NL Pure 10x42 or Canon 10x42. (1 Viewer)

[Elpha8888]

Hi there, wonderful forums and community firstly. My question is putting aside the ergonomics and all other qualities of these fine instruments can anyone who has owned or experienced both give their opinion on the immediate optical quality or wow factor between these two.
Many thanks.

 

[WimDel]

I have owned the Canon 10x42 for almost ten years and currently own the NL 10x42.

Canon:
+ clear and sharp image with great edge sharpness, wide field of view. Alpha grade quality.

+ image stabilisation gives you a steady, relaxed view which allows you to see more details.

- big and heavy, cumbersome. But built like a tank.

- I could not use the awkward eyecups, I had to turn them in fully to obtain a good view.

Swaro:
+ amazing image, pinsharp from edge to edge, crystal clear. Very wide field of view, immersive. Bigger wow factor than the Canon.

+ superb ergonomics, they really melt into your hands. No comparison...

- no image stabilisation…and the forehead rest is no substitute for real IS!

 

[Elpha8888]

Appreciate your experience and knowledge on these two WimDel, I hope to go soon and have a look through some NLs.
My initial feeling is towards the NLs but they are also twice the price, I've always been a fan of Canon binoculars having owned a couple of models and there is something magic when that button is pressed.
Im finding it hard to settle with any top quality glass now after owning a few these past years.
I have never owned a Swarovski apart from the compact.
That question of if you could only keep one?
Thanks again Wim.

 

[master5]

I had a Canon 10x42L, I would have left the NL 10x42!
Canon heavy, depends on batteries, the reliability of electronics is questionable, this model is almost 20 years old, it is not advisable to use it in the cold! This is my opinion! All the best!

 

[Stevenkelby]

Easy.

It depends on why you want to use binoculars in the first place.

Me, I use them primarily because I want to see more detail than I can with naked eyes.

There is no discussion, the Canon 10x42L absolutely destroys the nl pure 10x42 in terms of what you can actually see through them. No one can argue that, it's not subjective. You will see far more detail with the IS.

 

[Elpha8888]

Thank you Master and Steven for your comments, I use binoculars to try and replicate a feeling that was experienced as a young boy looking through his dads old Swift porros, it's hard to quantify what and how those binoculars made me feel looking across the sea or fields back then. I am still amazed by those Swifts even today.
I enjoy scanning the night sky and I am also now starting to open up to the world of birds (thanks to Leica) and also enjoy landscape use. The pleasure I get from this high quality glass is indeed in the detail and sparkle seen and the moments that only this quality can give.
As Steven has rightly said the Canon probably wipes the floor. The fact that the Canons are also a lot cheaper is probably where I should be heading first.
Thank you all.

 

[pm42]

As Steven has rightly said the Canon probably wipes the floor. The fact that the Canons are also a lot cheaper is probably where I should be heading first.

This is a matter of taste. I love the IS but tried several Canon binoculars, owned the 12x36 and 15x50 and I could never get used to the ergonomics, weight, handling and lack of wow effect optically.
So for me at least, it is an Leica, Zeiss or Swaro every day (and I happen to own one of each at least).

 

[Stevenkelby]

This is a matter of taste. I love the IS but tried several Canon binoculars, owned the 12x36 and 15x50 and I could never get used to the ergonomics, weight, handling and lack of wow effect optically.
So for me at least, it is an Leica, Zeiss or Swaro every day (and I happen to own one of each at least).

As I tried to make clear, optically, it's not a matter of taste ☺

In other areas yes, it's subjective and they can be criticised in terms of weight, ergonomics etc.

 

[WimDel]

That question of if you could only keep one?

For me definitely the NL, they are such a joy to use and I'm wowed every time I look through them. Yes lack of IS and steep price, but absolutely no regrets!

 

[limonabe]

There is no discussion, the Canon 10x42L absolutely destroys the nl pure 10x42 in terms of what you can actually see through them. No one can argue that, it's not subjective. You will see far more detail with the IS.

You’ve been able to compare the two side-by-side, Steven? Does the headrest of the NL provide no stabilisation at all to compare with the electronic IS of the Canon?

 

[Stevenkelby]

You’ve been able to compare the two side-by-side, Steven? Does the headrest of the NL provide no stabilisation at all to compare with the electronic IS of the Canon?

Yes I have and yes the headrest helps a lot but in my comparison I was still unable to read street signs that were easily read with the Canon.

On a tripod, the NL is optically superior to the Canon.

But handheld, there's no contest.

I certainly would not blame anyone for choosing the NL, if that's their preference. Beautiful glass. I just see more of what I'm looking at with the Canon.

 

[Maljunulo]

If the discussion is truly about "optics only" then all comparisons must be made from a tripod or other immovable rest, such as a railing.

Anything else introduces the effects of the IS.

I believe that the optics of the NL will prove to be superior, as the post #10 states.

 

[Stevenkelby]

If the discussion is truly about "optics only" then all comparisons must be made from a tripod or other immovable rest, such as a railing.

Anything else introduces the effects of the IS.

I believe that the optics of the NL will prove to be superior, as the post #10 states.

Did you read post #11 at all?

 

[AlanFrench]

Canon IS binoculars work fine in the winter, even in very cold weather. The secret is Lithium batteries.

My 12x36 were used for more than 16 years with no problems, and are still working for relatives after another 2 years. My wife's 10x30s have been fine for about 2 decades. No problems.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Maljunulo]

Did you read post #11 at all?

I think maybe I should have cited #11, or maybe I'm just confused.

 

[Hermann]

There is no discussion, the Canon 10x42L absolutely destroys the nl pure 10x42 in terms of what you can actually see through them. No one can argue that, it's not subjective. You will see far more detail with the IS.

Strongly seconded. You need to have the NL 10x42 on a good tripod to see as much detail with the Canon handheld.

Hermann

 

[kabsetz]

Thirded,

And not many of us use their binoculars in birding having them mounted on a tripod.
As Alan said, the IS also works in cold. I have used them in ca. -20 centigrade. Lithium or Eneloop X work fine.

The NL is a lovely binocular, arguably (and also in my opinion) the best of the non-stabilised binoculars. I call those Muggle binoculars, and they have their charm. I enjoy testing them, but don't intend to ever get a pair anymore. I'm holding on to my Nikon 10x42 SE for sentimental reasons, likewise my Leica 8x20 Ultravid, but use them very rarely.

But as soon as there is an IS binocular available that bests the Canon 10x42, I'll get it.

Kimmo