Nikon SE 10x42 SE - First Views (1 Viewer)

Nikon SE 10x42 - First Views

Took the first views out my backdoor with my new-to-me legendary Nikon 10x42 SE.

These are a nice binocular for sure. They seem VERY sharp, and the colors fairly natural (no specific color tests yet).

With the some what narrow 6deg FOV, the magnification looks ok and I'm not seeing any immediate geometric perspective skews.

They lose out still to my Canon 10x42 in terms of brightness and color saturation, but I'll check the details on the colors a bit more later.

I managed to roll the eye-cups just the right amount so they work well with my glasses. All the way down was a but too much, fully extended the FOV was restricted.

Focus seemed nice, the diopter was pretty stiff, but loosened up a bit with some twisting. Hopefully they won't need much twisting one I get it dialed in precisely.

Really prefer the view of these compared to the E-II 8x30.

Handling is very nice, the armor has a nice feel and the size is really nice for a 10x42 design.

I'd say so far (and that's only 5min of viewing) they live up to their reputation. However if you own something like the 10x42 EDG then I suspect you don't need to worry about tracking these down. If after some time they start appearing on ebay at reasonable prices though then these definitely would be worth consideration depending on what else is available at the time.

What are the first three digits of the serial number? That will give you an idea about how old these are. I saw a guy on Astromart selling a "new old stock" 10x42 SE that he said was never used. The serial number started with 001, meaning they were probably made in the mid to late 1990s. AR coatings have come a long way, baby. Besides, how could these sit on the shelf of a store for that long? Seems fishy. Maybe they were sitting in his closet at home after he caught "roof fever."

Nikon's AR coatings got better with the years, so the newer models have better contrast and color saturation, and Nikon also changed over to lead-free glass in the 10x42 050xxx model, which I think was the last batch they made before discontinuing the line.

I don't have a 10x42 EDG, though I have tried one, and while the color saturation was a bit better, I still prefer the SE for its 3-D view and porro ergonomics. I am getting more used to the view through roofs, but I'm not ready to join the Flat Earth Society.

Brock

The Nikon SEs all have flat fields. Next time you use yours check that out. The 10x42 was the 1st one of the 3 to come out in 1995. The Nikon EIIs came out a couple of years later.

I've compared my 10x42 to my 10x32 EDG pretty extensively at Hawk Mountain. There really isn't much difference between them except a wider FOV on the 10x32 but an intern from Nepal who was working there tried both of them and said he liked the SE better because it was like the binoculars he used when researching Himalayan Vultures.

Bob

I bought that pair from Astromart so it is an early pair starting with 001, but he had the last couple of digits of the serial number wrong. Still an early set, maybe the leaded glass makes them sharper and a nice color transmission, but yes it is likely those with later coatings and the change in the lenses have slightly different optical characteristics. Not unhappy with these, I didn't really need them, I just wanted to try them because of their reputation, and I seem to get along in general with Nikon optics. Definitely though my Canon 10x42 are brighter, and of course the EDG 8x42 as well. It will be interesting to compare them to the Monarch 7 10x30 to see if they can edge out those for brightness; I would expect so.

As you suspected they were not really new-old-stock. They are in excellent shape, but the strap as you saw in the pictures was already threaded, there was no paper work, and no objective covers (those should be there right?). I was probably too eager and paid top dollar for them, but I'm reasonably happy with them.

i just spent an hour out with these after the sun was down. Pretty much the same conclusions from my 5min daytime test.

Yes I did notice field seemed very flat. With my eye-glasses and looking at some different trees and bushes with a larger tree'd hill in the distance they gave a very nice 3D view and edge to edge it all looked good, and the layers between the subjects all all looked pretty flat. I'll compare more next time I'm out in daylight. I think the Canon 10x42 and 8x42 EDG might have a slightly flatter view, but I have to do some more precise tests. CA was well controlled in the center of the view, green at the bottom, purple at the top ... pretty standard stuff. It was never really bad against the dusk sky, but will check in daylight at some point.

Ergonomics are very good, but I am now use to a little wider focus wheel and/or having it a little more forward towards the objectives.

If any one gets the chance to pick them up at a good price I think they are still a very nice optic, of course like any other best to look through them to ensure the eyepieces work for you.

Nikon 10x42 SE - First Views

Any thing Nikon with SE label is a quality piece, new or old. The old porros like that are hard to beat. They will take more abuse (being dropped or banged) than the E-2s will. I speak from experience. They are quite water resistant, but not waterproof, but for careful users, that is not a problem. Had Nikon brought them out with modern eye cups, they would have become an instant classic.

Back around the year 2000 Bill Cole (or is that Cook--I have a good buddy named Cole) known as WJC here, wrote a great article in (I think) "Sky and Telescope" about the Nikon 10x42 SE. I saved it but I can't locate it. Perhaps someone who has saved their copies with better care than I did can find out the date it was published?

It is well worth the read, even 15 or so years later.:t:

Bob

@ Bob. That's Captain Hook, er...I mean, Cook, formerly of Captains Nautical Supply in Seattle and retired Navy Chief Opticalman, and I don't think he served on the USS Cole, which looking back, marked the beginning of the war on terror.

I don't remember a specific article in S&T on the 10x42 SE, but I do remember him writing an article on using binoculars for stargazing, and the 10x42 SE was among those he recommended. Another was the 804 Audubon, which I bought based on his recommendation, and I wasn't disappointed, at least with the MC versions (even though Ed thinks there was no difference between the EPs in the MC and the FMC, so either I had three bad FMC samples or there was a difference in the EP design since the sweet spot was way larger in the two MCs.

I have that issue tucked away in my S&T archive, which goes back to the 1970s when the magazine was oriented more toward professional astronomers than amateurs. They had ads for huge, custom-made Mak-Cass telescopes on heavy duty equatorial mounts that were bolted to an observatory floor. The articles were also more technical than today's articles. At that time I was taking "Astronomy courses for young people" at the New York Hayden Planetarium. My mom would accompany me into Manhattan by bus on Saturday mornings, and after class, we'd explore the Museum of Natural History, which was attached to the planetarium.

@ John. I have a hard enough time getting the SE's wide diameter rubber eyecups in my eye orbits, particularly with the 8x32 model (even though all models have the same eyecups), because in order to keep a perfect circle at close distance, I have to pull in the IPD, and the eyecups pinch my nose. I stopped readjusting the IPD and just let the barrel views overlap. I can get a bit of "image blackout" with the IPD not perfectly aligned but not enough to be distracting the way it is for some users.

If Nikon made twist-ups like they did for the Action EX and Aculon series and had the eyecups slide over the eyepiece housing, the eyecups would not only be even wider but also harder, and I probably wouldn't be able to use them. So I'm glad they kept the rubber eyecups, and they are a modern classic even without twist-ups.

I doubt if twist-ups would have boosted sales to the point of Nikon not discontinuing the series. With every new good quality roof that Nikon came out with, as well as other companies offering good quality roofs for around the same price or less than the SE ($650), it was another nail in the coffin for the SE series, because roofs are in vogue, and more and more people "EnjoytheView."

Most of the BF members I know who own SEs don't use them much, but rather have them as "reference standards" to compare to the new roofs they buy. Less than a handful of BF bin forum members including me used them for day in, day out birding.

Brock

EnjoyTheView said:

Took the first views out my backdoor with my new-to-me legendary Nikon 10x42 SE.

These are a nice binocular for sure. They seem VERY sharp, and the colors fairly natural (no specific color tests yet).

With the some what narrow 6deg FOV, the magnification looks ok and I'm not seeing any immediate geometric perspective skews.

They lose out still to my Canon 10x42 in terms of brightness and color saturation, but I'll check the details on the colors a bit more later.

I managed to roll the eye-cups just the right amount so they work well with my glasses. All the way down was a but too much, fully extended the FOV was restricted.

Focus seemed nice, the diopter was pretty stiff, but loosened up a bit with some twisting. Hopefully they won't need much twisting one I get it dialed in precisely.

Really prefer the view of these compared to the E-II 8x30.

Handling is very nice, the armor has a nice feel and the size is really nice for a 10x42 design.

I'd say so far (and that's only 5min of viewing) they live up to their reputation. However if you own something like the 10x42 EDG then I suspect you don't need to worry about tracking these down. If after some time they start appearing on ebay at reasonable prices though then these definitely would be worth consideration depending on what else is available at the time.

Click to expand...

When you have time, I'd love to hear more about your impressions of specifically the nikons vs the canon 10x42. I have the canon amongst various others, and I know that the canon possesses monstrous optical prowess totally regardless of their 'image stabiliser' stuff. I don't know how canon achieved what they did but it is phenomenal. I'd be very surprised if the Nikon can outperform the canon in any way....but i would like to know!

Cheers,
Rathaus

Rathaus said:

When you have time, I'd love to hear more about your impressions of specifically the nikons vs the canon 10x42. I have the canon amongst various others, and I know that the canon possesses monstrous optical prowess totally regardless of their 'image stabiliser' stuff. I don't know how canon achieved what they did but it is phenomenal. I'd be very surprised if the Nikon can outperform the canon in any way....but i would like to know!

Cheers,
Rathaus

Click to expand...

I did more viewing the other day in reasonable light close and far distance, and the Canon outperformed them in every way (all subjective no charts). One thing I've learned from trying all the different binoculars is I probably already had the best in the 10x42 Canon. My only traditional so called 'alpha level' binocular that I can compare side-by-side frequently is the 8x42 Nikon EDG. It is no doubt my best 8x optic, and being 8x is a little hard to compare with the Canon and it does have a slightly different color transmission, and is brighter than the Canon having a larger exit pupil.

It's pretty clear to me though the Canon 10x42 are Alpha class binoculars and they have IS. I may need to put them side by side some Swarovision but that's an expensive test. If I did I'm probably get the 10x50 SV as I don't really need another 10x42.

Overall the more I compare other optics I realize how much I love the view of the Canon.

That said the SE really are nice. Relatively small and light for 10x42. I like the feel in the hand, but I would relocate the focus wheel just a bit if I could. They have a good neutral leaning color transmission which is important to me since I use my binoculars often during photography.

My two goto optics have become my Canon when weight and bulk is not a concern, and my Swarovski 8x25 CL-pocket which are so easy to carry and do perform exceptionally well for their size and beyond. I was comparing often to see what I was missing out with the small CL, but each time it I checked against another optic the verdict was not much, or they were actually better than the larger ones.

OK got a bit off topic.

I will mention that at relatively close distances say out to 100ft or so I did notice the typical porro view characteristics of apparent lower magnification and the 3D view which is different from roofs and the Canon. It's interesting to switch between them and try to put my finger on what is different besides the apparent magnification which seems more of a vertical thing as linear distance wise (how far the subject looks in terms of distance) seems the same or slightly closer, yet its size appears smaller. I didn't expect this so much with only a 6deg FOV. The effect seemed much less than say the E-II, but I didn't do a side by side as the magnification factors are different. Quite interesting to really view the different aspects of the scene with the Nikon SE. Maybe because I'm so use to camera optics though, it always seems like the view through the Canon porro-II, or other roof binoculars, is more natural and geometrically accurate when comparing elements of the scene. The porro view is like you moved really close and then used an optic to reduce the size of everything to fit more in the frame per-say.

EnjoyTheView,

I also have an early sample of the 10x42 SE, which I got in 1996 if I recall correctly, and a relatively recent Canon 10x42 IS L.

I have tested both binoculars quite extensively and used them in the field for hundreds of hours, and like you, I find the Canon view better in just about every regard. The only exception is boosted resolution tests on a tripod using bar targets, where one of the Nikon's barrels is just a tad sharper than the better barrel of my Canon. However, if I don't use the booster and view with my eyes, the Canon even resolves a little better for me.

I have tried just about all the alpha 10x binoculars, and would not trade the Canon for any of them.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

EnjoyTheView,

I also have an early sample of the 10x42 SE, which I got in 1996 if I recall correctly, and a relatively recent Canon 10x42 IS L.

I have tested both binoculars quite extensively and used them in the field for hundreds of hours, and like you, I find the Canon view better in just about every regard. The only exception is boosted resolution tests on a tripod using bar targets, where one of the Nikon's barrels is just a tad sharper than the better barrel of my Canon. However, if I don't use the booster and view with my eyes, the Canon even resolves a little better for me.

I have tried just about all the alpha 10x binoculars, and would not trade the Canon for any of them.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Kimmo,
A bit off-topic but how does the IS perform while panning at a moderate rate of speed?

PS
I finally put the zoom on my ED82 so I could more comfortably scan the night skies and then zoom in for detail. Trapezium is pin-point sharp at 75X!

kabsetz said:

EnjoyTheView,

I also have an early sample of the 10x42 SE, which I got in 1996 if I recall correctly, and a relatively recent Canon 10x42 IS L.
Kimmo

Click to expand...

A question for 10x42SE owners: how much focus past infinity do these glasses have? I'm looking around for good binoculars that I can use with or without eyeglasses - especially now that I ordinarily use bifocal lenses, getting the binoculars into the right spot is more challenging, and I keep binos cleaner than eyeglasses most of the time so for me, the view without glasses is usually better.

I have a pair of monarch 7s in 8x42 and they actually work well with glasses - in addition to the eye relief, the oculars are large and well-lit, but when I take the glasses off, I can tell that I have a year or two of mileage left on them at most. At long distances, I'm driving the focuser as far as it can get, and that's before I look into the sky at night.

kabsetz said:

EnjoyTheView,

I also have an early sample of the 10x42 SE, which I got in 1996 if I recall correctly, and a relatively recent Canon 10x42 IS L.

I have tested both binoculars quite extensively and used them in the field for hundreds of hours, and like you, I find the Canon view better in just about every regard. The only exception is boosted resolution tests on a tripod using bar targets, where one of the Nikon's barrels is just a tad sharper than the better barrel of my Canon. However, if I don't use the booster and view with my eyes, the Canon even resolves a little better for me.

I have tried just about all the alpha 10x binoculars, and would not trade the Canon for any of them.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don´t miss my 8x32 SE (sold) but do miss that fat Canon pig (stolen). My funniest moment in binocular use - when my two colleagues got so excited about that herd of bisons in Caucasus - "can´t you see them" - and I could only see a couple of stones in the flimmering air with the Canon IS. So yes, why are we checking out all these other alpha bins... because that Canon is so big and ugly and heavy. The fun is always serious work. If only they could make smaller L binoculars.

kabsetz said:

EnjoyTheView,

I also have an early sample of the 10x42 SE, which I got in 1996 if I recall correctly, and a relatively recent Canon 10x42 IS L.

I have tested both binoculars quite extensively and used them in the field for hundreds of hours, and like you, I find the Canon view better in just about every regard. The only exception is boosted resolution tests on a tripod using bar targets, where one of the Nikon's barrels is just a tad sharper than the better barrel of my Canon. However, if I don't use the booster and view with my eyes, the Canon even resolves a little better for me.

I have tried just about all the alpha 10x binoculars, and would not trade the Canon for any of them.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

I have had my canon 10x42 L for a few weeks now and I think they are as good as any top birding binocular and better than some and that's before the I S is engaged.
suppressor

As "Enjoy the View" back in post #9 noted the Canon was one of his two goto optics "when weight and bulk is not a concern". That is probably one of the big reasons why it isn't more popular.

I had the opportunity to compare one with my Nikon 10x32 EDG I a couple of years ago at Cape May. A gentleman next to me had one and he was very happy with it but his wife did not like it. She did like it after I explained to him that she was not wearing glasses like he was and I showed him how to extend the eye cups on it. After that she liked it.

Anyway I found the IS to be very impressive. Ergonomically the rest of the binocular was pedestrian at best; heavy and awkward to use; but I had to sit down and brace my elbows on the railing to get the same kind of view with my Nikon.

Bob

Thank you for your review EnjoyTheView, I really like my recently acquired 10x42SE, their color rendition is not quite to the level of Swarovski Habicht 8x30 but they are a pleasure to hold and really shine tripod mounted.

Birdrousta, I find the 10x42SE to have quite a bit of focus past infinity, much more so than the 12x50SE which really don t have much

haz3, we have a pair in the house now, which I bought for my partner for Christmas. she really likes them, and when we had guests in the house last month, they were the "oh, wow!" binoculars. they have about four d of useful focus travel, I would guess - for me, without glasses, I find myself ramming into the focuser stop. so, I can bring them to focus, sort of, but they are hers.

they really are excellent, though.

That's a very nice gift, one that can definitely generate lots of "Wow!"
I ll mesure the 12x50SE sometime but if the 10x42 can go 4d past infinity, I m gona ballpark guess the 12s are 1 to 1.5d

it took her awhile to believe I hadn't bought them for me and handed them down when I found I couldn't use them.

she chilled out when I showed her my correspondence with the seller, verifying the cosmetic condition before purchase as they were to be a gift for someone who prefers 10x and has better eyesight than I...

even so she enlisted my assistance with putting up some poorly-advised track shelving.