Видео

The NL Pure binoculars are slightly heavier by 40 grams. I haven't tried the NL Pures around my neck if I am honest, but, for the price of them, I doubt they are £700- £900 (depending on where you look) better than the ELs. The ELs are already incredibly sharp and optically exceptional binoculars. The NL Pures have the edge on field of view, ergonomics, and probably a better placed focusing mechanism (bit like thr Zeiss Victory SF) for sure, if that is important to you. But binoculars of this grade tend to be heavy because of the HD optical glass inside them. It all purely comes down to what you want and, importantly, what you can afford to pay. When I got my ELs they were £2500. I would say the sheer price drop on them today makes them a "bargain" for what they are at around £700 less than they used to be before the NLs appeared

@@n0w3lly90 I haven't tried the nl pures yet, but aesthetically I don't really like them, I much prefer the els, and the els are a bit lighter as you say. I also wonder if the double bridge design could be stronger on the els compared to the single bridge and long barrels on the nl pure. I have the 32mm els and they're great, Im wondering whether to get the 8.5x42mm for winter birding, more eye comfort etc, even though they are heavier.

I disagree with your findings, Vikinona. And, consistently in laboratory tests, Swarovski outshine Zeiss and Leica. They have exception control of chromatic aberrations, and the colour and contrast are accurate and well tempered to reality. Sharpness is exceptional. Have you had an eye test lately? Also, Swarovski have better minimum focusing distance. If I had a complaint it would be the focusing mechanism, it could be a lot better

@@n0w3lly90 My eyesight is good. I own a Nikon 10x42 SE and a Bushnell Nitro and they are sharper than the New Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovizion. Swarovski has a clear image from edge to edge in the entire field of view, but when you focus on one object, and compare it with Bushnell Nitro binoculars, the Bushnell is sharper. EL is sharper in the front field of view, but Bushnell is sharper in the middle. And I read in the forums that Swarovski binoculars lack sharpness and have a lot of glare. I will send you a video where they also criticize Swarovski EL

@@n0w3lly90 ruclips.net/video/vgl3HXei1TE/видео.htmlsi=0gfHRrJYBXbuJ8hX

I wonder if they lowered the quality when they lowered the price point of the EL’s with the release of the NL Pures. I do know that one spec changed. The “shortest focussing distance” changed from 4.9 feet to 10.2 feet. I am considering purchasing a pair of these as they are discounted $200 or so for the winter sale.

@@kenbrake2828 The EL has the same image quality and colors, as the NL. I've read that some people are not satisfied with NL's image quality and they've said it's not sharp and they would rather buy SF Victory.

I prefer the feel of the Els, I don't really like the nl pures, and they are a bit heavier.

You are more than welcome ... hopefully it helped

Nobody asked you to watch!

This appears to be a video for the somewhat more sophisticated prospective binocular buyer, who doesn't require flashy this or that or over the top enthusiasm or emotive language. I thought the video was very informative without distractions and above all, appeared honest and reliable. 👍👍

Enthusiasm is not professional but rather a sales tactic. this review is a down to earth first hand users review about the facts!

I always do double shot, yeah

Very welcome Tehri 😊

Oh you are very welcome, good luck and thanks 😊

Very best of luck and enjoy using then 😉 and glad you liked it. Wasn't scripted or anything - completely on the fly!

They are! But they are also heavy and combersome. I bought the Zeiss SFL 8x40 recently and they are fantastic! Not as clear to the edges as the EL's, but instead have a superb contrast and are so lightweight and comfy to handhold 😊 Have you tried them?

​@@mrmaxaxlare the zeiss sfl as clear as els in the centre?

@@GM-bq6zo Very close but not quite. The EL's are fantastic when you have it on a tripod. Otherwize when I want to travel light I prefer SFL's. Beautiful colors and contrast. Very sharp in the center. I have the 8x32 Conquest HD also. They are super sharp in the centre but aren't as easy on the eyes when looking through them. A bit duller image. The SFL's are definetely better.

@@mrmaxaxl have u compared the Sfl to the kowa genesis 8x33?

@@GM-bq6zo No I haven't tried the Genesis

Thank you very much... it was low budget (!) And just for a bit of fun ;) hopefully it gave some useful info too

Really? There's ANOTHER new model? Not seen that

N0w3lly called NL Pure www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/swarovski-nl-pure-8x42-binoculars?gclid=CjwKCAjwrvv3BRAJEiwAhwOdM7lUus95ylaEDiBlYdwCfAn09c5Ok3GLc8DkJjzaFSRohvAilCn64RoC7jIQAvD_BwE

Oh they are definitely not £200 instruments that's for sure, you're right. They have a solidity, weight, feel and quality, you know the glass takes up a lot of that weight, and when you look through them, then you see the clarity!

