Post 135 seems to suggest Dennis was hinting it was all a joke by adding the LOL emoji ... this came before Lee discovered where the photo originated.These photos are all over the net. If only he said in the same post it was a joke...oh well.
Hi tenex,I'd like to take a deep breath and ask whether we're sure that Henry's analysis of baffling in the NL 8x42 applies equally to the 10x32 under discussion here. Do the 32mm models really have exactly the same problem, to the same degree? Does the 10x model of either size do better? Is there some reason Swarovski might have hesitated to make the baffle slightly larger?
Dennis you made a simple unambiguous statement that you took the photo. There was no sign of irony or humour. It was a bad joke and you came within gnat's brainwave of being banned for life.I deleted it. It was just a joke. I didn't think anybody would take it seriously! I try to lighten things up a bit once in a while to keep things interesting. Sorry, if you or the members didn't see the humor in it. Sometimes I think Americans and British have a slightly different sense of humor, and my attempts at it are sometimes taken out of context.
I certainly found in my comparison that with NL slight changes in eye postion relative to the exit pupil could make dramatic differences to extent of the glare during my own test so to this extent Holger's findings were similar to mine. And while I also found some level of glare in SF 8x32 it was always very significantly less extensive and less dense than NL. So again, I would agree with Holger on this too.I am big admirer of Holger and love his posts, tests, articles and his wonderful book, which should be mandatory reading for posters in a forum like this one. And I usually agree with Holger‘s findings; the above test is a slight exception (for me, it is not as complicated as Holger puts it - almost sounds like rocket science in Holger’s words - to avoid glare in the NLs, and I can trigger stray-light effects in the SF which contradict his term „superior resistance“).
Yes, well, He also summarized in the last sentence, "To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior.'Holger Merlitz reviewed Swaro's EL and NL 8x32s (Review: Swarovski 8x32 NL Pure vs. 8x32 EL WB ) and said this about their ability to deal with glare:
"Stray light: The tendency to develop stray-light in some situations remains the only considerable weakness in both binoculars. In difficult light conditions, bright spots are emerging around the edges of the exit pupils, which tend to create partial whiteouts (in most cases a crescent-shaped glare in the lower half of the field) when the eye-pupils accidentally get in contact with them. A careful setting of eyecup positions and a certain discipline in the way and angle at which the instrument is held in front of the eyes go a long way to avoid these whiteouts in the vast majority of situations. Observer's reports vary wildly about the severeness of the glare, ranging from 'irrelevant' to 'irritating'. Fact is that there exist binoculars (including the Zeiss 8x32 SF) with a superior resistance against stray light".
He also wrote "The tendency to develop stray-light in some situations remains the only considerable weakness in both binoculars".Yes, well, He also summarized in the last sentence, "To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior.'
You and Henry seem to like that above paragraph to justify the glare drum beat thing. If Holger says theyre perfect and glare is occasional and erratic (meaning for those who see it and dont know how to deal with it), Im in. Thats different. Isnt this path a bit worn by now?
The question we should be talking about, allowing that glare is a thing for some, is how many? What percent of bino users see glare? How many actually recognize its a thing? 2%, 20%, 50%? The time allotted to this conversation over years, if the percent of folks who're bothered by it is small, then what are we doing? How about a sticky, that once and for all sits at the top of Bino subform explains that glare is a thing for some X% of folks who look through binos. We understand that, we acknowledge that. for those folks some brands and models seem to have it more, yada yada....
Come on Lee
Is there a point here Lee? You know of my background and history in related businesses. I’ve known the internal blackening story for decades. I believe you are conflating a couple themes in ways that aren’t helpful.He also wrote "The tendency to develop stray-light in some situations remains the only considerable weakness in both binoculars".
I have no idea how many people see glare and how many don't, and neither do you. Neither do we know how many people avoid the situations where they might see glare and then declare they don't see it, when what they mean is, they avoid it.
Binocular manufacturers blacken the inside of the optical tubes and some build-in baffles and all of this is to suppress the stray light we call glare. Why do you think they do it? I suggest it isn't because only 2% of bino users notice glare.
Come on Tom
I would suggest that the average buyer has not had the chance to compare two alpha binoculars at length and under a variety of conditions. If you only know one thing, how would you know what to complain about?I wrote already a couple of times that I do not observe glare/internal reflections using the NL 8x32, 8x42, the Zeiss SF 8x32, but I understand now that something is wrong with me. So before consulting a psychiater I asked Jan van Daalen how many customers came back to him with complaints about glare in these binoculars and he reported: "zero", so that makes the matter puzzling and highly mysterious..
Gijs van Ginkel.
I would say the average buyer rarely pays more than 2000 euros for a pair of binoculars!I would suggest that the average buyer has not had the chance to compare two alpha binoculars at length and under a variety of conditions. If you only know one thing, how would you know what to complain about?
Starting?I think most anybody buying $2000 to $3000 binoculars are familiar with optical shortfalls, and are aware that most all binoculars have some issue with glare. Ive also spoken to a few dealers who had practically zero returns on NL’s (Swaros in general) other than a few defects.
I think we’re starting to beat a dead horse here. Glare is so subjective to each person. Eyes change with time and age, if there’s been any Lasik surgery , eyeglass wearers, type of eyeglasses. I have two dozen Binoculars, there’s not one binocular that doesn’t have glare at some point or another.
Another interesting thing is that sometimes you see glare in one binocular and not the other observing a specific position, then you observe a different position and there’s more glare in the other binocular.
The NL‘s are amazing Binoculars, let’s bury the horse already🙄