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

[Dennis Mau]

I disagree, and I think you have stepped off the path (if you were ever on it) and wandered off into the swamp with that statement.

The recent research in Neuroscience at neuroscience.stanford.edu disagrees with you. Here is a good article from Stanford Neuroscience explaining why reality is determined by your brain. If you disagree, support your argument with facts or research studies. I would be interested to read them.

“Reality” is constructed by your brain. Here’s what that means, and why it

What the science of visual illusions can teach us about our polarized world.

neuroscience.stanford.edu

 

[dorubird]

We are all right in some way ...

We put the binoculars in a torture scenario to see how he behaves. To get an idea of the performance of a binoculars we need to put it in extreme and provocative situations. We do not experience these extreme situations very often. For example here are some situations when provoke certain aberrations:
We put the Sun in the frame at different angles to provoke Glare.
We looking at the immaculate snow to provoke dominant tone (blue, yellow, green , red etc).
With binoculars on the tripod we splitting of lines resolution chart for the resolution test.

We rarely meet with these scenarios in real observation, but we deliberate do these limit tests just to see more better the performance differences between two very close binoculars. Because in normal and "quiet" situations the differences are more difficult to observe, or even not at all observable. So for differentiation we use these stress tests, and torture scenarios. We are not gentle with our binoculars in such provocative tests to see their limits

 

[Paultricounty]

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.

Hi Henry

Much better said and agreed. These are measurable physical optical traits. It’s the amount of each individuals sensitivity to the measurable trait is what I was trying to relay. I do notice glare in the NL10x42, less so than the 8x. I don’t know any binoculars that don’t have some glare under certain conditions. CA to me stands out in almost all binoculars and rolling doesn’t effect me very much. Are these measurable optical traits not trade-offs? As in NL brighter and sharper detail than better glare control on SF which slightly darker. 🤔

Paul

 

[Maljunulo]

The recent research in Neuroscience at neuroscience.stanford.edu disagrees with you. Here is a good article from Stanford Neuroscience explaining why reality is determined by your brain. If you disagree, support your argument with facts or research studies. I would be interested to read them.

“Reality” is constructed by your brain. Here’s what that means, and why it

What the science of visual illusions can teach us about our polarized world.

neuroscience.stanford.edu

There it’s very little I can say in response to an argument which states that an illusion is reality.

If that is in fact your argument, I will just quietly retire from the field.

You are simply citing work which shows that the brain can be fooled, and using it to support your contention.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Hi Henry

Much better said and agreed. These are measurable physical optical traits. It’s the amount of each individuals sensitivity to the measurable trait is what I was trying to relay. I do notice glare in the NL10x42, less so than the 8x. I don’t know any binoculars that don’t have some glare under certain conditions. CA to me stands out in almost all binoculars and rolling doesn’t effect me very much. Are these measurable optical traits not trade-offs? As in NL brighter and sharper detail than better glare control on SF which slightly darker. 🤔

Paul

"It’s the amount of each individuals sensitivity to the measurable trait is what I was trying to relay."

Good point. The glare, CA and rolling ball might be there, and you can measure it and some binoculars have more or less, but everybody varies in how sensitive they are to these aberrations and how much they bother them.

 

[Dennis Mau]

There it’s very little I can say in response to an argument which states that an illusion is reality.

If that is in fact your argument, I will just quietly retire from the field.

You are simply citing work which shows that the brain can be fooled, and using it to support your contention.

No illusion is not reality. What the article is saying is everybodies reality is different and determined by our brains which are different for everybody. If you think about it, the brain interprets everything that the senses feed into it. The eyes are just like binoculars in that they feed images into the brain, but the point is since everybodies brain is different, those images are interpreted differently. One person brain may interpret an image as having a lot of glare, and another person's brain might interpret it as less glare. Our reality is determined by our brain. Sure there may be glare coming through that binocular as testing shows and through our corneas to our retinas and then from our retinas through our optic nerve to our brain but then our brain decides how much glare there is and everybodies brain is different. Some people's brain like Grampa Tom and mine say I don't see that much glare on the NL 10x32 and somebodies else brain may see a lot of glare. We see with our BRAIN, not our eyes.

 

[Maljunulo]

I give up.

I’m out.

 

[GrampaTom]

What does that "Even Denco Mean?" Am I chopped liver or what? I think that was "glaringly" obvious, that was an insult.

Nah! No insult intended. Surely you will acknowledge before you disappeared you were the glare guy. Those nasty ELs. We like the renaissance man. Don’t take offense.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Nah! No insult intended. Surely you will acknowledge before you disappeared you were the glare guy. Those nasty ELs. We like the renaissance man. Don’t take offense.

I was just kidding. I wanted you to know I was reading your post. I know I don't belong in that elite group!

 

[Troubador]

Simply compare what you wrote to what Jan, Gils, Canip, Roger, Holger, Tobias and (again) even Denco wrote. Inquiring minds...

I can only report what I found during my test and I posted the photo of the test conditions so that the circumstances of my findings would be clear to all. Other observers using the binoculars under conditions different from mine will probably experience different results. Still others using the binoculars in conditions with some similarities to those of my test may experience similar results. For example James, or Grando, who posted today on another thread, "Interestingly, having compared the 10x32 SF and NL today at a nature reserve I was struck by how much glare I experienced in the Swarovskis, with no glare in the Zeiss".

I suggest you try an NL yourself, replicate my test and report on your findings.

In the meantime, thanks to Jan van Daalen's generosity, I will be taking the NL to Islay and giving it a chance to show what it can do in real-life nature observing.

Lee

 

[GrampaTom]

In the meantime, thanks to Jan van Daalen's generosity, I will be taking the NL to Islay and giving it a chance to show what it can do in real-life nature observing.

Lee

Best news yet! We look forward to that report.

 

[henry link]

...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..."

..." 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...

Tom,

I hadn't planned to say anything more on this subject, but I just noticed these bits from you post #88 which appear to be directed to me. Frankly, I thought the photos where self explanatory and answered your questions. If not, I'll try again.

First, notice that the exit pupil in the photos is dark, not filled with the sort of dazzling SF Bay light you described as requiring sunglasses. I point the binocular into a dark area quite deliberately so that that there is no glare in the scene within the binocular FOV. The reason is to separate the glare generated by the binocular's internal reflections from the external glare that is a normal part of a dazzlingly bright scene. In this case I pointed the binocular at a deep shadow area under the back deck of my house, but I placed the binocular in open direct sunlight coming from about 30º above the peak of the roof so that direct sunlight penetrated about 30mm into the bottom of the binocular's interior exciting the reflections that you see in the photos. If I had focused the camera on the dark area under the deck instead of the binocular interior you would see some dark focused bricks inside a blurry exit pupil covered by a blurry smear of light across the bottom half.

If you try exactly this same set-up yourself with an NL you may not see glare if your eye's pupil is enough smaller than the exit pupil so that the glare falls harmlessly on your iris instead of entering your pupil, or if your eye is de-centered upward as in the middle photo so that the glare is covered by the bottom of a de-centered baffle, but you will certainly see glare if you rotate your eye downward toward the bottom of the FOV as in the right photo. If you don't see any glare when you look down it will be up to you to explain why not.

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

Hi Andy,

It's quite possible to successfully baffle binoculars against internal reflections and it's cheap. All it takes at most is a few baffles of the right sizes installed in the right places. Leica has a well deserved reputation for proper baffling. Among my binoculars the Canon 10x32 IS is outstandingly well baffled. I've seen some bottom of the barrel cheapos that were inadvertently well baffled by undersized internal apertures that covered up everything at the front of the binocular as seen from the eyepiece end, including part of the objective lens.

Nikon usually does OK with its baffling, but it doesn't take $6000 to do it right. All it takes is a few ten cent pieces of metal.

Henry

 

[dries1]

It is baffling that Swarovski, with all the testing that likely went into in the development of the NL, did not address this. I mean it has been described as a low cost solution.

 

[GrampaTom]

It is baffling that Swarovski, with all the testing that likely went into in the development of the NL, did not address this. I mean it has been described as a low cost solution.

Kinda raises a question or two, no?

 

[Hermann]

It is baffling that Swarovski, with all the testing that likely went into in the development of the NL, did not address this. I mean it has been described as a low cost solution.

Well, IMO Sawarovski doesn't care. The Habicht 8x30 was NEVER updated in more than 60 years even though the glare is glaringly obvious. Would only have taken a simple baffle, at a cost of a few cents.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

Kinda raises a question or two, no?

Yes. About the way Swarovski designs its binoculars.

Hermann

 

[Canip]

Yes. About the way Swarovski designs its binoculars.

Hermann

I don‘t get it - why is anybody buying this „low cost solution“ stuff from Swarovski, and how is it possible that Swarovski Optics sells more binos than Zeiss or Leica?

 

[Hermann]

I don‘t get it - why is anybody buying this „low cost solution“ stuff from Swarovski, and how is it possible that Swarovski Optics sells more binos than Zeiss or Leica?

I didn't say their binoculars are bad. Not at all. They do have a weakness though, they're not very resistant to glare. And that's a weakness that would in all probability be easy to rectify.

Hermann

 

[dries1]

I have the 8X42 and I can induce glare, but positioning is second nature for me. New to me is the SV 8X32 and personally it is not (somewhat historically characterized), a glare monster. The only other small aperture Swarovski I have is a SLC 8X30, also not an issue with glare.
The glare is there, but I wonder if it is observed more frequent in the smaller aperture NL models.
Either way, I am very pleased with the NL 8X42, it is also provides incredible views of a dark night sky.

Just wanted to add, I am not judging the optical engineers at Swarovski, after-all they know much more than anyone (about binocular design and manufacture) on this forum.

 

[Torview]

Swarovski Optik is interested in market share, and they certainly have it, this is all just my opinion, but to me they make binoculars that really "wow" when first tried in a retail setting, and they are very good at it, many here try out binoculars from the big three and declare the Swarovski`s as clearly the best, I can see why, they have exceptional clarity, sharpness and ease of view that nobody quite manages to equal IMHO. I`ve owned a good selection of top Swarovski offerings and with extended experience I found them all to have average to poor stray light control (my 8.5x42 ELSVFP was the best). For me Zeiss whom have made binoculars for far longer, like 100 years longer, and Leica, offer much better stray light control, maybe its years of experience showing through, maybe its a design choice, however, they never seem able to "wow" on audition like the Swarovski`s do, but if you spend a long time with something like the SF (and I`m sure the Noctivid) you might realise as I did that there`s something missing in the view, and that is the poor stray light control that`s always lurking in the Swarovski, even at a very low level I found, it had been there, I just needed its absence in a better baffled optic to realise this.

Now, I`m not certain I have conveyed what I feel very well, and given the market share of Swarovski what do I know ?, but this is a forum for polite discussion about our feelings on these wonderful instruments, and these are my findings.