Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 10th November 2017, 18:00   #26
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
Hi, Alexis:

Please consider that in warmer climates that firmer focus can come in handy, as focusers coming from the factory with TOO smooth an action can get sensitive to the point of annoyance in hot weather.

What is an “easy clean” coating?

Cheers,

Bill
I've used the SE in hot weather and I still find it too slow. It's not just an issue of stiffness, it's also about ratio.

An easy clean coating (many trademarked names) is a hydrophobic and oleophobic coating that sheds water, resists oil, and thereby allows very easy removal of anything that gets on the lens. It isn't a necessity, but it sure is nice! I love them on bins and cameras (esp. on LCD protection glass since I'm left eyed and thus always smudge the LCD with my nose while looking through the viewfinder). Wish I could get them on glass lenses for eyeglasses.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th November 2017, 19:20   #27
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
I've used the SE in hot weather and I still find it too slow. It's not just an issue of stiffness, it's also about ratio.

An easy clean coating (many trademarked names) is a hydrophobic and oleophobic coating that sheds water, resists oil, and thereby allows very easy removal of anything that gets on the lens. It isn't a necessity, but it sure is nice! I love them on bins and cameras (esp. on LCD protection glass since I'm left eyed and thus always smudge the LCD with my nose while looking through the viewfinder). Wish I could get them on glass lenses for eyeglasses.

--AP
Alexis:

Thanks for clarifying about the ratio. The SE focusing was one of the selling points for me. But, as the dead horse bino forums continue to kick dead horses—and rightfully so—“different strokes for differenty folks.”

Ah, yes, oleophobic coatings. “Easy Clean” conjured up dubious, over-the-top advertising. If you have anything from an experienced master on the subject, please direct me to it. For me, with coatings being columnar, the jury is still out on effectiveness vs. long-term damage.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th November 2017, 19:44   #28
Sancho
Registered User
 
Sancho's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 8,477
Super-Dave...I am one who has tread the weary road (and too much money) in search of optical perfection, seventeen years of internet forums, at least fifty pairs of binos, and honestly, my advice is keep your SE's. I don't do optical science, just usage. I've owned SE's, EII's, SV's, UV's, FL's, and EDG's, and a host of lesser beasts. The only bino that I've had that might have a tiny margin optically over the SE, is the Nikon EDG 8x42II, but they're rare as hen's teeth now and cost treble or more. If the ergonomics of the SE's don't suit you, that's a different ball-game. But if you can live with the odd 'hang', the eye-relief and what people used to call 'kidney-beaning', save your time and money and hang on to those SE's.
Sancho is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th November 2017, 23:53   #29
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
Super-Dave...I am one who has tread the weary road (and too much money) in search of optical perfection, seventeen years of internet forums, at least fifty pairs of binos, and honestly, my advice is keep your SE's. I don't do optical science, just usage. I've owned SE's, EII's, SV's, UV's, FL's, and EDG's, and a host of lesser beasts. The only bino that I've had that might have a tiny margin optically over the SE, is the Nikon EDG 8x42II, but they're rare as hen's teeth now and cost treble or more. If the ergonomics of the SE's don't suit you, that's a different ball-game. But if you can live with the odd 'hang', the eye-relief and what people used to call 'kidney-beaning', save your time and money and hang on to those SE's.
When I first started looking for the Amdromedia galaxy, I had such a hard time. After a time, however, it became second nature; I could bring the bino to my eyes and there it was. The same is true with the SE and blackouts. Learn where you need to place it, use it a lot, and things will fall into place. Or, you could just sell the thing and join the great fraternity of those who have done so and are now spending eternity regretting it.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking

Last edited by WJC : Friday 10th November 2017 at 23:55.
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th November 2017, 13:09   #30
Sancho
Registered User
 
Sancho's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 8,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
...you could just sell the thing and join the great fraternity of those who have done so and are now spending eternity regretting it.

Bill
! Also consider the cachet. Anyone can go out and spend a fortune on the latest 'roofs'; but only an élite, smug few realise that SE's aren't just some old-fashioned piece of bino-history. (I certainly regret selling my SE10x42...that was plain stupid).

