Wow those Nikon 8x32 SE's are Impressive! (1 Viewer)

Alexis Powell · Jan 9, 2009

[email protected] said:
...In my opinion these are the best binoculars I have ever seen optically...

Perhaps true, but when considering other aspects relevant to being a good birding bino, what about the comfortably large exit pupil of the 7x42? And its shake minimized view? And its focuser that doesn't stiffen in the cold as the SE does? And its better hang? And waterproofing?

--AP

denco@comcast.n · Jan 10, 2009

I'm just talking optics now but you are right that the Leica 7x42 BN's have a more comfortable exit pupil but surprisingly the Nikon SE's feel quite good. I think the eye relief of the Nikon's are just perfect for me. I am still keeping at least one pair of roofs for all the reasons you listed above. Waterproofness, ruggedness, smooth focus,cold weather use and ergonomics. I really compared my Nikon 8x32 LX L to the Leica's 7x42 BN's and although I think optically I like the Leica's a little better the Nikon LX L's won out because of their size and smooth focus. I really prefer the Nikon 8x32 LX L's over the Leica 8x32 BN's and find them more comfortable to use. I know I said I like the 7x42 BN's more than the 8x32 BN's but the Nikon 8x32's are better for me. I REALLY like the smooth focus especially over the Leica's(somewhat gritty focus).

Dennis

denco@comcast.n · Jan 10, 2009

Alexis Powell said:
Do what you will Dennis (and, based on your record here on Birdforum, I know you don't need my encouragement to do so--with any luck you've already sold the 7x42 for $300 more than you paid for it), but in agreeing w/Henry I'll just add that you might want to consider packing away your formerly beloved 7x42 Trinovids for a few months while you use your 8x32 SE, then get them out to try as if new pair. You might experience another round of optical euphoria with the fresh "new" view--I know I enjoy owning and using several binos for this reason. Similarly, I've convinced myself more than once that I definitely didn't like something about the view through certain of my binos (especially my Zeiss 8x32 FL), only to discover later that they my favorites under a different set of conditions or state of mind. Some binos are always better than some others, but when comparing such elite optics as these, the differences are more like personality traits.

--AP

Interesting idea! You may be right but my euphoria I don't think is short lived. To my eyes the porro's are definitely optically better. I don't think it because they are a different "type" of view. It is because they are a higher quality view in my opinion. They are definitely not the "perfect" binoculars. But for the quality of the view versus the dollars I paid for these binoculars they are definitely the best VALUE I have ever seen.

Dennis

denco@comcast.n · Jan 10, 2009

Fireform said:
The more I read Henry's posts, the more I respect his opinions. I can't say that about everyone on the web . From the examples I've seen, the SE view narrowly bests any 8x32 roof on the market (except the Swaro 8x32 EL which I simply haven't tried). The jazziest dielectric coated S-P prisms seem to transmit about as much light as the Nikon SE porros; the only 8x roofs I've seen that are definitely brighter are the larger, AK prism Zeiss FLs (and with 42mm objectives and their big price tags, they bloody ought to be brighter). I also have the impression that the convoluted light path through the S-P prisms degrades the fine resolution of the image ever so slightly more than a good porro.

As a card-carrying member of the porro insurgency, I say go easy on the fellow. Falling in love is never rational.

I will second that but I disagree with your statement that the Zeiss FL's are brighter than the Nikon's. Too my eyes they are not.

Dennis

FrankD · Jan 10, 2009

Even though I'm a Porro guy from way back I think I'll leave the Porro lovefest to others now. I feel like I've been the unwitting accomplice to the birth of yet another internet optics myth.

Hmm, what else can we quote Henry about to start another internet optics myth?

Sorry Henry...you know I respect you but I just couldn't resist.

Count me in now to the porro fraternity as well. I just put an order in for one I have been waiting to try for some time.

Fireform · Jan 10, 2009

It's a close call between the 42mm FLs and the 8x32 SEs, and what matters is what your eyes see. I do know that my own pair of SEs is not going anywhere.

denco@comcast.n · Jan 10, 2009

henry link said:
Well, Dennis, I think you've fallen hard for a new pair of binoculars...again. At the risk of being a killjoy I'm going to suggest that you slow down, be more careful and don't jump to conclusions. I know there's no reasoning with a man in the full throes of infatuation, but let me pose just one question. Other than Porro prisms rule and roof prisms suck can you imagine any other reasons at all that might explain your experiences with these binoculars?

Even though I'm a Porro guy from way back I think I'll leave the Porro lovefest to others now. I feel like I've been the unwitting accomplice to the birth of yet another internet optics myth.

Ah c'mon Henry let me enjoy this new relationship. I feel like I found my true "soulmate". I think this could be the real thing! At least if it turns out wrong I will have learned from my experience.
Henry! That's true hogwash! For somebody who sounds very analytical most of the time I think I have rubbed you the wrong way and you have let your emotion get the best of you. Why do you think the Nikon 8x32 SE has been the reference standard on Better View Desired for ever! It's Need scores are higher than alot of 8x50 binoculars and why do think it is legendary? It is because it is a phenomenal binocular. Please let me enjoy this new relationship without the fear that my Leica 7x42's will become jealous and seek a divorce.
You don't have to defend roof prisms. They are great binoculars and I will always have a pair for bad weather and wet conditions. But for the best view I have found my nirvana.You didn't start an internet myth! The Nikon 8x32 SE's were a legend long before you even said they were a great binocular. And you now what it is not a myth!

Dennis

Kevin Conville · Jan 10, 2009

[email protected] said:
Why do you think the Nikon 8x32 SE has been the reference standard on Better View Desired for ever! It's Need scores are higher than alot of 8x50 binoculars and why do think it is legendary?
Dennis

I have no dog in this race and am happy you've found bino bliss Dennis, but... you've gone too far.

Better View Desired? My god, you've quoted that ancient crap? That guy (Ingraham?) is a half wit Dennis. And...FWIW that site hasn't been updated in several years now, with most of it's content much older. Why it is kept alive at all is a mystery.

I trust YOUR opinion more than BVD's. Believe your own eyes.

ceasar · Jan 10, 2009

BVD is now run by Christopher's LTD. It can be accessed at Cloudy Nights.

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/

It seems to have undergone a "face lift." Christophers is part of Astronomics. www.astronomics.com.
Bob

PS: There are 2 other contributors besides Ingraham: Tom Lester and Wayne Mones. Their biographical sketches are in the site.

Here is the original review of the 8 x 32 SE. It is 10 years old but nothing has changed.http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Nikon-Superior-E-8x32.php

denco@comcast.n · Jan 10, 2009

Thanks for the link. I trust my eyes but even though Better View Desired is ancient I value their opinion because I have agreed with them quite a few times in the past. Even though the site is old so are the Nikon 8x32 SE's. Some of the newer binoculars are getting close to their performance now though. Thanks.

Dennis

Pileatus · Jan 10, 2009

Personally, I owe a debt of gratitude to Steve Ingraham and I wish him all the best life has to offer. I'm quite sure he has a full wit.
http://www.zbirding.info/

The SE is a visceral experience and all the technical commentary in the world cannot change the simple fact that numerous SE owners REALLY enjoy the experience. I read endless posts debating the subtle nuances of an endless stream of optical instruments, but I rarely see WOW used as a descriptor. If you’re not saying WOW on a regular basis then I suggest you save up and purchase a better binocular. Life is short and the greatest show on earth is certainly worth the investment.

Dennis, enjoy!

John

ceasar · Jan 10, 2009

Well said, John!

Bob

Kevin Conville · Jan 10, 2009

Half wit is probably a bit harsh I'll concede. The site, besides now being long in the tooth, is a mess IMO. Categories, sub-categories, sub sub-categories, caveats. Contradictions and at times plain misinformation.

Wasn't he working for Nikon early on also? If memory serves, he then worked for Zeiss. Do I have that right?

Hey he wasn't completely full of it and after wading through it, was often right I suppose. I certainly don't mean him any ill will but I'm not very receptive to seeing the site quoted either.

Ceasar-
"Here is the original review of the 8 x 32 SE. It is 10 years old but nothing has changed."

I don't know about that. Didn't he dub the SE The Gold Benchmark Class Reference or some such. It may still be, but there's been a number of high end bins come down the pike since then

denco@comcast.n · Jan 10, 2009

John Traynor said:
Personally, I owe a debt of gratitude to Steve Ingraham and I wish him all the best life has to offer. I'm quite sure he has a full wit.
http://www.zbirding.info/

The SE is a visceral experience and all the technical commentary in the world cannot change the simple fact that numerous SE owners REALLY enjoy the experience. I read endless posts debating the subtle nuances of an endless stream of optical instruments, but I rarely see WOW used as a descriptor. If you’re not saying WOW on a regular basis then I suggest you save up and purchase a better binocular. Life is short and the greatest show on earth is certainly worth the investment.

Dennis, enjoy!

John

Perfect! Thanks John!

Dennis

denco@comcast.n · Jan 10, 2009

Kevin Conville said:
Half wit is probably a bit harsh I'll concede. The site, besides now being long in the tooth, is a mess IMO. Categories, sub-categories, sub sub-categories, caveats. Contradictions and at times plain misinformation.

Wasn't he working for Nikon early on also? If memory serves, he then worked for Zeiss. Do I have that right?

Hey he wasn't completely full of it and after wading through it, was often right I suppose. I certainly don't mean him any ill will but I'm not very receptive to seeing the site quoted either.

Ceasar-
"Here is the original review of the 8 x 32 SE. It is 10 years old but nothing has changed."

I don't know about that. Didn't he dub the SE The Gold Benchmark Class Reference or some such. It may still be, but there's been a number of high end bins come down the pike since then

"The Gold Benchmark Class Reference " ? That is FUNNY!

Dennis

Pileatus · Jan 10, 2009

Kevin Conville said:
Half wit is probably a bit harsh I'll concede. The site, besides now being long in the tooth, is a mess IMO. Categories, sub-categories, sub sub-categories, caveats. Contradictions and at times plain misinformation.

Wasn't he working for Nikon early on also? If memory serves, he then worked for Zeiss. Do I have that right?

Hey he wasn't completely full of it and after wading through it, was often right I suppose. I certainly don't mean him any ill will but I'm not very receptive to seeing the site quoted either.

Ceasar-
"Here is the original review of the 8 x 32 SE. It is 10 years old but nothing has changed."

I don't know about that. Didn't he dub the SE The Gold Benchmark Class Reference or some such. It may still be, but there's been a number of high end bins come down the pike since then

Kevin,

BVD effectively died when Steve went to work for Zeiss, his current employer. BVD is not a source of "new" advice though much of what Steve had to say is timeless and therefore relevant to any discussion. He tried to quantify what his eyes saw but I always got the impression he was more comfortable just telling readers how he felt about a particular optic. As I've said before, no matter what your opinion of optical perfection may be some birder will come along, pick up the instrument and say, "I just don't see it that way." C'est la vie.

John

FrankD · Jan 10, 2009

He tried to quantify what his eyes saw but I always got the impression he was more comfortable just telling readers how he felt about a particular optic.

And that, in a nutshell, is the most difficult thing any of us attempt to do. Accurately relating what we see in a particular binocular and not just how we feel about it.

Kevin Conville · Jan 10, 2009

John Traynor said:
He tried to quantify what his eyes saw but I always got the impression he was more comfortable just telling readers how he felt about a particular optic.

I saw that. Trouble was his narrative style lent to confusion. He also was on a Nikon love-fest and after finding out he worked for Nikon, well...

John Traynor said:
As I've said before, no matter what your opinion of optical perfection may be some birder will come along, pick up the instrument and say, "I just don't see it that way." C'est la vie.

I agree with that, no doubt. Regarding the 8x32SE, I'm not in a position to judge it either way...yet. I have acquired a strong affinity towards porros lately myself and clearly the SEs are among the finest examples of these for birding. I'll be doing some comparisons for my own edification in about a week with 8x32 SEs, Leica 7x42 BRs, and Fujinon 6x32 AR-SX. I suspect the day Nikon presents the updated version of SEs I'll be among the first in line. :t:

henry link · Jan 11, 2009

Dennis,

The myth I referred to is the myth that roof prisms can never equal Porros.

I know that binocular buying and evaluating is recreation and no one is going to be so careful that it ceases to be fun. For a few of us obsessive geeks part of the fun is being careful, so I'll risk being a killjoy again by suggesting that you jumped to the conclusion that all roofs have a "haze" because your tests were too casual. You assumed that the specimens you tested were equally defect free, which is never safe, and your sharpness evaluation was set up in a way that inadvertently favored the SE for reasons that have nothing to do with the prisms or even the quality of the optics. In a more careful test without that bias a good specimen of the FL and SE are about equally sharp. Unfortunately the internet is chock full of careless evaluations leading to false general statements and bogus theories about optics.

I'm not sure how you went off the rails in evaluating "brightness". Certainly the SE is brighter than the Trinovid in all but very low light light because the Trinovid's light transmission is around 83-85% and the SE is around 95%, but there is in fact no significant difference in light transmission between the SE and the FL. There is likely more sample variation in light transmission within these two models than there are differences between them. Color bias is decidedly different which might explain something about your impressions.

So, have fun with your new binoculars, and beauties they are, but please in the future spare the innocents who come here looking for sage advice statements along the lines of "DON"T BUY THE ZEISS OR ANY OTHER HAZY ROOF PRISM!!! ONLY PORROS ARE WORTH HAVING !!! AND THE NIKON 8x32 SE IS THE BEST BY FAR!!!!!!!! etc, etc.

I'm keeping an eye on you. ;-)

Henry

denco@comcast.n · Jan 11, 2009

henry link said:
Dennis,

The myth I referred to is the myth that roof prisms can never equal Porros.

I know that binocular buying and evaluating is recreation and no one is going to be so careful that it ceases to be fun. For a few of us obsessive geeks part of the fun is being careful, so I'll risk being a killjoy again by suggesting that you jumped to the conclusion that all roofs have a "haze" because your tests were too casual. You assumed that the specimens you tested were equally defect free, which is never safe, and your sharpness evaluation was set up in a way that inadvertently favored the SE for reasons that have nothing to do with the prisms or even the quality of the optics. In a more careful test without that bias a good specimen of the FL and SE are about equally sharp. Unfortunately the internet is chock full of careless evaluations leading to false general statements and bogus theories about optics.

I'm not sure how you went off the rails in evaluating "brightness". Certainly the SE is brighter than the Trinovid in all but very low light light because the Trinovid's light transmission is around 83-85% and the SE is around 95%, but there is in fact no significant difference in light transmission between the SE and the FL. There is likely more sample variation in light transmission within these two models than there are differences between them. Color bias is decidedly different which might explain something about your impressions.

So, have fun with your new binoculars, and beauties they are, but please in the future spare the innocents who come here looking for sage advice statements along the lines of "DON"T BUY THE ZEISS OR ANY OTHER HAZY ROOF PRISM!!! ONLY PORROS ARE WORTH HAVING !!! AND THE NIKON 8x32 SE IS THE BEST BY FAR!!!!!!!! etc, etc.

I'm keeping an eye on you. ;-)

Henry

Just relating my observations under the conditions I specified. I didn't really say "DON'T BUY THE ZEISS OR ANY OTHER HAZY ROOF PRISM!!!" I am just saying in the samples I observed I feel the Nikon 8x32 SE's were superior to the Zeiss FL's to my eyes and I preferred the view.I can't believe that there could be too much sample variation in these quality binoculars but maybe there is. I have never observed that. Samples seem pretty consistent to me withiin brands. Other people may prefer the view of the Zeiss for other reasons such as color bias or whatever. As we have all agreed the differences between these top end binoculars are all really minor.I think we must all agree that for the money the Nikon 8x32 SE represents the best value in binoculars when it comes to the sheer quality of the view. I would like to see some more scientific tests and comparisons of the Zeiss FL's and the Nikon 8x32 SE's. My observations have intrigued me. It seems to me since you apparently are well schooled in scientific methodology you should be the one to conduct some unbiased tests on the two eliminating sample errors and such. I will look forward to reading your observations. I am glad you are watching me I want your input into my threads! I value it.Thanks.

Dennis

Wow those Nikon 8x32 SE's are Impressive! (1 Viewer)

Natural history enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

yardbirder

Well-known member

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

yardbirder

Well-known member

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

yardbirder

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread