Review of NL PURE 12x42 with Iphone video sample - 4K (1 Viewer)

[binomania]

Good evening everyone from Italy! This evening I propose the complete review of the Swarovski NL PURE 12x42 binoculars, kindly made available by Marco Lucchini, of the renowned shop in Domodossola. The article is detailed and full of images and support tables, while in the video I share my practical impressions in the field, along with spectacular naturalistic and landscape shots taken by connecting an iPhone. The video is shot in 4K with the new equipment, and I highly recommend to those who have the possibility to watch it on a Smart TV for a better viewing experience. The video has English subtitles, you must activate them and the article is read translated with the plugin on the site



Article: Recensione completa del binocolo Swarovski NL PURE 12x42. L'eccellenza a mano libera?

Video on YouTube:

 

[crinklystarfish]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post.

This has been my go-to, do-almost-everything binocular since I purchased upon release. I have absolutely no regrets and am of the view that it's still one of the best all-rounders currently available.

A couple of points I personally don't agree with - and have mentioned before on this forum:

• I contend the headrest is more of a cumbersome and intrusive gimmick than it is a practical solution, especially if you work to optimise grip: and regularly wear hats.
• I'm not convinced that NL 8x42 or even SLC 8x56 is necessarily a preferred solution in very low light. I've done numerous back-to-back comparisons and - as far as I'm concerned - the extra magnification (and so higher 'twilight factor' of the 12x) ultimately results in more detail.

Again, thanks for posting.

This is - in my view - a truly seminal binocular.

 

[CharleyBird]

Yes, we'll worth the money!

For me the only situation where these 12x42 are limited is within dense woodland where magnification is secondary to FOV to find and follow birds that are close.
Star watching reveals the jitter of the higher magnification, and they need to be used seated/supported.

The forehead rest I've found to be unnecessary; both uncomfortable and adding little to my holding stability.

I've read that the 8 and 10 are optically even better, but I couldn't tell the difference looking at birds on feeders. Perhaps the edges?

 

[binomania]

Sì, ne varrà la pena!

Per me l'unica situazione in cui questi 12x42 sono limitati è nei boschi fitti, dove l'ingrandimento è secondario rispetto al campo visivo per individuare e seguire gli uccelli che si trovano nelle vicinanze.
L'osservazione delle stelle evidenzia l'oscillazione dovuta all'ingrandimento più elevato e richiede l'uso da seduti o con un supporto.

Ho scoperto che il poggiafronte è superfluo: è scomodo e non aumenta molto la stabilità della mia presa.

Ho letto che l'8 e il 10 sono otticamente ancora migliori, ma non sono riuscito a notare la differenza guardando gli uccelli sulle mangiatoie. Forse i bordi?

Ciao, se hai tempo di leggere l'articolo ho fatto vari test con il supporto frontale e la USAF CHART, nessuna differenza osservando orizzontalmente, c'erano miglioramenti se alzavano la USAF di 15° dal mio punto di osservazione e migliorava osservando verso l'alto. A questo punto può essere utile, in astronomia l'ho usato su una sedia a sdraio, non paragonabile a un binocolo stabilizzato ma in quel contesto ha aiutato

Yes, we'll worth the money!

For me the only situation where these 12x42 are limited is within dense woodland where magnification is secondary to FOV to find and follow birds that are close.
Star watching reveals the jitter of the higher magnification, and they need to be used seated/supported.

The forehead rest I've found to be unnecessary; both uncomfortable and adding little to my holding stability.

I've read that the 8 and 10 are optically even better, but I couldn't tell the difference looking at birds on feeders. Perhaps the edges?

Hi, if you have time to read the article I did various tests with the front support and the USAF CHART, no difference observing horizontally, there were improvements if they raised the USAF by 15° from my observation point and it improved observing upwards. At this point it can be useful, in astronomy I used it on a deck chair, not comparable to a stabilized binocular but in that context it helped

 

[CharleyBird]

I shall try that

 

[SuperDuty]

Hi Piergiovanni, how do the 12X42 NL Pure compare optically to the Sky Rover Banner Cloud 12x50, is one superior to the other in certain
areas ?

 

[binomania]

Hi , after each test I return the products, otherwise I would be a very rich man Unfortunately, I couldn't do a comparison and would have to go by memory. Have you read both articles and seen the USAF CHART tables of both?

 

[SuperDuty]

I watched the video, I’ll have to go back and check the chart again.

 

[SuperDuty]

Hi , after each test I return the products, otherwise I would be a very rich man Unfortunately, I couldn't do a comparison and would have to go by memory. Have you read both articles and seen the USAF CHART tables of both?

Best I can tell you were able to resolve one step lower/better with the Sky Rover when comparing them both mounted on a tripod, an I interpreting the charts correctly ?

 

[SuperDuty]

🤔

 

[ReinierB]

I have the NL 12x42 and like it a lot! It is actually the pair of binoculars with the largest afov I have ever seen. A very large screen pops up when I look through it.
I think, if I have to choose just one pair of binoculars, this would be the one. Very allround (I like higher magnifications) and it tempers the need for carrying a scope as well.

I have a love/hate relationship with the headrest. I am not sure if I really like it. It takes the pressure off my eye sockets and when it's windy it sure stabilizes the view (a bit).
But I have deep lying eyes and I feel there misses one position to get a really satisfying set-up. The same with my NL 10x32 (smaller eyecups so the eyecups fall deeper into my sockets). It suited me better with the NL 10x52 and 10x42 (the NL 12x42 is a bit shorter).

 

[ReinierB]

I've read that the 8 and 10 are optically even better, but I couldn't tell the difference looking at birds on feeders. Perhaps the edges?

Where did you read that? 8 and 10 have a larger exit pupil and larger dof. Maybe that would them make "better"? But on bright days you hardly notice that and the 12x42 has the largest afov.

 

[ReinierB]

The forehead rest I've found to be unnecessary; both uncomfortable and adding little to my holding stability.

Yes, uncomfortable, that is the right word...

 

[ReinierB]

I'm not convinced that NL 8x42 or even SLC 8x56 is necessarily a preferred solution in very low light. I've done numerous back-to-back comparisons and - as far as I'm concerned - the extra magnification (and so higher 'twilight factor' of the 12x) ultimately results in more detail.

Yes, with the 12x42 you see more detail, but I would prefer an 8x42 or 10x42 in very low light, because the image is brighter and for that reason more comfortable/enjoyable imo.

 

[Maljunulo]

Threads like this make the voices in my head start up.

Until I remember why I got rid of my 10X42 EL SV. (weight and wobbles)

 

[rodneyAB]

Yes, uncomfortable, that is the right worth...

Over the past 3 years I've felt the fore head rest was a necessity with the 12x42. Not an uncomfortable item for me. Over the past two weeks since mounting the 12x42 on a monopod, the forehead rest is left at home, and not missing it. The eyecups now resting under eyebrow/upper eye socket can be uncomfortable after a bit, but due to mounting, I can alternate the viewing by not touching, not placing eye cups to eye socket,...much like with use of the FRP. Yesterday some great viewing of Circus hudsonius and Falco sparveris and a threesome of coyote

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

• I contend the headrest is more of a cumbersome and intrusive gimmick than it is a practical solution, especially if you work to optimise grip: and regularly wear hats.

I wear hats daily with the headrest and luckily without feeling uncomfortable etc...

 

[SuperDuty]

Hi , after each test I return the products, otherwise I would be a very rich man Unfortunately, I couldn't do a comparison and would have to go by memory. Have you read both articles and seen the USAF CHART tables of both?

From what I can tell, looking at your USAF chart results on the SRBC 12X50, and 12X42 NL Pure, you were able to resolve one line smaller/better with the SRBC than the NL with both mounted on a tripod, is that correct ?

 

[henry link]

From what I can tell, looking at your USAF chart results on the SRBC 12X50, and 12X42 NL Pure, you were able to resolve one line smaller/better with the SRBC than the NL with both mounted on a tripod, is that correct ?

I haven't seen Binomania's USAF 1951 results for SRBC 12x50, but the 12x42 NL Pure results are certainly wrong or mislabeled. I think the red arrows were probably intended to point at Group 0 and Group 1 rather than Group -2 and Group -1. As shown the results would be impossibly poor. However, if the labeling is corrected the results at 36x then become a bit too good (better than diffraction limited.)

I just noticed that Binomania's USAF chart measurements for the new Nikon 10x25 IS are also a bit too good to be true. In this case it's the complete impossibility of a human being resolving 5.89 arc second line pairs through a hand held 10x binocular. Something appears to be off with their chart or their methods. Perhaps their chart has been incorrectly sized or the 35 meter distance has been incorrectly measured. Some investigation is needed.

 

[Maljunulo]

We are fortunate to have you here Henry.

I hope things are improving for you.

Richard