Glare Monsters! (1 Viewer)

[Ted Y.]

What then is the conclusion: other people's experience is irrelevant, everyone has to evaluate the glare performance of each model for themselves?

Not really, just to understand who can be trusted. Not an easy task.

A few extracts:

...

Global/ veiling glare and local/ specular glare are so strikingly different, that it’s scarcely credible that you’re unable to distinguish them.
If you truely can’t, then you need to see an ophthalmologist.


Among other things, it would seem to be relatively easy (and a service to others) to distinguish between levels of glare in at least broad terms.
Perhaps along lines such as:
• absent (though maybe just an ideal);
• minimal (present but not obtrusive);
• tolerable (more but bearable), and;
• unacceptable;
rather than the simple Angels vs Monsters distinction.
(As you're a fan of Allbinos with it's numerical rating of various optical qualities, perhaps that's another way to go.)
...

Making an exact hierarchy in terms of glare is difficult for the following reason. A fully immune binocular in a certain light context may have a bit of glare in another context. For example, I stress the binoculars in at least three difficult lighting situations:
1. The full moon (or a desk lamp pointed at the binoculars). I move the moon in all directions in the frame and take it out of the FOV, and notice if there are glare or ghost images
2. During the day, with the Sun strong above, I point my binoculars towards the edge of a dense and dark forest. I can also simulate it at home if I look during the day, with strong sun, under the window at a dark object that occupies my entire FOV. Thus, I try to make the pupil of my eyes dilate a little more than that of the binoculars exit pupil. If the binoculars have disturbing reflections in the immediate vicinity of the exit pupil, this test shows me easy.
3. A test of general situations. Terrestrial panning with binoculars with the Sun in the sky. I move the binoculars so that I have several different angles to the sun. I pay particular attention to the edges of the FOV. I noticed that some binoculars require a much more accurate positioning in the optical axis for this test.
Binoculars that show me strong glare in at least one of these situations I consider without glare resistance. As well as the ones that show me glare very discreetly repetitively in all these tests. The ones that do not show me glare at all, or maybe show me a very discreet glare in at least one of the tests, I consider them resistant to glare...

... 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? ...

About testing:

... If you want to know how glare works in different binoculars do what I have suggested many times here. Using a loop or a telescope eyepiece with a focal length of around 25-28mm focus on the interior of the binocular through the eyepiece under conditions that cause glare. It's best to use a repeatable glare test set-up in which a tripod mounted binocular is pointed toward a very dark area that fills the FOV, but with a bright light source outside the FOV that penetrates into the binocular interior. You will see exactly where the unbaffled interior reflections are. AFAIK hardly anybody has tried this simple test and thus endless guess work and conflicting observations continue on threads like this one.

Sometimes is not the binocular (but not sure):
I get glare systematically with one of my binoculars, when the light is behind me, because the ocular is shorter than the eye relief. But it is not the binocular, is who selected it knowing the situation. Or not understanding the consequences. Or not testing.
Do you agree? Can the buyer be blamed?

 

[exup]

INTRODUCTION TO TAGUCHI METHOD

If quantitative testing was attempted to try to identify glare & types, it would likely be best conducted by fixing and removing particular variables e.g. individual face features. Subsequently these particular parameters could be tested separately if it was deemed by the test designer that they contributed to the glare effect under test.

 

[albie...]

It seems like me and Henry Link are the only members left with any technical expertise.

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

 

[[email protected]]

INTRODUCTION TO TAGUCHI METHOD

If quantitative testing was attempted to try to identify glare & types, it would likely be best conducted by fixing and removing particular variables e.g. individual face features. Subsequently these particular parameters could be tested separately if it was deemed by the test designer that they contributed to the glare effect under test.

That would be way too complicated because everybody's eye sockets have different diameters and depths and there would be no way to remove all those different variables. The best you can do is arrive at a list that tells you if a binocular is glare prone or glare resistant based on experience with other people.

The list is not going to predict within 100% accuracy if the binocular is glare resistant or glare prone for you because of all the variables with human facial structures, eyes and even how our brains interpret the incoming light, but the odds are higher if the binocular is on the glare prone list you are going to have glare issues with it. I see no way to predict with 100% accuracy if a binocular will be glare resistant or glare prone for every individual without trying it yourself in different glare producing situations.

Look at the list and then look at Allbinos IR results and see how well blackened the optical tubes are for reflections, and it should help to predict if a binocular will be glare resistant or glare prone for you.

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

 

[GrampaTom]

That would be way too complicated because everybody's eye sockets have different diameters and depths and there would be no way to remove all those different variables. The best you can do is arrive at a list that tells you if a binocular is glare prone or glare resistant based on experience with other people.

Yes. And that is THE issue.

 

[Paultricounty]

That would be way too complicated because everybody's eye sockets have different diameters and depths and there would be no way to remove all those different variables. The best you can do is arrive at a list that tells you if a binocular is glare prone or glare resistant based on experience with other people.

The list is not going to predict within 100% accuracy if the binocular is glare resistant or glare prone for you because of all the variables with human facial structures, eyes and even how our brains interpret the incoming light, but the odds are higher if the binocular is on the glare prone list you are going to have glare issues with it. I see no way to predict with 100% accuracy if a binocular will be glare resistant or glare prone for every individual without trying it yourself in different glare producing situations.

Look at the list and then look at Allbinos IR results and see how well blackened the optical tubes are for reflections, and it should help to predict if a binocular will be glare resistant or glare prone for you.

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

So in keeping with what your describing , some people may not see any glare or lets say , have no issues with glare (all binos have glare) with many of the binoculars on your glare list. So then should buyers not choose from this list, is that what your suggesting? Don’t you think this could hinder someone from buying one on the glare list, where they may have no issues at all? I admire the attempt and concept of the list, but It may do more harm than good. When people describe glare there are so many factors (as you pertest) as to why one bino may have more glare to some than others. Even altitude/elevation can be factor, which is not discussed much.

Here we go again with Allbinos, the review website that you agree with 100% of the time, many times, sometimes (according to your many contradicting posts of the site). As I’ve posted more times than I can remember , as well as others, that some of those reviews have kept people from buying binoculars for one parameter or another. You seem to dismiss these occurrences or somehow want to argue that it’s more the person than the review, maybe it’s the person doing the review. I wonder sometimes if you have an interest in the allbinos website , maybe you have a stake in the site. 😆✌🏼



Paul

 

[[email protected]]

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

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

 

[Paultricounty]

I’ll try to clean up some of these misleading posts of yours.

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.

This is true.

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.

Not necessarily true, too many other factors would come in to play of each individual.

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

Wrong, completely 100% wrong and subjective.

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

Totally subjective and nothing here should hinder or give anybody pause to buy or not to buy.

 

[Swedpat]

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

I wonder here: there are already black matt paint which reduces the reflections to almost zero. Vantablack will make baffling totally superfluous and provide better result than any baffling. I am surprised this is not already used in all quality optics. Or are there some binoculars or telescopes with Vantablack?

 

[[email protected]]

I haven't heard of anybody using Vantablack in binoculars yet, but they are going to use it in space telescopes.

World's Blackest Material will Supercharge Telescopes

- Illustrated Curiosity

www.illustratedcuriosity.com

 

[GrampaTom]

Whats a Bot?

 

[[email protected]]

Whats a Bot?

An autonomous program on the internet or another network that can interact with systems or users.

 

[GrampaTom]

Thanks. Is it a thing that could just be showing up, discussing a subject ad infinitum, just cuz???

 

[has530]

It seems like me and Henry Link are the only members left with any technical expertise.

I suggest you consider where you lie on a Dunning-Kruger curve.

 

[[email protected]]

I suggest you consider where you lie on a Dunning-Kruger curve.

I think I am somewhere between The Valley of Despair and a Guru.

 

[dries1]

I suggest you consider where you lie on a Dunning-Kruger curve.

Thanks for the graph, easily applied to society in the present, with the bulk density in the know nothing area.

 

[CharleyBird]

I’ll try to clean up some of these misleading posts of yours.

This is true.

Not necessarily true, too many other factors would come in to play of each individual.

Wrong, completely 100% wrong and subjective.



Totally subjective and nothing here should hinder or give anybody pause to buy or not to buy.

The list is worse than subjective, it is biased.

It in part shows the positive and negative inclinations of the compiler, his prejudices towards some of the many binoculars he has personally tried.

 

[[email protected]]

The list is worse than subjective, it is biased.

It in part shows the positive and negative inclinations of the compiler, his prejudices towards some of the many binoculars he has personally tried.

It is based on mainly other people's opinions of how the binocular handled glare for them, not mine. I agree with most of the binoculars on the list based on my actual testing, but some of the binoculars I have not even owned. There is no prejudice in my ratings, just fact.

 

[Paultricounty]

It is based on mainly other people's opinions of how the binocular handled glare for them, not mine. I agree with most of the binoculars on the list based on my actual testing, but some of the binoculars I have not even owned. There is no prejudice in my ratings, just fact.

Just the fact that it’s subjective opinions 😝. The fact is you didn’t address the fact that it could be worse than subjective🤔✌🏼

 

[CharleyBird]

It is based on mainly other people's opinions of how the binocular handled glare for them, not mine. I agree with most of the binoculars on the list based on my actual testing, but some of the binoculars I have not even owned. There is no prejudice in my ratings, just fact.

But you have not included some opinions that are contrary to your own feelings.
It is therefore biased.
It is misleading both in presentation and content, and worse than useless.