• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Swarovski must have fixed the glare issues in the SV 8x32. (1 Viewer)

Andy, post 60,
Rainstar mentions in his post 56 that he has tried to find glare in his SV under circumstances where one would expect this to happen, but he could not detect any under the circumstances used and some of them seem to be ideal for observing it.
Now we get the funny picture that some reactions on his observations in this forum suggest this can hardly be true and photos must be taken to prove he is wrong.
Some years ago we had an inaugural speech of a new professor in physics who stated: if we have an hypothesis and there is one very well performed and trustworthy experiment that does not confirm this hypothesis we have to reconsider this hypothesis , since it is wrong. Many colleagues of him who strongly believed in the hypothesis were furious and they left the room very angry.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
I took these handheld with my S7, so excuse the quality, in my experience my non FP SV 8x32 would have really struggled in these conditions, the FP is mostly ok for me.
 

Attachments

  • sv.jpg
    sv.jpg
    59.9 KB · Views: 213
  • sv2.jpg
    sv2.jpg
    90.1 KB · Views: 200
Gijs van Ginkel said:
Andy, post 60,
Rainstar mentions in his post 56 that he has tried to find glare in his SV under circumstances where one would expect this to happen, but he could not detect any under the circumstances used and some of them seem to be ideal for observing it.
Now we get the funny picture that some reactions on his observations in this forum suggest this can hardly be true and photos must be taken to prove he is wrong.
Some years ago we had an inaugural speech of a new professor in physics who stated: if we have an hypothesis and there is one very well performed and trustworthy experiment that does not confirm this hypothesis we have to reconsider this hypothesis , since it is wrong. Many colleagues of him who strongly believed in the hypothesis were furious and they left the room very angry.
Gijs van Ginkel
Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding "reactions on his observations" and perhaps even the physics example. Many questions and mistaken ideas persist because obtaining definitive evidence is difficult. In science, we work hard to try to come up with unambiguous and reliable ways to test ideas, but it is difficult and we often fail even when we think we have found such means. Methods of testing that are subject to considerable variation in outcomes, or that cannot be evaluated externally, are undesirable compared to methods that are less ambiguous and that allow presentation of evidence (that can be evaluated by a reviewer) to support the conclusion. When lots of reliable evidence or types of experiments support a conclusion, and one seemingly reliable experiment contradicts it, it is more likely that we misunderstand something about the seemingly reliable single experiment than that the otherwise supported idea is wrong. Occasionally, that is not the case, and then perhaps we will eventually arrive at a dramatic change in understanding, or what Kuhn called a paradigm shift. But even Kuhn, in his description of scientific revolutions, noted that revolutions didn't happen until many anomalies accumulated.

In this case, we have a very easily executed means of photographing the source of glare problems in a binocular (looking backwards though the bin) that allows reviewers to see the design deficiency in the presented photographic evidence. Detecting this glare by looking through the bin normally is not nearly so reliable a method of detecting whether the underlying problem obtains. If I had a dollar for every person who claimed that a glare prone binocular didn't have a glare problem based on their viewing experience, I might be able to afford an 8x32 EL SV just for fun. Let's see someone use Henry's method to investigate baffling/glare in this bin.

--AP
 
Torview said:
I took these handheld with my S7, so excuse the quality, in my experience my non FP SV 8x32 would have really struggled in these conditions, the FP is mostly ok for me.
Click to expand...

Reference your first photo: Do you know of any binocular that would not "have struggled" under that light condition?

Bob
 
ceasar said:
Reference your first photo: Do you know of any binocular that would not "have struggled" under that light condition?

Bob
Click to expand...

IMO, pic one isn't that challenging for glare - sun is low and weak and seen head-on. Glare, flare etc., in my experience is bad when the sun is off-axis and there is a lot of brilliant scatter.

For example, my lowly 8x42 Terra can handle this sort of situation without a hint of any glare.
 
MandoBear said:
...In winter, and at morning and evening at other times of the year, the low sun (even when there's cloud cover) can rake across the water and throw lots of light all over the place. Some of my bins handle this rather better than others, but in these situations, veiling glare is anything but a remote or academic phenomenon. It's real, and can seriously hamper the identification of a bird.
Click to expand...

...which kind of begs the question - which binoculars do you favour in this situation, and which others have you tried that also perform well?

Cheers,
Patudo
 
I agree with Ceasar on Torview's photo's. There are very few if any binoculars that would not have any glare looking almost directly into the sunset in that situation. That is one of the worst scenario's for glare IMO. The best binoculars I have seen for handling glare are big aperture low magnification binoculars like an 8x56 SLC or 8x56 FL which because of the big exit pupils the glare never reaches your eyes. Even with them you are pushing it when you look directly into the sunset like that. I had a Terra for awhile and it would not handle a glare situation such as in Torview's photos in my experience without some glare visible. I ended up having to return it for a loose IPD adjustment.
 
Last edited:
Denco, I made a "test" with my HT 10x42 vs a Noctivid 10x42, looking almost directly to the sun at the edge of a building. A really bad light situation, very like a sunset/sunrise.
Well I couldnt see almost NOTHING with the HT because of that "milky" veil. The view with the Noctivid was almost FREE OF IT. Period! Nobody told me this. I SAW it!!!!

Best!

PHA
 
PHA said:
Denco, I made a "test" with my HT 10x42 vs a Noctivid 10x42, looking almost directly to the sun at the edge of a building. A really bad light situation, very like a sunset/sunrise.
Well I couldnt see almost NOTHING with the HT because of that "milky" veil. The view with the Noctivid was almost FREE OF IT. Period! Nobody told me this. I SAW it!!!!

Best!

PHA
Click to expand...
I haven't tried the Noctivid but I hear it is good at glare control. The best I have tried to date as I said were the big 8x56 SLC and 8x56 FL. They are pretty much glare free also. Every time I buy a new binocular I test them for CA and glare first thing because it is important to me and I have tested a lot of binoculars!
 
Last edited:
I have had both and actually traded my Noctivid 10x42 for the big 8x56 slc and I can say the Noctivid is almost as good as the big slc for glare. The Noctivid to me just had this weird color cast maybe caused by the slight ca. The colors in the slc seem perfect to me
 
For what it's worth, my 10x32 Field Pro begins to pick up light veiling glare with the sun around 70* out of the field of view. Stronger, objectionable glare doesn't show up until around 25*-30* outside the field. At that point I get very careful; I don't want to mess with the sun entering my fov. Internally, I don't see any difference between the Field Pro and the non-FP... same ring around the objective, false pupils, etc... not awful, but clearly not class-leading.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN1951.JPG
    DSCN1951.JPG
    127.1 KB · Views: 144
peatmoss said:
For what it's worth, my 10x32 Field Pro begins to pick up light veiling glare with the sun around 70* out of the field of view. Stronger, objectionable glare doesn't show up until around 25*-30* outside the field. At that point I get very careful; I don't want to mess with the sun entering my fov. Internally, I don't see any difference between the Field Pro and the non-FP... same ring around the objective, false pupils, etc... not awful, but clearly not class-leading.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting a proper picture peatmoss. Comparing to Henry's 8x32 SV pictures, the interiors look quite similar, with primarily 3 problematic areas on the edge of the exit pupil. Unless the interior of the 8x32 is much different, I wouldn't expect any different glare performance between the SV and SV FP. (can of worms opened?)
 
Thanks very much for the photo, Peatmoss. Now finally after 73 posts we know that no change to the internals has occurred in the 32mm FPs.

Does that mean that the debunked myth generated in post #1 of this thread is dead? Not at all! Now that the myth is out there I guarantee we will continue to hear about glare "improvements" in the FPs from now on.
 
"For example, my lowly 8x42 Terra can handle this sort of situation without a hint of any glare".

James, I know you like Zeiss and so do I, but the Terra?

Andy W.
 
The Terra 8x42, despite its' faults [excess CA especially], is exceptional with veiling glare and flare - there are other user reports to back this up and I have tested it against some of the best.
 
Honestly, the purpose of this thread is to extol the virtues of a binocular by its' owner, as it is necessary for any such binocular to be regarded as ''the best'' or ''flawless'' [by popular opinion]....or else it goes back to the auction site.

I've seen this movie more times than I have seen Star Wars.
 
Swarovski may have tweaked the baffle design or done a million other small things to the internals or the eyepiece and it would be difficult to see in a photo like that. It could very well be that they made some changes in the SV 8x32 and not the SV 10x32 because they considered the SV 8x32 to be more problematic as far as glare. There are quite a few experienced members here saying they are improved including me so I think some improvements were made that are maybe not so detectable by simply looking down the tubes. I don't know I trust my eyes more than theories.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

bittern
Problem with green coating of EL SV 8x32
27 28 29
Replies
568
Views
39K
YuShan
YuShan
S
10x32 EL Field Pro compared against 8x32 same model
Replies
14
Views
2K
Allen
Allen
Owlbarred
Veiling glare: a bird club's unanimous verdict on my 8x32 EL FP
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
8K
Stuarts vision
S
S
How do you feel about your NL 8x42 a year or two down the line?
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
18K
elkcub
elkcub
R
Habicht for birdwatching?
8 9 10
Replies
185
Views
14K
dorubird
dorubird

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top