Worlds best roof prism versus the world's best porro prism binocular! (1 Viewer)

[newfie ghost]

Admit it, we all love Dennis, he can create a post that gets high views and responses. Look down the page, this is one of the bigger posts. I tell ya he is the most famous BF member.

Brock, the second most famous BF member, is boycotting though.



That being said, the SV is better than the EDG.......:-O

 

[stereotruckdriver]

Detailed Comparisons have to be side by side or they don't hold much weight.

Crap on Dennis all you like, but I credit him for creating a post that gets high views and responses. Look down the page, this is one of the bigger posts. Brock is boycotting though.

That being said, the SV is better than the EDG.......

Just adding fuel to the fire so to speak! The only reason is he makes absurd and false statements! People in the know who are more knowlegeable create counter points to put some validity to the conversation!!! Bryce...

 

[newfie ghost]

BTW how did we ever learn Dennis's real name? He doesn't post it anymore. Denco is far from Dennis. He must have posted his name a few years back? A newbie might not know him from denco.

Second Dennis, you need to post an avatar.

 

[steve@37n84w]

Admit it, we all love Dennis, he can create a post that gets high views and responses. Look down the page, this is one of the bigger posts. Brock is boycotting though.



That being said, the SV is better than the EDG.......

Most people view a post by Dennis (aka #550400) just to see the inevitable train wreck. I can't help myself but ask if you are really naive enough to believe that Dennis has an inside source at Nikon??? Or do you really judge the worth of a post based solely on the number of views it receives without any regard to the veracity of the post?

Understanding the various factors regarding a certain binocular's optical performance is difficult enough without people making up stuff as they go along and purporting it to be a fact gleaned from an "inside" source. I agree with sterotruckdriver that Dennis's comment about having an inside source is pure BULLS**T.

Kudos to Brock for staying out of this thread, maybe he'll offer some of us an online course in Dennis management.

Steve

 

[stereotruckdriver]

Nonsense!

Why couldn't they be? Objective lenses are objective lenses.

Agreed! :t:

 

[stereotruckdriver]

Most people view a post by Dennis (aka #550400) just to see the inevitable train wreck. I can't help myself but ask if you are really naive enough to believe that Dennis has an inside source at Nikon??? Or do you really judge the worth of a post based solely on the number of views it receives without any regard to the veracity of the post?

Understanding the various factors regarding a certain binocular's optical performance is difficult enough without people making up stuff as they go along and purporting it to be a fact gleaned from an "inside" source. I agree with sterotruckdriver that Dennis's comment about having an inside source is pure BULLS**T.

Kudos to Brock for staying out of this thread, maybe he'll offer some of us an online course in Dennis management.

Steve

:t:

 

[mulligatawny owl]

One thing I can say for sure is that the Opticron has greater depth of field that the Nikon. Sharpness between the two is very hard to split but I do notice the difference I describe at long distance with the Opticron, its a small difference but each time I test them together at that distance the Opticron is just a hair better. The SE though wins at closer and normal birding range with its wider flatter field, sharp edges, more vibrant contrast and general gestalt overall awesomeness of view.

MO, re your posts #125 and 130, I noticed the same difference - or likely the same, as sometimes one cannot be sure how precisely these things can be described - in an Opticron vs a Nikon. The Opt. probably and the Nikon certainly are of lesser optical quality overall than your two models. The Opt. is less sharp, centre-field and out, and has less depth of field than the Nikon. I wondered if what I was seeing was simply an advantage of shallower depth of field. Whether this applies to your two models I'm not sure.

 

[barshnik]

<<<
As a starting point to making this discussion slightly more interesting, Dennis should demonstrate to himself that there is any real basis to his notion that current SE are a noticeable improvement on past SE. He should test his cherry against 2 or 3 older units (after cleaning them all with ROR and having someone else mask identifying features).
>>>

High end audio owners and reviewers ($30k pure silver speaker cables, little acoustic pads you stick on a wall, etc.) have for years been deathly afraid of doing 'double blind' testing, as it would reveal the dirty little secrets that keep the industry alive. God forbid Home Depot lamp cord is indistinguishable from speaker cables costing tens of thousands.

The same kind of testing might frighten certain folks involved in the binocular industry. Unlike double blind testing in the audio world, though, there are some things about the 'feel' of a binocular that are more subjective, and maybe more important. When I compared the Nikon SE's last week against my 10x32 Swaro SV's, they were both really good optically - I mean REALLY good. I gave the SV's a slight edge in the overall view.

