• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

HG or SE. That is the question (1 Viewer)

Nick-on

Well-known member
Help/Inspiration required.

Can't decide between the two Nikons. 8x32HG and the 8x32SE CF. I prefer the image from the SE's but cos' they're so short my little pinky has nowhere to 'sit'. The HG's handle better but are over £150 more.
What I really need to know is will I get used to the 'little finger in the air' grip of the SE's or will it always bug me? How have other people got on with similar problems. £450 is a lot to splash out on something that may annoy me every time I use it.

Any advice much appreciated.
 
Nick-on

I have no idea really, My bins are real cheapo's. But for £50 I could remove that pinky without too much pain. £70 if you want the Scotch anesthetic!.

The serous answers I am sure will follow!.
B :)

Into Anonymouse mode
 
Morning Alan

Thanks for the offer, unfortunately I need the pinky for getting the brown stuff out of my ear so I can hear the little birdies singing (and then mis ID it).
 
Hello from Canada, Nick-on.

I am a little crazy when it comes to binoculars so I own both pairs you are thinking about, as well as the 10x32 HGs. I find that the eyecups on the HGs are much more comfortable (maybe just my eyes) and the ability to grip with one hand and the faster focus and... In short, I'd recommend the HGs. I personally also prefer the 10 power over the 8 power almost always. I don't find shake a problem and I'm really not especially fit or anything. You might want to take a look at the 10x32 HGs while you're at it.
 
Hi Art

Thanks very much for your contribution to this thread, and on behalf of Admin and all the Moderators, welcome to Bird Forum!

I see this is your first post. It's good to have you with us.

Perhaps you would like to put something in the Say Hello forum and tell us a little bit about yourself and your birding activities.

Whatever happens, have fun with BF!

Peter
 
Thanks for the welcome Peter.

I'll put something in the Say Hello forum. I have been taking pictures of birds lately, so am pretty excited by your contests. Hope to get something in next month.

Art
 
Thanks for the advice. Had to bring forward my purchase a few weeks as my old bins got knocked out of alignment (I will get them repaired sometime). Splashed out on the HG's in the end. The handling is just so good. I compared them with all the top names and they just felt better, optically they are awesome.....on a par with the Swarovski's and better than the Leica's.
I'll let you know if I see anything good with them (although 2 Bitterns, Alpine Swift and Dartford Warbler was a good start).
 
Nick-on said:
Splashed out on the HG's in the end. The handling is just so good. I compared them with all the top names and they just felt better, optically they are awesome.....on a par with the Swarovski's and better than the Leica's.
Hi.

Would you still say, though, that the 8x32 SE's optical quality is better than the HG's, even if only marginally? I ask because I'm about to buy a pair of SEs.

Thanks.
 
Nick-on said:
Help/Inspiration required.

Can't decide between the two Nikons. 8x32HG and the 8x32SE CF. I prefer the image from the SE's but cos' they're so short my little pinky has nowhere to 'sit'. The HG's handle better but are over £150 more.
What I really need to know is will I get used to the 'little finger in the air' grip of the SE's or will it always bug me? How have other people got on with similar problems. £450 is a lot to splash out on something that may annoy me every time I use it.

Any advice much appreciated.


This is very interesting. I've not picked up the SE, but have on several occasions tested the 8x32 HG DCF.

Optically they are fantastic and I don't find their weight too off-putting. The only reason I've not bought them 'yet' is that my little finger hangs over the front edge. I too wonder if this will cause long term irritation for me and hence my dithering aboput buying them or not.

I have always considered myself to have small hands, so it is interesting to learn that other BFers tend not to comment on this trait of the HGs.
 
trealawboy said:
This is very interesting. I've not picked up the SE, but have on several
I have always considered myself to have small hands, so it is interesting to learn that other BFers tend not to comment on this trait of the HGs.

I too find them too short; they feel like compact bins in the hand, which I don't like. I have longish hands, I suppose, and prefer long tubes, eg Zeiss 7x42 and the ELs. But I suppose some birders will be happy to sort of 'cup' them in the hands, which I suppose you could get used to. Might even aid stability.

But I was surprised people found this problem with the SEs.
 
mpedris said:
Hi.

Would you still say, though, that the 8x32 SE's optical quality is better than the HG's, even if only marginally? I ask because I'm about to buy a pair of SEs.

Thanks.


Hi Manendra,
The short answer is yes, even though I am delighted with the HG's I still think the SE's are very marginally better, but the waterproofing, close focus and ergonomics of the HG's just about edged it (even though they were then £200 more expensive - only about £100 now).
I'm sure the SE's will live up to your expectations IMO they are the best optically (although lots of Swaro, Leica, Zeiss and even Nikon HG owners may disagree)

Cheers

Nick
 
I'm sure the SE's will live up to your expectations IMO they are the best optically (although lots of Swaro, Leica, Zeiss and even Nikon HG owners may disagree)

Nick[/QUOTE]


I've got 8x30SEs (which my wife has commandeered and loves) which I compared with my Leica 8x42 Ultravids at the weekend. Looking at the very distant lettering on a lightship, it was slightly easier to read with the Nikons, I suspect because the resolution is better. These bins seem to outresolve just about everything.
In every other respect I prefer the Leicas, both optically and ergonomically. (Oh, except price that is...)

Sean
 
I have used my SE's for two months now, and I find that they are growing on me by the day. I dont mean they are getting bigger, just that each time I use them, I see another reason why they are so highly regarded.

I watched a flock consisting of mainly male Greenfinches, a pair of Siskin and lots of Chaffinches feeding on grain and sunflower seeds that had been thrown on the ground for them. The colours of these birds was so vivid that they were glowing, it was almost like seeing them properly for the first time. Next time you see a male greenfinch look at the primary and tertial colours. It can only be described as a drab, dull colour, but not through SE's. They glowed.

The above may seem to be OTT, but it is true. Looking at the moons of Jupiter is easier through SE's than Canon 10x30, even with the benefit of stabilisation. They have the best resolution and contrast of all the bins I have ever used, including Swaro SLC and EL. Though not waterproof, they are lightweight and are easily carried for a full day. I believe their brilliance outweighs the lack of waterproofing.

Clive Jones
 
A little question related to portability of the Nikon SE 8x32 for those of you with this binocular in possession:

If you fold the two halves of the SE until something prevents you from continuing (the tubes or the hinge), about what size is this package then in length x width x height? It is said to be around 11 cm x 18 cm when in use for a normal eye relief.

The reason for asking is not that my eyes sit abnormally close, but I simply wonder how compact the SE 8x32 can be for transportation. Most binocular specs just give length and width for normal use but not height (or "thickness"). The objective tubes are quite small on the SE 8x32 and that made me think that if you fold the bins the resulting packet might be quite transportable. The light weight and very consistent comments about the SE's optical performance speaks for them. Good foldability (or what native English speaking may call it) can be another plus.
 
I amswer myself since I have now received a pair of SE 8x32s for testing.

Unfortunately, these are not quite as foldable as I had hoped. The hinges are designed to make contact quite long before the eye pices would collide. The package is about 16x8x11 (cm) when folded.

gunvald said:
If you fold the two halves of the SE until something prevents you from continuing (the tubes or the hinge), about what size is this package then in length x width x height? It is said to be around 11 cm x 18 cm when in use for a normal eye relief.
 
I have tested them against Zeiss 7x42.

A pair of 8x32 porro prism binoculars against a pair of 7x42 roof prism binoculars, perhaps not the most obvious test candidates. However, let me explain why I decided that I wanted to compare these two models. I am a newbie in this field and I had no preconceived ideas except that high optical quality pays, as is true with camera optics.

The risk with a too creative selection of candidates is that the binoculars are too different, but I think this is a greater risk if you compare, say 8x20s against 10x56s. They are too far from each other. In my case, the selection might work.

1. As was discussed in earlier threads, porro prism binos seem to be perceived as having a lesser magnification than roof prism binos for the same nominal magnification. This would be due to the human perception of an image with a strong 3D effect (porro) against a flatter image (roof), where the 3D image is perceived as smaller.

I thought I should test this myself, hence the selection of a 7x roof against 8x porro.

