• 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.

Nikon Premier Se Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Hello, I Just Purchased A Used Nikon Premier SE 8X32 Binocular With Serial # Beginning With 503xx... . I Have Read Some Good Things About These Bins. Could Someone ''in The Know'' Tell Me More About Them And Help Me Find An Honest Review Of Them. Are They As Good As The Person Who Sold Them Said They Are ?

I Am New To The Bird Forum.

Thank You.

Wingersheek
 
Welcome to Bird Forum. Yes, you now have one of the great classic binoculars, and also one of the best ever made, at any price. Feels good, doesn't it? The 503xxx dates from 2000/2001: mine's a 502xxx from 1999/2000. To find out more, just browse through this Nikon sub-forum or type '8x32SE' into the search box. There are dozens of SE fans who will be only too pleased to tell you all you need (or want) to know about this paragon of optical perfection. And you don't have to stop there; you can go a teeny bit better and treat yourself to a 10x42SE, if you like larger magnification. Oh, the joy of it all...
 
Isn't the dating still under dispute? They may have been built some time before they were sold.

In any case don't worry about the date because there is no disputing that you have one of the top binoculars ever made and arguably the best 8 x 32 porro prism ever designed.

And Welcome to Bird Forum! Feel free to give us your comments and thoughts on your newly purchased 8 x 32 SE.

Bob:hi:
 
Last edited:
Isn't the dating still under dispute? They may have been built some time before they were sold.

In any case don't worry about the date because there is no disputing that you have one of the top binoculars ever made and arguably the best 8 x 32 porro prism ever designed.

And Welcome to Bird Forum! Feel free to give us your comments and thoughts on your newly purchased 8 x 32 SE.

Bob:hi:

Et tu, Brute? :)

The 8x32 SE has remained essentially the same since its introduction in 1997/1998 (earliest sample I know of is a 500xxx bought in 1997, Nikon says it officially released the 8x32 SE in 1998, when I bought my 501xxx).

The only changes made to the SE series were upgrades to the AR coatings, which increased color saturation but also gave them a bit more chromatic aberration, so it's somewhat of a trade off there, depending on your sensitivity in CA. Even so, CA in the 8x32 SE has remained relatively low even with the coatings upgrades compared to most midsized roofs I've tried (w/out ED glass), the 8x30 SLCneu excepted, which is about on par with the SE in this regard (i.e., low CA).

At some point, possibly in the latest released 550xxx series, Nikon "took the lead out" and used Eco Glass. I haven't tried the 550 version yet, so I can't comment on them, but my 8x30 EII has Eco Glass, and I consider it to have the best views of any bin I've tried.

I think the SEs greatest strength is that it provides not only very sharp views in the center field but also very good edge performance w/out sacrificing smooth panning like some other premium bins with field flatteners, which can show "rolling ball" to those of us who are susceptible.

In addition to the reviews on BF, check out Steve Ingraham's review of the 8x32 SE on Better View Desired, which got me interested in this bin:

http://betterviewdesired.com/Nikon-Superior-E-8x32.php

As far as whether or not the SEs will live up to their reputation, only you can decide when you get them up to your eyes and look at some birds.

Brock

P.S. The only "issue" that some people seem to have with the SE series is a tendency for the image to "black out". So eye placement can be fussy, but if that occurs, let us know and some BF members have developed strategies to deal with it.
 
Last edited:
The only changes made to the SE series were upgrades to the AR coatings, which increased color saturation but also gave them a bit more chromatic aberration, so it's somewhat of a trade off there, depending on your sensitivity in CA.

AR coating can't change the CA, Brock. The can change the transmission (and so the contrast) and the color bias. But not the CA.

As I've said before I think the Nikon serials are one digit model number + 5 digit serial. Maybe with the serial starting a 05xxx for the EcoGlass version SE. There is no evidence for any particular belief system around the serials but I claim Occam's Razor for my one. And it matches with other Nikon bin serials (e.g. EDG 700038 ... that first digit changes between models).

Regardless.

For the OP. Enjoy your new SE! And welcome to BF.
 
Last edited:
Winger:

Good to have you aboard the Birdforum. You have made a great decision, the
Nikon SE is a great optic. Enjoy it.

Kevin P. your mailbox is full.

