Andreas will confirm, but I believe that's exactly what he's saying. And, although this doesn't affect me personally, using this instrument with glasses, I suspect if you push the binoculars too hard against your glasses the rubber eyecups may squash down to the level of the metal housing. It could be an issue for some users, I guess.
-
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.
What’s about Reviews of the NL 10x32 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Aquaplas
- Start date
dorubird
Well-known member
I personally appreciate the firmness of eyepiece cups adjustment at Conquest. From the factory they are too stiff indeed, but if I make a few quick movements they move more smoothly, but without losing their firmness. At first glance it seems a disadvantage but in reality it is a great advantage. So I don't resonate with the negative opinions about the Conquest eyepiece cups, most consider this a disadvantage but I consider it an advantage. But with SF eyepiece cups we enter in the other extreme: in the initial position when removing the rain covers, eyepieces cups may expand a little involuntarily, because the position are not so firm. I solved that problem by slightly widening the rubber rain covers by stretching them a little, and now I have no problems! But otherwise SF eyepieces cups movement is very smooth and pleasant just as you say!
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Yes exactly...
Andreas
I understand. I appreciate that Swarovski designed the eyecup and eyepiece so you can make use of the eye relief as much as possible.
There are a lot of binoculars with decent eye relief but with the eyepiece lens unnecessary recessed or that eyecup edge is unnecessary high. In some cases as much as 5mm of the useful eye relief is wasted. Actually Swarovski ELs have unnecessary high eyecup edge. NL Pure and SLC have a better design.
With NL Pure 8x42 I get a completely open and clear view of the entire FOV with my eyeglasses on.
But the sockel design is obviously a bit miss by Swarovski. I think the problem can possibly be easy solved by some machining to grind down the socket edge.
Last edited:
Conndomat
United States of Europe
The views are so different, for me the EL offers a much better insight than an NL.
At the lowest level, the NL is a bad design for me, I have to turn the eyepieces up one level and then it becomes very difficult to see the entire field.
The edge of the eyepieces would only have to be a bit higher, then it would work.
In Germany we say "the bananas ripen at the consumer..."
Andreas
I like to have the eyecups in bottom level for a perfect open view, but understand it causes problem for you and some others.
The step between the levels should be smaller.
Actually the eyecup should be possible to micro adjust!
Conndomat
United States of Europe
It also depends on whether you are far or short-sighted!
Converging lenses are convex in shape - they curve outwards and are wider in the middle than at the edge. In contrast, minus lenses are curved inwards to correct nearsightedness. The degree of convexity that corrects the eye's lack of refractive power depends on the severity of your farsightedness.
I'm far-sighted, my glasses definitely get on the metal frame and scrape around there, that's crap!
Andreas
henry link
Well-known member
Why not try placing a rubber o-ring of the appropriate size around the bottom of the eyecup tube to give the rubber rim a little more stand-off from the metal?
Ok! I am short-sighted so it seems to confirm the difference between how it works for you and me.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Farsightedness is very common. The professional association of ophthalmologists states that farsightedness occurs in 35 percent of all people under the age of 50. After the age of 50, the number of long-sighted people increases steadily. In old age, 95 percent are farsighted. This means that long-sightedness is the most common visual defect, ahead of short-sightedness (25 percent) and astigmatism (20 percent).
So the NL in the lowest eyepiece position should become a problem for many people, I don't know what Swarovski was thinking?
Andreas
dorubird
Well-known member
Swarovski was thinking "only" at larger FOV possible
I was considering swapping my NL 10x42 for the NL 10x32 for weight and bulk reasons. Recently I had the chance to compare them both extensively. In terms of image quality (sharpness, color, fov) I found the 10x32 nearly identical to the 10x42. I was surprised of the brightness too, in cloudy daylight conditions I saw a small difference but less than I would have expected when going from 42 to 32. But the deal breaker for me was eye placement and ease of view. With the 32, while scanning the sky, I found it more difficult to maintain a clear image without ‘blackouts’. Even with the head rest that didn’t improve much. I found the 10x42 more forgiving for eye placement errors, which results in a nicer, easier view, and that is worth more to me than a small advantage in portability.
Interesting, Andreas. Right now, I'm sitting here thinking how lucky I am to be short-sighted with astigmatism. 😂
Do your experiences not reflect the very nature of 10x42 vs 10x32 in general? Surely a 10x32 binocular is always going to be more challenging, in terms of eye placement, and the necessity to set them up with absolute precision, especially those with a very wide field of view. Certainly, I have found differences in behaviour between different models/manufacturers of 10x32's, but I find the NL Pure to be very forgiving, and whilst I can provoke blackouts when panning, I can also eradicate them completely, with a further mechanical adjustment, or by repositioning (incidentally, I use binoculars with glasses). Some 10x32's I can't work with at all.
Now, if I use a less challenging instrument for a couple of days (EL 8x32, for example), it does take me a while to adjust back to my NL Pure 10x32's, for sure. It's the nature of the beast.
And WimDel, how can you resist a pair of 10x32 NL Pure's in burnt orange on their aesthetics alone? They are 'pure' binocular porn!!! 😁
But, I do get why you settled on keeping your 10x42's.
I have the same issue with the 10x32s, but not with the 8x42s. It's not too severe and will look for some o-rings to move the eyecups out 1-2mm.
Loddar
Well-known member
It took some time but then the NL 10x32 still came.
first i have to mention that i am not a friend of 10 times enlargement, cause I shake too much.
I had before SLC 10x42 and EL 10x32.
After i have 8x32 i was too corious how the 10 times performs.
i could only try for a short time so far. But what i can say so far: ist is extraordinary, exceptionally good.
It is very bright, a very large field of viel. And it is sharp to the edges.
The colour is very neutral. Not quite as saturated as with many Leicas - i like them a lot - but also not so boring.
Image sharpness is very high as well as the contrast.
Even with difficults motifs i could not provoke any CA so for.
Also glare is as with 8x32 no problem. Simply turn the eyecups one position down.
Since i have small hands i can hold ist very easy. Ergonomics is a dream.
The finger for focussing falls automatically on the focussingwheel.
The focus on 10x32 is a bit tighter at the moment than with the 8x32.
But the 10x32 has no air pockets behind the the eyepiece like the 8x32.
So far now. I am looking forward to researching the new NL further.
Loddar
first i have to mention that i am not a friend of 10 times enlargement, cause I shake too much.
I had before SLC 10x42 and EL 10x32.
After i have 8x32 i was too corious how the 10 times performs.
i could only try for a short time so far. But what i can say so far: ist is extraordinary, exceptionally good.
It is very bright, a very large field of viel. And it is sharp to the edges.
The colour is very neutral. Not quite as saturated as with many Leicas - i like them a lot - but also not so boring.
Image sharpness is very high as well as the contrast.
Even with difficults motifs i could not provoke any CA so for.
Also glare is as with 8x32 no problem. Simply turn the eyecups one position down.
Since i have small hands i can hold ist very easy. Ergonomics is a dream.
The finger for focussing falls automatically on the focussingwheel.
The focus on 10x32 is a bit tighter at the moment than with the 8x32.
But the 10x32 has no air pockets behind the the eyepiece like the 8x32.
So far now. I am looking forward to researching the new NL further.
Loddar
Attachments
Similar threads
