A question about the Nikon Premier 8x32 Roofs (1 Viewer)

henry link said:

I'm doubtful that the allbinos light transmission measurements are completely reliable. Notice, for instance, that according to their measurements the Nikon 8x32 with the highest transmission is not the SE or the EDG, but the LX-L. That's the one with silver prism coating and 18 glass surfaces.

I'm also doubtful about the accuracy of Brock's low light observations of the SE and EII. A 32mm objective has a light gathering area about 13.8% larger than a 30mm objective. If the eye is open wide enough to accept the full exit pupil of the larger objective, then 13.8% more light will enter the eye from the 32mm binocular, if the light transmission of the two binoculars is equal. Even if we use the 87% low point of the allbino's transmission curve for the SE, the EII would need to transmit 100.8% of the light that falls on the objective just to equal the brightness of the SE in low light.

Finally, I have to agree with Rick that light transmission that is still state of the art was first achieved about 25 years ago in certain Fujinon and Nikon Porro prism binoculars. Other companies and roof prism binoculars played catch up for a long time, but still haven't significantly surpassed the light transmission of Fujinon EBC coatings and similar Nikon coatings of the mid 1980's.

Click to expand...

Henry,

I should know better than quote allbinos' with you lurking in these forums, shouldn't I?

If I hadn't seen the difference with my own eyes, I would have doubted it too so I don't blame you for being skeptical. Too bad I still don't have the SE, I would have sent it to you with my EII to compare yourself.

The difference in brightness btwn the 505 8x32 SE sample and the 501 8x30 EII sample wasn't splitting hairs, it was easily discernible.

Even my neighbor who is a birder but not an optics junkie noticed the difference. I handed her the EII and the SE and asked her, which do you think is brighter. She went back and forth a couple times and said the EII. It was a dim, overcast day.

I've learned from my "hands on" experience with bins over the years that what works out on "paper" doesn't always work in actual use. Why this is, I don't know. Part could be due to sample variation. My current 8x EII is definitely better than my first sample.

However, as far as I could tell, there was nothing abnormal about the SE. No fogging, no fungus, no significant dirt on the lenses, no missing coatings (like there was on the 10x42 HG I bought), no occluded exit pupils, nothing I could find that would account for the difference in brightness with the EII due to sample variation.

Also keep in mind that you have an early model SE (500) and the light curve may be different than the 505 model, which has different coatings. My 501 held up better against the EII. If there's any credence to allbino's 8x SE light curve, it's not the total light transmission that makes the difference, but the parts of the spectrum where that transmission is boosted and lowered.

You make a good point about allbinos' transmission number for the 10x HGL, which they list as 91% and the 10x EDG as 88.5%. I don't know how many glass surfaces the EDG has, but you would expect the AR coatings to be at least as good and the dielectric prism coatings to boost transmission above the silver coated HGL's.

However, Allbinos claims that "The transmission value [for the 10x42 HGL], measured by us, coincide almost perfectly within the margin of error with the data provided by the manufacturer. Again results that vary from what you would expect. I think your nitpick here would be that "margin of error".

The HGL's apparent brightness is high, and as I mentioned, the brightness overwhelms details on brightly lit objects. Allbinos doesn't give a light transmission curve for that bin, but it might be that it trumps the 8x32 SE in the 450nm to 600nm range, which led them to say about the 10x42 HGL:

"Good coatings really do a fantastic job ...We are really impressed!

In any case, there you have two opinions that coincide about the brightness of the 8x32 SE, one an amateur's and the other "experts," and it's no surprise that you don't accept either one since the "numbers don't add up". Although, I'm surprised you didn't include your own observations with your SE and EII. Not the same coatings, but at least I would have respected that more having the "accuracy" of my observations being "doubted" on calculations alone.

The results are not what I had expected either, but I didn't make my observations casually. I made them over a year's time under different lighting conditions, and the results were always the same.

Just reporting what I saw. Two eyeballs, two bins. YMMV.

Brock

All of which brings us to the question of transmission vs. perception. Is it possible that transmitted energy is lower but perceived brightness is higher (or visa-versa)? Within limits I would say it is possible (perhaps likely), because: (1) the visual sensitivity function weights the output spectrum and influences perception, and (2) retinal adaptation is constantly shaping the sensitivity function.

A third issue is that perceived brightness is more difficult to isolate, measure and understand than might be thought. The psychophysical JND (Just Noticeable Difference) for brightness is widely accepted as ~8% (Weber constant) based on random two-point, forced choice comparisons, with 75% correct being the cutoff criterion. Tachistoscopic methods might produce a somewhat smaller JND (I'm not sure), but it is essential that the observer receive visual stimulation in unpredictable sequences and locations. Otherwise it's not possible to distinguish what the observer actually sees from what he would like to see (i.e., bias) based on prior knowledge.

If the two light sources are not balanced for spectral content, brightness comparison becomes even more difficult to measure. Which brings us back to binoculars with different coatings and, hence, different output spectra.

Although I share Henry's skepticism about Allbinos transmission curves, it's doubtful that a reconciliation can be made between transmission facts and perceptual effects without taking both the optics and the eye into consideration simultaneously. Ignoring one side or the other is not very insightful (IMO).

Brock, I really like your color chart description since it can be used by different observers to compare their color impressions. Mine correspond with yours quite a lot for the LX L and SE.

Ed

EIIs *are* bright for 30mm objectives, but I think part of the perception of brightness is the FOV. I wonder what an EII with an SE fieldstop would look like?

David

David Swain said:

EIIs *are* bright for 30mm objectives, but I think part of the perception of brightness is the FOV. I wonder what an EII with an SE fieldstop would look like?

David

Click to expand...

Hiya David, I've often wondered this when important stuff isn't occupying my limited mental capacties. When I had EII and SE, the EII seemed brighter, but that may have been because the greater FOV admitted....a greater amount of light. For many non-light related reasons, I prefer my EII's. (And I'm still embarrassed by your very flattering signature - I don't think anyone has ever considered anything I've said to be quotable!)

I have another comment here about the brightness of the Nikons. I recently tested the
8x30 EII, and the 8x32 SE, along with my Swaro. 8x30 CL, and for testing brightness, I find
it best to test in low light, near dark, as many do.
I also found the 8x30 EII, to seem brighter, as in better contrast, and able to discern
a target object, better than the SE. The CL was much the same as the EII, brighter than
the SE.
I still prefer the SE, over the EII, in other ways, as in ergos. It is much easier to grasp and
handle, the strap hangs better, etc. I agree that it doesn't seem like the 8x30 should beat
the 8x32 but it seems to for me. I think the Nikon magic was working well when both of
these binoculars were designed! Is there a better value for your money than either of these?
I don't think so.

Jerry

Can we agree about the three images juxtaposed below? They are crops of the same area of a piece of lined paper photographed through three Nikon binoculars just after sunset tonight. The paper was taped to the north wall of my house and no changes were made to the camera settings between photos. Which one is brighter?

Sancho said:

Hiya David, I've often wondered this when important stuff isn't occupying my limited mental capacties. When I had EII and SE, the EII seemed brighter, but that may have been because the greater FOV admitted....a greater amount of light. For many non-light related reasons, I prefer my EII's. (And I'm still embarrassed by your very flattering signature - I don't think anyone has ever considered anything I've said to be quotable!)

Click to expand...

Hi Sancho,

I've seriously considered replacing your sage words with "given these facts, it is safe to assume," but I'm waiting for the facts to materialize first. Or maybe "I don't buy second tier?"

Regarding EII brightness, I went to an optics fair today to look through some other tubes with glass. I'm not experienced evaluating binoculars, but to my eyes virtually all the alpha 8x30/32s were a shade brighter than my EIIs if I only considered an object at the center of the FOV; but when I took into account how expansive the EIIs were the difference in brightness--while it did not disappear--seemed subjectively lessened and comparatively unimportant. The EIIs, as you said, simply seem to give mor visual information. 8x32FLs and 8x32ELs, in particular, just had a brilliance my EIIs lacked (I really love the 8x32EL), and even the new 8x30CLs were comparably brighter (but with a pretty pedestrian view, IMHO). The difference in brightness, of course, became most pronounced compared to the 42mm bins. Sadly the Nikon rep had brought nothing interesting (claiming samples could not be had because of the earthquake--how long will that reason last?) so I was not able to look at LX/Ls or Edge. The rep also opined that "only 2 or 3 people in the world know if SEs have been discontinued," which I took to mean that she didn't have a clue. The Swaro rep, Clay Taylor, saw my bins and said, "people who know optics know that you can really make a great porro; those are really good, really good glass." I repeat, that was the Swaro representative.

In any case, I've looked at Henry's dastardly, devilish demonstration, so I'll vote (from left to right): E, EII, SE.

David

henry link said:

Can we agree about the three images juxtaposed below? They are crops of the same area of a piece of lined paper photographed through three Nikon binoculars just after sunset tonight. The paper was taped to the north wall of my house and no changes were made to the camera settings between photos. Which one is brighter?

Click to expand...

I would say the panels appear progressively brighter from left to right.

Ed

henry link said:

Can we agree about the three images juxtaposed below? They are crops of the same area of a piece of lined paper photographed through three Nikon binoculars just after sunset tonight. The paper was taped to the north wall of my house and no changes were made to the camera settings between photos. Which one is brighter?

Click to expand...

Henry:

A couple of questions. What color was the paper, and did you have the camera set to black and white?

It seems like this is a test for the students.

Jerry

Henry

Like Ed said - darkest on left - brightest on right. What are the 3 binos? And how long of time elapsed between the 3 pictures, as they obviously can't be taken simutaneously, so the last one would have been taken in a darker period?

Tom

Henry, perhaps I am not interpreting/using my photo software correctly but a histogram seems to show all 3 panels have nearly identical luninosity or brightness, with only the hue changing. In particular the left panel seems to handle the blue channel "differently".

Was the exposure exif data (shutter speed, ISO, and aperture) the same for each?

David Swain said:

EIIs *are* bright for 30mm objectives, but I think part of the perception of brightness is the FOV. I wonder what an EII with an SE fieldstop would look like?

David

Click to expand...

David,

When I first noticed the marked difference in brightness btwn the two Nikons, my first thought was, well, it must be due to EII's FOV being larger. You get more background light around your target and like a back-lit button on a camera, your eyes "stop down," which improves your acuity so you see more detail.

I decided to "control" for that factor by switching eyecups btwn the EII and SE. The eyecups have the same diameter and fit either bin. Having deep-set eyes, I can't see the entire FOV with the SE unless I really dig into the eyecups. If I just rest the eyecups on my face, I lose a full degree. If I dig in too far, I experience the infamous image blackouts, so I've learned to push in just so far that I can at least get a bit over 7* FOV with the 8x SE.

When I switched the eyecups, I could see the entire FOV of the 8x SE with the EII's eyecups since the bridge of my nose didn't block the shorter eyecups.

With the SE's eyecups on the EII just resting on my face, I lost a degree FOV, so I was down to 7.8* for the EII vs. 7.5* for the SE. Close to the same.

Then I did my low light tests again, and much to my chagrin, the SE was still not as bright as the EII!

Brock

NDhunter said:

I have another comment here about the brightness of the Nikons. I recently tested the
8x30 EII, and the 8x32 SE, along with my Swaro. 8x30 CL, and for testing brightness, I find
it best to test in low light, near dark, as many do.
I also found the 8x30 EII, to seem brighter, as in better contrast, and able to discern
a target object, better than the SE. The CL was much the same as the EII, brighter than
the SE.
I still prefer the SE, over the EII, in other ways, as in ergos. It is much easier to grasp and
handle, the strap hangs better, etc. I agree that it doesn't seem like the 8x30 should beat
the 8x32 but it seems to for me. I think the Nikon magic was working well when both of
these binoculars were designed! Is there a better value for your money than either of these?
I don't think so.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

Try switching the eyecups, that is, put EII eyecups on the SE and SE's on the EII. Even though your eyes are probably not set back as far as mine and Sam's, the SE eyecups on the EII will put you a bit farther from the EPs and reduce the FOV. You could just hold your eyes back from the EPs, but you might go too far back and get out of the light cone and reduce the brightness.

If you control it right by resting the eyecups on your cheeks/bridge of your nose, you might be able to get the FOV btwn the two bins close to the same. Find a fixed frame of reference such as a barn so you have some vertical lines to compare. I used the pavilion in the park across from my house for reference.

Then do the low light tests again and see if the EII still looks brighter.

Also, are you comparing the 504 SE or 550?

Brock

Just curious. Has anyone seen brightness/transmission test results done in an optics lab so to speak? Or, is the discussion of this based on differnt sets of eyeballs?

First some answers to questions:

The paper is white.

I made the photos as quickly as possible, less than a minute apart, but I also made them in an order to favor the least bright binocular.

The histogram on my Nikon D40 does appear to show an increase in luminosity if I'm interpreting it correctly. The hues are different but all channels shift to the right for the brighter panels. The camera settings were the same for all three photos, manual exposure (1/30 second, ISO 800) with the white balance set for shade. Of course, the SE panel has an increase in effective aperture because of the larger objective lens.

The three binoculars are: Nikon 8x30 E with single layer coating on the left, Nikon 8x30 E II in the middle and Nikon 8x32 SE on the right. David Swain got it right.

Thats all I have time for now. I'll post more later.

Henry

Rick,

Here are the histograms. Turns out I saw them on the computer, in iPhoto rather than on the camera, so I made screen shots of them. 8x30 E at top, 8x30 EII middle, 8x32 SE bottom. I know next to nothing about histograms, but I assume moving from left to right means "brighter", at least that's the way it looks in photos, underexposed toward the left, overexposed toward the right.

Taking photos through the binocular eyepiece is similar to the "photo method" I use sometimes to compare brightness and color bias. For that method I shoot through the objective end so that exit pupil size won't affect the brightness. In this case I wanted the effect of the SE's larger exit pupil to show.

When I look through these three binoculars in daylight I see a somewhat dim image with a pronounced yellow bias through the 8x30 E, a brighter image with a slight red bias through the 8x30 EII and a slightly brighter image with a very slight red bias through the 8x32 SE. In low light the SE is comfortably brighter than the other two, just as you would expect. No anomalies to report here.

Henry

Henry,

I'm not familiar with those histograms not sure how to interpret them. When I looked at the first three shots, I thought the first image had a slight green bias, and the other two blue, but I don't think my screen rendition is neutral. Is that what you see in the originals?

The difference in brightness appears obvious (or should that be luminocity?) I'm sure I've read somewhere that the eye is most sensitive to intensity at about 550nm and that would seem to make sense, but it doesn't quite sit quite right with the impression I get when comparing pairs. Those with a strongest blue performance seem to give the appearance of being brighter even though in many cases I know they are not. I'm wondering if colour temperature plays more important part than we realise. I may not be understanding those histograms correctly, but wouldn't the EII have the highest colour temperature and the E the lowest?

David

David,

As I said I know next to nothing about histograms, but maybe the odd colors could be related to the intentional underexposure or maybe the white balance setting of "shade" was inappropriate. It just seemed like the closest thing on the menu.

I made the photos below while experimenting with the idea earlier in the day. It was partly cloudy, so the brightness kept changing as the sun came and went, but the color bias differences look pretty close to what I see.

Henry

brocknroller said:

Jerry,

Try switching the eyecups, that is, put EII eyecups on the SE and SE's on the EII. Even though your eyes are probably not set back as far as mine and Sam's, the SE eyecups on the EII will put you a bit farther from the EPs and reduce the FOV. You could just hold your eyes back from the EPs, but you might go too far back and get out of the light cone and reduce the brightness.

If you control it right by resting the eyecups on your cheeks/bridge of your nose, you might be able to get the FOV btwn the two bins close to the same. Find a fixed frame of reference such as a barn so you have some vertical lines to compare. I used the pavilion in the park across from my house for reference.

Then do the low light tests again and see if the EII still looks brighter.

Also, are you comparing the 504 SE or 550?

Brock

Click to expand...

Brock:

I did my testing with the ser. # 504, SE 8x32. My new 550 has been tucked away.

I may try to do some more testing this week, and see if the latest coatings on
the SE make any difference here. I know I noticed the coatings color changes when I first inspected the 550.

I don't know what to make of the photos of Henrys. I only know what I see
with my own eyes, and the EII seemed better able to view objects at low light.
It seems Sancho found much the same.
I wonder if it is a color bias in the coatings, much like the transmission curves put on transmission differences.
Allbinos uses a spectophotometer, to test transmission, and the website explains their testing methods, from 380-900 nm. I have studied the results on some binoculars I own, and can agree with the results.

Jerry

Henry, thanks for elaborating. Further study this morning indicates an error on my part in analyzing a composite jpeg instead of the individual frames. I was puzzled about the hue differences between frames being optics related but with a modified white balance plus effects of the Nikon Picture Control settings (I assume) on the jpeg output makes further histogram study a wasted effort I think.

Anyway, I think if anything is "clear" from the follow-up posts it is that physical measurements seldom agree 100% with PERCEIVED vision across individuals. Like I mentioned in a previous post, the research seems to indicate a difference up to a 1 mag range of perception in brightness in human vision. Combined with all our other individual vision quirks I suppose that is why OEMs for consumer imaging devices like TVs and cameras include custom controls for brightness, contrast, hue and saturation!