The phenomenal but dark Nikon EDG 8x42 - review (1 Viewer)

My 8x42 EDG review is here: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikonedg8x42/nikonedg8x42review.html

I included the EDG into my long term review of premium 8x42s:

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikonedg8x42/nikonedg8x42review.html

I immediately fell in love with the 8x42 EDG binoculars. They fit perfectly in my hands, focusing is the smoothest ever and the images are simply stunning - "japanese Ultravids" came to my mind immediately. These are the consistently blackest, cleanest shadows. These are the most saturated, lifelike colours. Ease of view is just great even at close up. Biting Nikon sharpness in a perfectly executed flat field. And most of all: class leading flare suppression. Under difficult light conditions the Nikon manages to produce the cleanest, most intact images and outperforms all competitors. Yes there is some flare but I can still see what´s going on! The EDG has the quietest images with a superb flat field with NO rolling ball effect. Exciting. Awesome. I find one major fault though - the view is visibly darker then in the Leica Ultravid 8x42, the Zeiss HT and even the Zeiss SF. No matter how sharp the EDG is, it looks a bit subdued where the Leica Ultravid sparkles vividly. Nikon really needs to upgrade the EDG with HT glass to boost transmission. BUT they will then have the best 8x42 for general use with a perfect combination of great qualities. Compared to what other companies try to do to reinvent the binocular this should be very easy. I really hope that Nikon will not withdraw from the high end market and update this wonderful design soon.
Nikon, I´m waiting for your awesome EDG MKIII.

Tobias Mennle said:

My 8x42 EDG review is here: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikonedg8x42/nikonedg8x42review.html

I included the EDG into my long term review of premium 8x42s:

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikonedg8x42/nikonedg8x42review.html

I immediately fell in love with the 8x42 EDG binoculars. They fit perfectly in my hands, focusing is the smoothest ever and the images are simply stunning - "japanese Ultravids" came to my mind immediately. These are the consistently blackest, cleanest shadows. These are the most saturated, lifelike colours. Ease of view is just great even at close up. Biting Nikon sharpness in a perfectly executed flat field. And most of all: class leading flare suppression. Under difficult light conditions the Nikon manages to produce the cleanest, most intact images and outperforms all competitors. Yes there is some flare but I can still see what´s going on! The EDG has the quietest images with a superb flat field with NO rolling ball effect. Exciting. Awesome. I find one major fault though - the view is visibly darker then in the Leica Ultravid 8x42, the Zeiss HT and even the Zeiss SF. No matter how sharp the EDG is, it looks a bit subdued where the Leica Ultravid sparkles vividly. Nikon really needs to upgrade the EDG with HT glass to boost transmission. BUT they will then have the best 8x42 for general use with a perfect combination of great qualities. Compared to what other companies try to do to reinvent the binocular this should be very easy. I really hope that Nikon will not withdraw from the high end market and update this wonderful design soon.
Nikon, I´m waiting for your awesome EDG MKIII.

Click to expand...

"Well it just goes to show you, it's always something, you either got a toenail in your hamburger or your alphas don't have HT glass." (Thank you, Roseanne Roseannadanna) :smoke:

Nikon glass is made by its wholly-owned subsidiary Hikari Glass, so it seems unlikely that they would use Schott glass. Hikari's website lists hundreds of glass types with cross references to Hoya, Schott, and others, but it's in Japanese.

The EDG is expensive as it is, about the same $ as the SV EL and SF. Do we need the EDG's price to climb near the $3,000 mark for a 3% increase in brightness that some people won't even notice?

The trick is to enjoy the EDG for its good qualities and not concentrate on its one "fault." (of course, if that one flaw were RB or a wonky focuser, that would be another story )

Far more in need of an update is Nikon's Premier (HGL) series, which sells at second tier pricing but doesn't have dielectric coatings and ED glass like most other second tier roofs and even some mid-priced bins in its own brand such as the M7 series.

Brock

Regarding the EDG's brightness; if you compare the Transmission Graphs of the Nikon 8x42 EDG and the Swarovski 8.5x42 in the Allbino's rankings (Swarovski is ranked #1 and Nikon #2) you will see that they are quite similar, lower in the violet end and sloping upwards to the red end. I'm pretty sure that I could not tell the difference between them. They were reviewed 6 months apart in July 2012 and December 2012.

In the 10x42 category Nikon is ranked #1 and Swarovski is ranked #2 but here the brightness graph of the Swarovski is higher in the violet end and slopes down.

Bob

Bob:

I suppose some of this comes down to apparent brightness, and this does vary among
viewers.

Allbinos has rated the EDG very high and so does Tobias. He has mentioned the saturated and
lifelike colors. I agree, the EDG is very good in so many ways.

I do want to mention one binocular that gives me a wow every time I use it. And that is the
8x42 Nikon LX, the older version. There is something about this one that is very special.

I have experience with many high end binoculars, and this one leaves me gobsmacked.
I have not said that about any other binocular.

Jerry

Jerry,

I have never had the opportunity to use the 42mm versions of the LX series. From my experience with my 8 and 10x32 LX Ls I am not surprised that they are excellent. I have read that they do show "rolling ball." I think that Brock experienced it with them.

My 8x32 and 10x32 LX L are first rate binoculars. The 8x32 still has a pretty high rating on Allbinos. I used both of them hard. When I bought my 8x32 it cost less than it does now under its new name of "Premier." The 10x32 has been discontinued. I don't believe that anyone ever had problems with seeing "rolling ball" in them.

Bob

ceasar said:

Jerry,

I have never had the opportunity to use the 42mm versions of the LX series. From my experience with my 8 and 10x32 LX Ls I am not surprised that they are excellent. I have read that they do show "rolling ball." I think that Brock experienced it with them.

My 8x32 and 10x32 LX L are first rate binoculars. The 8x32 still has a pretty high rating on Allbinos. I used both of them hard. When I bought my 8x32 it cost less than it does now under its new name of "Premier." The 10x32 has been discontinued. I don't believe that anyone ever had problems with seeing "rolling ball" in them.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob:

The LX and LXL's are all very nice binoculars. You have used the words
RB twice, and I wonder why. Do you have any issue with this affliction ?

Less than 4% of the population, may be affected and the other 96% will wonder what in the world you are talking about.

As you may notice, this is a personal peeve of mine.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

Bob:

The LX and LXL's are all very nice binoculars. You have used the words
RB twice, and I wonder why. Do you have any issue with this affliction ?

Less than 4% of the population, may be affected and the other 96% will wonder what in the world you are talking about.

As you may notice, this is a personal peeve of mine.

Jerry

Click to expand...

No.

It doesn't bother me, but then I have never used binoculars which were notorious for it like the aforesaid 42mm LX series. If you think back you will probably remember that the issue of rolling ball first came from people using these binoculars.

When discussing these binoculars it is also important to make it clear that the 32mm versions of them never had this issue and I can vouch for that because I used them both extensively.

My experience with flat field binoculars is limited to the Nikon's SEs, 32mm LX Ls and my 10x32 EDG and I never saw RB in any of them.

Bob

Tobias Mennle said:

Nikon, I´m waiting for your awesome EDG MKIII.

Click to expand...

With the Nikon Centenary in just over 12 months time it may not be too long to wait.

Best wishes,

ceasar said:

Jerry,

I have never had the opportunity to use the 42mm versions of the LX series. From my experience with my 8 and 10x32 LX Ls I am not surprised that they are excellent. I have read that they do show "rolling ball." I think that Brock experienced it with them.

My 8x32 and 10x32 LX L are first rate binoculars. The 8x32 still has a pretty high rating on Allbinos. I used both of them hard. When I bought my 8x32 it cost less than it does now under its new name of "Premier." The 10x32 has been discontinued. I don't believe that anyone ever had problems with seeing "rolling ball" in them.

Bob

Click to expand...

The severe AMD is in the 42mm models, Nikon put enough pincushion in the 32mm models so that the RB is mild, however, there was one member who did see RB in the 8x32 to the point where it made him nauseous. Some people's eyes need a lot of pincushion to overcome AMD, for others "a rolling ball gathers no moss."

I agree with Jerry about the 10x42 LX, the original, heavier version. Didn't like the weight but loved the image, the LX was way ahead of its time, which is why I think the series has survived despite its lack of upgrades in prism coatings and ED glass even though I think it could use ED glass.

I also had the LXL (HGL) version, and if anything, I found the apparent brightness too bright on well lit objects due to the coatings, which Nikon tweaked to make image appear brighter. Unfortunately, this skewed the colors such that reds looked a bit orangey, so I prefer the original version, which has a more realistic color representation and excellent contrast.

AR coatings and the emphasis a manufacturer puts on different parts of the spectrum affects the perception of brightness. Nikon puts its emphasis on the red side (bump in the red), and while that really makes colors look more saturated in good light, I've noticed that in the winter, the red bias makes the landscape look a bit darker than more neutral color binoculars.

The EDG has the best of both worlds when it comes to transmission, because the light spectrum "curve" is rather flat with a slight bump in the blue and a longer and higher bump in the red.

While 89.8+/- 1.5% transmission that Arek found is a few points behind the HT and SF, it's the emphasis that Zeiss puts on the middle of the spectrum (green-yellow) in its AR coatings that makes the HT and SF seem even brighter when compared side by side with the EDG since the middle of the spectrum is where our eyes are the most sensitive. Zeiss alphas are optimized for low light, the EDG and Premier for daylight.

allbinos_Nikon_8x42_EDG

Sports optics technology is at the point now where it seems that incremental changes (such as the SV EL's Field Pro series or the UV's addition of HT glass) are being made for the sake of change rather than true innovation, so the companies can offer something at least superficially new to get customers interested in buying new units. Perhaps more than "lipstick on a pig" but not truly innovative.

I anticipate we'll see a lot of "lipstick" in the next few years on the alphas. They've already pushed optical roof prism binoculars about as far as they can go. Digital features would be innovation and in line what we're seeing across the board in other consumer items these days, but I'm not sure they figured out how to add digital features w/out turning the bins into a bulky box like the 10x42 IS L.

Brock

Thanks for review Tobias, now the comparison of true alphas which we all were waiting for is done.
I also noticed, that one shop in Germany has very competitive price for EDG http://www.das-fernglashaus.de/Nikon1.htm
so I think that at this price point, they have the best price performance ratio among alphas.

Tobias Mennle said:

My 8x42 EDG review is here: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikonedg8x42/nikonedg8x42review.html

I included the EDG into my long term review of premium 8x42s:

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikonedg8x42/nikonedg8x42review.html

I immediately fell in love with the 8x42 EDG binoculars. They fit perfectly in my hands, focusing is the smoothest ever and the images are simply stunning - "japanese Ultravids" came to my mind immediately. These are the consistently blackest, cleanest shadows. These are the most saturated, lifelike colours. Ease of view is just great even at close up. Biting Nikon sharpness in a perfectly executed flat field. And most of all: class leading flare suppression. Under difficult light conditions the Nikon manages to produce the cleanest, most intact images and outperforms all competitors. Yes there is some flare but I can still see what´s going on! The EDG has the quietest images with a superb flat field with NO rolling ball effect. Exciting. Awesome. I find one major fault though - the view is visibly darker then in the Leica Ultravid 8x42, the Zeiss HT and even the Zeiss SF. No matter how sharp the EDG is, it looks a bit subdued where the Leica Ultravid sparkles vividly. Nikon really needs to upgrade the EDG with HT glass to boost transmission. BUT they will then have the best 8x42 for general use with a perfect combination of great qualities. Compared to what other companies try to do to reinvent the binocular this should be very easy. I really hope that Nikon will not withdraw from the high end market and update this wonderful design soon.
Nikon, I´m waiting for your awesome EDG MKIII.

Click to expand...

I said this before, and I'm sorry for stating the obvious, but binoculars can't produce light. The choice of glass will have influence on the transmission and colour balance, and the choice of prism coatings and lens coatings will decide the final colour balance. Since these properties can only decrease the transmission of any and all wavelengths, choosing the coatings could best be described as harm reduction. Nikon took a radically different route than did Zeiss with the FL, HT and SF series. All the virtues of the EDG: stunning contrast and punchy colours come with a price. They are what the are because some wavelengths are pushed down more than others.
My advise if you find the 8x42 too dark(ish): try harm reduction and exchange it for the 7x42.
I think of my 7x42 EDG II as "my 8x42 with 6 mm exit pupil". It is very much like an 8x42 and I never felt underpowered with the marginally weaker power.

//L

brocknroller said:

...... AR coatings and the emphasis a manufacturer puts on different parts of the spectrum affects the perception of brightness. Nikon puts its emphasis on the red side (bump in the red), and while that really makes colors look more saturated in good light, I've noticed that in the winter, the red bias makes the landscape look a bit darker than more neutral color binoculars.

The EDG has the best of both worlds when it comes to transmission, because the light spectrum "curve" is rather flat with a slight bump in the blue and a longer and higher bump in the red.

While 89.8+/- 1.5% transmission that Arek found is a few points behind the HT and SF, it's the emphasis that Zeiss puts on the middle of the spectrum (green-yellow) in its AR coatings that makes the HT and SF seem even brighter when compared side by side with the EDG since the middle of the spectrum is where our eyes are the most sensitive. Zeiss alphas are optimized for low light, the EDG and Premier for daylight.

allbinos_Nikon_8x42_EDG

Sports optics technology is at the point now where it seems that incremental changes (such as the SV EL's Field Pro series or the UV's addition of HT glass) are being made for the sake of change rather than true innovation, so the companies can offer something at least superficially new to get customers interested in buying new units. Perhaps more than "lipstick on a pig" but not truly innovative.

I anticipate we'll see a lot of "lipstick" in the next few years on the alphas. They've already pushed optical roof prism binoculars about as far as they can go. ......

Click to expand...

Huh?! :h?:

Brock, how on earth can binoculars be too? bright if they transmit less than 100% of what our eye sees!! :brains: (silly things like looking at metallic reflections in direct sunlight excluded

Likewise, if the EDG has a slight red shift (NB: there is no such thing as a "bump" in the red, or anywhere else for that matter - just less relative loss), how can the greens, and blues look "more saturated" ????? Highly illogical .........*:Spock smilie - raise single eyebrow:*

I find your conclusion that "Zeiss alphas are optimized for low light, the EDG and Premier for daylight", similarly nonsensical ....... :cat:
In fact, the opposite is true, and even though the HT is trumpeted as a low light binocular with the higher blue spectrum transmission offered by the inclusion of Schott's HT glass, the fact remains that from the snippets we have fleetingly seen, that the shape of the curve is still hill-like with a peak around the green/yellow - smack bang in the middle of the daylight spectrum! :eek!:

If you think that 89.8% transmission has "already pushed optical roof prism binoculars about as far as they can go" ....... then where does the other 10.2% go ????????

Honestly, 10.2% of that light is lost ...... and that's good enough? I think that is ridiculous :scribe:

Less environmental light lost through transmission, transformation, and reflection, results in less glare and other crudola affecting the view ...... a very worthwhile pursuit! ....... :smoke:

The flat, completely neutral transmission curve (which plummets sharply in the damaging UV, and undesirable IR parts of the spectrum) is where it's at ...... there is nothing more beautiful than watching the changing of the light. I was once blessed to see a "Red Rainbow" o ..... but that was once in a lifetime - I don't want to see that every day! |^|
So just where are the limits for a tabletop flat transmission graph ??

We know that the S-P prism Zeiss 8x32 FL gets to 94.6% tr, and peaks at some point after the daylight (555nm) measurement is taken http://www.allbinos.com/191-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_8x32_T*_FL.html
We also know that the A-K prism Zeiss HT gets "up to and more than 95% transmission"
AND! both of these don't even use the best of the best glass - I think it's time for somebody to get fair dinkum and pull their finger out! :t:

So just exactly what, is, possible ???????????????



Chosun :gh:

Looksharp, the EDG 7x42 is high on my list. But I doubt it could be brighter in daylight than the 8x42. Even more comfortable, sure, and wider field of view.

I understand your argument, but IMO Leica just pushed the brightness and the brilliance of colors so much further with the HD Plus. Colours are still saturated, but they really shine, sparkle, glow, whatever, making the Nikon look a bit lifeless and dull. Nikon EDG most probably remained on the level of 2008, so for a premium model, they could and should increase brightness, I don´t care how they do it, but they should. This should be so easy, for me that´s the bitter irony, the almost perfect glass for my needs.

Tobias,

Thanks for another excellent and beautifully written review. I'm also in agreement with just about everything you say about these, although it has been a while since I tested these and have not compared them directly to the latest Zeiss.

Concerning the tree-dimensionality of the image as well as the ease of viewing very close up, there is one factor you didn't mention that somewhat influences these areas. That is the prism configuration that Nikon uses being such that the center-to-center spacing of the objectives is slightly narrower than that of the eyepieces, while in most Zeiss and Swarovski designs it is wider. The narrower spacing results in less stereopsis and higher degree of image convergence at short distances as there is less parallax error. The difference is not huge, but it does amount to a visible effect.

Another comment on the center hinge tension. You mention that this is a bit on the loose side. This is unfortunately quite typical to Nikon EDG as well as the previous HG and HG L models, and the friction also tends to get even less in use. I have seen several Nikon binoculars where the center hinge needs to be adjusted almost every time the binocular has been hanging against your chest. Fortunately, the tension of the hinge is not hard to adjust, but this is not an adjustment intended for the user to be making. So if this happens and you are not willing to tamper with a product under a long warranty you need to take it in for service for something that should be easy to avoid. It is minor gripe, but left uncorrected can be a major annoyance.

If I recall correctly (I don't have an EDG at hand to try now) my eyes saw a bit more CA in the EDG than in the SV or Zeiss SF's, perhaps about the same as in Leica Ultravid HD's. The U-vid + I have not yet tried.

I'm on the same page with you on the distortion characteristics and edge sharpness evaluation, but would add (again) that the Canon 10x42 L IS eyepiece design is in my view even better in that with only moderate pincushion and very quiet panning behavior it manages to give just about SV level edge sharpness also. So I think that even better than what the EDG offers is possible.

Kimmo

Kimmo, thanks for your feedback, always much appreciated.

I just tried to measure how far the center-to-center spacing of the objectives deviates from the ocular spacing by measuring one side and multiplying with 2. I found zero deviation in the Nikon EDG and Ultravid, whereas the Zeiss SF had 6mm less distance on the ocular side, the HT 12mm. Crude testing with a framework of rulers. As you say, that would be an important reason for of the easy-to-view close ups the Nikon delivers.

As Ultravid and EDG have about the same stereo base, the perceived difference in 3D needs to be accounted for by other factors. What´s your opinion on flat field vs. curved field, and could eye relief also influence this...??? My impression clearly is that flat field, and possibly also long eye relief, let me perceive less 3D. Anyway, I find the Ultravid quite immersive and have never worried about the somewhat small field of view.

Sorry to hear about center hinge tension problems in the EDG, that should be easy to fix, but my impression is Nikon builds big batches, and so no improvements for years. I suspect my EDG sample is from 2010, but would not expect any change in performance if I bought one now.

No need to convince me of the Canon 10x42, but always glad to hear you like it. I´ll have one soon and will finish my comparison of premium 42s with it. I think I am now ready to carry that weight around... Canon is the proverbial lightyears ahead of the rest of the pack, and they don´t even need to sell binoculars.

CA in the EDG, yes probably the SF and SV are a tiny bit better than the rest including the EDG.

Would love to read your opinion on the HD Plus...

Tobias,

It is difficult to measure the center-to-center distance of the objective or eyepiece lenses, but very easy, accurate and quick to measure the left edge to left edge or right edge to right edge distances, and since the lenses are round and symmetrical, the results are the same.

Incidentally, I now use this method for accurately setting my IPD on binoculars, and have a simple plastic "template" (a strip of stiff plastic cut to the exact length of my required IPD) permanently in my binocular bag. Thus, if someone else uses my binoculars or they get out of adjustment, instead of trial and error, I simply take the template out and use it to measure i.e. left edge of left eyecup to left edge of right eyecup.

Kimmo

I had to send my 8x EDG in for service due to damaging the Left Eye Cup when I dropped them last month. I saw an out of range Snow Goose fly into the pond at work with the usual Canadas. I alerted several friends that came later in the day with scopes and in the excitement, I dropped them. I am not happy about having to send them in for warranty service just to have a technician unscrew the eyecup and replace - but it is what it is and there is going to be no charge

SO......out of curiosity, I came back to BF to see what others experiences are and I came across Tobias' review thread here. The thing is, I don't recall thinking that my EDG is "Dark". I don't know when Nikon is going to finish up and send them back but I am eagerly awaiting. One of my Birding buddies has both the EL's and the SF's so I intend to check out these comments.

Considering the results of Gijs' latest transmission tests, the EDG should be as bright as the new Ultravid HD +.

Personal opinion is pretty fickle and needs to be taken as such.

Argon said:

I had to send my 8x EDG in for service due to damaging the Left Eye Cup when I dropped them last month. I saw an out of range Snow Goose fly into the pond at work with the usual Canadas. I alerted several friends that came later in the day with scopes and in the excitement, I dropped them. I am not happy about having to send them in for warranty service just to have a technician unscrew the eyecup and replace - but it is what it is and there is going to be no charge

SO......out of curiosity, I came back to BF to see what others experiences are and I came across Tobias' review thread here. The thing is, I don't recall thinking that my EDG is "Dark". I don't know when Nikon is going to finish up and send them back but I am eagerly awaiting. One of my Birding buddies has both the EL's and the SF's so I intend to check out these comments.

Click to expand...

Those eye cups screw out. I do it when I have to clean the oculars on my 10x32 EDG II.

Did Nikon really tell you to send the entire binocular back to get a new eye cup?

At least there is no charge. Maybe they wanted to make sure there was no damage to the internal threads?

I have compared them to my Nikon 10x42 SE and they are just as bright except in late evening conditions.

Bob

Ceasar, Yes, when I want to clean the oculars, I would take the eyecups off. Initially, the customer service person I spoke with told me I would have to send them in. I pressed my point - even asked if I could buy them outright. He said he agreed and would escalate the issue and Nikon would send one at no charge. A week went by with no further correspondence. I called back only to find out that the "escalation group" had denied and that I would have to send them in. I got up to the Supervisor level and stated the obvious while indicating that my original purchase decision came down to EL or EDG. Further, Swaro would just send the cups or I could buy one at EO for ~$25 and not have to be without my bins for 3 or 4 weeks. To no avail. I didn't check that out here before sending them in and I have seen where different folks have had varying degrees of success in getting Nikon to just send the cups. The Supervisor assured me that I was not the first to be frustrated by Nikon's policy but it is what it is. Anyway, we are approaching the 2 week point - and I apologize to the group for hijacking this thread. It was fairly old so I thought that it would not be too bad to do so.