Swarovski NL 14x52 and SLC 15x56 - a brief comparison (4 Viewers)

[Canip]

Let me start with a question.

According to Swarovski‘s website, the diameter of the exit pupil in the 14x52 NL is 3.6 mm. Now, as this is a 14x52 binocular, the exit pupil should actually measure 3.7 mm (52 : 14 = 3.714286), right? So either of the two values 14 and 52 seems not exactly correct.

So, what‘s going on?

On my first encounter with the new NLs (First image of NL x52's!, posts # 24 and 33), I had measured an exit pupil of 3.5 mm on the then available sample, and measuring objective diameter and magnification, I had found to have a 14.6x51 binocular in my hand.

Measuring the exit pupil on my present sample, I get 3.6 mm, in line with Swarovski’s specs, and the objective diameter and magnification are 51 mm and 14.2x, respectively (I reconfirmed photographically the magnification to be roughly 5% lower than 15x). So this is a 14.2 x 51 NL Pure.

Am I too pedantic?? Yes, most likely.

That‘s also why I am still not a fan of the FieldPro system and the tightness of the eyecaps - I replaced them with generic no-brand eyecaps.
Understand why my wife sometimes thinks I should loosen up a bit?

Holding the two binoculars in hand, what strikes me more than the weight difference (with full gear, SLC 1‘320 g vs. NL 1‘164 g, or just over five ounces) is the difference in size and ergonomics. See pic 1. There may be different opinions about which of the two fits better in one‘s hand. For me, it‘s very clearly the NL.

On the other hand, the difference in AFOV appears larger than what might be expected. I had always enjoyed the 62 degrees AFOV of the SLC; just don‘t place it next to an NL and you won‘t miss anything. But if you then grab the NL, the term „widefield“ gets an entirely new meaning. I find the 70 degrees of the NL truly impressive and immersive.

But I am rather not going to repeat now what I had said in my earlier posts quoted above (second paragraph). For me, the more detailed inspection and usage of the NL since my review of mid June confirmed basically what I had said earlier.

But I re-examined things in light of the Rokslide review (Swarovski's NL Pure 14X52 vs SLC 15x56 Binocular Review), and below are my remarks regarding their findings.

Build quality
Matt Cashell of Rokslide finds the NL beats the SLC in “optical performance, build quality, and handheld performance”. I would agree with the first criterion (e.g. CA correction), but don’t know why the NL has a better build quality than the SLC, based on my samples.

Handheld useability?
Matt maintains that “high magnification binoculars are just not useable handheld for me. The magnified shake in the SLC 15x56 washes away the detail benefits of the increased magnification…but the NL is just different.”
Is it?
Matt mentions the trick with grasping the hat bill of the baseball cap to the top of the binocular and stabilizing the eyepieces with the thumbs. This, he says, got him a “fully useable handheld image for a short time. It was almost shocking.”
Did he try that trick (which, by the way, I have been using myself for many years) also with the SLC? I guess not, because if he had, he would have found that this method of holding the bino works actually better with the SLC than the NL, due to the different positions of the focus wheel. With the NL, the bill of the cap gets in the way, and focusing is odd. It works better with the SLC. Still, even this does not give you a fully useable handheld image in my opinion in either of the two binos, unless you don’t really want to see any fine detail, but then why use a high mag bino? For me, a 14x or 15x bino belongs mounted on a tripod, unless it has IS (I even mount 12x and 10x binos and, occasionally 8x – to those of you who find that ridiculous I recommend trying it once and you will be amazed at the difference it makes in detail recognition).
What about the headrest (available for all NL models)? Yes, it helps, but for me personally not more than the baseball cap trick just described and therefore not enough to forego tripod mounting. I will be interested to hear how other users feel about using the headrest.
Whether the different ergonomics help improve shake is perhaps a personal decision to be made by each user for him or herself. I clearly prefer the NL.

Magnification
Matt found that “the 14x52 NL Pure appeared to have more magnification than the 15x56 SLC“, and he wonders why. I can only think that the much wider AFOV caused that effect in Matt’s eyes. My measurements revealed that the SLC magnifies roughly 5% more than the NL, and that is what I feel when using the two binos.

CA / Color fringing
According to Rokslide, in the center of the image there is no CA in the NL and only a “tiny hint … in certain high contrast situations” in the SLC. At the edge of the field, “some minor fringing”, but notably less in the NL.
I agree with both findings. Here, the NL wins.

Contrast
Matt found in “deeper shadow areas” that the NL showed “rich colors with great differentiation among shades”, while he appreciated “the 15x56 SLC’s punchy contrast and vivid colors”. I found both binoculars show a very nice image with excellent contrast; perhaps my eyes are not as good as Matt’s, but I could not detect a substantial difference between the two binos (both the NL and SLC confirmed here how good they really are!).

“Resolution” (I think what’s meant in Rokslide’s review is “sharpness”)
For close range and using the USAF chart, Matt found that the NL resolved one smaller element than the SLC; in long-range testing, the NL “resolved one line better on the eye chart”. It seems that Matt did not use a booster for these tests.
Neither did I, and I did not use the USAF or an “eye chart “either.
What I did instead was observing some advertising signs, signposts, license plates and billboards at various distances, between about 20 and 80 meters, which I chose in such a way that the text and numbers were not immediately readable in either binocular. I then used either binocular alternatively to try and decipher some parts of the text and numbers. It took me quite a bit of time to do that, over several days and with different lighting conditions, but with the two binoculars always side-by-side. An example of a billboard that I used is shown in pic 3.
There were moments of doubt when I was not sure which bino showed more, and that’s when I stopped for a moment to let my eyes rest.
But overall, for my eyes the SLC showed just slightly more detail than the NL. It is well possible that this is due to the slightly (ca. 5%) higher magnification of the SLC, which would mean that the two binos are more or less of equal “sharpness”. This is not about declaring the SLC a winner and the NL a loser, but I think the SLC stands its ground very well in this discipline, and I cannot share Rokslide’s opinion that the NL is noticeably sharper.

Influence of atmospheric turbulence?
In Matt’s test, the NL seems to have “cut through the atmospheric disturbance (sic) better” than the SLC.
In my setup, I compared the two binoculars in a mixed alpine environment (see pic 4) and could again not find the NL ahead of the SLC in detail recognition over a very long distance (5-15 miles) in a slightly hazy and quite turbulent atmosphere.

Low light performance
According to the Rokslide review, “the two binoculars had similar general illumination performance”, but “the increased resolution benefit of the 14x52 NL Pure was maintained, or even more apparent, as the light faded.”
For me, both binoculars exhibit a substantially equal performance in low light; given the very slightly larger exit pupil of the SLC, anything else would have surprised me. But of course, I used my eyes and Matt used his, so his MMV.

So where does this leave me?

For me, the NL 14x52 (like the 10x52) is nothing less than superb. If you can – and want to – afford it, I am pretty sure you will be as impressed as I am. But the direct comparison with the big SLC showed me again (I seem to forget over time!) how good the SLC still is, even compared to the newest and best competition. For me, with the latest generation SLC (all sizes) Swarovski had already reached an excellence that is hard to improve. The NL has lots of arguments for it against the SLC, but the latter has no reason to hide in terms of optical performance.

fwiw Canip

P.S. Oh, did I not mention glare (nor did Rokslide)?
Well, this was – and is - a non-issue in my tests and in the usage of both the x52 NLs. I have serious trouble triggering glare in the big NLs; I am sure some users will see glare, but I am equally sure the NL’s can be handled glare-free.

 

[Richard D]

Thank you - your findings seem closer to what I would expect than those from Rokslide (but I appreciate much is subjective).

 

[Thotmosis]

Thanks Canip! Your picture of the Alps reminds me Haslital, is it taken somewhere in the neighborhood?
Der Querdenker….nice, food for thought.

 

[tenex]

Thank you. Some observers may be overeager to detect differences, and/or just not quite as critical or careful as others.

On my first encounter with the new NLs (First image of NL x52's!, posts # 24 and 33), I had measured an exit pupil of 3.5 mm on the then available sample, and measuring objective diameter and magnification, I had found to have a 14.6x51 binocular in my hand.
Measuring the exit pupil on my present sample, I get 3.6 mm, in line with Swarovski’s specs, and the objective diameter and magnification are 51 mm and 14.2x, respectively (I reconfirmed photographically the magnification to be roughly 5% lower than 15x). So this is a 14.2 x 51 NL Pure.

Someone has reported a Swarovski rep mentioning 14.4x, but surely that can't all be sample variation?

Still, even this does not give you a fully useable handheld image in my opinion in either of the two binos, unless you don’t really want to see any fine detail, but then why use a high mag bino? For me, a 14x or 15x bino belongs mounted on a tripod...

There's no denying the benefit of stabilization when available, all the more at higher magnification, but few birders will lug a tripod for bins, simply making do with handheld. This is what I do also at times with SLC 15x56, having determined that I see more detail at distance than with 10x, even if I'm not getting the full potential (of either!). This may be even a bit easier with the NL, although it won't suit everyone, and in my experience requires practice.

What I did instead was observing some advertising signs, signposts, license plates and billboards at various distances, between about 20 and 80 meters, which I chose in such a way that the text and numbers were not immediately readable in either binocular. I then used either binocular alternatively to try and decipher some parts of the text and numbers.

I wonder how this process may have been influenced in feedback by your gradual recognition of the text, recalling Binastro's mention of this sort of issue in astronomy. But it doesn't surprise me that you found no clear difference; SLC 56s are already optically excellent.

 

[Owlbarred]

Handheld useability?
...
For me, a 14x or 15x bino belongs mounted on a tripod, unless it has IS (I even mount 12x and 10x binos and, occasionally 8x – to those of you who find that ridiculous I recommend trying it once and you will be amazed at the difference it makes in detail recognition).
What about the headrest (available for all NL models)? Yes, it helps, but for me personally not more than the baseball cap trick just described and therefore not enough to forego tripod mounting. I will be interested to hear how other users feel about using the headrest.
Whether the different ergonomics help improve shake is perhaps a personal decision to be made by each user for him or herself. I clearly prefer the NL.

Amen. Well said paragraph esp. re: the need for a tripod with the tested binoculars. Not even Superman can hold a 15x binocular (i.e., Swaro SLC) steady, esp. one that weighs 1,199 g (42.3 oz.).

 

[Canip]

Your picture of the Alps reminds me Haslital, is it taken somewhere in the neighborhood?

Yes, Beatenberg (30 miles from Haslital).

 

[Canip]

I wonder how this process may have been influenced in feedback by your gradual recognition of the text…

Good point! I tried frequent change of targets to reduce that risk and alternating the binos when starting to read a new sign, but it‘s an issue.

 

[NDhunter]

Canip:
You have done a very good review of these 2 binoculars. I like it and also Matt's review, he probably has way
more hours behind a 15X binocular than most on this forum.
I think you pointed out some fine points, and for some reviewers, testing a new binocular is like a kid in a candy
store, and that is not you. It seems the NL does that to people.
Jerry

 

[Patudo]

Adding my voice to those who have thanked Canip for his efforts. I think we could all anticipate what the Rokslide guy would not be saying - that the SLC was so close to the NL that there was no need to buy the NL ... But the review written up by a "content creator" given the latest-greatest product to try will never be quite the same as one from someone who has bought it with his own money. Note: I'm not saying it will necessarily be less accurate, as we all know owners whose view of their equipment is rose-tinted - just different.

I've tried the NL 14x52 for, admittedly, only a fairly short time and the headrest does work for me, as it does with all the other models but the higher you go in mag the more it helps. If you can use the binoculars from a seated position and brace your elbows on your knees, that in conjunction with the headrest will make the NL more usable than one might think handheld. It won't show its capabilities to the same extent as if it were tripod-mounted, but you will get more from it than the 15x56 SLC (unless you have hands like a yeti). I think where the NL undoubtedly beats the SLC is ergonomics, but everyone will have his/her opinion on whether that's worth the price differential.

 

[tenex]

but everyone will have his/her opinion on whether that's worth the price differential

Worth it, hmm... at some point, not sure where exactly but NL has definitely crossed the line, one has to suspect that the price is arbitrary, merely based on estimation of what the market may bear -- a suspicion only reinforced by the recent reduction. A person accustomed to buying Balenciaga or Hermés might feel more comfortable with that than one who thinks in terms of what they get for their money.

 

[Maljunulo]

The very term "content creator" makes me gag.

As for "worth it" if you want it and can afford it, buy it.

If you don't or can't, don't denigrate it, or carry on about something "down market" claiming that it is as good, because it most likely isn't.

If you can't tell the difference, that is another matter entirely.

 

[Hermann]

My take is that the Rockslide guy was a victim of confirmation bias. After all, the NL is the latest and greatest, it just had to be better than thas "old" SLC. So he reported what he thought he saw.

Hermann

 

[Maljunulo]

The whole purpose of what we do here is to find a way to see better.

Therefore, the glass which makes us think we can see better will be evaluated as superior to the one which does not.

Aberrations, distortion, and so on, are interesting, fun and educational, and making a good measurement is extremely satisfying. Irrespective of all this is "Does it help me see better?" is still the fundamental question.

Unfortunately, helping us see better is expensive,and more so the better we see.

There is also the elephant in the room ..... "Does my vision permit me to actually see the difference?" This is very seldom discussed here.

So the discussion goes 'round and 'round, and seldom is anything resolved, but it's fun, and once in a while we learn something.

 

[Canip]

There is also the elephant in the room ..... "Does my vision permit me to actually see the difference?" This is very seldom discussed here.

Good point!
And it goes even further: did Matt at Rokslide see differences that I didn’t see, or did he only think he saw them?

Did I not see the differences Matt saw because I had my doubts from the beginnning that there were any such differences, so I then couldn’t see them?

