Swarovski glare/flare is deliberate by design? A comparison with Leica (1 Viewer)

[kimmik]

This has probably crossed many people's mind as well, why would a premium maker of optics seemingly suffer such a basic flaw. All it takes, is blackening of the optical edges, and tightened baffles to be practically glare-free. Leica does this to perfection as part of their signature look, contrasty with saturated colour reproduction.

Studying the Noctivid and EL internals with a torch and laser, side by side, there are some critical clues on why Swarovski differs glare resistance.

Noctivid - All elements and prism sides are blacked to the maximum. There is only faint non-image-forming-light around the exit pupil, allowing exceptional contrast right till the moment the sun enters the FOV. One could consider this ideal.

EL - The clue is found by studying the sources of glare, as you bring a point light source from 90 degrees above, gradually into the FOV.
90degrees - the objective recess stops all glare
60degrees - faint ring of light arises from the objective element edges
30degrees - brighter ring of light arises from the focusing element edges
15degrees - even brighter reflections arise from the first prism element sides
5degrees - this last reflection is very interesting, it is the second prism element sides, and one would expect it to be as bright as the first prism element's sides, but they are distinctly different. The second prism has sides that are far darker than the first, and comparing side by side with the Leica, they look of similar reflectivity, while the first prism sides are distinctly more reflective than Leica.

So clearly Swarovski has the knowhow to blacken prism sides like Leica, but chose to do so only on the second prism element. The first prism element is blackened with a more greyish paint instead, which I conclude is deliberate by design, for the very purpose of inducing glare when light source is within about 15degrees of the visual axis.

The stepwise glare progression, is 1. a reasonable safety mechanism to warn of impending sun-in-view, 2. may also give a global sensation of brightness, when looking in the direction of bright light. Whether this impairs or improves detail in shadows, I will make further tests. It doesn't affect image highlights of course.

Looking next into the SLC 56, another clue can be seen, that the focusing element has not only non-blackened ground glass edges, but ground glass extended onto the optical surface. If this is not deliberately trying to induce glare, I dont know what it could be for!

 

[kimmik]

This is the ring's appearance when hit by a laser. It cleanly illuminates the entire ring even when lit at a single spot, and makes diffuse scatter into the prism. Pretty cool trick.

 

[kimmik]

Ruminating further on the differences of Leica and Swaro, it is almost as if Swaro is trying to be the anti-Leica.

When Leica goes double bridge, Swaro goes single.
When leica has crushed blacks, swaro has flares and glares when sun is close
Curved field vs flat field.
Pincushion vs rectilinear.
Red dot vs green armour.
Short eye relief vs long eye relief.
Warm image tones vs cool image tones.
Vignetted periphery vs bright full field.

A few more:
Roof prism section at front vs roof section at back.
Smooth skin vs rough skin.
Name logo vs picture logo.
Integrated dioptre vs separate dioptre.

 

[tenex]

If this is not deliberately trying to induce glare, I dont know what it could be for!

Very interesting suggestion... though I have to say I've never noticed a glare problem in my SLC 42/56s, provoked either by the sun itself (which I am careful to avoid) or reflections off water etc. Just this afternoon I was observing in the direction of the setting sun without effect. I have not tried flashlights or lasers.

The previously advanced glare theory is that the ability to roam and benefit from the entire field without blackouts in ELs involved the sacrifice of some baffling. Have you compared Leica's to Swaro's?

 

[rodneyAB]

just yesterday i was standing on a levee overlooking six hundred acres of wetlands observing the course and movements of a Northern Harrier as it circuited it's domain. off in the distant far edge of the wetlands, at the far range of the NL12x, where atmospherics interfered, the Harrier was smoothly defining my view, and as it came back around in close, swooping, lifting, hovering, sailing on over there and back at me, what a beautiful bird....and damnit...if Swarovski designed glare and flare into this optic I have yet again completely missed it...i mean..why would i look for glare?...the NL12x is the perfect Swarovski optic for me. fitted with the FRP, a right hand strap, oculars rolled in, right hand on the perfectly shaped barrel, finger on focuser, left hand thumb on jaw, index finger on capped strap button, small finger on distal barrel,...a flexible stance, and great viewing as the low angle sun rose somewhere off to the left behind me

 

[PeterPS]

This has probably crossed many people's mind as well, why would a premium maker of optics seemingly suffer such a basic flaw. All it takes, is blackening of the optical edges, and tightened baffles to be practically glare-free. Leica does this to perfection as part of their signature look, contrasty with saturated colour reproduction.

Studying the Noctivid and EL internals with a torch and laser, side by side, there are some critical clues on why Swarovski differs glare resistance.

Noctivid - All elements and prism sides are blacked to the maximum. There is only faint non-image-forming-light around the exit pupil, allowing exceptional contrast right till the moment the sun enters the FOV. One could consider this ideal.

EL - The clue is found by studying the sources of glare, as you bring a point light source from 90 degrees above, gradually into the FOV.
90degrees - the objective recess stops all glare
60degrees - faint ring of light arises from the objective element edges
30degrees - brighter ring of light arises from the focusing element edges
15degrees - even brighter reflections arise from the first prism element sides
5degrees - this last reflection is very interesting, it is the second prism element sides, and one would expect it to be as bright as the first prism element's sides, but they are distinctly different. The second prism has sides that are far darker than the first, and comparing side by side with the Leica, they look of similar reflectivity, while the first prism sides are distinctly more reflective than Leica.

So clearly Swarovski has the knowhow to blacken prism sides like Leica, but chose to do so only on the second prism element. The first prism element is blackened with a more greyish paint instead, which I conclude is deliberate by design, for the very purpose of inducing glare when light source is within about 15degrees of the visual axis.

The stepwise glare progression, is 1. a reasonable safety mechanism to warn of impending sun-in-view, 2. may also give a global sensation of brightness, when looking in the direction of bright light. Whether this impairs or improves detail in shadows, I will make further tests. It doesn't affect image highlights of course.

Looking next into the SLC 56, another clue can be seen, that the focusing element has not only non-blackened ground glass edges, but ground glass extended onto the optical surface. If this is not deliberately trying to induce glare, I dont know what it could be for!

View attachment 1480693

Great analysis and comparison. You have finally seen.... the light.

 

[PeterPS]

if Swarovski designed glare and flare into this optic I have yet again completely missed it... oculars rolled in.....great viewing as the low angle sun rose somewhere off to the left behind me.

that's why you missed it.

 

[Troubador]

I am thinking that the glare could be a 'health and safety' strategy. As the glare increases and spoils the view the user will probably stop pointing the binos in this direction and by doing this avoid looking too close to the sun.

Lee

 

[kimmik]

roam and benefit from the entire field without blackouts in ELs involved the sacrifice of some baffling. Have you compared Leica's to Swaro's?

The biggest baffle difference was at the intra prism baffle, which was very tight in the Noctivid. This is so tight that much tighter would have started to reduce the FOV. The effects of this are:
1. Excellent stray light control
2. peripheral vignette/darkening, leading to a nice framing of the subject
3. But overall a dimmer image

The EL 8x32 prism baffle is on the other hand as open as possible, almost touching the prism edges:
1. Bright image across the entire field. In dim light, the periphery was actually brighter than noctivid 8x42, though center was a little dimmer. The round pupil extends almost to the edge, where the noctivid has highly almond shaped pupil.
2. Some internal reflections and glare get through.
3. It indeed feels like a compact 42, and noticeably brighter than my nikon monarch 7 8x30.

 

[William Lewis]

And let's face it glare is a facet of a view naked eye in the sun's general direction so it's not a realistic vista if its removed entirely and does have a certain pleasant aesthetic.

On the other hand as a tool for identifying birds less glare is helpful when viewing towards the sun and as Kimmik and Troubador rightly point out is clearly a design choice as well as a useful safety feature. I particularly like the method Kimmik's unearthed in the SLC to stop you getting too close to the sun without compromising glare in the sun's general direction - the SLC's continue to suprise and delight.

That old personal preference thing again!

 

[corvid-8]

I find the whole thing "BAFFLING"

 

[William Lewis]

In addition Swarovski have clearly known how to combat glare effectively for 70 odd years - the habicht 7x42 shows virtually none with its ancient design.

 

[exup]

I am thinking that the glare could be a 'health and safety' strategy. As the glare increases and spoils the view the user will probably stop pointing the binos in this direction and by doing this avoid looking too close to the sun.

Lee

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.

 

[henry link]

And let's face it glare is a facet of a view naked eye in the sun's general direction so it's not a realistic vista if its removed entirely and does have a certain pleasant aesthetic.

I agree that glare coming from the objects being viewed in front of a binocular is part of the "realistic vista", but the same can't be said for reflections that form inside the binocular from the bright edges of internal parts.

 

[William Lewis]

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.

Well I suppose as Henry's pointed out, within reason, i.e providing it's not caused by optical error (e.g the habicht 8x30 prism leak) and is a matter of deliberate optical design my thought would be it leaves it to a decision of preference and depends on the users purpose.

My personal preference is for very little glare.

 

[exup]

Well I suppose as Henry's pointed out, within reason, i.e providing it's not caused by optical error (e.g the habicht 8x30 prism leak) and is a matter of deliberate optical design my thought would be it leaves it to a decision of preference and depends on the users purpose.

My personal preference is for very little glare.

I have a £20 bin that is surprisingly good, but suffers from glare / EOFB.....

If I decided to buy an Swaro NL Pure at £2500, I would be 'more than annoyed' if it displayed a basic and fundamental failing that many £150 bins don't.

I respect Neill English reviews ...... down to earth, real life assessment of how bins perform......he always assesses glare as the first test. IMHO Any bin that is classed as high end should not have glare and reflections due to lack of suppression of internal components.

 

[William Lewis]

I have a £20 bin that is surprisingly good, but suffers from glare / EOFB.....

If I decided to buy an Swaro NL Pure at £2500, I would be 'more than annoyed' if it displayed a basic and fundamental failing that many £150 bins don't.

I respect Neill English reviews ...... down to earth, real life assessment of how bins perform......he always assesses glare as the first test. IMHO Any bin that is classed as high end should not have glare and reflections due to lack of suppression of internal components.

As a point of perspective.

I believe we both have the opticron srga 8x32. The level of glare control in that binocular we're both familiar with is not bad at all - which given the un painted interior section, shiny metal parts and visible glue (!) is impressive but the level of glare control in the SLC 8x56 is much better with scarcely any visible until the sun is just about to enter the Fov. So, yes, there may possibly be some glare designed into the optical system of the SLC but it is much less than the unintentional glare induced in the srga (a binocular I really like and use a lot) due to its simpler design and construction to meet it's price point.

I don't want to engage too thoroughly though lest a Paul Vs exup style debate ensue and have tried to stay away from any discussions on glare up till now, I just found Kimmik's analysis interesting as well as everyone else's input.

 

[Scott98]

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

My thoughts exactly...."intentional" defect - a bit fanciful isn't it? You know you're a fanboy/homer when you start seeing flaws as features....we're all guilty of it at times. What did Orwell call this? "Doublethink"?? My guess would be that Swarovski screws things up at times, or makes compromises to save money, just like everybody else.

I think initial production startup and tooling costs are very expensive, it's hard for bino-makers to address flaws once the design is set and in production. This is why Zeiss SF eyecups are still too short 7 years after the binos were introduced. It's just modern production methods...very expensive and costly to change the design once in production. I can understand this, having spent years in the software industry where fixing bugs once you're rolled out software to customers can be incredibly difficult & costly.

 

[Maljunulo]

I think the term “fanboy” with its rather negative implications, is badly overused in this community.

One’s personal preferences do not make one a fanboy, because not everyone is that shallow.

 

[kimmik]

Its funny that some people think it saves money to deliberately have one specific element unblackened.

Yet a wholey plastic body like canon doesn’t get a wimper of complaint when equal priced peers are cnc magnesium.