Nope, but thanks. Im practicing being brief.
-
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.
Swarovski NL vs Zeiss SF: a personal comparison of two 8x32s. (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Troubador
- Start date
- Status
Great review Troubador. Thanks for taking the time. Also, particular thanks for the photo of the NL and SF side by side.
Hermann
Well-known member
dorubird
The unskilled mechanic blames his tools!
Troubador, thanks for the comparation 
I read it with great interest, especially because it emphasized the difference in glare between these two binoculars.
First of all, to have a valid glare result the binoculars must be tested in the same light conditions on the same day (even same minutes), by the same person, and with great care when positioning the eyes. Just like Troubador did. No conclusions can be drawn from the memories!!! Often the differences stand out just so, not from memory! So you must have both binoculars in front of your eyes alternately. The binoculars that have more efficient baffle diaphragms in optical formula and more efficient internal surfaces blackenings will show less glare in identical conditions than the one with a weaker baffle and blackening! Even if one person is more sensitive to glare than another person (this is another discussion), the difference in glare will still remain between the binoculars regardless of the person. Some will see little or even no glare difference, and others will quickly notice the glare difference. That depends a lot on the person's experience with the binoculars.
I read it with great interest, especially because it emphasized the difference in glare between these two binoculars.First of all, to have a valid glare result the binoculars must be tested in the same light conditions on the same day (even same minutes), by the same person, and with great care when positioning the eyes. Just like Troubador did. No conclusions can be drawn from the memories!!! Often the differences stand out just so, not from memory! So you must have both binoculars in front of your eyes alternately. The binoculars that have more efficient baffle diaphragms in optical formula and more efficient internal surfaces blackenings will show less glare in identical conditions than the one with a weaker baffle and blackening! Even if one person is more sensitive to glare than another person (this is another discussion), the difference in glare will still remain between the binoculars regardless of the person. Some will see little or even no glare difference, and others will quickly notice the glare difference. That depends a lot on the person's experience with the binoculars.
Don, Its true you came to the same choice, but for very different reasons.
tenex
reality-based
What does it mean if you get the intonation wrong?
Can we simply make post #42 sticky, point to it as needed, and finally stop arguing about "glare"? Some instruments are more prone to it; some observers also are, whether due to anatomy or habits, and will need to avoid those models as others might not. Case closed.
Is the 'nobody' in this scenario yourself?
Why not replicate the conditions of my test yourself and see what the result is? All you need is the sun shining around the corner of a building and a pair of binos.......
Lee
Lee, having very recently taken delivery of some 10x32 NL Pure's, and having rejected the opportunity to purchase some 10x32 Victory SF's at a very considerable cost saving over the NL Pure's, I read your comparison review with great interest. Another excellent read (as always), thank you very much! 🍻
In fact, given that I read it yesterday, and yesterday was the first sunny day we've had since I purchased the NL's, 'glaregate' had me grabbing the binoculars, plus another pair for reference, and scurrying with rather more urgency than usual, to my daily stamping ground, for their first proper outing in the field.
Firstly, THANK YOU for scaring me into action! Having enjoyed viewing a stack of five red kite and a common buzzard circling, on my way to my favoured bird/wildlife observation area, I spotted another raptor atop a tree at a spot I call 'kestrel corner', as I frequently observe one hunting there, then realised there was a second atop an adjacent tree. A pair of kestrels, maybe? No, smaller. I lifted my bins up to my eyes and just as the bird snapped into focus, something small and black flew past in front of it and the raptor took off in pursuit, quickly joined by the second. As they flew away from me, I concentrated on what they were hunting down, more than trying to identify the raptors, and could barely believe my eyes...in broad daylight and against a clear blue sky, it was a bat!
The three disappeared over the treetops, and I continued my walk. A few hundred metres further on, I spotted one of the raptors in a tree, and this time at an angle which enabled me to identify it, a beautiful female merlin.
I began searching for the second one, and spotted it in a tree much closer to me. I raised the bins to my eyes, and there he was, the male with his stunning sharp grey bonnet.
As I observed him, he left his perch in the tree and flew down to the grass approximately 15 metres in front of me. He tore a strip from his kill, and flew back to his perch. He repeated this a few minutes later. The female, meanwhile, just sat on her perch looking pretty, I didn't see her feed.
At this point, some people walking their dog walked past, which prompted the male to retreat somewhere out of site.
I decided to leave them in peace to finish eating their kill.
Well, what a treat that was, and all of those observations were facing a low winter sun which was just a few degrees above, or to the left or right of field, the whole time. I sensed nothing bothersome whatsoever, in terms of stray light.
Without your review, I would never have seen those merlins.
Glare? What glare? 😉
A couple of opinions/observations, related to your comparison, Lee, regarding the NL Pure...
Focus: I have a suspicion that you possibly value speed of focus more than most. But, maybe I am the one in the minority here. For me, I tend to know approximately where my targets will be, and I will rarely need to do much more than move my finger to the left or right to focus on my target, I very infrequently need to 'spin' the wheel. I would suggest the speed of focus of the NL is essentially what users might perceive as 'normal', whereas the urgent refocusing scenario you describe will likely only apply to a few, but maybe I'm wrong. Is it maybe just that you prefer a considerably faster than normal focus mechanism due to the nature of the very diverse targets you enjoy simultaneously? For me, as I rarely find myself in extreme refocusing situations, I really can't criticise the NL Pure's speed of focus mechanism, but I do totally get why you might.
I think it's fair to say that many (the majority?) find the ergonomics of the Victory SF '32's superior to the NL's, myself included, they're truly sublime in the hand. But, and I'm not sure if JvD made one available to you to try, I find the optional forehead rest evens things up a bit for the NL Pure, in terms of ease of use. When I read about it, I was very sceptical, and convinced myself that it was nothing more than a gimmick, but even though I was advised that it really wasn't necessary for a 10x, by the retailer selling the binoculars to me, I decided to buy it and try it anyway. And, I was surprised. Obviously the instrument feels the same in the hand, but the forehead rest, for me, dramatically assists positioning, and steadiness when viewing, and, I would suggest, negates the effect you describe of the metal part of the eyecups causing the instrument to skate across the lenses of a pair of glasses. Not what it was designed for, but a positive side effect. It also got me wondering if a Zeiss equivalent would assist with negating those frustrating kidney beans/blackouts I was unable to reliably control while using the SF's, but maybe there's a patent involved. One slight negative, the binoculars are a very tight fit in their case...a bit too tight, with the forehead rest fitted.
I'm a habitual user of lens caps and rainguards when I'm out and about (a habit picked up from using binoculars in very dry, dusty environments in Africa), so their fit and ease of use are of particular interest to me. Here, I adore the NL's lens caps and very neat fitting/mechanism, but hate the SF's one piece offering, for lack of ease of use. But, the NL's rainguard fits far too tightly, whereas the SF's is a far more pliable affair which slides on and off far more easily and smoothly. 1-1 there.
Lastly, the FP strap system, hated by so many. I absolutely love it, so much neater and easier to attach than a 'traditional' strap.
Oh, and why doesn't the SF come with an equivalent of Swarovski's 'piece de resistance', the bar of soap and brush! 😁
Hope the above comes across as objective, not bias/defensive because I'm protecting the reputation of my new toy! 😉🙂
James
In fact, given that I read it yesterday, and yesterday was the first sunny day we've had since I purchased the NL's, 'glaregate' had me grabbing the binoculars, plus another pair for reference, and scurrying with rather more urgency than usual, to my daily stamping ground, for their first proper outing in the field.
Firstly, THANK YOU for scaring me into action! Having enjoyed viewing a stack of five red kite and a common buzzard circling, on my way to my favoured bird/wildlife observation area, I spotted another raptor atop a tree at a spot I call 'kestrel corner', as I frequently observe one hunting there, then realised there was a second atop an adjacent tree. A pair of kestrels, maybe? No, smaller. I lifted my bins up to my eyes and just as the bird snapped into focus, something small and black flew past in front of it and the raptor took off in pursuit, quickly joined by the second. As they flew away from me, I concentrated on what they were hunting down, more than trying to identify the raptors, and could barely believe my eyes...in broad daylight and against a clear blue sky, it was a bat!
The three disappeared over the treetops, and I continued my walk. A few hundred metres further on, I spotted one of the raptors in a tree, and this time at an angle which enabled me to identify it, a beautiful female merlin.
I began searching for the second one, and spotted it in a tree much closer to me. I raised the bins to my eyes, and there he was, the male with his stunning sharp grey bonnet.
As I observed him, he left his perch in the tree and flew down to the grass approximately 15 metres in front of me. He tore a strip from his kill, and flew back to his perch. He repeated this a few minutes later. The female, meanwhile, just sat on her perch looking pretty, I didn't see her feed.
At this point, some people walking their dog walked past, which prompted the male to retreat somewhere out of site.
I decided to leave them in peace to finish eating their kill.
Well, what a treat that was, and all of those observations were facing a low winter sun which was just a few degrees above, or to the left or right of field, the whole time. I sensed nothing bothersome whatsoever, in terms of stray light.
Without your review, I would never have seen those merlins.
Glare? What glare? 😉
A couple of opinions/observations, related to your comparison, Lee, regarding the NL Pure...
Focus: I have a suspicion that you possibly value speed of focus more than most. But, maybe I am the one in the minority here. For me, I tend to know approximately where my targets will be, and I will rarely need to do much more than move my finger to the left or right to focus on my target, I very infrequently need to 'spin' the wheel. I would suggest the speed of focus of the NL is essentially what users might perceive as 'normal', whereas the urgent refocusing scenario you describe will likely only apply to a few, but maybe I'm wrong. Is it maybe just that you prefer a considerably faster than normal focus mechanism due to the nature of the very diverse targets you enjoy simultaneously? For me, as I rarely find myself in extreme refocusing situations, I really can't criticise the NL Pure's speed of focus mechanism, but I do totally get why you might.
I think it's fair to say that many (the majority?) find the ergonomics of the Victory SF '32's superior to the NL's, myself included, they're truly sublime in the hand. But, and I'm not sure if JvD made one available to you to try, I find the optional forehead rest evens things up a bit for the NL Pure, in terms of ease of use. When I read about it, I was very sceptical, and convinced myself that it was nothing more than a gimmick, but even though I was advised that it really wasn't necessary for a 10x, by the retailer selling the binoculars to me, I decided to buy it and try it anyway. And, I was surprised. Obviously the instrument feels the same in the hand, but the forehead rest, for me, dramatically assists positioning, and steadiness when viewing, and, I would suggest, negates the effect you describe of the metal part of the eyecups causing the instrument to skate across the lenses of a pair of glasses. Not what it was designed for, but a positive side effect. It also got me wondering if a Zeiss equivalent would assist with negating those frustrating kidney beans/blackouts I was unable to reliably control while using the SF's, but maybe there's a patent involved. One slight negative, the binoculars are a very tight fit in their case...a bit too tight, with the forehead rest fitted.
I'm a habitual user of lens caps and rainguards when I'm out and about (a habit picked up from using binoculars in very dry, dusty environments in Africa), so their fit and ease of use are of particular interest to me. Here, I adore the NL's lens caps and very neat fitting/mechanism, but hate the SF's one piece offering, for lack of ease of use. But, the NL's rainguard fits far too tightly, whereas the SF's is a far more pliable affair which slides on and off far more easily and smoothly. 1-1 there.
Lastly, the FP strap system, hated by so many. I absolutely love it, so much neater and easier to attach than a 'traditional' strap.
Oh, and why doesn't the SF come with an equivalent of Swarovski's 'piece de resistance', the bar of soap and brush! 😁
Hope the above comes across as objective, not bias/defensive because I'm protecting the reputation of my new toy! 😉🙂
James
Last edited:
Post # 42?
Are you saying that what I wrote was so truly, universally and utterly right that nothing more can or should be said? Is that what you are saying? I like that.
Well yes, but Im not alone, am I? Lee, as Ive written many times my most frequented birding place is a trail with large open salt marsh on one side and San Francisco Bay on the other. Looking something like do west, most days I can see the Golden Gate Bridge several miles across the Bay. I dont have to go looking for glare as you did, and suggest I should do. I have glare most every day, unless its foggy. I sometimes think the worst glare of the day is coming off cars on the drive to the trail head. This time of year especially, high noonish and/or later in the day, the sun's glare off the Bay is impossible. It doesn't matter if Im viewing through my ELs, Victory Pockets, 35 year ol Zeiss 1040Bs or my birding friend is trying to take pictures. In fact the birders I encounter with whatever bino around their neck, all know, the best viewing at those times is 180 degrees in the other direction over the marsh. We also know there are bends in the trail, places where the angle changes and we can see better out over the Bay. I dont expect Binos to eliminate glare. I dont believe binos create glare. When its at its worst Ill put on polarized sunglasses and look through my binos just fine (ala Roger, though he looks better doing it).Is the 'nobody' in this scenario yourself?
Why not replicate the conditions of my test yourself and see what the result is? All you need is the sun shining around the corner of a building and a pair of binos.......
Lee
To be candid, I found your review of the SF/ NLs sort of incongruous, given what had already been written by Jan, (who loaned those to you), Gils, Canip, Roger, Holger, Tobias, (even surprisingly Dennis!). All remarked how well the NLs dealt with glare with a bit of adjustment in hold, given the often BF mythologized glare problem with ELs. This I think a quote that sort of summarized from those... (was it Holger or Canip?)...sorry. "Glare is there if you want to go looking for it." The scene you used to demonstrate the NL as glare monsters, (a term not one of these reviewers has used), and the one you suggest I go seek, seems a solution in search of a problem. If the sun is in my eyes, walking down the street I Iook away or put on my sunglasses. When driving, ditto, or use the visor, or change road position. With binos? Welcome to mother nature, deal with it.
Tenex as well seems to agree. Perhaps we've beaten this horse enough?
Bentley03, just above speaks eloquently enough to it and a couple other impressions you had. I'll speak to one more. My Els require 2.5 turns of the focuser to go from 6' to infinity, That may be a different evaluation than you described, but would seem slower than what you reported for the NLs or Zeiss. They are way slower than my Ol Zeiss or the Victory Pockets. In practice they are not slow. Bentley03 covers it. In a place, Bay Trail or dense Redwood forest, rarely am I looking at things spanning those distances, requiring full rotation. I remember worrying about this when I first got the ELs only to be pleasantly surprised in the field over the distances required in a given place, the required movement is way less. The precision of focus is appreciated, as I work to discern bird from cover, stuff fore and aft. It takes seconds to adapt between each of my 3 binos, something I don't fret over.
henry link
Well-known member
Glare is created in all binoculars when an off-axis light source, not necessarily as bright as the sun, but much brighter than the scene being observed excites an internal reflection at an angle that sends bright non image forming light into the eye. The point of baffling is to block that light from reaching the eye. It's pretty easy to see when that hasn't happened just by examining the interior with a magnifier placed at the exit pupil. It's not a matter for debate when a reflection is there to see. I've examined the interiors of the NLs, located the internal reflections that cause glare and photographed them. I also posted three photos that demonstrate why the glare will not always be seen.
Do you want to understand how glare actually works or do you just want to be reassured that you favorite binocular doesn't have any? Adding up subjective impressions from confirmers and deniers is not a good way to understand what's going on.
Do you want to understand how glare actually works or do you just want to be reassured that you favorite binocular doesn't have any? Adding up subjective impressions from confirmers and deniers is not a good way to understand what's going on.
Last edited:
First, I want to be shown that glare actually exists. I asked you a bit ago can you imagine what its like for those of us who dont think we see it and we read these explanations of where it comes from. What I don't see comes from... there? Do you see my struggle?" Im prepared to accept your explanation if someone can show me its there. In fact Im prepared to accept I see glare and just dont know it...
henry link
Well-known member
You've already seen it. The bright crescent of internal reflection at the bottom of the photos I posted earlier in this thread is the glare brought to a sharp focus (link in post # 21). When you look through the binocular in the usual way the the same crescent of light becomes unfocused and spreads out into a hazy glare across the bottom of the field.
Last edited:
I agree with you, and I have the same problem. Henry is trying to explain an issue that doesn't exist for us. I see no significant glare in the NL 10x32, yet Henry is telling me I do and trying to explain where it comes from! I know what glare is in a binocular because I see it easily in the NL 8x42, the Zeiss SF 8x42 and the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W. Henry, you may see the glare or your testing may show glare, but it is meaningless for us if we don't see it. Our eyes and eye sockets and brains are different from yours. That is what Allbinos tries to explain. One person saw glare in the same SV 10x50 and one person didn't. It is not just the binocular that causes glare, it is our own physiology which probably plays a bigger role in seeing glare than baffling and blackening. I agree with Tenex and Canip's explanation of glare above.
"Can we simply make post #42 sticky, point to it as required, and finally stop arguing about "glare"? Some instruments are more prone to it; some observers also are, whether due to anatomy or habits, and will need to avoid those models as others might not. Case closed."
Last edited:
Well, I see what you call glare in those pictures. Ive not seen anything like that or their product that you describe, in my 3 binos.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
It took me seconds to see glare in the lower FOV of an NL…took seconds to adjust my view for it to mostly disappear….it was still undeniably there but manageable.
Henry is just about the only person still here to use actual methodical testing and I greatly appreciate his input. He saw spherical aberration in the HT series and I did not. I trust his method over my eyes…I don’t see it but I won’t deny its existence as individual eyes are no match for an actual scientific test.
Henry is just about the only person still here to use actual methodical testing and I greatly appreciate his input. He saw spherical aberration in the HT series and I did not. I trust his method over my eyes…I don’t see it but I won’t deny its existence as individual eyes are no match for an actual scientific test.
James, Does it matter?
Your NL experience ties in pretty nicely with the above listed reviewers to date, till Lee's. That would seem to matter. It encourages me to give em a chance.
As a kid in the '50s and '60s, I got to hang with my Dad as we visited "Hi Fi" shops in New Haven. We'd go to the back room sit in chairs and listen to combinations of speakers, amplifiers, trying to hear... something. I was never quite sure what. Each device was different, but better? Maybe in terms of some acoustic engineering standard, but to my ears? He'd bring the brochures home and study... are you ready for it? The specs, the science of hi fidelity. If you cant hear it, are you supposed to buy it? Science is good. I like science, especially when it explains something about human experience. Beyond that, does it matter?
You wrote, "it was still undeniably there but manageable." Maybe you could've written it like, "initially it was there, but after I adjusted my hold, I was able to make it go away."
Last edited:
I wouldn't deny the existence of glare if Henry's show it is there either, but if I don't see it or it doesn't affect my view when I use the binoculars, it is not important to me. It is kind of like upgrading your TV from 4K to the new 8K. Unless you have a huge screen, and you sit really close, it is not worth it.
Last edited:
Looking for common ground here.
My takeaway from the discussion (and from my own experience!) would go something like:
a. given the construction and design, there is sufficient evidence that more or less significant glare can occur in the NL
b. for some people, it appears to be a killer, they find it hard to use the NL without problem
c. some people admit experiencing glare, but say they can either live with it, since it is nothing major, or they can „manage“ it by adjusting holding position, eye placement, etc. etc., so that in the end they can use the NL as if it had no or very little occurrence of glare (I am in this group)
d. some people say they do not experience glare at all and therefore say they don‘t understand the discussion going on here
e. I don‘t expect people in groups b, c and d to ever agree with each other, unless they accept that people in another group than their own can be as right as they are themselves.
Canip
- Status
