8x30/32 porro suggestions? (1 Viewer)

[Canip]

Half the price of a Swarovski and just as good or better optically.

Explain, please.

 

[Paultricounty]

Explain, please.

Come on Canip, you’ve been around a long time, you know the game here. He’s got a swift not a Swaro, if it was the other way around what do you think the comment would be😜

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Paultricounty,
I would go for a Kern 8x30 a civilian, but the military ones are excellent too.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Thotmosis]

As an owner of two Swaro Habicht's (10x40 and 8x30) and a few Swifts Porro's Audubon (8.5x44 and 10x50) i can testify that to my eyes the Swift Porro's are excellent binoculars. The Swaro's are much brighter but i can highly recommend used Swift Porro's, if you can find one in good condition. But better then Swarovski....

 

[William Lewis]

Im sure there's many an eminent optical expert who isn't even on bird forum..... ✌️

 

[WJC]

220826

I bought my Nikon 8x32 SE long before it became an ... drum roll, please ALPHA! However, I thought enough of my Swift Audubon 8.5x44 to make it the cover shot of my first bino book. Mathematically the Swarovski may be head and shoulders above the Swift. But our brains don't operate on mathematics. Yet, physiologically it’s just not so. I can see the fellow’s point. The difference between the two would be difficult to impossible to be HONESTLY perceived by many of the must experienced observers on the forum. And Fred has been on what ... two days, now?!

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Binocollector]

I would maybe not "recommend" them but I do love my Japanese extra wide angle porros. The 10°, 8x30 models, like an "Eschenbach" (Eschenbach never made binos, they just imported them to Germany) "Luna Super" oder "Derby". Just impressive every time I put them to my eyes. However the coatings of course are old, they have extreme degrees of pincushion distortion and tons of field curvature. But still -- I do love those.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Will (post #33),

Your multicoated Nikon 10x35 E is within the first 5,000 units produced, so likely 1989 or 1990 at the latest:

Earlier E Series': Numbering, Production and Popularity
In contrast to the EII, previous versions of the E series were far more popular, and increasingly so as one goes back in time - when they were Nikon's premium binocular line

Bear in mind that prior to the introduction of phase coating on roof prism binoculars (developed and first used by Zeiss in 1988), it was not possible for roof prisms to equal the sharpness of Porro prisms
And the availability of affordable roof prism models of good optical quality, that we now take for granted, did not commence until the first decade of the 21st century

So as context for many, and nostalgia for some . . .


A) Multi Coated E Series - from 1988 to 1998 (90k+ over 11 years)
- 8x30 from 400k: 400,174 - 448,643+ (48k+)

- 10x35 from 600k: 600,542 to 615,676+ (15k+)

- 7x35 from 200k: 200,347 to 217,591+ (17k+)

- 12x40 from 800k: 800,204 to 811,718+ (11k+)


B) Single Coated E Series - 1978 to 1987 (180k+ over 10 years)
- 8x30 from 880k: 880,276 to 936,734+ (56k+)

- 10x35 from 110k: 114,772 to 153,420+ (43k+)

- 7x35 from 770k: 770,100 to 818,427+ (48k+)

- 12x40 from 660k: 661,428 to 693,341+ (33k+)


. . . the numbering range is from my observations

It has the same eyepiece and prisms as the much better known 8x30 E, with the magnification increased by lengthening the objectives.
See Rogers’s review of the 8x30 at: Nikon 8x30 E Review

In terms of coatings, they did seem to improve over the life of the multicoated E production
e.g. see various information from Gijs' tests in post #3, in the thread above that I linked to.


John

 

[William Lewis]

Hi Will (post #33),

Your multicoated Nikon 10x35 E is within the first 5,000 units produced, so likely 1989 or 1990 at the latest:



It has the same eyepiece and prisms as the much better known 8x30 E, with the magnification increased by lengthening the objectives.
See Rogers’s review of the 8x30 at: Nikon 8x30 E Review

In terms of coatings, they did seem to improve over the life of the multicoated E production
e.g. see various information from Gijs' tests in post #3, in the thread above that I linked to.


John

Thanks for the information John. I ended up giving them to a client of mine as he gave me a personalised number plate and I felt like I owed him, he has a fleet of classic cars so I thought they'd go well - and he was insistent that he had a goshawk coming into this garden so I thought with some decent bins he may admit it was a Sparrow hawk once he could see it!

They were very nice though, I didn't quite gel with them in the end, not quite sure why, maybe it was the 10x mag.. I've replaced them with the quite similar opticron 8x32 srga's as I have a sentimental attachment to that model from when I first for back into serious birding - I may have managed to get one of the very last ones as they disappeared from the website immediately after my order. Still awaiting collimation, but that's not opticrons fault!

 

[henry link]

Hi Will (post #33),

Your multicoated Nikon 10x35 E is within the first 5,000 units produced, so likely 1989 or 1990 at the latest:



It has the same eyepiece and prisms as the much better known 8x30 E, with the magnification increased by lengthening the objectives.
See Rogers’s review of the 8x30 at: Nikon 8x30 E Review



John

Hi John,

Just a small correction, since I know you want your information to be accurate.

The 10x35 E used the same prisms as the 8x30 E, but its eyepiece had a shorter focal length. The result was shorter eye relief compared to the 8x30 - 12.4mm vs 13mm according to Nikon's specs. If it had used the same eyepiece combined with the 7x35 objective lens the result would have been a 9x35, as was done in the A series. The 10x35 EII used the same eyepiece and prism as the 8x30 EII combined with a longer focal length 35mm objective, so eye relief was maintained.

I have a very nice 9x35 E I assembled by combining the eyepiece/prisms from an 8x30 and the objectives from a 7x35. IMO, that's the one they should have made. As a bonus you can make an excellent 6x30 E from the left over bits.

Henry

 

[moose907]

If you can tolerate an IF binocular and a little weight, the Fujinon FMTR-SX 7x50 is an awesome binocular. The close focus is 32 feet, and anything beyond that to infinity you won't have to worry about focusing anyway! For $700 they are a bargain. Fujinon also made a FMTR-SX 8x30 which were a good IF binocular but being discontinued it is hard to find now.

Review: Nikon 8x32 SE vs. Fujinon 8x30 FMTR-SX vs. Hensoldt 8x30 Fero-D 16

I picked up a Fujinon FMTR-SX 7x50 and love them. The IF takes some getting used to, but they are a pleasure to look though

 

[Ted Y.]

There has been some past debate about depth of field for binoculars. Tests by experienced observers agreed with calculations that depth of field depends only on magnification. ...

As described in other threads, the phrase "depth of field depends only on magnification" is an urban legend.
I have two 8x binoculars (32 mm and 42 mm) and the difference in depth of field is real. The practice overpower the theory.

 

[Binocollector]

True - I just noticed I bookmarked a really good concise explanation of DoF. Unfortunately in German, so a translation program is needed for those who don't read German.

Richtigstellung: Schärfentiefe von Ferngläsern

Hallo Gemeinde, eigentlich bin ich derzeit so mit Problemlösungen für meinen neuen Macintosh G5 und dessen neues Betriebssystem OS 10.3 beschäftigt, daß ich mich hier gar nicht zu Wort melden dürfte (und deshalb auch seit fast drei Wochen nicht präsent war). Aber Franks Verweis im neuen...

forum.astronomie.de

 

[henry link]

As described in other threads, the phrase "depth of field depends only on magnification" is an urban legend.
I have two 8x binoculars (32 mm and 42 mm) and the difference in depth of field is real. The practice overpower the theory.

Sorry, it's not an urban legend. You may well see a difference between your binoculars, but it is not caused by a difference in DOF.

The next step is to figure out what's actually causing the difference you see. Can you supply more details?

 

[Ted Y.]

Sorry, it's not an urban legend. You may well see a difference between your binoculars, but it is not caused by a difference in DOF.

The next step is to figure out what's actually causing the difference you see. Can you supply more details?

I do not know what details can be relevant here.
If you want to suggest some tests I can do, sure, ready to know more.

For me, using this two binoculars, the difference in DOF is real.

 

[henry link]

OK, for a start what are the two binoculars? What lighting conditions and distances were involved? What method did you use to determine the difference in DOF?

I do know a reliable test that uses the size of blur circles rather than subjective impressions. I've posted it a few times. I'll search for one of those posts.

 

[Ted Y.]

...

I do know a reliable test that uses the size of blur circles rather than subjective impressions. I've posted it a few times. I'll search for one of those posts.

OK. Waiting for it. Thank you.

 

[Paultricounty]

OK. Waiting for it. Thank you.

Ted Y,
What are the two binoculars do you have in 8x32 and 8x42 (maybe I missed it)? Have you tested the magnification to see if they are very close ? One could be 7.8 and the other 8.2, which could make a difference for those who might be able see any difference there.

Im wondering if we’re talking about the same line from the same maker. If we’re not then there are so many factors that can give you a perception of more or less DOF.

Paul

 

[Binocollector]

Okay, since nobody seems to bother to have the text in my link translated and Henry didn't answer my question in the recent thread about DoF I'll quote Henry and then ask my questions.

Secondly, a binoculars exit pupil may decrease the effective size of the eye's entrance pupil if the binocular's exit pupil is smaller than the eye's pupil. Under this condition the focal ratio of the eye is increased just like in a stopped down camera lens and the eye's depth of field increases. In that way a small exit pupil binocular may impose a wider DOF on the eye's optics in low light conditions compared to a large exit pupil binocular.

In the link I posted it was claimed that a smaller entrance pupil of the eye will increase DoF since it increases the focal length of the eye.
So it was further said that a very bright bino (with better coatings for example) or one with a larger FoV would lead to a smaller entrance pupil of the eye and a greater DoF. That would mean that magnification is not the only factor.
Would that not be the same effect as in your quote, Henry, where however the smaller exit pupil of the bino steps down the entrance pupil of the eye and leads to a larger DoF in low light. So how can both be true? Does a larger exit pupil lead to a smaller entrance pupil of the eye, a longer focal ratio of the eye and therefore to more DoF? Would that mean, if both statements are true, that a larger exit pupil would increase DoF in daylight and a smaller exit pupil, stepping down the pupil of the eye, lead to a greater DoF in low light? If one or both statements are true, how is magnification then the only factor determining DoF?

 

[Paultricounty]

Okay, since nobody seems to bother to have the text in my link translated and Henry didn't answer my question in the recent thread about DoF I'll quote Henry and then ask my questions.

In the link I posted it was claimed that a smaller entrance pupil of the eye will increase DoF since it increases the focal length of the eye.
So it was further said that a very bright bino (with better coatings for example) or one with a larger FoV would lead to a smaller entrance pupil of the eye and a greater DoF. That would mean that magnification is not the only factor.
Would that not be the same effect as in your quote, Henry, where however the smaller exit pupil of the bino steps down the entrance pupil of the eye and leads to a larger DoF in low light. So how can both be true? Does a larger exit pupil lead to a smaller entrance pupil of the eye, a longer focal ratio of the eye and therefore to more DoF? Would that mean, if both statements are true, that a larger exit pupil would increase DoF in daylight and a smaller exit pupil, stepping down the pupil of the eye, lead to a greater DoF in low light? If one or both statements are true, how is magnification then the only factor determining DoF?

Philipp

can you clarify that second to last sentence ?