Regarding Nikon Se (1 Viewer)

ceasar · Jul 1, 2013

angelo225544 said:
Hi, Bob. Yes, I'm sure. The Leica Trinovid BA (not to be confused with the inferior Leitz BA which preceeded it) first appeared in 1990. It was the first phase coated roof prism binocular Leica ever made, and it's performance and build quality were unsurpassed at the time, and remains impressive even today. The 8x32 in particular is a gem, as Stephen Ingraham famously pointed out in his BetterViewDesired website. It was he who suggested the relatively inexpensive Nikon SE was virtually the equal of the much more expensive Trinovid, at least optically, but certainly not with respect to ergonomics or ruggedness. To suggest it was not until the Ultravid that Leica was able to equal the performance of the Nikon SE is simply incorrect. The Trinovid BA fully equalled the SE optically, and even surpassed the SE as a complete waterproof, fogproof, submersible instrument in a much smaller package, and with far superior eyecups and no image blackout issues. This is all well documented by reliable sources, and was confirmed by my many hours of testing and comparing them over the 5 year period I owned both. They are both very special binoculars, but in my opinion, the Leica Trinovid BA/BN are currently undervalued on a price/performance basis when compared to the SE.

Angelo,

I responded to this Sunday, June 30th at about 11AM Eastern time. Somehow it did not get posted along with another post I made to Odradek (see above) about how I handled blackouts in my SE.

I left to do other things and when I got back in the late afternoon the Bird Forum website was down and I could not access it until I tried it again this morning.

I don't want to rewrite the entire post again but I did attach a link from Better View Desired dated 1998 with a review of the Nikon 8 x 32 SE and a copy of Steve Ingrahams "needs" test where he ranked the Nikon above the Leica 8 x 32. I noted that it was Ingraham's BVD ratings which introduced me to Nikon SEs and EIIs. I also was influenced by an article Bill Cook wrote about that time on the 10 x 42 SE in "Sky and Telescope" I think. He praised it highly. This is how I became aware of the SEs. A year or so after this review and article came out I bought a Nikon 8 x 30 SE.

Most of the people who I saw using upscale binoculars at Hawk Mountain Sanctuary which I frequented often in those days were using Zeiss Dialyts. The rest were using varieties of porro prisms. I had picked up a Leitz 7 x 42 Trinovid BA Armored in the early 90's at a close out price which I used for years after that until about 1999/2000. I thought that they were good then and I still do but they were the largest of the Leitz Trinovids. The only one with 42mm objectives and they had a wide FOV and a large exit pupil which no doubt were beneficial. I never tried the other versions.

Here are the BVD reviews.

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Nikon-Superior-E-8x32.php

There is really not a big difference as you can see.

He also had a 1993 review of the Leica 8 x 32. It was called the Leica Ultra then. And he thought at that time it was the best birding binocular.

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Leica-Ultra-8X32.php

Bob

angelo225544 · Jul 1, 2013

Hi, Bob. I appreciate the information you have provided, and I agree with most of your conclusions. I would like to point out that the Leitz 7x42 you used was made without the all important phase coatings that all roof prisms, beginning with the Leica Trinovid have. The Leitz 7x42 was significantly inferior to the Zeiss Dialyts, because Zeiss had wisely chosen to use an Abbe-Konig prism system that works as efficiently as porro prisms without the need for phase coatings - although Zeiss did eventually develop their P* prism coating to increase light transmission even further. It was not my intention to hijack this thread. I simply wanted to make one point - if you are considering Nikon SE's, you may also want to consider the (now) similarly priced 8x32 Leica Trinovid BA/BN.

angelo225544 · Jul 1, 2013

james holdsworth said:
How's the contrast on the 804? I hear a lot of superlatives for some of the older porro's, but in my experience most are pretty dull looking, due to weak contrast - despite being very sharp and bright.

Hello, James. The 2 reasons most older porro's produce low contrast is their lack of multi-coatings, and the prevalence of internal haze (or worse) on the prisms due to outgassing and condensation. Non multi-coated binocular will lose roughly 30% of available light to reflections. The 804 HR/5 with full multi coatings probably transmits closer to 85% (just an approximation), similar to many modern roof prism binoculars. Light transmission efficiency is directly proportional to image contrast, since reflected light makes dark areas of an image less dark, resulting in washed out colors and deep shadows appearing grey rather than black.

Pinewood · Jul 1, 2013

8x32 BN

Hello Bob,

Thanks for the reminder.
Indeed, I posted something, for Angelo's benefit, possibly Saturday night. I have owned the 8x32 SE and the EII. I still have the Swift HR/5 8.5x44 and the Leica 8x32 BN, in easy to find red. I preferred the EII over the SE because of its wide FOV and absence of blackouts. I prefer the 8x32 BN over the Swift Audubon, because of its compactness and ruggedness. The four binoculars are all wonderful tools, so personal preference should rule the day. :t:
Unfortunately, the BN is certainly obsolescent, as dielectric mirrors and CA reducing glass are now incorporated in the top dogs even some not so top dogs.

Happy observing,
Arthur

angelo225544 · Jul 2, 2013

Hello, Arthur. If I remember correctly, the red Trinovids were from Leica's loaner program - I always liked that look. We seem to have similar tastes in binoculars. I have owned the very same 4 bins you mention. While I have parted with all my Nikons and Trinovids, I don't think I will ever part with my Swift 804 HR/5, but this has as much to do with it's 5mm exit pupil as anything else. I am surprised to hear you describe the Trinovid as obsolete, but I accept your opinion. Perhaps you can answer a question for me. I recently bought my Swift 804 HR/5 for $199, in pristine condition. How would you explain the disparity in price between the SE and the 804? On the basis of performance, I simply cannot reconcile such a disproportionate valuation.

ceasar · Jul 2, 2013

I know you addressed your question to Arthur but perhaps I can make an observation about the price disparity between the 804 and the SE. I think that it might be because they have not been manufactured for so many years that people have lost touch with how good they are? There isn't enough demand for them to drive their price higher. The SE has stayed in the public eye much longer.

One other thing also; at least as far as I see it. I purchased a Swift 804 HR/5 new in 2000 about the same time I purchased a Nikon 8 x 30 EII. I got my SEs later. I've always seen the 804 as similar and competitive with the 8 x 30 EII despite the differences in their exit pupils and size. The overall broad breadth of view you get from both of them is similar. Even down to the way the sharpness to the edge tapers off. I preferred the ergonomics of the EII to the extent that my 804 is still in excellent condition and I've had to reglue the cover of my EII a couple of times.

As I recall they cost about the same when I purchased them and it's clear that in that respect that I got more for my money with the 804! It is a really well made porro prism in all respects.

Bob

Hermann · Jul 2, 2013

angelo225544 said:
I would like to point out that the Leitz 7x42 you used was made without the all important phase coatings that all roof prisms, beginning with the Leica Trinovid have. The Leitz 7x42 was significantly inferior to the Zeiss Dialyts, because Zeiss had wisely chosen to use an Abbe-Konig prism system that works as efficiently as porro prisms without the need for phase coatings - although Zeiss did eventually develop their P* prism coating to increase light transmission even further.

This is not correct. Phase coatings don't increase transmission as such to a significant extent. Their function is rather to counteract polarization effects at the roof edge that lead to a noticeable loss of resolution, a problem well known for a good many years. This applies to *all* roof prisms where the roof edge cuts into the light cone. (Cf. Weyrauch, Adolf & Bernd Dörband: P-Belag: Verbesserte Abbildung bei Ferngläsern durch phasenkorrigierte Dachprismen. Deutsche Optikerzeitung 4/1988). Zeiss introduced this coating in the late 1980s; all the other manufacturers followed suit, although some took a few years to master the technology.

The differences between the Trinovid 7x42 and the Dialyth 7x42 (without phase coatings) are due to several factors, among them the higher transmission of the Zeiss due to the Abbe-König prisms and better coatings of the Zeiss after Zeiss introduced their T* coatings in 1980. Leica binoculars only became competitive again after the introduction of the BA-series in 1990.

Hermann

Pinewood · Jul 2, 2013

angelo225544 said:
Hello, Arthur.
... Perhaps you can answer a question for me. I recently bought my Swift 804 HR/5 for $199, in pristine condition. How would you explain the disparity in price between the SE and the 804? On the basis of performance, I simply cannot reconcile such a disproportionate valuation.

Hello Angelo,

The Se has become famous after Ingraham, of Better View Desired, called it his "reference" binocular. Apparently, his endorsement carried great weight. When Ingraham criticised the original Zeiss Victory 8x40, it was like a shock wave, which killed sales. At both ends, criticism and praise, those who could not use their own eyes to make a decision followed the "gospel," according to Ingraham. Like Holger Merlitz, I am surprised at how much weight bird watchers put on "sharp to the edge." For one thing, resolution always falls off to some degree, at the edge; for another the Se has a slightly narrower field than other binoculars.
I believe that the Swift has a little more fall off, but a wider FOV. More importantly, the improvement in coatings in the last fifteen years, minimises the difference in light transmission between the older Swifts and a modern SE, so there is not that much improvement in transmission between an old Swift and a modern Se. Less bulk and minimal disadvantage for any modern 8x32.

