SE 8x32's - a well kept secret? (1 Viewer)

Leif,

I agree with all your comparisons. Will the myth of roof prism superiority ever die? One bright spot I see for the future of porros is the new Canon 10X42 IS. Just looking at the design goodies shows about everything on my wish list for a modern premium quality porro: waterproof, internal focus, objectives horizontally inline with the eyepieces, UD glass, 65 degree AFOV eyepieces with doublet field flatteners, twist eyecups. If Canon would just produce an optically identical binoclar without the complication of IS prisms and mechanisms it ought to be the world's best 10X42 conventional binocular, and cost less than $1000. Wishful thinking.

Henry

henry link said:

Leif,

I agree with all your comparisons. Will the myth of roof prism superiority ever die? One bright spot I see for the future of porros is the new Canon 10X42 IS. Just looking at the design goodies shows about everything on my wish list for a modern premium quality porro: waterproof, internal focus, objectives horizontally inline with the eyepieces, UD glass, 65 degree AFOV eyepieces with doublet field flatteners, twist eyecups. If Canon would just produce an optically identical binoclar without the complication of IS prisms and mechanisms it ought to be the world's best 10X42 conventional binocular, and cost less than $1000. Wishful thinking.

Henry

Click to expand...

Henry,

it would be very interesting to know what a Canon IS would cost without IS technology. BTW I thought there is a myth of porro binocular superiority, see Alan Adlers remarks about Roof Prisms or Porro Prisms here: http://www.newxspotters.bizland.com/todd/weatherman/binadler.htm

However, a classical porro prism binocular made by Canon exists but it´s hard to find anywhere: the Canon 8x32A, see here: http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Hom...ndex.asp?ComponentID=25496&SourcePageID=26496
I´ve never found any reviews about this binocular, which has of course a too narrow fov to be first class and it isn´t waterproof. But it would be interesting to compare its image quality to other known 8x32 or 8x30 binoculars.

Steve

Steve,

Thanks for the information. The Canon 8X32A is new to me, but it looks like a low to moderate price design. I'm not sure it's available in the US. Judging from your reaction the new 10X42 L is a formidable contender even with the added complication of IS.

Henry

Kay Optical have them in stock - or at least they did when I bought mine....

Pinewood said:

Dear Redshift,
The "kidney bean" effect seems to affect spectacle wearers, rather more than others.

Click to expand...

When using the bins whilst wearing spectacles, do you have the eyecups up or down? I wear specs but have small ones (close to my eyes) and always use binoculars with the eyecups up. I can still see the full field of view through the SEs.

If someone has larger spectacles which sit further from the eye, then having the eyecup up leaves the eye too far away from the eyepieces. Unfortunately the SEs do not have modern screw multiposition plastic eyecups - and with the rubber eyecup fully down I suspect the eye may end up too close - and I think that is when blackouts happen.

henry link said:

Steve,

Thanks for the information. The Canon 8X32A is new to me, but it looks like a low to moderate price design. I'm not sure it's available in the US. Judging from your reaction the new 10X42 L is a formidable contender even with the added complication of IS.

Henry

Click to expand...

Yes I think it is. The IS may be an complication of the optical construction introducing some optical trade-offs. But in use it´s a great plus even for those who are easy able to hold a magnification of 10x steady. Although I´m able to hold something like a 15x binocular steady most of the time I found that even a 7x binocular takes some benefits by mounting on a tripod. So I think that the IS at 10x is not to be sneezed at all. When you push the is button it´s a bit like magic: the image settles down to a steady brilliance. I had also the impression that the IS mechanism works more effective with the 10x42 than with the 15x50 or 18x50 Canon.
What I don´t like with the new 10x42 is unlike the 10x30 and the 12x36 IS II it´s bulky shape and heavy weight. In this respect the ergonomics with Leica, Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikon are superior. Oh my gosh - this is leading too far. Wrong forum again...

Steve

hinnark said:

BTW I thought there is a myth of porro binocular superiority, see Alan Adlers remarks about Roof Prisms or Porro Prisms here: http://www.newxspotters.bizland.com/todd/weatherman/binadler.htm

Steve

Click to expand...

