• 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.

Has anyone noticed their NL Pure binoculars misting up? (1 Viewer)

It has been objectively shown on the BF and other forums that the NL binos have serious glare issues.
How can you write such a statement??

The only thing that has been OBJECTIVELY shown by Henry Link is, that a design element can trigger glare in the NL under certain conditions.

This does not necessarily imply that there IS a serious glare issue, and in fact numerous posters have reported that they do NOT experience a serious glare problem in the NL.

So let‘s stick to the facts if you use the term „objectively“.

And: I more and more tend to believe that people are reporting issues with their binoculars, such as chromatic aberration or glare, which are at least partially caused by the way IPD is set, how the eyecups are placed before the eye cavities, etc etc.
So yes, whether you find that unreasonable or even absurd, I am of the opinion that it can make quite a difference how you „operate“ your bino.
 
Last edited:
Canip, post 81,
You are right with your statement. I am also a person that did not succeed to observe glare with the NL 32 and NL 42, that does not mean that others can see it, but the way I use the NL's seems so, that I am not observing it.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
The difference between us, Gijs, then is that I can trigger and experience glare in the NL, if I want, but I can also easily avoid glare. That‘s why it is no issue for me (and, I suppose, for many), and the market success of the NL speaks for itself.
 
How can you write such a statement??
I can because I have... a wide field of view... and have seen many reports on glare in Swaro binos including the NLs. You can search yourself for those, but here is a recent thread on the BF, and the analysis by kimmik is pretty objective:

Swarovski glare/flare is deliberate by design? A comparison with Leica
The only thing that has been OBJECTIVELY shown by Henry Link is, that a design element can trigger glare in the NL under certain conditions.

This does not necessarily imply that there IS a serious glare issue, and in fact numerous posters have reported that they do NOT experience a serious glare problem in the NL.
And also numerous posters have reported glare problems, it's about 50-50, for example:
Poll: does NL glare depend on eyeglasses?
So let‘s stick to the facts if you use the term „objectively“.

And: I more and more tend to believe that people are reporting issues with their binoculars, such as chromatic aberration or glare, which are at least partially caused by the way IPD is set, how the eyecups are placed before the eye cavities, etc etc.
It's just eye placement, so etc. etc. are superfluous.
So yes, whether you find that unreasonable or even absurd, I am of the opinion that it can make quite a difference how you „operate“ your bino.
It sure does, but my point was that few members of the BF, if any, need instructions about setting the IPD and eyecup length of their binos; so telling an experienced member that he notices glare in his NLs because he does not know how to "operate" his binos is not cool.
 
I can because I have... a wide field of view... and have seen many reports on glare in Swaro binos including the NLs. You can search yourself for those, but here is a recent thread on the BF, and the analysis by kimmik is pretty objective:

Swarovski glare/flare is deliberate by design? A comparison with Leica

And also numerous posters have reported glare problems, it's about 50-50, for example:
Poll: does NL glare depend on eyeglasses?

It's just eye placement, so etc. etc. are superfluous.

It sure does, but my point was that few members of the BF, if any, need instructions about setting the IPD and eyecup length of their binos; so telling an experienced member that he notices glare in his NLs because he does not know how to "operate" his binos is not cool.
Well Ive used binoculars for well over 50 years, to include an EL 1042, another Swaro model with a long history here of being accused of glare. Till recently Ive never seen it. I did and do now see glare in a newly purchased NL832. Shocking. But adjusting my hold, Ive discovered I can manage glare almost to non existence. Old dog new tricks? Maybe. For me? Yes. Bino or me? Or as I now suspect was it the edge of my bifocal lens! Who knew? Haven't read that anywhere... Reading here and repeating something you've read, played with briefly, but didn't discover the trick some of us have, leaves the question open.