Finally, the Swift has no snob appeal. In New York's Central Park, a the Swift Audubon would put the owner far down the social order. Leica would be higher up the pecking order, but only that Austrian brand really says conspicuous consumption.

Incidentally, that the early Zeiss Victory has very good resolution, but not quite up to the level of some other binoculars. Neither the smell and feel of the armour nor how it hung from its strap was of any consequence to me. I found the image sharp and contrasty, while version II fixed the "glare" problem.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:

brocknroller · Jul 2, 2013

angelo225544 said:
Hi, Bob. Yes, I'm sure. The Leica Trinovid BA (not to be confused with the inferior Leitz BA which preceeded it) first appeared in 1990. It was the first phase coated roof prism binocular Leica ever made, and it's performance and build quality were unsurpassed at the time, and remains impressive even today. The 8x32 in particular is a gem, as Stephen Ingraham famously pointed out in his BetterViewDesired website. It was he who suggested the relatively inexpensive Nikon SE was virtually the equal of the much more expensive Trinovid, at least optically, but certainly not with respect to ergonomics or ruggedness. To suggest it was not until the Ultravid that Leica was able to equal the performance of the Nikon SE is simply incorrect. The Trinovid BA fully equalled the SE optically, and even surpassed the SE as a complete waterproof, fogproof, submersible instrument in a much smaller package, and with far superior eyecups and no image blackout issues. This is all well documented by reliable sources, and was confirmed by my many hours of testing and comparing them over the 5 year period I owned both. They are both very special binoculars, but in my opinion, the Leica Trinovid BA/BN are currently undervalued on a price/performance basis when compared to the SE.

Angelo,

I bought my first sample 8x32 SE based on Ingraham's review and ranking as the reference standard in midsized bins and #1 overall for birding bins. I found a sample on Astromart that the owner had only for a few months. He had a Trinnie 8x32 BA and also bought the SE based on the BVD review and ranking.

The reason he sold it was that he thought it wasn't "anything special" and thought his Leica showed better colors and better contrast.

I was quite impressed with the 8x32 SE, which was a 501xxxx model made in 1998. I thought, wow, if he thinks the Trinovid is better than this, I really should try one. Then I found out that the price was way more than the SE and that Nikon would repair a used SE for cheap while if something went wrong with the Leica, I'd be stuck with a potentially big bill.

So I passed on some good deals on Leica ($550 for a 8x32 BA) and instead have kept upgrading my 8x32 models over the years (501, 505, 550) as Nikon keeps improving its coatings and glass. The latest version, 550xxx, is the best in terms of brightness and contrast. The color palette has remained mooreorless the same over the years - "warm" but not as warm as the EII or HGL. Reds are darker.

I'm still curious but yellow about the 8x32 Trinovid, which has been much lauded on BF and BVD, although Ingraham did criticize the level of pincushion, which he thought was excessive and thought for the price, the edges could be sharper.

To my eyes, the SE has just the right amount of pincushion and I like the sharp edges. But build-wise, the SEs certainly can't beat the "brick".

Brock

Hermann · Jul 2, 2013

Warning: Thread hi-jack in progress ...

Pinewood said:
When Ingraham criticised the original Zeiss Victory 8x40, it was like a shock wave, which killed sales. At both ends, criticism and praise, those who could not use their own eyes to make a decision followed the "gospel," according to Ingraham.

I remember that "review" all too well. There was so much in that piece of writing (I wouldn't call it a "review" myself) that was blatantly false, it put me off Ingraham's writings once and for all. Never took him seriously after that.

Pinewood said:
Incidentally, that the early Zeiss Victory has very good resolution, but not quite up to the level of some other binoculars. Neither the smell and feel of the armor nor how it hung from its strap was of any consequence to me. I found the image sharp and contrasty, while version II fixed the "glare" problem.

What many people don't know is that Zeiss brought all the early Victories there were sent to Wetzlar up to the level of version II by changing the lug attachments and adding some internal shielding to improve glare control. The optical quality was (and is) very good indeed, the 10x40 in particular is sharper at the edge than the 10x42 FL with a very large sweetspot. And the old Victories are pretty tough, I don't know of *any* problems with them at all.

Hermann

james holdsworth · Jul 2, 2013

Hermann said:
Warning: Thread hi-jack in progress ...

I remember that "review" all too well. There was so much in that piece of writing (I wouldn't call it a "review" myself) that was blatantly false, it put me off Ingraham's writings once and for all. Never took him seriously after that.

What many people don't know is that Zeiss brought all the early Victories there were sent to Wetzlar up to the level of version II by changing the lug attachments and adding some internal shielding to improve glare control. The optical quality was (and is) very good indeed, the 10x40 in particular is sharper at the edge than the 10x42 FL with a very large sweetspot. And the old Victories are pretty tough, I don't know of *any* problems with them at all.

Hermann

It's funny isn't it, just how a single opinion can change the 'historical' view of a binocular, even decades later. The Victory [1 or 2] gets no love at all but is probably better optically than many other Zeiss models that are considered iconic. The nightowls for one, I find to be quite flawed optically, but are seen [in the haze of time] as standard-bearers for excellence.

Simon S · Jul 2, 2013

I must say the Nikon 8x32 SE does have a blackout problem and setting IPD correctly as well as eye placement helps this situation a lot. But I think the Nikon 8x30 EII is my favorite as has no problems with blackouts, and is slightly wider in the FOV.

Odradek · Jul 2, 2013

I tried it again, but no matter how fast i am panning there are no blackouts for me. Even if i hold the SE straight forward and only look to the edges of the field i must make some unpleasend things with my eyes to get blackouts. But under this conditions i also get blackouts with the EII.

Tomorrow is Monitoring, first field test for the SE :king:

brocknroller · Jul 2, 2013

Pinewood said:
Hello Angelo,

The Se has become famous after Ingraham, of Better View Desired, called it his "reference" binocular. Apparently, his endorsement carried great weight. When Ingraham criticised the original Zeiss Victory 8x40, it was like a shock wave, which killed sales. At both ends, criticism and praise, those who could not use their own eyes to make a decision followed the "gospel," according to Ingraham. Like Holger Merlitz, I am surprised at how much weight bird watchers put on "sharp to the edge." For one thing, resolution always falls off to some degree, at the edge; for another the Se has a slightly narrower field than other binoculars.
I believe that the Swift has a little more fall off, but a wider FOV. More importantly, the improvement in coatings in the last fifteen years, minimises the difference in light transmission between the older Swifts and a modern SE, so there is not that much improvement in transmission between an old Swift and a modern Se. Less bulk and minimal disadvantage for any modern 8x32.

Finally, the Swift has no snob appeal. In New York's Central Park, a the Swift Audubon would put the owner far down the social order. Leica would be higher up the pecking order, but only that Austrian brand really says conspicuous consumption.

Incidentally, that the early Zeiss Victory has very good resolution, but not quite up to the level of some other binoculars. Neither the smell and feel of the armour nor how it hung from its strap was of any consequence to me. I found the image sharp and contrasty, while version II fixed the "glare" problem.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:

Arthur,

So you mean the original Art Deco Victories didn't feel and smell like a rubber tire, and the "meat hook" strap connectors didn't make stigmata on your palms?

How about the excessive CA? :eek!:

Yeah, he really panned them, but perhaps Zeiss wouldn't have made the improvements to the Victory II if he hadn't, and further, wouldn't have made the FLs (Ingraham was on board by then). What I got from his review of the original Victory is while they might have been acceptable as "Brand X" birding bins, he held Zeiss to a higher standard.

It was the on-axis sharpness that he felt lacking in the original Victory (or at least in his sample). Zeiss set the bar high with the Dialyts, and apparently, he thought the Victories fell short of that benchmark.

I think you own both Zeiss models, Dialyt and original Victory, so you'd be in a position to comment on that.

Here's how he put it in his review of the Victory II:

"This was especially disappointing for Zeiss because the Victories were to be their flagship model, leading them back the dominance they once held in the birding market. It was especially disappointing for birders because, well, because it was Zeiss, and, based on exceptional products of the past (the Zeiss 7x42 and 10x40 roofs, now known as the “Classics”), we expect more from Zeiss."

He had high praises for the Victory II:

Review:
Zeiss Tries Again for Victory

I think his criticisms of the original Victory was why Zeiss hired him: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

<B>

Pinewood · Jul 2, 2013

Hello Brock,

I took a look through both the Zeiss Victory I 8x40 and a my 7x42 Dialyt ClassiC. I did not put them on tripods; I did not use a booster. I found that the 8x40 to have a sharp and contrasty image, just as I did in the shop, when I purchased it. Another BF member did a slightly more formal test and thought the then current Nikon LX or HG had slightly higher resolution but the Victory was lighter.
After eight years, there is no strong smell and even the lugs do not annoy me but they never did. Some folks cannot accommodate a little change.
I see no reason to buy a different 8x40/42 and to return to the topic of this thread, I prefer it to the 8x32 SE.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

brocknroller · Jul 2, 2013

Pinewood said:
Hello Brock,

I took a look through both the Zeiss Victory I 8x40 and a my 7x42 Dialyt ClassiC. I did not put them on tripods; I did not use a booster. I found that the 8x40 to have a sharp and contrasty image, just as I did in the shop, when I purchased it. Another BF member did a slightly more formal test and thought the then current Nikon LX or HG had slightly higher resolution but the Victory was lighter.
After eight years, there is no strong smell and even the lugs do not annoy me but they never did. Some folks cannot accommodate a little change.
I see no reason to buy a different 8x40/42 and to return to the topic of this thread, I prefer it to the 8x32 SE.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

So it takes eight years for the smell to go away? :smoke:

Hope the Terra ED out-gases faster, maybe if it sits in the sun for an hour each day. Not sure if you're having the same weather as we are, being 235 miles away as the crow files, but other than Sunday, we haven't seen the sun in over a week, it's been cloudy with thunderstorms each evening and night, and the weather forecast is calling for more of the same this week.

In case anyone's interested, there's an original Victory for sale on the 'bay for $899 Buy It Now

Brock

ceasar · Jul 2, 2013

brocknroller said:
So it takes eight years for the smell to go away? :smoke:

Hope the Terra ED out-gases faster, maybe if it sits in the sun for an hour each day.

In case anyone's interested, there's an original Victory for sale on the 'bay for $899 Buy It Now

Brock

Mine lost it's odor after a week or so but then it hasn't been tested by experts in that respect. My nose, although long and aquiline, is not Durante-esque.

Bob

angelo225544 · Jul 3, 2013

Hermann said:
This is not correct. Phase coatings don't increase transmission as such to a significant extent. Their function is rather to counteract polarization effects at the roof edge that lead to a noticeable loss of resolution, a problem well known for a good many years. This applies to *all* roof prisms where the roof edge cuts into the light cone. (Cf. Weyrauch, Adolf & Bernd Dörband: P-Belag: Verbesserte Abbildung bei Ferngläsern durch phasenkorrigierte Dachprismen. Deutsche Optikerzeitung 4/1988). Zeiss introduced this coating in the late 1980s; all the other manufacturers followed suit, although some took a few years to master the technology.

The differences between the Trinovid 7x42 and the Dialyth 7x42 (without phase coatings) are due to several factors, among them the higher transmission of the Zeiss due to the Abbe-König prisms and better coatings of the Zeiss after Zeiss introduced their T* coatings in 1980. Leica binoculars only became competitive again after the introduction of the BA-series in 1990.

Hermann

Hello, Herman. I appreciate your insight, you have taught me at least 2 valuable bits of information I was not previously aware of. I did not know that Abbe-Konig prisms benefitted from phase coatings, I thought phase coatings were unnecessary on A/Ks, just as with porros. Secondly, I did not realize that phase coatings did more to enhance resolution than brightness. Thank you for setting me straight on this. I will say that, at least in my opinion, the original non-phase coated Zeiss 7x42 easily outperformed the Leitz Trinovid 7x42, but the Leitz felt as superbly crafted as a Rolex watch.

angelo225544 · Jul 3, 2013

james holdsworth said:
It's funny isn't it, just how a single opinion can change the 'historical' view of a binocular, even decades later. The Victory [1 or 2] gets no love at all but is probably better optically than many other Zeiss models that are considered iconic. The nightowls for one, I find to be quite flawed optically, but are seen [in the haze of time] as standard-bearers for excellence.

I think you've hit the nail on the head - perception trumps reality in the marketplace - which occasionally creates REAL bargains. I found the original Victory and Victory II to be a great bargain, since they sold for such a small fraction of their original intended price. Similarly, I believe the Swift 804 HR/5 is the most currently undervalued relative to performance, and is becoming more difficult to judge the SE's to be the relative bargain they once were.

Odradek · Jul 3, 2013

So if i got you right than the SE lives more from its reputation or myth than from real Performance (relative spoken)?

Regarding Nikon Se (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New York correspondent

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New York correspondent

porromaniac

Well-known member

Consulting Biologist

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

New York correspondent

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread