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

ThoLa said:

Compared to what?
Compared to all sorts of things .... most of them far better.
Download the test and have look:

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

before dismissing the results.

I begin to think it is rather hopeless to induce any rudimentary amount of critical, scientific thinking in anyone.

T

Click to expand...

To see for myself, I went ahead and downloaded the test. The language made it difficult, to be sure. I could only make out parts of it. Therefore, the conclusions (and means of arriving at them) were not clear.

Nonetheless, many of the models selected for comparison did seem strange (i.e. a Sportstar vs. an Ultravid, etc.). The particular measurements (if interpreted) would be interesting, but to talk about rankings doesn't quite seem fair. Keeping in mind that I couldn't read the writeup, it at a glance reminded me of the type of tests you see in hunting and backpacking magazines. If I had a translation, it might look different. It did not convince me that I should eliminate Minox from my short list. Sorry, Thomas.

APS

Another competitor has come! Zeiss Victory 10x42 T* FL for 1005 Eur!!! They're brand new, the price is special until finishing stock. A really good price for a superb binocular.

As I have read, Minox 10x43 HG view are NOT as sharp and contrast as Minox 10x42 BR. Could anyone confirm this?

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...

Just my two cents.
I few months ago, I purchased a used almost new, Minox 10x43 HG off ebay. The first thing I noticest was the incredibly strong odor of the rubber. It almost seemed as if they were dipped in gasoline.
They also had a focus wheel which had a very stiff spot in its range and the knob was not alighned straight. This appeared to be a poor quality assembly operation or poor fitting parts
Optically however, they seemed incredibly sharp and the equal or better of my Zeiss 8x30 Conquest.
However, I returned them because of the knob and the very strong solvent or gasoline type smell of the rubber.
Jim

Glimmer,

Well were it not for your post, I might have gone quite awhile to learn of the discussed failings of the Minox. Don't have any, but I thought their image was quite good in relation to their price. However, as Thola correctly points out, user preferences in field use are certainly quite subjective. He's also quite correct in pointing out the failings of most people to grasp the science behind optical realities. I'm probably in this category most of the time. Although I do wander around in optics seeking knowledge. That's why there are so many binocluars out there to pick from (at least in the roof prism family).

One thing that has always struck me about the Minox HG is that it is a relatively small binocular compared to other roofs of a similar configuration. In
this regard I'll suggest a couple of other directions. First look at a larger roof. Something like the 10x42 Vortex Razor. It is bigger than the Minox, and optically very similar. Although considering some of the Minox comments here, that might not be so good, but both give me what I consider very good images. (Note that's a subjective comment.) You may also consider a 50mm glass if, as it seems, you are more concerned with the ergonomics of the fit to your hands. Again, as an example 50mm family from the Vortex Razor. The open bridge design allows the hands to be individually wrapped around each barrel. These are very good optically and will not require the financial outlay of one of the elite lines. They cost $7-800 US. I have no idea of how easy they might be to come by in Spain. Optics Planet will ship overseas, but I have read some horror stories from people about them. Some people report no problem. I can't comment because I've never used them.

The really good porro prism binocular selection is sort of scarce these days. Nikon has discontinued the SE line. They're drying up here, but maybe the situation is different in Europe. I really like the Swarovski porro 10x40. Those seem discontinued too, although maybe only in the US. Don't hesitate on that one if you can find them. Another optically very good porro prism is the Swift 8.5x44 ED. This is about $450.00 US and is worth consideration if you want a good porro image. This has a 430' fov. They do not come in 10x. Again I do not know how easy they might be to find in Spain. Good luck in your search.

As far as ordering from the US, from any outfit, do not order refurbished or discontinued models. You want to be able to exchange if not happy. The issue was with paying customs.

Get the SEs. I own 8.5x42EL and 8X32SE and I've tested them against the 10X42SE. At long distance, the former give more detail than the Swaroskis, what is saying a lot. One time the SEs are out of production, I suposse in some years its price will be higher than when new, if in well condition, as it happened witch the zeiss 15X60porroprism.

Personally, I find it hard to lend any credence to such arguments about Minox being a poor brand when the only products being tested are their lowest end models (all 4 of those reviews cited have reviewed the budget models) - and these models are then compared to other brands costing almost 10x as much.

Look at the budget Zeiss binos - overpriced pieces of c$$p, with atleast 25% of the price coming solely from the label. I prefer $350 Vortex Furies to the view from the $400-500 Zeiss binos. Does that mean all Zeiss binos are mediocre?

Taking the results of budget Minox binos (esp when compared to top end alternatives) and extrapolating it to cover all Minox models is not good science. Whether it is a deliberate desire to mislead, some kind of inherent bias or ignorance, I cannot say - but suffice to say, such arguments hold no merit with me.

I have a pair of Minox 8x32 BD BRs and they are *superb* binoculars - bright, sharp and very detailed. They, along with Vortex Viper 8x42s, are my main birding binoculars.

Vandit

Not that it will make much difference to some on here, you may like to know that the BR-W compacts that didn't fare too well in the German SWT were officially discontinued BEFORE the test came out due to QC concerns. The publishers were contacted about this but chose to publish regardless.

Reviews will always be subjective, and even here in the UK, we have to be careful about the choice of binos we submit to magazines etc depending on the test 'requirements'. For example we would not wish to put a BL up against an HD / FL / EL - there's no point - against similarly price-bracketed optics around the £250 mark, yes of course.

Just keeping things sensible!

You can spend as much as you want, but you won't get better image quality than the Nikon SE's. I personally have the 8x32's and 10x 42's and have compared them extensively with Swarovski, Leica and Zeiss (I also own the 8x32FL's). The SE's are the first string. I also have no trouble with the so-called blackouts and am not sure what all the fuss is about in that regard. They're not a hard bin to use in any way.

The 10x42 SE holds a special place in my heart. It's my brother in law's, actually. It's the first binocular I ever used that had that magic view that seems better than reality. For years, when I visited him, I'd ask to look through it and just sit there mystified, basically nonconversant. I finally caught on and started buying my own stuff!

If you don't mind the porro bulkiness, and don't need full waterproofing, get the SE. The optics is fabulous. Blackout is apparent if you look for it by gazing at the edge of the field, but nobody does that except to test a new binocular for blackout! In normal use, it's no problem.
Ron