[iporali]

Originally Posted by kabsetz

Photos on the telescopes.com site strongly suggest that the lug placement problem is solved in the new series.

I hope they have also solved their gluing problems: too many rubber grip sheets peel off from Nikon's cameras and binoculars - IMHO .

Ilkka

[horukuru]

any news regarding this new nikon ? when will it be launch ? planned to get the LXL but this new one looks hot !

[KorHaan]

Where is the diopter adjustment situated?
If it's under the focus knob, it's a clear step back in ergonomics. The diopter adjustment on the LXL's is the best there is.
IMO.

Greetings, Ronald

[trealawboy]

Any news of the eyecups on the EDGs? I hope they are improvement of those on the HGs which are prone to excessive wear and are not easy to remove sand and grit from.

[henry link]

Here are the basic specs for the all the Nikon EDG series binoculars (pronounced like the word "edge" I am told).

8x32- weight, 700g
fov, 7.8 degrees
eye relief, 18.5mm
close focus, 2.5m

10x32- wt, 700g
fov, 6.5 degrees
er, 17.3mm
cf, 2.5m

7x42- wt, 835g
fov, 8 degrees
er, 22mm
cf, 3m

8x42- wt, 835g
fov, 7.7 degrees
er, 19.3mm
cf, 3m

10x42- wt, 835g
fov, 6.5 degrees
er, 18mm
cf, 3m

[ceasar]

Specs on my (current) 8 x 32 LXL:
Weight: 695 g
FOV @ 1000 Meters: 136 meters. ( 7.8 degrees)
Eye Relief: 17.0 mm
Close focus: 2.5 meters.
Bob

PS: According to the spec sheet supplied with my 8 x 32 the ER of the new 8 x 32 and 10 x 32 is longer. (old ones were 17.0 and 16.0) The ER of the new 8 x 42 and 10 x 42 is slightly shorter than the old LXL. (old is 20.0 and 18.5 respectively) The new 42's are also 50g heavier. The 7 x 42 roof prism configuration seems to be completely new to Nikon.

[Robert / Seattle]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

Where is the diopter adjustment situated?
If it's under the focus knob, it's a clear step back in ergonomics. The diopter adjustment on the LXL's is the best there is.
IMO.
Ronald

Greetings, Ronald ...

This statement intrigues me. Once you set it, tricky or not, it's set for life, right? Doesn't that make the issue of diopter adjustment a 2 minute red-herring. If the long-term, day to day ergonomics and optics are at question then, sure, you have a real issue. But if the diopter settings are ultimately accurate, even if a bit cumbersome, then this whole issue is nothing less than silly.

That's my 2 cents.

Robert / Seattle

[jacquot]

Yes, that's great and I have a pair, but without CA and perhaps with even better handling, they'll be awesome. I am only concerned about the price. Street price for Nikons has always been better than the European competition, and should be here, too. We'll have to wait and see. The advantage of ED/FL glass--at least for me--is significant. I prefer the Nikons to my FL's for overall feel and focus. They are the only bins I can one hand with ease. These could really be great if they hold on to the best of the past and improve on it. David

[kabsetz]

Robert,

I see that you are still a young man...

Seriously, I never gave much thought to diopter adjustments until I was some 44 or so. I set it and forgot it, just like you. Then my accommodation began its inevitable decline, and now I not only need to set the diopter much more precisely than before, but the needed setting can also vary from day to day or hour to hour. So, today, I much prefer the diopter adjustment to be continuously variable (not notched by 1/4 or 1/3 diopter increments) and separate from the focus knob. My ideal solution thus is something like what the Nikon HG's have, but with sufficient friction to keep the setting instead of the locking feature.

Thanks Henry, for the spec sheet.

As far as the specs and design changes, many of us have argued that the current Nikons are just as good as any, except for three or four more or less significant shortcomings, depending on your priorities and sensitivities. These are: more CA than in most premium rivals, silver-coated prisms that compromise overall light transmission, somewhat small field of view in the 8x42 (and to a lesser degree the 10x42) and somewhat higher weight compared to rival model lines. Of these issues, the EDG seems to correct all but the last. For me, the published weights are also easily within my comfort range for the corresponding sizes, although the 32mm models at 700g are quite a bit heavier than, say, the Leica 8x32 Ultravid HD at 532g (measured without any straps and covers).

And there seems to be a tripod adapter.

However, the EDG still lacks image stabilization.

Kimmo

[Robert / Seattle]

Originally Posted by kabsetz

Robert,

...

Seriously, I never gave much thought to diopter adjustments until I was some 44 or so. I set it and forgot it, just like you. Then my accommodation began its inevitable decline, and now I not only need to set the diopter much more precisely than before, but the needed setting can also vary from day to day or hour to hour. ...

Kimmo

Kimmo,

Now that's a horse of a different color. Very valid, of course, and in such cases I'd agree that a user friendly diopter would be highly desireable.

Cheers,

Robert

[elkcub]

Originally Posted by kabsetz

... and now I not only need to set the diopter much more precisely than before, but the needed setting can also vary from day to day or hour to hour. So, today, I much prefer the diopter adjustment to be continuously variable (not notched by 1/4 or 1/3 diopter increments) and separate from the focus knob. My ideal solution thus is something like what the Nikon HG's have, but with sufficient friction to keep the setting instead of the locking feature.
...
However, the EDG still lacks image stabilization.

Kimmo

Kimmo/Robert: My 8x32 LX L diopter control is continuous, although the scale is marked in .5D increments. Overall, it's the most user friendly control I've found. I reset it constantly depending on whether or not I'm using my glasses.

IS would push the price way over the EDGe.

Regards,
Ed

[kabsetz]

Ed,

Yes, the LX L diopter can be used so it is continuous, but Nikon intends you to click it back down to its locked position after adjusting it, and these positions are placed at intervals. I don't recall right now if these were every 0.2 or 0.25 diopter, but if you observe the ring carefully when you lock it, you'll notice that it does not lock in just any position.

I do like the LX (L) diopter adjustment just fine, since if the indexed position does not happen to fit my requirements, I can leave the ring unlocked with no harm done. And, I like being able to adjust the overall focus at any time during this process without having to push or pull focus knobs or temporarily losing the diopter control option.

Kimmo

[Pinewood]

Originally Posted by kabsetz

Ed,

Yes, the LX L diopter can be used so it is continuous, but Nikon intends you to click it back down to its locked position after adjusting ...
Kimmo

Kimmo,

I am unfamiliar with the Nikon LX L. In other binoculars, not pushing the dioptre adjustment back down, compromises watertight integrity. Is this the case with the LX L?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[elkcub]

Originally Posted by kabsetz

Ed,

Yes, the LX L diopter can be used so it is continuous, but Nikon intends you to click it back down to its locked position after adjusting it, and these positions are placed at intervals. I don't recall right now if these were every 0.2 or 0.25 diopter, but if you observe the ring carefully when you lock it, you'll notice that it does not lock in just any position.

I do like the LX (L) diopter adjustment just fine, since if the indexed position does not happen to fit my requirements, I can leave the ring unlocked with no harm done. And, I like being able to adjust the overall focus at any time during this process without having to push or pull focus knobs or temporarily losing the diopter control option.

Kimmo

Kimmo,

Within a marked .5D increment on the scale, I've been able to set the ring to at least 10 different positions, and these were retained after snapping it back in place. Beyond that I can't discriminate much based on the scale, but there was no sense of going into a detent. Maybe you have a slightly different model than I have. Very curious.

Ed
PS. In contrast, the 10x42 SLC is continuously adjustable, but pops into a single notch midway between calibration marks (dots). Assuming the range is ±3D (and linear), as advertised, adjustment precision is only .25D.

[elkcub]

Originally Posted by Pinewood

Kimmo,

I am unfamiliar with the Nikon LX L. In other binoculars, not pushing the dioptre adjustment back down, compromises watertight integrity. Is this the case with the LX L?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Arthur,

I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised.

Although I'm interested in the performance of the new EDG series, I'm so pleased with my little 8x32 LX L that it would take a major event to get me to replace them with something else. Among other things, the focus control is absolutely superb, and low light viewing is remarkable.

Kimmo/Henry (or someone else): have you examined its axial CA? Center image color contrast is almost ED-like already. Lateral CA is present, but only slightly more than other high end bins.

Ed

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by Robert / Seattle

Greetings, Ronald ...

This statement intrigues me. Once you set it, tricky or not, it's set for life, right? Doesn't that make the issue of diopter adjustment a 2 minute red-herring. If the long-term, day to day ergonomics and optics are at question then, sure, you have a real issue. But if the diopter settings are ultimately accurate, even if a bit cumbersome, then this whole issue is nothing less than silly.

That's my 2 cents.

Robert / Seattle

Hi Robert,

You're absolutely right, it shouldn't be an issue and I agree with you it sounds silly; but I prefer a separated diopter adjustment like the one I described, due to personal experience with my former Zeiss FL 7x42.

The FL's have only one clickstop in the diopter ring under the focus knob, a very firm one on zero. Changing the diopter and locking it is easy, but I noticed that when I moved the hinged barrels in or out to change the IPD, the diopter had shifted somewhat. Not all the time, but every now and again, very irregularly, it had moved up to 0.5 diopter unintendedly. Since it didn't move the slightest bit in the clickstop position, it really had me wondering if Zeiss had done the right thing and not found it necessary to put in more clickstops. After I read that more people were having trouble with the FL diopter I was convinced it could be a design fault.
As I said, it didn't happen very often, but the unpredictability of the self-moving diopter made me check the scale every 5 minutes or so. It could have been a faulty specimen, but I'm more inclined to think the whole design is the issue here.

Perhaps I should have written this straightaway in my first post, because the Swaro EL's with clickstop diopters seem fine, and no problems with Leica as well, that's why I DO wholeheartedly agree with you that a well-designed system is very good and not worth arguing about.

The FL's gave me trouble with my eyesight ( lazy eye could not cope with the huge FOV ), so I changed them for a pair of midpriced 10x roofs. A birding mate of mine is now very happy using the FL's, even when I told him about the diopter issue. He didn't mind, he's using the zero position. But I felt obliged to charge him only € 250 ( euro's, not pounds! ) for the Zeiss, as he's a mate and he very much wanted them.

My new roofs have a clickstop diopter on the right ocular, very simple, very good. No locking necessary. No unintended moving. That's what I like. I can SEE my preferred diopter position, and I can trust it not to move when I don't want it to.

I wonder if the Nikon EDG's have a clickstop diopter adjustment, and if it's under the focus knob, should have been my initial question in my first post.
But I still think the LXL's have the best system ( though I don't own them ) as long as you want one permanent diopter position. It has proven its value, hasn't it? So why change it?

Greetings, Ronald

P.S. : What on earth is a 2 minute red-herring?? I tried to look it up but it's
not mentioned in my English dictionary.

[elkcub]

This definition should suffice. A two minute red herring is probably one that is short lived.

[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/redherring

[Robert / Seattle]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

Hi Robert, ...

P.S. : What on earth is a 2 minute red-herring?? I tried to look it up but it's
not mentioned in my English dictionary.

Hi Ronald,

What a great conribution to the diopter discussion - very exhaustive and all well conceived. I want to take some time to respond with a reply worthy of your time and interest, and I promise to do so when the local work load recedes a bit. Give me a day or so, thanks.

In the meantime ... a "red-herring" may be considered to be an irrelevant distraction issue; one that "throws a dog off the scent" (literally) from the main chase, or main issue in this case. The issue here being any number of serious optical considerations worth evaluating between nikon/leica/swaro/zeiss. The "2 minutes" is my personal estimate on just how long it takes to set a diopter adjustment, check it, and set it again if necessary. Generallly, (thanks to Kimmo for my enlightenment to less common but notable exceptions), this procedure is "said and done".

I'll try to be more sensitive to my international friends for whom English is a second language. Unlike most English speakers, at least you have great facility with a second (or possibly more) language.

My hat is off to you ...

Robert

[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by Robert / Seattle

....
I'll try to be more sensitive to my international friends for whom English is a second language. Unlike most English speakers, at least you have great facility with a second (or possibly more) language.
...Robert

No problem as long as we can ask without being regarded as silly non-natives.

Actually, I enjoy these terms, but particularly so when I either find the explanation myself or when I get it provided later-on as did happen here!

[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

As I said, it didn't happen very often, but the unpredictability of the self-moving diopter made me check the scale every 5 minutes or so. ........

But I felt obliged to charge him only € 250 ( euro's, not pounds! ) for the Zeiss, as he's a mate and he very much wanted them.

..... I can SEE my preferred diopter position, and I can trust it not to move when I don't want it to.

....

Your mate sure got a great bargain!

As for the Zeiss diopter setting, I also feel it is a design fault. Both because it can shift unintentionally and also because one can't see the setting right away. Luckily, I can also leave mine at zero as I need to use my binoculars with my glasses on. But nevertheless, I check the setting on my 8x42 FL every so often. I don't see why Zeiss could not do things in such a way that the setting can be checked in a glace, without having to lift the focus knob. Leica has it right, ever since the Trinovid BAs.

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by elkcub

This definition should suffice. A two minute red herring is probably one that is short lived.


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/redherring

Thanks Ed!

Greetings, Ronald

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by Robert / Seattle

Hi Ronald,

What a great conribution to the diopter discussion - very exhaustive and all well conceived. I want to take some time to respond with a reply worthy of your time and interest, and I promise to do so when the local work load recedes a bit. Give me a day or so, thanks.

In the meantime ... a "red-herring" may be considered to be an irrelevant distraction issue; one that "throws a dog off the scent" (literally) from the main chase, or main issue in this case. The issue here being any number of serious optical considerations worth evaluating between nikon/leica/swaro/zeiss. The "2 minutes" is my personal estimate on just how long it takes to set a diopter adjustment, check it, and set it again if necessary. Generallly, (thanks to Kimmo for my enlightenment to less common but notable exceptions), this procedure is "said and done".

I'll try to be more sensitive to my international friends for whom English is a second language. Unlike most English speakers, at least you have great facility with a second (or possibly more) language.

My hat is off to you ...

Robert

Hi Robert,

Elkcub got the credits for the red-herring, but thanks for elaborating. I didn't know the expression and I'm glad I learned something once again.

I've developed kind of an obsessive thing about binocular ergonomics, so in my case I don't see a red-herring but more like a red-whale ,
but I agree that a fine diopter technology should take only 2 minutes of your time and that's it.

Please keep the expressions coming; I love them

Greetings, Ronald

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by Swissboy

Your mate sure got a great bargain!

As for the Zeiss diopter setting, I also feel it is a design fault. Both because it can shift unintentionally and also because one can't see the setting right away. Luckily, I can also leave mine at zero as I need to use my binoculars with my glasses on. But nevertheless, I check the setting on my 8x42 FL every so often. I don't see why Zeiss could not do things in such a way that the setting can be checked in a glace, without having to lift the focus knob. Leica has it right, ever since the Trinovid BAs.

Hi Robert from Switzerland,

Yeah, he sure did! Actually, he was surprised because he'd expected a higher price... I found it not necessary to charge him more than my new roofs would cost, so I could play even. Two people happy!

The zero position on the FL's diopter is not likely to shift, ever. I don't think you have to check it now and again, I know I never did. It's firm.
On the other hand, if you can't trust the diopter positioning to be locked in place at different settings, it compromises the superb optics you're having.
I've owned cheap porro's with lousy ( freely wandering ) diopters I could easily lock with duct tape, but that's impossible on the FL's. That's what really bugs me; it's beyond DIY repair.

It's off-topic from this Nikon EDG - thread, but I now suspect the last of the big 4 to adopt the same combined diopter/focus control on a new model. Nikon didn't have to do it. Steiner didn't on their new models.

Greetings, Ronald

[Robert / Seattle]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

Hi Robert,

Elkcub got the credits for the red-herring, but thanks for elaborating. ...

Please keep the expressions coming; I love them

Greetings, Ronald

Ronald,

I graciously concede to the more nimble typing skills and fastest browser in the West.

Cheers,
Robert / Seattle

[Roadbike]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

I ask because it's been years since they did anything significant in binoculars.

The hallowed SE is optically excellent but you're out of luck unless you want 8, 10 or 12x power with an exit pupil around 4 mm. None of them are waterproof, they're of less than bombproof toughness, and the eyecups are those distasteful fold-down rubber jobs. All things considered, the SE is the kind of binocular one feels duty-bound to recommend to others, but that one doesn't personally own.

The E2 series may or may not be discontinued depending on which of Nikon's various and sundry websites one consults, and is anyway very limited in choice of power and objective diameter. The E2s also lack modern refinements such as water resistance and adjustable eyecups, although the price compensates a little for these hardships (though most roof-prism binoculars at the same price do have these features). But the severe eye relief must seriously dampen their appeal.

We might then surmise that Nikon have abandoned their Porro attack, were it not for the lamentable state of their roof-prism line. The 32 and 42 mm HG L DCF binoculars are well-rounded products, but not brilliant enough to compete on an equal footing with the Ultravids and ELs and Victory FLs of this world. They are optically good, but Nikon are capable of better, in my opinion. They are lighter than the HG DCF models they replaced but not light enough to get noticed as "lightweight" binoculars, and they look a little homely. Critically, they still don't have dielectric mirror coatings on the reflecting surfaces of the roof prisms, using instead the traditional silver coatings. Silver coatings have lower reflectivity (by several percent) than dielectrics in the visible spectrum, and they also reflect red light more efficiently than blue, leading to a slight colour imbalance. Even though this doesn't greatly reduce the overall brightness of the binocular, the knowledge of it must affect Nikon's popularity.

The Sporter I was pretty decent at its close-out price, but that low price was there to shift an overly heavy binocular that lacked water resistance and phase-corrected prisms. The Sporter I suffered from neglect, which is what seems to be happening to the whole binocular range.

I suppose a bright point might be the Monarch line, which seems to be a pretty good value for money. But at the high end I think Nikon need to act fairly soon if they want to preserve their binocular market in the face of increasing competition from everyone, including relative newcomers like Kowa.

You have finally discovered the truth about Nikon. The one-time manufacturer of one of the broadest ranges of consumer binoculars has fallen on hard times. At one time they were recognized for making high performing birding, astronomical and general purpose binoculars, but no more. Yes, underperformers such as the SE, EII, LX, Astroluxe, etc., are so embarrassing it is difficult to talk about them. The cheesy Monarch binoculars are hardly fit to be sold in K-Mart. And those recently released and unbelievably bad EDG binoculars probably won't sell at closeout prices.

I just have to wonder how it is that Nikon has managed to fool so many binocular owners for so many years.