-
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.
New EDG binocular line from Nikon (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Swissboy
- Start date
Absolutely--not to be taken seriously.
Why buy it when you can read the comments by clicking on see more photos next?
Thanks for the heads up though.
Nev
mooreorless
Well-known member
Hi Nev, I missed that
I wish they would put more bite in these reviews.I know they test resolution. John T, I guess they thought the Leica Ultravid HD with less ER and $95 higher price made the Nikon EDG their top choice. Sounds like both of these would make a nice binocular to make payments on.
Regards,Steve
Last edited:
Did you watch the video of the testing? It's hilarious. The guy is explaining the procedures standing strongly backlit in front of a window--you can't see anything he's talking about. If these guys are supposed to be optics experts, it doesn't come across in the video.
mooreorless
Well-known member
Well, judging by the fact that there isn't much information out yet on the Nikon EDG and this is all I could find. I say don't watch it and don't read any of it. I know in the past Bill McRae has done these optic tests for Outdoor Life and he does use USAF 1951 Resolution Charts, as well as a 3x booster while checking resolution and does know good optics. It looks like he is retiring from doing this as I don't see his name at the start of the test pages.
mooreorless
Well-known member
Hello, I have to agree with you about the video, not efficent use of lighting for sure. There seems to be some interest in the EDG on here. There are over 700 views after posting the two links. I would think it would be hard to test optics in Feb. in Montana at -24° F ,so I guess we could cut them a little slack if they are not the best cameramen. As far as some being optics experts, the only person I know might be one on this team is Bill McRae. BTW I have a Nikon 10x42SE as well as others.
Steve
As far as some being optics experts, the only person I know might be one on this team is Bill McRae. BTW I have a Nikon 10x42SE as well as others.Steve
brocknroller
porromaniac
Hi Steve,
I hope the Amish Shoe Store has these in stock so we can check those "simply superb" binoculars and find out if that holds true "in every respect."
Though I am not a "frequent flyer" on BF, those who have read my numerous posts on Cloudy Nights/Cloudy Days know that I'm a Nikon binocular fan (I currently own five of them including the 8x32 LX, 8x32 SE, and 8x30 E2), but I had "issues" with the full sized LX and LX L series.
One issue with the LX was, of course, its heavy weight. Even with a neoprene strap I was in need of a chiropractic adjustment after a day in the field, but the chief issue was the extreme amount of barrel distortion in the full-sized LX. My 8x32 LX does not have that much distortion, but it's also not as sharp as the full-sized models I've owned or tested.
The issue with the LX L was that either the glass or coatings or both were inferior to the original LX in that the original showed noticeably better contrast, particularly on bright objects. The LX L was too bright, sacrificing contrast for brightness, IMO. The LX L's lighter weight body with its more supple "skin" was more pleasant to hold (but it also scuffed more easily than the LX). But alas, the LX L suffered from the same extreme barrel distortion as the LX.
The colors on the LX L were also skewed warmer than the LX. Reds were a bit orangey and blues a bit purplish compared to the more realistic color palette of the LX.
I realize that some people don't see the barrel distortion in the full-sized LX/LX Ls, or, as with Steve, see it but then quickly adapt to it. After a month with each full sized model (8x42 LX, 10x42 LX, and 10x42 LX L), I never adapted. Images still appeared to scroll over a positively curved surface, distracting me from what I was looking at, particularly when panning with the binoculars.
While the full sized LX optics were amazingly sharp and super contrasty (the best image I've seen in any binocular), I ultimately sold them and kept the mid-sized LX model (8x32), because of the "globe effect" problem.
So my question about the ED G is if Nikon simply added an ED element to the LX L optics or started from scratch and compensated for the barrel distortion this time around.
As I told a Nikon rep a couple years back, what I would like is a Nikon binocular with an open bridge design, and optics as sharp and contrasty as the ORIGINAL LX, but without the dreaded barrel distortion.
Then manufacture them in China and sell them for $800 in the US! Hey, I paid $300-$400 for each of three ED glass porro bins I owned (two Celestrons and one Swift) so it could be done even though I realize there would be quality control issues with Chinese made binoculars, and I might have to use gloves when using them to avoid lead contamination like I do while handling the power cord on my new Toshiba Satellite laptop (I kid you not!).
If anybody knows the answer to my $1,800 question about the new ED G's optics, please chime in. Thanks.
