• 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.

Minox HG 10x43 or Nikon SE 10x42? (1 Viewer)

Glimmer

Glimmer

Well-known member
Hi!

Yesterday I spent the day on stores looking for a pair of adequate bins for me...

I'm hesitant in only these bins: Minox HG 10x43 BR (630Eur) and Nikon SE 10x42 (770Eur).

I only had the chance to test the Minox, it's impossible to me here in Spain test the Nikon ones.

The fact is that I'm used to use porros bins, so that I found that Minox ones are too small for my big hands, it was a strange feeling having them in my hands.

I only searh for IMAGE QUALITY. If they are hermetic, waterproof, or weight more or less is not important for me (I´m an user of Olympus 10x50 DPSR and really I want to buy something very superior)

What should I do?

Thanks in advance!!!
 
Glimmer said:
Hi!

Yesterday I spent the day on stores looking for a pair of adequate bins for me...

I'm hesitant in only these bins: Minox HG 10x43 BR (630Eur) and Nikon SE 10x42 (770Eur).

I only had the chance to test the Minox, it's impossible to me here in Spain test the Nikon ones.

The fact is that I'm used to use porros bins, so that I found that Minox ones are too small for my big hands, it was a strange feeling having them in my hands.

I only searh for IMAGE QUALITY. If they are hermetic, waterproof, or weight more or less is not important for me (I´m an user of Olympus 10x50 DPSR and really I want to buy something very superior)

What should I do?

Thanks in advance!!!
Click to expand...


Hi!
How about a Swarovski Habicht 10x40?
Porro, water-proof. Supposed to have excellent optics. And light-weight.

I am considering this but have not found a dealer yet.

Tom
 
The option of Habitch is more expensive (they cost 1000 Eur. - at least here in Spain-)

I'll recommend that you test the models I said; they seem to be the best option in porro / roof nowadays (in all shops told me the same)
 
Glimmer said:
The option of Habitch is more expensive (they cost 1000 Eur. - at least here in Spain-)

I'll recommend that you test the models I said; they seem to be the best option in porro / roof nowadays (in all shops told me the same)
Click to expand...

Hello!
The price for the Swaro H 10x40 is 750-800 E in Germany, so it would have been close to the 770,- you mentioned.

Minox are technically VERY INFERIOR. Several models have been tested by a state-funded consumer organisation in 2004 and 2007. They all failed. In addition to optical mediocrity, they are contaminated with chemicals posing a health concern.

I'd rather spend 780 E (german price) on a Zeiss Conquest 10x40 ..... or a Habicht 10x40.

Maybe a Leica Trinovid is an alternative. They are not made anymore, and in Germany the sell-out starts at -25 to -30 % of the list prices.
I do not know the price level for these in Spain.

The Zeiss Conquest - according to independent, objective tests - has probably got the best value-for-price relationship.

It's a difficult decision ... I know.

Cheers, Thomas
 
Glimmer said:
Hi!

The fact is that I'm used to use porros bins, so that I found that Minox ones are too small for my big hands, it was a strange feeling having them in my hands.

I only search for IMAGE QUALITY. If they are hermetic, waterproof, or weight more or less is not important for me (I´m an user of Olympus 10x50 DPSR and really I want to buy something very superior)

What should I do?

Thanks in advance!!!
Click to expand...

Hello,

The Nikon's are excellent binoculars. You will not be disappointed if you get them. The view through them is unsurpassed IMHO.

Nick
 
Nick-on said:
Hello,

The Nikon's are excellent binoculars. You will not be disappointed if you get them. The view through them is unsurpassed IMHO.

Nick
Click to expand...

The only thing that make me not purchase the Nikon bins is the supposed blackout issues... and that I cannot test them
 
Minox are technically VERY INFERIOR. Several models have been tested by a state-funded consumer organisation in 2004 and 2007. They all failed. In addition to optical mediocrity, they are contaminated with chemicals posing a health concern.

ThoLa -

When you say "VERY INFERIOR" exactly what are you referring to? They "all failed" in what respect. Optical mediocrity -- have you actually looked through a pair of HGs as yet? They are the closest view I have seen to my Swarovski ELs under $1,000. What chemicals are you referring to that pose a health concern?

ND2000
 
Glimmer said:
The only thing that make me not purchase the Nikon bins is the supposed blackout issues... and that I cannot test them
Click to expand...

Nick is right. The optics of the Nikon 10 x 42 SE are unexcelled! I was using mine yesterday along with my new model Leica 7 x 42 Trinovid, which also has outstanding optics. Quite simply, optically speaking, the Nikon is better. It has a much bigger "sweet spot" in relation to it's FOV than the Leica has in it's FOV, and it has virtually no Chromatic Abberation under any lighting condition. It's sharpness and it's overall view is as good as it gets. And for a 10x they have a very large "depth of field."

