Don't forget the Swarovski Habicht. o
For the Habichts, the water-proofing specifications are the same as for the other Swaros (which are the same as for all Zeisses!).
T
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nikon SE 8x32 vs. Zeiss Victory FL 7x42 T* ??? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BobinKy
- Start date
Don't forget the Swarovski Habicht. o
For the Habichts, the water-proofing specifications are the same as for the other Swaros (which are the same as for all Zeisses!).
T
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
Did not know Swarovski made porros...would you know of an English website with specs/details etc.?
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Keep in mind that the resolution issue here is of no practical significance. Both the 7x42FL and the 8x32SE are fine binos that resolve much better than the eye can see. Because the SE is 8x, it will allow, under most circumstances, a user to see more detail than the 7x FL.
--AP
--AP
Wow Henry how did you come up with 3 diopters of field curvature! I have read other tests which I feel were done more professionally and the Nikon SE always has almost non-existent field curvature. I don't really think your bench tests are that accurate and should not be considered the ultimate test of a binoculars performance. I can SEE the Nikon SE does not have that much field curvature. Here is an extensive tests of several different binoculars and they concluded that "The Nikon SE8x32 has the least, almost immeasurable, field curvature" among the binoculars tested. Also, the coatings are more than fine they are some of the best there is and that is baloney about stray light resistant being average. Here is a link to the tests:
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1772
Dennis
"That said though with modern AR, dielectric mirror and phase coatings there is little effective difference between the two in terms of transmission but roof prism components are more expensive to make because they have to be made to higher tolerances or require additional coatings."
Well said but not true in actual light transmission testing. In some government testing for light transmission in binoculars some $200.00 porro prisms outperformed the Alpha roofs. Sadly even the Steiner 7x50 Marine and Tasco Waterproof 322BW had better light transmission than the Swarovski and Zeiss (96.4% and 95%). The best performing roofs were the Zeiss FL 10x56 and the Swarovski SL 10x50 at 93.3% light transmission while some porros like the Nikon Prostar were at 97.5% light transmission. It is a fact that porros are more efficient at transmitting light. Nikon 8x32 SE's are as bright as a lot of 8x42 roofs. Here is a link to the summation of the article.
http://www.photography-equipment.org/lens_light_transmission_efficiency_vs_brightness_63770.htm
Dennis
Dennis,
The home page of the link you cite above (www.photography-equipment.org) has a lot of Bird Forum Threads noted in it.
Bob
The home page of the link you cite above (www.photography-equipment.org) has a lot of Bird Forum Threads noted in it.
Bob
henry link
Well-known member
Thanks for the link, Dennis. I've read Ed's reviews.
Notice that Ed doesn't actually measure field curvature in those reviews. Anybody, including you, can measure the field curvature of the 8x32 SE quite easily, because the right eyepiece diopter adjustment hash marks are at approximately 1 diopter increments. To measure the field curvature simply place an object at the bottom edge of the field of the right side and carefully focus using only the right eye. Then, still using only the right eye, move the object to the center and carefully refocus using the diopter adjustment ring, not the center focus knob. Now count how many hash marks difference there is between focus at the edge and focus at the center.
I used the word "fine" for the excellent Nikon coatings just to indicate that the coatings are no problem. What limits the 8x32 SE's resistance to stray light is a partly unbaffled objective edge. The photo below shows the exit pupil of an 8x32 SE taken at twilight. The binocular is pointing into dark foliage with skylight coming from above and to the right. The bright crescent of reflection at the lower left edge of the exit pupil comes from the exposed objective cell. That much reflection is not so bad compared to most binoculars, but it's not superior either. The Nikon 8x30 EII has a better baffled objective than the 8x32 SE and consequently shows less veiling glare under the same conditions of stray light.
Notice that Ed doesn't actually measure field curvature in those reviews. Anybody, including you, can measure the field curvature of the 8x32 SE quite easily, because the right eyepiece diopter adjustment hash marks are at approximately 1 diopter increments. To measure the field curvature simply place an object at the bottom edge of the field of the right side and carefully focus using only the right eye. Then, still using only the right eye, move the object to the center and carefully refocus using the diopter adjustment ring, not the center focus knob. Now count how many hash marks difference there is between focus at the edge and focus at the center.
I used the word "fine" for the excellent Nikon coatings just to indicate that the coatings are no problem. What limits the 8x32 SE's resistance to stray light is a partly unbaffled objective edge. The photo below shows the exit pupil of an 8x32 SE taken at twilight. The binocular is pointing into dark foliage with skylight coming from above and to the right. The bright crescent of reflection at the lower left edge of the exit pupil comes from the exposed objective cell. That much reflection is not so bad compared to most binoculars, but it's not superior either. The Nikon 8x30 EII has a better baffled objective than the 8x32 SE and consequently shows less veiling glare under the same conditions of stray light.
Attachments
Your tests just don't agree with what I see through the binoculars. I don't think your simplified field curvature test is valid but I will have to do some more research on it. I have had many many binoculars and the Nikon SE's have the least field curvature and some of the best stray light resistance I have seen. Stray light control Henry is not just a matter of baffles actually the coatings can be more important than the baffles and here is the Nikons strong point. Nikon has some of the best coatings in the industry and are a big factor in the SE's incredible performance. I believe Ed did test field curvature because the article infers that his results were based on testing not just observation. To quote him "This is one in a series of "Small Binocular"� reports that will detail and summarize all my findings from eight months of TESTS and MEASURES on over 30 binoculars. Sizes ranged from 7x50, 8x32 and 8x40 up to 8x42 and 10x42 roofs, 10x50, 10x60 and 12x50s". To me that says he TESTED the field curvature and was not basing his results on mere observation.
Dennis
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
Dennis,
When I said Ed didn't measure field curvature I meant that he didn't present measurements in diopters. The diopter is the standard unit of measurement for change in focus. A loss of resolution is not the same thing as a change in focus.
I imagine you and I see mostly the same thing through the SE, but I believe you're confusing low astigmatism with low field curvature. The SE has very low astigmatism at the field edge, less than 1 diopter difference between the sagittal and tangential foci. That's why the image can be brought to such a sharp focus at the edge.
Henry
When I said Ed didn't measure field curvature I meant that he didn't present measurements in diopters. The diopter is the standard unit of measurement for change in focus. A loss of resolution is not the same thing as a change in focus.
I imagine you and I see mostly the same thing through the SE, but I believe you're confusing low astigmatism with low field curvature. The SE has very low astigmatism at the field edge, less than 1 diopter difference between the sagittal and tangential foci. That's why the image can be brought to such a sharp focus at the edge.
Henry
Last edited:
No.Henry! I know the difference between the two and the Nikon SE's are low in both in areas. I am sure your field curvature measurements are incorrect. Maybe we can e-mail ED and see what methodology he used to measure field curvature and how he came up with the almost non-existent results for the SE.
Dennis
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I'm assuming the same coatings on porro and roof. In real life this varies but were talking about the difference in design for bins made with the same processes.
For an internal focusing porro and an internal focusing AK roof it's a draw: they have the same number of surfaces.
Small changes in AR coating transmission do have the biggest effect on overall transmission in either porros or roofs. The problem for porros is the top makers don't make them any more so you don't see their best AR coatings appearing there. So the modern top bin roofs transmission beat a decade old porro (like the Nikon SE).
The real difference today is in the cost not the performance.
Last edited:
Yes, they (still) do. the only that are optical permier league and water-tight:
http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/products/2
it should read: most top makers don't. One remains.
Actually Kevin I would think the Zeiss FL would have better coatings than a Tasco Porro Prism but the the Tasco still had better light transmission than the Zeiss(That's kind of funny almost isn't it a Trashco transmitting more light than a Zeiss). The big difference is in the more efficient light transmission of the porro design not just the coatings. Porros have better beam transfer than roofs. When a $200.00 porro transmits more light than a $2000.00 roof it has to be in the intrinsic design not the quality of the coatings or materials. An internal focusing porro will transmit more light than an internal focusing roof also. It is in the design!
Dennis
Last edited:
Henry
In Ed's review he really disagrees with you ,as far as , baffling and internal relections on the Nikon 8x32 SE. To quote"The Nikon SE binoculars are exceptionally well baffled and blackened. All internal metal is very dull gray. There is no bright metal between the objectives and the prisms. The objective cone has a stepped baffle that is near perfectly sized to the light cone between the objective and the prism aperture. The inner section of the objective cone wall is fine ribbed to prevent reflections on the inside of the wall. " And further on Nikon 8x32 SE coatings" SE coating technology is some of the finest available on the market today. All the Nikon SEs and Fujinon SX binocular have so little reflection from the coatings you have to look hard to see yourself in the objective lens. Coatings should not reflect light. Coatings that reflect more light have less light passing thru the lens." I also e-mailed Ed to see what testing method he used to come up with his lack of field curvature for the Nikon 8x32 SE's because it is so divergent from your results.
Dennis
FWIW, in my experience I was able to induce glare in my SEs more easily than either my Zeiss FLs or the 8x32 Nikon EDGs. They're good in this regard, but not the best.
Also FWIW, I don't mind a little glare. It's my cue that I'm sailing uncomfortably close to the sun.
Also FWIW, I don't mind a little glare. It's my cue that I'm sailing uncomfortably close to the sun.
I am curious though of the three binoculars which would you say are the brightest in low light conditions and are the Zeiss FL's 8x32 and which are the sharpest? These are three excellent binoculars! How do you like the EDG's and how much did you have to pay for them? Thanks!
Dennis
Last edited:
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
Interesting, and thanks. The specs come up on the site for 7x42 model, but not the others. Googled around a bit, does not appear to be a current retail source in the U.S., and , are they discontinued? The 8x30 model is very interesting to me.
If discontined, would that be it for high quality porros (with center focus), given the SE line is apparently discontinued?
Last edited:
for technical data, please see the attachment.
tech data is also given here:
http://www.acecameras.co.uk/asp/product.asp?product=10897&cat=1278&ph=&strShowBackLink=n
They are not discontinued.
I'll also have an 8x30 some time. I have compared it to an Ultravid 8x32 HD earlier this year, and I wasn't able to pick a winner in terms of optical quality.
