[ksbird/foxranch]

When I recently purchased the 2 pairs of Nikon SEIIs on a deal I was rather worried about the serial numbers being so low (0050xx and 0051xx) but Kevin Purcell explained to me (with references to one of the Starry Night or BVD web pages), that these serial numbers were right in line.

Is it really possible that so few pairs of great bins are sold? In the KC Astronomical Society all 50 or so regulars out of 450+ members, have high end bins like Nikon Prostars/Astroluxe or Fujinon 7x50 or 11x70 FMTRs, etc. But when I donate time to do the Audubon Soc bird counts I see many of the counters using binoculars I would have trouble looking through all day without eye strain. In fact my biggest contribution is loaning relatively better bins to folks who are having trouble sorting out the finches etc.

In reality it seems like there is a small populations of hard core astronomers and all of them get uber-bins. There is a huge number of hunters in this part of the Midwest USA and many of them get uber-bins (based on the sales numbers Cabelas and Bass Pro Shops talk about). But amongst birders there seems to be a somewhat larger number of persons involved (compared to amateur astronomers) but they most often buy low end or mid-price bins.

I read on this forum that there is a great deal of interest and many "tests" of bins to see which bin is best and which bin in the "Best" category is least expensive. There is also some interest in which low-end-priced bin is best. But based on my actual interactions with groups of read bird-counters (for a rather serious genus/species tabulation), birders don't spend much money to do what they do.

Amateur astronomers I know will lie on their backs in the freezing cold with waterproof IF bins to observe interesting phenomena (comets etc.) and if the bins die, well that's the price you pay to have been there and seen that with your own eyes. Likewise hunters often spend really high dollars on bins because the guns etc. are already costing big bucks, so the uber-bins aren't a really over-large expenditure. But for a group that really needs to have either bins or a spotter, birders seem to be the cheapest spenders, and that may be why the best birding bins get discontinued.

I find in the astronomical society and amongst hunters that old age cuts down on their involvement after 65 yo when conditions are harsh. But birders can be seen making trips and watching slide shows about birds well into their retirement years, at a time when most can actually afford that one great pair of bins. They are likely to avoid the harshest weather conditions, because of their age. So why are the number of uber-bins for birding sold, so low?

[BirderSean]

I am an avid birder, but also a total cheapskate and always go for "best bang for the buck" I had a budget of $900 for bins recently and was leaning toward the Minox HG, but then the Vortex Viper looked "better" to me, so I thought great, looks like I only have to spend $500. Then I noticed the Stokes DLS went on sale from $800 down to $450, so I bought those as their image was just as great as the Viper. (I also did not want to buy a chinese brand bin).

I am extremely satisfied with the performance of these bins. Their optics are great and they are a pleasure to use.

Anyway, that's the mindset of a cheapskate birder.

Interestingly, in my line of work, I run into a lot of professional consultant birders and a lot of them are using cheaper bins. However, I suspect they probably have a better "personal" set at home and use a cheaper set in their line of work. I do this as well. It doesn't detract from their ability to accurately conduct the necessary (and govt. protocol) surveys for which they are hired.

[Steve C]

This sort of gets us into the old argument of just how much better are the high end binoculars. I will grant they are better, but I do not think they are enough better to justify the price they sell for, regardless of my long term, but not real serious, wish for one. It is sort of hard for me to think that a birder armed with a Vortex Fury or its equivalent is poorly equipped. I have read reviews where numerous serious birders have said there is no need to spend over $500. There are numerous respected hunting authorities who say the same thing for hunting. I actually do both, and as far as I am concerned there is precious little, if any difference between a good birding, or a good hunting binocular.

I agree that there are lot of people on birding outings who could use a binocular upgrade. There are always posts form some birder or another here who tells all how good their low end Bushnell Powerview, or Trophy is. However, it is the hunters seem to me to be the "Kings of Cheap" when it comes to binoculars. Not so much so with scopes, but many binoculars I see around the necks of hunters would be best used as targets.

Another thing I see common to both birders and hunters is that the purchase a better binocular, will make them better too. While this has a certain merit, good optics will not make up for poor technique.

The thing with birding is that people can get into it without having to spend a lot of money. And there are likely a good percentage who really don't have a lot to spend, so the attraction is somewhat natural.

As with any hobby, the hobbyist more or less expands their level of interest as they gain some experience, especially if they enjoy the hobby. They will thus tend to invest in optics, just what they need to fulfil their personal optics requirements. Some people are content with the view that is sharp enough to let them make a confident ID, others get to the point where they wish to compare subtle inter specific color differences. Or even just to seperate subtle differences in the color patterns of an individual bird.

So I think that the high end binocular always has, and will always continue to appeal to the high end hobbyist. I also tend to think that we all tend to spend what we can afford to spend. Also I think right now, that it is sort of natural to see economic conditions tend to mitigate against a $2,000 US binocular, especially when one can nowadays get a ZEN and get an oh-so-very-close-to-the-alpha image.

[kristoffer]

In Sweden the really expensive hand binocular do exist, id say out of 3 birders; 1 got a really cheap poor bin, 1 got a medium - monarch-ish and 1 got a swaro el 8.5 x 42 :P Tubes are different imo, many more buy a really good tube. And its understandable, a lot more difference between only a decent tube and a alpha tube.

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by ksbird/foxranch

When I recently purchased the 2 pairs of Nikon SEIIs on a deal I was rather worried about the serial numbers being so low (0050xx and 0051xx) but Kevin Purcell explained to me (with references to one of the Starry Night or BVD web pages), that these serial numbers were right in line.............................................. ..............................

Just a comment here: My 10 x 42 SE also has a low SN: 0053xx. It's the sharpest, brightest binocular that I own. I have other top of the line Nikons, 8 x 32 SE and both EII's, and a Leica 7 x 42 Trinovid and a Swift 8.5 x 42 804.
Bob

[Kevin Purcell]

Bob, what is the serial on your 8x32?

One of the things I said to ksbird is I suspect the leading two digits are related to either the production year or the model or the lot number. I don't think Nikon uses sequential serial numbers (like say Zeiss does) given some of the examples of well-documented serials on their camera equipment. So i don't think you can infer that very few of these bins are made. I think there are tens of thousands of them (at least) and perhaps 100,000 or so.

For example my SE 8x32 starts with (IIRC) 505xxx ... so I doubt there are 50,000 SEs between the two I now own! But I think the leading 50 is perhaps a year or model or lot or combination of those three factors.

If anyone else who has an SE (any magnification) wishes to chip in their serial it might help to understand this.

What about other Nikon serials? For the LX or LXL (HG or HGL)?

[elkcub]

Here are mine:

8x32 SE's s/n is 550xxx. Purchased new 3/30/09.
8x32 LX Ls/n 200xxx. Reconditioned. Purchased 7/07.

Together they cost much less than a new 8x32 Leica, Zeiss, or Swaro. So, am into "hi-end" or not?

...But for a group that really needs to have either bins or a spotter, birders seem to be the cheapest spenders, and that may be why the best birding bins get discontinued.

If that were true, then the Leica, Zeiss, and Swaros would be discontinued, not the SE and LX Ls. No?

-ed

[kabsetz]

My 10x42 SE has serial number 002394. It was bought from the U.S. around 1995, I don't remember exactly, but about a year after Steve Ingraham wrote about them in BVD.

Looking over my notes on some other Nikon products, in 2003 I tested 8x30 E II's #80442x and #80442x, and in 2008 a couple of (old stock) 8x30 E II's #8056xx and #8059xx.

Then there are Fieldscope 82 A's, the first one I saw was #00002x in June of 2003. Subsequent serial numbers for the big fieldscope have been #00026x, 00027x, some units in the 0003xx range, and the one I own is 00138x

To me it looks like there is a sequential numbering for these, and that would mean that probably there are over 6000 8x30 E II's out there in the hands of happy birders and other binocular users. But, perhaps the logic behind the numbers is something else.

Kimmo

[ksbird/foxranch]

I guess that all the serial numbers in the AA0xxx-AA6xxx range (with the AA code likely for the different models and the last 4 digits being for the the actual production numbers), in my opinion considering how many, birders and hunters there are, seems like 5000-8000 production of a high-end binocular model is tiny, and thus likely very uninteresting to Nikon except for "pride of manufacturing #1". It would be interesting to see how many Zeiss 7x50 Marine, Fujinon 7x50 FMTR, Nikon 7x50 Prostar and Swaro 7x42 porros (+top Steiner super-bright porros and any other high enders there are), get sold every year to astronomers and boaters by comparison.

Even if we throw in all the Zeiss FL, Swaro SLC, Leica Ultravids, Nikon SEs and a few others (Meopta, Steiner) better suited to birding and hunting, it seems like birders/hunters have a much smaller percentage of users who go the 2 binocular purchase route, Bin #1 the best bang for the buck, then save, save, save and finally get a super-bin with the old-stand-by as a spare. I tend to find this is the buying trend with many of my European friends. In the USA I often find that (amongst buyers who buy primarily new bins), the users move up with new bins in small improvement steps, and may never reach the top-end models once they have 4 or 5 others acquired new.

Thanks for the insight into serial numbers. Obviously as a collector, and low end binoc seller, my interests are different again. But it is surprising to me that Nikon's worldwide production of their SE series might only total 25000 units for all models (not all of which are in the hands of users), when the population of birders is measured in the many millions.

[Pinewood]

Hello all,

If you visit Cloudy Nights binocular forum, I think that you would find a lot of astronomers using some rather inexpensive big binoculars like Celestron Skymasters and Orion binoculars. They often value aperture over other refinements, seeking photon buckets. Some amateur astronomers will spend less money on a 100 mm binocular, than some birders will spend on an 8x32 glass.

One vendor told me that hunters were the largest customers for his alpha glasses. Nevertheless volume on all binoculars is highest for bird watchers.

Today, I met about six fellow bird watchers in Central Park. One had an old Porro; one had a news Swarovski, two had Zeiss Dialyts [one of whom carried a Dialyt and an FL], another had a Leica. The others had some roof binoculars. I suspect that Manhattan would get folks with more disposable income, but I frequently meet two dedicated bird watchers, who use little reverse Porro binoculars.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[Pinewood]

I have a five year old Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt with a number of 27741xx, ago, and an 8x32 FL, purchased less than three years, ago, with a serial number of 30264xx. Of course, those numbers probably include the Diafuns and Conquests made along with their top line binoculars.

Arthur

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

Bob, what is the serial on your 8x32?

One of the things I said to ksbird is I suspect the leading two digits are related to either the production year or the model or the lot number. I don't think Nikon uses sequential serial numbers (like say Zeiss does) given some of the examples of well-documented serials on their camera equipment. So i don't think you can infer that very few of these bins are made. I think there are tens of thousands of them (at least) and perhaps 100,000 or so.

For example my SE 8x32 starts with (IIRC) 505xxx ... so I doubt there are 50,000 SEs between the two I now own! But I think the leading 50 is perhaps a year or model or lot or combination of those three factors.

If anyone else who has an SE (any magnification) wishes to chip in their serial it might help to understand this.

What about other Nikon serials? For the LX or LXL (HG or HGL)?

Kevin,
The SN on my 8 x 32 SE is 5059xx. I purchased it new last spring. At that time Eagle Optics told me it was the last one they had.

The SN on my 8 x 32 LX L is 2011xx. I purchased it new January 2006.
The SN on my 10 x 32 LX L is 7011xx. I purchased it new April 2008.

My 10 x 42 SE (See SN above) was purchased used in mint condition with all papers from a large Used Camera dealership about 4 years ago

My 8 x 30 EII is 6 or 7 years old or so. SN is 5007xx.
My 10 x 35 EII was purchased refurbished. SN is 3000xx. I got it about 5 years ago.

Hope this helps.
Bob

[Kevin Purcell]

Lots of zeros in the second digit (apart from one example above).

But we see SE 8x32 at 50xxxx and the 10x42 at 00xxxx (and they were produced first).

Anyone have a SE 12x50? Perhaps they share the 50xxxx scheme (coming out in the same original year).

Elkcub is that really 8x32 SE's s/n is 550xxx? Not 505xxx? The only one out of the pattern!

Perhaps there are only tens of thousands of these bins out there!

[elkcub]

...Elkcub is that really 8x32 SE's s/n is 550xxx? Not 505xxx? The only one out of the pattern!

Elkcub is iconoclastic.

[ksbird/foxranch]

As I mentioned in the first post I did on this subject, Cabelas management in Kansas City, and their executive offices in Nebraska seem to feel that hunters buy a much larger percentage of the top brands' best models, because they are already spending many thousands on other outfitting, so the most expensive bins out there aren't really expensive by comparison. In fact, for some kinds of long-distance hunting, high end binoculars are required.

Perhaps the differences I see with the astronomical society in Kansas City is that there is a large push here for people to get something called a Messier certificate. Quality bins usually make this easier than cheaper bins with larger objectives, and holding bins steady is a problems for many users whose binoculars have objectives larger than 70mm. Since your "Messier mentor" is likely to have alpha Nikon, Fujinon or Zeiss/Swaro porro bins, I guess those moving up from traditional pawn-shop 7x50 Japanese bins from the 70s/80s might wait/save, to step all the way up when they buy their next pair.

Roofers are generally not used by astro people because of the spikes coming off of stars. With your pupils fully expanded, the roof edge spikes have been obvious in every roofer anyone has ever brought to the club meetings at either of the 2 observatories run by the club. With truly dark, dark skies, the roofer spike stands out quite easily and smears stars nearby that would otherwise be visible.

But I've not heard anyone mention what percentage of sales are made at the high end to owners of luxury boats/yachts. It would seem that 7x50 or 8x56 bins made by Zeiss or Steiner would be popular. I know that Nikon's IF 7x50 for boaters tends to be more rugger and lower quality than the Prostar, so maybe having super high end optical quality isn't as important as ruggedness, and so upper-mid priced bins will suffice for even the most well-heeled yachtsman. This all being the case, it is no wonder, with such small production of the highest quality binocular models, that even companies like Nikon discontinue models due to lack of sales.

[corax]

My Nikon SE 8x32 has serial number 504213 (november 2002), and SE 10x42 is 003926-4997 (july 2003).
Regards, from italian Alps.

Alessandro

[Kevin Purcell]

Thanks, elkcub.

So I assume that means that there are at least 10,000 8x32 if they used up their assumed 2 digit prefix.

But if they are using a 1 digit prefix + 5 digit serial then elkcub' serial might be interpreted as 50,000 SE 8x32 out there.

Whether they just got a new 2-digit-prefix or they actually use a 1 digit prefix and there are bins with 51xxxx, 52xxxx and similar serials we won't know until someone shares one of those serials.

Grazie to out Italian raven too! More in the pattern.

BTW, though I think ks may think that was off topic I think I was more establishing his original assertion that there aren't many top bins out there. I'm not sure his assumption is true though foe the SE it seems it might be more true (the last of an old non-waterproof line, perhaps?).

ksbird:

I think you should really separate out binocular astronomers (who really are a minority amongst astronomers) and terrestrial binocular users. They have very different requirements that lead to very different hardware. Astronomers need large apertures, large exit pupils, sharp edge of field, non-pincushion distortion in heavy often mounted bins that don't need great baffling. Terrestrial users want lighter weight unmounted, well baffled bins with wide field with some pincushion to counteract the rolling ball effect. They're happy with smaller exit pupils as their eyes are stopped down during the day.

So birders and hunters have more similarities to each other than to hunters.

But then hunters have their down different requirements. Large distant slow moving targets close to the ground often in twilight not close, small, fast moving targets often at 30 degrees above the horizon in daylight. Hunters like IF bins but birders hate them.

Another issue is demographics of the bin buyers. I'm pretty sure the sterotypes of "manly pickup drivin' hunter" and "little old tweed wearing lady" are closer to the mark. Blue collar versus white collar. Younger versus older. That affects the target market too. I'd also suspect the hunters tend to be more optimizers (like a lot of us optics geek birders here) and birders tend to be "satisficers" (good enough bins though they often buy the top end bins). Mix that with the older folks and I wouldn't be too surprised if the older folks buy a decent set of top end bins on retirement and don't get rid of them until the estate sale. I've met quite a few birders like this. So I can see hunters having a higher "velocity" of bins (buying the latest and greatest to get "an edge") and so dominating the market. I's a young guy thing.

The diffraction spikes are due to the roof edge and they appear more in astronomical applications because the sources are pointlike and bright. In terrestrial use lights and other similar bright point or line sources (lines are the worst!) show these effects too: they're just not very common during the day. The spikes don't have anything to do with large exit pupils.

[macs]

My Nikon SE 8x32 has serial number 505xxx and was purchased in Sep 2006.

Maciek

[Swissboy]

There are even people who pay dearly for a birding and safari trip abroad, but they either come without binoculars, or they have just one very cheap pair to share among husband and wife. Strange economics in any case.

On the other hand, one certainly does not need top notch models. Though, with age and thus decreasing eye performance, the desire for some compensation is obvious. And the top models provide at least some of it. As the decline in eye performance is usually slow, most people using cheaper binoculars do not realize the potential improvement until they look through one of the top ones.

Finally, there is a level where one can hardly improve with respect to ID. But the more costly models often provide more enjoyment with more contrast and clarity. Thus, it depends whether one simply wants to identify a bird, or whether one places some emphasis on the enjoyment of the sight. And be it of a very common species.

[mooreorless]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Just a comment here: My 10 x 42 SE also has a low SN: 0053xx. It's the sharpest, brightest binocular that I own. I have other top of the line Nikons, 8 x 32 SE and both EII's, and a Leica 7 x 42 Trinovid and a Swift 8.5 x 42 804.
Bob

Hi Bob, My 10x42 was purchased by the original owner in 1999 and serial number is 577x and a friends is 523x not sure when this one was bought.

I have the 12X50 SE and have been thinking about trading the 10SE for a 8SE . I had the 10SE out yesterday and am now thinking of just keeping it. It is just too good to get rid of.
Regards,Steve

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by mooreorless

Hi Bob, My 10x42 was purchased by the original owner in 1999 and serial number is 577x and a friends is 523x not sure when this one was bought.

I have the 12X50 SE and have been thinking about trading the 10SE for a 8SE . I had the 10SE out yesterday and am now thinking of just keeping it. It is just too good to get rid of.
Regards,Steve

Yeah, I have to agree with you. My 10 x 42 is a gem!

BTW, the SN of your 12 x 50 SE might be helpful. Kevin doesn't have one yet from a 12 x 50.

I can't make head nor tail out of Nikon's SN sequences.

Bob

[BobinKy]

This is a very interesting thread--particularly the discussions of user profiles (birders, hunters, and star gazers), as well as the number crunching on SEs produced. Other user profiles to consider might be mariners, security, and of course, military. In my opinion, hunters should be segmented further by type of game, just as birders might be separated by songbirding, shorebirding, and hawking. Astronomers might be segmented into Milky Way sweepers, star gazers (variable stars, bright stars, and double stars), planet watchers (limited to our solar system), and DSO hunters (deep-sky objects such as galaxies, nebula, star clusters). Regarding security optics, I have no clue (sorry for the poor pun!), but Steiner uses "police" and "security" in their advertising copy for some of their 7x50 models. Mariners use large apertures such as 7x50s, 10x70s, and large mounted 25x150s, but focusing style IF vs CF, armor material, built-in compasses and measuring reticles appear to be the various options.

That's my two-cents worth.

[mooreorless]

Sorry Bob I can not read my serial number for the 12x50SE. I am about the fifth owner and we think one of the owners messed up the serial number with their mounting equipment . I remember when Brock had this binocular you could kind of read the serial number but now I can not even with magnifying glass. I had use of a friends 12SE but I lost all the pictures I took of it with computer crash.
Regards,Steve

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by mooreorless

Sorry Bob I can not read my serial number for the 12x50SE. I am about the fifth owner and we think one of the owners messed up the serial number with their mounting equipment . I remember when Brock had this binocular you could kind of read the serial number but now I can not even with magnifying glass. I had use of a friends 12SE but I lost all the pictures I took of it with computer crash.
Regards,Steve

Bummer!
Nikon also changed the font size of the serial numbers on the SE's which was discovered in an earlier thread by ksbird. A smaller and narrower font on the SN seems to be an older one?? Maybe.
Bob

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by mooreorless

Hi Bob, My 10x42 was purchased by the original owner in 1999 and serial number is 577x and a friends is 523x not sure when this one was bought.

Steve:

Is that 577xxx and 523xxx (leading digits of the 6 digit serials)? If so that is interesting.

Or is it 00577x and 00523x. Which fits the current pattern. The leading zeros are significant!