Nikon 8x porros (1 Viewer)

I recently made a great decision following good advice from here when I bought a pair of secondhand 10x42 SEs with which I'm more than happy. They're bright, sharp and handle well.

Now I'd be grateful for some clarification between the following porros. These are the Nikon 8x32 SE and the 8x30 Ell. Both of these are available new in UK. How do they compare for general birding use? 8x mag is popular in UK and with my experience of the 10x42 SE I would like to know more about the relative merits of them as a possible future purchase for use in a different situation than the larger ones.

I hope someone can throw some light on the subject for me, thanks in anticipation.

It's a difficult choice. I've owned both but only retained the 8x32SE. The primary reason was to have enough eye relief for glasses, and its more durable construction. You can't really go wrong with either one.

Ed

Moorcroft said:

I recently made a great decision following good advice from here when I bought a pair of secondhand 10x42 SEs with which I'm more than happy. They're bright, sharp and handle well.

Now I'd be grateful for some clarification between the following porros. These are the Nikon 8x32 SE and the 8x30 Ell. Both of these are available new in UK. How do they compare for general birding use? 8x mag is popular in UK and with my experience of the 10x42 SE I would like to know more about the relative merits of them as a possible future purchase for use in a different situation than the larger ones.

I hope someone can throw some light on the subject for me, thanks in anticipation.

Click to expand...

Moorcroft,

Finally, I can step up from my "armchair" and contribute first hand information since I've owned all three of these bins and also the 10x35 EII. I can give you my impressions, but only you can decide which bins work best for you.

First, let me qualify my coments by stating that I've owned two 8x30 EIIs, three 10x35 EIIs, two 8x32 SEs, and two 12x50 SEs. I have used two 10x42 SEs extensively (over a month each), but the 050xxx 10x SE is the first 10x42 SE that I've actually owned.

8x32 SE vs. 8x30 EII

I like the wider FOV of the EII (8.8* vs. 7.5*) and the lower eyecups, which work better with my facial features and allow me to see the entire FOV unlike the 8x SE.

The 8x EII's contrast and color saturation appear superior to the 8x32 (505xxx) Superior E. The 8x EII also holds up better under dim light than the 8x32 SE, which surprised me.

The 8x EII also has better perception of depth. Both the 8x and 10x SE have less 3-D effect than the 8x and 10x EIIs. I once speculated that this was due to the SE's field flatteners, was shot down by an expert, but I still believe that to be the case. Binoculars with some field curvature give a better impression of 3-D effect. Even the professor over on Cloudy Nights has declared this to be a truism.

If you wear eyeglasses, you might prefer the 8x32 SE, because of its longer ER, but that would depend on how close you can get to the EPs with your glasses/face. With 8.8*, it is possible with flat facial features and glasses that fit close to your nose to see almost as much FOV with the EII as you can with the SE, or at least a couple eyeglass wearers have claimed this to be the case. YMMV.

The bugger with the EII is the short barrels. If you have large hands, you might find them a bit difficult to hold steady. Adding #5 Bushwackers will help by extending the barrel length for better balance in the hand. I also have dewshields on top of the Bushwackers for even more length.

The ergonomics of the SE fit my hands better even w/out modification, though here too, Bushwackers keep reflections from my hand, which extends just beyond the barrels, from bouncing into the light path.

Especially for wooded, thick brush areas, I find the 8x EII my favorite birding binoculars. The wide FOV, good depth perception, ample sweet spot, excellent contrast and color saturation, and good close focus for a porro (7 ft. without barrel shadows like the SE) all add up to the "better view desired" in a midsized birding bin. But the 8x32 SE remains the "reference standard" on BVD.

I should note that I have a "cherry" sample. The sweet spot closer to 7* than 6*, which from reading reviews and my own experience with my first sample 8x EII, is atypical.

Since I can't see the edges on the 8x SE w/out digging my eyes into the eyecups, particularly a close distances where the eyecups pinch the bridge of my nose, the SE holds no advantage in terms of "sweet spot". The fall off at the edge of the EII is gradual and the edges can be refocused (most field curvature).

An important difference worth noting btwn these two bins is that the EII has more pincushion than the SE. How this will affect a user's perception varies person to person. For me, the level of pincushion is acceptable, however, I do prefer the less distortion in the SE. But like the old NASA saying goes: cheaper, faster, better - pick two.

Even though both are 8x, the image scale in the SE looks a bit larger.

The 8x SE is more prone to image blackouts than the 8x EII. Not as much problem for me unless I dig my eyes into the SE's eyecups, then I see the "infamous blackouts". For some users, this may be a deal killer.

Mooreorless and I once measured the boosted resolution (2.5x or 3x?, Steve's booster) using a US AF test chart, and the SE and EII were in a dead heat.

Build wise, I would rate the SE as being more robust. The EII also has no rubber armoring on the objective housings. Bushwackers provide that.

For me, the best "E" for birding is the 8x30 EII.

10x35 EII vs. 10x42 SE

If the world supply of 8x30 EIIs were to vanish completely (they are discontinued, so that's bound to happen eventually except for minty fresh "collectibles" down the line), the 10x35 EII would take its place. It's the only 10x bin I've tried that I would use as my main birding bin.

Good depth perception for a 10x bin, noticeably better than the 10x42 EDG and 10x42 HG/HGL, and also much better 3-D effect than the roofs.

The 10x EII's FOV is nearly as wide as the 8x32 SE (7* vs. 7.5*). The EII does have some field curvature, but like the 8x EII, the fall off at the edges is gradual. No "Coke bottle effect".

The color saturation and contrast just edge out the 10x42 SE in a side by side comparison, at least in the latest sample 10x42 SE (050xxx), which has better contrast than the two previous samples I tried. The colors are brighter in the EII, more "muted" in the SE. So while the "glossy" colors are more vivid in the EII, the darker, "matte finish" colors of the SE are very pleasant and lower glare on shiny objects.

The ergonomics of the 10x35 EII fit my hands perfectly, and I have large hands. As such, my index finger falls naturally on the focuser. These attributes combine to make the 10x35 EII the most stable 10x bin I've tried. Sitting down, I can hold them nearly steady as the 8x30 EII and 8x32 SE. Only if my heart is beating fast, such as after a walk or eating, do I notice the difference.

The views btwn the 8x and 10x EIIs are very close, with a slight edge to the "cherry" 8x EII. One time I was using the 10x35 EII and I spotted a Rose-breasted Grosbeak in the backyard, and I thought, wow, this is awesome, I better get the 10x and see what it looks like close up, only to lower the EIIs and find that I was using the tens!

In low light, the 10x EII doesn't hold up quite as well as the 8x30 EII, so here's where the 10x42 SE excels. On a dim, overcast day or looking into the shadows, the SE seems to shine a light on my subjects. The light transmission is very good (96%, according to Allbinos). I can believe it.

The funny thing is that because of the better contrast and color saturation in the 10x EII, on a bright sunny day, the image looks brighter through the EII, but as light levels fall, the truth is revealed.

The 10x SE ergos are among the best I've tried, but I have to reposition my hand to reach the focuser since the SE is wider than the EII, which makes it a bit harder to control the shakes, but the view is still surprisingly steady for a 10x bin.

Even though both are 10x, the image scale in the 10x42 SE looks noticeably larger. Holy cow! Did I get a 12x50 SE by mistake?

I never measured the boosted resolution of the 10x EII vs. the 10X SE, but eyeball to eyeball, a slight nod goes to the EII, though that is almost certainly due to the higher contrast and more vivid colors. In dim light, the 10x SE shows more details.

I also use the 10x42 SE for casual stargazing, so that makes it a 'twofer" bin. The 10x EII, with its W-I-D-E 70* AFOV is spectacular for scanning the Milky Way and for looking at star clusters such as the Pleiades or Hyades, but for looking at individual DSOs, the 42mm SE is the Superior E.

Which is better strictly for birding? It's a tougher call than the eights. In most situations where light is ample, I prefer the 10x EII due to its wider FOV, better depth perception, and better contrast (slight) and more vivid colors. Under cloudy skies or at dawn or dusk, I prefer the 10x SE.

Both are a delight to use, and I'd be hard pressed to make a "Sophie's Choice" if I had to give one up.

But if I'm taking "Just One" bin with me for birding, I would pick up the 10x35 EII. For me, the 10x42 SE is more of a specialty bin, which I use as an adjunct to my eights.

Hope that was of some help.

Brock

Better eye relief

elkcub said:

It's a difficult choice. I've owned both but only retained the 8x32SE. The primary reason was to have enough eye relief for glasses, and its more durable construction. You can't really go wrong with either one.

Ed

Click to expand...

Ed,
Thanks for that nugget. Better eye relief is definitely a plus point for me as I do wear glasses all the time ( except when I sleep and I can see well enough without them then).

In the UK there is a marked difference in retail price between the two with 8x30 Ell at £360 and 8x32 SE at £529. This makes the SE approx 50% more expensive. I'm not looking just at price but this has to be a point in favour of the Ell.