2. The Zeiss 7x42s have been widely appraised for their brightness and the Nikon SEs for their exceptional optical qualities in general, including contrast.

I thought that I should compare for myself and see what I would prefer, extra brightness or perhaps exceptional overall quality that might compensate for extra brightness.

3. I also wondered about the effect of the exit pupil and thought that selection of binos with a real difference, 4mm to 6 mm, would be interesting,


I had in my mind that I might end up keeping both if I found them to be good complements to each other.

Findings:

Magnification: 7x vs. 8x, I see little difference, perhaps I feel a little closer with the Nikons if I look for depth in the image, but this might be due to the 3D effect of the Nikons. The closer the distance, the greater the influence of the 3D effect, and close up, say within 5 yards, the Zeisses are better, the image seems bigger.


Resolution: The Nikons are very sharp across the image field with a slight loss in resolution very close to the edge. The Zeisses are very good in the middle of the image with a softer ring closer to the egde. I can see as much details with both binos, both in good and in weak light, perhaps I have to look a little longer in twilight with the Nikons to see the smallest details, but they are still there.


Contrast: The contrast in good light is very good with the Nikons, easily as good as with the Zeisses. At twilight, I expected more from the Nikons, but this might be because I do a very though, and perhaps even impossible, comparison with the Zeisses. I have to admit that I have problems to clearly distinguish between contrast and brightness in very low light, the Zeisses are clearly brighter (see below). The Nikons might have better contrast but I cannot make use of it the way I thought I would. I leave this open for those with more experience.


Colour rendition: The Zeisses have a very slight, but awful, greenish colour cast over the image, the Nikons are in my opinion outstanding with exceptional colour rendition. On the other hand, I was spoilt by the ability to see colours and fine hues in very low light with the Zeisses, the Nikons look a little pale in comparison, but, I have to stress that with a little straining, all details are there with the Nikons, even in very low light. It is just that they lack a little in colour intensity. Since the Zeisses seem to be the reference standard, I assume that the Nikons are outstanding anyway. This is still a shortcoming of the Nikons against the Zeisses.


Chromatic aberration: Very slight close the edges with both binos, against a bright light source, with the least fringing in the Nikons. I have heard that some people have seen some colour fringing in the Zeisses, but I could not detect any. I looked at some tree tops against clear sky before dusk with the sun below the trees, but could not see any fringing.


Flare: Outstanding in both binoculars, at least to my eyes. I looked into deep shadows with a street light in the edge of the image and saw very little interference between the street light and the dark area I was studying.


Distorsion: Very little in the Nikons, nothing that I noticed. The Zeisses are much worse at the edge.

Field of view: On paper, good for Nikon, excellent for Zeiss. In practice, the useable field of view is excellent for the Nikons, since you can move around the eye and really see things clear and sharp even very close to the edges. This is not the case with the Zeisses, the image towards the edge is more suited for secondary vision.

Exit pupil and its relevance: Surprisingly small influence with respect to 4 mm or 6 mm. I have tried both binos with and without glasses, and with the eye cups in the up or in the down position, but find that I have to be careful with the placement of the eye even with the Zeisses. They are not that superior I expected them to be, even if they might be a little more forgiving when it comes to placement of the eye.

In the hands: I have got large hands and I like the Nikons much more than the Zeisses when it comes to holding them. The prism housing has got gentle but sufficient indents for the tumbs, and the index fingers, if those indents suits you, use them, if they do not fit your hands you do not have to suffer. The rubber is very comfortable to hold. The balance is very good.

These are my unprofessional findings, I really wish that I had all models of all good brands at hand, but perhaps it says something at least. Judging from various reviews such as the Better View Desired, the Nikon SEs stand up even against 8x50 roofs. In my point of view they are easily the equal, or better than, the Zeiss 7x42s in almost every respect other than the ability to show colour and fin colour nuances in very low light.

I tend to have very high expectations and are nit-picky when I test something and have to say that I cannot find any real faults about the Nikons, I am much less satisifed with the Zeisses except in low light, where they excels.



mpedris said:
How do you like them optically? What have you tested them against? How do they feel in your hands in the field?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top