Did Matt „want“ to see the differences since the NL is new on the market and Swarovski is a Rokslide sponsor (according to the Rokslide website)?

Was I too „negative“ about the NL because Swarovski hasn‘t been sponsoring me?

And so on, ad libitum … as you say, fun!

 

[kabsetz]

I still think it is possible that Matt reported accurately what he saw if he had a cherry NL and a subpar SLC.
At the same time, I'm sure that you, Canip, accurately report what you see, and what you see is consistent with what I would expect with an experienced and honest reviewer viewing with good samples of each binoculars.

I have been heavily summer-vacationing for a while, and have not given much time to binoculars or telescopes. Only this week have I handled a sample of each of these new 52 mm NL's. No testing yet, but especially the 10x model felt and looked superb. With the 14x, I viewed outside on the yard of a shop for a while. The image looks good but as a Canon user, the shake was way much for me. I tried reading a text on a licence plate a ways off, which looked like I should be able to read it but wasn't fully, could guess the beginning and pretty much know the end, but was unsure of what it said. Since I had my 10x42 L IS with, I tried that too, and with IS engaged could be sure of the first three letters and the ending, but still not confident about the whole word. So this one short and non-methodical test indicated that this hand-held 14x would give me roughly the same amount of detail retrieval than my Canon at 10x, but needing more time and feeling much more awkward. Had I tripod-mounted the NL, I could have read the text easily. With the Canon, perhaps, but with more difficulty and needing more time.

If I do more testing of these, I'll tell more.

 

[Patudo]

hand-held 14x would give me roughly the same amount of detail retrieval than my Canon at 10x, but needing more time and feeling much more awkward. Had I tripod-mounted the NL, I could have read the text easily.

now it'd be interesting to know the extent to which (1) being able to brace your elbows, and (2) the headrest improves things with the 14x52. I'm fortunate to most times be able to do (1).

For what it's worth I thought the 10x52 was intimidatingly good, too. Unfortunate (or, my wallet says maybe not) they didn't see fit to produce a 12x52.

 

[PatR]

now it'd be interesting to know the extent to which (1) being able to brace your elbows, and (2) the headrest improves things with the 14x52. I'm fortunate to most times be able to do (1).

For what it's worth I thought the 10x52 was intimidatingly good, too. Unfortunate (or, my wallet says maybe not) they didn't see fit to produce a 12x52.

Tried both at the weekend, headrest fitted and used my Tilley brimmed sunhat. 10x fine (I have the 10x42 Pure and removed and fitted my headrest to both) but the 14x, even when adopting a well braced position, was impossible to keep steady.

Now I am 73 so youngsters may differ!

But it saved me a lot of money as the difference between my 10x42 and the x52 was not worth taking a hit on p/ex prices and the 14x would have to be mono/tripod mounted, just like my Meopta 15x56 using an Aziak mounting bracket and which is, to my eyes, a quite superb pair of bino's.

Both are optical marvels but I will pass on both. For the moment.

 

[Tringa45]

but you will get more from it than the 15x56 SLC (unless you have hands like a yeti). I think where the NL undoubtedly beats the SLC is ergonomics, but everyone will have his/her opinion on whether that's worth the price differential.

If I may add a triviality, the day after the first long outing with my 8x56 SLC I had gout-like pains in my thumb joints.
I have since adopted the (US Navy?) grip that was recommended here many years ago with fingers in front of the strap lugs and thumbs behind pointing upwards. It's very comfortable and, apart from weight differences, any binocular feels much like another.

John

 

[tenex]

I have since adopted the (US Navy?) grip that was recommended here many years ago with fingers in front of the strap lugs and thumbs behind pointing upwards

SLC 56 really can't be held like a smaller bin, between fingers and thumbs; it needs more support. I've recommended an inward rotation of palms to barrels so the palm/heel can offer support, which also aligns with the thumb indentations so it may be what Swaro had in mind. If that's undesirable for some reason, thumbs could also be pointed up as you describe, but not in my hand position (the focuser would be unreachable), so thumbs have to go behind the lugs and hands closer to the face than I'd expect, though that does seem a good steady hold too. Anyway, handling NL is surely more familiar, but SLC isn't actually difficult, just a bit different. I wouldn't take a reviewer's word on handholdability who had just borrowed an SLC.

 

[Maljunulo]

I owned a Fujinon FMT-SX 16X70 for a while.

I could handhold it only for the briefest moments, and mostly used it rested over a partially lowered car window.

It certainly sounds to me as if the 14X NL would be about as different as you could get.

The Fujinon is not for folks whose eyes are close together. The ocular housings are large, and you will have trouble fitting your beak between them. (even if your beak is rather modest in size)