Well thank you, that's kind 😀

Nice video btw, just bought this one for our new home :)

Field Pro is the monicker that Swarovski gave to all the ergonomic enhancements to the design. They changed the eyecups, the objective lens caps to be flush fitting, and the strap was changed to have adjustable height with toggle pull straps as well as bayonet button mounts in the body of the binoculars. Also, the outer shell received an update, the field bag. it is the same as the 8.5 x 42 W B field pro, yes - except for the magnification of course

@@n0w3lly90 thanks for clearing that up. (I'm in the market for a pair of 8.5x42 so sorry about that mixup). I see the field pro designation used but it seems to have been dropped on the Swarovski site so it's caused some confusion for me. :-)

And thank you by the way... Glad you enjoyed it ;-)

@@markholter5687 the 8.5x are actually very interesting, and I was really in two minds at the time when I picked. The 8.5 give 8x style field of view but, also, the extra 0.5x magnification gives just a little extra valuable reach over a standard 8x. So that is a very interesting magnification, especially for birders I think

@@n0w3lly90 I don't think you can go wrong with anything in the EL series :-)

I have not owned mine for 5 years personally, so couldn't say. What I do know is that oftentimes when people have owned Swarovski, they tend to be very loyal customers and buy the same brand again, and that includes previous users of Zeiss and Leica. I am not sure how the sun alone can degrade the housing: I think you'd have to be a rather vigorous / rough user of a pair of binoculars for that to happen. I tend to look after my most expensive instruments (be it my photographic gear, binos, etc.) because I want them to continue operating as faultlessly as possible for years to come... But other than that, I don't know. As I come from the UK also, I can't say Sun is always a very threatening thing! 😀

@@n0w3lly90 Yeah, I heard that the sun over there at the other side of the North Sea is brutal :-p. I forgot to add that the complaints concerning the rubber housing almost always comes from cases where people took their Swaro to warm country's like Spain or country's in Africa. So I guess you don't have to be afraid when using it over here.

@@dimitribuerms7112 i go to Spain a lot, it's very hot there (missus is Spanish), and I take my binos each time because the in-laws live in the North West mountains where you can see a lot of wildlife (boars, wolves, deer, etc.). So far, so good. My experience, till now, is that they are really tough, robust, as are the coatings. The waterproofing certainly works (tried that!), and they don't fog up either... But, certainly longer term ownership we'll see! ;)

Oh... And eagles, storks, swallows nesting, etc.! And a lot more besides. One of the things I want to do is go South to the Andalusian reserves where wild Iberian Lynxes live. Would love to catch a glimpse of one, and Iberian bears too (which I haven't yet seen!)

It's a surprise to me ... I have never had any issues with my old pair and this is the first time I have seen this particular comment.

It is true that Swarovski service really do stand by their products... I needed a replacement eye cup not long ago... They sent me one free of charge!

I'm glad it helped you out, and best of luck with whatever choice you make. I tried to be as honest as possible: in truth at this price point all the makers offerings are top drawer quality and all have their own selling points. But I do think the Swaro's do just tip the scales because of the excellent edge to edge sharpness, lack of aberrations and neutral/ accurate colour reproduction

@@n0w3lly90 I agree with you. My handicap is not having tried the top three in person. Interestingly, the Noctivid leaflet from the Leica website purported a FOV of 376ft/1000yd for the 10x42 model. However, when I did the stoichiometry 112m/1000m, the FOV is actually 336ft/1000yd; same as the EL. Given this and the advantages in eye relief and close focus, I am going with the Swarovski. Again, thanks for your help.

@@GroomsJk that is true, the FOV is not as generous as that in the Leicas. At the end of the day at 10x mag, 336ft is actually pretty generous as it is. And 10x is an optimum general purpose magnification. 8x magnification you'll get around 400ft (the Swaro equivalent for birders is curiously 8.5x magnification as opposed to 8x). Another thing, the Swaros have amazing close focus, down to 4.9 feet (Noctivid are over 6ft) and as I said in the video have class leading eye relief at 20mm (19mm on the Noctivids - close!), which is huge.

That make no difference whatsoever

More convenient, admittedly, not nearly as nice in flavour

It entirely depends on what you want in a pair of binoculars. The SLC range includes 7 x 56s for instance, or 15 x 56. If distant magnification, or, very low light capability is your priority, then I would say "yes". If you are more interested in ultimate optical performance, then no - the ELs are better. The SLCs don't have field correction, for instance for edge to edge sharpness, and they do not have some of the more advanced coatings of the ELs either. Also, the ELs have an open bridge design. For handling, I find that better, but it might not bother you. The SLCs are very, very good, don't get me wrong: they wear the Swarovski name, after all. They are slightly better value for money too, if you want to save a bit.

