Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure – High expectations, but twice disappointed. (1 Viewer)

[Ed T]

I never expected to receive a top-of-the-line product displaying the level of image distortion and chromatic aberrations seen in my Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure binoculars. See attached pictures and judge by yourself. Swarovski exchanged these binoculars for another set, but the second set also displays similar image distortion and chromatic aberrations. Could this be a compromise to achieve best overall design?

 

[BabyDov]

I do understand you being disappointed. I would be, too, if the Nl's I own, ever showed the CA your pictures show with yours. Is the CA you actually see with your own eyes looking through the Nl as bad as what your camera shows? In other words, could your camera lens be introducing any of the CA shown in the photos?

When you exchanged the first pair, did Swarovski offer any explanation for its defects? With the second pair also defective, were the two within the same bad batch? (That said, there should be no bad binoculars, let alone bad batches of Swarovskis.)

I hope you are more fortunate with a 3rd attempt, unless you are going to request a refund. Complaints of CA with the Nls or even with the Els are very few. Yet there are some. On the other hand, most reviewers couldn't detect any CA except for a tiny bit at the periphery. With mine, I can't detect any. That could be just me.

In any case, I wish you good luck with whatever you decide to do, especially if you are going to give the Nls a third try.

 

[Ed T]

The image distortion and chromatic aberrations seen with my own eyes are much more pronounced than what the IPhone camera was able to capture, perhaps due to difficulty of taking the pictures while handholding it.

Swarovski verified these observations at their US costumer service facility by using a separate set of 10x42 NL Pure binoculars and then they checked with their Headquarters in Austria and say that the binoculars meet specs and assures me that every product that leaves their facility is vetted for compliance.

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

The image distortion and chromatic aberrations seen with my own eyes are much more pronounced than what the IPhone camera was able to capture, perhaps due to difficulty of taking the pictures while handholding it.

Swarovski verified these observations at their US costumer service facility by using a separate set of 10x42 NL Pure binoculars and then they checked with their Headquarters in Austria and say that the binoculars meet specs and assures me that every product that leaves their facility is vetted for compliance.

I smell a rat!!

 

[BabyDov]

The image distortion and chromatic aberrations seen with my own eyes are much more pronounced than what the IPhone camera was able to capture, perhaps due to difficulty of taking the pictures while handholding it.

Swarovski verified these observations at their US costumer service facility by using a separate set of 10x42 NL Pure binoculars and then they checked with their Headquarters in Austria and say that the binoculars meet specs and assures me that every product that leaves their facility is vetted for compliance.

Are you saying that Swarovski verified that your samples of the 10x42 Nl were typical of other 10x42Nls? How could that possibly be what they are saying?
Wouldn't everone, who has an Nl, then be complaining?

Some complain about glare, but hardly anyone complains about CA. Something is wrong here. You can't have razor sharp optics with the Nl's while also having this degree of CA.

(In fact, I haven't seen that degree of CA, even with my Vortex Vipers, which cost a fraction of what the Nls cost.)

So is Swarovski telling you to just live with what they sent you? That is, is Swarovski telling you that the Nl you have is as good as an Nl gets? I hope not.

 

[ticl2184]

I do understand your disappointment. I would be, too, if the Nl's I own, ever showed the CA your pictures show with yours. Is the CA you actually see with your own eyes looking through the Nl as bad as what your camera shows? In other words, could your camera lens be introducing any of the CA shown in the photos?

When you exchanged the first pair, did Swarovski offer any explanation for its defects? With the second pair also defective, were the two within the same bad batch? (That said, there should be no bad binoculars, let alone bad batches of Swarovskis.)

I hope you are more fortunate with a 3rd attempt, unless you are going to request a refund. Complaints of CA with the Nls or even with the Els are very few. Yet there are some. On the other hand, most reviewers couldn't detect any CA except for a tiny bit at the periphery. With mine, I can't detect any. That could be just me.

In any case, I wish you good luck with whatever you decide to do, especially if you are going to give the Nls a third try.

The guy can see the CA with his own eyes mate..
Nothing to do with his camera ...

I sent my NL's back ....
Had 3 pairs. All a disaster. Dust inside. Excessive glare and kidney beaning .

Fact of the matter is that Swarovski launched them to early in the middle of of pandemic...


Cheers
Tim

 

[pbjosh]

I have 10x42 NLs. They are more glare prone than the 10x42 ELs they replace, no doubt. But they are not unusable or terrible as some people say. I see CA a bit more with them than with the ELs, perhaps. But under extreme circumstances. For the most part they are CA free.

I very very much like the optics of the NL 10x42. Not perfect but nothing is. My largest complaints are still the stupidly tight ocular cover and the Fieldpro strap attachments. They help your strap twist and add complexity.

 

[dries1]

"I sent my NL's back ....
Had 3 pairs. All a disaster. Dust inside. Excessive glare and kidney beaning" .

Maybe your face does not fit the Austrian glass.

"Fact of the matter is that Swarovski launched them to early in the middle of of pandemic..."

So you work for Swarovski, please.

 

[ticl2184]

I never expected to receive a top-of-the-line product displaying the level of image distortion and chromatic aberrations seen in my Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure binoculars. See attached pictures and judge by yourself. Swarovski exchanged these binoculars for another set, but the second set also displays similar image distortion and chromatic aberrations. Could this be a compromise to achieve best overall design?
View attachment 1398810

View attachment 1398811

Sent 3 pairs of NL's back ...

Disaster.
Excessive internal reflection and kidney beaning.
They launched them to early in the middle of pandemic.

Cheers
Tim

 

[pm42]

The guy can see the CA with his own eyes mate..

Had 3 pairs. All a disaster. Dust inside. Excessive glare and kidney beaning .

I have 2 pairs: no CA, no dust, no glare and no kidney beaning once I got used to them.

Fact of the matter is that Swarovski launched them to early in the middle of of pandemic...

This is your opinion. Mine is that whatever the product, one will always find people complaining about it on the Internet.

 

[BabyDov]

I probably need my cataract surgery done sooner, rather than later. Right now, I don't see glare and I don't see CA with either my 8x42Nl or my 12x42 Nl. Perhaps, I am just blind to all that. Of course, the problem after having that surgery might be that, then, I won't.

 

[Ed T]

Yes. Swarovski customer service says this is as good as it gets.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I have attached pictures of my observations. Please see them.
Swarovski customer service in the USA has verified the chromatic aberrations by using a different set of 10x42 NL Pure binoculars.
I am puzzled why other 10x42 NL Pure users don't see this chromatic aberrations. Three out of three binoculars display them.

 

[BabyDov]

The guy can see the CA with his own eyes mate..
Nothing to do with his camera ...


Tim

I need to get an IPhone if its camera can reduce CA coming from a binocular, instead of enhancing it. They must have some amazing lenses in it.

There are a few reviews on the web, where photos through the Nl's are posted. Occasionally one of these photos will show CA, which the reviewer says was introduced by the camera, and not by the binocular. Hopefully, he was telling the truth.

 

[ticl2184]

I have 2 pairs: no CA, no dust, no glare and no kidney beaning once I got used to them.


This is your opinion. Mine is that whatever the product, one will always find people complaining about it on the Internet.

Of course it's my opinion..
That's why it's called Birdforum. We Express our opinions .

Definition of forum:

"a meeting or medium where ideas and individuals views on a particular issue can be exchanged.


Cheers
Tim

 

[BabyDov]

Yes. Swarovski customer service says this is as good as it gets.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I have attached pictures of my observations. Please see them.
Swarovski customer service in the USA has verified the chromatic aberrations by using a different set of 10x42 NL Pure binoculars.
I am puzzled why other 10x42 NL Pure users don't see this chromatic aberrations. Three out of three binoculars display them.

Have you requested a refund?

 

[_Prism_]

I never expected to receive a top-of-the-line product displaying the level of image distortion and chromatic aberrations seen in my Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure binoculars. See attached pictures and judge by yourself. Swarovski exchanged these binoculars for another set, but the second set also displays similar image distortion and chromatic aberrations. Could this be a compromise to achieve best overall design?
View attachment 1398810

View attachment 1398811

Ed I recently tested 2 pairs of 10x42 NL's (separate occasions) against several other bins, including the SF's, the EL Field Pros, and the UVHD+.
As someone who dabbles in astrophotography, I'm very sensitive to CA and can share that I have unfortunately seen at least small quantities of it on every binocular I have ever tested. The NL's and SF's have the least amount of CA out of any binoculars I have ever tested - I only noticed it around the outer 10-20% (estimated) of the image circle.
I haven't had the opportunity to put the NL's through the true torture test of dark branches against bright white cloudy skies, but from my brief trials of them, they seemed to have CA under good control in the centre (like the SF's). In fact, the CA on them seemed low enough overall that I simply can't imagine it to be an issue for birding / terrestrial use.

 

[casscade]

I’m also yet to see a current binocular without CA on the outer edges, to be honest I’m not using the outer edges that often, as in almost never lol, so it’s a wash for me. Instead of saying it’s no big deal because it’s not for me personally, but, there’s always a but, when these companies decided to start charging what a small car cost things tend to change.

When they went to 3 and 4 grand for a binocular that’s not thermal or range finding it should be a literal 99% to perfect instrument, so I absolutely see why some that are ca sensitive would be aggravated, especially at that price. Funny that optics really haven’t improved much in 20 plus years imo other than a very few with bigger apparent fov’s and flat fields.

 

[henry link]

I've looked at the photos. I'm afraid I don't see any problem at all with either the binocular's lateral color correction or with how the "image distortion" has been managed.

At this point the OP seems to me to have unrealistically high expectations for lateral color correction at the edge of a very wide apparent field and doesn't appear to be acquainted yet with the unavoidable tradeoffs between rectilinear distortion and angular distortion.

Switching this binocular for another one won't change anything, because there's nothing wrong here. The lateral color is well corrected, not poorly corrected and the distortion profile is nicely handled, with just enough pincushion to tame the Globe Effect.

 

[GrampaTom]

Thanks Henry, I just figured out what we were looking at. Got it.

 

[james holdsworth]

CA seems to be such a personal observation, it almost doesn’t warrant debate unless accompanied by controlled tests like Henry’s.