10x32 HG Collimation accuracy (1 Viewer)

I have purchased a new 10x32 HG from USA and I am living in HONG KONG. It is noted that there exists a slight vertical mis-collimation which can be viewed when looked say 4 inches from eye piece. Also the right image is very slightly rotated anti-clockwise.

I also have a nikon 16x50. There is no vertical mis-collimation, but right image also has very minor rotated situation.

Is this vertical and rotated mis-collimation correctable or such minor discrepancies is within the nikon limit.

Noted mis-collimation is not a rare situation even for top bins from other brands. However should collimation be an absolute no-error situation or minor error would be a factory acceptable situation. Should I go back to nikon and ask for re-collimation.

Thanks for your advice.

Edmond said:

However should collimation be an absolute no-error situation or minor error would be a factory acceptable situation. Should I go back to nikon and ask for re-collimation.

Click to expand...

Edmond,

IMO collimation should be absolutely correct in binoculars of this quality and price class. Good news is that the Nikon HG's are designed serviceable. Bad news is that Nikon does not have the best reputation in customer service and (one of) the leading American "opticalman", Bill Cook, has said that there are only very few optical repair persons , who can do collimation properly (himself, Cory Suddarth and maybe a couple of others , see http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthre...e=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post464204). But yes, I think you should contact Nikon and ask for recollimation - miscollimation should not be that easily visible. I bought my 10x32HG's from the USA, and fortunately got a very good unit.

Good luck,

Ilkka

I have never heard of collimation before. I found the following definition on the internet. It is correct? Thanks for the help.

"Collimation is the alignment of the optical components of the binoculars so that they point together at the object you’re viewing. Binoculars that are out of collimation can product double-images or give the feeling that your eyes are being pulled or strained while viewing."

Lew

iporali said:

I bought my 10x32HG's from the USA, and fortunately got a very good unit.

Good luck,

Ilkka

Click to expand...

Would those be close to or as good as a E2 10x35?
I had a quick look through a Swaro EL 10x32, but i have never seen the 10x32 from Leica, Zeiss, or Nikon. A wide angle makes a 10x very interesting. Thank you.

Otto McDiesel said:

Would those be close to or as good as a E2 10x35?

Click to expand...

Otto,

I have never looked through the Nikon 10x E2, but I have tried the 8x30E2 and I own the 8x32SE. Their views are clearly related with each other - the E2s just don't have that "field flattener" element. The 10x32HG/LX are extremely sharp (edge-to-edge) wide-angled & contrasty, have natural colour, great ergonomics, very good eyecups and eye-relief. Unfortunately they are also very sensitive for sub-optimal eye-placement, which in my hands/eyes very easily produces lateral chromatic aberration. The focusing is very smooth but slightly too fast for a narrow DOF of 10x. In spite of these minor annoyances I can definitely see more details with my 10x32HGs than with my 8x32SEs (well, that's why I use the 10x). I would think that the E2s are more forgiving on the eyes and have less CA - in addition to that ultra-wide FOV :t:.

I agree with almost everything that Kimmo has written about 10x32HGs on Alula's reviews of optics (http://www.alula.fi/GB/index.htm 1/2004).

Regards,

Ilkka


ps. Lew - yes, that definition sounds correct.

You think you have problems.

As far as rotation goes, I was carefully looking at a pair of binoculars and was alarmed to see that I had about 3 degrees rotation between the left and right barrel when I would blink my left and right eyes. I was even more alarmed to discover that I could duplicate this without any optical aids at all!
Now I fave to figure out what's out of alignment... my eyes or my brain.
It was an interesting discovery.
Sandy.