I've owned the E11 8x30 and they were brilliant bins. Excellent feel,weight with a brilliant view. They had one flaw which was they were not waterproof which is the reason I sold them. They had become an expensive ornament as I couldnt take them out in wet weather. If Nikon made them waterproof I would have them back.

I compared them with the Se 8x30 and there was very little difference in the optics, infact the view imo was slightly better in the E11's. The rubber armour on the Se felt slightly better than the leather covering on the E11's.

The reason for the big price difference I couldnt say as these bins are very close in all departments. Actually as I write I want my E11's back as I miss them now. Ger.:-C

Duplication

I thought this topic might have been discussed elsewhere on the forum before and I've been able to locate the thread.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202

It's so detailed and helpful to me to read and I notice that comparatively prices have probably reduced since 2005. That's in spite of 20% VAT (sales tax). Interestingly, too, back in 2005 there was a fear that the Ell was to be discontinued. Maybe it's no longer being made but stock is still around.

Brock
Wow, that was a massive compendium of experience thanks for giving me such a detailed insight into your years of using these Nikon glasses. Your analysis seems very fair and considered. I have no experience of either but I think on balance you come down in favour of the Ell and the lament of squidge, in his post, adds further weight. You are clearly a Nikon fan. And why not if the products are so good.
On cost alone based on my figures which were obtained today from a google search the Ell has it. But I do wear glasses and you mention the shorter eye relief which may be a problem for me. I'd need to handle them first which would have to involve purchase on approval (with the option to return them) from a sympathetic dealer elsewhere in the country as none stock them hereabouts. But it's possible.
All the other information you included in your post helps to paint a picture for me.

Moorcroft said:

Brock
Wow, that was a massive compendium of experience thanks for giving me such a detailed insight into your years of using these Nikon glasses. Your analysis seems very fair and considered. I have no experience of either but I think on balance you come down in favour of the Ell and the lament of squidge, in his post, adds further weight. You are clearly a Nikon fan. And why not if the products are so good.
On cost alone based on my figures which were obtained today from a google search the Ell has it. But I do wear glasses and you mention the shorter eye relief which may be a problem for me. I'd need to handle them first which would have to involve purchase on approval (with the option to return them) from a sympathetic dealer elsewhere in the country as none stock them hereabouts. But it's possible.
All the other information you included in your post helps to paint a picture for me.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm glad it helped.

Yes, I can go on forever about these bins, love 'em. One thing I forgot to mention since you are considering the EIIs is that the earlier versions with the gray body had rather flimsy armoring. The SE is better armored, which contributes to its better build quality.

In hot or very humid weather, the armoring on the gray body models does not hold up well. Reports abound about the armoring "peeling," "bubbling," and coming right off. I can confirm that this myself with the gray body models.

However, in the latest production run(s) of the EII, Nikon improved the armoring. My 10x35 EII black body version has harder armoring that while rubber, feels and looks more like that old style pebbly vinyl that was used on the porros of yesteryear. I took it out today in 84* temps (RealFeel was 94* when the sun came out from behind the clouds) for a 20 minute walk and it was exposed to the sun for much of the time and not a bubble, peel, or a even a peep from the armoring.

I should also note one more difference is the coatings. The black body and gray body EIIs have different coatings. The reflections off the objectives look the same as the original EII, mostly green, but off the EPs, I see a strong purple-pink reflection with some green on the black body EII. Tried this under different lighting, and it was consistent. The original gray body EII has predominately green reflections off the EPs, with a bit of purple-pink.

In terms of contrast and color saturation, the original gray body is slightly better. I compared dozens of colorful objects including a Chinese kite side by side, and while both offer excellent contrast and color saturation, the non-peel proof armored version is a bit better. However, this is comparing two samples, so sample variation could contribute more to this than the perceived differences in the coatings.

I think you will find an 8x30 EII and 10x42 SE to be a dynamic duo.

There is some ineffable quality about the 10x42 SE that makes them hard to put down once I have them up to my eyes. Just a joy to hold and behold.

Brock

This thread, initiated by our own Henry Link, is essential reading regarding the 8x E, EII, and SE:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202

I own an early "gray" 8x32 EII. They are wonderful: bright, exceptionally sharp with a wide sweet spot and an intoxicating wide-field view. Focus is not fast, but very precise, and does not freeze solid in most winter conditions like waterproof porros. As mentioned, they are not sealed, but if you use the eyepiece cover religiously (as I do) birding in drizzling conditions proves no problem. They are not rugged, and require some protection from the harsh knocks of life. The armoring on the early "gray" models is quite thin and poorly glued, and will loosen at the first hot weather. While this is annoying, and there are various fixes, it doesn't impair their usefulness. They also have some intrinsic qualities: the last of the classically styled birding bins, a unique feel in the hand, and they don't appear to most observers like high end glass, which they are. That is, if you like to be unobtrusive, even "retro," these are for you.

Edit to add: I wear relatively close-fitting glasses, and can see the whole field, but just barely. I'd call the ER adequate for those with close-fitting specs only. However, the field is so wide that you can afford to lose a bit of FOV.

You might also like to read an "old vs. new" review:

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/meopta8x32.html

You are fortunate to be able to buy either binocular new.

David

The thing that annoyed me most about the 8x EII is the goofy way it hangs from the strap, with the eyepieces tilted out from the chest if I recall. The 10x does not suffer from this awkward behavior fortunately and is my prefered choice between the 8x/10x EII/SE.

I agree with everything Brock says, almost. I've owned two 8x32 SE, and three 8x30 EII (don't ask), and have retained one sample of the latter. It is my second (or joint favourite) bino of all time. Very easy, relaxed view. Very wide FOV. With No. 5 Bushwackers on, a joy to hold. Hangs a little funny on the chest (like all Nikons, IMO), but this isn't a problem for me, as they're very light. Not waterproof, but no big deal unless you want to swim with them. When it rains heavily put them in their case and go home, you won't see any birds anyway.
Optically, they're pretty similar to the SE's, and I think most people who've owned both prefer the SE's. However, I (like Brock and some others) differ. I think the SE's are better in the paw, but the EII's are better on the eye. Obviously the SE's have flatter edges, but the large "sweet spot" of the EII's mean that you see about the same width of clarity anyway, plus a bit more edge, if a little fuzzy and pincushioned. I have no problem with eye relief on the EII's, and I wear glasses all the time. In fact, I found the SE's plus glasses more problematic because of the eye-placement problems with the SE's, resulting in "kidney-beaning".
You'll be delighted with either binocular. You'll be a little bit richer if you buy the EII's. If there is any chance that you can try both before you buy them, do so, because really it all boils down, after teasing through both the technical stuff and other people's opinions, to your own personal reaction to the binos. Do let us know what you decide (Brock and I need the reassurance of a third Musketeer...).

The Ells have it !!

This has been a really rewarding thread for me. Thanks for the latest posts from Brock, Dave, RJM and Sancho.
The volume of support is deafening and Ell (8x) is the favoured glass with the caveat to try them out first to ensure they suit my own facial and ocular idiosyncrasies and if at all possible alongside an SE (8x) for comparison and fit, too.
There's a lot of love and admiration out there for Nikon's little porros. It's made me enthusiastic about something I've never even seen......that's got to be crazy. But I can't wait until I've a pair in my hands and up to my eyes.
As and when I do I'll report back here with my experience.
Many thanks to everyone who has thrown in there half penny worth of comment to help me discover more on this subject.

I have both of them. I've owned the EII for a long time. At least 10 years. Long enough to have had to re glue the rubber covering on it twice. The second time it held.

I like them both and use both of them but one thing I can state unequivocally: The 8 x 30 EII is the easiest and most accurate pointing binocular I have ever used. This attribute is very useful when looking into dense foliage or for a bird perched inside a tree on a limb. Up to my eyes and it is right on target! It seems to be almost instinctive. It is quite unlike my other binoculars in this respect which at times require a bit of searching to get exactly on target.

It also does not have the tendency to the partial blackouts of the view which some people (myself included) get with the SE's. These blackouts are also described as "kidney beaning" by those who have experienced them. There is a method of holding the binocular up to your eyes which will make this kidney beaning disappear. The technique has been given the acronym MOLCET by Brock. It means "Mooreorless Ceasar Eyebrow Technique.

Since Steve "Mooreorless" has been hiding under his computer desk since this thread appeared it is left to yours truly "Ceasar" to explain it so you can try it if you experience the problem.

You press the top of the eyecups against the bottom of your eyebrows and tilt the binocular VERY SLIGHTLY upward. This resolves the problem for most people. If you wear glasses it will also work if you place the top of the eyecups firmly against your glasses and tilt the binocular as described above.

To my knowledge no one has ever experienced this problem with the EII.
Bob:t:

RJM said:

The thing that annoyed me most about the 8x EII is the goofy way it hangs from the strap, with the eyepieces tilted out from the chest if I recall. The 10x does not suffer from this awkward behavior fortunately and is my prefered choice between the 8x/10x EII/SE.

