[Yippeekiay]

I realize everyone is all about the new 7x36's from ZR but I was wondering if anyone had done sideXside comparisons w/ the ZR ED2 10x and Nikon SE 10x?
Basically after a few pretty hairy situations w/ my SE's I realize waterproofing would a good thing.
Any info is much appreciated.

[falcondude]

I have both 8x and 7x ZEN binoculars. 10x is the one I have never looked through. After all, I will fall for wide angle so higher mag probably never works for me. From my experience, those ZENs are darn good for their price. From what I read, the Nikon SE are one of the best bunch with its Porro design. The 10x ED2 will serve well as a back up binoculars for the SE during the raining days. If it does not work out, they have rather liberal 30-day return policy.

[Yippeekiay]

I've got the Zen 8x's also but the Better half harumph-harumph's when I borrow them. Thus the interest in a dedicated 10x back-up. The only drawback is the 15.2mm eye relief (4eyes here). Definitely pushing the envelope. But, I've a pair of 10x36 monarchs that have a stated 15mm eye relief, of which I'd have NO idea how to verify, and those are right at the useable limit. Kind of hoping the .2mm+different design brings more in actual function than in tech.specs.

[falcondude]

That's where you have to try and find out when it comes to eye relief. What works for others may not work for you, or vice versa.

[Kevin Purcell]

I found the ER was just short of perfect with the ZR ED 10x when I tried them with my glasses. It's clearly larger in the SE.

But... the SE has 6.0 degree FOV and ZR 6.5 degrees so I suspect I see a similar field but I just can't see the edges. Similar to the effect I get with the 7x36 ZR (but perhaps slightly less of an issue).

I liked the view in the ZR (though my SE 8x beat it at the time ... I didn't have a 10x SE at that point) but the ER for me and my glasses was not quite enough so I went for the 8x at that time rather than the 10x. But it was a lot more relaxed eye placement even though I don't find the SE 10x too bad.

Still I keep thinking about getting a Chinese ED 10x too especially as I seem to be having a bias to 10x recently. Anyone interesting in a 8x to 10x trade?

[Yippeekiay]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

I found the ER was just short of perfect with the ZR ED 10x when I tried them with my glasses. It's clearly larger in the SE.

That sounds quite promising. Because the SE 10x has just more than enough ER for my needs. Quite comfortable, actually. The Zen 8x's (Just did a quick check) seem a little "fuller". Probably a DOV thing, but very close nevertheless.(17.4 vs 16.8 respectively) Honestly I'm lousy at technical stuff. I can understand every concept clearly but when applying said concepts they get lost in translation. For instance, the difference between stated ER and usable ER comes down to how far recessed the lense is beneath the eye-cup.(I think). But ask me to measure it or compare two sets of bin's and suddenly the Barnum and Bailey circus theme starts playing in my head. (De-de-deedlee-de-de-deed-de-de-d-dee-de....! ).
Actually, now to think of it. I don't think I've seen a review of the 10x ED2's besides the durability thread on 24HR campfire yet.

[Kevin Purcell]

The only real questions with ER are avoid measurements and can be solved by trying the bins:

Can you see the whole field (ER just right)

Are the edges vignetted (ER too short)?

Do you get brownouts (ER is too long for your setup ... eyes, glasses, face shape, eyecup settings).

For me:

10x SE has just a too much err but with some setting up its fine for me. I can just see the whole field.

8x ZR ED2 is fine for me. I can see the whole field.

10x ZR ED (optically it's the same) I don't see the whole field but I see quite a lot of it.

7x36 ZR ED2 I don't see the whole field (and I suspect I see a fraction less of the whole field than the 10x but that's just comparing in memory ... perhaps they're more similar than I remember).

I would suggest trying the 10x ZR and see how it goes.

[falcondude]

those SEs are really hard to find, especially with a good price. It took a while for me to finally see through a pair of 8x32. That's probably you don't see many comparison between ZEN and SE. The closest I can find is 8x comparison on this board.

http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=155160

[Yippeekiay]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

8x ZR ED2 is fine for me. I can see the whole field.

10x ZR ED (optically it's the same) I don't see the whole field but I see quite a lot of it.

7x36 ZR ED2 I don't see the whole field (and I suspect I see a fraction less of the whole field than the 10x but that's just comparing in memory ... perhaps they're more similar than I remember).

I would suggest trying the 10x ZR and see how it goes.

See, now this is strange to me. the 7x and 8x have the same "spec'd" ER at 16.8mm which I would think is more than enough for most people. But the 10x only has 15.2mm which is close to not enough. You wouldn't think the 7x and 10x would get grouped together with the 8's being the odd man out. But rather the 7 and 8x's together w/ the 10'x being sectioned. Makes me wonder how much difference there is from one sample to the next.
I guess it just reinforces the try before you buy creedo.

Question please: Do you (or anyone for that matter) keep bin's that don't provide a full field of view in accordance w/ your particular needs?

Thanks!

[RJM]

To measure eyerelief, put the bins pre-focused at infinity on some kind of support pointed at a bright light. Hold a white card or opaque paper behind an eyelens so that it reflects the illuminated circle of the exit pupil. Move the card/paper back-n-forth until the circle edge is sharp and defined. Now measure the distance from the card/paper to the eyelens to get eyerelief.

You can also use this method to measure the diameter of the exit pupil or by reversing the light entering binocular thru the eyepiece, the true un-obstructed aperture of the objective.

cheers,
Rick

[John M Robinson]

I have both the 8x32 and 10x42 SEs. I have slightly deep set eyes, I don't wear glasses with my bins, but I'm slightly farsighted (+1.5), the 8x32s are perfect, but I can't see all the way to the field stop with the 10x42s. I also have slight black out issues (too much ER?) with my 8x42 Ultravids and especially the 8x32 Ultravids.

After reading Kevins explanation above, now I know why I can't see the field stop with the ten power SEs.

Thanks,

John

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by Yippeekiay

See, now this is strange to me. the 7x and 8x have the same "spec'd" ER at 16.8mm which I would think is more than enough for most people. But the 10x only has 15.2mm which is close to not enough. You wouldn't think the 7x and 10x would get grouped together with the 8's being the odd man out. But rather the 7 and 8x's together w/ the 10'x being sectioned. Makes me wonder how much difference there is from one sample to the next.
I guess it just reinforces the try before you buy creedo.

Question please: Do you (or anyone for that matter) keep bin's that don't provide a full field of view in accordance w/ your particular needs?

Thanks!

Another question is how big is the light cone coming out the ocular? If they're different then you might experience different views.

ER isn't the only consideration (though it would be in a proper design). Some designs only just have enough aperture to see the full field if you get the eye in the right place. If you are back a little from that you may not see the full field but not feel like you are vingetted too much (i.e. the field looks more cropped rather than "rolling off").

The other issue is does some part of the eyecup or "back part" of the ocular vignette the light cone e.g. the designer needs to make sure the last ocular lens is large enough to accommodate the whole light cone. But larger lenses are heavier, more expensive, mnore difficult to mount, may have ergonomic issues for eyecups, etc, etc.

The other thing to keep in mind as I've mentioned before is spectacles change the effective ER: negative prescriptions lengthen it and positive prescriptions shorten it.

THere are multiple parameters in the design that have an effect here not just one (ER). THe problem is only one is specified (ER) but not too accurately. You can calculate the width of the light cone (it's the AFOV ... but remember to calculate it properly ... using tan). So is the ocular big enough (another unspecified parameter).