• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Why Not An 8x42 Nikon SE ??? (1 Viewer)

A

angelo225544

Well-known member
I have been spending alot of time behind my new 8x32 Nikon SE's. Much as I like them (and I like them alot) I can't help but wonder how superior (pun intended) an 8x42 SE might be. The extra millimeter of exit pupil diameter would be most welcome IMHO. The 8x32 has unquestionably the sharpest and brightest view available from a 32mm objective. But I think I may be keeping my 8x42 LX because the view is so much more effortless. I am hoping that someone in the know can explain why Nikon chose this relatively small objective diameter when a 42mm objective would seemingly not add much to size or weight but would add greatly to ease of view.

Angelo Todaro
 
If you read Mr. Ingraham's BVD review you will learn the answer. The most significant part of the whole design is the eyepiece. The same eyepiece is found in all three models and gives three different powers depending on the objective in front of it. To make the 8x42 you would have to mess with the already excellent design, which Nikon has chosen not to do. To make the 10x42 into the 8x version all they had to do was make the objective end smaller and shorter. The eyepiece is very complex (expensive) whereas the objective is less complex. It has to do with the focal length increasing along with the size of the objective, if you knew about astronomy gear it would be easier to understand. Someone else can probably explain it better.
 
eetundra said:
If you read Mr. Ingraham's BVD review you will learn the answer. The most significant part of the whole design is the eyepiece. The same eyepiece is found in all three models and gives three different powers depending on the objective in front of it. To make the 8x42 you would have to mess with the already excellent design, which Nikon has chosen not to do. To make the 10x42 into the 8x version all they had to do was make the objective end smaller and shorter. The eyepiece is very complex (expensive) whereas the objective is less complex. It has to do with the focal length increasing along with the size of the objective, if you knew about astronomy gear it would be easier to understand. Someone else can probably explain it better.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the explanation. I'm really just nitpicking because the 8x32 SE is about as close to optical perfection as I've seen - and I can't help but think an 8x42 SE (with adjustable eyecups) might be birding Nirvana!
 
Thank you for the explanation. I'm really just nitpicking because the 8x32 SE is about as close to optical perfection as I've seen - and I can't help but think an 8x42 SE (with adjustable eyecups) might be birding Nirvana!
Click to expand...

Keep in mind though that just about all of the 42 mm models of a given binocular have a narrower field of view when compared with the 32 mm version. There is always a tradeoff.
 
angelo225544 said:
I have been spending alot of time behind my new 8x32 Nikon SE's. Much as I like them (and I like them alot) I can't help but wonder how superior (pun intended) an 8x42 SE might be. The extra millimeter of exit pupil diameter would be most welcome IMHO. The 8x32 has unquestionably the sharpest and brightest view available from a 32mm objective. But I think I may be keeping my 8x42 LX because the view is so much more effortless. I am hoping that someone in the know can explain why Nikon chose this relatively small objective diameter when a 42mm objective would seemingly not add much to size or weight but would add greatly to ease of view.

Angelo Todaro
Click to expand...

I think there are several reasons.

Firstly all three SE binoculars (8x32, 10,42 and 12x10) share the same eyepieces and prism assembly, the difference being the objectives. By having shared components they can reduce the design and manufacturing costs. There would have been less design and tooling up costs (less moulds etc) and and since they probably make them in batches, they can order more of each component from suppliers and presumably get better discounts.

Secondly the 8x32 design requires smaller prisms than an 8x42 design. This is important as larger prisms would mean a larger prism housing, and hence a more bulky binocular. The 8x32 is not only optically superb (though some people experience blackouts), it is IMO ergonomically superb, being small and light, and easily used even by people like me who have smallish hands. An 8x42 would probably be quite bulky and I'm not sure I could use it easily as I would have difficulty wrapping my hands round the prisms to reach the focus wheel. Yes I could probably do it, but with less ease. It would also be heavier, perhaps much heavier.

Lastly, in daylight there would not be much advantage if any in terms of detail that you could see. The only advantage would be a larger exit pupil and I have to admit that would appeal to me.

So I don't think we will see an 8x42 soon. Sadly.

Leif
 
FrankD said:
Keep in mind though that just about all of the 42 mm models of a given binocular have a narrower field of view when compared with the 32 mm version. There is always a tradeoff.
Click to expand...

Frank, many times the FOV is very close for two related 32-42mm binoculars, say a 10x. Only in a few cases is the 32mm wider. Is the main advantage of a 42mm then brightness?

Also, does your rule apply to porros and roofs?
 
Last edited:
Frank, many times the FOV is very close for two related 32-42mm binoculars, say a 10x. Only in a few cases is the 32mm wider. Is the main advantage of a 42mm then brightness?

Also, does your rule apply to porros and roofs?
Click to expand...

Tero,

I guess that would depend on what you mean by "close". For example, if you compare the 42 mm LX with the 32 mm LX then you will notice about a 40 foot difference in the field of view at 1000 yards (365-405 respectively). Even the new Monarchs with a 36 mm to a 42 mm comparison still results in a difference of about 35 feet at 1000 yards. In the grand scheme of things that might not be monumental but when the original poster was stating how much of a perfect package the 32 SEs are then I think part of that package is the relatively wide field of view (393 feet). If the SEs were to follow the pattern of other 32 to 42 mm model comparisons then I would expect a field of view on an 8x42 SE to be about 350 feet.

I have no idea if that general pattern applies to porros as well since I am not personally familiar with any porros offered in 32 and 42 mm versions of the same model. My porro experience is pretty much limited to the Nikon versions. Maybe someone familiar with Swift or one of the other brands could offer a better synopsis of that point.
 
FrankD said:
Tero,

I guess that would depend on what you mean by "close". For example, if you compare the 42 mm LX with the 32 mm LX then you will notice about a 40 foot difference in the field of view at 1000 yards (365-405 respectively). Even the new Monarchs with a 36 mm to a 42 mm comparison still results in a difference of about 35 feet at 1000 yards. In the grand scheme of things that might not be monumental but when the original poster was stating how much of a perfect package the 32 SEs are then I think part of that package is the relatively wide field of view (393 feet). If the SEs were to follow the pattern of other 32 to 42 mm model comparisons then I would expect a field of view on an 8x42 SE to be about 350 feet.

I have no idea if that general pattern applies to porros as well since I am not personally familiar with any porros offered in 32 and 42 mm versions of the same model. My porro experience is pretty much limited to the Nikon versions. Maybe someone familiar with Swift or one of the other brands could offer a better synopsis of that point.
Click to expand...
The genesis of this thread was an extensive comparison of 2 porro prism binoculars. I own and have spent alot of time with both the 8x32 Nikon SE and Minolta Activa 8x40. This comparison led me to conclude that there are advantages inherent to a 40mm objective 8 power porro prism binocular. The primary advantage, not surprisingly, is increased brightness. AT THE SAME TIME the Minolta also has a WIDER field of view (8.2 degrees) and is barely larger and heavier and this is primarily due to its aluminum instead of magnesium housing. Make no mistake, the Minolta is not in the same league in terms of flare control and edge sharpness. But I am convinced that if Nikon had INITIATED the SE design as an 8x42(40)/10x50 it would not be significantly heavier (the 10x42 SE is only 3 ounces heavier!) and could have an equally wide field. As a photographer I must reject the notion that a larger objective diameter only increases the image circle. My own observations indicate that a larger objective diameter also yields a BRIGHTER image circle. This is why I own 6 pound telephoto lenses which have 122mm objectives! They transmit significantly more light ACROSS THE ENTIRE IMAGE CIRCLE. This is consistent with my own comparison of the 8x32 Nikon SE and 8x40 Minolta Activa. The 8x40 is both brighter and has a wider FOV and at the same time, in a magnesium housing, would weigh barely 3 ounces more - A FAIR TRADE-OFF IN MY VIEW.
 
Last edited:
I am fairlt certain that Nikon did their homework and decided that, since they were going to be working with a single eyepiece, it made more sense to make the 8x32, 10x42, and 12x50 configurations than to work everything from the 8x42, leaving them with a 10x50 and a 12x60 or so. Those, while good combinations, are not nearly as good selling variations and the three they chose.

The fact that the 8x40 you compared has a wider field of view is irrelevant. That is decided by the eyepiece first and foremost. There are porro 8x30s with 461' fields and porro 8x40s with 315' fields. Nikon's SE eyepiece is designed to give an excellently sharp and flat field all the way across, a feature that fades with wider designs, and the fields are acceptably wide instead of extremely wide.

If you are willing to trade the crispest view available for the money (the SE) for that Minolta, than you have not had the luck to spend time actually looking through the SE in the field. The difference is remarkable.
 
Last edited:
eetundra said:
I am fairlt certain that Nikon did their homework and decided that, since they were going to be working with a single eyepiece, it made more sense to make the 8x32, 10x42, and 12x50 configurations than to work everything from the 8x42, leaving them with a 10x50 and a 12x60 or so. Those, while good combinations, are not nearly as good selling variations and the three they chose.

The fact that the 8x40 you compared has a wider field of view is irrelevant. That is decided by the eyepiece first and foremost. There are porro 8x30s with 461' fields and porro 8x40s with 315' fields. Nikon's SE eyepiece is designed to give an excellently sharp and flat field all the way across, a feature that fades with wider designs, and the fields are acceptably wide instead of extremely wide.

If you are willing to trade the crispest view available for the money (the SE) for that Minolta, than you have not had the luck to spend time actually looking through the SE in the field. The difference is remarkable.
Click to expand...
I agree that the SE is the crispest view available, and I lament that it isn't also amoung the brightest. I don't doubt that Nikon did their homework. I simply disagree with the conclusion they reached. They might just as easily have concluded that an 8x42 SE paired with a 10x50 SE with a shared eyepiece and prism assembly was equally feasable (please note the existence of both an 8x32 AND an 8x42 LX). My contention is that the birding world would benefit more from an 8x42 SE paired with a 10x50 SE even at the expense of losing the 12x SE altogether. I agree with you and others who say that the 8x32 was chosen in order to facilitate the manufacture of the 12x50. I just think Nikon, and we, would benefit more from an 8x42 SE and no 12x SE at all. I'm just wishing out loud in the hope that someone at Nikon might be listening.
 
angelo225544 said:
I'm just wishing out loud in the hope that someone at Nikon might be listening.
Click to expand...
Angelo,
I do not think that they are listening very hard. The SE is their top of the line Porro and they have dropped the EII line. My guess is that they want the higher profit margins on the LX line rather than invest in any more first quality Porro binoculars.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
 
I think they knew they wanted both midsized and fullsized versions, the same is standard practice among roofs of all prices. Knowing they had devoloped one great eyepiece to work with and knowing plenty of birders would happily use an 8x32 they decided to base the whole operation on the 10x42. The money for multiple design requiring multiple eyepieces went to the LX because they make far more money on those no matter how good the SE is optically.

I dare say the combined sales of an 8x32 and 10x42 (in any product line you'd care to name) far outstrip the combined sales of an 8x42 and a 10x50, especially by birders.

What you are missing here is that they only made one eyepiece design, and probably intended that to be so, so there was no chance of having both an 8x42 and a 10x42. I think it is safe to say these days that the average birder is just as happy using an 8x32 as they would be using an 8x42 considering the astonishing quality of top end glass these days. Nikon apparently agrees.
 
Regarding brightness, in decent light my 8x32 SE is no less bright than my Zeiss 8x42 FL, and in fact it provides an image with more bite than a Swarovski 8.5x42 EL that I sold. In practice the eye will stop down to about 2mm on a sunny day, so the extra aperture will not be used. Differences in brightness will be due to differences in optical quality i.e. contrast. The 8x32 SE has exceptional contrast IMO.

As I understand it the field of view is determined by the size of the prisms, and the design of the eyepiece. Cheap eyepieces have narrow fields of view, and larger prisms are more expensive and weigh more. Nikon probably thought that the 8x32 SE design provided the ideal compromise between performance and size/weight.

I doubt we will see an 8x42 SE from Nikon, or an equivalent from anyone else. The trend is for roof prism bins. Though the recent Minox porro prism bins are a welcome appearance and probably quite good for the money.
 
Personally, I wish Nikon had made the decision to base the SE series on a 5mm exit pupil instead of a 4mm. We could then have enjoyed a 7x35, an 8x42 and a 10x50. I would find this much more useful.
 
solentbirder said:
Personally, I wish Nikon had made the decision to base the SE series on a 5mm exit pupil instead of a 4mm. We could then have enjoyed a 7x35, an 8x42 and a 10x50. I would find this much more useful.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
An 8X42 SE would have been bulkier and heavier. The current 8X32 SE is both brighter and lighter than innumerable 8X42 binoculars of decent quality. Two comments I regularly hear when I loan my SE are: "wow, that's bright" and "those details are amazing".

John
 
John Traynor said:
An 8X42 SE would have been bulkier and heavier. The current 8X32 SE is both brighter and lighter than innumerable 8X42 binoculars of decent quality. Two comments I regularly hear when I loan my SE are: "wow, that's bright" and "those details are amazing".

John
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
John Traynor said:
An 8X42 SE would have been bulkier and heavier. The current 8X32 SE is both brighter and lighter than innumerable 8X42 binoculars of decent quality. Two comments I regularly hear when I loan my SE are: "wow, that's bright" and "those details are amazing".

John
Click to expand...
John, I respect your opinion but I have seen the difference for myself. I want to address brightness and not sharpness, which is not in dispute. Even the lowly (comparitively) 8x42 Minolta Activa surpasses the 8x32 SE for brightness. I mean in any level of light below full sunlight. And Minolta managed to achieve this in a binocular of very similar size - and comparatively crude construction. I know Nikon could have at least matched this brightness if they had done as Solentbirder suggested and started from a clean sheet of paper with a 5mm exit pupil design. In Steve Ingraham's BVD review of the Swarovski 8.5x42 he says that the Nikon 8x32 SE is brighter than the Swaro! I handed both pairs of these binoculars to my wife, no optics expert she. When I asked her to compare what her eyes told her to what Mr. Ingraham suggests in his review, she was incredulous. So am I. I've done all the comparisons - to both porros and roofs - Nikon missed an opportunity to make THE FINEST birding glass in the world. Why do I feel as though I'm saying that the Emperor has no clothes?
 
angelo225544 said:
John, I respect your opinion but I have seen the difference for myself. I want to address brightness and not sharpness, which is not in dispute. Even the lowly (comparitively) 8x42 Minolta Activa surpasses the 8x32 SE for brightness. I mean in any level of light below full sunlight. And Minolta managed to achieve this in a binocular of very similar size - and comparatively crude construction. I know Nikon could have at least matched this brightness if they had done as Solentbirder suggested and started from a clean sheet of paper with a 5mm exit pupil design. In Steve Ingraham's BVD review of the Swarovski 8.5x42 he says that the Nikon 8x32 SE is brighter than the Swaro! I handed both pairs of these binoculars to my wife, no optics expert she. When I asked her to compare what her eyes told her to what Mr. Ingraham suggests in his review, she was incredulous. So am I. I've done all the comparisons - to both porros and roofs - Nikon missed an opportunity to make THE FINEST birding glass in the world. Why do I feel as though I'm saying that the Emperor has no clothes?
Click to expand...
I posted this as a new topic titled Lottolab. It's worth reading.

****
Lottolab
No, it's not about the lottery.
It's about human visual perception.
http://www.lottolab.org/Home page.html
****

In my opinion, Nikon's SE 8X32 is one of the world's best binoculars and only the Zeiss FL and Leica Ultravid seriously compete against it on the visual front. Blackouts can be totally eliminated by learning to adapt and its 4 mm exit pupil is no different than other 4 mm exit pupils. SE 8X32 "brightness" is simply not an issue unless you're owling or regularly bird in very dark locations. A 5 mm exit pupil is comfortable, but not useful until your pupil starts expanding and that does NOT happen in daylight hours. At the end of the day, I clearly observe a shrinking sweet spot in all binoculars as my pupils expand to accommodate.

Read the Lottolab pages and see how easy we're fooled into believing we see something that doesn't exist.

John
 
The eye can be fooled into seeing "brighter" when actually it is seeing an unbalance of color, like what a photographer might describe as a "hotter" image. The color balance if the Nikon is supposed to be near ideal, so I can imagine that it does not appear out of balance and easier on the eye (less bright in perception perhaps). I'd reckon if you compared the Nikon SE to the Minolta in the same daylight conditions (where your eye limits each to about a 16-20mm useful objective) and the Minolta appeared brighter it was because one color was out of balance (more appropriately most colors were dim like one would expect from lesser glass but one, probably a red or yellow, had higher transmission, but not as high as the Nikon, in relation it makes the whole seem brighter than it is). In Nikons glass all colors are equally bright and natural.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

brocknroller
Nikon 8x32 SE Chinese Clone
Replies
7
Views
2K
brocknroller
brocknroller
brocknroller
The Cure for 8x32 SE Tunnel Vision
Replies
7
Views
2K
John M Robinson
J
G
Nikon (Premier?) 8x42 replaced
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
brocknroller
brocknroller
P
Nikon EDG and MHG 8x42 comparison.
Replies
8
Views
2K
Paultricounty
P
J
What binoculars are as good as Nikon Superior E?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
Jaywalk
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top