He doesn't exactly go into much detail.

I don't think there is any doubt that it is easier to design a good porro than a good roof. The easiest way to prove this is to look through some really cheap (or compact) roofs and compare them to similar size and price porros. The porros will always win.

Now that does not mean that the best roofs by Swaro, Leica and friends are not excellent binoculars in terms of image quality - but it takes a lot more design / engineering effort to make them so.

Concerning the kidney-bean discussion above, Redshift in post #18 hit upon most of the necessary explanations. Faces differ, eyes differ, glasses differ. This is why twistable eyecups, preferably with no click-stops but a wide enough adjustment range and enough friction to stay put where you leave them are such a good idea. People not wearing glasses can have eyecup extension preferences on one and the same binocular which vary by at least 5 millimeters, and those wearing glasses have a wider spread still. Additionally, eyepieces differ to the extent they are critical for proper eye-placement. Spherical aberration of the eyepiece exit pupil is the explanation offered by Rutten and van Veenrooy (I hope I got their names right by memory) for Tele-Vue Nagler eyepieces' kidney-bean effect, and to my lay mind it seems like a very plausible explanation. This means, if I understand it correctly, that the light rays coming from the field edge effectively have a different eye-relief from those coming from the centre, and consequently make correct eye-position either impossible or much more critical.

Henry,

I would like to politely disagree about the Canon. Firstly, though, I agree that the specs look very promising - more than adequate if not class-leading field of view, UD-elements, 4.2mm exit pupil, waterproof porroprism design, top-class muticoatings, enough eye-relief, twistable eyecups, thread for a finnstick etc, etc. However, what I have been waiting for is precisely an Image Stabilized binocular with these specs. As I said on the Canon thread (I think I said it), after I bought a 15x50 IS some five years ago, I have hardly used my 10x42 SE. All this time I have been waiting for a binocular which would combine the SE's optical quality with the IS-system. Stabilization is highly addictive when it works well, and alone can provide more improvement in the image your brain receives than any other single or combined improvement theoretically possible in a binocular image. Anyone who doubts this can mount their binoculars on a tripod and do an A/B test with handholding. I would thus never consider it a good compromise to do away with the IS in order to save a couple hundred dollars and equally many grams of weight for a marginal gain in light transmission and possibly contrast. If you have a 10x42 of sufficient quality, you can always choose not to press the button, but I bet that you will be surprised at how many sets of rechargeables you will go through in an average week of using the 10x42, and this not because they would have poor power consumption. The main reason IS has not caught on yet is because it has not been offered in the right package, but now it will be. Of course, I have not yet seen the 10x42, and will be seriously disappointed if it turns out that Canon has blundered it.

I'll do a test in ALULA as soon as I can, but Finland is not the first priority market area for Canon, so it might be a while.

Kimmo

Kimmo,

Your enthusiasm for IS binoculars is infectious. I had dismissed the technology after a couple of bad experiences with early 12X36's, but your posts on the Canon sub-forum had brought me around to the point that I've just been waiting for an IS bin I couldn't say no to. I suppose I should wait for the Alula review, but the 10X42 L is looking downright irresistible.

I brought up the new Canon mainly because it is a rare example (in fact the only example I know) of a new premium quality porro, with many of the features I wish Nikon would apply to the SE.

Henry

Henry,

I know you won't wait for my review, or anyone elses. You'll just see it yourself, try it and then, perhaps, buy it. That is the way it should go.

As for me, I'm a bit concerned about my own enthusiasm. Reading my own posts, I'm seriously beginning to doubt my impartiality and objectivity. However, the 15x50 - with all its weight, unwieldy eyecups, too small an exit pupil, yellowish cast and mediocre light transmission, stabilization artefacts and all - has been the reason I have not bought any of the top binoculars that have been introduced in the last six years - it simply always manages to put matters back into a stark perspective in the final, cruelly unfair across-all-categories comparo which I always do just for myself.

However, with these earlier-generation Canons, there is the issue of how they have been collimated, and it will be crucial and interesting to gather experiences of several 10x42's to determine whether Canon is doing things right this time or whether some units will again be splendid while many would be awfull (cf. thread on 15x50's for more detail). I know it can be done, the question is: has it been done?

Incidentally, on Cloudy Nights binocular forum, there is a current thread about Lasik surgery and how Jupiter looks like in 15x50 Canons. I think there the issue is a combination of shaky hands and a somewhat substandard binocular specimen. If the fellow would try them on a tripod without engaging the stabilizer, he'd be much the wiser.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

Incidentally, on Cloudy Nights binocular forum, there is a current thread about Lasik surgery and how Jupiter looks like in 15x50 Canons. I think there the issue is a combination of shaky hands and a somewhat substandard binocular specimen. If the fellow would try them on a tripod without engaging the stabilizer, he'd be much the wiser.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

My dear Kimmo,

Do you think that a monopod or a unipod, provides as much stability as the IS systems? Your remarks suggest that a tripod may be superiour to IS.

Clear skies and happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

In my lengthly search for new binoculars several years ago, I tried the 8x32 SEs. They were quite nice, but they just weren't for me. A number of other binoculars felt better in my hands, and also had fine optics. It is good that we have so many choices, so that everyone can find the perfect pair.

Clear skies, Alan

Arthur,

IS works better (significantly better) than monopods or finnsticks, but an IS binocular supported by a finnstick allows you to keep your hands, or one of them if you prefer, down at waist level. This reduces fatigue and also allows the IS system to work a bit better. With Canon's IS, the less the binocular shakes the sharper the image, which is one of the reasons why different people have different stories about it.

Tripod-mounted and with the stabilization off, the Canon gives a tad sharper image than handheld with the stabilization on. Thus we may conclude that a tripod-mounted binocular is still the best choice if image quality is our only concern. For astronomy, where you know where the stars are and don't have to walk after them, a tripod is the better solution - however, nothing stops you from using the Canons without using the IS, and mounting them on a tripod is easy since they don't need an adaptor. As a birder, if I take a tripod with me, it always has a scope on it instead.

Kimmo

AlanFrench said:

In my lengthly search for new binoculars several years ago, I tried the 8x32 SEs. They were quite nice, but they just weren't for me. A number of other binoculars felt better in my hands, and also had fine optics. It is good that we have so many choices, so that everyone can find the perfect pair.

Clear skies, Alan

Click to expand...

Hi Alan,

I think you're dead right - different strokes for different folks (isn't that what you US guys say?? - hopefully haven't strayed into dodgy areas!!)

Funnily enough, I had exactly the opposite experience..... Thought that the SEs were decidedly odd-looking and expected them to feel odd too. Delighted when they actually immediately felt comfy and very useable....

kabsetz said:

Henry,

I know you won't wait for my review, or anyone elses. You'll just see it yourself, try it and then, perhaps, buy it. That is the way it should go.

As for me, I'm a bit concerned about my own enthusiasm. Reading my own posts, I'm seriously beginning to doubt my impartiality and objectivity. However, the 15x50 - with all its weight, unwieldy eyecups, too small an exit pupil, yellowish cast and mediocre light transmission, stabilization artefacts and all - has been the reason I have not bought any of the top binoculars that have been introduced in the last six years - it simply always manages to put matters back into a stark perspective in the final, cruelly unfair across-all-categories comparo which I always do just for myself.

However, with these earlier-generation Canons, there is the issue of how they have been collimated, and it will be crucial and interesting to gather experiences of several 10x42's to determine whether Canon is doing things right this time or whether some units will again be splendid while many would be awfull (cf. thread on 15x50's for more detail). I know it can be done, the question is: has it been done?

