• 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.

Better views than Nikon EII/SE? (2 Viewers)

Just a couple of my recent experiences - I’ve often compared the E2 in 8x and 10x to the Habicht in 8x and 10x.

Either Habicht has better resolution and is significantly brighter.

Just a few observations on low light viewing - I’ve tested brightness recently using a 4Watt lamp inside a curtained window situated ten metres away from a ten metre tall Chinese Elm tree. Sitting outside with arms supported and viewing the bark at night in these very dim conditions twenty metres away from the tree reveals a huge difference between these Binoculars. I’d say this is an area E2 is really quite a poor performer. This may not be the most scientific test but simply by counting streaks of bark and notches in wood, the differences between Binoculars are made obvious within a second or two.

I use the Fujinon 7x50 fmt-sx as a reference for this test and the little Habicht is far far closer to the big Fujinon’s performance and low light resolution that it is to the dim E2.

(I compared the benchmark SV 8.5 with the 8x42 Noctivid in the same test and the Noctivid was better. The Noctivid image did not appear to be ‘brighter’, but the extra detail was there to be seen. The incredible Noctivid contrast was there to be seen even in extremely low light viewing. The Noctivid was also clearly better than a mint Zeiss 7x42 bgatp, and was on par or better than a mint Zeiss 8x56 bgatp...more testing required with those two. The Noctivid has been a bit of a surprise in very low light viewing)

Rathaus
I liked the Habicht for awhile until I started observing the glare and flare it exhibits. The Habicht is totally useless when trying to observe at sharp angles like in a canyon or a high tree. I found the flare totally covers the FOV and you can't see anything. Once I saw this flare I sold mine the next day and I will never have another. It is also has the hardest focuser of any binocular I have ever used and I have tried a lot of different binoculars. The focuser is totally useless for fast focusing on different objects. Your correct in that your low light test is unscientific. I can't see how it proves anything. Try using a resolution chart and you will find the EII is just as sharp if not sharper than the Habicht. Henry Link did a very detailed test of the Habicht and found it exhibited veiling glare and here is the link where he describes the reason's behind it. The EII is a much better birding binocular than the Habicht. Here was the highly respected Henry Link's comments on the Habicht compared to the Nikon EII and SE.

"The only things I really like about the current 8x30 Habicht are the state of the art light transmission and color accuracy.

No 8x30/32 is my cup of tea. The axial image quality and ease of view of every one I've seen is obviously inferior to the 8x56 I normally use, but if the comparison is limited to just the ones you listed I would say the Swarovski is superior to my copies of the three Nikons only for light transmission and color accuracy. I haven't seen a current production 8x30 EII with the latest Nikon coatings, so I don't know how that would compare to the Habicht.

All three of my Nikons have a bit sharper axial images than the Habicht because their axial aberrations, both spherical and chromatic, are lower. Off-axis the E is similar to the Habicht, the EII is better and the SE is much better. All three Nikons also have better glare resistance.

In spite of all that I wouldn't want to part with the Habicht because I like having a reference standard for light transmission and color accuracy around and it's a kind of sentimental favorite. A Habicht 8x30 W GA was one of the first binoculars I bought way back in 1986."

Henry

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3201487&postcount=23
 
Last edited:
The 8X32 SV ($2,200) will pretty much match the SE and give you a more comfortable, wider angled, waterproofed view. My wife used an 8X32 SE for more than ten years but, in the past three years, has refused to give up her 8X32 SV. Her SE is now a loaner bin.

In the 42/50mm range you're looking at $2500 to whatever you're willing to pay. The 8X32 SE view always amazes me, while at the same time challenging me for several minutes as I adapt to its well-known finicky eyepiece. Once adapted I'm good for the day AND I sometimes use mine (504nnn) all day to give my SV's and Leica a day off! I will not sell it under any circumstances.

PS
I use a 504nnn 8X32 SE but I do have a 550nnn (my wife's second SE) in the house as a loaner. Contrary to all the nitpicking analyses I love the 504nnn.

Yes same with me. After using the 8x32 SV, I seldom grab the 8x32 SE. Now I passed it to my friend and she love the view!
 
