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

[Maljunulo]

There is a quality, a brilliance, a depth of color, a sparkle, or a transparency to the image in my 8X32 SF that I never saw in my 10X42 EL SV, and I have previously attributed that difference to differences in glass and coatings.

One could speculate, however, that it is simply due to better overall control of scattered (stray) light.

 

[GrampaTom]

There is a quality, a brilliance, a depth of color, a sparkle, or a transparency to the image in my 8X32 SF that I never saw in my 10X42 EL SV, and I have previously attributed that difference to differences in glass and coatings.

One could speculate, however, that it is simply due to better overall control of scattered (stray) light.

One could...

 

[Conndomat]

I can't understand this constant topic of Swarovski and glare, one could also discuss the clear chromatic aberration with Leica or the noticeable green cast with Zeiss, why don't the manufacturers get a better handle on this, but glare=Swarovski seems to be the top topic?!

With the SLC 56 Models I see next to nothing of glare ("Andy, "Dries 1" what do you say?)
The SLC 8/10x42 are not dazzling monsters either, the EL 8.5x42, 10x50 and 12x50 are not particularly susceptible either, I don't know the EL 10x42 and 8x32 well enough, glare is visible in the 10x32, but no more than in the Zeiss Conquest 10x32, the NL 8x42 has slightly more visible glare than the EL 8.5x42, but you can also exaggerate dramatically.

Before we present Zeiss and Leica as role models for glare, one should perhaps prefer nikon in this regard, they are best at glare.

By the way, I like Zeiss despite the visible green tint, the Leicas despite the clearer CA and Swarovski with a bit more glare, but with the last manufacturer, IMO, the outcry is particularly great, perhaps because Swarovski sets the standards in terms of optical performance and something you have to criticize, the mantra of the glare monster fits in well.

Andreas

 

[dries1]

"With the SLC 56 Models I see next to nothing of glare ("Andy, "Dries 1" what do you say?)"
The 56 SLCs are excellent performers IMO, and so is the SLC in 42.

 

[birdcat]

I can't understand this constant topic of Swarovski and glare, one could also discuss the clear chromatic aberration with Leica or the noticeable green cast with Zeiss, why don't the manufacturers get a better handle on this, but glare=Swarovski seems to be the top topic?!

I also compared the NL and SF 8x32s, and with glare I couldn't see my subject, so I considered it more critical than other optical issues.

 

[Maljunulo]

“ …….. and with glare I couldn't see my subject …….. “

That would lend a certain importance to the problem, wouldn’t it?

 

[Torview]

"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."

Don't let Henry hear you say that!

I doubt the optical engineers have much say in what goes to market.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I doubt the optical engineers have much say in what goes to market.

I am sure there are meetings between the marketing department, accounting and engineering. The marketing department tells the engineers what would sell well, and engineering tells marketing what is technically feasible. It probably goes like this. Big FOV's will sell binoculars, so how big can we get the FOV without getting any glare or aberrations. Then engineering explains the limits and how much it will cost, and then the bean counters come in and tell them how much they can spend to develop the product and how much return they expect on their investment.

 

[Canip]

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

Okay, I disagree on both counts, but understand that this your opinion.

 

[henry link]

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

To anybody following this thread who now imagines that the NLs are "glare monsters" I would suggest re-reading Canip's post above. Even though I've criticized my 8x42 NL for its lack of completely effective baffling I still use it everyday without much complaint. There's a big difference between observing that some optical characteristic could be better and finding it intolerable. I fit comfortably in group "c".

On the subject of what it would take to "fix" the NL baffling all I can say is that everything is already in place. As you can see in the x-ray below, there is a baffling structure behind the objective group, but it's not completely effective because its smallest aperture is little too wide and/or a little too far away from the reflection it's intended to block. When lighting conditions are just right that leaves a tiny sliver of bright internal reflection peeking out from the edge of the baffle. A very small modification to slightly reduce the diameter of the baffle and/or position it slightly closer to the objective group would completely block that little sliver and this conversion would not be happening.

 

[Paultricounty]

I still don't see any significant glare in my NL 10x32, and I tried to see it. I looked close to the sun, across reflective water and even at high angles looking at mountain goats. Here is a digiscope picture I took through the NL 10x32 on a fairly sunny day. No glare! View attachment 1427656

The SGM (super glare man) doesn’t see any glare at all in NL’s, really. Frankly I’m shocked 😜

 

[Canip]

To anybody following this thread who now imagines that the NLs are "glare monsters" I would suggest re-reading Canip's post above. Even though I've criticized my 8x42 NL for its lack of completely effective baffling I still use it everyday without much complaint. There's a big difference between observing that some optical characteristic could be better and finding it intolerable. I fit comfortably in group "c".

On the subject of what it would take to "fix" the NL baffling all I can say is that everything is already in place. As you can see in the x-ray below, there is a baffling structure behind the objective group, but it's not completely effective because its smallest aperture is little too wide and/or a little too far away from the reflection it's intended to block. When lighting conditions are just right that leaves a tiny sliver of bright internal reflection peeking out from the edge of the baffle. A very small modification to slightly reduce the diameter of the baffle and/or position it slightly closer to the objective group would completely block that little sliver and this conversion would not be happening.

Thanks Henry.

Are we sure it is that easy and simple?

If yes, why has it not been corrected (Swarovski has not gotten into their leading position by „not caring“)?

Or is there perhaps more to it than just „a very small modification to slightly reduce the diameter of the baffle and/or position it slightly closer to the objective group“???

If that‘s all that would be required, what would be the consequences in terms if modifying production steps and at what cost?

I honestly don‘t know. You may be right, Henry, and this would indicate that we are dealing with another case of „corporate inertia“. Nobody is immune against it, not Zeiss nor Leica, nor Swarovski.

Would be great to discuss the issue with Swaro directly.
But since for me, glare is not an issue in the NL, I would let one of those go first who seem severely affected by glare.

Canip

 

[GrampaTom]

I doubt the optical engineers have much say in what goes to market.

Whew! I doubt that.

 

[Troubador]

I still don't see any significant glare in my NL 10x32, and I tried to see it. I looked close to the sun, across reflective water and even at high angles looking at mountain goats. Here is a digiscope picture I took through the NL 10x32 on a fairly sunny day. No glare! View attachment 1427656

Dennis, you should hang your head in shame. You didn't take this photo through the NLs, in fact you didn't take this photo at all. This goat wasn't even in Colorado. It was in the Cascades in 2016 and this photo is featured on Wikipedia. Go to: Mountain goat - Wikipedia

You need to apologise NOW to all Birdforum members for having tried to deceive them.

Lee
MODERATOR

 

[CharleyBird]

Einstein. Why don't you apply for a consultant job with Swarovski and give their Optical Engineers some tips on how to reduce glare? All of us on Bird Forum would benefit! Their Optical Engineers are going to say Henry we don't see any glare, why do we have to solve a problem that doesn't exist? Seriously, though, your ideas sound like a good way to reduce the glare in Swarovski binoculars to me. Would you mind if I forwarded your post over to Swarovski Optics and let them see if they could utilize them?

Denco, perhaps you may need to take another sabbatical

 

[Conndomat]

Dennis, you should hang your head in shame.

Uhhh that's really not a good thing!!!

Aren't the photos protected by copyright?


But maybe Dennis photographed the goat especially for Wiki...

Andreas

 

[CharleyBird]

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

Using my 12x42NL I'm in group c.

 

[GrampaTom]

To anybody following this thread who now imagines that the NLs are "glare monsters" I would suggest re-reading Canip's post above. Even though I've criticized my 8x42 NL for its lack of completely effective baffling I still use it everyday without much complaint. There's a big difference between observing that some optical characteristic could be better and finding it intolerable. I fit comfortably in group "c".

On the subject of what it would take to "fix" the NL baffling all I can say is that everything is already in place. As you can see in the x-ray below, there is a baffling structure behind the objective group, but it's not completely effective because its smallest aperture is little too wide and/or a little too far away from the reflection it's intended to block. When lighting conditions are just right that leaves a tiny sliver of bright internal reflection peeking out from the edge of the baffle. A very small modification to slightly reduce the diameter of the baffle and/or position it slightly closer to the objective group would completely block that little sliver and this conversion would not be happening.

While different from the question I asked the other day, thank you for this Henry. Begins to put things into perspective and suggests the use of, "glare monster" (not by you), last week, was a bit hyperbolic. I can tell you from years in product management, Denco's brief description above, of the "process," is close to it. As well Canip's continuation of the suggestion, that it beggars the mind to think Swarovski is just ignoring this, and perhaps the solution involves a tradeoff in performance Swaro is not willing to make, given market acceptance of what they deliver now, seems close to the mark.
G'Tom

 

[Torview]

Whew! I doubt that.

You may be correct, but look at the car industry, I find it hard to believe that the best engineers really want to make SUV`S, I like to think if they had their way we`d all be driving something more akin to an M5 or a Caymen.

 

[tenex]

Dennis, you should hang your head in shame. You didn't take this photo through the NLs, in fact you didn't take this photo at all. This goat wasn't even in Colorado. It was in the Cascades in 2016 and this photo is featured on Wikipedia. Go to: Mountain goat - Wikipedia

That's too bad. I was about to compliment him on such a lovely photo. He must have meant this as a sort of joke.

For anyone who may not know, Dennis's fascination with Colorado's mountain goats isn't odd at all. They're wonderful animals and my wife and I regularly enjoy seeing them at the higher elevations, even spending time around them. They've come right up to us to check us out, which is a little unnerving because while they only stand a few feet high those horns look very sharp indeed, and sudden movements seem inadvisable especially when their kids are present. They were in fact imported from the Pacific Northwest, in the 1980s I think -- unfortunately for hunting, which further complicates the relationship. (The bighorn sheep native to the central Rocky Mountains have suffered from disease and become too scarce to hunt.)