Nikon EDG series (1 Viewer)

Steve C said:

Imagine a Swarovski EL slamming into a wall. The impact both shortens the tubes and increases the diameter of the tube. It seems shorter than the EL and fatter too. I hope that explains it. I simply did not like the way it felt. The Venturer, LX and LXL have that same sort of fat feeling for me too, but not quite as bad as the EDG. Other than that purely personal preference as to the ergonomics, the optics seemed fine, certainly alpha quality, but I did not think the image was any better than the now newly renamed Premier series at the same Nikon booth. Maybe a bit more neutral color bias.

The gel pads seemed fine. There did seem to be more room between the barrels in the EDG than the Promaster. That is about the only ergonomic shortfall I see in the Promaster. However even in the Peregrine XP, I can't put a hand around each barrel without staggering my fingers. I would prefer the Promaster type style was a three finger gap as opposed to a two finger spacing. I would personally ban finger indents on binoculars.

Click to expand...

Steve,

Thanks for that explanation.

I found the Promasters to be too long, so an open-bridged roof with a shorter body would appeal to me.

I also like the "fatter" LX/LX L bodies (full sized models) since they fit my hands better than slimline roofs, which don't have enough surface to grip, or midsized roofs, which are not only too short (my palms overshoot the barrels), but also two narrow.

It's not just about comfort - if I can't grip a bin comfortably, I will see more shakes.

Despite being "fat" the fact that the EDG has more space between the barrels than the Promasters is welcomed news.

If you can't get your fingers btwn the barrels of an open bridged roof, that defeats their purpose (ala the Monarch X).

You made an interesting observation about the optics of the EDG vs. the Premier LX (the artist formerly known as LX L .

As far as I can tell, the LX L and the Premier LX are the same bins, just relabeled, for reasons I speculated about earlier.

Being sensitive to CA, I would expect to see a vast difference between the HG L and EDG in terms of CA control, as Fireform commented.

The other thing I would like to compare is if the ED glass and coatings provide better contrast in bright light vs. the HG L.

With the HG L, the contrast can be overwhelmed by the brightness of the coatings, which were apparently designed for low light performance.

Details get washed out in the HG L if the object you are viewing has a high albedo.

The HG L also has lead free glass, which has a lower refractive index than lead glass, so the coatings might have been made to compensate for this, but they went a little too far.

And the colors are also skewed warmer. Reds are orangy, blues are purplish.

The original Venturers showed more realistic colors and better contrast in bright light. I would also expect that from the EDG PLUS significantly better CA control and better low light performance.

The price is my greatest concern. Even though Zeiss and Leica have been charging well over $1,000 for years for their roofs, and even though the HGL had a retail price of $1,400, it could be found for around $1,000.

For $1,800, I would probably expect more from a bin than it could deliver.

I was disappointed in spending half that much for the 10x42 HGL. My $300 8x30 EII gives better images.

I figure once the EDG is widely circulated, I might pick one up for $1,300 used (without the original box .

That's still $1,000 more than my EII. Granted, it will be much more robustly built, WP/FP, and have ED glass, but if the image isn't significantly better than my EII, and worth the trade off for a less 3-D effect, I will find it hard to justify purchasing one, even if my 201k turns back into a 401k.

Thanks again,
Brock

ND Hunter does have a point ...

My "engineering" comments perhaps should have had a smiley too. As the Birding review (of the prototype EDG ... everyone commented on the diopter problem) made a similar comment in a photo caption ("over-engineered").

I do like some hard rainguards (like Pentax and Zeiss used) but the EDG rainguard is big and rather heavy and when it dangled by the side of the bin it does "clank" when the bin is moved. I used it on my Zeiss Victory 8x40 as it was a fit and that was missing a cover). Its much more noisy than any other cover I've used.

Has anyone tried a shipped EDG with eyeglasses they might comment on the excessive eye relief issues that are brought up. This varies from person to person but kidney-beaning is very annoying especially for an expensive new bin. After market O-rings, anyone

Kevin Purcell said:

ND Hunter does have a point ...

My "engineering" comments perhaps should have had a smiley too. As the Birding review (of the prototype EDG ... everyone commented on the diopter problem) made a similar comment in a photo caption ("over-engineered").

I do like some hard rainguards (like Pentax and Zeiss used) but the EDG rainguard is big and rather heavy and when it dangled by the side of the bin it does "clank" when the bin is moved. I used it on my Zeiss Victory 8x40 as it was a fit and that was missing a cover). Its much more noisy than any other cover I've used.

Has anyone tried a shipped EDG with eyeglasses they might comment on the excessive eye relief issues that are brought up. This varies from person to person but kidney-beaning is very annoying especially for an expensive new bin. After market O-rings, anyone

Click to expand...

The eyecups twist out far enough to avoid that problem, at least in my case.

My take on the ocular guard is that it snaps in place firmly enough to stay put yet pops off instantly when you want it off. It's very clever. It's also noisy depending on how you use it, but IMO the pluses outweigh the minuses. If I were hunting with them I'd just put them in my pocket.

Fireform said:

The eyecups twist out far enough to avoid that problem, at least in my case.

My take on the ocular guard is that it snaps in place firmly enough to stay put yet pops off instantly when you want it off. It's very clever. It's also noisy depending on how you use it, but IMO the pluses outweigh the minuses. If I were hunting with them I'd just put them in my pocket.

Click to expand...

How about the focuser? Does it pop open in use?
John

Fireform said:

The eyecups twist out far enough to avoid that problem, at least in my case.

My take on the ocular guard is that it snaps in place firmly enough to stay put yet pops off instantly when you want it off. It's very clever. It's also noisy depending on how you use it, but IMO the pluses outweigh the minuses. If I were hunting with them I'd just put them in my pocket.

Click to expand...

ABS Plastic, good for hard hats or such, not good for binoculars, I don't care
how well it may be designed. Have you used them for a good test?

John Traynor said:

How about the focuser? Does it pop open in use?
John

Click to expand...

The focuser does not move easily when in use, but it can slide as in moving it
along on the car seat, it can be moved, and that can be an annoyance. It appears to me after some experience with the EDG, that a re-engineer on the
focuser is quite involved, so it has not been done yet. From what I have gathered when looking at early reviews from some birding groups months ago, that Nikon may have waited before full distribution to correct this. Optics though are very good. Hopefully there will be a recall or fix to this later.

Fireform said:

The eyecups twist out far enough to avoid that problem, at least in my case.

My take on the ocular guard is that it snaps in place firmly enough to stay put yet pops off instantly when you want it off. It's very clever. It's also noisy depending on how you use it, but IMO the pluses outweigh the minuses. If I were hunting with them I'd just put them in my pocket.

Click to expand...

My take on the ocular guard is that it is not acceptable, ABS plastic may be
a good thing when making "hard hats" but not for this purpose. Keep it simple
by going with a simple rubber style, or softer plastic. Design good, material bad!

The focus knob does slide up and expose the diopter correction too easily. I think you could adapt to this if you used them regularly, but to me it's the only real design flaw.

Kevin,

Your comments about the ocular cover have me thinking of the newer Swarovski versions. They seem similar by your description.

....

In my limited use of the 10x42 EDGs I did not note any problems with blackouts. I would assume they would have slightly less eye relief than the 8x42 and 7x42s though if they follow the pattern of most other bins. Those configurations might suffer from that issue especially if there aren't any intermediate eyecup stops.

FrankD said:

Kevin,

Your comments about the ocular cover have me thinking of the newer Swarovski versions. They seem similar by your description.

....

In my limited use of the 10x42 EDGs I did not note any problems with blackouts. I would assume they would have slightly less eye relief than the 8x42 and 7x42s though if they follow the pattern of most other bins. Those configurations might suffer from that issue especially if there aren't any intermediate eyecup stops.

Click to expand...

Frank:

As far as the eyestops on the EDG, there are "2" intermediate eyestops between closed and fully open where I use these, as I don't wear glasses. I would think those settings should be adequate for glass wearers. I have been using the 10x42 daily for the past week, have got used to them and I really like these.

Fireform said:

The focus knob does slide up and expose the diopter correction too easily. I think you could adapt to this if you used them regularly, but to me it's the only real design flaw.

Click to expand...

How would you "adapt" to this in normal use?

John Traynor said:

How would you "adapt" to this in normal use?

Click to expand...

I think I could get into the habit of tapping it down if I needed to. It should have a detent keeping it from sliding up easily, though, no question.

NDhunter said:

The focuser does not move easily when in use, but it can slide as in moving it
along on the car seat, it can be moved, and that can be an annoyance. It appears to me after some experience with the EDG, that a re-engineer on the
focuser is quite involved, so it has not been done yet. From what I have gathered when looking at early reviews from some birding groups months ago, that Nikon may have waited before full distribution to correct this. Optics though are very good. Hopefully there will be a recall or fix to this later.

Click to expand...

Yes, they were supposed to correct this problem before the first production run.

So that would mean either you have a prototype or that Nikon ran the first production of EDG bins without fixing the problem, as promised.

Even if you bought yours at a discount, a bin that retails for $2K should have everything working properly.

In fact, for that price, it should come with GPS, Bluetooth, and a mini-cam so you share images with other birders.

I actually saw wireless imaging devices attached to two Fujinon 7x50s. I posted that link on Cloudy Nights, but can't find it.

Can you imagine the utility of such devices?

"Say, Harold, are those Pine Siskins or Hoary Redpolls in that tree in back of you? I can't get a good bead on them from over here."

"Righteo, Humphrey, I'll take a gander and send you some images."

"Good show! They're Pine Siskins all right, there's a dash of yellow in their wings and tail. Thank you, old chum."

Now to the question I've been eager to ask, though since it's perceptual, I may not find out the answer until I try an EDG myself.

Do you see the "rolling ball effect" while panning with the EDG?

I found the full-sized HGs to have the worst "rolling ball effect" of any bins I've used. There's no pincushion to smooth out the image, which seems like an odd design choice for a birding bin.

The midsized models have pincushion, but not the full sized HGs/HGLs.

Some people don't see this, others see it and adapt to it, and then there's me, who after two months of looking through the 10x42 HG was still distracted by the images rolling over the surface of a barrel. Even the night sky looked spherical. The 10x42 HG L was the same.

I was hoping that Nikon would add pincushion to the full sized EDG models, but from Henry Link's review of the 7x42 EDG, it doesn't appear they did.

Brock

Brock,

I did not notice it in looking at the 10x42 EDG briefly. I was looking for it based on your earlier comments. Take that with a grain of salt though. I barely noticed it in the 10x42 Venturer.

Brock or Frank:
Need some more explanation about the "Rolling Ball Effect". Could you explain this some
more, I do not know how to look for this. Others are probably wondering the same thing.

The Rolling Ball Effect is caused by a specific type of edge "distortion". Even if you are not overly susceptable to it you can still notice it by panning across large open areas. The edges seem to cause the image to "roll" as you pan.

If you are susceptible to it it will be unmistakable when you experience it. If you aren't susceptible, forget it! You wouldn't train yourself to see chromatic aberrations if you never saw them before, would you?
Bob

Here is another review on the EDG. Interesting reading. Note the torture test, these things must be very rugged


http://featheredgeoptics.com/index.htm

I presume your talking about Peter Dunne dropping the bins, then throwing them into a waste paper bin and throwing them high onto soil.

Previously mentioned and quoted on ...

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=124418

under "Never buy review bins"

I presume your talking about Peter Dunne dropping the bins, then throwing them into a waste paper bin and throwing them high onto soil.

Previously mentioned and quoted on ...

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=124418

File under "Never buy review bins"