• 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.

BEST option to the alphas (1 Viewer)

R

raptorbfl

Well-known member
In my opinion, the best option to the alpha binoculars is the Nikon Premier 8x42
or 10x42.
Amazing "alpha" like optics and build quality, Japanese made, and over $1400.00
less than Swarovski, Leica or Zeiss! And probably 95% close optically and fit and
finish.

I find it odd how these Nikon Premier roofs are not selling well at all.....any ideas why?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps disappointment is the key.
Nikon is a truly superior optics producer. Their cameras and industrial optics are legend.
So people expect a comparably outstanding product, but instead just get something very good.
The savings achieved are not an equivalent offset, being really beside the point.

Of course, this theory may be all wet.
I'm still astonished at the poor uptake of the, imho, vastly superior Canon 10x42ISL by the birding community.
It is streets ahead of any non stabilized glass for viewing birds in flight or at longer range, but nobody noticed. Canon would probably love to have Nikon's binocular sales figures.
 
raptorbfl said:
In my opinion, the best option to the alpha binoculars is the Nikon Premier 8x42
or 10x42.
Amazing "alpha" like optics and build quality, Japanese made, and over $1400.00
less than Swarovski, Leica or Zeiss! And probably 95% close optically and fit and
finish.

I find it odd how these Nikon Premier roofs are not selling well at all.....any ideas why?
Click to expand...

The Nikon Premier is hindered by CA. It has some of the worst CA of the near alpha binoculars. That is why it doesn't sell well especially to birders. IMO the Chinese ED's because of the lack of CA provide a better view at less cost than the Nikon's especially the Zen Ray 8x42 EDII. I would also say the Nikon's Premiers have not kept up with optical advancements and to me they are quite a bit behind say the Swarovision 8.5x42.
 
etudiant said:
Perhaps disappointment is the key.
Nikon is a truly superior optics producer. Their cameras and industrial optics are legend.
So people expect a comparably outstanding product, but instead just get something very good.
The savings achieved are not an equivalent offset, being really beside the point.

Of course, this theory may be all wet.
I'm still astonished at the poor uptake of the, imho, vastly superior Canon 10x42ISL by the birding community.
It is streets ahead of any non stabilized glass for viewing birds in flight or at longer range, but nobody noticed. Canon would probably love to have Nikon's binocular sales figures.
Click to expand...

The Canon 10x42ISL has great optics but it is hindered by weight and clumsiness for birders. It is just to heavy to be used for birding when you have to hold it up all the time. I know I tried one and I just couldn't put up with the weight after awhile.
 
[email protected] said:
The Canon 10x42ISL has great optics but it is hindered by weight and clumsiness for birders. It is just to heavy to be used for birding when you have to hold it up all the time. I know I tried one and I just couldn't put up with the weight after awhile.
Click to expand...

No argument that the Canon 10x42 is a brute.

It was tamed for me by using a BinoManager harness, dirt cheap at Coleman's:
http://www.coleman.com/coleman/ColemanCom/detail.asp?CategoryID=31016&product_id=COLEH651

I use the harness clipped to my belt in the back, to keep the binocs from pulling the harness down.
 
[email protected] said:
The Nikon Premier is hindered by CA. It has some of the worst CA of the near alpha binoculars. That is why it doesn't sell well especially to birders. IMO the Chinese ED's because of the lack of CA provide a better view at less cost than the Nikon's especially the Zen Ray 8x42 EDII. I would also say the Nikon's Premiers have not kept up with optical advancements and to me they are quite a bit behind say the Swarovision 8.5x42.
Click to expand...

Dennis,
You must remember to qualify your remarks on CA because many people are not susceptible to it.

Bob
 
etudiant said:
No argument that the Canon 10x42 is a brute.

It was tamed for me by using a BinoManager harness, dirt cheap at Coleman's:
http://www.coleman.com/coleman/ColemanCom/detail.asp?CategoryID=31016&product_id=COLEH651

I use the harness clipped to my belt in the back, to keep the binocs from pulling the harness down.
Click to expand...

There are times when a binocular is more than the sum of it's parts and other times when a binocular is less than the sum of it's parts. It is an individual choice. Many people can live with a compromise in optics over ergonomics and others can live with the opposite.

Bob
 
I have the SE 8x32s and while not an avid birder I am an avid amateur astronomer (I mention it only because great optics are important to me and among the telescopes I own is a late model Questar and Televue refractor). I don't find CA much of an issue with the Nikons, even using them to point towards the moon but especially with regards to birding. Anyone who wants to spend in excess of three times their price for the big three is doing so for reasons other than optics IMO. I find the SE 8x32s a delight to use and have never regretted their purchase five or so years ago.

If birding is your main interest in life then, by all means, treat yourself to some of the great binoculars from Zeiss, Swaro, or Leica. But, if you're like me, where birding is a casual interest but you want great binoculars anyway at a reasonable price, $550 for these is simply an outstanding purchase with optics that compare to all but the fluoride glass Zeiss FL series.

All IMO, of course. ;)
 
Last edited:
denco,

Thats interesting how you say the Nikon Premier suffers from CA, all the reviews I read
stated just the opposite. In fact, allbino.com rank them as No. 3! With no detectable
CA at all!

CSG,

Im am talking about the Premier (roof) NOT the Premier SE (porro)
 
ceasar said:
Dennis,
You must remember to qualify your remarks on CA because many people are not susceptible to it.

Bob
Click to expand...

Thanks, Bob. And some folks who are susceptible to it simply don't agree that the criticism was valid in the first place. My 8x32 LX L has excellent axial CA correction. In addition, lateral color fringing is no more prominent than any other non-HD instrument I own, which includes Swaro and Zeiss optics.

Ed
 
raptorbfl said:
denco,

Thats interesting how you say the Nikon Premier suffers from CA, all the reviews I read
stated just the opposite. In fact, allbino.com rank them as No. 3! With no detectable
CA at all!

CSG,

Im am talking about the Premier (roof) NOT the Premier SE (porro)
Click to expand...


Actually, Allbinos say this of the HGL 8 x 32 and CA.......''Low in the centre, significant on the edge.''

Don't know where you get the ''no detectable CA at all!'' part.


It's funny. Any major ''flaw'' is detected [or not] entirely differently among users........edge sharpness in the FL, rolling ball in the SV, CA in the HGL etc.

If you like they way they look, no number of experts or reviews are likely to change your mind.
 
CSG said:
I have the SE 8x32s and while not an avid birder I am an avid amateur astronomer (I mention it only because great optics are important to me and among the telescopes I own is a late model Questar and Televue refractor). I don't find CA much of an issue with the Nikons, even using them to point towards the moon but especially with regards to birding. Anyone who wants to spend in excess of three times their price for the big three is doing so for reasons other than optics IMO. I find the SE 8x32s a delight to use and have never regretted their purchase five or so years ago.

If birding is your main interest in life then, by all means, treat yourself to some of the great binoculars from Zeiss, Swaro, or Leica. But, if you're like me, where birding is a casual interest but you want great binoculars anyway at a reasonable price, $550 for these is simply an outstanding purchase with optics that compare to all but the fluoride glass Zeiss FL series.

All IMO, of course. ;)
Click to expand...

I think there is some confusion here. The Nikon 8x32 SE being a porro is excellent for CA correction. I think we are talking about the Nikon 8x32 LXL when we are saying Premier.
 
Last edited:
james holdsworth said:
Actually, Allbinos say this of the HGL 8 x 32 and CA.......''Low in the centre, significant on the edge.''

Don't know where you get the ''no detectable CA at all!'' part.


It's funny. Any major ''flaw'' is detected [or not] entirely differently among users........edge sharpness in the FL, rolling ball in the SV, CA in the HGL etc.

If you like they way they look, no number of experts or reviews are likely to change your mind.
Click to expand...

That's what bothers me about the Nikon 8x32 LXL's. The CA on the EDGE. For some reason I am really sensitive to it and I really notice it on the Nikon's. It is not just the color change but it blurs the image also making it less sharp to my eyes. I can't stand false color that's why I like the FL's and the Swarovision's. They give me natural colors with no fringing. If you don't see it good for you. You just saved alot of money but I really feel this is one of the big reasons the Nikon's don't sell like the FL's or the Swarovision's. The build quality and focus wheel are excellent on the Nikon's. I looked through a pair of Nikon 8x32 EDG's the other day and they are a BIG improvement over the Nikon LXL's(Premier's) and almost as good as the Swarovision's but not quite. Definitely worth the difference in price over the Premier's though. Somebody had the Nikon 8x32 EDG's for $750.00 didn't they? Way brighter, sharper, more contrast and way less CA than the Premier's. A totally different animal. When I looked through them I was awestruck how much better they were than the old Premiers. The Premiers are second tiers Alphas now just like the old Trinovids. People want the latest and greatest. If you don't believe me see how many Swarovision's they are selling on E-bay and getting retail price.
 
Last edited:
elkcub said:
Thanks, Bob. And some folks who are susceptible to it simply don't agree that the criticism was valid in the first place. My 8x32 LX L has excellent axial CA correction. In addition, lateral color fringing is no more prominent than any other non-HD instrument I own, which includes Swaro and Zeiss optics.

Ed
Click to expand...

"In addition, lateral color fringing is no more prominent than any other non-HD instrument I own, which includes Swaro and Zeiss optics". That is probably true it is just that the newer HD glass, FL's, and Swarovision's have got rid of CA and it is wonderful!
 
denco,

I see and understand..so if I had a firm budget of $1000.00 to spend on roof binocluars,
which model would you recommend for an eyeglass wearer and a IPD of 57.5mm.

My 57.5mm IPD really limits my options.....


James Holworth...

Did you even bother to read the allbino review on the Nikon HG 10x42, or do you just make sutff up??
It clearly states..."low in the centre, medium at the edge." NOT "significant." He states he can not find any flaws to this model.

"Cons: Nothing really comes to mind."
 
Last edited:
raptorbfl said:
James Holworth...

Did you even bother to read the allbino review on the Nikon HG 10x42, or do you just make sutff up??
It clearly states..."low in the centre, medium at the edge." NOT "significant." He states he can not find any flaws to this model.

"Cons: Nothing really comes to mind."
Click to expand...

Wasn't it you who whined about people being rude on the other thread?

And if you would stop to read before being critical, you would see that James was referring to the test on the 8x32 model as he clearly stated, whereas, you are quoting from the 10x42 test.
 
If we are talking about the full size 42 mm Nikon Premier LXLs then I would agree about the CA comments. It has been discussed in this forum in the past how the "L" version of the LX displayed more noticeable CA in comparison to its predecessor, the LX version (Venturer or HG to some). There was discussion as to whether or not it had to do with the lack of lead in the glass design. No consensus was reached if I remember correctly.

In my personal experience, having owned both, I would say that the LXL units I owned did display more noticeable CA than I preferred. They did have wonderful edge sharpness and a very flat field of view from what I remember. Plus the focusing was smooth as butter. The original HG-LX-Venturer showed less CA in my opinion but was quite a bit heavier than what most people were willing to tolerate (36 ounces IIRC).

At the moment, and to sort of answer the original question/post, I would prefer some of the new Chinese ED roofs such as the Zen Ray EDII, Atlas Intrepid, Theron Wapiti ED, etc... Their extremely clean image, wide field of view and overall ergonomics make them extremely useful for my choice of applications.
 
I am sensitive to lateral color. Enough so that I went to the Zeiss FL, which provides a satisfying escape, at least close enough to the center of the field that the view is still sharp. I can still see a tiny tad even very close to the axis in the FL, but only in scenes where the light is so harsh, it is uncomfortable to look at.

Thus qualifying myself somewhat, I did a pretty good AB of my 8x42 FL vs my Brother in Law's 10x42 SE, in the harshly lit, but otherwise darned fine, conditions of a shared vacation on the beach. I found the SE only very slightly perceptibly worse than the FL, even given the SE's disadvantage of its extra magnification, and I would not consider CA in that binocular to be an issue. It was also as richly color saturated, and sharper at the edge of the field. Of course some people have better eyes, and are nuttier over CA, than me. I would not argue that they do not see what they say they see, only, that such vision, and taste, is quite rare.
Ron
 
ronh said:
I am sensitive to lateral color. Enough so that I went to the Zeiss FL, which provides a satisfying escape, at least close enough to the center of the field that the view is still sharp. I can still see a tiny tad even very close to the axis in the FL, but only in scenes where the light is so harsh, it is uncomfortable to look at.

Thus qualifying myself somewhat, I did a pretty good AB of my 8x42 FL vs my Brother in Law's 10x42 SE, in the harshly lit, but otherwise darned fine, conditions of a shared vacation on the beach. I found the SE only very slightly perceptibly worse than the FL, even given the SE's disadvantage of its extra magnification, and I would not consider CA in that binocular to be an issue. It was also as richly color saturated, and sharper at the edge of the field. Of course some people have better eyes, and are nuttier over CA, than me. I would not argue that they do not see what they say they see, only, that such vision, and taste, is quite rare.
Ron
Click to expand...
Remember we are talking about CA in the Nikon Premier LXLs . I think the Nikon 10x42 SE's are relatively CA free also.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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

J
Which ~$1000 8x roof binoculars have the least chromatic aberration?
Replies
16
Views
1K
JayW
J
hopster
Best current 7x42 roof option?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P
J
Do you consider Resale Value/Opportunities due to Brand Recognition?
Replies
14
Views
687
Patudo
P
S
Best alpha binocular for ageing glasses wearer?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Maljunulo
M
J
Nikon ProStaff/Travelight compared to Zeiss Terra ED?
Replies
3
Views
725
Jaywalk
J

Users who are viewing this thread

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