Swarovski NL Pure Binocular

[rodney482]

Scratching my head on that too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Me as well

 

[pirogue]

That would be highly subjective as everyone's eyes are different. What works tremendously well for one person, doesn't work at all for another.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[pirogue]

One has to discount the subjectivity, when some say it doesn’t work for their eyes, when they really mean, it doesn’t work for their wallet.

 

[UpWndFrt]

One has to discount the subjectivity, when some say it doesn’t work for their eyes, when they really mean, it doesn’t work for their wallet.

Think so? Bird geeks make disagreeing with that statement part of the freshman orientation.

Independent that, optical quality in itself might be tied, but not the single most important factor for me selecting one. Learned the expensive way to try before I buy another, and that the best doesn't equal the best for me no matter how much I want that to be the case. Looking forward to seeing these, but won't be pre-ordering.

If you disagree you have my envy, but it isn't the same for everyone, irrespective cost.

 

[HeavyFootHick]

I may spend my stimulus check on a set of close out EL’s.

 

[Elkangle]

For those that remotely care the outdoorsmans stud will be a stainless steel....no anodized black

Nothing a lil sharp can't fix

 

[HeavyFootHick]

For those that remotely care the outdoorsmans stud will be a stainless steel....no anodized black

Nothing a lil sharp can't fix

I’ll order mine cerakoted......

 

[sneaky]

One has to discount the subjectivity, when some say it doesn’t work for their eyes, when they really mean, it doesn’t work for their wallet.

Bullshit. There are a lot of us, myself included, that can't use field flattening lenses for a myriad of reasons. Cost doesn't have anything to do with it. Why would I buy a set of EL's or Pures when I already know they don't work for me? I'm completely satisfied with my SLCs which don't give me the rolling ball effect or a headache after long glassing sessions. Swarovski makes fine optics, but some variations don't work for everyone. That isn't subjectivity, that's reality.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[HeavyFootHick]

I’m a new comer to high end optics.
I know nothing about the Field flattening image and rolling ball Effect.
YouTube here I come.

 

[[email protected]]

I wonder how it's gonna compare to el range

 

[Justace]

wonder if they are working on a NL Range?

I listened to the Epic Outdoors podcast about these binoculars and the Swarovski rep said they aren't planning a rangefinder in the NL series.

 

[Steve C]

The objective lens diameter does not determine the field of view. What it does is determine the focal length and define the amount of light that gets into the system, A $30 42 mm Barska has the same amount of light energy available as the $3K NL Pure. Design and quality affect the visible outcome. As for field of view, that is a function of the ocular lens system. The light stream as it enters the prisms is a focused beam. The prisms erect it, it is then magnified, then as the beam passes out through the ocular system it is separated out through the angle prescribed by the designed fov parameters.

 

[Amasaback]

The objective lens diameter does not determine the field of view. What it does is determine the focal length and define the amount of light that gets into the system, A $30 42 mm Barska has the same amount of light energy available as the $3K NL Pure. Design and quality affect the visible outcome. As for field of view, that is a function of the ocular lens system. The light stream as it enters the prisms is a focused beam. The prisms erect it, it is then magnified, then as the beam passes out through the ocular system it is separated out through the angle prescribed by the designed fov parameters.

I’m trying to understand what also effects depth of field - if anything and is that related possibly to the exit and objective diameter.

 

[Steve C]

I’m trying to understand what also effects depth of field - if anything and is that related possibly to the exit and objective diameter.

Depth of field is, according to everything I have read, affected by only one thing. Increase magnification, decrease depth of field. However I am the first guy to admit that that does not always seem to ring true. From what I can discern there are a couple of other factors that can enter into the apparent focus depth we see. Yes, the magnification is the major thing. However field curvature is another possibility. We have curved lenses in our eyes. Aside from flat field binoculars, binoculars have curved lenses as well. If there is either a good match, or a mismatch in how our eye curvature matches with the binoculars curvature, that can have an effect. Even flat field systems are not particularly immune. Placing a flat field over our curved field introduces a whole new set of design parameters, and not all eyes will react positively to this either.

If a binocular is ever so slightly off collimation we can see an effect. If the magnification is just out of spec between both barrels that can effect the phenomena too. Remember collimation involves three optical axes. One for each barrel and one for the center hinge. All three axes have to be parallel. The fly in the ointment is that as the center hinge is flexed to accommodate eye position, the alignment of the axes must remain parallel. Most of these are things that will show up with age.

Magnification is the dominant determining factor. Exact quality control and good design help. Like fov, lens diameter plays no role here.

 

[loopmtz]

I had a chance to look through them at 1Shot Gear last week and thought they were amazing. I am sticking with my EL's because of price point but thought they were special.

 

[Amasaback]

Depth of field is, according to everything I have read, affected by only one thing. Increase magnification, decrease depth of field. However I am the first guy to admit that that does not always seem to ring true. From what I can discern there are a couple of other factors that can enter into the apparent focus depth we see. Yes, the magnification is the major thing. However field curvature is another possibility. We have curved lenses in our eyes. Aside from flat field binoculars, binoculars have curved lenses as well. If there is either a good match, or a mismatch in how our eye curvature matches with the binoculars curvature, that can have an effect. Even flat field systems are not particularly immune. Placing a flat field over our curved field introduces a whole new set of design parameters, and not all eyes will react positively to this either.

If a binocular is ever so slightly off collimation we can see an effect. If the magnification is just out of spec between both barrels that can effect the phenomena too. Remember collimation involves three optical axes. One for each barrel and one for the center hinge. All three axes have to be parallel. The fly in the ointment is that as the center hinge is flexed to accommodate eye position, the alignment of the axes must remain parallel. Most of these are things that will show up with age.

Magnification is the dominant determining factor. Exact quality control and good design help. Like fov, lens diameter plays no role here.

That makes a lot of sense. It is an interesting dynamic for sure. I have old military 7x Steiners binoculars that are basically fixed focus. You adjust a diopter for you eyes but has no other accommodations for focus.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Getting excited, looking like they start shipping from Swarovski on the 1st

 

[Steve O]

Epic Outdoors compared 12x NL Pures and 15 SLCs thru a phone scope on their YouTube page. The difference is night and day and quite impressive. Picking my 12s up next Friday.

 

[duckpopper]

They didn’t compare the new Swarovski 15HDs to the 12 NL Pure. They used the previous model SLC 15. This is a big flaw in their testing IMO.

 

[Steve O]

Here is the video: