[mulligatawny owl]

Originally Posted by Torview

I could`nt agree more, but Dennis seems determined to compare everything with his EDG.

I`v yet to try any of the Habichts or an SE so I don`t know the awnser to the op question.

With the caveat of nfov and slow focus, I really like the Opticron HR WP, a thoroughly modern Porro.

Also the Opticron 8x32 SR GA is wonderful.

Sometimes I'm convinced my HR WP's are able to resolve more detail than my SE 8x32's, especially at long range, the larger objectives no doubt helps. I really must do a proper side by side comparison between the two.
If you can live with the nfov the HR WP is simply one hell of a great all round modern fully waterproof porro. It doesn't quite tick all the boxes in overall image pleasingness that the SE does but it ticks a few boxes that the SE cant, namely full waterproofing and twist up eyecups.

[bh46118]

A good Porro will win this contest against a roof every time from what I've seen. I was looking at the base of a maple tree at about 25 yards with the Minox Porro and Zen ED2. The Porro was resolving fine color graduation and textural details in the shaded areas that the roof was totally missing. The Porro had an organic rightness to the view that drew me in. The roof had a flat, artificial image by comparison .

Bruce

Originally Posted by Pileatus

The Nikon E and SE porros are simply brighter than the EDG's. Depending on lighting conditons, subtle colors (like dark grays) may appear black in the EDG and dark gray in the porros. Look carefully for fine details buried within coloration to determine which binocular delivers a more "faithful" view.

[bh46118]

I've been harping this on here for a while. I believe that for the $180 I paid for the BD10X44BP, I have most of the performance that people pay $600 to $2500 for. I would love to here your comparison of the Nikon and the Opticron.

Bruce

Originally Posted by mulligatawny owl

Sometimes I'm convinced my HR WP's are able to resolve more detail than my SE 8x32's, especially at long range, the larger objectives no doubt helps. I really must do a proper side by side comparison between the two.
If you can live with the nfov the HR WP is simply one hell of a great all round modern fully waterproof porro. It doesn't quite tick all the boxes in overall image pleasingness that the SE does but it ticks a few boxes that the SE cant, namely full waterproofing and twist up eyecups.

[Torview]

I would love to try the Minox, but have`nt been able to yet. Found this:-

http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/minox/bd8x44bp.php

[looksharp65]

Originally Posted by bh46118

A good Porro will win this contest against a roof every time from what I've seen. I was looking at the base of a maple tree at about 25 yards with the Minox Porro and Zen ED2. The Porro was resolving fine color graduation and textural details in the shaded areas that the roof was totally missing. The Porro had an organic rightness to the view that drew me in. The roof had a flat, artificial image by comparison .

Bruce

Though I honestly believe in what you say, I have to ask whether you compensated for the magnification difference by getting 5 yards closer with the ED2?
If the Minox has a warmer colour bias than the ED2, that can be the reason for its better colour graduation rendition. Was the ED2's image too bright, maybe washed-out even in the shaded areas?

Still, I think that the absence of phase-coating and any mirror coating in porros contribute to a more easy view. Designing the coatings of a binocular is a delicate balance to keep, and with advantage in certain light condition comes a disadvantage in others.
With porros (porri! ) the task may be somewhat easier, I guess.

//L

[FrankD]

So whatever happened to the Vixen Foresta 7x50s? You had expected them on Tuesday but I didn't notice any posts.

[bh46118]

I did step 5 yards closer to compensate. It made absolutely no difference in the results. I did the same with my Fury and as much as I like them for the things they do well, they are not any closer than the Zen to the Minox in raw Image quality. As shown in the Binomania review, I believe the Minox and the others like it may very well be as sharp in resolution as an optic can be made. I use my Minox with the eye cups down and my glasses on just like the Fury. The view with the Minox, as with the Fury, seems so much more immersive with the eye cups down, even though I suppose in reality the FOV is not changed.

Bruce

Originally Posted by looksharp65

Though I honestly believe in what you say, I have to ask whether you compensated for the magnification difference by getting 5 yards closer with the ED2?



//L

[bh46118]

They still have the Leupold 8X at Amazon. I don't know about getting them in the UK though.

http://www.amazon.com/Leupold-Cascad.../dp/B000H6QXMQ

Originally Posted by Torview

I would love to try the Minox, but have`nt been able to yet. Found this:-

http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/minox/bd8x44bp.php

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by FrankD

So whatever happened to the Vixen Foresta 7x50s? You had expected them on Tuesday but I didn't notice any posts.

Read post 20 & 24. They are great binoculars Frank but the eyecups were big for my eyesockets and I also wonder if their FOV isn't smaller than stated. The view is quite sensational though. I have never seen so much 3D effect in any binoculars.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Pileatus

The Nikon E and SE porros are simply brighter than the EDG's. Depending on lighting conditons, subtle colors (like dark grays) may appear black in the EDG and dark gray in the porros. Look carefully for fine details buried within coloration to determine which binocular delivers a more "faithful" view.

Good insight. I will try that with the SE's. I just assumed the EDG's had better contrast because the blacks were darker but I really didn't try to look into the grey for detail.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by mulligatawny owl

Sometimes I'm convinced my HR WP's are able to resolve more detail than my SE 8x32's, especially at long range, the larger objectives no doubt helps. I really must do a proper side by side comparison between the two.
If you can live with the nfov the HR WP is simply one hell of a great all round modern fully waterproof porro. It doesn't quite tick all the boxes in overall image pleasingness that the SE does but it ticks a few boxes that the SE cant, namely full waterproofing and twist up eyecups.

I know waterproofing and twist up eyecups are nice but I have that in my roof. When I buy a porro I want super optics as my number one priority. I save them to use when it's dry outside.

[bh46118]

At a casual glance the ED2 appears very bright, but in shadow areas they are actually fairly dark. Dramatically so when compared to the Porro.

Bruce

Originally Posted by looksharp65

Was the ED2's image too bright, maybe washed-out even in the shaded areas?


//L

[FrankD]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

Read post 20 & 24. They are great binoculars Frank but the eyecups were big for my eyesockets and I also wonder if their FOV isn't smaller than stated. The view is quite sensational though. I have never seen so much 3D effect in any binoculars.

Sorry, I missed those posts somehow Dennis. I might have a partial solution to one of your issues...the 8x32 Foresta porro. It has a field of view at the same level as the SE's. Not sure about the eyecups though. I haven't tried them yet myself. They are probably next on my list...eventually.

[denco@comcast.n]

Might be worth a try. I wonder how big the eyecups are and if they are smaller than the Vixen 7x50.

[denco@comcast.n]

So how many people think the Swarovski 8x30 Habicht is better optically than the Nikon 8x32 SE? It sound like the short ER, small eyecups and stiff focus on the Habicht could be deal killers for alot of people.

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by Pileatus

The Nikon E and SE porros are simply brighter than the EDG's. Depending on lighting conditons, subtle colors (like dark grays) may appear black in the EDG and dark gray in the porros. Look carefully for fine details buried within coloration to determine which binocular delivers a more "faithful" view.

When I got my 10 x 32 EDG in midsummer 2 years ago I spent a lot of time comparing it with my 10 x 32 LX L and 10 x 35 EII. I was particularly interested in comparing their respective brightness and I did so on many evenings until after the sun went below the horizon. Most of the time I compared the three of them on the detail and colors they showed on doves, robins, house sparrows and song sparrows at distances up to about 80 feet in mine and the neighbors yards and while perched on fences. It was clear, under these conditions, that the EDG was the brightest of the 3 and showed the most detail on these birds.

I did not compare it under twilight conditions with my 10 x 42 SE. Under extremely bright daylight conditions at the South Lookout on Hawk Mountain there wasn't much difference between them. But when looking far to the east toward Allentown through a lot of atmosphere the EDG seemed to show more detail on distant objects than the SE did. Like it seemed to cut through distant haze better.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

When I got my 10 x 32 EDG in midsummer 2 years ago I spent a lot of time comparing it with my 10 x 32 LX L and 10 x 35 EII. I was particularly interested in comparing their respective brightness and I did so on many evenings until after the sun went below the horizon. Most of the time I compared the three of them on the detail and colors they showed on doves, robins, house sparrows and song sparrows at distances up to about 80 feet in mine and the neighbors yards and while perched on fences. It was clear, under these conditions, that the EDG was the brightest of the 3 and showed the most detail on these birds.

I did not compare it under twilight conditions with my 10 x 42 SE. Under extremely bright daylight conditions at the South Lookout on Hawk Mountain there wasn't much difference between them. But when looking far to the east toward Allentown through a lot of atmosphere the EDG seemed to show more detail on distant objects than the SE did. Like it seemed to cut through distant haze better.

The EDG's definitely have excellent coatings and I think the ED glass makes a difference in situations like you describe. Showing more detail than an SE that has a 10mm bigger objective is testament to just how good they are. These are Nikon's flagship binoculars and I'm sure no expense was spared in their construction.

[looksharp65]

Originally Posted by bh46118

At a casual glance the ED2 appears very bright, but in shadow areas they are actually fairly dark. Dramatically so when compared to the Porro.

Bruce

That's a very interesting statement. I'm curious about the colour rendition of these two. What you say definitely adds another dimension to what I recently have argued in:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=233869
and
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2481015

If the Zens are cooler, they should appear brighter, not darker in the shaded areas, and if they have a warmer bias, the fine discrimination of brown hues should be better.
So the Minox porro renders shaded areas brighter and the subtle colour hues better, despite its smaller exit pupil?
You make me wish I had bought one before I discovered the clockwise focus compulsion

Let's compare their exit pupil areas.
The Minox is 4.4^2 = 19.36 mm^2, and the Zen-Ray 28.89 mm^2.
The Minox is said to have 94% light transmission and I take that as a figure for all the visible wavelengths.
The brightness compares to (19.36*0.94)= 18.20, e.g. like a binocular with an exit pupil area of 18.2 mm^2 with a 100% transmission rate.

Only if the Zen-Ray had less than 63% transmission, there's a chance that it could be dimmer than the Minox. 28.89*0.63 equals 18.2

Of course, this is absurd, as is this method for computing brightness in daylight, since your pupils will constrict and dilate just as they always do, regardless of if you're using binoculars or not.
There must be something else going on. If it's not the transmission curve, it could be how your eyes react when you put the bins in front of them.
This is something I discovered very recently, when I was evaluating the in-shade brightness of a scene with and without a weak blue-tinted filter (in fact, a contact lens). When the result didn't seem plausible, I found out that light entering from the side biased the result. When covering the gap between the eye and the ocular, the results were more consistent.
Possibly, the smaller AFOV of the Minox acts in a similar way - although for myself, I experience the opposite, that wide AFOV bins look brighter to my eyes.

Once again, owning one of the Minox porros would have been great. I believe every word you say about them, although I can't seem to figure out what actually happens.

//L

[denco@comcast.n]

I am getting a new from Adorama for $599.99(Good Price) Nikon 8x32 SE with the latest coatings on Tuesday. I will compare it too my Nikon 8x32 EDG II when I get it. You know my reviews are the best and totally unbiased so it will finally end the debate or will it? I will try to conduct tests under varying conditions including looking into shadows, glare control, sharpness,contrast and 3D effect. as well as, ergonomics. The question will be can a $600 porro prism binocular compete with a $2400 roof prism binocular. Two of the best binoculars if not THE best binoculars in the world with different prisms head to head. This is exciting!

[bh46118]

I have zero technical knowledge about optics, so I rely on what I see when I look through them. I really don't think anything but an alpha roof or top Porro will provide a significantly better image than your Fury, and in the areas that they are excellent, they may be almost unique. The Vixen 7X50 that Frank enjoys so much is a binocular that I would like to try. I really believe that they would be have a stellar "Porro" image for a very fair price, although the close focus and weight of a Porro might be an issue after using the Fury.

This thread may or may not shed some light on what I see with my binoculars. If you look through the BEST OF section of Cloudy Nights, EdZ has a ton of great info, but the majority of it is WAY over my head.

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthrea.../o/all/fpart/1


[quote=looksharp65;2484045


Once again, owning one of the Minox porros would have been great. I believe every word you say about them, although I can't seem to figure out what actually happens.

//L[/QUOTE]

[looksharp65]

To be frank, I did question the whole experiment already when reading the initial post. The number of posts criticizing the method and what actually is being measured didn't surprise me.
There are too many error sources in the experiment, and the most obvious is the size of the exit pupil. Consequently, the use of cardboard aperture masks was advocated by Kimmo and Ron H, just like I used a 21 mm mask when doing a rough estimation of the transmission of my 6.5x32 vs the 10x32s.

Furthermore, while the size of the exit pupil is a function of the magnification and the objective size, it does not correspond to the size of the apparent field of view.
The distance of the exit pupil (the eye relief) is the furthest place from the ocular that you can actually see the field stop.
Somehow, I suspect that the size of the FOV matters. The field stop won't change the brightness of what's inside the FOV, but for terrestrial use, a larger FOV should mean that more light enters the eye. (the field stop "moves out of way", thus allowing more of the scene to be seen rather than blackness)

- Saying that "larger exit pupils are brighter" will not be correct for terrestrial use where the observer's pupil usually is smaller than the exit pupil of the binocular.

- Another error source is the colour temperature of a 60W light bulb, which is extremely red at about 2900 K.

- The roofs in the comparison are not top notch by current standards.

- The probe is larger than the exit pupils, so it took a vast number of measurements to get a consistent result. This is not necessarily an erroneous method, but going by immediate "feeling", I'd have it match the exact exit pupil size for each specimen of the binoculars, or maybe use a probe so small that it's "drenched" in the light beam.

After all, the result of the experiment seems feasible with regard to the various levels of optical and coatings quality of the binoculars involved.
But what really was measured, I don't have a clue about.

//L

[bh46118]

The only test I actually concern myself with is what I see when I look with my eyes.

Bruce

Originally Posted by looksharp65

But what really was measured, I don't have a clue about.

//L

[looksharp65]

Originally Posted by bh46118

The only test I actually concern myself with is what I see when I look with my eyes.

Bruce

To me, that approach is very appealing. That's the purpose of using binoculars, and that's the only way to use them.
But the greater number of different binoculars you've tried, the more aware of the tiny differences you will become.
Reading discussions and reviews here and elsewhere will make us more aware of what to look for, what to compare with and and possibly what to avoid.

The purchase of first the Fury, then the ED50A opened my eyes for what I want and not want from optics. I do want wide FOVs and AFOVs or at least great PFOVs and I want clockwise focusing knobs. Lately, I have also become aware of what a colour bias can add to the viewing experience and what its downside may be.

Originally Posted by bh46118

I I really don't think anything but an alpha roof or top Porro will provide a significantly better image than your Fury, and in the areas that they are excellent, they may be almost unique.

Quite many people here have claimed the 7x36 ED2 to be significantly better than the Fury, which I've mostly taken with a pinch of salt.
But the 7x43 should be a bit better still.
As an owner of the 8x43 ED2, would you discourage me from getting the 7x43?

//L

[bh46118]

Then Zen is much better at controlling CA, but I believe the Fury has a much more "comfortable view". Assuming the 7X43 are the same optically as the 8X43, and the CA of the Fury doesn't bother you, then I would stay with the Fury. I would probably try the Nikon SE or Vixen 7X50 Porro, but you might love the Zen 7X43. There is no way to know unless you see it for yourself.

Bruce

Originally Posted by looksharp65

Quite many people here h. ave claimed the 7x36 ED2 to be significantly better than the Fury, which I've mostly taken with a pinch of salt.
But the 7x43 should be a bit better still.
As an owner of the 8x43 ED2, would you discourage me from getting the 7x43?

//L