Last edited by Sancho : Saturday 11th November 2017 at 13:11.
Sancho is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 11th November 2017, 16:27   #31
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,638
(I certainly regret selling my SE10x42...that was plain stupid).

Boy, no argument from me.

When one of my sons—then an unlicensed pharmacist—needed money for his craft. He BORROWED (permanently, and without me knowing) my best Prostar to share with a pawn shop. I let him live!

Thus, we all make mistakes.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th November 2017, 21:25   #32
Sollas
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 102
The thing is......the Nikon SE's are a great binocular....I think we all know that.
I've had mine for almost 12 Years and they were truly a great companion.

However......I recently bought the Zeiss 8x42 HT's and be under no illusion they are a far superior binocular......the image is outstanding, the field of view is similar, the clarity and easy of viewing has rendered my old friend a bit surplus to requirements.

They do cost a bit more but in real terms not so much given how. Much you use them and how long they last.

I was slow to really test alpha roofs.....but I did find out that ultimately you do get what you pay for.
__________________
Common sense is not so common.
Sollas is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th November 2017, 21:51   #33
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
You must not care about the 3D view then. The SE's put the HT to shame when it comes to 3D. I also find the SE's a little sharper on-axis than the HT's and the SE has sharper edges. The SE also controls way CA better and has less astigmatism and has 2 to 3% better transmission than the HT. I am not sure what you mean by ease of viewing but a porro almost always has an easier and more transparent view than a roof. It is all in what is important to you.

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Saturday 11th November 2017 at 21:58.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th November 2017, 23:29   #34
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sollas View Post
The thing is......the Nikon SE's are a great binocular....I think we all know that.
I've had mine for almost 12 Years and they were truly a great companion.

However......I recently bought the Zeiss 8x42 HT's and be under no illusion they are a far superior binocular......the image is outstanding, the field of view is similar, the clarity and easy of viewing has rendered my old friend a bit surplus to requirements.

They do cost a bit more but in real terms not so much given how. Much you use them and how long they last.

I was slow to really test alpha roofs.....but I did find out that ultimately you do get what you pay for.
While I am obviously very happy with mine, I would NEVER say that is was the “beat all/end all” in any category. But, knowing a little about photopic and scotopic vision, the varying limitations and placement of rods and cones, the varying degrees of transient visual acuiety from one observer to the next (or even in the same observer, over time), as well as the overall performance of the SE, I would be curious as to how you have been able to access the HT as being a “FAR SUPERIOR binocular.”

Many times when I speak so firmly, I am taken to be bellicose in a given matter, when such is not the case. But I have a genuine interest in what aspects cause you to make such a bold statement. I am certainly not saying you are wrong. I would just like to know how you drew the conclusion. Are you comparing instruments of the same aperture and magnification?

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th November 2017, 21:07   #35
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
You must not care about the 3D view then. The SE's put the HT to shame when it comes to 3D. I also find the SE's a little sharper on-axis than the HT's and the SE has sharper edges. The SE also controls way CA better and has less astigmatism and has 2 to 3% better transmission than the HT. I am not sure what you mean by ease of viewing but a porro almost always has an easier and more transparent view than a roof. It is all in what is important to you.
Half of what you have written here is not true, to my eyes - are you sure that you mean the SE and the HT? ''Way better'' at CA and higher transmission? Not true at all. Are you saying the SE has 98% transmission? I've compared both - side by side - and wonder if you have done the same?
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn

Last edited by james holdsworth : Sunday 12th November 2017 at 22:11. Reason: reduced hyperbole
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th November 2017, 22:11   #36
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
........
The SE also controls way CA better and has less astigmatism and has 2 to 3% better transmission than the HT.
............
Per the test reports from Dr. G on the House of Outdoors website:

Zeiss 8X42 HT
- 500 nm (night) 92%
- 550 nm (day) 95%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-con...ART-2016-1.pdf

