EII's or SE's better? (1 Viewer)

[email protected] said:

You are the first person that has said the optical qualities of the EII are not first rate! What area of the optics do you find second rate? I just can't see too many optical defects.

Click to expand...

My experience is that when looking in the "general" direction "towards" the area the sun is in the sky the EII seems to have more glare than the SE or the LX L. It might be that the age of the binoculars and their respective coatings are a factor here though. In any case, my conclusion is that the EII is an easier binocular to use than the SE. I can get onto a bird quicker with it. I like the overall picture that the SE gives me better than the EII though.
Bob

Kevin Purcell said:

Which rather shows the person at Nikon doesn't know what they're talking about.

They confuse brightness and intensity.

Both of these bins will be stopped down by your (say) 2.5 to 3mm entrance pupil of the eye (as you comment). Relative brightness in this case depends on transmission of the bin not size of the exit pupil (all that extra light doesn't make it into your eye and goes "to waste").

Back to the comment about why you find the 8x30 EII easier to center than the 8x32 SE. I don't think it's exit pupil size. I think it's exit pupil curvature.

I suspect the 8x30 EII is a bit more flat (or curved the conventional way ... more ER on axis less at the edge of the exit pupil). The SE's curvature is the "opposite way": more ER at the edge less on axis. I suspect that this and the rather unforgiving nature of the eyecups mean that if you don't "fit" the SEs you end up with a problem usually too much ER and blackouts.

Click to expand...

Kevin
Don't you think illumination would play a perhaps larger role in daytime brightness than light transmittance.

John Dracon said:

Dennis - My statement is somewhat convoluted. I believe the EII's optics are first rate.
Many people believe that highest quality goes with highest price. The EII's are a contradiction obviously to that belief. Ask a person who has the latest Swarovski if the EII matches up optically. I'll wager you will get no for an answer. But then the Swarovski is a status symbol. Regardless how good the EIIs are, how can any binocular which costs 75% less equal the high end stuff? But my question is rhetorical of course.
Any way, the EIIs have first rate optics as I said before but in a different way. John

Click to expand...

"Regardless how good the EIIs are, how can any binocular which costs 75% less equal the high end stuff? But my question is rhetorical of course."

They equal them quite easily and in most cases surpass them. It is done by using a much simpler and in many ways superior optical system called a porro-prism!

Sancho said:

It´s a really, really tough question. I have EII´s and SV´s. I don´t want a status-symbol (no, really), I wanted the best optics. I can attest that the SV´s are, IMHO, sharper and more "contrasty", with less flare in difficult conditions, and obviously better edge-sharpness and CA control than the EII´s. Does this make them the "better" optics? That depends on how one defines it. The EII´s are wider FOV, better 3D, almost as user-friendly as regards eye-placement, and almost as sharp. There are other non-optical considerations (weight, price, waterproofing, handling, after-sales service, etc.) that complicate the equation. Bottom line? I have tried to choose between one or t´other, and can´t, so for the moment will keep both.

Click to expand...

I disagree with the sharper and more contrasty after having compared the two and I thought the flare control was about equal. I felt the EII's were sharper than the SV's and in fact I have yet to see any roof prism that is quite as sharp as either the Nikon SE or the EII. I feel the EII's transmit more light than the SV because they seem a little brighter in the daytime. CA control is about equal in the two. I definitely see CA at the edge in the SV's even with the ED glass and I don't see it in the EII's. I see more CA in the SV's than my Zeiss 8x32 FL's for example. It is a testament to the EII's view that you are having a hard time deciding between the two though. I mean a $400.00 binocular against a $2400.00 binocular. Should be a no contest.

Yes, the EII´s seemed brighter in bright daylight, but I think this was a feature of the wider FOV - more bright space in the FOV (sorry, I don´t have the technical lingo for this). In low light, the SV bested them. As regards the pricing, you´re spot on - for 312 euro (currently from the HK dealer with whom I have no connection), the EII 8x30 is not to be sniffed at by those in search of absolutely top-class optics, for the price of....not so many pints of beer.

Dennis,

Kevin is right. The person at Nikon is either misinformed or perhaps didn't understand your question. I would suggest having another look at the illustrations in the Nikon link and think about them a bit. Maybe a light bulb will switch on.

Alas, this thread seems to be taking a familiar course.

So the conclusion is :

SE and EII series is one of the best bins we have in the world, grab it before it's too late hehehe and those who owned this bins is considered the luckiest to have enjoyed its wide FOV, sharper image and nice contrast :king:

Now I need the EDG

horukuru said:

So the conclusion is :

SE and EII series is one of the best bins we have in the world, grab it before it's too late hehehe and those who owned this bins is considered the luckiest to have enjoyed its wide FOV, sharper image and nice contrast :king:

Now I need the EDG

Click to expand...

Horukuru:

Now I am thinking you are quite an astute observer. You sir, would be right in
your evaluation.

Just think this is the 168th post on some lowly Nikon porros, that some do not find in fashion, but understand quality.

As far as the Nikon EDG goes, you mentioned the word "need". Now in this
world there are wants and needs, but you may know you don't need the EDG,
but you do "want" to try one.

It is unfortunate that Nikon did not introduce the EDG worldwide when they made
these available. But soon they will be.

Jerry

horukuru said:

So the conclusion is :

SE and EII series is one of the best bins we have in the world, grab it before it's too late hehehe and those who owned this bins is considered the luckiest to have enjoyed its wide FOV, sharper image and nice contrast :king:

Now I need the EDG

Click to expand...

I think it is profound that a 30mm binocular with high transmission like the EII can actually be brighter in the daylight than a 42mm roof-prism. So if you are a daylight birder it makes sense for weight and size convenience just to carry a high quality 30mm or 32mm porro-prism for a brighter view. Unless of course you often times use your binoculars at dusk then a 42mm would have an advantage. The 42mm would also have the advantage of easier eye placement and more eye relief though which is another consideration. Most tests I have read say there isn't any difference in resolving power between a 32mm and 42mm either so there is no advantage their either. Here is a quote from another thread:

"All of the binocular resolution testing I've performed using a film plotted resolution test chart and controlled lighting have made me reach this conclusion:
For binoculars of the same quality level (binoculars of the same class by the same manufacturer, or same rough price range by different manufacturers with VERY few exceptions), there do NOT seem to be any resolveable resolution differences between X42 and X32 configurations. In fact, I've even done resolution tests comparing X50 and X32 configurations, and in all but one case (where there was only 1 Arcsecond difference), there were also no discernable differences in measurable resolution.

henry link said:

Dennis,

Kevin is right. The person at Nikon is either misinformed or perhaps didn't understand your question. I would suggest having another look at the illustrations in the Nikon link and think about them a bit. Maybe a light bulb will switch on.

Alas, this thread seems to be taking a familiar course.

Click to expand...

I understand the illiustrations Henry and I understand what you are saying I just think there may be something else in the equation. Sorry, the thread isn't going the way you want it too. But I really can't control the direction of it. It seems by the replies and reads this has been a pretty popular thread. Thanks for your contributions! Your technical expertise and willingness to dissect binoculars expands our understanding of the inner workings of binoculars to a great extent.

[email protected] said:

I think it is profound that a 30mm binocular with high transmission like the EII can actually be brighter in the daylight than a 42mm roof-prism. So if you are a daylight birder it makes sense for weight and size convenience just to carry a high quality 30mm or 32mm porro-prism for a brighter view. Unless of course you often times use your binoculars at dusk then a 42mm would have an advantage. The 42mm would also have the advantage of easier eye placement and more eye relief though which is another consideration. Most tests I have read say there isn't any difference in resolving power between a 32mm and 42mm either so there is no advantage their either. Here is a quote from another thread:

"All of the binocular resolution testing I've performed using a film plotted resolution test chart and controlled lighting have made me reach this conclusion:
For binoculars of the same quality level (binoculars of the same class by the same manufacturer, or same rough price range by different manufacturers with VERY few exceptions), there do NOT seem to be any resolveable resolution differences between X42 and X32 configurations. In fact, I've even done resolution tests comparing X50 and X32 configurations, and in all but one case (where there was only 1 Arcsecond difference), there were also no discernable differences in measurable resolution.

Click to expand...

I think that birders have known for a long time just how useful good quality 30 and 32mm binoculars are in the field. The venerable 6x30 was replaced by the 8x30 and 8x32. And Nikon is probably best known for the stubby 8x30 birders bin that has been around for decades.

hello...^_^

anyone find out that Nikon EII have "tricky" focuser to achieve fine tuning?? ....hmm..|<|

best regards

Galih

gwsudiro said:

hello...^_^

anyone find out that Nikon EII have "tricky" focuser to achieve fine tuning?? ....hmm..|<|

best regards

Galih

Click to expand...

No|=)|

gwsudiro said:

hello...^_^

anyone find out that Nikon EII have "tricky" focuser to achieve fine tuning?? ....hmm..|<|

best regards

Galih

Click to expand...

No at all. The focusing speed is just right.

Paskman said:

No|=)|

Click to expand...

John S. said:

No at all. The focusing speed is just right.

Click to expand...

what??!! :eek!: must be only my EII...:-C

IMHO, 10x35 EII is not as sharp as Zeiss FL 10x32 (very noticeable to my eyes), but that EII, IMHO again, controls glare excellently...:-O

best regards ^_^

Galih

gwsudiro said:

what??!! :eek!: must be only my EII...:-C

IMHO, 10x35 EII is not as sharp as Zeiss FL 10x32 (very noticeable to my eyes), but that EII, IMHO again, controls glare excellently...:-O

best regards ^_^

Galih

Click to expand...

I will go with Arthur's definition of "sharpness" being resolution + contrast rather than merely resolution, and I may even amend that to + color saturation. If you see colors more vividly, the image seems sharper.

I have not seen a resolution comparison between the 10x32 FL and 10x35 EII, but it's quite possible that the difference you're perceiving is not in actual resolution but in the increased contrast and color saturation due to the better coatings and FL glass in the Zeiss.

An example where I noticed this was in comparing the 8x32 HG to an older model (~1998) 8x32 SE.

The SE was very "sharp" but when I compared them back to back, the HG appeared "sharper" because the more advanced coatings provided increased contrast and color saturation.

Colors were more vivid and subtle color variation more obvious whereas the colors in the SE were more like a gray scale whereby similar colors tended to blend together more easily.

When I compared the two bins using a resolution chart, I found that the HG was actually an element behind the SE.

So while the views through the HG seemed "sharper" it wasn't because the resolution was higher.

This might not be the case with the 10x32 FL vs. the 10x35 EII since the FLs are generally regarded as having the highest center field resolution among the alpha bins, but even if the two bins were on par in resolution, the FL would probably still appear "sharper" because of its superior contrast and color saturation.

The 10x32 configuration is not very popular and not all bin manufacturers carry that model, but from what I've read on the Web, the 10x32 FL seems to be the "best of the best". Here's a rave review:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_10_52/ai_n26970132/

The reviewer is a hunter. As an aside, I found these comments about birders very interesting:

"Apologies to this and other shooting magazines, but when I want to learn what's hot in binoculars I go to birding Web sites. These people really know. I do find it astonishing how foolishly people spend money. Birders think nothing of spending $1,600 on a binocular just to look at birds. Why, the same money could pay the trophy fee on an eland or kudu."

Or a trip to Borneo to watch exotic birds.

Brock

When I compared the two bins using a resolution chart, I found that the HG was actually an element behind the SE.

Click to expand...

How big a booster did you use in that test?

brocknroller said:

I will go with Arthur's definition of "sharpness" being resolution + contrast rather than merely resolution, and I may even amend that to + color saturation. If you see colors more vividly, the image seems sharper.

I
Or a trip to Borneo to watch exotic birds.

Brock

Click to expand...

Hello Brock,

I used to be an avid amateur photographer, working in black and white. No problem with colour saturation, there, but you make a valid point for users of binoculars.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

gwsudiro said:

what??!! :eek!: must be only my EII...:-C

IMHO, 10x35 EII is not as sharp as Zeiss FL 10x32 (very noticeable to my eyes), but that EII, IMHO again, controls glare excellently...:-O

best regards ^_^

Galih

Click to expand...

I have yet to see a roof-prism that is as sharp as a good porro-prism. Compare them again and use a resolution chart or some fine print at a distance. Look CLOSELY you will see the porro is sharper! I think Brocknroller has a good point in that better contrast and color saturation could be perceived as better sharpness. Zeiss FL's are very good roof prisms and if any roof could give a porro a run for the money it would be an FL. If you compare them with a resolution chart I think you will find the porro is just as good if not better than the FL. The contrast and color saturation could be slightly superior on the FL though.

Kevin Purcell said:

How big a booster did you use in that test?

Click to expand...

Kevin,

I've measured these two with a booster (to 64X). My 8x32 SE is exemplary for a binocular, about 3.9 arc seconds. The one 8x32 LX L I measured was OK, but not impressive. As I recall it was somewhere between 4.5 and 5 arc seconds.

Could it be you were alluding to the unreliability of "resolution" testing at low magnification? If so, I agree. It seems so natural to use resolution charts to compare binoculars, but beware, it's the viewer's wandering eyesight acuity pushed to it's limit that determines the result, not the binoculars (and that goes double if the binoculars are hand held). At 8x what the eye sees is essentially the smallest line pairs it can separate on an eye chart, divided by 8. At that same size of line pairs any decent binocular is loafing at a fraction of its true resolving power.

Henry