Swarovski NL vs Zeiss SF: a personal comparison of two 8x32s. (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

Hi Lee,

Here are some photos that show how de-centered pupil positions can either eliminate or exacerbate the source of glare in the NLs. These show the 8x42, but the 8x32 I examined had similar glare coming from the same place.

Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions

The usual difference that one would expect as the magnification increases: I had the 8x42 and the 10x42 and the latter was worse---the larger EP of the 8x42 makes eye placement easier. So apparently the large FOV has little to do with the glare problem, as speculated by some, since the glare...

www.birdforum.net

Obviously, a binocular's glare resistance should be primarily evaluated with the eye's pupil correctly centered on the exit pupil as in the left photo. That's the neutral condition, but the conditions shown in the other two photos do have some relevance since the pupil tends to wander off-axis in actual field use and, as you mentioned, some people do seem to habitually misalign their eye's pupils with the exit pupils.

Henry

Thanks Henry, this is certainly consistent with the changes in the glare I saw clearly (or rather, milkily ) when I moved the binos even slightly in relation to my own pupils. This has reminded me of another finding that I omitted from the review but which I have now added to it:
"Spectacle wearers should note that unlike the eyecups fitted to SF, those on the NL slipped and slid around very easily on spectacle lenses from two different brands, making it all the more likely the NLs would easily move inadvertantly in field conditions and expose the glare".

Lee

 

[dries1]

So ZEISS makes superior eye cups. Good to know.

 

[Dennis Mau]

No, glare is NOT a personal thing. If you believe that you're just fooling yourself. Sure, there will always be people who want to convince themselves there isn't any glare in a binocular they just got at great expense, but that's wishful thinking.

Hermann

Yes, I respectfully disagree with you and so does Allbinos. Glare is a personal thing, and it depends on our eye sockets and how our eyes interpret the image coming into the retina. That is why one person will see glare in one model of a binocular and others won't. Glare does NOT depend on exit pupil size, either. That is a misconception. I had terrible glare in the NL 8x42 and Zeiss SF 8x42, and yet many people see none. I have almost no glare in the NL 10x32. Read this story on Allbinos about the SV 10x50 review and how some people see glare in them and others don't.

Swarovski EL 10x50 Swarovision - binoculars review - 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

 

[Dennis Mau]

During my experiments testing NL8x32 it was clear that even very small changes in the position of the EP relative to the observer's own pupils could make a huge difference to the extent of the glare that was present. It could make it much worse or much better and these results were repeatable time after time.
An observer who habitually positions the binos in one way may damn this model as a glare-monster, a different observer who habitually positions the binos in a different way may think they are not so bad. All of this suggests that both yourself and Henry could be perfectly right in that you may have been fortunate in how you positioned the NL 10x32 but the glare may have been present for the reason's Henry advanced.

Lee

That is part of the reason glare is a "personal" thing. Different people have different sizes and shapes of eye sockets, so the way the binocular fits you can determine if you will see glare or not. Also, it depends on your own eyes and the cones and rods that read the images coming into them. You have to try a binocular yourself to see if you are going to see glare. I know this from personal experience.

 

[Maljunulo]

And we’re off again.

Wheeeee!

 

[GrampaTom]

Thanks Henry, this is certainly consistent with the changes in the glare I saw clearly (or rather, milkily ) when I moved the binos even slightly in relation to my own pupils. This has reminded me of another finding that I omitted from the review but which I have now added to it:
"Spectacle wearers should note that unlike the eyecups fitted to SF, those on the NL slipped and slid around very easily on spectacle lenses from two different brands, making it all the more likely the NLs would easily move inadvertantly in field conditions and expose the glare".

Lee

Lee, Im a spectacle wearer, use Els and have test driven a couple NLs. I didnt notice anything different in the texture/material of the eyecup, the part that touches my glasses. Are you saying there is a difference?

 

[Troubador]

Lee, Im a spectacle wearer, use Els and have test driven a couple NLs. I didnt notice anything different in the texture/material of the eyecup, the part that touches my glasses. Are you saying there is a difference?

No, I have no experience of ELs so cannot comment on them and any differences there might or might not be between them and NLs.

Troubadoris pointed out to me in the early part of the test that she found the NL's eyecups slipped around on her Hoya-lensed spectacles much more easily than the SF did. When I checked this out I found the same applied to my Zeiss-lensed spectacles. So with the NLs resting against my spectacles a gentle sideways pressure made them move whereas a similar pressure onthe SFs did not result in movement.

Lee

 

[Conndomat]

It's a bit annoying that the NL's eyecups are too close to the metal eyepiece sockets at the lowest notch.

As a long-sighted glasses wearer, my glasses come out on the metal here, not nice, the EL shells are much more comfortable here.

Overall, the viewing behavior of the EL is much more pleasant.

Andreas

 

[Dennis Mau]

It's a bit annoying that the NL's eyecups are too close to the metal eyepiece sockets at the lowest notch.

As a long-sighted glasses wearer, my glasses come out on the metal here, not nice, the EL shells are much more comfortable here.

Overall, the viewing behavior of the EL is much more pleasant.

Andreas

But much smaller in FOV and less transparent. I also find Swarovski has relaxed the flat field design a little on the NL, making RB less of a problem, and the binocular is a little more relaxing to look through than an EL because of it.

 

[Troubador]

It's a bit annoying that the NL's eyecups are too close to the metal eyepiece sockets at the lowest notch.

As a long-sighted glasses wearer, my glasses come out on the metal here, not nice, the EL shells are much more comfortable here.

Overall, the viewing behavior of the EL is much more pleasant.

Andreas

Andreas you have probably explained why the NL eyecups slip easily when placed against spectacle lenses. The central component of the eyecups is painted metal and the moving component of the eyecups that is rubber coated appears to be at the same height as this metal component when screwed down to the lowest position. This means that given the curvature of normal spectacle lenses it is likely they are resting against the painted metal rather than the rubber of the adjustable part of the eyecups. This suggests a risk of abrasion or scratching of the spectacle lens coatings by regular use of the the NLs with the eyecups screwed down.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Lee, Im a spectacle wearer, use Els and have test driven a couple NLs. I didnt notice anything different in the texture/material of the eyecup, the part that touches my glasses. Are you saying there is a difference?

Tom see my post 30 which could explain this.

Lee

 

[Conndomat]

Andreas you have probably explained why the NL eyecups slip easily when placed against spectacle lenses. The central component of the eyecups is painted metal and the moving component of the eyecups that is rubber coated appears to be at the same height as this metal component when screwed down to the lowest position. This means that given the curvature of normal spectacle lenses it is likely they are resting against the painted metal rather than the rubber of the adjustable part of the eyecups. This suggests a risk of abrasion or scratching of the spectacle lens coatings by regular use of the the NLs with the eyecups screwed down.

Lee

Hi Lee,

that's exactly what I mean...

the lowest level is practically unusable, the shells only very slightly high then it goes.
Unfortunately, the next step is too high, I have trouble seeing the entire field of view with the 8x42, it goes all the way down, but the lenses don't last long, I have no idea what Swarovski was thinking?

Andreas

 

[GrampaTom]

Tom see my post 30 which could explain this.

Lee

Cool, very interesting. I have a set of NL eyecups as the result of an experiment, from the beginning of the Virus. Ill spare you. Looking just now, the NL cups are very different from the ELs in this specific you describe. The inner sleeve on which the cam track for raising lowering and clicking into place resides, is an anodized aluminum part in both cases. In the EL, with eyecups screwed all the way down, there is a very distinct "step" from the rubber, down to the top of that inner AL sleeve. No way glasses touch it. Not so on the NL. Indeed that AL central cylinder comes up to almost flush with the top of the rubber eyecup. I can see what you describe, how a given eyeglass could hit it. Not so cool.

 

[GrampaTom]

 

[Dennis Mau]

Great review of two of the best and most perfect birding binoculars on the market, Lee. Nice picture of them side by side. It is amazing how close they are in size, shape and where the focuser is positioned. After trying these two binoculars, I am amazed how good they both are! It is hard to say too much bad about them!

 

[Troubador]

Great review of two of the best and most perfect birding binoculars on the market, Lee. Nice picture of them side by side. It is amazing how close they are in size, shape and where the focuser is positioned. After trying these two binoculars, I am amazed how good they both are! It is hard to say too much bad about them!

Thanks Dennis.

Lee

 

[GrampaTom]

So Lee, I admit, initially I found your review puzzling given whats been written by Jan, Gils, Canip, Roger, Tobias... even Denco!! re the subject of glare. I cant think of a review where the term "glare monster" was applied to the NLs. I get these things are subjective and we all get to experience them or not. Still this seemed weird. Now I wonder. Looking at the NL/EL eyecups and especially that pic above, I wonder if some, (you, Troubadoris) see glare based on this eyecup thing. If one wears eyeglasses and requires the cups to be screwed all the way down, something many/most of those reviewers do not, it seems possible theres the potential for a bit of light, ah... "leakage" getting in around, between the eyes and ocular for some?

Dont know. Just wondering.....

GT

 

[henry link]

The glare source in the NL is at the objective cell in the front of binocular, not the eyecup (see the link to photos in post #19). Completely sealing the back with winged eyecups doesn't change it at all.

 

[pbjosh]

So Lee, I admit, initially I found your review puzzling given, whats been written by Jan, Gils, Canip, Roger, Tobias... even Denco!! re the subject of glare. I cant think of a review where the term "glare monster" was applied to the NLs. I get these things are subjective and we all get to experience them or not. Still this seemed weird. Now I wonder. Looking at the NL/EL eyecups and especially that pic above, I wonder if some, (you, Troubadoris) see glare based on this eyecup thing. If one wears eyeglasses and requires the cups to be screwed all the way down, something many/most of those reviewers do not, it seems possible theres the potential for a bit of light, ah... "leakage" getting in around, between the eyes and ocular for some?

Dont know. Just wondering.....

GT

I have an NL 10x42; it's absolutely brilliant optically in most situations but for me it is more subject to glare than my x32 or x42 SF, or my Nikon MHG x30, which are my other bins. I do notice as well that the NL is much more reliant on precise eye placement and eye relief to avoid said glare. With practice careful positioning does reduce the glare, but for me, both with and without glasses/sunglasses, the SF's show less glare situation than the MHG, and the MHG shows a bit less than the NL.

I find the NL's eye cups slightly less comfortable than other bins for use w/o glasses - but nothing to complain about. I don't have problems with them slipping around or eye placement with glasses (nor do I have problems with any other bin in that regard). The tight ocular / rain cover continues to be a daily annoyance.

For me, on the NL, the glare is nothing to do with the ocular lens - face interface, it is light that is entering the binocular at the objectives and is not sufficiently baffled / muted in some way. Carefully adjusting the binocular position reduces it but does not eliminate it. Rotating my ball cap off angle and tilting it down, or shielding with my hands around my eyes / the objectives has no effect when glare is present.

 

[Troubador]

So Lee, I admit, initially I found your review puzzling given, whats been written by Jan, Gils, Canip, Roger, Tobias... even Denco!! re the subject of glare. I cant think of a review where the term "glare monster" was applied to the NLs. I get these things are subjective and we all get to experience them or not. Still this seemed weird. Now I wonder. Looking at the NL/EL eyecups and especially that pic above, I wonder if some, (you, Troubadoris) see glare based on this eyecup thing. If one wears eyeglasses and requires the cups to be screwed all the way down, something many/most of those reviewers do not, it seems possible theres the potential for a bit of light, ah... "leakage" getting in around, between the eyes and ocular for some?

Dont know. Just wondering.....

GT

Viewing through the NL without spectacles and the eyecups screwed all the way up, the glare obscured about 25% of the fov. Moving the binos a little away from the sun reduced the glare dramatically but when I moved my eyes to look down to the bottom edge of the field of view it ballooned to about 40% of the fov. So just as when wearing spectacles and with the eye cups 2 positions up from all the way down (my personal best position to see the full fov with no blackouts), eye position in relation to the bino's exit pupil was very sensitive as to whether glare was apparent and how much there was.

Lee