I'll post a photo comparing the SE, EDG 8x32, Meopta 8x32, Zeiss 8x32FL, Zen Ray 7x36 so you get a feel for the size. The EDG 8x32 is closest in size to the Zen Ray 7x36 (which as SteveC said a year ago is close in size to a "regular" 8x42).
It's not light at 24oz either (the other 32mm are in the < 20oz range). About the same as the SE.
The objectives are quite a way up the tube and the lens caps add more length. Perhaps 15mm or more(!). I suspect they're narrowing down the stray light cone.
The 8x32 EDG is a positive focuser bin which slightly surprised me. I've been noticing a correlation between more "light around the exit pupil" and positive focusers. I suspect that accounts for some of the extra length.
I'm impression of the view is very SE like. I went out with just the EDG on their own looking at common birds in our local P-Patch. Very nice views of the birds. High contrast. A pleasingly neutral (but perhaps just a little warm) view.
Of course I could be suffering from "Dennis' syndrome" so I went back in and took the SE (505xxx), Meopta (smallest), Zeiss (non-lotutec) and EDG (serial lot of zeros and 37 ... so it's an early one) to the P-Patch.
Size: Meopta (smallest) < Zeiss (oversized barrels like the Pentax SP) < EDG (similar barrel diameter to Zeiss but longer barrels).
Weight: Meopta ~ Zeiss < EDG <~ SE
After watching the same sets of House Sparrows and a juvi Starling (very subtle color) side lit in a pine with 4pm sun I concluded that the EDG and SE were closest in views followed by the Meopta.
I suspect contrast is driving this on: EDG ~ SE > FL > Meopta
The chestnut heads on the male House Sparrows were really beautiful. I suspect the red bias plays a part here. An Anne's Hummingbird at close range showed it's iridescence very nicely. A juvi American Robin and juvi Starling also provided some interesting color views. A very nice overall view.
Color correction is very good but perhaps not perfect (twigs against brightly lit clouds ... a worst case) but I didn't notice lateral or longitudinal CA in normal use. A little different from the SE where lateral CA is more apparent and dependent (of course) on eye placement.
Color bias: EDG ~ SE (slightly warm) > Meopta (neutral) > FL (slightly cool)
The Meoptas are wider FOV with the others hitting the "400 foot" barrier (I think tht's why 7.7 to 7.8 degrees is so popular ... spec hunters driving the design).
FOV: Meopta > EDG ~ FL > SE
The oculars are larger in the EDG than the other bins: a trend for wider FOV, larger ER bins I think to enable eyeglass wearers to see the whole field. It was easier in the EDG than the Zeiss.
Edge sharpness is very like the SE: flat field at the edge but some astigmatism. So that might be a notch below the Swaro SV (which I've not tried).
Edge sharpness: EDG ~ SE > Meopta > FL
EDG versus SE: very similar. That surprised me but it seems to be true. Both about as sharp at the edge of field in the same way. Less CA in EDG. Contrast about the same. EDG has a slightly wider field. The SE have the "porro illusion"
of slightly less magnification. The EDG is waterproof and perhaps a bit more rugged (given Pete Dunne's throwing tests). It costs more too.
EDG versus FL: EDG had better contrast and color bias was more warm. The FL being the cooler and perhaps slightly less contrasty. The EDG are sharper at the edge but I'm not sure how much that improves the view (it might be subliminal but I don't really look at the edge). FL are "fat" 32mm bins (the barrels are more 35mm barrels). The EDG seem more like "tall" bins.
EDG versus Meopta: EDG had better contrast and color bias was just slight more warm. The Meopta is missing that "ED sharpness" but otherwise if well corrected for lateral CA (and not bad for lognitudinal CA). The EDG dawrfs the Meopta in size. They look like they're in different size classes. I'd rather take the Meopta on a business trip than the EDGs. The contrast in the Meoptas are a bit more dependent on where you point them (i.e. out of field stray light is an issue sometimes) and slightly less contrasty overall. The EDG are sharper at the edge though the Meoptas are no slouch. In use you wouldn't know the difference. The Meopta's FOV is bigger and it feels like it is too .
Focuser is half turn rotation from 3m/10feet to infinity (my birding range). This might seem too fast but the focuser speed is very nicely damped and very smooth. I had no problems with missing/overshooting the focus -- I would just land in the right place. Rather better than the slightly stiffer and less consistent Zeiss and the stiffer but similar rate Meopta. A better feel than the SE (faster and wider knob). Of all the focusers I've used this might be the best combo of rate, speed and smoothness I've tried. It might not please all people.
The bin was shipped in the "diopter setting position" (so people would find it, I expect). Of course, it spins in a friction free manner. The out of the box experience was "yikes, this is fast" followed by "crap this is broken it's not focusing". Then I remember the reviews with people commenting about the spinning focuser. It pops up and disengages from the mechanism to reveal a smaller metal knob underneath that sets the diopter offset. Pushing the main focuser knob home reengages it though there is a position where it looks like it's home but isn't quite and spins. I didn't have it "go into neutral" when I was birding but that's only been perhaps 90 minutes total use.
ER with my close fitting glasses is OK. In the left eye (I see the whole field) but in my more astigmatic eye (another -2.0D of correction) it's just a little dim and more clearly near the edge of blackout. I suspect for most glasses wearers this will be fine (though close fitting and higher myopes might have more of an issue). This is is similar to the other bins in this group for me.
The eyecups have unevenly set stops: there is locked fully in, then three stops that are a distance away from that. So no glasses users have more choices. I would have preferred something more like Zeiss's stay put at any distance (I use the Zeiss with an extra couple of mm on the eyecup of the right eye) as there are too many variables for eyeglass wearers these days.
Objective eyecups are the flip down type Nikon seem to be into today. They lock solidly and much to my surprise they didn't get in the way. More too my surprise (and annoyance) one fell off in the field which I didn't notice until I got home. Retracing my steps I found it on my walk. It's just press fit into place. So you can remove them if you don't like them (and that might save a little weight).
Rain guard is the "over engineered" ABS (hard plastic) EDG rain guard I've commented on before. It is a bit clanky when off the eyecups. It has an IPD lock that works well (better than the IPD setting of the bins) and a locking mechanism on the eyecups that sort of works but doesn't hold it solidly in place. Which is a shame as the objetive covers will stay put in a daysack without an extra bag. I can see this being an acquired taste.
Body finish is "shiny metal" rather than the matt (unfinished or semi-finished) Mg bodies I've seen before like the Bushnell Elite. Also like the Bushnell Elite the rubber coating (I wouldn't call it armor) is just applied on the outer sides of the barrels. Not too sure how cold weather hunters or birders would like that (though they are supposed to be wearing gloves). The coating has a slightly sticky, high friction feel to it. It feels secure.
The ergonomics of the enclosure is not actually as good as the Chinese ED enclosure (surprising but true). The flat facets of the design don't fit my fingers as well as the swoopy bits of metal in the Chinese design. But I found the bin comfortable to hold and easy to reach the focuser with both hands. I don't think I every touched the "objective" end of the bridge so taking that out in the update doesn't actually add to the ergos (though it reduces the weight).
Initially I though I might just try them out and probably send them back (I don't really need another pair of bins ... and EO does have a good return policy) but after using them for a bit they do seem rather nice. If a bit long.
So they've passed the first two parts of my evaluation: they looked OK out of the box and they look OK a couple of days later too. Next evaluation point is in about a week ... will they still be as good to me?