The first day or so that I used the Nikon I had some trouble with black outs but when I correctly set my IPD and found the right place to position the eyecups under my brows the blackouts disappeared and have never returned. I earlier had the same problem with my older model 1990's vintage Leica 7x 42 Trinovid which had rubber eyecups like the Nikon has and I corrected it in the same manner. Eye position was the key for me in both instances.

Hope this helps.

Bob:hi:
 
Last edited:
ceasar said:
Nick is right. The optics of the Nikon 10 x 42 SE are unexcelled! I was using mine yesterday along with my new model Leica 7 x 42 Trinovid, which also has outstanding optics. Quite simply, optically speaking, the Nikon is better. It has a much bigger "sweet spot" in relation to it's FOV than the Leica has in it's FOV, and it has virtually no Chromatic Abberation under any lighting condition. It's sharpness and it's overall view is as good as it gets. And for a 10x they have a very large "depth of field."

The first day or so that I used the Nikon I had some trouble with black outs but when I correctly set my IPD and found the right place to position the eyecups under my brows the blackouts disappeared and have never returned. I earlier had the same problem with my older model 1990's vintage Leica 7x 42 Trinovid which had rubber eyecups like the Nikon has and I corrected it in the same manner. Eye position was the key for me in both instances.

Hope this helps.

Bob:hi:
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob, very helpful advices, but, what is "IPD"? (sorry for my english!)
 
MINOX "They are the closest view I have seen to my Swarovski ELs under $1,000"

NIKON "The optics of the Nikon 10 x 42 SE are unexcelled"

Aghhhhhhhhhhhhh What a difficult decision!!!!!

In other hand, I prefer porros (big hands), but the weight, impermeability and easy-to-carry of Minox compensate the balance.
 
ND2000 said:
When you say "VERY INFERIOR" exactly what are you referring to? They "all failed" in what respect. Optical mediocrity -- have you actually looked through a pair of HGs as yet? They are the closest view I have seen to my Swarovski ELs under $1,000. What chemicals are you referring to that pose a health concern?

ND2000
Click to expand...


The whole test can be downloaded from here, for instance:

http://www.leica-camera.de/service/...for_nature_observation/ultravid_32/index.html

Leica were so proud to have won the contest that they have put it online.

Chemicals tested for were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carcinogenic, and "softeners" that are put into the rubber armouring. Lots of brands are oozing out stuff like this, but the Minox seems to be a real "chimney".

Optically, the Minox achieved a meagre 3,2 (on a scale from 0,5 to 4,5).
"Detailerkennbarkeit" (= resolution / resolving power) insufficient (= less than 4,5).

"Schadstoffreiheit" (being free of harmful contaminants): 4,5. Comment: Significant amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Out of 10 models (10x42/43) tested it struggled hard ........ and ended up as No. 10.
Not exactly luring me into a shop to test it .....

In 2004 the same foundation tested compact binoculars and included two slightly different Minox models. Want to guess their ranks?

As these are objective measurements made in a laboratory they are extremely trustworthy. The foundation does not contact any manufacturer but sends out people who buy in shops like we all do. So there is no pre-selection bias as in hunter's or birder's magazines where "testing" and ill-concealed advertising frequently mix.

Even top end companies like Leica (http://www.leica-camera.de/nature_observation/ultravid_binoculars/ultravid_32/) or Zeiss (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A80033D63E/Contents-Frame/F5252D3014569C94C1256EEE00404819) are very proud of the results they achieve in the tests of this highly reputed consumer organisation and boast the results.

Regards, Thomas
 
Last edited:
That's very interesting... but I can confirm that quality of viewing of new Minox HG is superior to the cheper model BL that appear in the comparative (brighter, sharper)
 
Chemicals tested for were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carcinogenic, and "softeners" that are put into the rubber armouring. Lots of brands are oozing out stuff like this, but the Minox seems to be a real "chimney".

As these are objective measurements made in a laboratory they are extremely trustworthy. The foundation does not contact any manufacturer but sends out people who buy in shops like we all do. So there is no pre-selection bias as in hunter's or birder's magazines where "testing" and ill-concealed advertising frequently mix.

ThoLa -

Thanks for the info on the chemicals. I can confirm the softness of the rubber on the HGs. I also appreciate the translation as I don't speak German.

However, I could also argue that testing binoculars in a lab setting with artifical light staring against some standard resolution chart is irrelevant compared to actual user experience in the field.

Glimmer -

Best of luck with your purchase!

ND2000
 
Glimmer said:
Thanks Bob, very helpful advices, but, what is "IPD"? (sorry for my english!)
Click to expand...