Brock
Brock,
The specs are different enough (field of view is wider while eye-relief is not reduced) that the optical formula of at least the eyepiece cannot very well be the same as with the LX (L) series. Of course, this does not guarantee that the rolling ball effect (I prefer not to use the term "barrel distortion" in this context, since it used as the opposite of "pincushion" in describing linear distortion towards the edge of field) would now be absent. It is quite possible that the rolling ball effect is a by-product of Nikon's typical field-flattener lens design, although if you are not bothered by it with the SE's, that might not be the case. Personally, I'm not bothered by the rb-effect in the SE (10x42 I have) or the Canon 10x42 IS L (which also has a field-flattener system). I haven't used the full-size LX's for quite some time, so I cannot say how they would appear to me on that count.
For quite some years, I have been hoping for a Nikon binocular that would offer the overall image quality of the Nikon ED Fieldscopes in stereo. Not having seen the EDG series yet but just looking at the design and specifications, it looks like they could get close to that ideal of mine. My only disappointments come from Nikon following Swarovski's desing a bit too closely. They should have retained the LX diopter adjustment system which is superior to the pull-out knob used by Swaro and Zeiss, and they should have extended the armor all around the tubes. What they have added on their own, and what I enthusiastically welcome, is the tripod adapter thread integrated to the front hinge. Just having spent six straight hours migration-watching yesterday, with my binocular resting comfortably on its finnstick, my arms resting against my waist while I panned the horizon, I truly appreciate the minor effort the design team had to make to facilitate the use of these support systems. No support is fine for woodland birding etc., where speed rules, but try viewing non-stop even for 10 minutes and even with a very lightweight binocular, and just the weight of your own arms will get to you.
Kimmo
The specs are different enough (field of view is wider while eye-relief is not reduced) that the optical formula of at least the eyepiece cannot very well be the same as with the LX (L) series. Of course, this does not guarantee that the rolling ball effect (I prefer not to use the term "barrel distortion" in this context, since it used as the opposite of "pincushion" in describing linear distortion towards the edge of field) would now be absent. It is quite possible that the rolling ball effect is a by-product of Nikon's typical field-flattener lens design, although if you are not bothered by it with the SE's, that might not be the case. Personally, I'm not bothered by the rb-effect in the SE (10x42 I have) or the Canon 10x42 IS L (which also has a field-flattener system). I haven't used the full-size LX's for quite some time, so I cannot say how they would appear to me on that count.
For quite some years, I have been hoping for a Nikon binocular that would offer the overall image quality of the Nikon ED Fieldscopes in stereo. Not having seen the EDG series yet but just looking at the design and specifications, it looks like they could get close to that ideal of mine. My only disappointments come from Nikon following Swarovski's desing a bit too closely. They should have retained the LX diopter adjustment system which is superior to the pull-out knob used by Swaro and Zeiss, and they should have extended the armor all around the tubes. What they have added on their own, and what I enthusiastically welcome, is the tripod adapter thread integrated to the front hinge. Just having spent six straight hours migration-watching yesterday, with my binocular resting comfortably on its finnstick, my arms resting against my waist while I panned the horizon, I truly appreciate the minor effort the design team had to make to facilitate the use of these support systems. No support is fine for woodland birding etc., where speed rules, but try viewing non-stop even for 10 minutes and even with a very lightweight binocular, and just the weight of your own arms will get to you.
Kimmo
brocknroller
porromaniac
The Search for Excellence
Kimmo,
Thanks for those observations. I’m not bothered by the rb-effect in the SE either (on all three models), because I don’t SEE any rb with them. Panning is fairly smooth. What I do get is “blinking” blackouts while panning fast. I get the same thing when I dart my eyes quickly to the edges with the SEs, but I think those issues are due to the ER (or “spherical aberration of the exit pupil”, from what some optics experts have said, though I have never quite understood what that is).
The full-sized LX/ LX Ls have the most severe rb-effect I’ve seen in any binocular, which is really too bad (for me, anyway, because I see it) since the images are otherwise stunning. I especially like the 10x42 LX, which, although identical in FOV to the 10x42 SE, gives me a noticeably more open view (another puzzle - could be the eyecups work better with my facial features or because the vignette at edges on the SE – I have to tilt the EPs to see the field stop).
I agree about the armoring. I'd be concerned about it peeling off over time, though Nikon has a great warranty and even repairs used bins are very reasonable. The fully integrated smooth “skin” on the LX would have been more to my liking.
What I can’t see from the photos is whether or not the EDG has thumb indents under the barrels. I know a lot of people don’t like thumb indents, but I’ve tried Steve Moore’s 7x30 Swaro and the thumb indents are shallow and wide, and would fit a variety of fingers including those of my large sized hands. The 8x32 LX is a bit hard for me to hold, with its small, round barrels (I have to point my thumbs backward for the best grip-- I also added Bushwacker objective caps to extend the barrels for better comfort and stability).
The addition of tripod mount is a very useful feature, particularly for the 10x model. I could hold the 10x42 LX very steady due to its heavy weight, but I couldn’t hold it up very long before tiring my arms.
I also agree about the diopter adjustment on the EP being more convenient. That’s one thing I didn’t like about Steve’s Swaros, that and the second pinky knob focuser. However, if the depth of field is good, as Cameron said (or reviewer said), the diopter adjustment may not be that big an issue. It was for me with the 10x42 LX, and even more so with my first sample 8x32 LX, which had a focuser that was too “fast.” I’d overshoot the focus, and then have to readjust the focus AND the right diopter, because of my lack of focus accommodation. It drove me nuts, but the 8x32 LX sample I have now has a slower focuser, which suits me better, though I still wish the binocular had more depth of field.
In my heavily wooded backyard, I use the 8x30 E2 the most, because it has the best DOF and widest FOV out of my three top Nikon mid-sized bins (SE, LX, and E2). The LX I use for medium to long distance where its superior contrast helps pick out birds from the trees, and I use the SE for either backyard birding or in the field, because while not waterproof, it is better protected against moisture than the E2, and it's also more robustly built.
In the backyard, the shallower DOF with the 8x32 LX makes distinguishing birds from the background harder except with the most colorful birds.
When light levels drop significantly, I switch to the Zeiss Jena 8x50, which also has good DOF. For a 45 oz. binocular, it feels surprisingly light due to the excellent weight distribution and flat bottom ergonomics (at least for my large hands, users with small hands might have a hard time reaching the low profile focuser).
The rb-effect is somewhat subjective, though apparently it can be objectively measured, as Holger Merlitz demonstrates in this technical article (notice he mentions that the Nikon’s have no “distortion,” which in this context, and IMO, is NOT a good thing, because Nikon doesn’t compensate for the rb-effect or “globe effect” as Merlitz calls it by ADDING some pincushion distortion to make the image when panning more natural).
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe.pdf
I also see your point in calling it rb-effect rather than “barrel distortion” since optically, it is rather a lack of distortion (round lenses create round images) even though to the human eye (or to those eyes/brains sensitive to rb), the image through the bins looks distorted (curved) compared to the naked eye view without binoculars.
OTOH, I’ve used binoculars with too much of a good thing (pincushion), which then becomes a bad thing. The Swift 10x42 and 8x44 ED Ultralites are two binoculars that have too much pincushion for my tastes whereas the optics on the 8x42 Ultralite have a more natural view (I’m talking about the original 10x and 8x Ultralites, not the new models, which I haven’t tried).
Since a lot of people apparently don’t see the rb-effect in the LX or see it but quickly adapt to it, I may not get my question answered until I try a Nikon EDG myself. Of course, with a $1,800 price tag, I won’t be taking them home no matter how fantastic they are.
I’ll wait for the Chinese knock-off version or try a Vortex 8x42 Razor (not sure if that’s made in China or Japan, but it has the same open bridge design as the EL and EDG, but sells for about a third of the cost). The first version Razor reportedly had stiff focusers (like the first ELs), but from what the Vortex rep told me, they worked out that problem on the updated version (the only problem is they didn’t change the name or model # so there’s no way to tell which is the revised version).
Anyway, I can’t complain, I have a fine stable of binoculars. But like most optics aficionados, I’m always looking for something better, for excellence in optics, and for me, an "excellent" binocular would have the wide FOV, good DOF, and good edges of my 8x30 E2 combined with the high contrast and intense color depth of the LX in a EL package with ED glass. That's bino nirvana!
The problem is, I’d probably baby the binocular too much if it cost $1,800 or even if I got a great deal for “only” $1,200 as a close out or “blemished” sample. I babied my 10x42 LX L. It was too expensive for me to relax with it. Not that I knock around my other Nikons (or at least not purposely), but I don’t hold my breath while using them either.
Aside from the rb-effect with the LX, most of the Nikon’s I’ve bought have been consistently good in image quality and sharp on-axis and off. The exceptions were the 8x Sporter 1, which had soft images due to a lack of p-coatings, but was otherwise very good, and quite robust for the price, the Nikon Action EX, which had poor edges (my old 8x32 Action WF is sharper on-axis and off), and the Nikon Monarchs, which also have poor edges and the image quality wasn't on par with lesser priced porros, or at least with the sample I tried.
Notice that both of EX and the Monarch were made in China whereas all the other Nikons I’ve owned (about a dozen) were made in Japan.
Yes, you get what you pay for, but sometimes you pay too much for what you get, and the new EDG bins fall in that category for my budget even sight unseen.
Brock
Kimmo,
Thanks for those observations. I’m not bothered by the rb-effect in the SE either (on all three models), because I don’t SEE any rb with them. Panning is fairly smooth. What I do get is “blinking” blackouts while panning fast. I get the same thing when I dart my eyes quickly to the edges with the SEs, but I think those issues are due to the ER (or “spherical aberration of the exit pupil”, from what some optics experts have said, though I have never quite understood what that is).
The full-sized LX/ LX Ls have the most severe rb-effect I’ve seen in any binocular, which is really too bad (for me, anyway, because I see it) since the images are otherwise stunning. I especially like the 10x42 LX, which, although identical in FOV to the 10x42 SE, gives me a noticeably more open view (another puzzle - could be the eyecups work better with my facial features or because the vignette at edges on the SE – I have to tilt the EPs to see the field stop).
I agree about the armoring. I'd be concerned about it peeling off over time, though Nikon has a great warranty and even repairs used bins are very reasonable. The fully integrated smooth “skin” on the LX would have been more to my liking.
What I can’t see from the photos is whether or not the EDG has thumb indents under the barrels. I know a lot of people don’t like thumb indents, but I’ve tried Steve Moore’s 7x30 Swaro and the thumb indents are shallow and wide, and would fit a variety of fingers including those of my large sized hands. The 8x32 LX is a bit hard for me to hold, with its small, round barrels (I have to point my thumbs backward for the best grip-- I also added Bushwacker objective caps to extend the barrels for better comfort and stability).
The addition of tripod mount is a very useful feature, particularly for the 10x model. I could hold the 10x42 LX very steady due to its heavy weight, but I couldn’t hold it up very long before tiring my arms.
I also agree about the diopter adjustment on the EP being more convenient. That’s one thing I didn’t like about Steve’s Swaros, that and the second pinky knob focuser. However, if the depth of field is good, as Cameron said (or reviewer said), the diopter adjustment may not be that big an issue. It was for me with the 10x42 LX, and even more so with my first sample 8x32 LX, which had a focuser that was too “fast.” I’d overshoot the focus, and then have to readjust the focus AND the right diopter, because of my lack of focus accommodation. It drove me nuts, but the 8x32 LX sample I have now has a slower focuser, which suits me better, though I still wish the binocular had more depth of field.
In my heavily wooded backyard, I use the 8x30 E2 the most, because it has the best DOF and widest FOV out of my three top Nikon mid-sized bins (SE, LX, and E2). The LX I use for medium to long distance where its superior contrast helps pick out birds from the trees, and I use the SE for either backyard birding or in the field, because while not waterproof, it is better protected against moisture than the E2, and it's also more robustly built.
In the backyard, the shallower DOF with the 8x32 LX makes distinguishing birds from the background harder except with the most colorful birds.
When light levels drop significantly, I switch to the Zeiss Jena 8x50, which also has good DOF. For a 45 oz. binocular, it feels surprisingly light due to the excellent weight distribution and flat bottom ergonomics (at least for my large hands, users with small hands might have a hard time reaching the low profile focuser).
The rb-effect is somewhat subjective, though apparently it can be objectively measured, as Holger Merlitz demonstrates in this technical article (notice he mentions that the Nikon’s have no “distortion,” which in this context, and IMO, is NOT a good thing, because Nikon doesn’t compensate for the rb-effect or “globe effect” as Merlitz calls it by ADDING some pincushion distortion to make the image when panning more natural).
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe.pdf
I also see your point in calling it rb-effect rather than “barrel distortion” since optically, it is rather a lack of distortion (round lenses create round images) even though to the human eye (or to those eyes/brains sensitive to rb), the image through the bins looks distorted (curved) compared to the naked eye view without binoculars.
OTOH, I’ve used binoculars with too much of a good thing (pincushion), which then becomes a bad thing. The Swift 10x42 and 8x44 ED Ultralites are two binoculars that have too much pincushion for my tastes whereas the optics on the 8x42 Ultralite have a more natural view (I’m talking about the original 10x and 8x Ultralites, not the new models, which I haven’t tried).
Since a lot of people apparently don’t see the rb-effect in the LX or see it but quickly adapt to it, I may not get my question answered until I try a Nikon EDG myself. Of course, with a $1,800 price tag, I won’t be taking them home no matter how fantastic they are.
I’ll wait for the Chinese knock-off version or try a Vortex 8x42 Razor (not sure if that’s made in China or Japan, but it has the same open bridge design as the EL and EDG, but sells for about a third of the cost). The first version Razor reportedly had stiff focusers (like the first ELs), but from what the Vortex rep told me, they worked out that problem on the updated version (the only problem is they didn’t change the name or model # so there’s no way to tell which is the revised version).
Anyway, I can’t complain, I have a fine stable of binoculars. But like most optics aficionados, I’m always looking for something better, for excellence in optics, and for me, an "excellent" binocular would have the wide FOV, good DOF, and good edges of my 8x30 E2 combined with the high contrast and intense color depth of the LX in a EL package with ED glass. That's bino nirvana!
The problem is, I’d probably baby the binocular too much if it cost $1,800 or even if I got a great deal for “only” $1,200 as a close out or “blemished” sample. I babied my 10x42 LX L. It was too expensive for me to relax with it. Not that I knock around my other Nikons (or at least not purposely), but I don’t hold my breath while using them either.
Aside from the rb-effect with the LX, most of the Nikon’s I’ve bought have been consistently good in image quality and sharp on-axis and off. The exceptions were the 8x Sporter 1, which had soft images due to a lack of p-coatings, but was otherwise very good, and quite robust for the price, the Nikon Action EX, which had poor edges (my old 8x32 Action WF is sharper on-axis and off), and the Nikon Monarchs, which also have poor edges and the image quality wasn't on par with lesser priced porros, or at least with the sample I tried.
Notice that both of EX and the Monarch were made in China whereas all the other Nikons I’ve owned (about a dozen) were made in Japan.
Yes, you get what you pay for, but sometimes you pay too much for what you get, and the new EDG bins fall in that category for my budget even sight unseen.
Brock
Last edited:
Tvc15_2000
Well-known member
Nothing that is not already known
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W2w5TEGOvPk
Perhps the armor is on some parts of the EDG rather than all for reliability. It seems like the armor comming loose is the bigest problem on many binoculars.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W2w5TEGOvPk
Perhps the armor is on some parts of the EDG rather than all for reliability. It seems like the armor comming loose is the bigest problem on many binoculars.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Did you mean to say "Perhaps the armor is on some parts of the EDG FOR BETTER GRIPPING rather than all for reliability."?
That was why Nikon added the partial rubber armoring on the 8x30 E2, but the armor started coming loose after my first outing with the binocular on a humid day. The armor buckled where my fingers were touching on the top and bottom.
The armor on the 10x35 E2 came loose just from sitting in the sun for about 20 minutes on a summer day. Whatever kind of glue Nikon used under the E2's rubber armor can't stand up to high humidity or prolonged sun exposure.
However, I would hope that on an $1,800 primo binocular, Nikon wouldn't repeat this mistake!
Thanks for that YouTube link. It explained that the full sized models DO have thumb indents, however, I couldn't see their shape or depth in the video since his hand was blocking the view. The focuser wheel looks very similar to the Vortex Razor.
I'd like to do a comparison test between the Razor and EDG to find out if the EDG is really worth the $1,200 difference.
No doubt, the Nikon is better, however, I suspect, as I did with the LX L, that Nikon inflated the price to appear competitive with European bins.
IMO, the LX L was NOT competitive optically, but if the EDG is competitive with the EL in resolution, DOF, and ergonomics, and provides an "edge" over the EL with better contrast and color depth, then relatively speaking Euros to Yen, it would be worth the money.
But alas, poor Yorick, it is still beyond my budget.
Hummmm... food and gas or a Nikon EDG? I'm thinking....
Brock
henry link
Well-known member
Yesterday I had an opportunity to check the distortion in a friend's old Nikon 10x42 LX. I can confirm Brock's impression of barrel distortion in that model. Lines near the edge bend toward the center and I watched an object that was square shaped at the center of the field become squashed into a rectangle at the edge. Introducing barrel distortion is quite an odd design choice in a binocular since it's almost guaranteed to cause an unpleasant rolling ball effect when panning. I agree that the SE has very little distortion, just very slight pincushion.
mooreorless
Well-known member
Hi Henry, It is strange that some people notice this "rolling ball" effect and other's don't or adapt very fast. I used the exact same LX model as Brock did and did notice this but it went away never to come back. I guess that is a blessing for me.
