Veiling glare: a bird club's unanimous verdict on my 8x32 EL FP (1 Viewer)

[Owlbarred]

Some glare 'solutions' for rifle scopes are available.
-- Monstrum Scope Sunshade: "The rubberized sleeve fits seamlessly on your scope providing relief from the sun"
Monstrum Flexible Fit Universal Scope Sunshade
-- Hi-Lux Sunshade" ...reduces unwanted glare and sun reflections off the objective lens."
Hi-Lux Rifle Scope Sunshade

A glare solution (ahem) for binoculars is on sale:
-- Binocular Sun Visor: "Perfect for bird watching, finding the ball on the green, or verifying the identity of a snake in your yard"
Sale $7.99 Was $19.99 Binocular Sun Visor

 

[Maljunulo]

It seems to me that, after all the discussion is over, whenever you have strong, off-axis light falling on the first surface of your objective, you are likely to have a problem.

How severe that problem is/will be will be discussed and argued endlessly here (with no real resolution) because evidently no two humans are quite the same, and binoculars vary.

 

[Owlbarred]

Well said.

 

[Tringa45]

reduces..............sun reflections off the objective lens."

Hi-Lux or any of their customers who regard that as a problem have been watching too many Hollywood films!

John

 

[brocknroller]

Sorry to hear that, but good to know. A case of If it sounds too good to be true.....

Canip (I always have to correct that username since spellcheck changes it to Catnip )is, of course, correct about DOF being the same for a given magnification, but what can vary significantly from bin to bin is the perception of depth, i.e., how far objects in the foreground appear to be from objects i the background.

Porros show are a better 3-D view vs. the same configuration roof due to the objectives being farther from each other than the EPs. It's closer to the stereoscopic view you see with your eyes.

Roofs, other on the hand, show a more compressed view where foreground objects and background objects seem closer together than you see with your eyes. To some people this doesn't matter.

But not all roofs are the equal in this regard. Those with field flatteners tend to compress the landscape more than roofs that have field curvature. Unfortunately, the Nikon 8x42 EDG II, though wonderful in every other way including its exeptional flare control, does not give a 3-D view equal to my other binoculars including other roofs. According to Tobias Meenle (did I get that right, tenex?, spellcheck changes spellings on me, including tenex to tenet) that is true even in the 7x42 EDG, which compared to the 7x42 UV HD, showed noticeably less perception of depth than the UV due to the former having field flatteners and the latter having field curvature (fall off in sharpness at the edge).

If you can deal with a view that looks somewhat like a painting, you can't beat the 8x42 EDG for sharp, sparkling images with excellent color rendition and flare control.

Here's what Tobias wrote:

Because, just as in the Swarovision, here comes one price to pay for the flat field. Despite superb contrast, images render space in a flat, compressed way, although not quite as flat as the Swarovision. The Ultravid 8x32 HD Plus - which has exactly the same stereo base as the EDG - blows the Nikon away in 3D rendering of space. Ouch, that really hurts in direct comparison.

It was even more painful to compare the 7x42 EDG to the Leica Ultravid HD Plus 7x42. The Leica drags you into a deep, naturally rendered space, while the Nikon flattens out everything. As my friend J. put it: With the Leica every branch is where it is supposed to be, whereas with the Nikon you are guessing what the branches postitions are...

greatestbinoculars: Nikon EDG 8x42 review

If that doesn't bother you, but the high price does, look for an EDG on the used market. It doesn't have a transferrable warranty (Nikon once had a No Fault policy, I miss those days), but if you buy a good sample, it will last for years, and if needs some tweaks down the road, you can send them to Corey Suddarth or another binocular repairperson, who generally charges less than Nikon for repairs.

Brock

 

[Paultricounty]

Canip (I always have to correct that username since spellcheck changes it to Catnip )is, of course, correct about DOF being the same for a given magnification, but what can vary significantly from bin to bin is the perception of depth, i.e., how far objects in the foreground appear to be from objects i the background.

Porros show are a better 3-D view vs. the same configuration roof due to the objectives being farther from each other than the EPs. It's closer to the stereoscopic view you see with your eyes.

Roofs, other on the hand, show a more compressed view where foreground objects and background objects seem closer together than you see with your eyes. To some people this doesn't matter.

But not all roofs are the equal in this regard. Those with field flatteners tend to compress the landscape more than roofs that have field curvature. Unfortunately, the Nikon 8x42 EDG II, though wonderful in every other way including its exeptional flare control, does not give a 3-D view equal to my other binoculars including other roofs. According to Tobias Meenle (did I get that right, tenex?, spellcheck changes spellings on me, including tenex to tenet) that is true even in the 7x42 EDG, which compared to the 7x42 UV HD, showed noticeably less perception of depth than the UV due to the former having field flatteners and the latter having field curvature (fall off in sharpness at the edge).

If you can deal with a view that looks somewhat like a painting, you can't beat the 8x42 EDG for sharp, sparkling images with excellent color rendition and flare control.

