Which binocular design in general do you think controls glare better porro's or roof's? In my experience I have found porro's in general to control most types of glare better. For example, the Nikon 8x32 SE is one of the best binoculars I have used when it comes to lack of glare and the Nikon 8x30 EII is also very good at controlling glare. My Swarovski 8x32 SV although an excellent binocular optically is not the best at glare control and just lately I purchased a new Nikon 8x30 M7 and it is without a doubt the worst binocular I have ever used for glare. I have come to the conclusion that porro's are better for glare. What binoculars have you found that control glare well?
-
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.
Which control glare better porro's or roof's? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Here's a list of my findings of the bins I own, or have owned:
Zeiss Terra ED 8x42 is very good.
The latest Swarovski SLC 8x42 is very good.
The new Leica Trinovid is outstanding.
The Swarovski EL32SV is indeed below average for such an expensive bin
The Nikon M7 8x30 is not so good, although a bit of fiddling with eye position sometimes helps in a positive way.
The Vortex Raptor 6.5x32 is good as far as I can remember (have to check it again, it's the kids bino|:$|)
The Opticron Oregon4 8x32 is just plain horrible, and useless in most situations.
Haven't got a lot of experience with porros, so I can't really answer your question
Last edited:
Maybe Leica does a good job baffling their binoculars because my older Leica Trinovid's 8x32 BA are quite good at controlling glare also. I believe binoculars with a larger exit pupil like a 7x50 or 8x56 are more resistant to glare also. Have you ever noticed that? I had an 8x56 Zeiss FL once and it was almost glare free. Henry Link always said that also and that was a big reason he liked 8x56 binoculars. Something about the glare not reaching your eye with the big exit pupil. Your saying your two 42mm are very good at suppressing glare supports this.
henry link
Well-known member
The type of prism is irrelevant. Try using a magnifier to examine the interior through the eyepiece end under lighting conditions that produce glare. You'll see exactly where it's coming from.
Hi Henry... Can you elaborate some more? I'm wondering what makes the relatively inexpensive Blue Sky so good at handling glare, while more expensive designs handle glare poorly.
Dennis, I compared the Nikon 8x30 EII vs. Atlas Optics Intrepid ED 7x36 near sunset, and I give the the 7x36 a slight edge in handling glare, though not in all conditions.
I agree with Henry - prism type is irrelevant. Design and quality of manufacture is what matters.
Hands down the best binoculars for glare control I've used are the Zeiss Dialyt 7X42 B/GA T*P ClassiC and Dialyt 8X56 B/GA T*. Their glare control is better than that of any binocular vintage or modern I have including the Nikon 8x30 EII, 8x32 SE and 10x35 EII.
Hands down the best binoculars for glare control I've used are the Zeiss Dialyt 7X42 B/GA T*P ClassiC and Dialyt 8X56 B/GA T*. Their glare control is better than that of any binocular vintage or modern I have including the Nikon 8x30 EII, 8x32 SE and 10x35 EII.
Not sure but I think the major factors controlling glare (which I understand to mean internal and external reflected light degrading the view) are baffling, anti-reflective coatings, number of air/glass surfaces and eyecup design.
Here is a link to a previous thread on veiling glare and some comments on how exit pupil size controls it.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=302335
Last edited:
perterra
Well-known member
Where is the glare coming from?
How about listing three of the most glare free binoculars you have used.
The light source for glare must be strong and within 5-10 degrees of the FOV,'...sun, bright snow patch,
headlights at night, etc.
I agree. It really is a matter of design. Binoc makers had issues for a while but
rediscovered decent baffling and allowed a little more length. Setback of the
objective is the first key step.
(assuming glare is off-axis-light-caused-streaking-rings-or-blotches)
Best (least glare):
Swift 7x50 Skipper, circa 1970, (Porro)
Meopta Meopro 6.5x32, circa 2014, (Roof)
Vortex Diamondback 8x32, circa 2014 (Roof)
(and any of the 'featherweight 7x35s, 1950-1980)(Porros)
Worst:
Vortex Diamondback 8x32, circa 2012 (Roof)
Nikon 8x42 Aculon Circa 2011 (Porro)
Glare doesn't ruin most days:
it usually needs certain conditions.
There are lots of other good desgins.
In history, bad designs are rare, except in that bad era.
headlights at night, etc.
I agree. It really is a matter of design. Binoc makers had issues for a while but
rediscovered decent baffling and allowed a little more length. Setback of the
objective is the first key step.
(assuming glare is off-axis-light-caused-streaking-rings-or-blotches)
Best (least glare):
Swift 7x50 Skipper, circa 1970, (Porro)
Meopta Meopro 6.5x32, circa 2014, (Roof)
Vortex Diamondback 8x32, circa 2014 (Roof)
(and any of the 'featherweight 7x35s, 1950-1980)(Porros)
Worst:
Vortex Diamondback 8x32, circa 2012 (Roof)
Nikon 8x42 Aculon Circa 2011 (Porro)
Glare doesn't ruin most days:
it usually needs certain conditions.
There are lots of other good desgins.
In history, bad designs are rare, except in that bad era.
Last edited:
So it looks like the design makes little difference. Porro or roof can both be bad or good.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Interesting that the Vortex Diamondback 8x32 is both on your best and worst lists. Can you see what Vortex did internally to improve the glare control?
Given the inexpensive price of these bins, it can't be an expensive fix, something that Swaro could probably incorporate in its next production of 8x32 SV ELs without raising its price.
Brock
Yes, definitely...
The older ones had a simple matte-grey 2-step tunnel and a snubbed front,
like many binoculars, but then Vortex shifted to a two-stage,
ribbed, flat black tunnel and a decent set-back up front.
In other words, back to the future, bafflling just like Fujis circa 1950,
without the light-trap chamber of the featherlights.
I think for a while the mythology that supercoatings took care of all
contrast prevailed, and then the old baffling came back with a vengeance.
The front setback is the most important
part for the 'veiling glare'. It costs length or shortening the fl,
but it's worth it. I think the association of roofs with glare is simply
tied to going too far in making things short overall.
Hi-power + short-barrel is trouble.
The change in contrast and glare in just one year really put the
Diamondbacks back in the game.
If you have a model with glare or a higher grey level, a short hood
on the front can usually do wonders. A good example of using length and
setback to boost a lesser model's performance is the Nikon Prostaff 7S.
The saturation is awesome. If you're not hellbent to get the stubbiest pair,
there are great designs now.
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
I've already said most of what I have to say on this subject in the thread linked to above (and several others over the years), but I'll repeat this mantra once more: If you want to know where glare is coming from in your binocular use a magnifier to examine the interior through the eyepiece end under the conditions that produce the glare. I've suggested that many times, but for some reason even people who are interested in the problem don't seem to want to go to the trouble. If you try it you will see a ring or crescent of bright reflection near the edge of the objective. It always comes from an interior surface, never the glass. Move the magnifier around a bit and you'll see which interior surfaces are involved. Most of the time the kind of veiling glare being discussed here comes from the objective lens cell, occasionally from the focusing lens cell (if there is one) and while it could also come from the first prism aperture I haven't seen much of that in the real world. The problem is always a lack of properly sized and positioned internal baffles. That doesn't mean there aren't any baffles. The baffling may be elaborate, but still not properly sized and positioned.
In my experience exterior hoods are only effective against this kind of glare if they are quite long. The geometry of the situation is pretty simple. The bright lens cell reflection that causes veiling glare occurs on the opposite side of the lens from the offending light source, so a hood has to be long enough to shadow the opposite side of the lens from the source. If the problematic light source is 30º off-axis then the length of the hood needs to be about 1.5 times the objective diameter, if the light source is 15º off-axis the length of the hood needs to be about 3 times longer than the objective diameter.
perterra
Well-known member
That was kind of my point, depending on whether it was objective or ocular.
henry link
Well-known member
Sorry, I forgot about ocular reflections. If those come from internal surfaces within the ocular they will cause flaring in the black area outside the FOV, not as disturbing as glare within the FOV. Then there is the one case where glare can come from a glass surface, when a strong light source behind the observer reaches the eyepiece and reflects off the eyepiece glass into the eye.