Incidentally, on Cloudy Nights binocular forum, there is a current thread about Lasik surgery and how Jupiter looks like in 15x50 Canons. I think there the issue is a combination of shaky hands and a somewhat substandard binocular specimen. If the fellow would try them on a tripod without engaging the stabilizer, he'd be much the wiser.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Kimmo,

do you use the Canon even when you take your scope to birdwatch? I ask this because I believe that when you are on a birding trip with a spotting scope, a widefield binocular (7x or 8x) would be the better completion of the equipment since this let you find a bird easier than a high power view. If you need higher detailled view you can use the scope. So I would assume that the e.g. 15x50 is the best choice when a scope isn´t available. But I agree: the 15x50 Canon IS (and probably some other types of stabilzed binos too) outperforms every other 10x high class binocular when it comes to identifying a bird at longer distances. I made this experience just last weekend while birdwatching out of a birding hide. In this situation the 15x50 had advantages even against scopes since you can work easier and faster with it at the small scuttles in the hide.

The issue of how the IS Canons have been collimated leads to another aspect one should consider - as an owner of a binocular with a stabilization mechanism as well as a prospective buyer. These bins are probably more damageable for knocks and rough treatment comparing to conventional binoculars. Friends of mine made this experience as yachtsmen with different kind of types of IS bins, not only Canons but also Nikon Stabileyes and Fujinon Technostabi. So I wouldn´t be surprised if a lot of IS binos that are not in collimation were damaged on transportation or by rough treatment in the store. So if Canon is doing things right this time they should also protect well the binocular against shock.
BTW the yachting market is a main aim for Canon with the new 10x42 IMHO. Until now Nikon and Fujinon in a joint venture (types of bins are the same or very similar, use the same housings and so on) were the only companies offering waterproof stabilzed bins. On the water you need a bin that is waterproof and weight is not that issue. Maybe this (use for marine purposes) is also the reason why Canon went only to a magnification of 10x because their IS can compensate movements only to 0,7 degrees and a higher magnification wouldn´t produce satisfying results on the sea.

Steve

Steve,

In principle I agree with your notion that when birding with a scope, an 8-10x would be better for finding birds. In practice, however, I have ended up using the 15x50 even when I have the scope with - if I don't have the scope, it's a no-brainer. Especially when watching raptor migration I find that I can spot interesting birds much farther away with it, and also tell at much larger distances whether or not something needs to be checked with the scope. But also in forests: there birds tend to move pretty quickly, and getting the scope set up and aimed takes time. In fields, pastures and on shores, a 15xIS picks up immobile birds that with a handheld 8-10x you don't even notice were there, and again I can quickly identify stuff without having to resort to the scope so much. So, I have ended up using the 15x50 much more than I would have anticipated, and have virtually never regretted taking it instead of the 10x42 out to the wild.

It is true that the 15x50 is not well suited to boating. I have used it on my brothers' sailboat many times, but there I prefer his 7x50 marine binoculars although I can see much more with the Canon. If there are any seas to speak of, the Canon stabilization cannot keep up and the result is very tiring views.

Durability made me concerned initially, but the binocular has held its collimation very well. It has been re-collimated twice, but the first time was because the initial collimation was a bit off and I wanted it perfect, and the second time was elective as well, done in order to achieve a bit of fine-tuning of the IS vari-angle prism alignment. This was done in conjunction of a necessary repair after I had dropped the binocular, objective end first, on a stone floor from a height of some 40cm and one of the focusing barrels had slid on its shaft so that I ran out of diopter adjustment - however, that knock did not mess up the alignment. When they were serviced, the technician also filled them with nitrogen which has made them much less prone to fogging in the winter - one of the sailing trips earlier had caused some humidity to get inside, which I found out the first really cold day the following winter.

In general, though, I do not abuse my binoculars, and I do feel that at least prior to the new 10x42, all the Canons have at least partially deserved the suspicion with which rough-handed birders have viewed their potential durability. However, it seems that the electromechanics are pretty durable and problem-free. At least, I haven't heard of any failures in that area yet.

Finally, if any of you have more questions or comments on the Canons, let's continue this discussion on the Canon thread where it more appropriately belongs.