IPD means Interpupilary Distance: That is the measurement of the distance between your two eyes pupils in millimeters. You will find the measurement gauge on the rear of the hinge of the Nikon SE, it goes from 60mm to 72mm. For example, my correct separation for use with binoculars is 68mm.

Good birding,
Bob
 
Glimmer said:
The only thing that make me not purchase the Nikon bins is the supposed blackout issues... and that I cannot test them
Click to expand...

In my experience, the 8 x 32 SE is much harder to use from a blackout perspective than the 10 x 42 SE, even though the exit pupil is identical for both. Beats me why, but as a consequence I reluctantly sold my 8 x 32 SE a while back but still have and continue to be impressed by the 10 x 42 SE. Optically, I found the 10 x 40 Swaro Habicht to be closest to the Zeiss 10 x 40 Classic for image quality (including identical FOVs) but not comparable to the Nikon 10 x 42 SE in terms of brightness, intensity of colors and flat field performance.
 
ThoLa said:
The whole test can be downloaded from here, for instance:

http://www.leica-camera.de/service/...for_nature_observation/ultravid_32/index.html

Leica were so proud to have won the contest that they have put it online.

Chemicals tested for were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carcinogenic, and "softeners" that are put into the rubber armouring. Lots of brands are oozing out stuff like this, but the Minox seems to be a real "chimney".

Optically, the Minox achieved a meagre 3,2 (on a scale from 0,5 to 4,5).
"Detailerkennbarkeit" (= resolution / resolving power) insufficient (= less than 4,5).

"Schadstoffreiheit" (being free of harmful contaminants): 4,5. Comment: Significant amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Out of 10 models (10x42/43) tested it struggled hard ........ and ended up as No. 10.
Not exactly luring me into a shop to test it .....

In 2004 the same foundation tested compact binoculars and included two slightly different Minox models. Want to guess their ranks?

As these are objective measurements made in a laboratory they are extremely trustworthy. The foundation does not contact any manufacturer but sends out people who buy in shops like we all do. So there is no pre-selection bias as in hunter's or birder's magazines where "testing" and ill-concealed advertising frequently mix.

Even top end companies like Leica (http://www.leica-camera.de/nature_observation/ultravid_binoculars/ultravid_32/) or Zeiss (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A80033D63E/Contents-Frame/F5252D3014569C94C1256EEE00404819) are very proud of the results they achieve in the tests of this highly reputed consumer organisation and boast the results.

Regards, Thomas
Click to expand...
It's a great shame that the production quality doesn't match these obtained results. There are so many examples of poor Leica workmanship getting onto the market these days that I don't consider Leica to be anywhere near the top position they once held; all in all fairly substandard. When you hear of coatings peeling off for instance it's almost unbelievable. If I was given them as a gift I'd sell them immediately. Stories of very rough focussing abound, and I have felt this myself in a pair I tried.
Timedrifter
 
Glimmer said:
That's very interesting... but I can confirm that quality of viewing of new Minox HG is superior to the cheper model BL that appear in the comparative (brighter, sharper)
Click to expand...

So, it's not the HGs which got the bad marks?

Alot of the Minox criticism I've read on BF has come from Germany. Are they considered second rate there partly because of Japanese manufacture?

APS
 
APSmith said:
So, it's not the HGs which got the bad marks?

Alot of the Minox criticism I've read on BF has come from Germany. Are they considered second rate there partly because of Japanese manufacture?

APS
Click to expand...

Yes, the Minox who got the bad marks were the more basic series BL. I tested both outside a shop in near sundown (BL 10x42 and HG 10x43) and I found significant differences.

I prefer japanese manufactures too (also in cars, I'm very happy with my Toyota compared to my previous VW haha)
 
chartwell99 said:
In my experience, the 8 x 32 SE is much harder to use from a blackout perspective than the 10 x 42 SE, even though the exit pupil is identical for both. Beats me why, but as a consequence I reluctantly sold my 8 x 32 SE a while back but still have and continue to be impressed by the 10 x 42 SE. Optically, I found the 10 x 40 Swaro Habicht to be closest to the Zeiss 10 x 40 Classic for image quality (including identical FOVs) but not comparable to the Nikon 10 x 42 SE in terms of brightness, intensity of colors and flat field performance.
Click to expand...


AS i've read, 8x42 SE has an exit pupil of 4,0 instead of 4'2 mm of 10x42 ones.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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

D
Is Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 the best choise for me?
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P
J
What binoculars are as good as Nikon Superior E?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
Jaywalk
J
J
Nikon ProStaff/Travelight compared to Zeiss Terra ED?
Replies
3
Views
756
Jaywalk
J
S
New 10x42s wanted. But which ones?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
LucaPCP
L
P
Nikon SE and Zeiss SF 8x32 comparison.
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
5K
Paultricounty
P

Users who are viewing this thread

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