For me, this sentence you wrote above "It has been objectively shown on the BF and other forums that the NL binos have serious glare issues." overtstates the issue. It is a fact that it can be described this way and has repeatedly been so. That creates the problem. Yes it has been commonly reported. By a few. Thats different. Serious glare issue? Does that mean serious as in for lots of people? Or serious as in there's a lot of it and one is not able to manage it? How many who see it have this latter condition. We dont know. Objectively shown? No, subjectively reported. This is a forum, with lots of opinion.

As for this,
"And also numerous posters have reported glare problems, it's about 50-50, for example:
Poll: does NL glare depend on eyeglasses?" Please no dont go there. That survey has been discussed kinda ad nauseam. From it directly please read #40. You'll see the issue. Then go here SF 10x32 vs NL 10x32 Blackouts and read number 69. Tenex will not be happy with me for bringing this up. Ive tried to explain this comment (69) was to the two named posters and about statistical significance. It was not an attack on his survey. I apologize to him again, but folks as you are here, are making more out of that survey than is supportable statistically.

Repeating something over and over doesn't turn it into a fact. Quoting someone's comment that seems to add to one's experience isn't really objective. Ditto does citing a survey with the very limited participation, (typical of Birdforum) make the thing factual or even properly understood.
 
Last edited:
I see flare in the nl 10x32. I think a lot of people sees flare in a nl pure. So there is an above average issue with flare in nl's. I think we might say that. However, for me it isn't a serious issue at all! 😀
 
GrampaTom,
Thanks for trying to clarify and asking questions about what I said in my post in your usual gentle manner. Briefly:
-when I said the NLs have excessive glare issues, I meant that they have more glare than any of the other many binos that I own/owned including Swaro FP, SV and EL. For example, I do notice glare in my FP 8x32, SV 10x50 and 12x50 but adjusting my hold, eye placement, the eyecups and also tilting the binos a bit in the right direction (believe me that I know all the tricks), I can reduce it to almost zero. As an aside these three Swaros are among my favorite binos. None of these tricks work for me in the case of NLs, and I explained in a previous post why I believe this is so. It is easy to see that the NLs have lots of glare, but I won't tell you how as once you see it you cannot unsee it.
-I used the "glare survey" as an illustration of the fact that people have problems with glare in the NLs. Of course one cannot extrapolate the results of such a survey to the entire population of users, that should be an obvious fact! To do so you would need a randomized sample and a careful statistical analysis to make statements, for example, that 40%-60% of users suffer from glare in the NL (with a prespecified probability of say 70%) and if you want a more precise interval you would need a larger sample.
Best, Peter
 
Last edited:
Canip: I don’t read all threads. My question was of course sincere. Do you expect me to read everything you have wrote to understand where you are coming from with your assessment of other peoples skills?

Sorry if I sounded harsh, but I found your post a bit patronizing.

I also don’t get why you label peoples observations as ”complaints”. I have quite a few years of actively using binos in subzero temperatures as well as tropical heat and even though my ”habits” may not suit the Swarovski design I find it strange that I don’t have the same issues with other binos.

I never experienced glare in one bino, for almost 3 years. Birding at the same places at the same time of day/year, switched to another bino and do. Its not just about geography, weather, time of weather, geography or time of day.

I disagree with this: if you bird at the same places at the same time chances are higher that you either have light related problems or not. Meaning you might never have issues, or a lot of issues.

I do think it is a question of time of day, weather and geography as all those influence viewing conditions and might induce glare and have ”some people” (like me) complain about it while some do not.
 
These were the conditions this morning.

Headed out at 6:45 at -14 C and clear skies, slight veiling morning haze.

At the coast the reach of the Pure NL is great to have. To improve conditions I took off my glasses, which I don’t like doing.

The forehead rest improves conditions a bit since the generous eye relief help me put some distance between the ocular lenses and prevent fogging up.