Nikon 8X32 SE
- 500 (night) 85.2%
- 550 (day) 88.3%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testra...april_2013.pdf
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 12th November 2017, 22:51   #37
Pinewood
New York correspondent
 
Pinewood's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 3,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
Per the test reports from Dr. G on the House of Outdoors website:

Zeiss 8X42 HT
- 500 nm (night) 92%
- 550 nm (day) 95%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-con...ART-2016-1.pdf

Nikon 8X32 SE
- 500 (night) 85.2%
- 550 (day) 88.3%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testra...april_2013.pdf
Hello,

I won't argue with Dr. G., but does anyone think that he can discern the differences with a naked eye?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
__________________
Bread is not enough. Give us circuses!
Pinewood is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th November 2017, 23:19   #38
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
Half of what you have written here is not true, to my eyes - are you sure that you mean the SE and the HT? ''Way better'' at CA and higher transmission? Not true at all. Are you saying the SE has 98% transmission? I've compared both - side by side - and wonder if you have done the same?
Compare the Allbino's tests on each. I have compared side by side and I agree with Albino's objective testing on each. This is on 10x42's so the aperture's are equal in size and comparable.
https://www.allbinos.com/152-binocul..._10x42_CF.html
https://www.allbinos.com/305-binocul..._HT_10x42.html

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Sunday 12th November 2017 at 23:45.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th November 2017, 23:43   #39
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
Per the test reports from Dr. G on the House of Outdoors website:

Zeiss 8X42 HT
- 500 nm (night) 92%
- 550 nm (day) 95%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-con...ART-2016-1.pdf

Nikon 8X32 SE
- 500 (night) 85.2%
- 550 (day) 88.3%

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testra...april_2013.pdf
I have never seen transmission's that low on the SE. I would trust Allbino's before I would trust those. Generally a porro will have better transmission better than any roof. Roofs don't have as wide of a fully illuminated view either. This is from Prof Edz over at Cloudy Nights.

"Transmission tests for comparative groups of roofs/porros in 10x42 and 8x40/42. Porros almost always show higher transmission than roofs.

618 Nikon SE 10x42porro
574 Nikon Monarch ATB10x42 rp
491 Pentax DCFHRII 10x42 rp
----Zen Ray Summit 10x42 rp
538 Celestron Regal 10x42 rp


579 Celestron Regal 8x42 rp
560 Bushnell Legend 8x42 rp
660 Garrett DCF 8x42 ApoRoof
750 Fujinon BFL 8x42 porro
630 Swift Ultralite 8x42 porro
770 Pentax PCF WP II 8x40 porro
880 Nikon Action Ex 8x40 porro

The perception of higher transmission can be swayed by the illumination of the view. Very few roofs have as wide a fully illuminated view as do porros. With only one exception at 30%, most of the roofs listed above have only 10% to 15% of the view fully illuminated, then they drop off gradually to 50% illumination at the field edge. Many of the porros have 20% to 35% of the fov fully illuminated with a few reaching as high as 50%, before dropping off gradually to the edge.

While this is by no means an exhaust sampling, of the comparable roofs and porros that I've measured, porros generally have not only higher transmission, but also better illumination. "

edz

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/2...ight-a-porros/

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Monday 13th November 2017 at 05:21.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 01:46   #40
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
Pretty sure Henry [again] debunked what is quoted / cited.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 01:54   #41
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 207
Sorry, where is the HT in EdZ‘s list?
I can‘t find it. I am pretty sure it was not even included in the tested binoculars. I have high respect for EdZ, but he doesn‘t say anything about the HT.
So what are you trying to prove ?
By the way: I think the transmission tests by houseofoutdoor.com appear generally reliable (Dr. G. seems to know what he is doing), but I have had my doubts about some from allbinos.
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 04:32   #42
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canip View Post
Sorry, where is the HT in EdZ‘s list?
I can‘t find it. I am pretty sure it was not even included in the tested binoculars. I have high respect for EdZ, but he doesn‘t say anything about the HT.
So what are you trying to prove ?
By the way: I think the transmission tests by houseofoutdoor.com appear generally reliable (Dr. G. seems to know what he is doing), but I have had my doubts about some from allbinos.
The HT is not on that list. I was just using that as an example of the relatively higher transmission values of porro's compared to roofs. The main point I was trying to make is as EdZ says is:

"While this is by no means an exhaust sampling, of the comparable roofs and porros that I've measured, porros generally have not only higher transmission, but also better illumination. "

I find it hard to believe houseofoutdoor.com's transmission's values on the SE of 85%. I have compared the Habicht 8x30, Nikon 8x32 SE and Nikon 8x30 EII and houseofoutdoor.com has a transmission of 95%, 85% and 75% respectively for each and I don't really see a 20% difference in transmission between the Habicht and the Nikon 8x30 EII. Here is Allbino's methodology in measuring transmission.

TRANSMISSION (15 points) - Currently we use spectophotometer to obtain the transmission graph in the range of wavelenghts from 380 to 900 nm. The method is very precise one and allows us to minimalize uncertainties to around 1%. In older tests we used three less accurate methods:

We mount a high level digital camera to an eyepiece (ocular lens) and we take a picture of diode. Then after standard procedure of data reduction, we carry out aperture photometry by comparing diode brightnesses (measured by eyepiece + camera configuration). Results depend only on lens diameter (which we know) and light transmission (which we can count).
We mount a high class CCTV video camera and record diverse luminosity star clusters (for example ‘Pleiades’) on a very starlit sky. The differences in range results from different transmission.
Another method rests on projecting intensive sunlight onto shaded white screen. A part of this screen is directly sunlit and to shaded part we glue a ruler. The screen is located in a specific distance to line up and cover screen surface brightness with projected image of sunlight surface brightness. Now we take a picture of this projected image of sun by camera. The ruler let us measure the scale of taken picture. A proportion of measured sun image in relation to actual lens area gives us the transmission.
How do we test binoculars? - Description of test methods and categories.
By doing many measurements and using independent methods, we estimate the precision of transmission estimate in range of 3-5%.

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Monday 13th November 2017 at 05:22.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 05:32   #43
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 207
Dennis,
your statement that the SE „has 2 to 3% better transmission than the HT“ (post #33) remains as unproven and wrong as before, despite everything you say.
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 05:39   #44
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canip View Post
Dennis,
your statement that the SE „has 2 to 3% better transmission than the HT“ (post #33) remains as unproven and wrong as before, despite everything you say.
If you believe Allbino's transmission testing is valid it is true on the 10x42 SE and the 10x42 HT. They have the HT's transmission @ 93% and the SE's transmission @ 96%. 96% minus 93% is 3% correct? I am just using Allbino's tests. You are saying Allbino's testing is wrong then or invalid and that is fine but it usually is a pretty good source of objective testing. From Allbino's methodology:

"Currently we use spectophotometer to obtain the transmission graph in the range of wavelenghts from 380 to 900 nm. The method is very precise one and allows us to minimalize uncertainties to around 1%."

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Monday 13th November 2017 at 06:30.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 07:55   #45
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,332
The Allbinos description of their test methods was written back in 2010, and I understand there has been two hardware upgrades and a change in protocol since then. When I asked Arek about it, he acknowedged that their earier data was possibly less reliable for maximum transmission than they would have wished and should be mainly read for relative transmission (colour). Their current machine has the necessary reference and calibration elements to ensure much more accurate absolute values.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 09:03   #46
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,199
Dennis, different posts,
When you talk about transmission data from house of outdoor, you talk about my/our measurements and instead of going to fast unfounded conclusions and statements based on believes only you better ask some questions about the methods used and how reliable they are and what pitfalls can occur. A number of statements in your different posts I find complete nonsense and they do not help the discussions in this forum one bit. For a better insight in the technological history of binocular quality you better apply for membership of the Binocular History Society, which has quite a bit of very well informed members also from well known binocular companies.
The brightness differences between binoculars which differ more than 3% in transmission can very well be observed by users and I can clearly see it. All our data do not give support that all porros have a better transmission than roofs. It is very much dependent on the type of prism used, the year of construction, the technological state of the art of the company etc. etc.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 12:39   #47
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
The Allbinos description of their test methods was written back in 2010, and I understand there has been two hardware upgrades and a change in protocol since then. When I asked Arek about it, he acknowedged that their earier data was possibly less reliable for maximum transmission than they would have wished and should be mainly read for relative transmission (colour). Their current machine has the necessary reference and calibration elements to ensure much more accurate absolute values.

David
That would explain some of the dubious transmission data in the first couple of years after they began making measurements with a spectrophotometer. But, in 2010 when the Nikon 10x42 SE was reviewed they were still using some non-standard improvised methods, which they rightly came to realize were not adequate.

Read about them here: https://www.allbinos.com/2.1-article...noculars_.html

That article should be required reading for anyone who assumes that Allbinos methods are "objective".

Henry

Last edited by henry link : Monday 13th November 2017 at 13:53.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 14:33   #48
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gijs van Ginkel View Post
Dennis, different posts,
When you talk about transmission data from house of outdoor, you talk about my/our measurements and instead of going to fast unfounded conclusions and statements based on believes only you better ask some questions about the methods used and how reliable they are and what pitfalls can occur. A number of statements in your different posts I find complete nonsense and they do not help the discussions in this forum one bit. For a better insight in the technological history of binocular quality you better apply for membership of the Binocular History Society, which has quite a bit of very well informed members also from well known binocular companies.
The brightness differences between binoculars which differ more than 3% in transmission can very well be observed by users and I can clearly see it. All our data do not give support that all porros have a better transmission than roofs. It is very much dependent on the type of prism used, the year of construction, the technological state of the art of the company etc. etc.
Gijs van Ginkel
I really don't see a 20% difference in transmission between a Habicht 8x30(95%) and a Nikon 8x30 EII(75%) from your transmission results by comparing the two binoculars. In my opinion that would be a huge difference. Is that really the results you obtained? If it is I never realized a Nikon 8x30 EII had such poor transmission. If the EII's have only 75% transmission I am selling mine. Allbino's did the transmission testing on the EII's in October of 2013 so they would have had the hardware upgrades and changes in protocol by then and they would be using a spectrophotometer but yet they got an 89% transmission on the EII and said in the comments it had "Good Transmission." I am sure if they would have gotten a 75% transmission they would have commented on it.

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Monday 13th November 2017 at 15:27.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 14:59   #49
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,199
Dennis, post 48,
I found a transmission of a little over 77% at 550 nm in a sample from 2013 , published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. After discussions about it on this forum I measured a newer sample in may 2016 and in that sample the transmission at 550 nm is 88,7% still quite a bit below the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 and the Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, which have a 95-96%transmission at that wavelength and, if your eyes are allright you should be able to observe that difference as a difference in brightness. That is extensively discussed on this forum, but if it is still confusing I will add that information.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 15:06   #50
Jack Speer
Registered User
 
Jack Speer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gijs van Ginkel View Post
Dennis, post 48,
I found a transmission of a little over 77% at 550 nm in a sample from 2013 , published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. After discussions about it on this forum I measured a newer sample in may 2016 and in that sample the transmission at 550 nm is 88,7% still quite a bit below the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 and the Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, which have a 95-96%transmission at that wavelength and, if your eyes are allright you should be able to observe that difference as a difference in brightness. That is extensively discussed on this forum, but if it is still confusing I will add that information.
Gijs van Ginkel
So Nikon has improved the transmission of the EII over the years?
__________________
Jack
Jack Speer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon SE 10x42 SE - First Views EnjoyTheView Nikon 18 Tuesday 22nd March 2016 22:26
Multimedia views lmans66 Computers, Birding Software And The Internet 4 Thursday 19th February 2009 03:01
Kingfisher Views gary jb Information Wanted 1 Monday 12th July 2004 22:15
Views... ralph Birds & Birding 0 Sunday 29th September 2002 19:57

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.28796291 seconds with 34 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:13.