[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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!!! Bryce...

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by mulligatawny owl

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.

[denco@comcast.n]

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.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

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.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by steve@37n84w

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.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

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.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

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]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

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!

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by stereotruckdriver

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!

They don't use the same objective lens in an EDG as they do in a Monarch.Very few of even the internal lenses are exactly the same. An EDG has higher quality glass through out, as well as, more layers of coatings applied to the internal lenses. Most binoculars are designed from the ground up with a specific design in mind. The higher end binoculars of course have more complex eyepieces just like a Nagler eyepiece on a telescope to a give a wider field or whatever performance criteria they are seeking.

[David Swain]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

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.

I believe the purported 550400 cut-off is utterly arbitrary. In any case, current SEs are in the 5508xx range (based on a sample of two, admittedly: mine and Dennis'). But it is a fallacy to assume any correlation between purchase and manufacture date; new old stock will continue to surface.

David

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by David Swain

I believe the purported 550400 cut-off is utterly arbitrary. In any case, current SEs are in the 5508xx range (based on a sample of two, admittedly: mine and Dennis'). But it is a fallacy to assume any correlation between purchase and manufacture date; new old stock will continue to surface.

David

Exactly.

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

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.

Dennis,

Our posts crossed in cyberspace. While you were writing the above I edited my original reply to you to account for the binoculars that Nikon subcontracts out to China, like the Monarchs. The ones made in Japan like the EDGs, Premiers, SEs and EIIs use glass made by Nikon.

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

They don't use the same objective lens in an EDG as they do in a Monarch.Very few of even the internal lenses are exactly the same. An EDG has higher quality glass through out, as well as, more layers of coatings applied to the internal lenses. Most binoculars are designed from the ground up with a specific design in mind. The higher end binoculars of course have more complex eyepieces just like a Nagler eyepiece on a telescope to a give a wider field or whatever performance criteria they are seeking.

Dennis,
The eyepiece of the 10 x 32 EDG is the same as the one in the 10 x 32 LX L even though the EDG is longer than the LX L and has longer eye relief. The eyepieces have been tweaked to allow for the differences.

They both have about the same edge sharpness and pincushioning, and they have exactly the same FOV. I know because I still have both of them. The only difference between them otherwise is that the EDG is brighter because of it's dielectric prisms and it controls glare better because the objectives are set deeper into the tubes. I assume the coatings are different but the objectives are the same otherwise.

And most noticeably, externally and ergonomically, the EDG is a complete redesign of the LX L.

The Monarchs, as I noted above, are outsourced to China to the best of my knowledge and in any case, if they were made in Japan would have cheaper components in order to be priced the way they are and they don't belong in this discussion.

The title to this thread is "Worlds best roof prism versus the world's best porro prism binocular!

[mulligatawny owl]

I've never noticed CA in the SE and cant say I ever really have in the Opticron either, though I've never gone out of my way to look for it. Though I certainly notice it when its there in binos and scopes, most recently in an old Kowa ts 611 scope and zoom that was almost psychedelic with it.

You're right the Opticron/Minox are crazy good value, way better in my experience than all the chinese ED stuff. In fact if I was mainly into coastal or fairly open habitat birding the HR WP would be my choice over the SE regardless of price.

Really, anyone who doesn't want to fork out for an SE and wants to see what all the fuss is about regarding the legendary view of the SE just get an HRWP instead, the overall view of both is of exactly the same washed clean, transparent pin sharp quality that I certainly never saw in either my Hawke ED 8x43 or my Zen ED2 7 x36.

Interestingly the only roofs I've tried that gave me that feeling were the EDG II 8x32 and the SV 8.5x42 I recently tested out, ( this was just in the street outside a bino shop though so maybe not a very good test ) I thought the FL 8x32 I also tested was clearly really poor in comparison.

Originally Posted by 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

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by mulligatawny owl

I've never noticed CA in the SE and cant say I ever really have in the Opticron either, though I've never gone out of my way to look for it. Though I certainly notice it when its there in binos and scopes, most recently in an old Kowa ts 611 scope and zoom that was almost psychedelic with it.

You're right the Opticron/Minox are crazy good value, way better in my experience than all the chinese ED stuff. In fact if I was mainly into coastal or fairly open habitat birding the HR WP would be my choice over the SE regardless of price.

Really, anyone who doesn't want to fork out for an SE and wants to see what all the fuss is about regarding the legendary view of the SE just get an HRWP instead, the overall view of both is of exactly the same washed clean, transparent pin sharp quality that I certainly never saw in either my Hawke ED 8x43 or my Zen ED2 7 x36.

Interestingly the only roofs I've tried that gave me that feeling were the EDG II 8x32 and the SV 8.5x42 I recently tested out, ( this was just in the street outside a bino shop though so maybe not a very good test ) I thought the FL 8x32 I also tested was clearly really poor in comparison.

I agree with everything you said. Hardly any CA in the SE. I wish I could try an Opticron. They are not available over here in the US.

[FrankD]

They are now...in limited dealers.

[mulligatawny owl]

Be prepared for the small field of view if you ever order them, plus they don't focus as close as the SE's.

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

I agree with everything you said. Hardly any CA in the SE. I wish I could try an Opticron. They are not available over here in the US.

[Chhayanat]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Dennis,
The eyepiece of the 10 x 32 EDG is the same as the one in the 10 x 32 LX L .

They both have about the same edge sharpness and pincushioning, and they have exactly the same FOV. I know because I still have both of them. The only difference between them otherwise is that the EDG is brighter because of it's dielectric prisms and it controls glare better because the objectives are set deeper into the tubes.

I know this is off the point but in view of edge sharpness comparison made of EDG and LX L 10x32s, I would appreciate knowing your impression of the central sharpness of these two binoculars.
Chhayanat

[stereotruckdriver]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Dennis,
The eyepiece of the 10 x 32 EDG is the same as the one in the 10 x 32 LX L even though the EDG is longer than the LX L and has longer eye relief. The eyepieces have been tweaked to allow for the differences.

They both have about the same edge sharpness and pincushioning, and they have exactly the same FOV. I know because I still have both of them. The only difference between them otherwise is that the EDG is brighter because of it's dielectric prisms and it controls glare better because the objectives are set deeper into the tubes. I assume the coatings are different but the objectives are the same otherwise.

And most noticeably, externally and ergonomically, the EDG is a complete redesign of the LX L.

The Monarchs, as I noted above, are outsourced to China to the best of my knowledge and in any case, if they were made in Japan would have cheaper components in order to be priced the way they are and they don't belong in this discussion.

The title to this thread is "Worlds best roof prism versus the world's best porro prism binocular!

This is what i was getting at in my previous post, i got side tracked and had to go!!! Bryce...

[bh46118]

You are one of maybe four or five people I know of who sees the same thing I see through the Opticron, Minox Porro's. Most see the Chinese ED roofs as superior and I can't for the life of me see why. With the eye cups down and my glasses on, the image is far more comfortable and gives the sensation of being more immersive. With the eye cups out, the view is very tunnel like. They are much like the Vortex 6.5X32 Fury in that regard. The only serious image issue I have with them is the amount of CA I see. If the CA was as low in the Minox as the Zen ED2 then I would have reached optical Nirvana. As it stands, I'm probably closer to optical Disneyland.

Bruce

Originally Posted by mulligatawny owl

You're right the Opticron/Minox are crazy good value, way better in my experience than all the chinese ED stuff. In fact if I was mainly into coastal or fairly open habitat birding the HR WP would be my choice over the SE regardless of price.

Really, anyone who doesn't want to fork out for an SE and wants to see what all the fuss is about regarding the legendary view of the SE just get an HRWP instead, the overall view of both is of exactly the same washed clean, transparent pin sharp quality that I certainly never saw in either my Hawke ED 8x43 or my Zen ED2 7 x36.

[pompadour]

Originally Posted by mulligatawny owl

One thing I can say for sure is that the Opticron has greater depth of field that the Nikon...

Then that's that, and it seems the effect is due to the model being simply better in some parameter/s. My odd experience with several Opticrons across their range is described here (in three posts): http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=232033

Maybe Opt. is less sensitive to red. The hawk incident I can only attribute to shallower depth of field. The "immersive" feeling (as you call it, and described by me elsewhere rather less elegantly as "taking you there vs bringing it to you") is to me apparent most in Nikon porros - in my limited experience with different models of bins - and it seems from what you say the Opt. HR WP is still better even in that respect! Opt. themselves, in their lit. and insider comments, are nicely modest in their claims for it.

I would think, as others in this or recent threads say or imply, that porros except for astronomy are doomed. "The market rules," and making a relativel low-profit - so I reckon - item, with roofs improving all the time, may soon not be viable. I'd guess 90+% of bins bought worldwide are roof, 95+% of buyers prefer roof, and the 5% in between go for porro only due to cost or availability - e.g. a rushed buyer at a shop finds the better roofs sold out. Those figures are not based on any data or analyis, but I think close enough to convey the reality. E.g., Swarovski continues to make several porro models but Eagle Optics (say) seems to stock none of them. I have a 10x roof used mostly, a 6x wide-angle and a 16x used seldom and porro because they cost less.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by mulligatawny owl

Be prepared for the small field of view if you ever order them, plus they don't focus as close as the SE's.

How small of a FOV on the Opticron on an 8x32?

[mulligatawny owl]

The 8x42 you mean? 6.4 deg. Wish there was an 8 x 32 version.
After using the SE its definitely a little cramped, though I find I quickly adjust.

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

How small of a FOV on the Opticron on an 8x32?