Jerry
 
They are wonderful binoculars. You will enjoy them. Besides, they look like real binoculars - not like these new-fangled modern roof things...

Andrew
 
AR coating can't change the CA, Brock. The can change the transmission (and so the contrast) and the color bias. But not the CA.

As I've said before I think the Nikon serials are one digit model number + 5 digit serial. Maybe with the serial starting a 05xxx for the EcoGlass version SE. There is no evidence for any particular belief system around the serials but I claim Occam's Razor for my one. And it matches with other Nikon bin serials (e.g. EDG 700038 ... that first digit changes between models).

Regardless.

For the OP. Enjoy your new SE! And welcome to BF.

My eyes don't lie, the 505 has more CA than the 501. However, it's not that the 505s are horrible but that the 501s were excellent in that regard, which makes the difference btwn the two obvious in a side by side comparison.

Perhaps it's due to Ed's theory about greater light transmission = greater CA or perhaps there is a change in color bias that makes the red side of the fringing more noticeable? I don't know, but anyway you want to slice it or explain the physics, it still comes down to the difference in coatings even if it's an indirect result.

I've heard your theory about the serial #s before, no hard evidence for that either. What they do with cameras might or might not have relevance to their bin serial numbering.

Brock
 
A Nikon technician told me about my 10x42Se's that no matter what I've heard they have the same multi coatings and prism technology as the new one's. For what that's worth.
 
Many Thanks To Everyone Who Replied To My Post. The Nikon 8x32 SE's Have Not Arrived, Yet. I Will Share My Experience, When I Get Them.

Thanks, Again.
Wingersheek
 
A Nikon technician told me about my 10x42Se's that no matter what I've heard they have the same multi coatings and prism technology as the new one's. For what that's worth.

Nessus,

How did you get "audience" with a Nikon technician? I was told by more than one Nikon customer service rep that technicians aren't allowed to speak to the public (not sure if they are concerned that a confederate from the competition might call in and try to extract proprietary secrets or if they just don't want to waste their time, given they probably make good money).

However, once, after much persistence, I managed to get a customer rep, whom I've talked to frequently, to ask a techie a question, and the rep emailed me his answer, but I have never talked directly to a Nikon technician and understood that it was against company policy.

That's one thing I liked about Swift before the reorganization of the sports optics division, I could call a customer rep and ask to speak to a technician, and get transferred w/out hassle.

What are the first three serial #s of your 10x42 SE? If it's a latter day model, the coatings might not be different from the latest (050) 10x SEs.

But if it's an early 10x SE such as an 002xxx, the view through which looked similar the my 501xxx 8x SE in terms of more muted colors, there will most certainly be a difference with the latest 10x SE.

I haven't tried a 050xxx 10x42 SE (latest production run), but plan to soon and I will compare it to the 505xxx 8x SE.

Unless he specifically identified himself as a "technician," he was a customer service rep, and they have no information about coatings in their "knowledge data bases".

In any case, "seeing is believing". If you have the ability to discern differences in color saturation or CA you will be able to tell the difference btwn the earlier models and the latest.

Just as Dale Forbes confirmed that Swaro continually updates their AR coatings with progressive production runs as they continue to improve their coatings technology, so does Nikon w/out fanfare.

Going from the 501 to 505 SE, I can see a distinct increase in color saturation and a slight increase in CA. Tested them side by side in a number of different lighting conditions, though I noticed the difference as soon as I held them up to my eyes.

As I mentioned above, not everybody can see subtle differences and, in some cases, even distinct difference in performance between two bins. If had a $100 for every time a certain member chimed in after one of my posts with "I don't see any difference" or something to that effect - I'd be a rich man! :)

Brock
 
My eyes don't lie, the 505 has more CA than the 501. However, it's not that the 505s are horrible but that the 501s were excellent in that regard, which makes the difference btwn the two obvious in a side by side comparison.

Perhaps it's due to Ed's theory about greater light transmission = greater CA or perhaps there is a change in color bias that makes the red side of the fringing more noticeable? I don't know, but anyway you want to slice it or explain the physics, it still comes down to the difference in coatings even if it's an indirect result.

I've heard your theory about the serial #s before, no hard evidence for that either. What they do with cameras might or might not have relevance to their bin serial numbering.

Brock

Brock,

If you don't mind me saying so, a large part of the problem is semantic. When you say "...the 505 has more CA than the 501," (due to coating improvements), this is not strictly true because CA is an optical aberration that is determined by the laws of refraction. It is inherent in the design of the instrument, and can be calculated quite accurately in ray tracing software without coating effects. Both color image and fringe visibility, however, are determined by the spectral energies transmitted through the instrument, weighted by the visual sensitivity function of the eye/brain. So as the visibility of colored objects improves with higher quality coatings, the visibility of colored fringes must also increase and become more annoying. In fact, whenever I hear someone say that CA got worse from one production run to another I immediately suspect that transmission must have improved.

Assuming this is correct, we now have a perfectly good rationale for why a person highly familiar with an earlier product might be disappointed with a new variant, — which seems to be the case with Nikon's SE and LX L instruments, as well as others. Basically, higher transmission can be tolerated without a design change only up to the point where the observer can comfortably adapt to the CA that becomes increasingly visible. Beyond that point it becomes necessary to redesign the instrument so as to have less inherent optical CA, which, as we can see, is what has been happening throughout the industry.

Without discussing visual/perceptual adaptation to CA in depth, suffice it to say that the issue has been studied for at least a century, and is now known to depend on anatomical mechanisms in the retina and deeper brain tissues, which evolved for this purpose. I'd be happy to discuss what I know on a new thread if anyone is interested, but I'm quite sure instrument design intersects with the biology of vision at this point.

Ed

PS. I should also express my appreciation for your keen powers of observation, and consistency in expressing them, which has led me to put together some of these thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Hey Brock, your PM inbox is full. OT - do you have the 10x42 SE serial breakdown like for the 8x32?

Matt,

Since the 10x42 SE was first introduced in 1995, according to Nikon's history pdf, it was harder to obtain data on older models by the time I became interested in tracking serial #s.

The problem is that after about the third year of production, new old stock began to sit side by side on the shelf (in different stores) with new stock. Hard to believe SEs didn't sell like hotcakes, but apparently they didn't.

So as the years rolled on, SE buyers may have purchased old new stock or stock from the latest production run during the same year, making a serial #/year scheme difficult beyond the first three years.

This also applies to the 8x32 SE scheme. The data points for serial # and DOP would look like a diagonal line if graphed for 500xxx-503xxx. But after 503xxx, the data points start falling off the "main sequence" because of old stock remaining on shelves.

The 10x42 SE serial #s started with 000001. The 8x32 SE serial #s started with 500001.

Now here's the hitch in the giddy-yap and another reason why I think the third serial # coordinates with the YOM (or yearS since a production run could start in the middle of one year and go into the next, as they did with early Zeiss bins).

If the numbers were sequential production numbers, that is, Nikon didn't use a 001xxx until there were 1,000 units made, then today there would be more 10x42 SEs made than 8x32 models!

The 8x32 SE goes from 500xxx to 505xxx sequentially, then skips to 550xxx, which started popping up around 2007-2008. If these numbers represent consecutive production numbering, there were around 7,000 8x32 SEs made. 500xxx-505999 = almost 6K and 550xxx to 55999 brings us to a total of almost 7,000 units.

Does that sound about right? I have no idea. The 8x32 SE seemed like one of the most popular binoculars ever made, but according to a BF member who talked with several large camera dealers, they were slow movers. From reading the bubbly enthusiasm about this bin on BF, you wouldn't think that would be the case. But that's just binonuts like us.

Think of the many roofs that offer a WP/FP alternative to the SE at $499-$2,499.

For arguments sake, let's presume the consecutive production numbers proponents are correct, and there were around 7,000 8x32 SE made.

Here's why it's difficult to support that premise. The highest serial # I have seen listed for the 10x42 SE in both the third digit and fourth digit is 008940:

http://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=599166

In case it was a typo, I went back through the amart classifieds and found a 007541 10x42 SE (click on last photo):

http://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=708310:

From the 008 serial number, Nikon completely filled that production run, so that's 8,999 10x42 SEs. But wait! Then there's the 2007-2008 050xxx 10x42 SE series. Add another 1,000 to the total. So now we have a total of around 10,000 10x42 SEs made since 1995. Can that be right?

10,000 10x42 SEs but only 7,000 8x32 SEs? Does that make sense?

Don't most birders buy 8x bins and use 10x as an adjunct if at all (many use spotting scopes for higher magnification)? Probably not the case with hunters, many of whom prefer 10x, but they need WP bins. There is no such thing as a "fair weather" hunter.

Bottom line, the numbers don't add up. An alternative explanation is that the third serial # represents the year or years of production (i.e., they could start in the middle of year or just go six months or four months, whatever time period it takes to knock out however many they plan to make that year, based, presumably on feedback on sales from stores who sell SEs from the prior year).

In this scenario, Nikon would not need to make 7,000 8x32 SEs or 10,000 10x42 SEs, but only as many as they needed for that production run to fill orders, from 000001-008xxx and then 050xxx.

There could have been two production runs in one year, if demand was high, but given that the SEs were slow movers, that seems less likely than they skipped a year or two and then resumed with the next consecutive third digit number for the next "run".

Or the improbable happened, there were 3,000 more 10x42 SEs made than 8x32 SEs, and Nikon just kept on pumping them out until they reached 10,000 and then stopped.

Brock
 
Last edited:
Cool, thanks for the info, Brock. I always wonder if the serials are sequential or there is some skipping algorithm to make it harder to identify actual units produced or shipped. From comments I've heard from other bino makers that the high power models sell more than the low power ones, I wouldn't be surprised if 10x42 had more sales. But it does seem doubtful. The SE was always priced very up-market and being the non-sexy porro, was probably always a niche product with its own rules for buyers. Mine is an 008, which I thought must be a very early production one but I guess not then.

BTW, original poster, you already received your answer in spades. They are awesome. The one thing I would say is that the 8x32 SE takes practice. You'll read about "blackout" and other things, so setting IPD and aligning eyes is critical. You can get the hang of it quickly. Don't try to keep your eyes too close to the oculars. They are truly world class.

PPS - looking through a 10x42 SE for the first time is every bit as awe inspiring as the first time looking through the 8x32 SE!
 
"Hard to believe SEs didn't sell like hotcakes, but apparently they didn't."

The price had a lot to do with that. $600-700 , right now on one site the 8x32SE is $698 the 12SE $998. I first heard of the Nikon 10x42SE from Outdoor Life and it wasn't like you could try one out at a local camera shop. I asked about the 10SE at one local camera shop and they said I would have to order it etc. They had never seen one.

Wingersheek, I have had all the SE line and I first bought the 8x32SE and had to send it back because of vehicle problems and expense. The first sample I bought gave me the greatest view of my pine trees in back of my place 120+ yds. away, it was like I was a crow/bird flying above these trees, this one does the same thing. I am sure you will like yours.
 
Last edited:
Brock,

If you don't mind me saying so, a large part of the problem is semantic. When you say "...the 505 has more CA than the 501," (due to coating improvements), this is not strictly true because CA is an optical aberration that is determined by the laws of refraction. It is inherent in the design of the instrument, and can be calculated quite accurately in ray tracing software without coating effects. Both color image and fringe visibility, however, are determined by the spectral energies transmitted through the instrument, weighted by the visual sensitivity function of the eye/brain. So as the visibility of colored objects improves with higher quality coatings, the visibility of colored fringes must also increase and become more annoying. In fact, whenever I hear someone say that CA got worse from one production run to another I immediately suspect that transmission must have improved.

Assuming this is correct, we now have a perfectly good rationale for why a person highly familiar with an earlier product might be disappointed with a new variant, — which seems to be the case with Nikon's SE and LX L instruments, as well as others. Basically, higher transmission can be tolerated without a design change only up to the point where the observer can comfortably adapt to the CA that becomes increasingly visible. Beyond that point it becomes necessary to redesign the instrument so as to have less inherent optical CA, which, as we can see, is what has been happening throughout the industry.

Without discussing visual/perceptual adaptation to CA in depth, suffice it to say that the issue has been studied for at least a century, and is now known to depend on anatomical mechanisms in the retina and deeper brain tissues, which evolved for this purpose. I'd be happy to discuss what I know on a new thread if anyone is interested, but I'm quite sure instrument design intersects with the biology of vision at this point.

Ed

PS. I should also express my appreciation for your keen powers of observation, and consistency in expressing them, which has led me to put together some of these thoughts.

Ed,

I'm thick headed, so it probably is the "deep brain tissues" in my particular case. :)

It is semantics. The increased CA is due to the indirect effect of the upgraded coatings. You increase light transmission with upgraded coatings, and if the lens design otherwise remains the same, ipso facto, you also see more false color.

Seems logical. Best explanation I've seen proposed so far about why users started seeing CA in bins mid to late 1990s early 2000s like a major wave of UFO sightings.

As it turns out, this time period coincided with the industry-wide changeover to lead free glass.

Then I read Ohara's report on their early attempts to make lead free glass as good as their lead glass in the early 1990s, in which they admitted was not on par with their lead glass. Another report from that same company, in regard to their microscopy optics, reported that the changeover to lead free glass caused an increase in CA, particularly at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

The problem with the development of lead free glass for Ohara, and likely other optical glass makers, was trying to find the right combination of lead substitutes. The one that worked best for Ohara was titanium oxide, but the cost was prohibitive. So they kept on trying new compounds and finally settled on a combination of three that best matched the characteristics of their top grade lead glass, but they reported their lead free glass was "nearly as good" as their lead glass.

After reading those reports and seeing the higher level of CA in the lead free glass 8x30 EII vs. the lead glass 501 8x32 SE, and the greater CA in the lead free 10x42 HGL vs. leaded HG, combined with similar reports by other buyers of higher CA in their lead free glass roofs, I concluded that the inferior lead free glass was causing the higher CA. A theory which drew fire on BF, including from you. But at the time, the circumstantial evidence seemed to point in that direction.

The Abbe numbers listed for more recent high grade, lead free optical glass from Schott and Ohara showed them to be equal to lead glass.

So even if less than optimal lead free glass was used in early adopter's sports optics like it was used in Ohara lead free glass microscopes, it can no longer explain the higher CA in the latest achromatic lead free glass bins with umpteen layers of AR coatings.

Until somebody comes up with a more plausible explanation, I'm going to subscribe to your theory:

> light transmission = > CA.

Brock

P.S. Glad to hear that my "keen powers of observation" and stubbornness in repeating them "lead" to your theory! :)
 
Last edited:
Methinks the eye-brain variable that exists with humans ( alluded to by Ed and Brock) may account for the preference of one high end binocular over another. That may be the deciding variable, not the inherent quality and precision of the instrument.

A recent visit to my eye doctor shows a slight change in refraction from several years ago - an expected change related to age. In my discussion with him, he stated that the composition of the lens, glass as opposed to plastic, can significantly affect perceived resolution. Plastic lens do no resolve fine detail like glass lens do, at least for me. That is a general consensus in the industry.

When we place our eyeglass lens behind the oculars, we are introducing another variable that can affect resolution. That in itself may have a significant impact with some people. Certainly the refracted image has to penetrate another optical element to reach our eyes. It may enhance, have no measureable effect, or degrade what we see.

My eyes, for example, don't pick up CA. Don't think about it, don't see it, and don't look for it. The classic test for horizontal lines with both barrels when colliminating binoculars doesn't work for me. The line seen by the right eye is always lower even when the collimation is perfect.

I learned that moving from lined trifocals to lineless trifocals can be difficult because the optic brain has a memory stored to accommodate the lines. That memory has some permanancy.

We can all recall taking the eye exams for driving vehicles. Part of those tests deal with what is generally called the color blind test - red - green. A certain percentage of a given population sees those colors quite differently. Are we to assume everyone sees the colors the same which are attributed to this or that binocular? Of course not.

The science of semantics deals with word meanings, which are of course quite variable. And how we see and what we see is quite variable from individual to individual. It is really pointless to expect everyone to agree on what is optical perfection as opposed to near optical perfection.

By the way when the SE's first came out, I was the 10x42 fan. Then I became enamoured with the 8x32 SE and had a number. Now down to two specimans. One unused model with serial number 500,312. It will go to the highest bidder who just has to have one. My user 8x32 has a serial number 503,187. Frankly, I can see no difference, period, unleaded or leaded. But my soon to be 76 year old eyes can't resolve detail like they once could. In fact my right eye can no longer be refracted to see 20/20. But the brain nicely uses my left eye which can. I sold my 10x42 SEs once I purchased a 12x50 SE, which is really a dandy glass if you have a solid rest fot it. My Zeiss 8x32 FLs are my foul weather binoculars.
John
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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