This is just a fantasy hypothetical so bear with me; if you were suddenly appointed project manager for the new Nikon SE III, and living within the constraints of modern industrial technology, what would you do? Would ED glass make the SE even better? How hard would it be to make it truly waterproof? Obviously adjustable eyecups. How about a 7x35 or 8x42SE? Maybe a threaded hole for tripod mount on the 12x50. Other ideas?
John
A 7x35 SE would be a dream come true! My favorite configuration in my favorite bin series.
Even though the 8x32 SE outperforms some (many?) 8x42s, the larger exit pupil of an 8x42 or 7x35 would make the view a bit "easier" to hold (perhaps reducing the blackouts?) and make the SE more usable in dim lighting conditions and also for casual stargazing.
However, I would want a WF 7x35 like my '80s Nikon Action WF (9.3) rather than the 7.3* 7x35 E.
The Action WF has good edges for such a wide FOV and so does my 8x EII. With field flatterners, Nikon could do even better.
There may be limits on how far you can stretch a field flattener for a given configuration, but even an 8.3* FOV would yield a comfortable 58* AFOV with a 7x35. I'd be happy with that.
ED glass
would definitely help!
It finally stopped raining, but it was still overcast when I went for a short walk today with my friend's 505 8x32 SE slung around my neck.
On my way back, I spotted a buzzard. Unlike my older lead glass SE in this same situation, I saw:
Purple haze all around his frame
Lead-free optics don't seem the same
Actin' funny, and I sure know why
go 'way clouds, 'cause I need clear skies
It wasn't very dramatic, but it was there.
On the ground, I didn't see CA on any target including small, mostly white Killdeer birds against a gravel background. I see less CA on overcast days on the ground than I do on sunny days due to the more even illumination.
The CA control on the 505 SE is good, better than the LX roofs, and much better than on the LX L roofs, but not quite on par with the lead glass version, and not nearly as good as it could be with ED glass.
I did this same test under the same sky conditions with a 10x42 EDG, and I saw no CA on the buzzard (probably the same one!) on axis.
As I suggested, the Leupold Cascades and Minox 8x44/10x44 porros have internal focusers, so you can make porros truly WP by adding an internal focuser.
And since the Leupolds only cost $200, apparently making an internal focuser for a porro is not expensive to do.
I knew someone would notice that I didn't include twist-up eyecups in my SE wish list.
I have deep-set eyes and a high bridged nose like most Klingons. The SE eyecups barely fit into my orbits - the newer 505s have thinner, more flexible Latex-like eyecups, which work better for me than hard rubber since the eyecups dig slightly into the bridge of my nose.
The only twist-up eyecups that have been comfortable for me were on the Leupold Cascades, and that was because the EPs weren't wide, having only a 6.5* FOV.
SE twist-up eyecups would be huge, and probably not fit my face or allow me to see the entire FOV. This happened with the hard, oversized, twist-up eyecups on the 820 Audubon.
But I realize that I'm the odd man out in this, and if Nikon could make a twist-up eyecups that were smaller by matching the size closer the visible lens size rather than the ocular housing size, I would prefer twist-ups myself.
But I'm not sure if it's physically possible to make smaller twist-up eyecups the way you can smaller rubber eyecups, which fold down over the ocular housing.
For example, look at Docter Nobilem's fold down eyecups. The don't go all the way out to the edge of the ocular housing like the SE eyecups do, but are indented.
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/images/nobilem8x50b.jpg
These are like the CJZ 8x50 Octarem's eyecups.
The 501 SE and 8x50 Oct. gave similar views, but the Zeiss' eyecups were more comfortable to use, because of their narrower diameter.
In contrast, here are the 820 Audubon's, hard, oversized eyecups:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xaIWOcw9KvY/SqFUpcZa-TI/AAAAAAAAACw/udTJHHmVFmk/s320/sw_8-5x44_820ed_200.jpg
Not Klingon-friendly. Grrrrrrrrrr.
I don't think they could make a threaded hole for a standard tripod adapter on the SE series, at least as it is now designed. The center post is 1/2" thick and a standard thread is 1/4" thick.
That's a lot of weight to put on only 1/4" metal from the outside of the thread to the top of the post.
They would have to get rid of the post or make it thicker.
The 8x32 SE is a bit short for my hands, so I added hard rubber dewshields to extend the barrels to the length of the 10x42 SE. The SE is more comfortable and more stable now.
I would recommend that Nikon add such dewshields to the 8x32 and 7x35 SE EDs. Steve (mooreorless) might have a photo of the dewshields on either the SE or EII (another bin that needs barrel extensions).
My other wish is for a 10x50 SE ED with a 6.5" FOV. That would be THE BONG.
Brock (special adviser to the PM of the new Nikon SE III
design team)