However, this and any other cup/eye position did not prevent the Pure NL from rapidly fogging up, ruining the observation. 😑

At the open field I honestly did not have any severe glare issues today with the Pure NL. With or without glasses. Contrast was however noticeably lower than what the SFL produced from the same spot.

Conditions made me tuck the glasses in the bino bag as they fogged up as well.

The Pure NL continued to fog up despite me going from slow nose breathing to breathing out from the side of my mouth with controlled venting. Tried with or without neck gaiter ( neck gaiter worsened it).

The SFL did not fog up at all, despite having a slight disadvantage of a shim ring under the eye cup, possibly trapping moist air.

Clear win for the SFL in terms of winter handling and performance. I could induce fogging by being less careful with breathing but I did not have to pay special attention to it and could handle it as usual.

Also the SFL was a little better with the Hestra thick mittens on.

However, during a ten minute period while viewing against the sun the SFL showed more CA than I have seen before. More than I have picked up even during harsh light viewing before.

The Pure NL suffered a higher loss of contrast and showed some yellowish flashing in the centre of the image but managed CA better. Viewing back to back from the same spot neither of the binoculars gave a very pleasing image.

In this case I think the Meopta HD 10/12x would have been better, as well as the FL10x32, all of which I have used to great effect under similarly tricky light conditions.

However this was the first time panning the Pure NL that I found it very unnatural, bordering on nauseating.

The SFL has no panning issues.

After the ten minute (maybe fifteen) period where the SFL was performing its worst it picked up again to perform exemplary and viewing frozen grass against the morning light showed very little to no CA. Funny how conditions from the same spot can vary so quickly.
It felt at worst like looking through a Conquest HD, then improved. 😁

Does it sound like I am mauling the 12x Pure NL and exuberantly praising the 8x40SFL?

No, I really like my 12x42 NL.
But, for my winter walks down to the coast line it is not a very good observational instrument due to excessive fogging and the SFL simply does so much better. I brought the Pure NL today to see if I could work around the fogging, but no.

I will save the Pure NL for spring. 🫠
 

Attachments

  • 354EC346-0C73-4E25-9A7C-1BC5AD68D569.jpeg
    354EC346-0C73-4E25-9A7C-1BC5AD68D569.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 36
  • 7E3EFFC6-30E2-4686-9CAC-928D97A15A23.jpeg
    7E3EFFC6-30E2-4686-9CAC-928D97A15A23.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 36
Last edited:
Canip: I do get your message.
I am happy for you that you have zero glare issues with the NL.

With your experience you should know that facial features and other things affect how well a person can experience glare, without necessarily using it ”wrongly”.

I don’t get why you get so triggered by it. The way you have your binos set up might not be right for the next person.

Gijs: I did not mean to question your experience or diminish your stature in the field with my earlier comment. I still stand by that regardless of the messengers experience, it means nothing to me if my experience differs. :)

I thank you for your posting #82 as it seems you are corteous enough to leave a possibility open that others may experience glare without calling them out as not being able to operate the binocular.

There are a just a few conditions where I find the Pure NL 8x32/12x42 produce glare, more so than most of the other top binos I have experience with. Those conditions are not very frequent but they do happen. I could not at those times change my eye position enough to mitigate the problem without other things ”falling apart”. Under the very same conditions other binos fare better.

Some of the ”other binos” some people may not like at all in terms of viewing comfort - but I don’t fuss about that.

I don’t see what the big fuss is all about.

On the topic of fogging I think the Pure NL is flawed. For real. It is the first Alpha bino I have had severe fogging issues with. But I have only 34 years of experience using binos so I am probably doing it wrong.
 
I did not get any shots from the coastline. Fingers were to cold after using the liner gloves only.

I would like to add that panning the 12x42 over the distant coast line does not look awkward to me at all. Before fogging up the wide 12x view was stunning and the extra reach over the 8x is handy.

Mid range panning was not very nice with the Pure NL and it became very apparent going from the Pure NL to the SFL and back. Stationary viewing with the Pure NL and panning against the sky is no problem.

I was too lazy and too cold to bring the BTX. I think the angle of the oculars and the face position might help avoiding fogging of the lenses. It was a brisk 3km walk but I will try winter birding with the BTX eventually.
 

Attachments

  • A6817530-DA16-4D5E-96E3-2F362F43F432.jpeg
    A6817530-DA16-4D5E-96E3-2F362F43F432.jpeg
    1.9 MB · Views: 26
  • FD85AC7A-3822-479B-B43F-2A4BFB4B182A.jpeg
    FD85AC7A-3822-479B-B43F-2A4BFB4B182A.jpeg
    2.6 MB · Views: 26
The last two months have been more gray, not cold, but still not very pleasant and slightly depressing but after the fresh snow dump a few days back and colder temperatures it is beautiful with the sun out. Just need stack a few layers on and head out. 🤓
 
I do think it is a question of time of day, weather and geography as all those influence viewing conditions and might induce glare and have ”some people” (like me) complain about it while some do not.
I cannot agree more, and thank you for the honest and balanced reports you have recently posted! Mvh, Peter
 
I never experienced glare in one bino, for almost 3 years. Birding at the same places at the same time of day/year, switched to another bino and do. Its not just about geography, weather, time of weather, geography or time of day.

I disagree with this: if you bird at the same places at the same time chances are higher that you either have light related problems or not. Meaning you might never have issues, or a lot of issues.

I do think it is a question of time of day, weather and geography as all those influence viewing conditions and might induce glare and have ”some people” (like me) complain about it while some do not.

Really? You disagree? Were you there? That is my experience. It happened. Mine did not rebut yours, it added to it. So, whats to disagree with? I would not disagree or discount your experiences. I have spent enough time in cold places doing activities involving various kinds of equipment to include optics, and know that things like fogging up is a fact of life. I wont/dont disagree with your report this morning. Its your experience. You supplied context.

I might though suggest a difference with some of your opinions. Please go back and read #75, #76 and #77. We are saying a couple different things here. From your 76 "Some people experience fogging/misting. One person claims ”he has never seen it”. What does that do for the conversation - and how would it help? Nothing. Good for him. Some people are sometimes troubled by glare - and more so with a particular binocular. Again: ”authority” posts he has never seen it. Exactly how does that help? Nothing."

I do disagree. This is a forum. We are not out birding, using binos, sharing a direct experience together. We are reporting our individual experiences and sharing opinions. Sometimes those opinions appear to be mostly collected from reading here. Sometimes those opinions are based on incomplete reading or a lack of understanding of what was said. Thats unfortunate, but happens. Ive done it. Discounting Canip or Gijs because they shared their experiences that were different from yours does exactly what? Your question in reverse. Canip especially provides lots of context for his experience. I can read yours and his and think about where I bird and come to an understanding of what my experience might be. Isnt that a useful thing?
 
Last edited:
Hen Run,

Changing the subject, re this, also from #76, "If you have knowledge on how to avoid glare flare up, please share it......."

I can share with you what I have done to deal with the glare Im seeing in my NLs. First some context, I have birded in the same places approximately 3 days a week for several years, during the winter waterfowl, shore bird, and raptor migration. It is always out over water or salt marsh, close to mid day with the sun usually high and bright. Distances can be shortish, and/but are often long. A scope has proven its obvious value when things get into multiple hundreds of yards. I first saw glare... indeed I mean just that, the first time I ever saw any glare, was a couple months back using the new NLs in the same conditions described above. We were peering at a Burrowing Owl about 50 yards away, partially out of its burrow. The sun was high and just behind the bird. My expectation was the bird would be back lit, blacked out, and there wouldn't be much to see. Instead I saw a set of yellow concentric parallal arcs emanating from about 5 o'clock within the field of view. I moved, both the binos and me. I played with the eyecups, (I wear glasses and eyecups are usually fully retracted). Nadda zip. It was still there.

Having read here of the various suggested solutions I tried them all, to no avail. So the old dog part. For 50 years Ive used binos in approximately the same way. I spot the target, keep my eye on it, bring the binos to my face and touch the upper rubber rim of the eyecup to the junction of my eyeglass frame and eye brow. That habit enables me to find the targeted bird, irregardless of FOV. What I had not noticed though was the angle between the bino eyecup and my eyeglass lens. In my case Ive developed a postural habit that makes these not parallel. The binos are tipped away, wider at the bottom of the eyecup, touching at the top. Making sure my head was more erect (terrain allowing), pulling the eyecups onto my eyeglass lens, began to make a difference... Not perfect but better.

Too, I stopped looking for glare. I get that sounds weird. I went back to looking for birds as I normally do and stopped experimenting with the sun and seeing how close I could move binos towards it and detecting the onset of glare. Better.

Most recently, (note weeks into it), I discovered if I abandon my habit of mounting the binos to my eyebrow, but rather slide the eyecup rubber ring down 1/4" - 3/8" or so onto the eyeglass lens, the glare disappears. Curious, (and its too soon to be too sure), I have come to notice that my old school conventional bifocal lens interacted with the view, if I look down within the bino's FOV - something i rarely do, with that old way of mounting bins to face. By sliding the eyecups down as described above the bifocal distortion of the FOV disappears. I now wonder if some of the glare experienced comes from the edge of that bifocal lens and by removing it from the FOV, glare is mitigated? The experiment continues.

Point here is the solution to this often reported issue may be more subtle, more personal that what we read here. There is a saying, "Its the poor athlete who blames his/her equipment." Just sayin.
 
GrampaTom: easy now.
I certainly DO NOT disagree with your own experiences. You are right, I was not there. I don't question your experience either.

I do not agree with the conclusion you make which is: your point that on what matters when it comes to time, place, weather, geography etc.
To me those variables I think do make a difference. On this we can of course agree to disagree since this conclusion of yours is open to debate.
Should not cause such a commotion to have different experiences and opinions.

You cannot seriously state your observations as being objective while dismissing others experiences as being subjective. You are of course entitled to present your subjective findings, just like everyone else. Discounting other peoples experiences seems to be the norm at Birdforum for better or worse.
I do not do it with the intent of dismissing anyone else, just relaying my own experience and sometimes it is different from others and sometimes it is similar.

Sorry you had to write such a long post in your defence.

GrampaTom:
"I do disagree. This is a forum. We are not out birding, using binos, sharing a direct experience together. We are reporting our individual experiences and sharing opinions. Sometimes those opinions appear to be mostly collected from reading here. Sometimes those opinions are based on incomplete reading or a lack of understanding of what was said. Thats unfortunate, but happens. Ive done it. Discounting Canip or Gijs because they shared their experiences that were different from yours does exactly what? Your question in reverse. Canip especially provides lots of context for his experience. I can read yours and his and think about where I bird and come to an understanding of what my experience might be. Isnt that a useful thing?"

Yes, I find it useful. And of course you should disagree if you hold a different view. What I don't find useful is the patronizing posts that sometimes follow personal observations. I certainly apologize if you find me guilty of that.
 
Last edited:
"Its the poor athlete who blames his/her equipment." Just sayin.

This kind of patronizing posts are ridiculous though. Kind of puts people off from posting I venture to guess.
You lost my respect with that and I will block/ignore you from now on. Feel free to do the same.
 
Point here is the solution to this often reported issue may be more subtle, more personal that what we read here. There is a saying, "Its the poor athlete who blames his/her equipment." Just sayin.
Which basically means that anyone who's got a problem with glare with one of the Swarovski binoculars only has to blame himself/herself because he/she doesn't know how to use it "properly".

Congratulations, you just joined the elite group of people on my ignore list.

Hermann
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top