"To answer the OP, if a viewer’s acuity is up to it, The Noctivid is in another league to the E2 optically in just about every way possible. Resolution, jaw dropping contrast, truly incredible immunity to glare and flare.... I even roughly compared their FOV and I can say there isn’t much in it...possibly nothing. That was the only area I thought the E2 might have an advantage, even if the E2 image is relatively useless much more than 50% out."

I don't believe your statement when you say the EII has no advantage in FOV when the EII has an 8.8 degree FOV(462 foot) and the Noctivid 8x42 only has 7.7 degree(404 foot). That is a huge difference. I don't believe that the Noctivid out resolves the EII either when numerous tests have shown the EII is resolving to the eyes limits.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202
 
Last edited:
The view through the SE is superb, but it doesn't suit me as a birding binocular. Focus is too slow to get on birds quickly. Also deficient against the latest bins are hang, close focus, lack of "easy clean" coatings, and waterproofing. Any of the best roofs that have field flatteners would provide a similar or better view than the SE and would be better in all of those respects. Do a side by side comparison to the Swarovski 8x32 or the 8.5x42 EL Swarovision if you want to see if you are missing anything that matters to you.

--AP
 
The view through the SE is superb, but it doesn't suit me as a birding binocular. Focus is too slow to get on birds quickly. Also deficient against the latest bins are hang, close focus, lack of "easy clean" coatings, and waterproofing. Any of the best roofs that have field flatteners would provide a similar or better view than the SE and would be better in all of those respects. Do a side by side comparison to the Swarovski 8x32 or the 8.5x42 EL Swarovision if you want to see if you are missing anything that matters to you.

--AP

Hi, Alexis:

Please consider that in warmer climates that firmer focus can come in handy, as focusers coming from the factory with TOO smooth an action can get sensitive to the point of annoyance in hot weather.

What is an “easy clean” coating?

Cheers,

Bill
 
Hi, Alexis:

Please consider that in warmer climates that firmer focus can come in handy, as focusers coming from the factory with TOO smooth an action can get sensitive to the point of annoyance in hot weather.

What is an “easy clean” coating?

Cheers,

Bill

I've used the SE in hot weather and I still find it too slow. It's not just an issue of stiffness, it's also about ratio.

An easy clean coating (many trademarked names) is a hydrophobic and oleophobic coating that sheds water, resists oil, and thereby allows very easy removal of anything that gets on the lens. It isn't a necessity, but it sure is nice! I love them on bins and cameras (esp. on LCD protection glass since I'm left eyed and thus always smudge the LCD with my nose while looking through the viewfinder). Wish I could get them on glass lenses for eyeglasses.

--AP
 
I've used the SE in hot weather and I still find it too slow. It's not just an issue of stiffness, it's also about ratio.

An easy clean coating (many trademarked names) is a hydrophobic and oleophobic coating that sheds water, resists oil, and thereby allows very easy removal of anything that gets on the lens. It isn't a necessity, but it sure is nice! I love them on bins and cameras (esp. on LCD protection glass since I'm left eyed and thus always smudge the LCD with my nose while looking through the viewfinder). Wish I could get them on glass lenses for eyeglasses.

--AP

Alexis:

Thanks for clarifying about the ratio. The SE focusing was one of the selling points for me. But, as the dead horse bino forums continue to kick dead horses—and rightfully so—“different strokes for differenty folks.”

Ah, yes, oleophobic coatings. “Easy Clean” conjured up dubious, over-the-top advertising. If you have anything from an experienced master on the subject, please direct me to it. For me, with coatings being columnar, the jury is still out on effectiveness vs. long-term damage. :cat:

Bill
 
Super-Dave...I am one who has tread the weary road (and too much money) in search of optical perfection, seventeen years of internet forums, at least fifty pairs of binos, and honestly, my advice is keep your SE's. I don't do optical science, just usage. I've owned SE's, EII's, SV's, UV's, FL's, and EDG's, and a host of lesser beasts. The only bino that I've had that might have a tiny margin optically over the SE, is the Nikon EDG 8x42II, but they're rare as hen's teeth now and cost treble or more. If the ergonomics of the SE's don't suit you, that's a different ball-game. But if you can live with the odd 'hang', the eye-relief and what people used to call 'kidney-beaning', save your time and money and hang on to those SE's.
 
