Holger's new review: the NL 8x32 vs the EL 8x32 (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

Holger has just posted the above on his site. And he ends with making some additional comments comparing the NL to the Zeiss SF 8x32
See at: Review: Swarovski 8x32 NL Pure vs. 8x32 EL WB


John

 

[Maljunulo]

I was (rather obviously) interested in his comments on the 8X32 SF.

The comment on "panning behavior" caught my eye, because I really don't notice very much compared to the EL SV 10X42 which my SF replaced.

The SF eye placement is rather fiddly, at least for me.

I thought the EL was pretty bad for rolling ball, but managed to ignore it more or less.

"Perfect" is quite an endorsement from such a figure.

 

[GrampaTom]

Have I been dreaming... This was published a couple weeks back, no? Is this an edit?

 

[SeldomPerched]

Have I been dreaming... This was published a couple weeks back, no? Is this an edit?

I was thinking so too, but whether it is or not it was worth rereading.

 

[GrampaTom]

True... very true

 

[Foss]

Great review, thanks for posting John.

 

[henry link]

As usual, a very well observed review, Holger!

I just returned from a trip to a Swarovski dealer to pick up an NL forehead rest where I encountered my first 8x32 NL. I came prepared to examine two characteristics mentioned in the review: glare and distortion. I'm in complete agreement with the review about both.

I brought along an old Questar 26mm focusing eyepiece I use to examine the interiors of binoculars. With the Questar eyepiece pressed against the binocular eyecup I can use the focusing feature to find good focus at various spots in the interior. In this case the area of interest is near the objective lens where, under harsh backlit conditions, there are several exposed interior reflections near the edge. The 8x32 seems to have a little less effective baffling than the 8x42 at this point in the interior, but both behave in a similar way when the eyecup is adjusted inward. The best glare performance comes just before the eye starts to experience kidney beaning from being too close to the eye lens. I would expect slightly worse behavior from the 8x32 than the 8x42 overall because of its less effective baffling and its smaller exit pupil, which makes the reflections more likely to enter the eye. Under the bright sunlit conditions today I found that establishing the sweet spot in the eyecup extension did a pretty good job of taming the glare.

Like Holger I found the distortion pattern to be nicely managed. Using a small circle as a target I could see a little radial compression of the circle near the field edge, indicating a little angular magnification distortion in maybe the last 5-6º of apparent field. That's less AMD and starting closer to the edge than in other Swarovision models. I don't imagine anyone will have any complaints about the panning behavior of this binocular.

Henry

 

[GrampaTom]

Henry,
Im sure your expertise with binoculars far exceeds mine. Ive owned a few pairs, over the past 50 years and confess, I bought what seemed best at the time and just used them to look at stuff. It is my impression from past reads you are one of those who agrees that glare is a thing in some Swarovski binocular models. My own year long, experience, with an EL 1042, and brief look through several other Swaros to include an SLC 1042, EL832, and NL842, puts me in the other camp. I get controversy exists.

I used the EL10s often enough, out and about, in proximity to the open water of San Francisco Bay, with the sun in various states of display do to weather, date, and time of day, to see all kinds of glare... out there, with my naked eye. Aware of the controversy here, I made an effort to see what others report. I remember one day specifically when I was absolutely defeated by glare. The combination of sun angle and wind rippled water was blinding to my naked eye. Curiously through my binocular, it was better. Are folks saying some binos do even better, maybe eliminate this kind of glare? I cannot report seeing glare as an apparent product within my binocular during other less obvious lighting conditions. I should qualify. I wear eyeglasses with conventional bifocals, and have Cataracts....

I quickly acknowledge I have no place to deny what you or others see. I am trying to learn, if hopefully not so much that you teach me to see things I do not now want to see! It seems possible glare as you experience it, is something I actually experience, but just am not experienced enough to know it.

Reading what you wrote above, in #7, I've some questions. It seems you went to a Swarovski dealer, aware they had an NL 832 that you could examine. Armed with the Questar eyepiece, you proceeded to peer inside and look for what are thought to be the causes of glare. Seeing some shiny bits here and there, you concluded these NL832s could indeed produce glare, perhaps similar to what Holger reported.

You wrote,

The best glare performance comes just before the eye starts to experience kidney beaning from being too close to the eye lens.

Did you have a chance to take these outside and look through them at things with existing light condition? Was there light conditions that enabled glare that you could minimize via adjusting the eyepieces as described?

As well,

I would expect slightly worse behavior from the 8x32 than the 8x42 overall because of its less effective baffling and its smaller exit pupil,

Trying to understand, maybe Ive even read this elsewhere, why does the smaller exit pupil of the 32 OL make things worse? In fact might it be the opposite as the smaller EP is dealing with a narrower band of light and the glare causing artifacts within may be causing scattered light that is wider/beyond the width of the EP? To try and imagine what you describe, is it a function of the location of the shiny bits suspected of causing reflections that turn into glare? Some do, some don't, depending. If those are here and there, can one predict their contribution, greater or lesser, to glare?

 

[Maljunulo]

My EL SV 10X42, which I used for six years (2014 to 2020) had a tendency to "wash out" if direct sunlight fell on the objectives.

It never annoyed me enough that I even thought of complaining about it or getting rid of them because of it.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

As usual, a very well observed review, Holger!

I just returned from a trip to a Swarovski dealer to pick up an NL forehead rest where I encountered my first 8x32 NL. I came prepared to examine two characteristics mentioned in the review: glare and distortion. I'm in complete agreement with the review about both.

I brought along an old Questar 26mm focusing eyepiece I use to examine the interiors of binoculars. With the Questar eyepiece pressed against the binocular eyecup I can use the focusing feature to find good focus at various spots in the interior. In this case the area of interest is near the objective lens where, under harsh backlit conditions, there are several exposed interior reflections near the edge. The 8x32 seems to have a little less effective baffling than the 8x42 at this point in the interior, but both behave in a similar way when the eyecup is adjusted inward. The best glare performance comes just before the eye starts to experience kidney beaning from being too close to the eye lens. I would expect slightly worse behavior from the 8x32 than the 8x42 overall because of its less effective baffling and its smaller exit pupil, which makes the reflections more likely to enter the eye. Under the bright sunlit conditions today I found that establishing the sweet spot in the eyecup extension did a pretty good job of taming the glare.

Like Holger I found the distortion pattern to be nicely managed. Using a small circle as a target I could see a little radial compression of the circle near the field edge, indicating a little angular magnification distortion in maybe the last 5-6º of apparent field. That's less AMD and starting closer to the edge than in other Swarovision models. I don't imagine anyone will have any complaints about the panning behavior of this binocular.

Henry

Thanks a lot, Henry! On the attached picture I compare the exit pupil of the Leica 7x35 Retrovid (upper) with the Swaro 8x32 NL Pure (lower) under precisely identical light conditions. I have arranged both binoculars such that I achieved reflexes of maximum possible intensity. The Leica is dealing much better with the incoming light and consequently it shows comparably low levels of stray light under various conditions in which I have to struggle with the NL Pure. There is definitely room left for improvements with the NL.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Canip]

Thank you for this picture, Holger!

I am happy to accept your findings - I am the novice, you are the expert - but I find it interesting that the reflections in both binos, although clearly brighter in the NL, look very much alike. Why? Henry had found some distinct critical areas in the NL, does the Retrovid have similar ones, but a bit less critical?

You call the straylight issue in the NL a "struggle" - is it really that bad ??? Why does it not appear an issue for me (and I do claim a tiny bit of experience with binos)?

And, change the angle under which you look at the eyepiece of the Retrovid just a bit, and the reflection in the Leica becomes more pronocunced, almost like a false pupil (which it is not), see pic below.

Just by the way: your picture shows that the NL exhibits much less vignetting than the Leica (which of course does not affect the straylight issue).

Canip

 

[GrampaTom]

Hmm... What if the binos were flipped? Outside lab conditions, how well can the effect of ambient light be controlled? Is it possible things would look different if the NLs were on top? How can we be sure those sparkly bits seen from the outside looking at, rather than from where one's eyes would sit, if the binos were held as designed, then looking through, would mean anything?

 

[Maljunulo]

Far be it from me to question such an authority, but I did wonder why the photos were take so far off axis.

 

[tenex]

I remember one day specifically when I was absolutely defeated by glare. The combination of sun angle and wind rippled water was blinding to my naked eye. Curiously through my binocular, it was better.

This has been my own general experience as well, along with Gijs and some others here. It seems that any discussion of the subject has to begin with facial anatomy, individual vision and eyeglasses, and perhaps in some cases, habits of use and adjustment. I understand perfectly that those who are chronically plagued by glare want to distinguish between models that seem better and worse, but at least at a certain level of instrument quality, it's fortunately never been a real concern for me.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Thank you for this picture, Holger!

I am happy to accept your findings - I am the novice, you are the expert - but I find it interesting that the reflections in both binos, although clearly brighter in the NL, look very much alike. Why? Henry had found some distinct critical areas in the NL, does the Retrovid have similar ones, but a bit less critical?

You call the straylight issue in the NL a "struggle" - is it really that bad ??? Why does it not appear an issue for me (and I do claim a tiny bit of experience with binos)?

And, change the angle under which you look at the eyepiece of the Retrovid just a bit, and the reflection in the Leica becomes more pronocunced, almost like a false pupil (which it is not), see pic below.

Just by the way: your picture shows that the NL exhibits much less vignetting than the Leica (which of course does not affect the straylight issue).

Canip

Canip, you are the expert, too What we see inside the Retrovid seems to be the same structure, but Leica apparently applies a rather effective anti-reflection finish. When you compare both side by side, then the same reflex appears significantly stronger in the NL. For my photo, I have chosen angles at which both reflexes were at their maximum intensities. Henry has identified another source near the edges of the objective lenses, which I think is also visible on my photo (right around the periphery of the exit pupil). This particular structure we are currently discussing seems to arise from somewhere else - it looks strangely asymmetric, perhaps something inside the prism. When I look into the NL through the front lenses, then I find a structure that kind of resembles this reflection (see photo below). Could this be a structural detail of the prism assembly?

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Far be it from me to question such an authority, but I did wonder why the photos were take so far off axis.

Yes, I know that these off axis structures remain invisible as long as the eye pupil remains neatly centered on the exit pupil, but real life applications are rather complex. Particularly when we are panning, eyes swivel around and the pupils are considerably off center at times such that illuminated structures as shown on my picture may enter the image chain. You may not experience permanent stray light with such a binocular, but short flashes of whiteout while panning.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[rpg51]

Much to my surprise frankly, I find that the Swaro forehead rest makes quite a significant improvement in my ability to keep steady eye position vis-a-vie the exit pupil. This is with NL 8x42s which have a bigger exit pupil obviously. Also, I am a glasses wearer.

The 42s are so comfortable and compact that I rarely use my 32s (Nikon Premier 8x32). Can't comment on the NL 32s. But, as it is now with these 8x42 NLs and the forehead rest, I'm not seeing any stray light or glare at all. Maybe its that forehead rest?

 

[Maljunulo]

Yes, I know that these off axis structures remain invisible as long as the eye pupil remains neatly centered on the exit pupil, but real life applications are rather complex. Particularly when we are panning, eyes swivel around and the pupils are considerably off center at times such that illuminated structures as shown on my picture may enter the image chain. You may not experience permanent stray light with such a binocular, but short flashes of whiteout while panning.

Cheers,
Holger

Holger;

Thank you for the response and the clarification. I understand now

Cheers indeed.
Richard

 

[henry link]

When it comes to to evaluating glare in a binocular I think the first step is to determine the effectiveness of the internal baffling for a static and well centered eye (or camera lens). Off-axis photos will very likely show internal reflections that are innocuous in the real world, either because they are blocked by properly designed baffling from reaching a reasonably centered eye or are so far removed from the edge of the exit pupil that they never enter the eye even without baffling. If under difficult back lighting conditions an examination of the binocular interior with a magnifier reveals bright arcs of light reflecting from interior surfaces at or near the edge of the exit pupil then the design of the baffling has not been done as well as it should or could be, period. That is what I'm testing for when I examine or photograph the interiors of binoculars through their eyepieces.

How much damage is done to the image by less than perfect baffling is another question and is much more unpredictable. An observer's subjective experience of glare in a binocular that objectively has it is mainly affected by the alignment and the relative size of the eye's pupil compared to the exit pupil. Even serious glare at the edge of the exit pupil may not enter the eye at all if the pupil of the eye is much smaller than the exit pupil or if the eye's pupil is laterally misaligned, either intentionally or unintentionally, with the exit pupil in a way that blocks the glare from entering the eye's pupil. As Holger mentioned above actually looking through a handheld binocular is not a static situation. Both the eye and the binocular are in constant random motion and that inevitably leads to lateral misalignments between the exit pupil and the eye that are sometimes damaging and sometimes beneficial when it comes to glare and thusly we see disagreements about whether glare exists at all in a particular binocular even when the internal reflections that cause it can be easily observed and photographed through the eyepiece.

Grandpa Tom, in answer to your questions in #8. I tested the 8x32 NL outside in bright sunlight. It was around noon with the sun very high in the sky, so I looked at a backlit chimney with the sun about 20º above it. I could see two bright concentric arcs of internal reflection near the bottom edge of the exit pupil by examining the the interior with my magnifier and those caused me to see an unfocused crescent of veiling glare in the bottom half of the FOV. Small exit pupils are associated with worse glare because the internal reflections at the edge of a small exit pupil are more likely to enter the eye's pupil than the same reflections at the edge of a large exit pupil.

Henry

 

[rpg51]

Maybe then its my old eyes that explains my subjective perceptions re lack of glare. Something to be thankful for with advancing age.