Sorry about the delay in my reply. Best thing I can suggest, if you are able to, is try them out in a dealership - have a look through both before buying, if that's an option. If you can't, then there are a lot of good expert reviews online that explain the differences, and similarities, between the EL and SLC ranges. Essentially the former are more compact and lightweight, and have better optics than the SLCs. For example: chromatic aberrations are handled better/ almost entirely nullified by the ELs. They are visible more in SLCs. The SLCs are bigger because they use an Abbe-Koenig prism set up rather than the Schmidt Pechan prisms in the ELs. Abbe-Koenig are bigger, which means the barrels are longer. There are lots of youtube videos that explain those too. Interestingly though, Abbe-Koenig prisms are far more expensive to produce than Schmidt Pechan prisms, and, do offer slightly better light transmission

Thanks a lot mate, super useful explanations

@@iaraculonna you're very welcome mate, no worries. One thing I will say confidently: get a pair of Swarovskis, you'll wonder why you never had a pair! Truly stunning to look through, really are

N0w3lly I’m planning to buy one of those within a couple of months. Will definitely let you know when this will happen!!

Well thank you shooty boys, appreciate that :) don't worry - I pay lip service to these "coffee snobs" who seem to be so miserable with themselves that they feel compelled to waste time moaning about a light hearted RUclips video ;-) i appreciate your input though mate thanks ☺

Have you got anything better to say, Stephen, than be a rude tosser? Go and watch something else then - simple!

@@n0w3lly90 surely auto will be better than you making a short fill and double tamp ,that was the reason you had a slow delivery .But hey"" you are the expert i suppose and will not take in any advice to help you

Pleased you liked it disher01, hope you found it useful ... Do read my amendment comments as I did record it late one evening and was a bit tired, so said a couple of things wrong, like saying high as opposed to LOW refractive index ;)

8.5x is when you want wider field of view and is a pretty specialised magnification for bird watching mainly. I went for 10x because it is a good multi purpose magnification: good for birds, but also wildlife you wouldn't want to get too close to. 10x is also comfortable to hand hold without too much shake. So those were the major reasons, as well as I live near the coast and we get yachts racing sometimes, ships and other things that are good to observe. I basically went for what I considered a happy medium.

I have heard very good testimonials about Swarovski service quality and customer service too and, must confess, that swayed me a lot too, my friend

@@n0w3lly90 thats amazing service, even if they didn't need much it takes time to do it

Agree, best service in the world. My 10 year old 8.5x42 SW was disassemled, cleaned, collimated, new housing (on body and focuser). Also they sent me complete new protective caps and spare eyecups, all free of charge. And they sent me back for about two weeks latter on their own cost. That's unbelievable.

Thank you Ricardo, I'm glad you liked it

Thank you +youandwhosearmy?, that's very kind of you and I hope you enjoy them very much, they are a cut above, that's for sure :)

Top man, and thank you @@n0w3lly90

@@youandwhosearmy6339 very welcome and Happy New Year for 2019

Hi Jabala, first I thank you for your sensible question :) and in response, yes indeed it is still running strong. It is important to keep it clean and descaled: i put it through a monthly wash cycle using CAFIZA cleaning tablets, and I also put distilled vinegar through the system too. This keeps the machine and the boiler in good working order.

My apologies Mr Barista Extraordinaire ;) show us your Costa Barista of the Week award why don't you ;)

Thank you for your comments Richard. I do not disagree with you: I am normally a photographer, not a videographer, so this is a relatively new thing for me to actually try using the video capabilities of the equipment as opposed to just taking photos, so it was experimental more than anything else. I tried classical music, etc., but it just made it boring as a result. Some clips are short because you may have noticed I was trying to choreograph the video to the music, and it is a very isolated church with nothing else around, so I wanted to close out with the fact swans frequent the area, and I was lucky that day to just get on the tails of a flock of flying swans to close things out. The weather was very flat, dull, heavily grey, and made light a real struggle, and the video editing was tricky, especially for someone like me who is new to it: lots of colour correction was required. But, I will continue to learn and try new things and maybe mix it up a little next time. I will certainly go back here - hopefully on a better day with less dense, dark cloud cover :). Another thing that is difficult, as I have learned in video editing, is ensuring you choose royalty free music you cannot get slammed for using... So I just picked something slightly upbeat for the subject matter to lift it a bit. But I get what you mean. And many scenes are really for checking out viewpoints for photographing what is a very photogenic location

Well Done, it was great. I really enjoyed it.

Sorry taking a while to reply... The grind amount is variable, but I usually make a double shot. That is approx 16-17 g of ground coffee beans, net. Enjoy!

Only whilst your missus' mouth was around my ol' man, Red Jari, as it's the only time I like making Marlene a coffee ;-) as a joke (to Marlene) i get her to spit the proceeds into the mug too!