• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

GPO HD 10x42 (1 Viewer)

Good on them, that is smart design!
Pesto, thank you for the information.
Do you happen to know the thread diameter needed? As my Canon 10x42 takes 52mm glare shields, that might be the size here as well.

It looks like the thread size is 52mm but I do not have a caliper to confirm that. I'll try to confirm that with GPO.///Peter
 
Steve:

I have had the 8x42 HD for several days. It is a seemingly superb glass. I will save comments for my review, but my initial response is ..."glare?...what glare?" I happen to agree with Pesto's comment that this is a hard binocular not to like. The focus is as good as there is on any binocular. You can both feel and hear the eye cups sort of thunk into position, where they will remain until you take the effort to move them.

Lee has also posted that the HD 8x42 has no glare issue, good to hear that you confirm that. The reason appears to be the larger EP of the 8x42: 5.25mm vs 4.2mm

Peter.
 
Last edited:
LOL. Nah the 8x42 is more than fine in this regard but I haven't tried a 10x like Peter. However I did notice that correct eye alignment was important.

Lee

As it is with most binoculars with a glare problem. Thats an admission in my book! :-O

David
 
As it is with most binoculars with a glare problem. Thats an admission in my book! :-O

David

Every so often I come across a comment that while perhaps not to the level of a full on epiphany, it at least comes close. David's comment is one of those. I don't think it should be viewed so much as an admission as it is the recognition of reality. There is always the argument of well controlled vs non well controlled glare. In my case the poorest glare control od any binocular I ever owned, and the reason I sold it and moved on is the second generation Vortex razor 8x42. The most glare free binocular in my experience is the Maven B2.

The reality here is that while there is ample due diligence in careful design to control glare, it can only go so far. What is left over is how the binocular fits any particular user. Things like eye relief, eye cup shape and diameter, size of the exit pupil, if there is unusual side light, to name but a few, can over ride design control. So in spite of me not being even able to induce glare in my B2, or having a binocular rendered useless by glare like the Razor, I have come to see the reality of glare being present for some in the B2, and absent in the Razor. How the thing fits a user face, hands, and eyes is as important as the design. Yet one more reason for trying it yourself, many things significant to any particular user may well over ride others.

Now I await for the post to pop by bubble!

Looking at the GPO, I see no place where there might be a surface to reflect light causing glare. Now that the sun is finally fully out, I'm off to look for glare in the GPO. ;)
 
I always try to hide the Sun behind a solid roof allowing for the drift of the Sun of about 1 diameter every two minutes, if looking for glare.

In Britain pollution and water vapour usually means it gets far too bright when nearing the Sun, whereas say in Switzerland the air can stay clear up to very close to the Sun.

Different binoculars of the same model, i.e. 8x42 and 10x42 often differ markedly regarding glare results.

Chosun.
A fist at arms length is between 8 and 10 degrees depending on whether someone is a boxer or tennis player etc or not.
First two knuckles 3 degrees.
Index finger about 1.5 degrees. I try not to use the next finger for measurement,
An outstretched hand at arms length about 23 degrees.
 
Are these of a similar lineage as the Vortex Intrepid HD (with they understanding that they would not be manufactured and inspected in the same factory)? Outwardly they look to be the same model with minor differences in armoring and such.
 
Are these of a similar lineage as the Vortex Intrepid HD (with they understanding that they would not be manufactured and inspected in the same factory)? Outwardly they look to be the same model with minor differences in armoring and such.
Yes the Intrepid HD looks very much the same as the GPO. I had not caught that one yet.
 
Steve,

You are right there can be numerous of sources of glare, but the most common I've seen are either shiny internal surfaces, which can form a partial or total halo around the exit pupil (a production problem). Or alternatively the spurious reflections we usually call false pupils if they encroach on the exit pupil (a design problem). As our pupils dilate in low light both are increasingly likely to interfere with the view and centering the view becomes increasingly more critical if problems are to be avoided. It's likely to be more problematic with the 4.2mm EP of 10x42 than the 5.25mm of an 8x42.

I believe the ELSV 8x32, for instance, is a false pupil problem, but Franks original complaint about the Nikon M7 8x30 was shiney surfaces (which I've not encountered). However, the M7, Kite Lynx, and I've read the Maven B3, also have false pupils just outside the EP, which I've found can often be avoided with care.

I'm just asking if Peter, and others if can do a bit of diagnosis to understand if it's a manufacturing glitch or a feature the design, and to what degree it can be avoided.

David
 
Are these of a similar lineage as the Vortex Intrepid HD (with they understanding that they would not be manufactured and inspected in the same factory)? Outwardly they look to be the same model with minor differences in armoring and such.

I see what you mean, but I didn't see a mention of the dual HD elements or the screw threads for filters. It might be an oversight in the description but on the other hand if could mean a different design?

David
 
Yes the Intrepid HD looks very much the same as the GPO. I had not caught that one yet.

I'd guess, based on the high praise here for the GPO, that a similarity between the Intrepid is only that, a similarity. I fooled around with the Intrepid for a couple of hours one day and was largely unimpressed. I thought the Viper HD was noticeably better.
 
I have had the 8x42 HD for several days. It is a seemingly superb glass. I will save comments for my review, but my initial response is ..."glare?...what glare?" I happen to agree with Pesto's comment that this is a hard binocular not to like. The focus is as good as there is on any binocular. You can both feel and hear the eye cups sort of thunk into position, where they will remain until you take the effort to move them.

I'm going to do a series of reviews on the "new guy in town binoculars" Since I got the GPO first, it will be up first.

Steve:

What branders will be represented ?

Jerry
 
Steve,

You are right there can be numerous of sources of glare, but the most common I've seen are either shiny internal surfaces, which can form a partial or total halo around the exit pupil (a production problem). Or alternatively the spurious reflections we usually call false pupils if they encroach on the exit pupil (a design problem). As our pupils dilate in low light both are increasingly likely to interfere with the view and centering the view becomes increasingly more critical if problems are to be avoided. It's likely to be more problematic with the 4.2mm EP of 10x42 than the 5.25mm of an 8x42.

I believe the ELSV 8x32, for instance, is a false pupil problem, but Franks original complaint about the Nikon M7 8x30 was shiney surfaces (which I've not encountered). However, the M7, Kite Lynx, and I've read the Maven B3, also have false pupils just outside the EP, which I've found can often be avoided with care.

I'm just asking if Peter, and others if can do a bit of diagnosis to understand if it's a manufacturing glitch or a feature the design, and to what degree it can be avoided.

David

David,

We are pretty much in agreement here. Yes, reflective surfaces are a problem. However, at a certain point, a point which it seems has certainly been reached here with the GPO HD is that reflective surfaces should no longer be an issue. So yes the EP diameter becomes more of an issue, as does eye relief. I guess I'm wondering at which point does due diligence in design and manufacture give over to personal physical differences,as I don't think the best design and QC will be able to rid all users of the same binocular of the glare problem.

So far the only real diagnosis I have done is to note the apparent total lack of reflective surfaces present in the GPO HD I have. The eye cups and eye cup extension seem just right for me, so placement is not an issue, probably significantly relating to my use.
 
I'm just asking if Peter, and others if can do a bit of diagnosis to understand if it's a manufacturing glitch or a feature the design, and to what degree it can be avoided.

David

David:

That's a very good question. IMO the glare control of the HD is quite similar to that of the SV 8x32, therefore I tend to believe it's a feature of the design. I discussed the glare issue of the SV 8x with engineers at Swaro, and was told that it's part of the design and they cannot do anything about it.
I want to be clear about this: the GPO HD is a very usable binocular, in normal use few will be bothered by glare in the 10x. However a careful observer will notice it, and after all GPO needs suggestions for the improvement of gen 2.....

Peter
 
One thing about the GPO HD that surprised me is the way it feels in the hand: it weighs about 840g (without rainguard & strap) but it feels well balanced and significantly lighter. I think this is due to weight distribution, similar to the SF. The wide well-padded GPO neck strap also makes it feel lighter around the neck.

Peter.
 
I'd guess, based on the high praise here for the GPO, that a similarity between the Intrepid is only that, a similarity. I fooled around with the Intrepid for a couple of hours one day and was largely unimpressed. I thought the Viper HD was noticeably better.

I see. I just noticed the passing resemblance when I was browsing Cabela's online. I didn't really look much more into it than that.

That is disappointing regarding the Intrepid, though, given I'm normally quite pleased with Vortex optics.
 
Regarding glare testing in any binocular.

A hemisphere has 20,000 sq deg (20,626).
Glare could come from 30 deg or even 45 deg off axis.
So one needs to examine 3,000 sq deg or more.
The source of the problem may be in an area of 10 sq. deg.
So one needs to examine 300 positions.

One needs to have the intensity of the source varied, say from Moon to Sun brightness. This is 7 illumination levels of 10x increasing intensity.

So 2,000 variables for each sample binocular.

In addition, there are the variables mentioned in this thread. exit pupil, eye pupil, IPD, eye position etc., so maybe 20,000 variables per binocular sample.

The above are of course approximations, but give an idea of the testing needed to get a full glare result.

One can get suggestions from reviewers, particularly about the central portion of the field.

I typically test the central 200 sq deg.

But the only way to know is to test a binocular yourself.
And samples vary, production varies over time etc.

I often use binoculars that have glare problems, but I like them overall.
 
Just a heads up, GPO is going to sponsor the Camera Land May Web give-away so make sure you enter.
We too have been getting some great feedback from folks reviewing the offerings from GPO and are excited to be offering their products.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top