Super-Dave...I am one who has tread the weary road (and too much money) in search of optical perfection, seventeen years of internet forums, at least fifty pairs of binos, and honestly, my advice is keep your SE's. I don't do optical science, just usage. I've owned SE's, EII's, SV's, UV's, FL's, and EDG's, and a host of lesser beasts. The only bino that I've had that might have a tiny margin optically over the SE, is the Nikon EDG 8x42II, but they're rare as hen's teeth now and cost treble or more. If the ergonomics of the SE's don't suit you, that's a different ball-game. But if you can live with the odd 'hang', the eye-relief and what people used to call 'kidney-beaning', save your time and money and hang on to those SE's.

When I first started looking for the Amdromedia galaxy, I had such a hard time. After a time, however, it became second nature; I could bring the bino to my eyes and there it was. The same is true with the SE and blackouts. Learn where you need to place it, use it a lot, and things will fall into place. Or, you could just sell the thing and join the great fraternity of those who have done so and are now spending eternity regretting it. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
...you could just sell the thing and join the great fraternity of those who have done so and are now spending eternity regretting it. :cat:

Bill
:-O! Also consider the cachet. Anyone can go out and spend a fortune on the latest 'roofs'; but only an élite, smug few realise that SE's aren't just some old-fashioned piece of bino-history. (I certainly regret selling my SE10x42...that was plain stupid).
 
Last edited:
(I certainly regret selling my SE10x42...that was plain stupid).

Boy, no argument from me.

When one of my sons—then an unlicensed pharmacist—needed money for his craft. He BORROWED (permanently, and without me knowing) my best Prostar to share with a pawn shop. I let him live!

Thus, we all make mistakes. :cat:

Bill
 
The thing is......the Nikon SE's are a great binocular....I think we all know that.
I've had mine for almost 12 Years and they were truly a great companion.

However......I recently bought the Zeiss 8x42 HT's and be under no illusion they are a far superior binocular......the image is outstanding, the field of view is similar, the clarity and easy of viewing has rendered my old friend a bit surplus to requirements.

They do cost a bit more but in real terms not so much given how. Much you use them and how long they last.

I was slow to really test alpha roofs.....but I did find out that ultimately you do get what you pay for.
 
You must not care about the 3D view then. The SE's put the HT to shame when it comes to 3D. I also find the SE's a little sharper on-axis than the HT's and the SE has sharper edges. The SE also controls way CA better and has less astigmatism and has 2 to 3% better transmission than the HT. I am not sure what you mean by ease of viewing but a porro almost always has an easier and more transparent view than a roof. It is all in what is important to you.
 
Last edited:
The thing is......the Nikon SE's are a great binocular....I think we all know that.
I've had mine for almost 12 Years and they were truly a great companion.

However......I recently bought the Zeiss 8x42 HT's and be under no illusion they are a far superior binocular......the image is outstanding, the field of view is similar, the clarity and easy of viewing has rendered my old friend a bit surplus to requirements.

They do cost a bit more but in real terms not so much given how. Much you use them and how long they last.

I was slow to really test alpha roofs.....but I did find out that ultimately you do get what you pay for.

While I am obviously very happy with mine, I would NEVER say that is was the “beat all/end all” in any category. But, knowing a little about photopic and scotopic vision, the varying limitations and placement of rods and cones, the varying degrees of transient visual acuiety from one observer to the next (or even in the same observer, over time), as well as the overall performance of the SE, I would be curious as to how you have been able to access the HT as being a “FAR SUPERIOR binocular.”

Many times when I speak so firmly, I am taken to be bellicose in a given matter, when such is not the case. But I have a genuine interest in what aspects cause you to make such a bold statement. I am certainly not saying you are wrong. I would just like to know how you drew the conclusion. Are you comparing instruments of the same aperture and magnification? :cat:

Bill
 
You must not care about the 3D view then. The SE's put the HT to shame when it comes to 3D. I also find the SE's a little sharper on-axis than the HT's and the SE has sharper edges. The SE also controls way CA better and has less astigmatism and has 2 to 3% better transmission than the HT. I am not sure what you mean by ease of viewing but a porro almost always has an easier and more transparent view than a roof. It is all in what is important to you.

Half of what you have written here is not true, to my eyes - are you sure that you mean the SE and the HT? ''Way better'' at CA and higher transmission? Not true at all. Are you saying the SE has 98% transmission? I've compared both - side by side - and wonder if you have done the same?
 
Last edited:
........
The SE also controls way CA better and has less astigmatism and has 2 to 3% better transmission than the HT.
............

Per the test reports from Dr. G on the House of Outdoors website:

Zeiss 8X42 HT
- 500 nm (night) 92%
- 550 nm (day) 95%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-co...Leica-Swarovski-en-Zeiss-def-MAART-2016-1.pdf

Nikon 8X32 SE
- 500 (night) 85.2%
- 550 (day) 88.3%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testr...s_van Kite_Meopta_en_Swarovski_april_2013.pdf
 
Per the test reports from Dr. G on the House of Outdoors website:

Zeiss 8X42 HT
- 500 nm (night) 92%
- 550 nm (day) 95%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-co...Leica-Swarovski-en-Zeiss-def-MAART-2016-1.pdf

Nikon 8X32 SE
- 500 (night) 85.2%
- 550 (day) 88.3%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testr...s_van Kite_Meopta_en_Swarovski_april_2013.pdf

Hello,

I won't argue with Dr. G., but does anyone think that he can discern the differences with a naked eye?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 
Half of what you have written here is not true, to my eyes - are you sure that you mean the SE and the HT? ''Way better'' at CA and higher transmission? Not true at all. Are you saying the SE has 98% transmission? I've compared both - side by side - and wonder if you have done the same?
Compare the Allbino's tests on each. I have compared side by side and I agree with Albino's objective testing on each. This is on 10x42's so the aperture's are equal in size and comparable.
https://www.allbinos.com/152-binoculars_review-Nikon_SE_10x42_CF.html
https://www.allbinos.com/305-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_HT_10x42.html
 
Last edited:
Per the test reports from Dr. G on the House of Outdoors website:

Zeiss 8X42 HT
- 500 nm (night) 92%
- 550 nm (day) 95%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-co...Leica-Swarovski-en-Zeiss-def-MAART-2016-1.pdf

Nikon 8X32 SE
- 500 (night) 85.2%
- 550 (day) 88.3%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testr...s_van Kite_Meopta_en_Swarovski_april_2013.pdf
I have never seen transmission's that low on the SE. I would trust Allbino's before I would trust those. Generally a porro will have better transmission better than any roof. Roofs don't have as wide of a fully illuminated view either. This is from Prof Edz over at Cloudy Nights.

"Transmission tests for comparative groups of roofs/porros in 10x42 and 8x40/42. Porros almost always show higher transmission than roofs.

618 Nikon SE 10x42porro
574 Nikon Monarch ATB10x42 rp
491 Pentax DCFHRII 10x42 rp
----Zen Ray Summit 10x42 rp
538 Celestron Regal 10x42 rp


579 Celestron Regal 8x42 rp
560 Bushnell Legend 8x42 rp
660 Garrett DCF 8x42 ApoRoof
750 Fujinon BFL 8x42 porro
630 Swift Ultralite 8x42 porro
770 Pentax PCF WP II 8x40 porro
880 Nikon Action Ex 8x40 porro

The perception of higher transmission can be swayed by the illumination of the view. Very few roofs have as wide a fully illuminated view as do porros. With only one exception at 30%, most of the roofs listed above have only 10% to 15% of the view fully illuminated, then they drop off gradually to 50% illumination at the field edge. Many of the porros have 20% to 35% of the fov fully illuminated with a few reaching as high as 50%, before dropping off gradually to the edge.

While this is by no means an exhaust sampling, of the comparable roofs and porros that I've measured, porros generally have not only higher transmission, but also better illumination. "

edz

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/227610-some-roofs-transmit-just-as-much-light-a-porros/
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top