I noticed the link for the Outdoor Life optics test page is not found now. I was kind of surprised that they had the new issue up at this time.I hope this has not caused anybody on here any distress. I would say go buy the magazine.
Regards,Steve
I noticed the link for the Outdoor Life optics test page is not found now. I was kind of surprised that they had the new issue up at this time.I hope this has not caused anybody on here any distress. I would say go buy the magazine.
Regards,Steve
brocknroller
porromaniac
Thanks for confirming that, Henry. When I first posted this observation on Cloudy Nights, I was besieged by naysayers who thought I either had a bad sample (I tried THREE 10x42 LXs) or that the fault lay "not in the stars" but in my eyes. The rb-effect was so extreme that even the night sky looked like a globe when scanning. Perhaps the ancient Greeks made a pair of LX type bins, and that's how they came up with the idea of the "crystal spheres".
As far as Nikon "introducing barrel distortion," I gather from reading the narrative in Holger's technical article, which I cited above <http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe.pdf>, that it is rather the lack of distortion that is causing the "globe effect" in the full sized LXs.
Normally, manufacturers add some amount of pincushioning to compensate for the curved image that optical lenses produce, but Nikon did not for the full sized LXs. Oddly enough, on the mid-sized LXs, they did add pincushioning, which is why I kept the 8x32 LX.
The upside to the "globe effect" is that it stretches the image at the centerfield, and as you noted, squashes them at the edges. Since the close set barrels of the roof prism design creates an illusion of larger image scale to begin with (though some people can't detect that either), add to that the streteched image at the centerfield rolling over the "barrel" and you get a huge image scale in the 10x42 LX.
I compared the 10x42 LX to the 12x50 SE and the image size was very close. Of course, the LX doesn't actually resolve image detail at 12x, but just looks that big.
BIG BIRDs were nice to behold in the LX until I moved the binoculars and saw the "Funhouse Mirror Effect" (my terminology for the rb-effect since it reminds me of the distorted images I saw in the positively curved mirrors in the "Funhouse" at Palisades Amusement Park, which I used to visit as a child).
So I'm wondering if Nikon dropped the ball ("rolling ball") on the EDG. Since you can see the rb-effect with the LX, you'd know if it was present on the EDG. Let us know if you try one.
Upscale optics stores are far and few between out here in the Boonies, but if Steve and I can afford to the gas to visit the Amish Shoe Store this summer (gas prices have risen 107% since Jan. 1), we'll post a report. The store carries the EL so if they have an EDG, we can make a comparison. Steve has a resolution chart and a doubler so we can do a thorough job.
Brock
henry link
Well-known member
Brock,
I applied the word "introduce" to the distortion in the 10x42 LX because I think it's distortion goes well beyond the tangent condition for zero distortion described by Holger Merlitz'. I have some old pre WW2 binoculars that fit the tangent condition. They show almost straight lines at the edge of the field. An object that appears square in the field center looks like a slightly smaller square at the edge, with only a little shape distortion. The distortion pattern looks quite similar to the Nikon SE series. The 10x42 LX shows so much more line bending and shape distortion that I think it is correct to call it barrel distortion. Since this wouldn't have happened naturally I think the designers must have introduced it. Perhaps as a trade off for improved field curvature or astigmatism? I suspect Holger had the SE models in mind when he suggested that Nikon binoculars conform to the tangent condition.
Henry
I applied the word "introduce" to the distortion in the 10x42 LX because I think it's distortion goes well beyond the tangent condition for zero distortion described by Holger Merlitz'. I have some old pre WW2 binoculars that fit the tangent condition. They show almost straight lines at the edge of the field. An object that appears square in the field center looks like a slightly smaller square at the edge, with only a little shape distortion. The distortion pattern looks quite similar to the Nikon SE series. The 10x42 LX shows so much more line bending and shape distortion that I think it is correct to call it barrel distortion. Since this wouldn't have happened naturally I think the designers must have introduced it. Perhaps as a trade off for improved field curvature or astigmatism? I suspect Holger had the SE models in mind when he suggested that Nikon binoculars conform to the tangent condition.
Henry
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
mooreorless
Well-known member
http://www.outdoorlife.com/product.jsp?ID=87626&product=&clientID=106080
I have this issue and they say more in the issue.
Yea I know this thread is about the EDG, just couldn't resist posting about the 10x35 EII
I have this issue and they say more in the issue.
Yea I know this thread is about the EDG, just couldn't resist posting about the 10x35 EII
Last edited:
