Glare Monsters! (2 Viewers)

[Ted Y.]

Rara Avis... I looked it up.
Are you thinking discussions of glare are rare here?

"Rare"? I would say "well done".
Yes, I am thinking discussions of glare are sporadic here.
The glare and longitudinal CA are the foe of resolving power.
And resolving power is also a subject sporadic here and not only here.

 

[GrampaTom]

"Rare"? I would say "well done".
Yes, I am thinking discussions of glare are sporadic here.
The glare and longitudinal CA are the foe of resolving power.
And resolving power is also a subject sporadic here and not only here.

Sporadic?
Incessant.

 

[Ted Y.]

Sporadic?
Incessant.

Sporadic. I was referring at the relevant posts.
A thread can have hundreds of posts and be "incessant', but not all are relevant.

 

[GrampaTom]

Sporadic. I was referring at the relevant posts.
A thread can have hundreds of posts and be "incessant', but not all are relevant.

I was to. Tho, ah! I see your point.

 

[albie...]

I noticed that the Nikon MHG 8x42 is in the glare prone list . I've had mine for a couple years now and have never experienced glare with it although I don't look for it . Perhaps it is capable of producing glare but I don't see it . Is it my vision , my eyeglasses , the shape of my face , my ipd , eye relief , etc etc ?
I am very happy with my MHG . I might not have bought them if this thread from Denco had existed a few years ago AND (a big "and"), I believed Denco .
I find most of his ramblings entertaining . He's the last person I would take advice from .
Over on CN there used to be a fellow that is very similar to Denco but instead of binoculars it was eyepieces for telescopes . He thought that because he was trying out almost every ep available he was an expert . He was constantly pumping the ep's he was selling just before he sold them . Sound familiar ? That fellow was banned a few times and now haven't seen him for well over a year so I'm guessing he was banned for life .

 

[Paultricounty]

I noticed that the Nikon MHG 8x42 is in the glare prone list . I've had mine for a couple years now and have never experienced glare with it although I don't look for it . Perhaps it is capable of producing glare but I don't see it . Is it my vision , my eyeglasses , the shape of my face , my ipd , eye relief , etc etc ?
I am very happy with my MHG . I might not have bought them if this thread from Denco had existed a few years ago AND (a big "and"), I believed Denco .

Exactly. Every binocular is capable of producing glare, some people like Dennis see more glare than most other people, he’s more of an outlier. Dennis definitely has tried out a lot of binoculars, so he knows a lot about the brands but from his ramblings not so much about optics, he likes the quote of the reviews and then say he agrees with them, then he sells the binoculars and round and round we go. The MHG’s are excellent binos, top notch, beautiful image and build. I rarely see any ,glare unless I look for it.

I find most of his ramblings entertaining . He's the last person I would take advice from .
Over on CN there used to be a fellow that is very similar to Denco but instead of binoculars it was eyepieces for telescopes . He thought that because he was trying out almost every ep available he was an expert . He was constantly pumping the ep's he was selling just before he sold them . Sound familiar ? That fellow was banned a few times and now haven't seen him for well over a year so I'm guessing he was banned for life .

Paul

 

[Ted Y.]

I might not have bought them if this thread ... had existed a few years ago AND (a big "and"), I believed ... .

This is the case with every piece of information.
I think this thread is about "be aware, glare exists, here are some opinions" and not about "the good, the ugly, the bad".
It is not "try before you buy" clear enough?
Why buy for him/herself a binocular who pleases another person ?

Edit
The two questions are rhetorical ones.

 

[[email protected]]

This is the case with every piece of information.
I think this thread is about "be aware, glare exists, here are some opinions" and not about "the good, the ugly, the bad".
It is not "try before you buy" clear enough?
Why buy for him/herself a binocular who pleases another person ?

