Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Swarovski must have fixed the glare issues in the SV 8x32.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 14th September 2018, 11:30   #51
MandoBear
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Hereford UK
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobMorane View Post
How many people would find themselves in this type of situation or even try something like that? Seriously?

If they get "veiling glare", instead of complaining and waiting for the manufacturer to "fix" an issue they are the only one to "suffer" of, I have an easy fix:
Why don't they try to MOVE or try to watch something else instead, and not find themselves in this situation?

Just asking...
I find those situations are quite common. I frequently birdwatch at a flooded gravel pit which has a hide on its northern shore - facing south, across the water. 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.

Birds turn up in all sorts of locations and in all kinds of lighting conditions. If I spend a good wedge of cash on a pair of binoculars for birwatcing, I expect them to perform well in that application, under most, if not all, lighting situations.
MandoBear is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th September 2018, 11:46   #52
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,516
Some types of glare are too intrusive not to notice. I saw it in the Swaro SV 8x32 when I had a couple hours with one a couple years ago. This was a pre-field pro model. It was spikes or drops of light coming across the field of view diagonally. I wasn't looking or testing for it , but when it showed up I thought wow there's that glare problem people complain about with the SV. If it has been generally corrected in the Field Pro model then you have a practically flawless binocular IMO.

I've seen those types of glare "spikes" visible across the FOV in the old Jenoptem porro, a Minox 8x42 roof and Zeiss FL 8x32 (once).
I haven't yet seen it in my Leica. I only occasionally see the whitish crescent on bottom of the edge which desaturates that slice of the view, but doesn't seem to intrude in the center view.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 14th September 2018, 13:27   #53
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobMorane View Post
I think this thread is from a Galaxy far far away...

What are people trying to see/achieve pointing their binos toward the sun???

How many people would find themselves in this type of situation or even try something like that? Seriously?

If they get "veiling glare", instead of complaining and waiting for the manufacturer to "fix" an issue they are the only one to "suffer" of, I have an easy fix:
Why don't they try to MOVE or try to watch something else instead, and not find themselves in this situation?

Just asking...
Hi Rob

I know what you mean and personally I don't follow birds that fly close to the direction of the sun, but I am not a birder trying to identify every bird. Perhaps your aren't either. But you can get glare/flare in other situations for example off the sea when light glancing off the swell comes straight at you. On the other hand I have never found this to be so bad that it made me curse my binos.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th September 2018, 14:07   #54
PHA
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bariloche-Argentine Patagonia
Posts: 293
Hi,

I agree, in toto, what MandoBear wrote! I use my binocs very often, in the field, not only for birds. I work in Range Management in Patagonia and use my optics almost daily. At down and dusk with the sun near the horizon, this veiling glare thing is, or can be, very serious!
I make mine what MandoBear said: "If I spend a good wedge of cash on a pair of binoculars for birwatcing, I expect them to perform well in that application, under most, if not all, lighting situations." Period!

PHA
PHA is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 15th September 2018, 12:33   #55
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,108
I`v been away in Norfolk Birding this past week, taking both SV`s with me, so had plenty of opportunity to compare 42 and 32 in a variety of light conditions.

As someone who ended up selling my pre FP 8x32 because of appalling veiling glare particularly in overcast conditions, I am finding the FP much improved, thus far VG has not really revealed itself.

Personally I never had much issue with glare/flare in my first example, it was there in tricky conditions, but has been with every optic I`v owned at some time.

For me it was very much the VG issue, which could be so bad as to totally obscure any view full stop.

Obviously I have no idea what if anything has been changed in the FP, but as an owner and user of both, and someone who has two years experience behind a 42mm FP, I can say it feels as though something has changed, and definitely for the better, as GG says it is now close to a flawless binocular.

John.
Torview is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th September 2018, 17:50   #56
RainStar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 14
Having used the latest (SV FP) 8x32 for the last 10 days, I can say that glare has been a non-issue for me.

I've used these ranging from light rain to overcast to bright & sunny. Short to very long range, wooded to wide open mountains. Like any pair of binos, it's possible to have a little glare or reflection in extreme use. Same with camera lenses. It was never a problem for me, and never distracted my attention from the subject.

I cannot say the same about the "rolling ball" effect. To me, this is quite pronounced in the 8x32, and was occasionally distracting depending on distance, and panning speed. I became more accustomed to it, but it's there, and is the result of a design trade-off.

I spent a very long time trying to create some of the glare/reflection issues that have been discussed with these. I finally was able to induce a slight reflection. When precisely positioned, I could see a faint red reflection through the binoculars of a red hummingbird feeder that was about 20 degrees outside of the field of view. Moving forward, back, right, or left just one foot eliminated this. I was able to come back later and re-create this. Lighting was overcast with sunlight coming from the same direction as the hummingbird feeder. To be clear, I had to work to make this happen, and it was never an issue in real use.

The tension on the focus knob is slightly asymmetrical. It did improve noticeably over time, so give it a few days if you find this. The focus is smooth in both directions though, with zero slop- so I'm happy with it.

I find these binos to have wonderful color rendition and good brightness. Fantastic sharp detailed image. The size results in a great balance of performance and portability. I covered many miles per day with these, and they are a joy to carry compared to larger binos.

I have no idea if Swarovski has made any recent changes to these. I also don't know if another person would find fault with glare. For me (and my wife), it was simply not an issue at all. For my money, these are best in class binoculars. I would recommend them without hesitation.
RainStar is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th September 2018, 18:31   #57
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,116
One only has to follow Henry's instruction near the beginning of this thread to see if anything has changed with this bin.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 01:53   #58
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,467
If there is no glare in the newest SV 8x32 FP or it is extremely hard to reproduce as RainStar and Torview say in the above posts how are you going to take a picture of something that doesn't exist?

Last edited by [email protected] : Thursday 20th September 2018 at 01:59.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 02:00   #59
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
If there is no glare in the newest SV 8x32 FP or it is extremely hard to reproduce as RainStar and Torview say in the above posts how are you going to take a picture of it?
Following Henry's instructions (as others have stated) you will be able to take a picture of the relevant view to assess amount of glare, no matter how much or little is there.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 02:45   #60
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,122
From what I understand the optics of the SV pre-field pro is the same as that of the field pro, so if the glare issue is improved there must be enhanced baffling in the FP, could this be shown with photos, one would have to have both, so I guess it is unlikely.

Andy W.
dries1 is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 08:42   #61
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,473
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
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 11:16   #62
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,108
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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	sv.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	59.9 KB
ID:	674832  Click image for larger version

Name:	sv2.jpg
Views:	67
Size:	90.1 KB
ID:	674833  
Torview is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 14:27   #63
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,122
Gijs,

I understand where you are coming from, regarding this hypothesis.

Andy W.
dries1 is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 17:33   #64
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gijs van Ginkel View Post
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 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
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 18:49   #65
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,473
Alexis, post 64,
Rereading the different posts, I do not think that I misunderstood matters.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 19:18   #66
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torview View Post
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.
Reference your first photo: Do you know of any binocular that would not "have struggled" under that light condition?

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 20:13   #67
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Reference your first photo: Do you know of any binocular that would not "have struggled" under that light condition?

Bob
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.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 23:05   #68
Patudo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandoBear View Post
...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.
...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
Patudo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 23:35   #69
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,467
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 by [email protected] : Thursday 20th September 2018 at 23:58.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2018, 23:58   #70
PHA
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bariloche-Argentine Patagonia
Posts: 293
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 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 21st September 2018, 00:26   #71
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHA View Post
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
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 by [email protected] : Friday 21st September 2018 at 03:36.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 21st September 2018, 02:57   #72
Robert Moore
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: INDIANA
Posts: 198
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
Robert Moore is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 21st September 2018, 03:51   #73
peatmoss
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: usa
Posts: 590
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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN1951.JPG
Views:	63
Size:	127.1 KB
ID:	674922  
peatmoss is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 21st September 2018, 04:28   #74
coopershawk
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by peatmoss View Post
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.
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?)
coopershawk is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 21st September 2018, 12:54   #75
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,192
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.
henry link is online now  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Leupold Golden Ring 8x32 HD with Meopta 8x32 hd, Swarovski EL 8x32 SV AGPank Leupold 1 Monday 12th December 2016 19:37
Ultravid 8x32 eyecup & focus issues tenex Leica 11 Friday 27th November 2015 20:29
Distortion and Glare in the Swarovski 8x32 EL Swarovision henry link Swarovski 105 Wednesday 26th August 2015 16:36

{googleads}
Opticron - NEW DBA VHD+ 8x42, 10x42. Prices from £579

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19062400 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:51.