And finally, when I'm referring to how the Canons are collimated, I am referring to my theory (explained on the Canon 15x50 thread) that Canon uses the vari-angle prisms for final collimation fine-tuning, and that this can degrade the image more or less seriously by introducing both CA and coma to the image.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

Arthur,

IS works better (significantly better) than monopods or finnsticks, but an IS binocular supported by a finnstick allows you to keep your hands, or one of them if you prefer, down at waist level. This reduces fatigue and also allows the IS system to work a bit better. With Canon's IS, the less the binocular shakes the sharper the image, which is one of the reasons why different people have different stories about it.

Tripod-mounted and with the stabilization off, the Canon gives a tad sharper image than handheld with the stabilization on. Thus we may conclude that a tripod-mounted binocular is still the best choice if image quality is our only concern. For astronomy, where you know where the stars are and don't have to walk after them, a tripod is the better solution - however, nothing stops you from using the Canons without using the IS, and mounting them on a tripod is easy since they don't need an adaptor. As a birder, if I take a tripod with me, it always has a scope on it instead.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Kimmo,

You are very kind to reply to my inquiry. I do have a 16x60 glass, which I always use on a tripod, but I do use a 12x50 on a monopod, which seems fine, but I am sure that a tripod is always superiour to a monopod. The only question is at what power is it signifcantly better?
I have two tripods: a camera tripod with the 16x60 binocular and an Behrlebach with a 'scope. The 'scope is used more for astronomy than for birding, allthough it saw good when a boreal owl visited New York's Central Park.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :brains:

kabsetz said:

Concerning the kidney-bean discussion above, Redshift in post #18 hit upon most of the necessary explanations. Faces differ, eyes differ, glasses differ. This is why twistable eyecups, preferably with no click-stops but a wide enough adjustment range and enough friction to stay put where you leave them are such a good idea. People not wearing glasses can have eyecup extension preferences on one and the same binocular which vary by at least 5 millimeters, and those wearing glasses have a wider spread still. Additionally, eyepieces differ to the extent they are critical for proper eye-placement. Spherical aberration of the eyepiece exit pupil is the explanation offered by Rutten and van Veenrooy (I hope I got their names right by memory) for Tele-Vue Nagler eyepieces' kidney-bean effect, and to my lay mind it seems like a very plausible explanation. This means, if I understand it correctly, that the light rays coming from the field edge effectively have a different eye-relief from those coming from the centre, and consequently make correct eye-position either impossible or much more critical.


Kimmo

Click to expand...

Having used the Nikon 8x32SE for some months now, I still feel somewhat uncomfortably with them. Yes, they are optically great, but they are definitely not easy on the eyes. For some they might, especially those with relatively deep set eyes, but for the majority of people they are simply too quirky, too critical, too much of a problem. I think that when Nikon set out to design them, they went to the very edges of what could and what should be done optically. What came out was some kind of Formula One racing car. Spectacular, impressive, but very, very nervous. Certainly not something for everyone to drive comfortably. The problems show up most prominently in the black out problem, but I feel this is not the whole story (I manage quite easily to avoid blackouts, but then there's still something not quite right). I've seen the explanation of this uneasiness - spherical aberration of the exit pupil - mentioned before and whatever this might mean exactly, I feel at least the location of the problem could be right. I have compared the 8x32SE with other 8x32 or 8x30 porro binoculars, and while the size of the exit pupil is rather small to me in all of them, the Nikon is definitely the most problematic. Try to wander around with your eyes through the field of view, and the Nikon goes on the blink time and time again.
I would certainly call this phenomenon an imperfection, and of some magnitude too. It's irritating, period. Of course there's no such thing as a perfect binocular, but when it comes to ease of use, a Leica 7x42 or any good binocular of the same configuration, will never show up this irritation for the majority of users.
I'm still admiring the brightness and beautiful resolution of the Nikon 8x32SE, but that doesn't make me blind for the considerable imperfections of this binocular. And one other thing I always wondered about: as the Nikon would be such a state of the art thing, why wouldn't the other big brands quickly follow the Nikon example and produce something like it? They don't, and I think I know why: the Nikon is too much out of balance, too critically optically, to call it a succesful design. It might be good for the race track, but that doesn't make it a success on the road.

Renze de Vries

Renze de Vries said:

Having used the Nikon 8x32SE for some months now, I still feel somewhat uncomfortably with them. Yes, they are optically great, but they are definitely not easy on the eyes. For some they might, especially those with relatively deep set eyes, but for the majority of people they are simply too quirky, too critical, too much of a problem. I think that when Nikon set out to design them, they went to the very edges of what could and what should be done optically. What came out was some kind of Formula One racing car. Spectacular, impressive, but very, very nervous. Certainly not something for everyone to drive comfortably. The problems show up most prominently in the black out problem, but I feel this is not the whole story (I manage quite easily to avoid blackouts, but then there's still something not quite right). I've seen the explanation of this uneasiness - spherical aberration of the exit pupil - mentioned before and whatever this might mean exactly, I feel at least the location of the problem could be right. I have compared the 8x32SE with other 8x32 or 8x30 porro binoculars, and while the size of the exit pupil is rather small to me in all of them, the Nikon is definitely the most problematic. Try to wander around with your eyes through the field of view, and the Nikon goes on the blink time and time again.
I would certainly call this phenomenon an imperfection, and of some magnitude too. It's irritating, period. Of course there's no such thing as a perfect binocular, but when it comes to ease of use, a Leica 7x42 or any good binocular of the same configuration, will never show up this irritation for the majority of users.
I'm still admiring the brightness and beautiful resolution of the Nikon 8x32SE, but that doesn't make me blind for the considerable imperfections of this binocular. And one other thing I always wondered about: as the Nikon would be such a state of the art thing, why wouldn't the other big brands quickly follow the Nikon example and produce something like it? They don't, and I think I know why: the Nikon is too much out of balance, too critically optically, to call it a succesful design. It might be good for the race track, but that doesn't make it a success on the road.

Renze de Vries

Click to expand...

Thanks, Renze - I now know why I sold my 8 x 32 SEs.

Renze de Vries said:

Having used the Nikon 8x32SE for some months now, I still feel somewhat uncomfortably with them. Yes, they are optically great, but they are definitely not easy on the eyes. For some they might, especially those with relatively deep set eyes, but for the majority of people they are simply too quirky, too critical, too much of a problem. I think that when Nikon set out to design them, they went to the very edges of what could and what should be done optically. What came out was some kind of Formula One racing car. Spectacular, impressive, but very, very nervous. Certainly not something for everyone to drive comfortably. The problems show up most prominently in the black out problem, but I feel this is not the whole story (I manage quite easily to avoid blackouts, but then there's still something not quite right). I've seen the explanation of this uneasiness - spherical aberration of the exit pupil - mentioned before and whatever this might mean exactly, I feel at least the location of the problem could be right. I have compared the 8x32SE with other 8x32 or 8x30 porro binoculars, and while the size of the exit pupil is rather small to me in all of them, the Nikon is definitely the most problematic. Try to wander around with your eyes through the field of view, and the Nikon goes on the blink time and time again.
I would certainly call this phenomenon an imperfection, and of some magnitude too. It's irritating, period. Of course there's no such thing as a perfect binocular, but when it comes to ease of use, a Leica 7x42 or any good binocular of the same configuration, will never show up this irritation for the majority of users.
I'm still admiring the brightness and beautiful resolution of the Nikon 8x32SE, but that doesn't make me blind for the considerable imperfections of this binocular. And one other thing I always wondered about: as the Nikon would be such a state of the art thing, why wouldn't the other big brands quickly follow the Nikon example and produce something like it? They don't, and I think I know why: the Nikon is too much out of balance, too critically optically, to call it a succesful design. It might be good for the race track, but that doesn't make it a success on the road.

Renze de Vries

Click to expand...

Well put, I'll stick to the E2s as far as my Nikons go. If the SEs are F1 cars, I would rate the E2s as a grand tourer (optically, they have nothing on a Ferrari visually).