At this point in the thread, let's summarize what to look for in a binocular to avoid glare and list some of the binoculars members have found to be glare resistant and glare prone. We will add to this list as more glare resistant and glare prone binoculars are noted. Remember, even though a binocular is on the Glare Resistant or Glare Prone list does not mean it will be 100% glare resistant or glare prone for you. The Allbinos website can also be helpful in determining if a binocular handles glare well because they test for I/R (Internal Reflection) and a higher number means less reflections, which will probably mean the binocular will have less glare than one with a lower number.

Binoculars rankings - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Glare Resistant Binoculars

1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.

Glare Prone Binoculars

1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
9) Nikon HG 8x42

Important things that control glare in Binoculars

1) Good Baffling (Leicas are known to be well baffled and blackened inside)
2) WA can be worse than narrower FOV binoculars because of the binocular design
3) Large EP aids glare control because it never reaches your eyes
4) Binocular design failures, especially reflective surfaces in the light path

 

[Ted Y.]

I find ramblings are not entertaining.

Ramblings = a waste of time and I lose interest (in that posts, maybe author also).
Also, ramblings dilute the signification/importance/relevance of a good thread.

 

[Ted Y.]

I learned another lesson: denco totally changed the content of post #228 (minor collateral consequence - make my reaction inadequate).
Delete and Insert new content. A new tactic for me.
I know the remedy for this. I mentioned it just for fun.

 

[GrampaTom]

Dennis, I notice you keep reposting your list within this thread in spite of advice from lots of folks there are conceptual issues. Not the least of which is that it takes two to tango. That one person sees glare in a Bino proves only some combination of that persons features, eye/brain workings, technique and that Bino produces that persons perception of glare. As another viewer does not agree leaves anyone reading this to ask is it the Bino or the human? Without the ability to marry these, your chart seems a disservice to anyone looking for objective advice and might make a bad one for them. As well how should XYZ Bino company think of you or us for allowing this sort of misinformation?

Glare Monster
1) Denco

Some Binos that Denco thinks aren't too bad
1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.

Denco’s personal favorite glare producing bino list
1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
9) Nikon HG 8x42

 

[albie...]

It is not "try before you buy" clear enough?

That goes without saying . The only way for me to try them would be to get the store to bring them in , nobody had stock of them here in Edmonton.

 

[Ted Y.]

That goes without saying . The only way for me to try them would be to get the store to bring them in , nobody had stock of them here in Edmonton.

It is a severe limitation. I order online but not all vendors accept returns "no questions asked".

 

[Paultricounty]

Lol, now that is funny, and quite accurate I made ad. So now the discussion isn’t about what binoculars might have glare and some others that don’t. Now it’s been changed to being about what one person with a certain amount of eyesight degradation feels about a list of binoculars that don’t work for him.

That is very clever Tom, I wonder if we could use that approach in other discussions that seem to go down these rabbit holes. 🙇

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

It is all relative, right?
I rejected a Monarch HG because of the strong glare in a specific situation. In the same situation, a half-priced binocular was flawless. Otherwise, excellent optical instrument.

From optical perspective it was almost tolerable, but from my expectation point of view it was unacceptable.

Also, if a reviewer find the glare "tolerable", for another one can be "unacceptable". How we measure this aspect? We cannot.

It’s called the Denco measurement. You need to learn his system of measurement, if you don’t know it, you don’t understand optics, your not a good birder, your not very smart and he’ll prove it by attaching links to others that support the Denco measurement system.

 

[Paultricounty]

Those binoculars on those lists were not my choices. If you have been following the thread, they were other birders suggestions. I agree with most of them, but I have not even had some of the binoculars on the list. I am trying to come up with a list that would help new birders select a binocular that would be more glare resistant than if they went out and just bought one.

I think prior users experience with a binocular can be a good predictor if you are going to experience glare with it or not. I understand your love for your NL 8x32. It is a good binocular, and people get defensive when they feel their binocular is getting attacked.

Even Holger Merlitz a renowned expert on binoculars thinks the NL have glare problems. As he said in his review.

Review: Swarovski 8x32 NL Pure vs. 8x32 EL WB

"In my opinion, the NL Pure represents a successful evolutionary step above the El WB. Among its improvements are most of all its haptic, its expanded field of view, as well as its rather pleasant panning behavior. It is nonetheless just an evolutionary step forward, and differences in optical performance are usually subtle if visible at all. Who already owns the EL WB would hardly gain from an upgrade to the NL Pure, since both are virtually playing in the same league. The stray light issue which has occasionally been reported to plague the EL WB has not been resolved with its successor, and this is going to remain a matter of dispute whenever the NL Pure's merits are discussed. Nonetheless, there exists only one binocular which could currently challenge its pole position, the Zeiss Victory SF. In comparison, the SF has the advantage of an even wider field, a lower weight and - yes - a superior stray light protection. On the downside, I am having some issues with the SF's ease of view (hard to find a proper eye-cup setting to view over the entire field) and its somewhat unpleasant panning behavior. Moreover, it appears that the colors offered with the SF display a somewhat lower saturation when compared to the NL. At the end of the day, it remains a matter of individual preferences which of these high-end binoculars would suit somebody's needs best. To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior."

I had the NL 8x32,NL 8x42, NL 10x42 and NL 12x42 and I experienced glare to a certain extent with all of them and there are many threads on glare problems with the NL so that is why it is on the glare prone list. That certainly doesn't mean you will experience all kinds of glare with them, and it doesn't take away from the fact that they are a superb binocular. A lot of the glare can be eliminated by proper positioning of the binocular against your eyes and proper positioning of the eye cups. The NL's are very sensitive to eye cup positioning.

The common denominator is your eyes.

 

[Conndomat]

It is a severe limitation. I order online but not all vendors accept returns "no questions asked".

The return policy may be different between Germany and Canada, but here you can send goods back to the retailer within 14 days without giving reasons; the purchase contract expires upon return shipping.

Andreas

 

[Ted Y.]

The return policy may be different between Germany and Canada, but here you can send goods back to the retailer within 14 days without giving reasons; the purchase contract expires upon return shipping.

Andreas

I like that.

"In Canada, businesses are not obligated to accept the return of purchased items unless they are defective. However, many businesses offer refunds or exchanges for various other reasons to help foster good customer relations."

Refund and exchange

The Office of Consumer Affairs offers information and a link to contact for exchange or refund issues.

ised-isde.canada.ca

 

[Paultricounty]

The list is worse than useless.

It is misleading, inaccurate, and has no method or scientific basis.


Who added the binocular, and why?
For what fault exactly in what situation? What types of glare, observed in everyday or unusual glare-forcing situations?
How significant was it compared to other similar binoculars?

The list is worse than useless.


P.S.
As for helping anyone choose a birding binocular, it obviously disregards the prime considerations of personal haptics and ergonomics.

Exactly. Another typical Dennis thread.

 

[tenex]

I for one find it rather odd that denco is constantly deleting his messages . I can't prove anything because he's deleted everything lol .

As you consistently indulge in this behaviour, what are we supposed to conclude about you, both as a poster and a person? ...

...More seriously, it’s time for the moderators to make a decision about this behaviour and what the consequences should be.

From the perspective of information content on Birdforum, it seems strange to complain about someone deleting or improving posts one disliked in the first place. The only motive would be to blame him for the original content and pass public judgment on him, which is not your job or the purpose of the forum, and in fact regularly interferes with that purpose. You don't need to worry about the moderators, who have access to all deleted content, and have surely considered his posts on many occasions and (IIRC) taken action at least once when warranted -- by his personal remarks about others.

Can we just get back to glare in binoculars? If Dennis's approach seems of doubtful value, it's not entirely his fault, as he's just summarizing present and previous reports on this forum. What then is the conclusion: other people's experience is irrelevant, everyone has to evaluate the glare performance of each model for themselves? That seems a bit extreme. Presumably there are at least some models that can be agreed to be more glare-prone after all, so if Dennis's list has problems, how does it need to be pared down and why, to achieve consensus? Or if a completely different approach is necessary with more careful methods, who's going to do it?

Otherwise there's nothing further left to say at all, so why is this thread continuing other than to bash Dennis?