So Dennis,
You have twice now accused me of Swarofanboyism, while ignoring my writing, that can be found here at Birdforum in several places, as well as above. I do own NL Pure 832s. I shopped for over a year trying them out 6 different times, in 3 different optics shops against SF832s, my own EL 1042s, SFL 840s… I read every review I could find here to include Holger’s back when he wrote it. You have chosen to ignore my admission that I saw glare in my NLs when I first used them That was the first time I’d ever seen glare in any binocular. And you should've read what I did about it, to include a conversation with Swaro, that advised I go use them as I normally bird, ignore BF writings (you especially), and see what I see. I did that not for the suggested 4 weeks, but for 4 months, then 8. The point you miss is glare is for me a non issue. It's that “for me” thing, my experience, what I did, you refuse to weight/value. And its that ‘for me” thing that is the point, not the brand model of bino that I reported. Ill come back to this.
Ironically Holger’s words from a couple years back, (you've posted here, twice now, but don't seem to understand what he wrote), were in fact one of my inspirations. I believe you are interpreting his writing incorrectly. The final summary sentence says it all, "To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior.”
Perfect. Not almost. Perfect. Whew! Occasionally erratic stray light. Occasionally erratic.
Thats exactly my experience. I was birding with these and my Opticron MM4 yesterday. You can read about it in the thread “what did you see in your binoculars today” The NLs were perfect. The day was gorgeous. The migration has started. The light was as good as it gets. Glare? What glare? Never saw any. Point? Ive learned how to use them.
Dennis, I cant tell from your writing if you ever bird. You seem to spend your time buying, selling and writing about binoculars. You returned from banishment last year, posting Swarovski NLs were the best birding binoculars one could buy and went on for awhile with that sentiment. Until of course you sold them and moved onto… Next! Let's see now its 8x56 something or others.
The fact that I own NL832s is purely a coincidence having made that decision via a very different set of priorities than this. It'd be tricky to write about the shopping, buying, then using without naming them, so I did. The point is I - the human being in this equation - learned how to make them work. I did not look, see glare and go these belong on Dennis’ hit list. I did not put them up for sale on BF’s classifieds page. I went birding where I do, played with eyecups, IPD and MOST IMPORTANTLY my own style of mounting and holding. They are different from my 35 year old Zeiss 1040Bs, my Zeiss VP825s and last but not least my EL 1042s. Adjusting my style to the NL, made no difference to these 3. I have explained this. You obviously missed it, discredited or ignored. But enough of me defending me as an owner of one of your favorite punching bags.
Let me help you with your project. Speaking plainly, its problematic, seriously so. Here’s why. Glare has 3 potential sources.
1. the binocular
2. the human operator
3. mother nature
Your list puts the binocular center stage, makes it THE culprit, discounts/ignores the human using and the natural weather/light conditions.
You claim the list is credible as it is comprised of input from BF members, or “others" as if that had some standing. Who are these people? What are their qualifications to say what they say? How well trained are they using a bino. Did they do what I did to learn to make their sample work? Do they understand the role of weather/light? Heck, do they actually know what glare is? No glare is not what happens when the sun is behind the target and the thing is blacked out from backlighting. Do folks know this? The answer to all those questions is??? We and you do not know!
If the experience of glare is dependent on all 3 - the bino, the human, the environmental conditions in some unknown, unspecified measure, what good does a list essentially condemning the listed binos to the categories YOU decide, while ignoring the other 2 do?
What might've happened had this list been around to accompany the cacophony of glare stuff you constantly post here, and then Canip, Roger, Holger, Chuck, even Tobias, (for cryin out loud), Gils, Jan, John (I believe) wrote negative reviews? WHICH THEY DID NOT. Would I have shopped the NLs that hard? Probably not. But those folks wrote positive reviews. Very positive reviews. Curiously several discussed glare. Let me repeat - discussed glare. None reported it as an issue. Those that reported, inferred they felt compelled, (as i read them), do to the presence of publicity here, and they had to comment. You've ignored this, these, while misinterpreting Dr. Merlitz. I thank goodness, I ignored your writing, studied specs, read these folks reviews, went shopping and made my choice. I mighta missed out on a very nice thing.
Why might I and a few others of us be as concerned with you about this to the degree we obviously are? I at least fear it provides a disservice to the unsuspecting visitor coming to BF looking for advice (as folks do virtually every day) on what bino to buy. It promotes glare in a bino, ignores the other conditions, misrepresents the possible experience they might have if they didn't know better, just went and tried. And what about the disservice to the makers of the 25 or so brands that come here, who have their products maligned by this purely subjective, un qualified panel you fail to either qualify or identify?
But you've read all this... So I have to ask.
Are you a BOT?