Swarovski glare/flare is deliberate by design? A comparison with Leica (15 Viewers)

[james holdsworth]

Snow and frosted park this morning, took out both the EL and Noctivid as it was a good time to test glare resistance, considering that the sky and ground are both whited out!

If some of the posts are to be believed, there would be no image left to see in a swaro EL under such horrendous conditions... So vote away, which is which and what do you prefer.

1. View attachment 1483241 2. View attachment 1483242

Those conditions shouldn’t produce glare or VG for any binocular. I think you’ve misunderstood Henry’s post, IMO.

 

[kimmik]

Those conditions shouldn’t produce glare or VG for any binocular. I think you’ve misunderstood Henry’s post, IMO.

Describe what you'd like me to do and I will aim to post it.

 

[GrampaTom]

I vote bottom, pic w' 2 humans is EL

 

[Troubador]

I vote bottom, pic w' 2 humans is EL

I agree

Lee

 

[henry link]

Describe what you'd like me to do and I will aim to post it.

There's no guarantee that some stone won't be left unturned in setting up a glare test, but I'll make some suggestions.

First the image field in the photo should be dark, not flooded with light. A very bright image within the field will compete with the internally generated glare, making it less visible. Then there should be contrasting off-axis light outside the field, not necessarily extremely bright, but bright enough to excite whatever unbaffled interior reflections might be in the binocular.

Then the camera itself should have a large enough aperture to accept the full exit pupil of the binocular and a little wider area of the binocular interior outside the exit pupil because that is where glare originates in virtually every binocular. Few ,if any, smartphone camera apertures are that large, so in a smartphone image the glare will likely fall on the area next to the lens and not enter the camera at all.

My post #49 in this thread and the link within the post show some examples of glare producing internal reflections. Notice that I photograph the interior source of the glare, not the fuzzy defocused appearance of the glare that the eye sees when it looks through the binocular,

 

[kimmik]

In essence, look into shadows, while off centering your pupils/camera?

 

[henry link]

Yes to looking into shadows, while making certain that the off-axis glare producing light has a wide clear path into the binocular.

An off center camera lens or eye pupil is not such a good idea. That can expose interior reflections that would normally be blocked in well baffled binoculars (right example in the link in post #49.) Better to use a well centered camera lens with an aperture larger than the binocular exit pupil.

 

[Paultricounty]

We’d still like to know which is which 🤪

 

[kimmik]

We’d still like to know which is which 🤪

You guys got it spot on!

Second image is EL 8x32.

The shrubbery shadows on the EL photo are less black than Noctivid 8x42.

 

[crinklystarfish]

Those conditions shouldn’t produce glare or VG for any binocular...

Hallelujah!

 

[crinklystarfish]

In essence, look into shadows, while off centering your pupils/camera?

Panning whilst doing this will also usually 'help'.

 

[dries1]

Kimmik, Nice scenery, albeit a bit on the cold side. Thanks for taking the time. I am so weary of black circles on a white chalkboard.

 

[Grando]

Regarding baffle effects:

A baffle at the aperture is aka aperture stop.

A baffle at the focal point is aka field stop.

Any baffle in between is a vignette, and can be tightened to reduce stray light, or opened to reduce vignette.

My other thread on exit pupils and blackout has an experiment showing a tightened baffle on peripheral vignette.

Joining this thread late in the day, all I can say is that, I, at least, am baffled...

 

[Owlbarred]

I find this thought bemusing...... A product weakness or arguably even classed as a 'defect' in a high end optical product is spun as a positive selling point..... A very marketing manager way to present this 🙄😁

I would never consider a flame out of an aircraft engine as a viable method to stop a pilot exceeding the airframe max speed rating .... don't think that would be a good argument to the airworthiness authorities.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[kimmik]

Thats a pretty standard point of view. (Nothing interesting there, which is why i went the other way and analysed it as “what if this is deliberate”)

 

[tenex]

It was a good question.

Here's a complete contrast: we happened to be out yesterday with the sun quite low on the horizon, so thinking of innumerable threads here I deliberately set out to induce glare in my SLC HD 10x42: facing westward while viewing nearby scenery, then carefully raising the bin to a progressively more distant view, ending up scanning the now shaded slopes of the foothills just below the sun. These showed reduced contrast even with the naked eye due to atmospheric effects, but at no point (even there) did the SLC show a worse view. Whether the sun was just out of the field or at a greater angle, no detectable glare at all. (I wonder whether the later model would perform as well, having less internal baffling.) I've casually supposed before that any bin would show some glare under conditions which I've just previously avoided, but now I doubt that.

So of course Swarovski know how to deal with glare, and EL/NLs are striking a different balance. The only question is, in favor of what.