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

Pileatus · Apr 23, 2005

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

One afternoon I stepped out of the car to encounter another birder carrying an SE 8X32. My wife and I had ours so that made 3 SE's on the mountain. Less than an hour later we encountered two more birders with SE 8X32's. That made five SE users in one location and all we're exceedingly happy with the bin, except for one minor complaint about the eyecups wearing out. That user bought his pair soon after the SE was released.

Admittedly, the SE was initially a challenge for me to get comfortable with. My wife, on the other hand, has never had a problem with hers and she absolutely loves the view. Though she appreciates the instant, "relaxed" view of the Ultravid 7X42, she always goes back to using her SE. Both of us, for the record, use the SE with the eyecups folded down. I wear eyeglasses; she doesn't.

Correct eye position is critical with the SE. Steve Ingraham clearly stated this in his classic review and I'll bet every SE user would agree. I quickly learned to completely eliminate blackouts by backing off the eyepiece, and I’m more than willing to sacrifice a bit of the FOV for a blackout-free viewing experience. Under certain viewing conditions the SE also has a tendency to “blink” every so often. I attribute that to the very sensitive eyepiece that delivers the images we SE users love so dearly. On the other hand, I’ve often stared at birds until my arms ached and never once thought the SE image was anything less than perfect. Much of what I’ve seen through the SE is burned into my memory and, until you personally experience that sensation, you will have no idea what I’m talking about. The SE “WOW” factor is off the charts and, if I were limited to one binocular, it would definitely be the SE.

John

redshift · Apr 23, 2005

Renze de Vries said:
Having used the Nikon 8x32SE for some months now, I still feel somewhat uncomfortably with them.....

Fascinating post, and completely alien to my experience. I have had nothing but total ease with the view.

This emphasizes that one MUST try the binoculars, and try them hard, before buying. They may either fit like a glove or like a boot with a stone in.

Pinewood · Apr 26, 2005

I agree with Renze De Vries and wish that I could sell my 8x32 SE as did Chartwell99.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :brains:

Leif · Apr 26, 2005

Pinewood said:
I agree with Renze De Vries and wish that I could sell my 8x32 SE as did Chartwell99.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :brains:

I have to admit your experiences do not match my own, but then again it must be differences in the shapes of our faces or something along those lines. Family who try my SE comment on how clear they are.

Stick your pair on ebay. Add a link to the BVD review and BF and they will easily sell at a very good price. Or try BF and they should sell though ebay does seem to attract the daft bids.

Leif

Renze de Vries · Apr 27, 2005

kabsetz said:
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

For those who want to learn more about 'Spherical aberration of the eyepiece exit pupil' (and I feel I simply have to), the book Kimmo is referring to is called 'Telescope Optics, A comprehensive Manual for amateur Astronomers', written by Harrie Rutten and Martin van Venrooij, two Dutch astronomers, turned optical designers. I have written the names exactly right here, but as the Dutch names are somewhat strange to English speaking/writing people, one might see Van Venrooij also being mentioned as Van Venrooy, or even worse.

Renze

Zolarcon · May 22, 2005

John Traynor said:
Admittedly, the SE was initially a challenge for me to get comfortable with. My wife, on the other hand, has never had a problem with hers and she absolutely loves the view. Though she appreciates the instant, "relaxed" view of the Ultravid 7X42, she always goes back to using her SE. Both of us, for the record, use the SE with the eyecups folded down. I wear eyeglasses; she doesn't.

Correct eye position is critical with the SE. Steve Ingraham clearly stated this in his classic review and I'll bet every SE user would agree. I quickly learned to completely eliminate blackouts by backing off the eyepiece, and I’m more than willing to sacrifice a bit of the FOV for a blackout-free viewing experience. Under certain viewing conditions the SE also has a tendency to “blink” every so often. I attribute that to the very sensitive eyepiece that delivers the images we SE users love so dearly. On the other hand, I’ve often stared at birds until my arms ached and never once thought the SE image was anything less than perfect. Much of what I’ve seen through the SE is burned into my memory and, until you personally experience that sensation, you will have no idea what I’m talking about. The SE “WOW” factor is off the charts and, if I were limited to one binocular, it would definitely be the SE.

John

:bounce:

Hi John,

Bad news, both my SE's got something in them. One of them has a little piece of paint inside of it black- I assume from the SE itself. The other has some dirt inside it. I am careful with them. Both are being serviced neither have been in a sandstorm or a dusty enviroment. They are fragile bins.

The SE has been taking a back seat lately with rainy days. I hate to say this about the the SE bins that I love so much but they are not meant for the serious birder. I probably bird 30+ hours a week. I dont think they can keep up with the Nikon LX has been there for me every step without fail. Damn, I hate that the SE has let me down, not optically. And you are right there is nothing like a bird through an SE. Nothing...

I've tried all the hi- end major brands except for the Zeiss FL and nothing has come close to my SE, and some have come close to the LX but not better than the LX.

Best regards,
Carlos

Marley · May 22, 2005

All,

I am very intriqued with all of the reports regarding the awesome capabilities of the Nikon 8x32 SEs and I would probably own a pair if they were of roof and not porro design. I have to admit that I like the feel of roof bins over porros. It's just one of by biases, that's all.

I am curious to know one thing. Why is it that the SEs get such high reviews and the vast majority of the Nikon line doesn't? I hear very good things about the HGs, but that's about it.

In comparison, I hear wonderful things about Zeiss, Leica and Swaro optics in all configurations, from compact to oversized, from 7x to 12x. I just don't see posts marveling at, say a 7x42 FL and then silence about the 8x42, 10x42, 8x32, etc. Each report from Z, L and S seems to extoll the world-class virtures of the entire line, and not just one particular size.

I guess what I would really like to see is Nikon on par with the other three, regardless of the magnification, objective or design.

Am I wrong here? Am I way off base? Someone jump in here and set me straight!

As always, thanks to all for the outstanding insight and knowledge. This forum is indeed a pleasure.

Rgds,

Steffan

Pinewood · May 22, 2005

Steffan,

Nikon, unlike Leica, has lines of binoculars at many price points. Zeiss has one lower priced line, the Conquest binoculars. It could be argued that Nikon, and Zeiss, are using their names to get part of the mass market.

Happy bird watching.
Arthur Pinewood

Zolarcon · May 22, 2005

Marley said:
All,

I am very intriqued with all of the reports regarding the awesome capabilities of the Nikon 8x32 SEs and I would probably own a pair if they were of roof and not porro design. I have to admit that I like the feel of roof bins over porros. It's just one of by biases, that's all.

I am curious to know one thing. Why is it that the SEs get such high reviews and the vast majority of the Nikon line doesn't? I hear very good things about the HGs, but that's about it.

In comparison, I hear wonderful things about Zeiss, Leica and Swaro optics in all configurations, from compact to oversized, from 7x to 12x. I just don't see posts marveling at, say a 7x42 FL and then silence about the 8x42, 10x42, 8x32, etc. Each report from Z, L and S seems to extoll the world-class virtures of the entire line, and not just one particular size.

I guess what I would really like to see is Nikon on par with the other three, regardless of the magnification, objective or design.

Am I wrong here? Am I way off base? Someone jump in here and set me straight!

As always, thanks to all for the outstanding insight and knowledge. This forum is indeed a pleasure.

Rgds,

Steffan

Hi Steffan,

Yes you are off base. Check the Better View Desired website. As far as the porrro prism bins it goes to the Nikon SE. When it comes to the best 60mm scope it goes to Nikon Fieldscope III ED, when it comes to the 8x32 size roof prism class it goes to the Nikon HG and many would agree the 8x42 HG or LXL is on top with the others. I've had many opportunites to compare and I can not disagree with several people on the site that Nikon holds itself on top. Even their lower end stuff like the Monarch and the E2 do exceptionally well so check around and you will be suprised on how well Nikon does against the big boys.

Good luck,
Carlos

kabsetz · May 22, 2005

Carlos,

My 10x42 SE's are now some 8 years old. If I hold them up and view through the objectives, I can see more specks of dust on interior glass surfaces than I care to count, but since non of them are visible in the view, I will not bother to send them for a cleanup. However, dust and debris inside the optics can sometimes be placed such that it is visible in the viewfield, and in these cases it needs to be removed or you cannot stop thinking about it.

For those who cannot stand any impurities on the glass, fully sealed roof-prism binoculars are definitely a better choice. However, I would advise the owners of top-brand top-price roof prism binoculars NOT to look too carefully into their innards, since absolutely clean specimen are not as common as the makers would have us believe. Fortunately, it usually does not matter, and if the binocular is guaranteed waterproof and dustproof, at least you should be able to have it cleaned under warranty if you find that first speck.

Kimmo

Marley · May 22, 2005

Hi Kimmo,

I think that you meant to send your reply to Carlos.

Hi Carlos,

As far as Nikon quality is concerned, I am mostly in agreement with you. I hear great things about the 8x32 SE and 8x42 HG. For those two bins, there really can be no doubt. My question really was meant to address what I percieve as "holes" in Nikon's line.

For example, where are the rave reviews for 8x25SEs, 8x42SEs, 8x50SEs, 10x50SEs? I'm just not sure why Nikon would produce world-beater optics in an 8x32 sized package and then not offer those wonderful optics in other sizes. The same issues seems to exist for the 8x42 HGs. With their outstanding quality, where are the 7x42 HGs and the 10x42 HGs?

Conversely, when reading reviews from Z, L and S, you don't hear people say, for instance, "Wow, those 7x42 Ultravids are just incredible" and then hear nothing about the 8x42s or 10x42s. They seem to get the same type of excellent reviews, regardless of configuration.

Don't get me wrong here. I am genuinely asking these questions, as it seems like Nikon could be more competitive in the high-end market if they offered the SE and HG optics in more sizes. I also do not mean to raise questions regarding one person's choice of optics over another or one company's quality over another. We have all seen those threads and we all know the answer. It comes down to your eyes and appreciation.

As far as BVD is concerned, the reviews are very old and one should be very careful when accepting late '90's/very early 2000 optics reviews as being equal to the latest technology. We all know how things have changed over the last few years. Steve reviewed the Fieldscope III ED in 2000, when Swaro, Leica and Zeiss did not offer a ~60mm scope (as Steve notes in the review). I think that an updated review would be very interesting.

Once again, just curious.

Best regards,

Steffan

henry link · May 22, 2005

I agree with Kimmo about this. It takes a lot of debris to make any difference unless there is a glass surface close to the eyepiece focal plane. I bought an old pair of Leitz 7X50's on eBay in which the field lens of the eyepiece is very close to the focal plane and had some smeared lubricant in the view, quite sharply in focus. It attracted my attention every time until finally I removed the eyepiece and cleaned it off. Keep in mind that even a large paint chip 3mm in diameter lodged on the inside of a 32mm objective would obstruct less than 1% of the light and be completely invisible because it is so far out off focus. Much worse than little bits of debris is the haze than can form over time from evaporated lubricants or mildew, particularly when deposited on the reflective surfaces of the prisms.

Leif · May 22, 2005

Marley said:
For example, where are the rave reviews for 8x25SEs, 8x42SEs, 8x50SEs, 10x50SEs? I'm just not sure why Nikon would produce world-beater optics in an 8x32 sized package and then not offer those wonderful optics in other sizes. The same issues seems to exist for the 8x42 HGs. With their outstanding quality, where are the 7x42 HGs and the 10x42 HGs?

Steffan: there are sound practical and commercial reasons for the SE range being restricted to just 3 variants. Firstly they all share the same eyepiece and prism assembly and optics, thus reducing design, development and manufacturing costs. Secondly, an 8x42 would require larger prisms, or have a narrow FOV. The large prisms would lead to increased weight, and not so good ergonomics, as someone like me would not be able to get their hands round them. Finally, the SE range are a somewhat niche item, and don't seem to be big sellers, so I guess Nikon did not want to spend the money. T'is a pity.

BTW 10x42 HGs do exist.

Leif

Bill Atwood · May 22, 2005

Marley said:
With their outstanding quality, where are the 7x42 HGs and the 10x42 HGs?

You are right about the 7x, but Nikon does offer 10x42 HGs. You dont hear much about them.

Pileatus · May 23, 2005

Marley said:
Hi Kimmo,

I think that you meant to send your reply to Carlos.

Hi Carlos,

As far as Nikon quality is concerned, I am mostly in agreement with you. I hear great things about the 8x32 SE and 8x42 HG. For those two bins, there really can be no doubt. My question really was meant to address what I percieve as "holes" in Nikon's line.

For example, where are the rave reviews for 8x25SEs, 8x42SEs, 8x50SEs, 10x50SEs? I'm just not sure why Nikon would produce world-beater optics in an 8x32 sized package and then not offer those wonderful optics in other sizes. The same issues seems to exist for the 8x42 HGs. With their outstanding quality, where are the 7x42 HGs and the 10x42 HGs?

Conversely, when reading reviews from Z, L and S, you don't hear people say, for instance, "Wow, those 7x42 Ultravids are just incredible" and then hear nothing about the 8x42s or 10x42s. They seem to get the same type of excellent reviews, regardless of configuration.

Don't get me wrong here. I am genuinely asking these questions, as it seems like Nikon could be more competitive in the high-end market if they offered the SE and HG optics in more sizes. I also do not mean to raise questions regarding one person's choice of optics over another or one company's quality over another. We have all seen those threads and we all know the answer. It comes down to your eyes and appreciation.

As far as BVD is concerned, the reviews are very old and one should be very careful when accepting late '90's/very early 2000 optics reviews as being equal to the latest technology. We all know how things have changed over the last few years. Steve reviewed the Fieldscope III ED in 2000, when Swaro, Leica and Zeiss did not offer a ~60mm scope (as Steve notes in the review). I think that an updated review would be very interesting.

Once again, just curious.

Best regards,

Steffan

Steffan,

At the top end of Nikon porros you'll find the SE 8X32 and SE 10X42. If you like porros, as many of us do, the 8X32 SE will satisfy all your 8X needs. There is simply no point in making an 8X42 SE. Additional magnification can be found in the 10X42 SE. The 12X SE really isn't suited to birding.

IMO, there's no better or more versatile porro made than the SE 8X32. It's wonderfully lightweight, extremely bright, superbly sharp, full of contrast, and masterfully engineered. Optically, it's simply unbeatable.

The LX/HG series is excellent and I'm sure Nikon limited the range to the most attractive configurations based on market demand.

John

Marley · May 23, 2005

Thanks John,

I appreciate your thoughts. I have to say that Nikon is an interesting company, especially in regards to what they offer the binocular market.

If they offered a 7x42 HG, I would certainly consider it. Since they do not, I have followed your lead and ordered a pair of Ultravid 7x42's. I found that the best offerings in this size were the Ultravids and the FLs. I found both to be outstanding optically, but the Ultravids won out due to better ergonomics and a slower, more accurate focus.

Thanks again,

Steffan

Pileatus · May 23, 2005

Marley said:
Thanks John,

I appreciate your thoughts. I have to say that Nikon is an interesting company, especially in regards to what they offer the binocular market.

If they offered a 7x42 HG, I would certainly consider it. Since they do not, I have followed your lead and ordered a pair of Ultravid 7x42's. I found that the best offerings in this size were the Ultravids and the FLs. I found both to be outstanding optically, but the Ultravids won out due to better ergonomics and a slower, more accurate focus.

Thanks again,

Steffan

Steffan,

Enjoy your Ultravid.

John

Pileatus · Jun 13, 2005

I used my SE 8X32 yesterday afternoon at Middle Creek Wildlife Management Area for several hours and, if there's a better view to be had in a binocular, I haven't seen it.

solentbirder · Jun 13, 2005

John Traynor said:
There is simply no point in making an 8X42 SE. Additional magnification can be found in the 10X42 SE. The 12X SE really isn't suited to birding.

Personally I find binoculars with a 5mm exit pupil or greater (so 7x42, 8x42, 10x50 etc.) far more comfortable and usable on a daily basis. I really think Nikon is missing a trick here. For example, many astronomers are interested in the 12x50 SE but it's just a bit too powerful for steady hand-held use and a 10x50 SE would be much more popular (and would probably be the best 10x50 in the world, to mis-quote the Carlsberg advert). An 8x50 SE would be a superb astronomy/twilight instrument. Come on Nikon, give us a bit more choice please !

Otto McDiesel · Jun 13, 2005

[QUOTECome on Nikon, give us a bit more choice please ![/QUOTE]

Yup, i agree with that. I would pay in a heartbeat for a 9x35 SE with twist eyecups that extend as far as the eye relief goes, rainproofing (they are not bad as it is), smoother focus (like the EII's), and well...that's all. Yeah, maybe shave 2-3 ounces off the total weight. C'mon Nikon, please...

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

"Experientia Docet”

Toad Popper

New York correspondent

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New York correspondent

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread