Newbie with 8x32 HG and SE (1 Viewer)

iporali · Dec 12, 2004

Zolarcon said:
Does the SE focus soften up as you use it or not? Between the two bins- which one do you prefer to use?

I - or actually my wife has had the 8x32SEs since last May, so they have not been used very much yet. But from what I have seen I'm inclined to agree with the more experienced fellows above that the stiffness is a permanent feature of the SEs.
Which one do I prefer? Well, I like the 10x power, shape (I loved that Salma Hayek metaphor - thanks Bill!) and ultra smooth focusing of the HGs - but I also like the lack of chromatic aberration and the great depth of field of the SEs. If I had to take only one I would probably choose the 10x32HGs - well, I am happy that I don't have to.

Ilkka

Pileatus · Dec 12, 2004

Zolarcon said:
Hi Ilkka,

The SE is amazing! And I agree with you on the water damage repair with the Nikon- not a big deal.

Does the SE focus soften up as you use it or not? Between the two bins- which one do you prefer to use? I also dont believe its a 3D effect alone. I didnt undertand the explanation very well. I need the explanation dumbed down a little bit. I apologize for my ignorance on this matter.

The thing that is weird to me is that I do notice that I can get more detail from the SE than the HG eventhough the image size is smaller. Huh?

I truly appreciate everyone's feedback.

The verdict is not in yet, but the SE is an amazing glass. Nikon SE Holy cow WOW!

Carlos
:eek!:

Carlos,

The SE's focus wheel will probably not loosen much with use and in the winter it gets pretty stiff. I've used the SE at 10F with no problems, other than a slowww focus! The SE provides an exceptional viewing experience when studying cooperative birds and other wildlife. Fast movers, on the other hand, are somewhat more challenging to acquire and maintain with the SE, IF a lot of focusing is involved.

I freely admit that my Leica 7X42 provides an easier viewing experience. Acquisition is faster, focus is faster, and its 6 mm exit pupil is more relaxing. However, there's something about the final result produced by the SE (the view) that keeps me coming back for more!

John

Zolarcon · Dec 13, 2004

John Traynor said:
Carlos,

The SE's focus wheel will probably not loosen much with use and in the winter it gets pretty stiff. I've used the SE at 10F with no problems, other than a slowww focus! The SE provides an exceptional viewing experience when studying cooperative birds and other wildlife. Fast movers, on the other hand, are somewhat more challenging to acquire and maintain with the SE, IF a lot of focusing is involved.

I freely admit that my Leica 7X42 provides an easier viewing experience. Acquisition is faster, focus is faster, and its 6 mm exit pupil is more relaxing. However, there's something about the final result produced by the SE (the view) that keeps me coming back for more!

John

Hi John,

It seems like I need both. The HG makes more sense but the view on the SE is exceptional. Where are the SE or HG fanatics hiding?

I've spent the last few days and nights really racking my brain- performing optical tests at home, while my wife rolls her eyes at me questioning my sanity.

Both are starting to meld into one; sometimes I think the HG is getting better. I should of never brought home both these monsters and just bought the one that felt right at the store. Its amazing how perfectly unfair these two bins are. The trade offs - Its just astounding how perfectly close to being what I want both of them are. Leif was right- Nikon can not let the SE catch up to the HG. If not no more HG. Its truly amazing and terrible the marketing choices that have to be made to stay competitve. I am sure there is a way to make the SE everything the HG is and more.

Thanks,
Carlos

Zolarcon · Dec 13, 2004

SE is the winner!

Hi BF,

I finally decided the SE is for me. It was close right up to the end... Until I realized when I just had the HG's around my neck I missed the view of the SE. I hope I am welcomed to the SE Clan.

Having fun with the SE,
Carlos.

Wehr · May 3, 2005

iporali said:
I - or actually my wife has had the 8x32SEs since last May, so they have not been used very much yet. But from what I have seen I'm inclined to agree with the more experienced fellows above that the stiffness is a permanent feature of the SEs.
Which one do I prefer? Well, I like the 10x power, shape (I loved that Salma Hayek metaphor - thanks Bill!) and ultra smooth focusing of the HGs - but I also like the lack of chromatic aberration and the great depth of field of the SEs. If I had to take only one I would probably choose the 10x32HGs - well, I am happy that I don't have to.

Ilkka

The SEs are great binoculars, but depth of field is a matter of physics and not of porro or roof.

So the depth of field is definately the same on lets say 8x32s, regardless wether it are porros or roofs. Only the location of the "sharp space" varies with the degree of field flatness.

Walter

Leif · May 3, 2005

Wehr said:
The SEs are great binoculars, but depth of field is a matter of physics and not of porro or roof.

So the depth of field is definately the same on lets say 8x32s, regardless wether it are porros or roofs. Only the location of the "sharp space" varies with the degree of field flatness.

Walter

Walter: As I'm sure you know, there was recently quite a furious discussion of DOF on BF . Many of us are convinced that some binoculars have more DOF than others with the same nominal spec e.g. 8x32 despite the fact that careful testing shows them to be the same. I believe that someone else suggested it (and maybe you are also suggesting it) but I reckon that this illusion is due to the degree of field curvature. We tend to judge DOF by moving the eye around with the binocular held fixed hence field curvature enters the equation.

Leif

iporali · May 3, 2005

Wehr said:
So the depth of field is definately the same on lets say 8x32s, regardless wether it are porros or roofs. Only the location of the "sharp space" varies with the degree of field flatness.

Walter

Walter,

In this case I was talking about my two pairs of Nikon binoculars: the 10x32HGs and the 8x32SEs. I stand by my claim that the 8x SEs have much more depth of focus/field than do the 10x HGs. :t:

OK, I *have been* under subjective impression that the HGs in general have a narrow DOF (compared to eg Swaro ELs), but I admit that it may be due to combination of overly fast focuser and flat-field eyepieces.

Ilkka

Pileatus · May 3, 2005

Wehr said:
The SEs are great binoculars, but depth of field is a matter of physics and not of porro or roof.

So the depth of field is definately the same on lets say 8x32s, regardless wether it are porros or roofs. Only the location of the "sharp space" varies with the degree of field flatness.

Walter

Walter,

Here's a thread worth reading.
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthre...8206/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1

DOF is certainly based on more than magnification and objective size.

John

Wehr · May 3, 2005

iporali said:
Walter,

In this case I was talking about my two pairs of Nikon binoculars: the 10x32HGs and the 8x32SEs. I stand by my claim that the 8x SEs have much more depth of focus/field than do the 10x HGs. :t:

OK, I *have been* under subjective impression that the HGs in general have a narrow DOF (compared to eg Swaro ELs), but I admit that it may be due to combination of overly fast focuser and flat-field eyepieces.

Ilkka

Hello Ilkka,

did I make a mistake? Comparing 8x32 with 10x32 the 8x32 of course have more depth of field.

Walter

Wehr · May 4, 2005

Leif said:
Walter: As I'm sure you know, there was recently quite a furious discussion of DOF on BF . Many of us are convinced that some binoculars have more DOF than others with the same nominal spec e.g. 8x32 despite the fact that careful testing shows them to be the same. I believe that someone else suggested it (and maybe you are also suggesting it) but I reckon that this illusion is due to the degree of field curvature. We tend to judge DOF by moving the eye around with the binocular held fixed hence field curvature enters the equation.

Leif

Hello Leif,

of course there are differences in DOF, even between identical bins. First of all, top manufacturers commit themselves to keep tolerances for example plus minus 5% in magnification and objective size, second field curvature is very important and last but not least optical illusions have a big impact on all of us.

Nevertheless magnification and objective size are crucial for DOF (working with a defined wave length) according to the laws of physics. Deviations are caused by human or product imperfections - so deviations are not a contradiction to theory.

It would be very nice, if there were certain optical/technical tricks to really overcome this laws concerning conventional binoculars' DOF, but - we would have heard of it.

Do we agree so far?

Walter

Wehr · May 4, 2005

John Traynor said:
Walter,

Here's a thread worth reading.
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthre...8206/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1

DOF is certainly based on more than magnification and objective size.

John

Hello John,

thank you for the link. I read it before. The discussion is of course very interesting. Preferring to stay with science I friendly and strongly disagree with you.

Walter

Leif · May 4, 2005

Wehr said:
Hello Leif,

of course there are differences in DOF, even between identical bins. First of all, top manufacturers commit themselves to keep tolerances for example plus minus 5% in magnification and objective size, second field curvature is very important and last but not least optical illusions have a big impact on all of us.

Nevertheless magnification and objective size are crucial for DOF (working with a defined wave length) according to the laws of physics. Deviations are caused by human or product imperfections - so deviations are not a contradiction to theory.

It would be very nice, if there were certain optical/technical tricks to really overcome this laws concerning conventional binoculars' DOF, but - we would have heard of it.

Do we agree so far?

Walter

Hello walter: We sort of agree, or at least the disagreement is not enough to fight over.

Seriously though, here is some background from photography. Apologies if you already know this.

For photographic lenses, the DOF is a function of the image magnification and the aperture and nothing else. The aperture is represented by the F number i.e. the focal length divided by the stopped down objective aperture. Thus stopping a lens down to F16 from F4 increases the DOF. Less obviously, reducing the subject distance - i.e. focussing close - reduces the DOF. Thus for real close up the DOF is small.

Assuming that this simple analysis applies to binoculars, and ignoring the effect of the human eye, we can see that two 8x30 binoculars will have the same DOF, and an 8x40 one will have less DOF due to the larger aperture. However in practice the human eye acts as an aperture stop. In good light the human pupil dilates to about 2mm, and so as far as the observer is concerned both the 8x30 and 8x40 binoculars will be acting as 8x16 binoculars, and will thus have the same DOF!

However ... some years ago I had a Nikon 8x42 HG, bought used, and a dealer pointed out to me that it was out of collimation. Goodness knows how I missed that (maybe knocked in transit to the dealer?), but on checking, the right hand optical assembly had noticeably less DOF than the right hand one. So clearly the DOF is also influenced by optical alignment. I also wonder if it is affected by optical quality? (In a sense this overlaps with optical alignment, except that instead of an element being out of position, one of the surfaces is a bit too steep, or not steep enough.)

Lastly, if we consider two 8x30 binoculars, one with 95% transmission, and the other with 70% transmission, then we might expect that the observers pupil would dilate more when using the poorer quality instrument, in order to compensate for the lower light transmission. Thus the perceived DOF would be less due to the larger effective aperture. I wonder if this partially explains the observed differences in DOF?

Leif

Wehr · May 4, 2005

Leif said:
Hello walter: We sort of agree, or at least the disagreement is not enough to fight over. Seriously though, here is some background from photography. Apologies if you already know this.

For photographic lenses, the DOF is a function of the image magnification and the aperture and nothing else. The aperture is represented by the F number i.e. the focal length divided by the stopped down objective aperture. Thus stopping a lens down to F16 from F4 increases the DOF. Less obviously, reducing the subject distance - i.e. focussing close - reduces the DOF. Thus for real close up the DOF is small.

Assuming that this simple analysis applies to binoculars, and ignoring the effect of the human eye, we can see that two 8x30 binoculars will have the same DOF, and an 8x40 one will have less DOF due to the larger aperture. However in practice the human eye acts as an aperture stop. In good light the human pupil dilates to about 2mm, and so as far as the observer is concerned both the 8x30 and 8x40 binoculars will be acting as 8x16 binoculars, and will thus have the same DOF!

However ... some years ago I had a Nikon 8x42 HG, bought used, and a dealer pointed out to me that it was out of collimation. Goodness knows how I missed that (maybe knocked in transit to the dealer?), but on checking, the right hand optical assembly had noticeably less DOF than the right hand one. So clearly the DOF is also influenced by optical alignment. I also wonder if it is affected by optical quality? (In a sense this overlaps with optical alignment, except that instead of an element being out of position, one of the surfaces is a bit too steep, or not steep enough.)

Lastly, if we consider two 8x30 binoculars, one with 95% transmission, and the other with 70% transmission, then we might expect that the observers pupil would dilate more when using the poorer quality instrument, in order to compensate for the lower light transmission. Thus the perceived DOF would be less due to the larger effective aperture. I wonder if this partially explains the observed differences in DOF?

Leif

Hello Leif,

thank you for going so deep. Let us be completely correct and not simplify anything (which was my fault). Bringing in the observers pupil (thank you for this too, I should have done this before) enables us to speak about "effective" exit pupil.

Keeping this in mind the statement is as follows:

DOF of two binoculars, spottingscopes or telescopes depends only on magnification and effective exit pupil, as long as

1. there are no optical failures or tolerances present in either of them,
2. both instruments have identical transmissions and identical virtual fields of view,
3. the same observer is watching and
4. light condition is not changing during observation.

Deviations of only one of the above points may explain different DOFs.
Drawbacks: There are not available two binoculars with no optical failures and with identical transmissions, even if they are from the same brand.

If I didn't forget anything this should be complete.

Regards
Walter

Robert Ellis · May 4, 2005

Maybe this will help a little somehow. Remember that camera lenses show greater dof when stopped down (smaller hole). How does that figure into the discussion?

Leif · May 4, 2005

Walter: Yes that's a nice summary. It had escaped me that light level can change dramatically even over short intervals e.g. due to cloud passing in front of the sun!!!! I wonder how many of us account for that when comparing binoculars? I have to admit that I don't. I expect that I am not alone on that respect.

Robert Ellis said:
Maybe this will help a little somehow. Remember that camera lenses show greater dof when stopped down (smaller hole). How does that figure into the discussion?

Hi Robert: Basically the human eye's pupil is acting as per the aperture in the camera lens. So on a bright day, a binocular will have a large apparent depth of field and on a dull day it will have a smaller apparent depth of field. This assume of course that the diameter of the pupil is less than the diameter of the binocular's exit pupil. So this analysis won't really apply to compact or high power bins.

Leif

Newbie with 8x32 HG and SE (1 Viewer)

More options

iporali

Well-known member

Pileatus

"Experientia Docet”

Zolarcon

Well-known member

Zolarcon

Well-known member

Wehr

Well-known member

Leif

Well-known member

iporali

Well-known member

Pileatus

"Experientia Docet”

Wehr

Well-known member

Wehr

Well-known member

Wehr

Well-known member

Leif

Well-known member

Wehr

Well-known member

Robert Ellis

Larus marinus

Leif

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread