• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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).

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.
Unless I am misunderstanding you it seems your often repeated statement 'I don't see glare' is hardly accurate and that you simply avoid seeing it which isn't the same thing at all.

As for my test for glare being "a solution in search of a problem", this is a nice turn of phrase but the test wasn't a solution but simply a way to establish whether NL8x32 is susceptible to glare. Moreover, with the sun mostly hidden by the building next door I would contend that the test was not severe.

Finally, you stated that binos don't create glare. See Henry's post 72 and the photos he has posted. Glare in binos is caused by the bino's mis-management of light. Ask yourself (or Google) why the insides of binoculars are painted black. It is to prevent reflections and if this is not done thoroughly and carefully enough then there can be areas of bright aluminium or magnesium that reflect bright light causing what we call glare or non-image-forming light. Light reflecting off these bright spots is no different from the light you see reflecting of auto hoods.

I think from what you have posted about this, especially your reply to James's Post 77, that you feel if glare can be avoided, then it doesn't exist or at least it doesn't exist for all practical purposes. Another example is your quoting 'glare is there if you look for it' as if this is confirmation that the glare doesn't exist.

Avoiding glare-producing situations is one solution but from time to time observers find themselves looking up steep mountain sides towards the sky, or following the flight of a hawk, falcon, eagle, gull, tern, heron etc and in these circumstances it is quite possible to encounter glare as indeed it is when scanning over lakes or oceans with sunlight reflecting off it. The point here is that these circumstances arise and different binos handle it with different degrees of success.

Lee
 
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
Excellent summary.

Lee
 
I spent another 4-5 hours out in the field again yesterday. I was focusing on optimising positioning, they can work for me with eyecups either fully retracted, at first click up or at second click up, which is terrific, and gives me plenty of options. But, over a 2 hour period spent facing the low sun, with an expanse of water in front of me, yes, I was able to provoke glare, but also control it (almost) completely. The acute angle between the sun and the water, with a stiff breeze causing ripples, made conditions extreme, and quite impossible to tolerate with the naked eye, yet I was able to view, and enjoy watching relatively comfortably, water birds passing in and out of the reflection of the sun on the water, over a long period of time, without glare being bothersome.

Despite my tongue in cheek 'Glare? What glare?' comment in my previous post, of course there is glare if you look for it, but I genuinely don't find lack of control of stray light to be an inherent flaw/characteristic in the 10x32 NL Pure. Maybe it is in the 8x32, and that is the reason Lee highlighted the issue so prominently in his review. I don't know.

Anyway, having read Lee and Henry's posts quite extensively on this forum, I happily bow to their vastly superior experience and knowledge in this field, and have no option than to conclude that they are clearly not making this up. Sure, under certain conditions there's glare in these binoculars, but for me, it's far from intolerable, and little worse (and in many cases better) than in most of the binoculars I have tried.

On a personal level, the glare issue (or non issue) is a characteristic I'm hardly aware of and in no way spoils my enjoyment when using them, whereas the blackouts/kidney beans which were ever present in the equivalent Zeiss Victory SF's I tested extensively, rendered them virtually unusable.

Lastly, what struck me about my new binoculars in particular, yesterday, was the incredibly true rendition of colour. The best I've ever seen in a binocular? Probably, the views are simply breathtaking, and in particular, I'm enjoying watching slow moving birds on the wing with a bright blue sky as a backdrop, like never before. I'm getting wow after wow after wow...totally thrilled with my purchase! 😁
 
James, Does it matter?
Your NL experience ties in pretty nicely with the above listed reviewers to date, till Lee's.
What James said was "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".

What I said was that the "glare could be made better or worse by small movements of the binocular in relation to the observer’s eyes".

Notice also that James said "It took me seconds to see glare in the lower FOV of an NL"

In my Post 40 I said" 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".

I see no disagreement at all between myself and James.

And BTW my article was not a review hence the title. Regular visitors will know my reviews involve coasts, birds, animals and the weather and I am pleased to announce that my loan of this instrument has been extended to allow me to take it to the island of Islay in April/May so that it can have a chance to show what it can do in the field.

Lee
 
Last edited:
In the end Swarovski will sell many more NLs than Zeiss will sell SFs. So the glare is in the end a non issue, take that to the bank.
 
View attachment 1426033

Thanks to Birdforum member Jan van Daalen, I have had the use of a Swarovski NL 8x32 during the past few weeks and have been able to compare them with my own Zeiss SF 8x32. Here is what I discovered.

The NL comes with that curiously sculptured shape and I was intrigued to find out how useful it would feel during active nature observation, as opposed to how it feels when trying it out in an armchair. Well, I didn’t arrive at any firm conclusions about this as at various times my reaction was ‘this feels odd’, ‘it’s nice to have more room for my thumbs’, and ‘I prefer the SF’s bigger diameter tubes that give me a more secure grip’. I alternated between these findings and never really decided on a final judgement, although I suppose you could argue that the waisted-shape of NL didn’t prove to be an unambiguous improvement for me.

Physically, I wouldn’t want a 32mm to be much heavier than the NL and neither would I like one to be much longer than the SF.

Before moving on to the optics I should mention that the NL has 6 eyecup positions compared to SF’s 4 which gives it an advantage when adjusting the eyecups to see the full field of view while avoiding black-outs. However I found it baffling that Swarovski have chosen to site the dioptre scale on the underside of the hinge, as this means that for some observers, their IPD setting will mean they cannot see the zero position of the dioptre scale and so cannot see their own setting. They would have to destroy their IPD setting in order to reset the dioptre in the event of it having been moved accidently. Observers who believe the IPD is critical to binocular performance and who would normally never change this once they have set it, will find this particularly annoying. See the photo below on the left, which shows NL set to my own 58.5mm IPD and the fact that I cannot see the zero mark to check or reset my dioptre without destroying my IPD setting.

One thing was very clear from the outset and that is that both of these models have fabulous optics, sharp across the field of view and very well-controlled chromatic aberration. I did notice that NL produced a slightly brighter image than SF, and this was especially clear when looking at white objects. The NL’s white was simply whiter. Having said that it would be wrong to say the SF’s image was perceptibly dull.

This extra brightness of NL (combined with a greater choice of eyecup positions) would seem to put NL into a commanding lead in this comparison, but in the world of binoculars things are never so simple.

Take a look at the photo below, on the right, and here you can see the suburban scene outside our house. Note how the brightness of the low winter sun is just visible around the corner of our next-door neighbour’s bay window. More or less in the centre of the pic is the side of large house in the distance and on it, high up near the roof, is a white-framed window. From the same position as the photographer I looked through both models at this window (so fairly close to the sun), both with and without spectacles, to assess them for glare, which is what we call non-image-forming light. Cutting a long story short, whereas SF showed only a small area of glare (which was transparent), NL produced large areas (up to 50% of the field of view) of milky glare which could be made better or worse by small movements of the binocular in relation to the observer’s eyes. While the circumstances of my investigating the production of glare in these models could be described as ‘artificial’ I contend that viewing towards strong sunlight (but never directly at it) often happens when looking at birds high in the sky, and a similar situation often occurs when observing over lakes and the sea with sunlight reflecting off the water. My experience with NL convinced me that the various complaints we have seen on Birdforum that NL is a ‘glare-monster’ do have a foundation in fact. The variability of these reports is also borne out by my findings that small changes in the position of the observer’s eyes in relation to the binocular’s exit pupil can have a big influence on the size of the area of the fov that is rendered useless by the glare. 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.

In my opinion, at least as problematic as the glare issue, is NL’s speed of focusing. I have a standard test for estimating the focus speed of binoculars and that is to focus first on a building that is 4km (2.5 miles) away from our house, and then estimating the number of turns of the focus wheel it takes to refocus onto a point 2.0 metres from where I sit at my computer.

As a background, let me first use Zeiss HT 8x42 as an example. This model takes 1.2 turns on my test and I find this fast enough in Scotland and in most of England given the biodiversity (number of species of birds, dragonflies and butterflies etc.) in these areas. In a few places in England and certainly in the big wetland habitats in mainland Europe (where the biodiversity is much higher than in the UK) such as De Groote Peel in the Netherlands and near Vendres and Narbonne in the Languedoc of Southern France, HT struggled to get me refocused from near to far and back again in time to capture views of small birds or dragonflies nearby followed by Harriers, Herons, Terns or Egrets in the distance and then back to a nearby butterfly. I was simply missing too many views of some of these as I was spending too much time pumping the focus wheel.

Now, NL 8x32 took 1.4 turns in my test (so is significantly slower than the HT) whereas the SF only took 1.1 turns, which is a small but useful improvement compared with HT. For me, the SF’s speed is a good balance between speed (in some habitats) and precision of focus (in other places), but the NL, with a focus speed around 30% slower, is simply too slow for me. Of course other observers in other places may have a quite different opinion.

Finally, I found the rainguard too tight around the eyecups, making it tricky to get it on and off quickly in the rain. Moreover, when pulling off the rainguard it quite often pulled up one of the eyecups out of position. And as for the Field Pro strap, it seems perversely complicated to me but at least Swarovski include adaptors to allow a standard strap to be fitted.

Overall then, my take on NL 8x32 is that it is a flawed model with great optics let down by its tendency to glare and the slowness of its focus. For now SF 8x32 remains the top choice of my binos.

Lee


View attachment 1426034View attachment 1426035
Nice, short and precise observational review. Do you have that same glare picture looking through the SF for comparison?
I do like a slightly faster focuser, but not to fast. The focus wheel travel from close to infinity definitely is more in the NL, but did you notice that from say 30ft (give or take) that it actually needs less travel to infinity than the SF?

The eyecup thing although tight on NL, it does stay on. As apposed to the Zeiss that breathing on it makes it fall to the ground.

Thank you
Paul
 
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
Canip, Could you ad an f. for folks who report not seeing it to date with their own binoculars, nor through limited experience with these others and would like to so they would know what all the conversation is about.

Ill raise my hand to be in that group...
 
Unless I am misunderstanding you it seems your often repeated statement 'I don't see glare' is hardly accurate and that you simply avoid seeing it which isn't the same thing at all.

As for my test for glare being "a solution in search of a problem", this is a nice turn of phrase but the test wasn't a solution but simply a way to establish whether NL8x32 is susceptible to glare. Moreover, with the sun mostly hidden by the building next door I would contend that the test was not severe.

Finally, you stated that binos don't create glare. See Henry's post 72 and the photos he has posted. Glare in binos is caused by the bino's mis-management of light. Ask yourself (or Google) why the insides of binoculars are painted black. It is to prevent reflections and if this is not done thoroughly and carefully enough then there can be areas of bright aluminium or magnesium that reflect bright light causing what we call glare or non-image-forming light. Light reflecting off these bright spots is no different from the light you see reflecting of auto hoods.

I think from what you have posted about this, especially your reply to James's Post 77, that you feel if glare can be avoided, then it doesn't exist or at least it doesn't exist for all practical purposes. Another example is your quoting 'glare is there if you look for it' as if this is confirmation that the glare doesn't exist.

Avoiding glare-producing situations is one solution but from time to time observers find themselves looking up steep mountain sides towards the sky, or following the flight of a hawk, falcon, eagle, gull, tern, heron etc and in these circumstances it is quite possible to encounter glare as indeed it is when scanning over lakes or oceans with sunlight reflecting off it. The point here is that these circumstances arise and different binos handle it with different degrees of success.

Lee
re this, "Unless I am misunderstanding you it seems your often repeated statement 'I don't see glare' is hardly accurate and that you simply avoid seeing it which isn't the same thing at all." You are. I notice when these conversations rub up against long held, often discussed positions, tensions rise, defenses go up. Glare is all around us. Its natural. We have to deal with it. The sun bouncing off cars, over the open waters of a bay, the ocean, snow, produces glare. We all endeavor to avoid it. It hurts. If Im confronted by glare looking through my binoculars in those conditions, indeed I turn away, as do most people I talk with about this stuff with. I don't believe I've ever denied this here. That said, I have yet to experience glare through my binoculars that is worse, peculiar to them, exacerbated by them, than what I see with the naked eye. See the difference?

"As for my test for glare being "a solution in search of a problem", this is a nice turn of phrase but the test wasn't a solution but simply a way to establish whether NL8x32 is susceptible to glare. Moreover, with the sun mostly hidden by the building next door I would contend that the test was not severe." Years ago, I found myself doing business in Australia, was there a couple weeks. I spent a weekend at the home of a friend in Sydney. It was August, their winter. Given I wasn't sure I'd ever get back, we surfed. We walked the beaches. He showed me these large tidal rock pools where kids swim in the summer protected from sharks. We ate out, enjoyed the place. Hopefully you get the point. Late Sunday afternoon, yakking, we stopped, looked at each other and shared the observation we were communicating accurately with each other maybe 80% of the time. Australian English, American English, (and yes here British English), are not the same. If we dont stop, put the defenses down and ask first, whats this guy mean by that turn of phrase, like above my "solution in search of a problem." things go south. Whoops, there's another!

"Finally, you stated that binos don't create glare. See Henry's post 72 and the photos he has posted. Glare in binos is caused by the bino's mis-management of light." Technically I believe I am right, binos dont create anything, they do permit light to be bent to our will to bring objects closer with varying degrees of success depending on design. Permit yes, create, no. Did I use the word create? My bad. But lets not be snarky. See above. There's no need to direct me yet again to Henrys pictures, I've seen them off and on for the 18 months or so Ive been coming here. In fact going back and researching various things its hard not to come across Henry who's been at this way longer than me and has garnered support for his technical approach to the subject. That aint me. You I think, miss the most important point. I dont see what you and others report seeing. Who am I to deny your observation? No one. I'm not. I asked Henry last week and again yesterday in #73 this question, "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..."

Lee, I spend a lot of time editing, trying not to invite the sort reactions going on here. That may not show. Perhaps in this, just above my "I want to be shown glare actually exists" could've been expressed better as I think I explain in my first paragraph. Of course glare exists, we all know this, so when used in a sentence like this what am I saying? I shoulda written "I want to be shown glare actually exists as a thing exacerbated by binoculars." But the essence of that #72 to Henry was, "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?" Note I wrote, "don't think we see it" And again as something uniquely coming from my bino. Henry has not acknowledged that straight forward question. Can you Lee understand the frustration I and others express, when we read over and over about glare being a thing associated with a given binocular brand, model and we don't?

Here's another bit of perspective, i think about. Its my impression from reading here, Swarovski, the primary beneficiary, (yes another attempt at humor), is the largest seller of best quality binoculars. Its seems without data, other than what Jan supplies, we mostly accept in terms of most successful sellers, its Swaro, followed by Zeiss, followed by Leica. I imagine total sales of all quality levels its more than likely someone like Nikon. But if this impression is right, how do we imagine Swarovski would consciously make and continue to make binos that allow glare, in the face of constant Birdforum criticism of binoculars with this inherent flaw? How in the world would they spend the R&D time and money to create the new and improved NLs and yet again continue to do this? It beggars credibility, just a wee bit, don't you think? Add the 2 notions, put Henry' science to one side, can you see the cause for doubt?
 
Last edited:
What James said was "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".

What I said was that the "glare could be made better or worse by small movements of the binocular in relation to the observer’s eyes".

Notice also that James said "It took me seconds to see glare in the lower FOV of an NL"

In my Post 40 I said" 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".

I see no disagreement at all between myself and James.

And BTW my article was not a review hence the title. Regular visitors will know my reviews involve coasts, birds, animals and the weather and I am pleased to announce that my loan of this instrument has been extended to allow me to take it to the island of Islay in April/May so that it can have a chance to show what it can do in the field.

Lee
Simply compare what you wrote to what Jan, Gils, Canip, Roger, Holger, Tobias and (again) even Denco wrote. Inquiring minds...
 
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
Glare is a personal thing but it affects each individual differently just as much as rolling ball and chromatic aberration.
 
What follows may be irrelevant to the 'glaregate' debate this thread has turned into, but to me it was an interesting comparison between the two Swarovski binoculars I own, and gave me a degree of reassurance...

I took my lightweight 'daily walkers' with me this morning, a pair of 8x30 CL Companion's (latest generation), to test them for veiling glare under the same conditions (or as similar as I could conjure) as my 10x32 NL Pure's yesterday. In Lee's review, he describes the NL Pure's showing a large area of milky glare covering as much as 50% of the field. I experienced the same thing with the CL Companion's under extreme conditions, maybe not as much as 50%, but I'd estimate it affected the bottom third of the field, when viewing a few degrees below the sun (over still water), when it was positioned directly in front of me, and gradually disappeared into the corners when panning to the left or right of the sun. The CL Companion's have a few mm's less eye relief than the NL Pure's, so although I can comfortably see the full field of view to the field stop, I don't have the same flexibility with positioning that I have with the NL Pure's, so a slight tilt reduced the amount of milky glare, but I was unable to eradicate it altogether.

Bearing in mind that I was deliberately trying to provoke glare in a binocular that has never bothered me in the least, in terms of stray light suppression (and I've seen no complaints from other users of CL Companion's regarding glare either), I find myself reassured that I am luckier than many, in terms of the comparatively minimal and well controlled/easily controlled amount of glare I experience when viewing through my 'glare monsters'.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to these four alpha's, the Zeiss SF 8x32 and 10x32 and Swarovski NL 8x32 and 10x32, it just comes down to personal preference which you prefer. These are the four best birding binoculars for most people you can buy right now. Every binoculars fit's different people's eye sockets different, and all of our eyes are different with different rods and cones. For example, I preferred the Zeiss SF 8x32 over the 8x42 because I got orange crescents in the lower part of the FOV with the bigger 8x42. Glare is a personal thing, and it varies from person to person with different binoculars. I got bad glare in the Swarovski NL 8x42 but practically no glare in the NL 10x32 so that shoots Henry's theory about smaller exit pupil binoculars having more glare all to heck. It is not true! It depends on the PERSON if you see glare or not.
You forgot the other six best alpha birding binoculars in the Leica UVHDs and NVs. I forgive you 😄✌🏼🙏🏼
 
Simply compare what you wrote to what Jan, Gils, Canip, Roger, Holger, Tobias and (again) even Denco wrote. Inquiring minds...
What does that "Even Denco Mean?" Am I chopped liver or what? I think that was "glaringly" obvious, that was an insult.
 
Last edited:
Glare is a personal thing but it affects each individual differently just as much as rolling ball and chromatic aberration.
Exactly. I agree with that 100%. A lot of people are less sensitive to glare, RB or CA. It depends on your eye sockets, eyes and brain.
 
Last edited:
You forgot the other six best alpha birding binoculars in the Leica UVHDs and NVs. I forgive you 😄✌🏼🙏🏼
I didn't try the Leica UVHD+ 10x32, but it would be interesting to see how it compares. I know the UVHD+8x32 is very good and is one of the most compact 32 mm's on the market. If there was a Noctivid 8x32 or 10x32, I am sure it would fare very favorably against the SF and NL.
 
Glare is a personal thing but it affects each individual differently just as much as rolling ball and chromatic aberration.
None of these three is subjective or personal.

Rolling ball is what happens when objects near the field edge have their shapes distorted by angular magnification distortion and are set in motion by panning the binocular. Whether individuals are disturbed by the effect is what is personal, not the effect itself.

Chromatic aberrations are as real as any other colors in the image and can be seen by all non-color blind people provided an appropriate lighting situation and target are used to observe them.

Glare will be seen by everyone if an internal reflection in the binocular travels back through the eyepiece, enters the pupil of the eye and is projected on the retina, period.

Making every observation "personal" has the effect of making every observation unassailable, especially the ones that are supported by nothing.
 
None of these three is subjective or personal.

Rolling ball is what happens when objects near the field edge have their shapes distorted by angular magnification distortion and are set in motion by panning the binocular. Whether individuals are disturbed by the effect is what is personal, not the effect itself.

Chromatic aberrations are as real as any other colors in the image and can be seen by all non-color blind people provided an appropriate lighting situation and target are used to observe them.

Glare will be seen by everyone if an internal reflection in the binocular travels back through the eyepiece, enters the pupil of the eye and is projected on the retina, period.

Making every observation "personal" has the effect of making every observation unassailable, especially the ones that are supported by nothing.
Very clearly put, thank you.

Just wondering...
Are there any instruments out there with perfect baffling? Or will extreme natural conditions (such as viewing close to a bright low sun in snowy conditions) produce glare in every binocular?


Could anyone comment on the performance regarding glare of the two best binoculars currently on sale, the Nikon 7x50 WX and 10x50 WX ?

Cheers
Andy
 
None of these three is subjective or personal.

Rolling ball is what happens when objects near the field edge have their shapes distorted by angular magnification distortion and are set in motion by panning the binocular. Whether individuals are disturbed by the effect is what is personal, not the effect itself.

Chromatic aberrations are as real as any other colors in the image and can be seen by all non-color blind people provided an appropriate lighting situation and target are used to observe them.

Glare will be seen by everyone if an internal reflection in the binocular travels back through the eyepiece, enters the pupil of the eye and is projected on the retina, period.

Making every observation "personal" has the effect of making every observation unassailable, especially the ones that are supported by nothing.
It could be, but everybody varies in how sensitive they are to these aberrations. Once glare enters the eye it goes through the pupil and is then projected on to the retina and then the optic nerve transmits that information to the brain. The brain then deciphers this information, so we actually see with our brain, not our eyes. Everybody actually sees the world differently and that includes how they see glare because our brains are all different. One person's brain could be much more sensitive to glare than another person's brain. That is the part you don't seem to understand. Here is some reading material for you on how all our brains interpret information differently. Binoculars are just not about baffles and blackening and angular distortion. What we actually see is decided mainly by our brains. Reality is determined by your brain. Every observation is personal because we all have different brains.

Image result for how do the eyes work

How Does the Eye Work?
  1. Step 1: Light enters the eye through the cornea. ...
  2. Step 2: The pupil adjusts in response to the light. ...
  3. Step 3: The lens focuses the light onto the retina. ...
  4. Step 4: The light is focused onto the retina. ...
  5. Step 5: The optic nerve transmits visual information to the brain.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top