• 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.

Better views than Nikon EII/SE? (2 Viewers)

Super Dave

Well-known member
Hi,

Back in 2010 I settled on the Nikon SE 8x32. I compared it to the EII and couldn't tell much of a difference so I kept the SE. Back then the feeling was that you would have to move up to a high end alpha to beat the Nikon view.

The SEs have been great but...I started reading this forum again :)

How much do I have to spend these days on a roof bin to get a better view than those porros? Are the improvements in the view over the SE/EII obvious? Or, is it one of those things where you need to look at charts or electric wires to start seeing improvements?

Thanks,
Dave
 
You can spend all you want to, that is your choice. However I seriously doubt that whatever "improvement" there would be is going to be really a notable change. I don't think there is nearly the amount of improvement jumping up the perceived quality ladder as many perceive there is. Not that it is perhaps not there, but if you are still rocking with the SE my advice is...if it ain't broke don't fix it .Try fixing it only after you have determined just how the SE needs to be upgraded. Your mileage may differ ;)
 
Thanks Steve, that's good to hear. The SE's are a classic and will hold their value.

It was sounding like the mid range 8x32s had really improved and the Zeiss Conquest HD is pretty reasonable for German glass. Cabelas was selling the Euro HD / Meostar for $400 (sold out).

Thanks,
Dave
 
Try fixing it only after you have determined just how the SE needs to be upgraded. Your mileage may differ ;)

Sound advice.

The only issue that needs fixing in my opinion is the waterproofing, at least in my neck of the woods.

Hermann
 
It is difficult to beat the views of the Nikon 8x32 SE or 8x30 EII with a roof prism especially if you like the 3D realism of the porro. I have a Nikon 8x30 EII and I preferred it over the "Latest and Greatest" Nikon 8x42 MHG. I keep trying to find a roof as good as the EII without any luck. I tried the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 and 8x42 HD's and they didn't measure up to the porro's to my eyes. I ordered the Euro HD 8x32 and I will let you know how it compares. I know the Euro won't have the wide FOV or 3D view of the EII but we will see how it compares. They sure sold out fast but it is to be expected at $450.00 off of retail. I compared the Euro HD 8x32 at Cabela's to the Swarovski 8x32 SV and outside of the SV having sharper edges they were very close in optics. The Euro had a much smoother focuser than the Swarovski though with the Swarovski focuser being sticky and having unequal tension in one direction and appeared to match it in build quality.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

actually going up from an SE 8x32 is kind of difficult imo. The only ever so slight optical deficiency is that the field of view could be a bit wider and of course the lack of waterproofing.

So if you really want to get sth new (to you) in the 8x32 class, I would try a Zeiss FL 8x32. It has a bit wider fov (although not quite E2 wide), is obviously waterproof and very small and light. Optical quality is also very nice with even a bit more transmission than the SE but you will not get the super flat field courtesy of Nikon field flatteners (the best atm imo).

PS: forget about some midrange pair beating the SE - you will have to shell out a 4 digit amount to have a chance to get better.

Joachim
 
Hello Dave,

If nothing is broken, there is nothing to fix.

A modern roof 8x32 won't provide anything noticeably brighter, unless your unit is rather older than seven years with older coatings. A modern roof, like the 8x32 Zeiss FL, might provide better suppression of chromatic aberrations, a slightly wider field of view and closer focussing. Do you have problems with those shortcomings of the SE? I think that too much is made of close focussing down to 2m and then there would be the pain in the purse of buying a modern alpha.

Incidentally, the 8x32 SE never worked for me.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Back in 2010 I settled on the Nikon SE 8x32. I compared it to the EII and couldn't tell much of a difference so I kept the SE. Back then the feeling was that you would have to move up to a high end alpha to beat the Nikon view.

The SEs have been great but...I started reading this forum again :)

How much do I have to spend these days on a roof bin to get a better view than those porros? Are the improvements in the view over the SE/EII obvious? Or, is it one of those things where you need to look at charts or electric wires to start seeing improvements?

Thanks,
Dave
The 8X32 SV ($2,200) will pretty much match the SE and give you a more comfortable, wider angled, waterproofed view. My wife used an 8X32 SE for more than ten years but, in the past three years, has refused to give up her 8X32 SV. Her SE is now a loaner bin.

In the 42/50mm range you're looking at $2500 to whatever you're willing to pay. The 8X32 SE view always amazes me, while at the same time challenging me for several minutes as I adapt to its well-known finicky eyepiece. Once adapted I'm good for the day AND I sometimes use mine (504nnn) all day to give my SV's and Leica a day off! I will not sell it under any circumstances.

PS
I use a 504nnn 8X32 SE but I do have a 550nnn (my wife's second SE) in the house as a loaner. Contrary to all the nitpicking analyses I love the 504nnn.
 
Last edited:
Great, the experts have spoken. I'm glad to hear I'm not missing anything. I'll put this desire to rest and check back with you folks in another 7 years.

;)
Hello Dave,

I may be wrong but I only expect marginal improvements in the next 7 years.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 
"The 8X32 SV ($2,200) will pretty much match the SE and give you a more comfortable, wider angled, waterproofed view."

The Swarovski 8x32 SV won't match the glare and flare control or the smooth focus in the Nikon 8x32 SE in my experience. Also, if you notice RB you will get it with the SV and not with the SE even though the SE's edges are almost as sharp and the SE has no Absam Ring like the SV does or area which is out of focus as you approach the edge. I got a lot of glare with my 8x32 SV and almost none with the SE. I just tried a new model Field Pro Swarovski 8x32 SV at Cabela's the other day and the focuser was sticky and had uneven tension in one direction so Swarovski still haven't improved their focusers. I will take a Nikon focuser anyday. The SV will not touch the SE's realistic 3D view either. You just have to decide what is important to you.

Super Dave. Keep your SE.
 
Last edited:
Perfect, thanks. Yea, the 3D view really pops on the Nikon SE.

Thanks for talking me out of spending money. I'm definitely not looking to drop a bunch of cash if the difference would not make me think "wow".

By the way, where do you see "SV" on the Swaros? What does that refer to? I only see "EL" mentioned.

Aloha,
Dave
 
Perfect, thanks. Yea, the 3D view really pops on the Nikon SE.

Thanks for talking me out of spending money. I'm definitely not looking to drop a bunch of cash if the difference would not make me think "wow".

By the way, where do you see "SV" on the Swaros? What does that refer to? I only see "EL" mentioned.

Aloha,
Dave

Dave,
the SV depicts EL's that came with the Swarovision coatings. The first EL's came out with out Swarovision and was added in subsequent updates.
 
Hi,

regarding the 32mm Swaro EL examples I have looked through, none came close to my SE 10x42 (which works perfectly for me - unlike for some others). The amount of CA visible, the glare problems and the not too smooth focuser on some made it not desireable for me.

Joachim
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Back in 2010 I settled on the Nikon SE 8x32. I compared it to the EII and couldn't tell much of a difference so I kept the SE. Back then the feeling was that you would have to move up to a high end alpha to beat the Nikon view.

The SEs have been great but...I started reading this forum again :)

How much do I have to spend these days on a roof bin to get a better view than those porros? Are the improvements in the view over the SE/EII obvious? Or, is it one of those things where you need to look at charts or electric wires to start seeing improvements?

Thanks,
Dave

Nikon’s SE

MECHANICAL

* The ergonomics on the SE is great*—although copied ... sort of ... from the Wallensack of decades ago.
* The focus mechanism seems to have been machined and lapped by aerospace machinists ... as does the ultra-firm but smooth hinge actuation.
* It is NOT “waterproof,” but mine has never fogged.
* Some grandchild will love mine.

OPTICS

* Glare suppression is great*, which improves contrast—but how much?
* Off-axis performance is great*—but how much better than the EII?
* I’ve never had occasion to go inside (onacounta they’re made well), but I am told the 5-element EP is akin to those in the famous Prostar.

BUT

I have not witnessed a difference in quality sufficient to warrant the myriad quibbles that have arisen. But then, the pragmatic doesn't get much airplay.

FROM the Intro to BINOCULARS: Fallacy & Fact

— Threshold of Recognition (loosely related to the clinical term: sensory threshold) is a term I frequently use because I believe it’s more understandable than similar terms used in the neurosciences. In addition, it should probably be used a lot more in amateur discussions concerning visual acuity because so many of the things observers claim they have seen are without a doubt below a human’s proven ability to see.

Or, as my contemporary ... William Shakespeare ... once said:

"Much ado about nothing." :cat:

Just a thought.

Bill

* Just my opinion ... get over it. 8-P:t:
 
Last edited:
.......
By the way, where do you see "SV" on the Swaros? What does that refer to? I only see "EL" mentioned.

Aloha,
Dave

Dave,
the SV depicts EL's that came with the Swarovision coatings. The first EL's came out with out Swarovision and was added in subsequent updates.

Swarovision is primarily thought of as Swarovski binoculars with lens flatteners (edge to edge sharpness) but the term is really a vision system or package consisting of several items:
- lens flatteners
- HD glass (fluoride glass)
- wide angle eye pieces
- close focus
- optimized coatings

Only the second generation and above of the EL series uses the SV or Swarovision designation. The SLC line has some of the above attributes but they do not have lens flatteners and the current SLC is also lacking close focus so they are not SV models.

Swarovski includes optimized coatings in their description of Swarovision but they have separate marketing terms for the various coatings used.

- Swarobight
- Swarodur
- Swarotop
- Swaroclean
 
Last edited:
Just a couple of my recent experiences - I’ve often compared the E2 in 8x and 10x to the Habicht in 8x and 10x.

Either Habicht has better resolution and is significantly brighter.

Just a few observations on low light viewing - I’ve tested brightness recently using a 4Watt lamp inside a curtained window situated ten metres away from a ten metre tall Chinese Elm tree. Sitting outside with arms supported and viewing the bark at night in these very dim conditions twenty metres away from the tree reveals a huge difference between these Binoculars. I’d say this is an area E2 is really quite a poor performer. This may not be the most scientific test but simply by counting streaks of bark and notches in wood, the differences between Binoculars are made obvious within a second or two.

I use the Fujinon 7x50 fmt-sx as a reference for this test and the little Habicht is far far closer to the big Fujinon’s performance and low light resolution that it is to the dim E2.

(I compared the benchmark SV 8.5 with the 8x42 Noctivid in the same test and the Noctivid was better. The Noctivid image did not appear to be ‘brighter’, but the extra detail was there to be seen. The incredible Noctivid contrast was there to be seen even in extremely low light viewing. The Noctivid was also clearly better than a mint Zeiss 7x42 bgatp, and was on par or better than a mint Zeiss 8x56 bgatp...more testing required with those two. The Noctivid has been a bit of a surprise in very low light viewing)

Rathaus
 
Just a couple of my recent experiences - I’ve often compared the E2 in 8x and 10x to the Habicht in 8x and 10x.

Either Habicht has better resolution and is significantly brighter.

Just a few observations on low light viewing - I’ve tested brightness recently using a 4Watt lamp inside a curtained window situated ten metres away from a ten metre tall Chinese Elm tree. Sitting outside with arms supported and viewing the bark at night in these very dim conditions twenty metres away from the tree reveals a huge difference between these Binoculars. I’d say this is an area E2 is really quite a poor performer. This may not be the most scientific test but simply by counting streaks of bark and notches in wood, the differences between Binoculars are made obvious within a second or two.

I use the Fujinon 7x50 fmt-sx as a reference for this test and the little Habicht is far far closer to the big Fujinon’s performance and low light resolution that it is to the dim E2.

(I compared the benchmark SV 8.5 with the 8x42 Noctivid in the same test and the Noctivid was better. The Noctivid image did not appear to be ‘brighter’, but the extra detail was there to be seen. The incredible Noctivid contrast was there to be seen even in extremely low light viewing. The Noctivid was also clearly better than a mint Zeiss 7x42 bgatp, and was on par or better than a mint Zeiss 8x56 bgatp...more testing required with those two. The Noctivid has been a bit of a surprise in very low light viewing)

Rathaus

Hi Rathaus,
how the Habicht compare to the Noctivids?
Cheers,
Alex
 
Hi Rathaus,
how the Habicht compare to the Noctivids?
Cheers,
Alex

Re very low light viewing?...I didn’t put much time into those two specifically back and forth but the 8x Noctivid is better in low light. However, The little Habicht is just extraordinary considering it’s specification. It’s not something I’ve seen discussed much regarding the little Habicht.

The 10x40 Habicht against the 10x42 Noctivid would be an interesting low light test.

Getting away from the superb low light performance, the Noctivid is the only roof I’ve encountered with such a wonderful and strong Porro feel to its image. It’s certainly much easier to use than the Habichts given the Noctivid’s excellent eye relief, large quality eye cups and huge eye pieces and the Noctivid’s massive and beautifully natural sweet spot.

To answer the OP, if a viewer’s acuity is up to it, The Noctivid is in another league to the E2 optically in just about every way possible. Resolution, jaw dropping contrast, truly incredible immunity to glare and flare.... I even roughly compared their FOV and I can say there isn’t much in it...possibly nothing. That was the only area I thought the E2 might have an advantage, even if the E2 image is relatively useless much more than 50% out.

Comparing the E2 with an SV or SF, some viewers may at least feel rewarded by its relatively sweet ‘porro type’ rendering of the immersive depth of field and fov, but this advantage just doesn’t stand out against the Noctivid.

Rathaus
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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