Veiling glare: a bird club's unanimous verdict on my 8x32 EL FP (1 Viewer)

[Owlbarred]

First, I've learned so much from reading this forum -- thank you all.

I've read various posts about veiling glare and disagreements over such among some members for the identical model of binocular, and attributed sometimes merely to "differences among individuals."

I've had horrible problems at dusk with veiling glare on my dearly loved 8x32 EL FP's while doing daily sunset/twillight counts of northern harriers coming to a distant tall grass prairie roost. Unfortunately, because of landowner issues, access is limited and the roost is viewable only when facing westward, though not directly into the setting sun. Frankly, until the roost counts, I never realized I had such a terrible VG problem.

Over the past 3 weeks, I've asked 9 experienced members of my bird club to view the roost through my EL's at roughly the same time of day. After they adjusted my EL's eyecups/diopter for their eyes, there was unanimous concurrence over the EL's disturbing VG. However, like them, I certainly saw VG through their binoculars too, though for some models (e.g., 8x42 Nocitivids), it was noticeably less pronounced.

My takeaway -- perhaps all too obvious to most of you-- is that while differences between individuals can account for a lot of things optically, seeing VG under the above-stated conditions is not one of them for a particular pair of binoculars. My wish is that VG could somehow be quantified under the conditions stated above for a wide array of alpha binoculars so that a consumer could better gauge their suitability. Thanks for listening.

 

[has530]

I think one difference that may play a large roll for individuals is pupil dilation diameter. If there is a glare-causing reflection outside of the exit pupil and one viewers pupil is wide enough to catch it and another's contracts to block it off they will have very different experience views with the same binoculars looking at the same thing at the same time.

 

[tenex]

Frankly, until the roost counts, I never realized I had such a terrible VG problem.

Well, you didn't. Your post encapsulates the whole issue perfectly:
(1) Reported differences in experience are mainly due to individual habit; those who never notice glare seldom use bins in situations that provoke it.
(2) Such conditions provoke less glare in some bins than others, and users who do encounter them regularly tend to choose those.
(3) Swaro ELs and NLs are often noted to be highly susceptible; Leicas generally and Noctivid especially, to be less so.

This experience may enable you to add further valuable data to point #3 yourself.

 

[Owlbarred]

Thanks for the replies.

 

[tenex]

P.S. I was just reminded that Nikon EDGs (though less common) are also said to handle glare unusually well.
EDG 7/8/10 x42 still in production? post #146

 

[Canip]

Nikon EDGs (though less common) are also said to handle glare unusually well.

Also my experience.

 

[Owlbarred]

Also my experience.

Thanks very much. They appear to have been discontinued according to sites I visited (e.g., B&H Photo, NY), though Amazon has some EDG (not EDG II) 8x42's for more than 3K -- damn.

Had never considered Nikon. I was blown away today by the comments re: an EDG's depth of field in Optics for Birding:
42-mm Nikon EDG II Binoculars

This is one of those things that we rarely write about because it is so hard to quantify. When you have focused on a particular object, depth of field comprises all that is in focus both in front of and behind that object. Binoculars with shallow depth of field cause the user to constantly adjust focus, particularly with objects closer to the observer. Additionally, with a shallow depth of field, the user must be more precise in focusing since there is less room for error. Greater depth of field results in an enhanced three-dimensional perspective. While small differences in depth of field are virtually impossible to quantify, big differences are readily apparent. The EDG II binoculars have simply stunning depth of field; in this, they exceeded all competitors.

Hope to find someone that has some EDG's so that I can spend some time looking through them. Glare control and great depth of field are a big bonus, to say the least.

 

[GrampaTom]

Well, you didn't. Your post encapsulates the whole issue perfectly:
(1) Reported differences in experience are mainly due to individual habit; those who never notice glare seldom use bins in situations that provoke it.

And we might add, if you habitually use the same bin at a place you don't think yields glare, but then change bins you may be surprised by what you see...

 

[Canip]

Owlbarred (post # 7),
Re that quote from Optics for Birding: whoever wrote that has obviously no clue what depth of field is. For years experts like Holger Merlitz, Henry Link, Bill Cook and others have been trying to explain why depth of field is the same in any binocular of the same configuration (such as, eg, 8x42, or 10x32), but it seems the idea that somehow a binocular manufacturer can magically overcome the laws of physics cannot be killed. Depth of field almost exclusively depends on magnifaction, the adaptation capacity of the eye (i.e. age of the observer) and the size of the effective exit pupil - and only on these factors! So the depth of field of the EDG 8x42 or 10x42 is exactly the same as in any other 8x42 or 10x42 binocular. Sorry to disappoint those who wish it were different.

 

[Owlbarred]

Owlbarred (post # 7),
Re that quote from Optics for Birding: whoever wrote that has obviously no clue what depth of field is. For years experts like Holger Merlitz, Henry Link, Bill Cook and others have been trying to explain why depth of field is the same in any binocular of the same configuration (such as, eg, 8x42, or 10x32), but it seems the idea that somehow a binocular manufacturer can magically overcome the laws of physics cannot be killed. Depth of field almost exclusively depends on magnifaction, the adaptation capacity of the eye (i.e. age of the observer) and the size of the effective exit pupil - and only on these factors! So the depth of field of the EDG 8x42 or 10x42 is exactly the same as in any other 8x42 or 10x42 binocular. Sorry to disappoint those who wish it were differen

Sorry to hear that, but good to know. A case of If it sounds too good to be true.....

 

[Conndomat]

When it comes to glare in the EDG, there seems to be a lot of agreement.
I used the EDG 7x42 for a few years, if all binoculars had so little glare the topic would be dead, the EDG is the best binoculars I've ever had in this respect.

Andreas

 

[Dipperdapper]

Nb: Note on Depth of Field here:

Product Review: Opticron Adventurer T WP 6.5 x 32. | Neil English.net

 

[Paultricounty]

Sorry to hear that, but good to know. A case of If it sounds too good to be true.....

EDG’s are still being manufactured Nikon UK and a host of overseas Authorized dealers sell them. As well as can be had by Japanese Sellers of old new stock on the bay. We are prices have come down in the last year, surprisingly.

How much do you want for your EL 32’s , now that you determined their glare monster status? PM me. 😁

Paul

 

[Owlbarred]

Not for sale. Horrible for the roost counts, but incredible for general birding and hiking. Thanks for the inquiry.

 

[Tringa45]

To recap, depth of field is inversely proportional to the square of the magnification, i.e. for a focussed object distance a 7x binocular would have double the DoF of a 10x binocular.
I would even assert that eye pupil diameter plays an insignificant role compared to the binocular.
To the naked eye an object at 4 m would require a correction of +0,25 dioptres and one at 6 m a correction of 0,167 dioptres, an almost imperceptible difference.
However, through a 10x binocular 4 m is 25 dioptres of focus travel from infinity and 6 m is 16,7 dioptres of focus travel, a difference of 8 dioptres and beyond the accommodation capabilities of most adults!

John

 

[Scott98]

The EDG II binoculars have simply stunning depth of field; in this, they exceeded all competitors.

If you consider that 98% of the "competitors" are 8x or 10x the statement reads true. Or it would be true if they added "(except the 7x42UV)". 7x42 has become a very unusual binocular.

FWIW, I think the two factors of DOF are magnification and aperture. I see much greater DOF in my 8x56 and 10x56 than in the respective 8x42 and 10x42.

 

[Paultricounty]

Not for sale. Horrible for the roost counts, but incredible for general birding and hiking. Thanks for the inquiry.

You know where to find me when you find some other defects with the EL’s 😜.

Paul

 

[Tringa45]

I see much greater DOF in my 8x56 and 10x56 than in the respective 8x42 and 10x42.

Impossible!

 

[Owlbarred]

If you consider that 98% of the "competitors" are 8x or 10x the statement reads true. Or it would be true if they added "(except the 7x42UV)". 7x42 has become a very unusual binocular.

FWIW, I think the two factors of DOF are magnification and aperture. I see much greater DOF in my 8x56 and 10x56 than in the respective 8x42 and 10x42.

Makes good sense. The same is true in photography.

 

[GrampaTom]

Owlbarred (post # 7),
Re that quote from Optics for Birding: whoever wrote that has obviously no clue what depth of field is. For years experts like Holger Merlitz, Henry Link, Bill Cook and others have been trying to explain why depth of field is the same in any binocular of the same configuration (such as, eg, 8x42, or 10x32), but it seems the idea that somehow a binocular manufacturer can magically overcome the laws of physics cannot be killed. Depth of field almost exclusively depends on magnifaction, the adaptation capacity of the eye (i.e. age of the observer) and the size of the effective exit pupil - and only on these factors! So the depth of field of the EDG 8x42 or 10x42 is exactly the same as in any other 8x42 or 10x42 binocular. Sorry to disappoint those who wish it were different.