Click to expand...

The Bushwackers #5 (mentioned by Brock) solve this problem completely. I bought the hinged covers version of the Bushwackers and they work purrfectly. I've been carrying the 8x30 EII all over the place, putting them in and out of the bag, leaving them hanging on my neck, etc. etc., and the Bushwackers never came off.

Like David S., I used them a few times in light rain with no problems. Also in subzero tempreatures - the focusing got tighter but it didn't freeze and remained smooth, unlike the zoom on my video camera which developed hiccups.

Definitely my fav. pair of binoculars which is admittedly not saying much as I haven't owned that many pairs before |:d| Currently I also use the stabilized Fujinons 14x for closer views (or for surreal effects when used from a moving car!) and that's it.

AFAIK they are still being made, constant rumours to the contrary are part of their charm I guess... They are no longer exported to EU or US last I heard. But there is a place in Hong Kong that seems to get a fresh batch from Japan every few months and then sell them online for a reasonable price.

JanPB said:

The Bushwackers #5 (mentioned by Brock) solve this problem completely. I bought the hinged covers version of the Bushwackers and they work purrfectly. .

Click to expand...

I found the hinged yellow plastic covers on the Bushwackers a bit of a hindrance, so I hacksawed them off at the hinge. Do it gently though, or you might crack the rubber.

Sancho said:

I found the hinged yellow plastic covers on the Bushwackers a bit of a hindrance, so I hacksawed them off at the hinge. Do it gently though, or you might crack the rubber.

Click to expand...

Mine are all black and spring loaded, not sure if it's the same thing... I positioned them so they open inward and a bit angled so they stay completely out of the way.

JanPB said:

Mine are all black and spring loaded, not sure if it's the same thing... I positioned them so they open inward and a bit angled so they stay completely out of the way.

Click to expand...

Mine were spring-loaded alright, but a nasty almost see-through yellow colour. I reckon the objectives are sufficiently protected by the length of the Bushwackers, so I don't even bother with objective covers. Mind you, I'm firmly in the "anti-objective covers" camp anyway, but that's another story.

Sancho said:

Mine were spring-loaded alright, but a nasty almost see-through yellow colour. I reckon the objectives are sufficiently protected by the length of the Bushwackers, so I don't even bother with objective covers. Mind you, I'm firmly in the "anti-objective covers" camp anyway, but that's another story.

Click to expand...

My parents sent me to the "anti-conscientious objector" camp in hope that when I grew up I would join the Armed Forces and become an "Officer and a Gentlemen".

Not surprisingly, the kids at camp were always getting into fights and the worst of the bunch even burned down the camp director's office by throwing flaming marshmallows onto the roof.

When I came of age, instead of enlisting, I joined the Peace Movement.

Had I known about the "anti-objective covers" camp, I would have asked them to send me there instead. -

Camp Kidder

Just as good as bigger brother

I've just been away for a few days down south to Warwickshire with the wife to the National Womens Bowls Championships (flat green not 10 pin). While there I took the opportunity to visit a Binocular and Telescope dealer who has his shop in his own nature reserve in the grounds of his estate (very impressive) within 40 mins drive. The following is a link to his site:-
http://www.focusoptics.eu/focus/

The point of this pre-ample is I wanted the chance to try out a set of Nikon SE 8x32. I'd heard so much positive comment on this site and read reviews on others. I must say I was pleased with the experience I had viewing a lake, waterfowl and surrounding countryside from his shop premises. I'd taken my own Nikon SE 10x42s with me as I'd bought them secondhand from this same dealer on the net a few weeks ago. The 8x was as impressive as the 10x with the benefit of a wider fov and a greater depth of field.

I wear glasses and I was keen to check out if I had any problem with blackouts occasioned by the eyepiece/eye relief. Happily, there were none.

I compared them with Svarovski 8x32 and favoured the Nikons. I also tried Svaro 8.5x42 and they had a wider fov. I also liked their image quality which if anything was marginally better and were comfortable and easy on the eyes. Finally a set of EDG 10x42 which were very bright and sharp.

The SE 8x32 measured up to my expectations. For the price they are good value compared against the benchmark Svaro 8.5x 42 EL. I determined to buy myself a set when time and finances are right.

Moorcroft said:

...a Binocular and Telescope dealer who has his shop in his own nature reserve in the grounds of his estate...

Click to expand...

When I die, can I have this in heaven please?