Action EX observations (1 Viewer)

I had a look at the current Nikon Action EX 7x50. First objective multi-coated second single coated. Tubes well blackened. Spec. includes aspherical
eyepiece element probably hybrid type. (A normal glass element with bonded plastic overlay thicker at the edges).
Single purple coated prisms. Because this model has a very narrow view of 6.4 degrees it actually looks very well corrected across most of the frame with little edge distortion and little flare. Classic 7x50 porros normally have 7.3 degrees. I'm guessing the need to use the same body size across the EX range has compromised this model. The EX 10x50 is a more normal 6.5 degrees.
Quality construction, waterproof with all alloy body and amazing value for money at £105 in the UK.

I also looked at the action EX 7x35. Vast 9.3 degree field of view with huge field curvature. Small sweet spot but sharp. Alarmingly the second objective is uncoated. Internal metalwork unfinished dull gray, short tubes blacked. No apherical element.
Again good quality construction and feel robust. For example, the visible inner prisms sit on a metal ledge with lips and are are glued down six times on the edges plus the screwed metal top band. Prism finished with a black Metal top hat. Smooth focus with no play when broken in. These can be had for £69 on Amazon uk returns !

Because these Nikons have some single coated elements they have a warmish yellow view but are still very neutral compared with early single coated porros which are lacking in blue transmission. Contrast unsurprisingly is well down on my 2015 10x42 Trinovids but the views are good.

The Action EX 12x50 I haven't seen but seems to be the top performer in the range as far as astronomy goes.

The Action Ex 8x40 also appears to have some uncoated internal elements which mean the transmission figure of 80% is not as high as it could be. http://www.allbinos.com/260-binoculars_review-Nikon_Action_EX_8x40_CF.html

Conclusion: I think Nikon should put the prices up and fully multi coat all elements !

I had a look at a current EX 7x35 and the second objective is now coated as is the EX 8x40 I just bought. The prisms are coated.

Production numbers. The serial numbers seem to be sequential. My 8x40 is 60,000 higher than this 10 year old sample https://www.flickr.com/photos/binocwpg/4330904711/in/dateposted/
The 7x35 numbers are lower and indicate around 3000 a year are being sold...

Thanks Maico.
Interesting.

Are all surfaces of the EX now coated?
Single or multicoated?

Binastro said:

Thanks Maico.
Interesting.

Are all surfaces of the EX now coated?
Single or multicoated?

Click to expand...

The front elements are multi-coated but not 'super multi-coated' in Nikon terminology, like the Monarchs 5 and 7 are. All internals appear single coated and have a blue tinge including the prisms. The image is on the warm side of neutral but avoids that yellowish vintage look. Having said that, the Nikon 7x50 SP I used to own looks almost the same but is of course Superior in all other respects.
These things are definitely bargains for the money, I paid £64 for the Ex 8x40 which was an Amazon return but it was only the box which showed any signs of manhandling.
They also have very little CA but do suffer some veiling glare in some situations where my 2015 Trinovids show none and many vintage 8x30 are unusable.

The Nikon Action EX line is truly the poor mans Habicht.

Excellent sharpness, ample eye relief, decent FoV and waterproof, all for a derisory price. Optically, they can hold their own comfortably with anything other than the very top tier.
Yet they sell slowly, as maico's reports indicate.

Sometimes I wonder about the idea of an efficient market...

Thanks Maico.

P.S.
I wonder how the 7x35 Aculon and 7x35 EX perform side by side.
I don't need waterproofness and the Aculons seem a lot lighter weight.

The old Action VII seem to have had aspheric eyepieces, but only the 7x50 EX and 12x50 EX may have aspherics?

Binastro said:

Thanks Maico.

P.S.
I wonder how the 7x35 Aculon and 7x35 EX perform side by side.
I don't need waterproofness and the Aculons seem a lot lighter weight.

The old Action VII seem to have had aspheric eyepieces, but only the 7x50 EX and 12x50 EX may have aspherics?

Click to expand...

If memory serves, the Action EX had much longer eye relief than the Action series. Comparing current 7x35 specs, the Aculon has 12mm eye relief, the Action EX over 17mm.
For users with glasses, the Action EX seems a better bet.

There is at least one serious problem, and in at least one model. The EX 16x50 has very poor glare (flare?) control against a very bright background. Viewing birds on the water against a low sun (with the sun out of the field of view of course, but just) can be nearly impossible. On such an occasion an "alpha" model instantly made a dramatic difference.

Binastro said:

Thanks Maico.

P.S.
I wonder how the 7x35 Aculon and 7x35 EX perform side by side.
I don't need waterproofness and the Aculons seem a lot lighter weight.

The old Action VII seem to have had aspheric eyepieces, but only the 7x50 EX and 12x50 EX may have aspherics?

Click to expand...

I do very much prefer the Aculon and Action 7x35 over everything else in the price range up to € 200,-. Just because they are so cheap, I got my Aculon for less than € 80,-.

For a significantly better quality and less volume/weight, the like of Monarch 7 8x30 would be my next step up. My review of the Aculon:
https://www.outdoor-professionell.de/test-nikon-aculon-7x35-fernglas-preiswert-gut/

oetzi said:

I do very much prefer the Aculon and Action 7x35 over everything else in the price range up to € 200,-. Just because they are so cheap, I got my Aculon for less than € 80,-.

For a significantly better quality and less volume/weight, the like of Monarch 7 8x30 would be my next step up. My review of the Aculon:
https://www.outdoor-professionell.de/test-nikon-aculon-7x35-fernglas-preiswert-gut/

Click to expand...

The entry level Nikon porro lines are all really fine values.
Happily the Action EX line is still offered as well, it is waterproof and has enough eye relief to allow wearing glasses.
Surprisingly, the newer Aculons do not match the EXs in those aspects.

adhoc said:

There is at least one serious problem, and in at least one model. The EX 16x50 has very poor glare (flare?) control against a very bright background. Viewing birds on the water against a low sun (with the sun out of the field of view of course, but just) can be nearly impossible. On such an occasion an "alpha" model instantly made a dramatic difference.

Click to expand...

The EX 16x50 seems the weak point in the range. It's just not as sharp, bright, and has CA and a lot of glare noticeable looking at the moon. The field of view isn't that great either and it's substantially more expensive. I bought from Amazon warehouse returns for £118 GBP and returned it for a refund.

Not really surprising given it shares the same prism body, basic coatings and has no low-dispersion glass. The 7x35 doesn't need those to produce a bright and sharp central image. I'm perfectly happy to use an EX 7x35 or Ex 8x40, in the day time at least, (Both 5mm exit pupil) along with my Leica 10x42 which cost 11 x as much !

I'm going to give a shout out here for Nikon's factory in China for cleanliness. I've closely inspected 6 x new M7 binoculars now and 5 different EX models. I have not found a single spec of dirt or dust (and I use a magnifier) on any of the optics of the porros. They are filled with nitrogen so should stay that way. The Monarchs have been acceptable too.

Binastro said:

Thanks Maico.

P.S.
I wonder how the 7x35 Aculon and 7x35 EX perform side by side.
I don't need waterproofness and the Aculons seem a lot lighter weight.

The old Action VII seem to have had aspheric eyepieces, but only the 7x50 EX and 12x50 EX may have aspherics?

Click to expand...

I've never tested the Aculon. I prefer the solidity of the all metal body of the EX range including a metal bridge. Is the Aculon one plastic ?

I returned my EX 7x50. The best corrected optics in the range but a ridiculously narrow 6.4 degree field when traditional 7x50 binos like this Pentax I used to own, are usually circa 7.3 degrees http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PENTAX-7X50-BIF-MILITARY-MARINE-BINOCULARS-MADE-JAPAN-/172539591831

Hi Maico.
I think Aculons and Action VII may be plastic.
Some older Actions had I think plastic barrels although I did not realise it.

I think I'll stick with the Minolta 7x35 Standard MK.
It has an 11.05 degree measured field but unfortunately very basic coatings.

Does the Minolta have proper internal baffles ? Given the low price point the EX range doesn't get that luxury...

I'll have a look sometime, but with the extra wide field I don't suppose so.
I just wish it had the full multicating of the slightly later Minolta Activa 12x50.

I used the 10x50 Minolta Standard MK as my main binocular for ten years and was very happy with the easy view.
But then it went out of collimation and I switched to a best of six Russian 12x45. Again I was entirely happy for maybe another ten years, until the Canon IS came along.

The Russian 12x45 is properly aligned still, and easily outresolves a Nikon 10x35 EII. The Russian binocular is beautifully balanced for me.

maico said:

The EX 16x50 seems the weak point in the range. It's just not as sharp, bright, and has CA and a lot of glare noticeable looking at the moon. The field of view isn't that great either and it's substantially more expensive. I bought from Amazon warehouse returns for £118 GBP and returned it for a refund.

Not really surprising given it shares the same prism body, basic coatings and has no low-dispersion glass. The 7x35 doesn't need those to produce a bright and sharp central image. I'm perfectly happy to use an EX 7x35 or Ex 8x40, in the day time at least, (Both 5mm exit pupil) along with my Leica 10x42 which cost 11 x as much !

Click to expand...

I suppose you know that 15-16X really ups the game in building the need
and effort to build good optics.
I have some experience with the Nikon lower end, all the way to their best. That includes the Action EX 12x50. A nice binocular, but for the flimsy eyecups..........

For a good, higher power binocular you must go to the middle range.
The Nikon Monarch 5 16x56 does many things very well.
Otherwise play around with a Celestron Skymaster 15x70. You will need
the instructions on how to "collimate" the prisms.

I am only posting about binoculars I have experience with.

Jerry

adhoc said:

...The EX 16x50 has very poor glare (flare?) control against a very bright background. Viewing birds on the water against a low sun...

Click to expand...

In response:

maico said:

The EX 16x50 seems the weak point in the range. It's just not as sharp, bright, and has CA and a lot of glare noticeable looking at the moon. The field of view isn't that great either...

Click to expand...

I should have said "...glare control with very bright subjects". The water was very bright. In my reckoning the image was quite sharp at center-field. May be I did not check closer to the edges as the FOV is so narrow!

Hi Maico.
The Minolta Standard MK 7x35 has very basic internal baffles.
But Minolta seem to know a thing or two.
Behind the objectives are deep empty dark recesses. So there is nothing to reflect light.
For its price level and 11 degree full field I was surprised how good it is regarding ghosting and flare.
With the streetlight in the field most of the field is clean, There is one yellow diagonal spike in each barrel and some other lesser ghosts. But it is as good as some binoculars costing 10x as much with lesser fields.

This is not a binocular for glasses wearers as the eye relief is poor, maybe 10mm.
The field with glasses is maybe 9 degrees instead of 11 degrees.
For glasses wearers the Nikon Action EX 7x35 makes more sense as it is new, has a warranty, longer eye relief and probably wider field with glasses. It is also waterproof and metal. The newer Action EX seem to have better coatings also. I don't know what the Minolta is made of.
But for me it is ideal as it steadies the view when I fold the eyecups down and brace the binocular. The rubber is maybe stiffer after 35 years, as I don't think I needed to fold the eyecups on my 10x50.

The binocular is marked 578ft. 192m. 11 degrees. extra wide angle. Japan, with Japan sticker also.

Weight 767g.

I don't use it much as I prefer higher magnifications. 8.5x, 10x and 12x.
I only use wide angle binoculars when searching for a comet or Mercury. Then I would use the 7x35 or the 4x22 with 16.5 degree field.