid being darker, in general rangefinder binoculars are not as bright because of the mechanics of the internal mechanism.

This is true for all of them, some are better than others in transmission, I recall
reading that the newest Swarovski does quite well, and better than some others.

Jerry

 

[bockos]

NZbinodude, post 8,
That you found the NL 8x42 brighter than the SF 8x42 has nothing to do with miracles or the difference of eyes. The explanation is quite simple: the NL has a 3-5% higher light transmission and the spectrum is completely flat over a wide wavelength range and that is not the case for the SF. That is why whites with the SF look a bit "dirty white'compared with the NL, as I have written before.
Gijs van Ginkel

Is this the reason why NL Pure has more contrast, the colors are more vivid and natural, but also saturated. So, black is blacker and white is whiter (snow white). Can you explain it in more words as a person who is not an optician. I wonder what's going on? How this is achieved: the colors to be neutral, natural and at the same time more saturated and contrasting. And such a transparent image. Pure image. Photo quality from a very expensive camera ... All this in Swarovski's NL Pure ...