Quick update: I went to my local Cabela’s and was able to try out the one NL they had on display which was the 12x42. Now obviously it likely has a different optical design than the 10x32 but shares a similarly sized exit pupil of 3.5mm vs 3.2mm. In terms of eye placement, it surprisingly wasn’t that much better (still had to be deliberate in adjusting the IPD several times to avoid blackouts) than my SF which might be indicative of me just being extra picky earlier as I can usually avoid the blackouts fairly decently when not glancing to and around the field stop. The biggest improvement to me actually (besides the magnification) was a reduced rolling ball effect or barrel distortion, which I am pretty sensitive to when panning even in the Zeiss. That and the view being sharp to the very edge. In terms of glare, it was definitely present more in the NL as looking at some ceiling lights produced internal reflections and some mild lens flare effect that was not present at all in my SF. Also the focuser on the NL was probably at least 3 times as stiff (bad, even for a display model). Interestingly enough, if I get my hands on a 10x32 NL and decide to switch, at this point it will probably be due a reduced rolling ball effect more than a significantly noticeable improvement in eye placement…
-
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.
SF 10x32 vs NL 10x32 Blackouts (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter samp1800
- Start date
Hi Paul. I agree on some points you made. I am really enjoying reading the posts in BF and I believe up to now I have read couple thousands posts. What I noticed is the point of view of different members are vary by a big margins. As you mentioned, the age, facial structure, eye health (sometimes the stand they take) that all affect the opinions about optics. I noticed some members change their opinions with time or after having experience with more optics.
However, I am wondering do we really need a very scientific test here. Even, then what is the control group here? For that, use of technical evaluation is better than using a control group. Most of the times @henry link kindly provide those technical details.
However, no pool we use in real life shows the 100% accurate results. I believe inside the BF we should use the members as our pool. Because, inside the BF we always ask other person's personal opinions regardless of the scientific accuracy of them. Therefore, if we think that we can't take BF as a pool, there is no point to read posts in BF to get an idea about optics as well. On the other hand the results of the test that have done using 20-30 individual will not be applicable for BF members as the same reasons you have mentioned earlier (age, eye sight etc.)
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Agreed, I didn’t mean that the BF poll result should be dismissed. I was pertaining more to the fact that numbers could be off quite a bit for specific reasons that I touched on, i’m sure there are other reasons as well. As you had mentioned before there were many of us here that have some biased opinions also based on multiple reasons. Believe me , I definitely take the advice humbly (I know I don’t come across humble 🤪) of the optical rock stars here who have so much knowledge.
I/we in my business do some polls and we try to narrow down some areas where it can get skewed results, that’s why I opined a bit.
Paul
I think it is well established, although I can’t cite anything, that the results of a poll can be strongly influenced by the question format.
I offer this as a neutral statement, to establish that one must be very careful when writing, conducting, or interpreting a poll, lest the results be either meaningless or hopelessly biased.
@Paultricounty Hope, I didn't offend you in the previous comment. As you said the opinions of BF members vary by big margins. Therefore, I take the opinions of some of the BF members more seriously. Honestly, you are one of them. Maybe it is because of our thinking patterns or similarities in facial structure. Because of that reason, I always think if there is a field to fill in members' descriptions at least about age and vision (only if someone wishes to fill).
I am sorry for deviating from the main topic and here I stop this discussion.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Varaj, you didn’t offend at all, i hope my reply didn’t come off that I was offended. Sometimes without hearing the words put down on paper we miss the intent or meaning.
I just got off the phone with one of the knowledgeable longtime members here who lives in the states, we were discussing in detail the OP about blackouts on the NL’s. I might of missed some posts here so hope I’m not repeating anybody. Being that the EL32 is one of the easiest and most comfortable eye box binos and the fact the eye cups are almost the same as NL , the blackouts most likely are caused by ocular design. Maybe this was the trade off when pushing the envelope on the huge FOV.
Paul
You didn’t offend me at all.
I don’t have experience with NL 10x32. But, had blackouts with NL 8x42. However, after getting used to it and use with winged eyecups, I don’t experience it anymore.
If I buy one in 10x32 binocular format (sooner or later I am planing to buy one), it will be an NL because of its larger apparent field of view and Swarovskis well reputed after sell service. I hope NL 10x32 is sharper than Habicht on axis. Otherwise, Habicht 10x40 serves me well.
Hey look what just showed up today, listed by another member.
BNIB: Swarovski 10x32 NL Pure Binoculars
Last edited:
Viraj and Paul,
If memory serves the poll being discussed in #60 and the 2 quotes above, is this one, Poll: does NL glare depend on eyeglasses?.
I have a wee bit of experience with both statistical process control in manufacturing and market research polling from marketing, (albeit since I'm an old fart), both from a career now well in the past. I have a fair understanding of these tools. I am not claiming I should be teaching them to anyone.
I fear the term statistical significance has become popular and like a lot of things that go that way, the actual meaning tends to wander. You can read about it here, A Refresher on Statistical Significance.
It is doubtful the results of this poll should be thought of as statistically significant, for several reasons. First worldwide population is estimated at 7.7+ billion. How many millions own binoculars? Can 32 people represent what this rather larger cohort experiences with glare from any binocular?
Sample size can be small but other conditions need to be met, (see article above), when that is the case. What one is measuring - parts/dimensions or people's experience is relevant. What one is using to measure - questions or tools is critical. It’s hard to accurately measure the diameter of a hole with a 12” straight ruler. Maljunolo, is exactly correct. The sample here of 32 respondents might work if the questions were designed differently. As well though, it’d be better if the outcomes were more distinctly different, then these 4 sort of close responses - 28.1, 31.3, 25.0, 15.6. One doesn't need statistics if you grab a handful of 5 parts from a bin of say 25 and all measure exactly the same. The odds are good the rest are good. If those same 5 had a range in measurement, (depending), the confidence in what's in the rest of the bin goes down.
Respectfully though, as I enjoy hanging here at least between migrations, the real problem is something else. Birdforum's Binocular subgroup is probably the last place one should direct questions such as this if we really needed a reliable outcome.
Why?
The subject of glare has been controversially discussed in this quite closed community for years. Sides have been drawn. A few are ardent supporters, and cite personal experiments to prove its existence. Others just as enthusiastically say something like “I can't see it, therefore how can you say it exists?" It's not clear, reading the back and forth, that there is agreement as to what glare is. Is it a little crescent of light in the lower portion of the FOV? Is it some sort of veiling thing making the whole view cloudy? Some combination of those? Or is it environmental conditions, being blamed as a product of a binocular thing? Mostly, we don't know each other personally. We haven't stood in the same place, looking at the same conditions, through the same binoculars and shared what we each saw to be able to definitively say we all agree what it is. What if someone is not trained, comes here and reads a bit, then goes out and looks out over water on a sun shiny day and sees glare and thinks "Aha, these binos are bad?”
Im taking bets.
Based on the small sample, question construction, close responses, and biased pool, this is what can safely be said based of this survey.
28.1% of 32 Birdforum respondents use the NL without glasses, do not see glare
31.3% of 32 Birdforum respondents use the NL without glasses, do see glare
25.0% of 32 Birdfourm respondents use the NL with glasses, do not see glare
15.6% of 32 Birdforum respondents use the NL with glasses do see glare.
Thats it.
One BFer shortly after this survey occurred, made the statement in a different thread, 46% of “birders” see glare in Swarovski NLs, citing the survey as proof. Sorry, no. This limited questionnaire cannot be interpreted to produce that conclusion. It seems even a stretch to predict things like 46.9% of BF respondents when viewing through an NL binocular will see glare or 53% will not, based on this.
On top of this, the problem is that people who read this forum and answer to polls here are a extremely biased subsample of the binoculars users population.
And people with a problem are much more vocal on the Internet forums than those with none so this is another bias of such a poll.
And people with a problem are much more vocal on the Internet forums than those with none so this is another bias of such a poll.
Well documented and even taught in TQM circles. People, in general by any means, more readily complain than praise. Problem is and why companies like Swarovski, (not promoting - just citing well known example) take quick care of complaints, even seem to go overboard with liberal repair policies. In Philip Crosby's book "Quality is Free" the idea is discussed. External failures, stuff that goes wrong in customers hands are the worst, probably most expensive form of quality failure as not only is there the warranty repair or replacement cost, but reputations are damaged and subsequent sales to any who hear the complaint, are effected.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
That was exactly my point in my post, just said more eloquently. I didn’t even know that the poll was only 32 people, if I knew that I wouldn’t even have replied. I responded because I seen 47% and that riled me a bit. Is there glare in an NL, or any other pair of binoculars actually there? We are talking about optics here, and the human eye. One person might see glare, so then the glare is real to them, for another person looking through that same binocular , and not seeing any glare, there is no glare in that binocular. I’m not even going to try to comment as to what each individual considers glare.
If we wanted to find out a percentage of how many people see glare in any particular Binocular, we need to have perimeters with multiple demographics and reduce the bias the best we can. Then and only then will we be able to reach a reasonable consensus whether one optic or another exhibits more glare than another. That would be after we define what we’re calling glare.
Paul
tenex
reality-based
Please at least accurately report what others have said (or in this case assented to). The poll did not ask whether glare can be provoked in NL models, because glare can be provoked in any binocular; there was an implicit comparison here with "typical" models. And although the sample size was small, it does suggest that more (possibly twice as many) users may have a problem without eyeglasses as with, which is what I was most curious about. (I don't know enough about the optics involved to interpret such a result, and would be glad to have someone explain further.)
But sample size isn't the issue. Binoculars do not contain glare. All that really matters is whether you will have a glare problem with NLs, given your eyesight and usage, and enough complaints have been reported about NLs that you clearly need to test them for yourself. Case closed, a long time ago. Time to move on.
Last edited:
If those changes make you feel better I'm fine with that. I was responding to the use of the term statistical significance PM42, Viraj and Paul have been discussing and why the forum is not the best place to get a truly useful outcome for questions like these. Sample size is important, but in addition to the other things discussed, in that regard. For me and others, the case was not closed, witness the recent dialogue of last few days.
I also got the impression that I read mostly "I see no glare" or "I see glare, this is unacceptable".
It would be more interesting to try to understand how and why.
For instance, I've noticed:
It seems to me that it depends a lot on the angle between the binoculars and my line of view. As soon as the binoculars are slightly up (or my head slightly bowing with the binoculars level), I see some glare.
With some habit, I fix the position almost automatically and this is not a problem. And I'm ready to accept this because this is like blackouts: I get some at first with new binoculars but after a while, not at all. And whatever the tool I use, I'm ok with spending some time to get used to it.
Other people react differently and that's ok.
It would be more interesting to try to understand how and why.
For instance, I've noticed:
- I see no glare with my glasses on
- I see more without it
- I started using the headrest with the 8x32, not only the 8x42 and got more glare
It seems to me that it depends a lot on the angle between the binoculars and my line of view. As soon as the binoculars are slightly up (or my head slightly bowing with the binoculars level), I see some glare.
With some habit, I fix the position almost automatically and this is not a problem. And I'm ready to accept this because this is like blackouts: I get some at first with new binoculars but after a while, not at all. And whatever the tool I use, I'm ok with spending some time to get used to it.
Other people react differently and that's ok.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
It is a very interesting discussion, at least to me and a few others. I think I’ve read more posts about glare in NL’s than almost any other Binoculars , we could add the 8 x 30 Habicht here. Let us keep in mind that there are four, actually five NL’s, 8x, 10x, and 12x 32’s and 42’s, so there’s more potential for glare discussion as well as there could be a dog in the group provoking more NL glare discussion.
I know it’s been said before, but I really wonder is this an NL design issue or an NL design issue with most of the complaints from people in a certain age group.
Paul
tenex
reality-based
Changes make me feel better? What nonsense is this? I was simply correcting your carelessness in reporting the result of the poll, which moreover did not aspire to render any sort of definitive verdict on NLs, as you seem to imagine. So just forget bias, statistical relevance etc. It seems clear already from the number of complaints that NLs are more susceptible than average to glare. A prospective buyer needs to know and investigate that, and if they have such a problem (as not all users will), how they can learn to minimize or avoid it, and what eyeglasses might have to do with it. That's all.
Last edited:
Tenex,
I fear I failed at a goal, I assure you I had firmly in mind, as I wrote #69. I worked quite hard to try and avoid casting aspersions on your NL glare/eyeglass survey. Rather the intent, I put right up front with the 2 included quotes from PM42 and Viraj as well as the opening sentence, "Viraj and Paul, If memory serves the poll being discussed in #60 and the 2 quotes above, is this one, Poll: does NL glare depend on eyeglasses?" was to discuss how folks have been misquoting, drawing conclusions from the survey that are not statistically supportable. As well I wanted to provide an answer to the question specifically asked by Viraj. There was no intent to criticize your survey. For me it just happened to be the object/source of the conversation between these 3 and became part of a tricky conversation. I feel bad I did not do as good a job as i hoped separating these things, at least as far as you are concerned, witness your apparent reaction.
I agree it is a long piece, but this is not a simple subject, as imbedded as it is in the culture here at BF with this small group of bino fans. Ironically I suggest this sentence you wrote in #77 kind of makes the point as to how tricky this subject is, "It seems clear already from the number of complaints that NLs are more susceptible than average to glare." I was going there, you went here! As I have read it, I see more of a knee jerk response to the subject of NL Glare deriving from the often described history that used to be written of glare in ELs. Though that seems forgotten of late. As I read Holger, Canip, Roger's early reviews of NLs, each discussed glare in the NLs as something that was anticipated. Curious no? They weren't even out and about, yet glare was being discussed. Puzzling. As well, we have to acknowledge each concluded if it was there it was minor and manageable. Holger, even described the NL832 as "perfect." There has been one member who promoted EL glare, its fair to say incessantly, went away, came back promoting the NL832 (I think I recall specifically) as the ultimate birding bino, then changed his mind and started to promote glare in the NL.....again. My take is that NL glare is misunderstood. It is firmly embedded in the culture of BF. If we repeat something often enough, it becomes belief, if not fact. Those that own NLs do not report it as a thing of any significance. Mostly the reports are glowing.
So with irony dripping, here we are again writing about it as if its a thing! And I assure you my comments in 69 were not intending to go down this road yet again.
G'Tom
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Wow, glass, multiple lens groups, air spacing , prisms , sunlight and glare, hmmmm shocker 😟
We know who your talking about Tom, that person even put pictures up 🤪
Paul
tenex
reality-based
It was a simple poll, and I'm not hypersensitive about it; I just want it quoted properly if you're going to reference it, because I did put some thought into the wording of it after all.
Kindly list the general conclusions you think could be drawn with more robust statistics. Otherwise statistics are irrelevant.
What is tricky (or ironic) about this?
By whom, how?
Some do, some don't. What are you trying to accomplish with this "Mostly"?
You seem to enjoy being continually "puzzled" by all this and perpetuating confusion, I'm not sure why.
Last edited:
Similar threads