Here's what Tobias wrote:

Because, just as in the Swarovision, here comes one price to pay for the flat field. Despite superb contrast, images render space in a flat, compressed way, although not quite as flat as the Swarovision. The Ultravid 8x32 HD Plus - which has exactly the same stereo base as the EDG - blows the Nikon away in 3D rendering of space. Ouch, that really hurts in direct comparison.

It was even more painful to compare the 7x42 EDG to the Leica Ultravid HD Plus 7x42. The Leica drags you into a deep, naturally rendered space, while the Nikon flattens out everything. As my friend J. put it: With the Leica every branch is where it is supposed to be, whereas with the Nikon you are guessing what the branches postitions are...

greatestbinoculars: Nikon EDG 8x42 review

If that doesn't bother you, but the high price does, look for an EDG on the used market. It doesn't have a transferrable warranty (Nikon once had a No Fault policy, I miss those days), but if you buy a good sample, it will last for years, and if needs some tweaks down the road, you can send them to Corey Suddarth or another binocular repairperson, who generally charges less than Nikon for repairs.

Brock

I have all those binoculars except the 7x42 EDG, which I have used a few moths ago, but not in direct comparisons. I would agree that that Leica’s have a more immersive view/image than most binoculars that have field flatteners ( EDG, EL, SE to name a few) but not 3D effect. Your mixing up the two effects.

My observations in direct comparison, is there is nothing painful in the image of an EDG in comparison to an Ultravid , or any other high quality binoculars with field flatteners. It’s completely overblown and almost not even noticeable when using an EDG by itself without direct comparison of other like quality binos without the use of field flatteners.

Again the overly Orwellian allbinos reviews has struck another user 🤪.

Paul

 

[tenex]

Porros show are a better 3-D view vs. the same configuration roof due to the objectives being farther from each other than the EPs. It's closer to the stereoscopic view you see with your eyes.

Roofs, other on the hand, show a more compressed view where foreground objects and background objects seem closer together than you see with your eyes. To some people this doesn't matter.

But not all roofs are the equal in this regard. Those with field flatteners tend to compress the landscape more than roofs that have field curvature.

In what regard? Gushing about "3D" always make me wonder what people are on about, partly because some seem to be more struck by such perceptions than I am, and largely because they hopelessly confuse various effects. Stereoscopy and field curvature are two quite different things, and depth of field is a third. What do you imagine you're explaining here, and to whom?

According to Tobias Meenle (did I get that right, tenex?...

No, and this time I don't think we can blame the spell checker. (Which usually can be turned off.)

 

[brocknroller]

In what regard? Gushing about "3D" always make me wonder what people are on about, partly because some seem to be more struck by such perceptions than I am, and largely because they hopelessly confuse various effects. Stereoscopy and field curvature are two quite different things, and depth of field is a third. What do you imagine you're explaining here, and to whom?


No, and this time I don't think we can blame the spell checker. (Which usually can be turned off.)

Enough niggling and harassment! You are adding nothing to the conversation, just making personal attacks. I'm ignoring you.

 

[Paultricounty]

Enough niggling and harassment! You are adding nothing to the conversation, just making personal attacks. I'm ignoring you.

No Brock, Tenex is pointing out that your misunderstanding and or misrepresenting optical differences, and at the very least may be confusing some readers. I see no harassment in his post whatsoever. If that’s harassment they should see some of the PM’s you’ve sent me. 😂😜✌🏼. Toughen up a little buddy.

You need to read through Mr. Cooks book again. Then more of us will understand when you post something concerning the nuances of a specific optic.

🙏🏼

 

[Paultricounty]

No, they're not "just personal attacks"... so that's just what I was on the verge of deciding would be the best course myself. Done.

Maybe he has me on ignore as well. I’ll repost here so he can read it.

No Brock, Tenex is pointing out that your misunderstanding and or misrepresenting optical differences, and at the very least may be confusing some readers. I see no harassment in his post whatsoever. If that’s harassment they should see some of the PM’s you’ve sent me. 😂😜✌🏼. Toughen up a little buddy.

You need to read through Mr. Cooks book again. Then more of us will understand when you post something concerning the nuances of a specific optic.

🙏🏼

 

[A2GG]

In what regard? Gushing about "3D" always make me wonder what people are on about, partly because some seem to be more struck by such perceptions than I am, and largely because they hopelessly confuse various effects. Stereoscopy and field curvature are two quite different things, and depth of field is a third. What do you imagine you're explaining here, and to whom?

I read Brock’s post {#25) a few times and I don’t see where he conflated stereoscopy with field curvature. First he talks about the stereoscopy of porro prism binos vs roofs. Then he talks about separate optical properties in roof
prism binos where he mentions flat field vs binos with field curvature (no field flatteners).

 

[A2GG]

No Brock, Tenex is pointing out that your misunderstanding and or misrepresenting optical differences, and at the very least may be confusing some readers

If we’re talking about post 25 I don’t see optical differences being confused.

Think we may have a big misunderstanding here.

 

[murmeltier]

greatestbinoculars: 3D high fidelity and flat field

 

[tenex]

Let me try to clarify:

1. The issue raised in Owlbarred's post #7 was the apparently perennial misunderstanding that "depth of field" can vary among bins of the same magnification (dramatically, according to that reviewer). This misunderstanding was simply and directly debunked by Canip in #9, over two weeks ago. Brock's post 25 confuses the issue once again by also bringing in stereoscopy and field curvature as variable factors in a muddier concept called "perception of depth", despite this discussion not having involved comparison with Porro models, and field curvature being incapable of affecting "how far objects in the foreground appear to be from objects i[n] the background" (Brock's definition of "p.o.d.") which is actually a matter of relative size and perspective. (As to what Tobias is talking about with "3D" in cinematography, I think I see what could be called a "wider flatter" look to the woman's face in the Zeiss photo compared to Canikon in this link, but don't see how field flattening could be responsible. Is he confusing it with AMD? Perhaps her head is just turned a bit further to her right? And I don't see how the appearance of defocused flat(!) patterns in Tobias's own photos would affect depth perception through a binocular.) What discussions of "3D" badly need is greater clarity, not confused repetition of the same familiar stuff.

2. Bothering to spell someone's name correctly is a simple matter of respect.

 

[A2GG]

I only read from Brock’s post 25 down so I admit I’ve lost context provided by the previous posts.

Post 25 by itself isn’t confusing. To me it’s obvious he’s not talking about inherent DOF in binoculars which can be measured.
He’s talking about a ‘perception’ of depth by the observer and how field flatteners can give the impression of a more 2d or compressed image compared to binos with field curvature (no field flatteners) which can give the perception of slightly more depth (less compressed appearance). I’ve noticed this myself.

 

[Maljunulo]

I think this effect, like everything discussed and debated here, varies greatly between different individuals, each of whom perceives it in an individual way.

 

[tenex]

So here's the problem: simplistic "3D" claims like those casually repeated above by Brock remain somewhere in the grey area between folklore and myth, because (1) not everyone finds the view through "flat-field" binoculars unnaturally "flat", and (2) no one who thinks they do, ever manages to accurately describe specific visual cues related to field curvature that would create this impression.

(1) Many people here own ELs, NLs, and EDGs, but relatively few mention or agree with perceptions of overall "flatness", or call it a sacrifice they're willing to make for some other quality like edge sharpness. Most people just love the view through a bin like NL. I don't own a flat-field model myself but have tried several on various occasions, and never had such an impression much less was bothered by it.

(2) Even when someone makes a more specific observation like "With the Leica every branch is where it is supposed to be, whereas with the Nikon you are guessing what the branches postitions are", I just don't know what to think. I haven't noticed such a difference, and can't see any way it could be caused by modest curvature of the focal plane or absence thereof. (Even the AMD also typical of flat-field designs wouldn't explain it.) Field curvature is unnoticeable in the central field, most of those branches will be in focus or close to it anyway (in the 8 or 7x binoculars most here use), and depth cues involving relative size and perspective should remain unaffected.

Consequently, every time someone brings up this notion it goes around in circles for a bit and then fades away, until the next time when the performance repeats without further enlightenment.

 

[A2GG]

the image through all binoculars is ‘ flattened’ or less 3D and therefore less natural compared to the naked eyes. I remember in the beginning noticing this with one of my Leupold bins. Our eyes adjust to viewing through binoculars.

The difference between the images in binos with field flatteners and binos with no field flatteners is very subtle and isn’t noticed by lots of people perhaps because eyes are adjusted to viewing through binoculars in general.

Allbinos and some people here in the forum claim the Monarch HG doesn’t seem to actually have field flatteners. They’re looking only at the blurry edges of the field and finding some curvature there too. But it does indeed contain a field flattener as advertised on the bino itself. There aren’t any obvious bending lines in the image.

It’s striking to me now when I notice the flattened image; I’m never looking for it. Just last week I spotted a Song Sparrow singing on a pile of rocks near a construction site. Through the Nikon I noticed the pile of rocks looked very flat, 2 dimensional and just like a paper photo. It’s easier to notice the flat image looking at piles of mulch, maneuver, sand, rocks, etc.

 

[murmeltier]

Hume🍺 would say that the connection between field curvature and 3D effect is a matter of fact, not a relation of ideas.

 

[Bill Atwood]

Post 25 by itself isn’t confusing. To me it’s obvious he’s not talking about inherent DOF in binoculars which can be measured.
He’s talking about a ‘perception’ of depth by the observer and how field flatteners can give the impression of a more 2d or compressed image compared to binos with field curvature (no field flatteners) which can give the perception of slightly more depth (less compressed appearance). I’ve noticed this myself.

Generally believe bins with some field curvature to provide more pleasing, "living" image. I've never understood the obsession some have with having a flat image all the way to the edge. It's not an issue I've given much thought to until while comparing the 8x42NLs to 8x40 SFLs last fall I was viewing a ground hog about 150 yards distant on a mowed dam. When switching from the NLs to the SFLs I noticed a large weed stalk between me and the varmint that I'd not noticed with the NLs. Switching back to the NLs I could find the stalk, but it was much less obvious through the NLs.