The 'feel' of the glass in my hand, and the feel up to my eyes (ergonomics?) of the SV simply was much better than the SE in my opinion. Is that and the fact I can use them outside without worrying about dust / moisture make them worth 3 to 4 times more money?

Don't know, don't care. I've got what I've got, they are excellent, I enjoy the crap out of them, I'll have them till I die (and then some younger relative will have them likely till they die), so that is that.

John F
LV NV

 

[newfie ghost]

Most people view a post by Dennis (aka #550400) just to see the inevitable train wreck. I can't help myself but ask if you are really naive enough to believe that Dennis has an inside source at Nikon??? Or do you really judge the worth of a post based solely on the number of views it receives without any regard to the veracity of the post?

Understanding the various factors regarding a certain binocular's optical performance is difficult enough without people making up stuff as they go along and purporting it to be a fact gleaned from an "inside" source. I agree with sterotruckdriver that Dennis's comment about having an inside source is pure BULLS**T.

Kudos to Brock for staying out of this thread, maybe he'll offer some of us an online course in Dennis management.

Steve

I love reading posts by all members, keeps me entertained. Who knows if Dennis has inside sources. But I will say there are folks on here that do....

You can be sure Brock is reading, he's just not posting.

 

[bh46118]

I have no doubt that the SE is a better binocular overall, but as you have seen in a direct comparison, the Opticron is crazy good for the money. In my opinion you have a good set of eyes. Do you see a big difference in CA control with the SE over the Opticron ?

Thanks Bruce

One thing I can say for sure is that the Opticron has greater depth of field that the Nikon. Sharpness between the two is very hard to split but I do notice the difference I describe at long distance with the Opticron, its a small difference but each time I test them together at that distance the Opticron is just a hair better. The SE though wins at closer and normal birding range with its wider flatter field, sharp edges, more vibrant contrast and general gestalt overall awesomeness of view.

 

[NDhunter]

There are differences in the coatings in the 8x32 SE. I have had several of these
over the years, and the newer ones do give a bit brighter view.

Dennis does not have an inside connection at Nikon, he is just back to his old tricks,
so just disregard.

For your information, I have a new Nikon 8x32 SE, from Adorama, 2-5-2010, it is ser.# 55038X. That means there are not a lot of these being sold, if the current ones are
550400.

Bryce, I ended up with your old one, it is a # 55019X. I just looked through it while
I am posting.

It seems only binophiles, that appreciate fine optics, are purchasing the Nikon porros.

Jerry

 

[stereotruckdriver]

There are differences in the coatings in the 8x32 SE. I have had several of these
over the years, and the newer ones do give a bit brighter view.

Dennis does not have an inside connection at Nikon, he is just back to his old tricks,
so just disregard.

For your information, I have a new Nikon 8x32 SE, from Adorama, 2-5-2010, it is ser.# 55038X. That means there are not a lot of these being sold, if the current ones are
550400.

Bryce, I ended up with your old one, it is a # 55019X. I just looked through it while
I am posting.

It seems only binophiles, that appreciate fine optics, are purchasing the Nikon porros.

Jerry

I stand corrected, my reciept shows a different # Jerry. Kinda glad to know where it ended up! I do stand by saying there is no discernable difference with the one i have now! And yes i agree with you on Dennis! And i agree that people who appreciate fine optics are purchasing the se's regardless of price!!! I won't ever sell the ones i have now, i regretted selling the ones you have now more than any binocular i have owned. I can't even count how many that has been! Probably not a good thing!!! :eek!: Bryce...

 

[[email protected]]

I wonder if Nikon themselves could confirm any of this serial number/coating difference business, might be worth sending them an email.

Just been having another good A/B ing session between the SE and HRWP and, looking out over a bunch of pines some quarter mile from my house the HRWP does seem a little better at being able to define bunches of pine cones and tiny branches. Its sunny here for a change but the extra 10mm of the HRWP must still be giving it an advantage over that sort of distance.

In the shadows a 42mm will pick up a little more detail and be just a little brighter. It's quite a difference in aperture.

 

[[email protected]]

The EDG's will go before the SE. I have a Sightron 8x32 Blue Sky for my jungle adventures. The SE is my fair weather optics king. What a view.

 

[[email protected]]

Nonsense!

Why couldn't they be? Objective lenses are objective lenses.

They are specifically designed for each kind of binocular. Nikon doesn't have a parts bin of 32mm objectives which they use to build all their binoculars. For example the EDG has different types of glass than the SE and coatings are alo specific for each type of binocular also. There is no such thing as a generic 32mm objective.

 

[[email protected]]

I didn't say it was a better birding binocular but it's better optically and definitely more rugged. I guess I missed the only 8x30/8x32s in your op, I misunderstood and thought this discussion was about the best porros in the world bar none. Of course I should of known it's only about the porro that Dennis currently has in his position.

Maybe I'm lacking in common sense as you say but I certainly know better then to fabricate fairy tales about "my inside" connection at Nikon. I'm kind of like sterotruckdriver in his post #115 in that you ought to verify/prove that someone at Nikon told you that the coatings on the SEs were improved at serial number SN550400....I'm afraid if you don't many forum members may doubt your truthfulness.

Steve

Why would a Fujinon be more rugged? Same basic prism design and they both have similar rubber cladding to protect them. The SE is built quite solidly and I would put it's build quality up against a Fujinon anyday. That is just some baloney you heard or read somewhere. It has no basis in fact. Many members on this forum have had an SE for a long time and never had a problem with them and some have dropped them without a problem. As far as optics I have looked through Fujinon's and the edges were way too fuzzy for me. They were not nearly as sharp as the SE which I like. It is unfair to compare a 50mm aperture to a 32mm anyway. There is some areas that the Fujinon is just going to better than the Nikon because of aperture size. Fujinon's 32mm binoculars are not nearly as good as the SE. So when comparing apples to apples the SE wins.

 

[[email protected]]

There are differences in the coatings in the 8x32 SE. I have had several of these
over the years, and the newer ones do give a bit brighter view.

Dennis does not have an inside connection at Nikon, he is just back to his old tricks,
so just disregard.

For your information, I have a new Nikon 8x32 SE, from Adorama, 2-5-2010, it is ser.# 55038X. That means there are not a lot of these being sold, if the current ones are
550400.

Bryce, I ended up with your old one, it is a # 55019X. I just looked through it while
I am posting.

It seems only binophiles, that appreciate fine optics, are purchasing the Nikon porros.

Jerry

I would imagine Nikon has different warehouses for logistical reasons so it is possible that different serial numbers could be sold out of sequence. One warehouse might have a bunch of high number serial numbers but for some reason not many have been drawn from that warehouse and they could be sitting there.

 

[ceasar]

They are specifically designed for each kind of binocular. Nikon doesn't have a parts bin of 32mm objectives which they use to build all their binoculars. For example the EDG has different types of glass than the SE and coatings are alo specific for each type of binocular also. There is no such thing as a generic 32mm objective.

You aren't thinking.

Nikon has many models of binoculars. Some are made in Japan others are outsourced to China. No one but Nikon knows where the glass comes from for those made in China. But we do know that Nikon can and does make it's own glass and we know that all of it's Pro Stars, EDGs, Premiers, SEs and EIIs are made in Japan. It would be impractical for them to make different glass for the Pro Stars, EDGs, Premiers, SEs and EIIs. We know they use the same eye pieces in all of the SEs and the same prisms and the same prism housings. We know they do the same thing for the 8 x 30 and 10 x 35 EIIs.

Why would they not make generic objectives for common formats like 32mm and 42mm to cut down costs? Separate, model specific and improved coatings could be added to them later as inventories require it but they would be interchangeable. These are business decisions.

 

[[email protected]]

You aren't thinking.

Nikon has so many different kinds of 42mm binoculars that it would be absurd for them to have different types of glass and coatings for each one.

Sure they do. What do you think they use the same objective glass in the EDG as they do in the Monarch! The coatings and quality of glass is totally different in the EDG than the Monarch. That's a big reason the EDG is better than the Monarch.

 

[stereotruckdriver]

Sure they do. What do you think they use the same objective glass in the EDG as they do in the Monarch! The coatings and quality of glass is totally different in the EDG than the Monarch. That's a big reason the EDG is better than the Monarch.

Why not? It's the glass behind the outer objective and ep's that are different!?They can tune the same objective with coatings as needed!