• 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.

Nikon WX 10x50 IF reviewed by Allbinos (1 Viewer)

Thanks for the H-U. I've been looking forward to reading a review of these very interesting binos that I will probably never purchase........
 
The Cloudy Nights forum has been carrying reviews and reports on the WX for some time now, for both models as I recall.
 
Low transmission and poor colour-fidelity would be off-putting, for me, in such an expensive instrument.

Once again, I have my doubts about this allbinos review (not the first time).
Having been able myself to thoroughly test the 7x50 version, I don‘t understand the impression given by allbinos that the image shows a yellow-greenish hue.

This is also somewhat contradicted by allbinos‘ own transmission curve, which is a bit similar to the one of the Leica Ultravid, with the maximum in the long wave range.
I have to say that I rather will wait for somebody like Gijs van Ginkel to measure and document the WX transmission.

As Holger Merlitz points out, a transmission value below 90% shouldn‘t be a surprise, given the large amount of glass involved.

Looking personally through the WX is a revelation, especially if you are used to working with traditional premium binos, and I recommend to everybody.

Canip
 
Reading through the long thread on Cloudy Nights seems to confirm both the transmission and yellowish tint. I have no skin in this game although I would think that such an expensive and obviously overbuilt / over-specced bin would be close to optical perfection.
 
The Zeiss 20x60S also has faults, such as a very curved field.

With military spec optics one could easily spend $1,000,000 and still find something to complain about.

The billion dollar Hubble scope also was initially pretty useless.
 
Interesting how 'purpose built' devices have such skewed specs. It makes a very impractical general purpose birding binocular! ;-0

As a mounted spotting scope, I can see it's unique appeal, though. I'm sure the wide field
views of the night sky, and any interesting landscape, would be lovely. Of course I'd love to look through one.


In terms of astronomical viewing, consider that a short tube triplet 80-100mm refractor at low power, with a good eyepiece will likely provide a much brighter view, albeit with a narrower field, for far less money. I wonder if they considered a single objective, larger aperture model, with a dedicated binoviewer, and swappable eyepieces. If you're viewing the night sky, the binocular approach can't provide an effective stereo view of objects outside of the earth's atmosphere, however I don't dispute the comfort of using two eyes to view. Also consider that when viewing the sky, the need for an erecting prism isn't necessary. The gains of more aperture would more than offset the light loss..... of course field of view would probably take a beating, and the exit pupil size might monkey wrench the whole thing. I guess I'm just puzzling why they made such a beast of a device. Perhaps the research value in correcting a wide field will trickle down into more accessible consumer optics.

Bill
 
.....
..... I would think that such an expensive and obviously overbuilt / over-specced bin would be close to optical perfection.

Optical perfection is a big word, and in practice no bino will ever be „optically perfect“.

The WX - as you can verify yourself by looking through one - may be as close to optical perfection as any bino that we may encounter during our lifetime.
 
Last edited:
If it actually does have a noticeable colour-cast - that would make it a pretty flawed instrument in my books. I rejected a perfect looking specimen of the Zeiss 15x60 BGAT - as whites were a bit yellowish. At this level, I would expect perfect colour fidelity...of which is of great importance for either terrestrial or celestial viewing.
 
Perfect colour fidelity has very little if any impact on celestial viewing.
Birds plumage colours yes, but stars or planets no.

Planetary observers often use quite strong colour filters to bring out detail especially on Venus, but on all the others planets also.

Mk III and Mk II. This may seem weird, but here the III and II are black but on another site with maybe smaller letters these two numerals appear red to me although if I inspect them with a magnifying glass they are black.
Why, I don't know, and I would expect others to see similar effects but with different size numerals depending on an individual's eyes.

As to brightness variations, variable star observers and I could consistently see 10% brightness difference, but 5% probably not, except maybe sometimes. Some observers cannot estimate star brightness at all.
As an independent discoverer of Nova Cygnus 1975, I could see variations in brightness of small amounts almost in real time, using a telescope. These were not atmospheric changes. I just could not understand what I was seeing.

Meteor observers might notice 50% differences in brightness estimates in the streaking meteors, but some cannot estimate meteor brightness at all.
 
In terms of astronomical viewing, consider that a short tube triplet 80-100mm refractor at low power, with a good eyepiece will likely provide a much brighter view, albeit with a narrower field, for far less money. I wonder if they considered a single objective, larger aperture model, with a dedicated binoviewer, and swappable eyepieces.

Bill, the perceived brightness at the same exit pupil size will be higher in a binocular compared to a telescope. Did you perhaps mean that a telescope will show fainter objects due to being able to use higher magnifications?

As to using a scope with binoviewer, I think everybody who has used one will agree that a binoviewer decreases the brightness.
 
Perfect colour fidelity has very little if any impact on celestial viewing.
Birds plumage colours yes, but stars or planets no.

Planetary observers often use quite strong colour filters to bring out detail especially on Venus, but on all the others planets also.

Mk III and Mk II. This may seem weird, but here the III and II are black but on another site with maybe smaller letters these two numerals appear red to me although if I inspect them with a magnifying glass they are black.
Why, I don't know, and I would expect others to see similar effects but with different size numerals depending on an individual's eyes.

As to brightness variations, variable star observers and I could consistently see 10% brightness difference, but 5% probably not, except maybe sometimes. Some observers cannot estimate star brightness at all.
As an independent discoverer of Nova Cygnus 1975, I could see variations in brightness of small amounts almost in real time, using a telescope. These were not atmospheric changes. I just could not understand what I was seeing.

Meteor observers might notice 50% differences in brightness estimates in the streaking meteors, but some cannot estimate meteor brightness at all.
Birds are amazing; stars profound.
 
Mark 9743, post 13,
I do not agree that observing with a binoviewer decreases brightness, as I have learned when I used and tested the new Swarovski BTX binocular eypiece on the 95 mm objective module.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
I'm a bit bemused, a figure higher than 85% at 450-500 Nm makes an excellent twilight binocular but clearly Nikon had different design priorities like ultra-wide FOV

Comparison with the new Steiner and exceptional but discontinued Docter porros
 

Attachments

  • 13002_docter_nob_8_56_trans.jpg
    13002_docter_nob_8_56_trans.jpg
    52.6 KB · Views: 109
  • 195536_nikon_wx.jpg
    195536_nikon_wx.jpg
    44 KB · Views: 108
  • 182645_steinerNH.jpg
    182645_steinerNH.jpg
    64 KB · Views: 107
Last edited:
Bill, the perceived brightness at the same exit pupil size will be higher in a binocular compared to a telescope. Did you perhaps mean that a telescope will show fainter objects due to being able to use higher magnifications?

As to using a scope with binoviewer, I think everybody who has used one will agree that a binoviewer decreases the brightness.

Mark, I'm basing my suppositions from using a variety of finder scopes and telescopes to view the night sky at different apertures. Larger aperture allowed greater magnification, and also showed a brighter image with more detail.

With regard to using a binoviewer, I suggested it for viewing comfort, not to make any claims about it being brighter.

My conjecture, and it could very well be wrong, is that an 80-100mm scope with a binoviewer, would yield a brighter image than a 50mm binocular, at the same exit pupil size.

Considering that if we close one eye, the perceived image does not decrease in brightness, at least in casual, broad daylight 'testing'. It therefore puzzles me why a binocular would be perceptibly brighter than a telescope of the same aperture and magnification, or for that matter, brighter than a telescope with a larger aperture and the same exit pupil. 8x32 binocular vs. 20 x 80 scope, for example.

Stereo vision, and enlarged field of view, seem to be the clear advantage of using both eyes, but it is not evident to me how the signal processing for brightness from 2 sources is sorted out, since there is no obvious change (for me) in light level with one or both eyes open.

Bill
 
Mark9473, post 16,
No I did not use the BTX95 for astroviewing, but I did use it under a number of different light conditions and among them also low light conditions and loss of brightness due to the binoculair eyepiece was not what I observed.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Hi,

talking about the WX as anything else than a technology demonstrator is a moot point. The aim was to make a pair of traditional binoculars as good as possible with todays technology and still fit into a small and light package.

Now you will say this guy's out of his mind talking about traditional, small and light in the same sentence as the WX.

But let me explain: The WX is a traditional pair of binoculars since it is has a straight through configuration, well known to conventional binocular users like birders, hunters, military personal or navigators. It also shows an upright and correct image - this also has to be remembered as it has some implications on the construction.
Astronomy aficionados, who love extra wide fields very much, on the other hand prefer instruments with a 90 degree angle and are used to mirrored or upside down images for best optical quality.

Regarding size and weight - given the design target of extra wide field and perfect correction, the WX is astonishingly small and light. Astronomy extra wide EPs in the 100 deg class like a 17 or 21mm Ethos weight between 1.5 and 2.3 pounds each and are usually too big for binoviewing due to minimum IPD and the fact that observers tend to have a nose which needs to go somewhere.
Add to that 50mm f4ish triplet objective lenses, field flatteners and oversized prisms dictated by the upright and correct image requirement and a hypothetical instrument built from astro components would be double the size and weight.

See this link for some DIY attemps - all are significantly larger and heavier (albeit with 70mm doublet objectives) and have no field flattening and show vignetting due to undersize prisms.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/589901-custom-made-2-70ed-binoculars-poor-mans-wx/

On the other hand, the 9 grand asked for the memorial edition would also buy an astronomy buff a 105 or 115 Binoptics big bin with superb russian LZOS triplet optics but still no field flattening or upright and correct image... don't ask about weight and size though plus 10x and 9 deg TFOV are not an option.

http://www.binoptic.de/web_us/index.html

The 6 grand for the normal version would easily get you a chinese made APM 120mm ED doublet big bin plus some nice extra EPs with the same lack of field flattening, upright/correct image and 10x@9deg field...

Joachim
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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