As a fan of SEs... (1 Viewer)

[John M Robinson]

This is just a fantasy hypothetical so bear with me; if you were suddenly appointed project manager for the new Nikon SE III, and living within the constraints of modern industrial technology, what would you do? Would ED glass make the SE even better? How hard would it be to make it truly waterproof? Obviously adjustable eyecups. How about a 7x35 or 8x42SE? Maybe a threaded hole for tripod mount on the 12x50. Other ideas?

John

 

[falcondude]

need twist-up eyecups. Keep the cost below $200 for Porro.

 

[John M Robinson]

need twist-up eyecups. Keep the cost below $200 for Porro.

I was actually thinking the "cost is no object- best porro in the world" bino. I would think the cost would need to be over $1,000.00 to be that good and well built, heck people like myself have been buying remaining stock of the non waterproof, rubber eyecup SEs like hotcakes at $500.00-$700.00 now.

John

 

[brocknroller]

This is just a fantasy hypothetical so bear with me; if you were suddenly appointed project manager for the new Nikon SE III, and living within the constraints of modern industrial technology, what would you do? Would ED glass make the SE even better? How hard would it be to make it truly waterproof? Obviously adjustable eyecups. How about a 7x35 or 8x42SE? Maybe a threaded hole for tripod mount on the 12x50. Other ideas?

John

A 7x35 SE would be a dream come true! My favorite configuration in my favorite bin series.

Even though the 8x32 SE outperforms some (many?) 8x42s, the larger exit pupil of an 8x42 or 7x35 would make the view a bit "easier" to hold (perhaps reducing the blackouts?) and make the SE more usable in dim lighting conditions and also for casual stargazing.

However, I would want a WF 7x35 like my '80s Nikon Action WF (9.3) rather than the 7.3* 7x35 E.

The Action WF has good edges for such a wide FOV and so does my 8x EII. With field flatterners, Nikon could do even better.

There may be limits on how far you can stretch a field flattener for a given configuration, but even an 8.3* FOV would yield a comfortable 58* AFOV with a 7x35. I'd be happy with that.

ED glass would definitely help!

It finally stopped raining, but it was still overcast when I went for a short walk today with my friend's 505 8x32 SE slung around my neck.

On my way back, I spotted a buzzard. Unlike my older lead glass SE in this same situation, I saw:

Purple haze all around his frame
Lead-free optics don't seem the same
Actin' funny, and I sure know why
go 'way clouds, 'cause I need clear skies

It wasn't very dramatic, but it was there.

On the ground, I didn't see CA on any target including small, mostly white Killdeer birds against a gravel background. I see less CA on overcast days on the ground than I do on sunny days due to the more even illumination.

The CA control on the 505 SE is good, better than the LX roofs, and much better than on the LX L roofs, but not quite on par with the lead glass version, and not nearly as good as it could be with ED glass.

I did this same test under the same sky conditions with a 10x42 EDG, and I saw no CA on the buzzard (probably the same one!) on axis.

As I suggested, the Leupold Cascades and Minox 8x44/10x44 porros have internal focusers, so you can make porros truly WP by adding an internal focuser.

And since the Leupolds only cost $200, apparently making an internal focuser for a porro is not expensive to do.

I knew someone would notice that I didn't include twist-up eyecups in my SE wish list.

I have deep-set eyes and a high bridged nose like most Klingons. The SE eyecups barely fit into my orbits - the newer 505s have thinner, more flexible Latex-like eyecups, which work better for me than hard rubber since the eyecups dig slightly into the bridge of my nose.

The only twist-up eyecups that have been comfortable for me were on the Leupold Cascades, and that was because the EPs weren't wide, having only a 6.5* FOV.

SE twist-up eyecups would be huge, and probably not fit my face or allow me to see the entire FOV. This happened with the hard, oversized, twist-up eyecups on the 820 Audubon.

But I realize that I'm the odd man out in this, and if Nikon could make a twist-up eyecups that were smaller by matching the size closer the visible lens size rather than the ocular housing size, I would prefer twist-ups myself.

But I'm not sure if it's physically possible to make smaller twist-up eyecups the way you can smaller rubber eyecups, which fold down over the ocular housing.

For example, look at Docter Nobilem's fold down eyecups. The don't go all the way out to the edge of the ocular housing like the SE eyecups do, but are indented.

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/images/nobilem8x50b.jpg

These are like the CJZ 8x50 Octarem's eyecups.

The 501 SE and 8x50 Oct. gave similar views, but the Zeiss' eyecups were more comfortable to use, because of their narrower diameter.

In contrast, here are the 820 Audubon's, hard, oversized eyecups:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xaIWOcw9KvY/SqFUpcZa-TI/AAAAAAAAACw/udTJHHmVFmk/s320/sw_8-5x44_820ed_200.jpg

Not Klingon-friendly. Grrrrrrrrrr.

I don't think they could make a threaded hole for a standard tripod adapter on the SE series, at least as it is now designed. The center post is 1/2" thick and a standard thread is 1/4" thick.

That's a lot of weight to put on only 1/4" metal from the outside of the thread to the top of the post.

They would have to get rid of the post or make it thicker.

The 8x32 SE is a bit short for my hands, so I added hard rubber dewshields to extend the barrels to the length of the 10x42 SE. The SE is more comfortable and more stable now.

I would recommend that Nikon add such dewshields to the 8x32 and 7x35 SE EDs. Steve (mooreorless) might have a photo of the dewshields on either the SE or EII (another bin that needs barrel extensions).

My other wish is for a 10x50 SE ED with a 6.5" FOV. That would be THE BONG.

Brock (special adviser to the PM of the new Nikon SE III
design team)

 

[Yippeekiay]

+1000 on the 10x50 SE, maybe a 7x42 also. And maybe a bit wider on the focus wheel, 1/2" deep perhaps, but not as much as the Zen's w/ a full 1". The water proof goes without saying.
I'll start eating Ramen noodles now so when they do come out there won't be much of a wait...

 

[jacquot]

In addition to the eye cups, change the focusing mechanism to be faster and to work in all temperatures. I had to abandon my SE's when the weather got cold, and the speed was a big problem for my birding close to far for quick ID's anytime. A lot of east coast birding is in the winter.

 

[John Russell]

QUOTE=brocknroller;1596028]
Lead-free optics don't seem the same/QUOTE

Brock,
Isn't this a little over simplified? There is such a large choice of lead and arsenic-free optical glasses with different refractive indices and Abbe numbers that leaded glass is today about as necessary as leaded fuel.

John

 

[ostling41]

On my way back, I spotted a buzzard.

I find that hard to believe.

I'm reminded that when I was a boy and we'd drive to Bainbridge Island after taking the ferry from Seattle, my father would always comment on the herons fishing from the mudflat: "Look," he'd say, "cranes."

His brother, my Uncle Ed, would spot orcas from the ferry, and say "look, blackfish!"

What other (erroneous but amusing) regionalisms do you have to relate?

 

[ceasar]

Here in the "rust belt" Turkey Vultures are often called "buzzards." I know some people who still call Harriers "Marsh hawks." And in my youth, my father called Sharpshinned hawks "Sparrow hawks."
Bob

 

[mooreorless]

I second the Turkey Vulture as a "buzzard" We have Sharpshinned Hawks that hang out where I work, after the birds, one even came into the building, well big area where buses are stored.
Regards,Steve

 

[Pileatus]

There

QUOTE=brocknroller;1596028]
Lead-free optics don't seem the same/QUOTE

Brock,
Isn't this a little over simplified? There is such a large choice of lead and arsenic-free optical glasses with different refractive indices and Abbe numbers that leaded glass is today about as necessary as leaded fuel.

John

There is no definitive evidence of lead free glass use in SE's. Repetition is not fact. Nikon's marketing has always been flawed and the anti-lead speculations on BF are nothing but guesses. I have 504's and 550's. I detest CA and can find absolutely no CA difference between serial numbers.

Furthermore, sales of SE's have been dismal. There's been a lot of SE "talk" on BF in the last year but that does not translate into a tidal wave of purchases. Many dealers sat on stock for years.

John

 

[brocknroller]

QUOTE=brocknroller;1596028]
Lead-free optics don't seem the same/QUOTE

Brock,
Isn't this a little over simplified? There is such a large choice of lead and arsenic-free optical glasses with different refractive indices and Abbe numbers that leaded glass is today about as necessary as leaded fuel.

John

John,

I exercised "literary license" with my Hendrix parody.

(License #: 112742). {a special music trivia No Prize to the BF member who correctly guesses what those numbers mean}

My comparison was only between the L/L-F SEs and L/L-F LX/LX Ls.

The fact that the lead glass SE shows less CA than the lead glass LX, and the lead-free glass in the LX L shows much more CA than the lead-free glass SE proves your point, that it's not "The Simple Life" (just ask Paris and Nicole .

Plus, that's only lead/lead-free glass comparisons from one manufacturer in two lines of bins.

I'm sure if you threw other L/L-F bins into the mix, you'd find even more variation, particularly if you included bins of different quality.

However, I don't need Abbe numbers and refractive indices to show me which bins have the most CA. All I need are a buzzard and a gray sky.

Brock

 

[Ardy]

From the Nikon site Specs on the 8x32 SE...:

Multicoated lenses and BaK4 high index prisms: Deliver bright, high-resolution images.

Long eye relief: For a clear and comfortable view, especially for people who wear eyeglasses.

Smooth central focus knob: Fast range of focus for quick viewing.

Ergonomic body design: Comfortable for extended viewing.

Manufactured Responsibly with Lead and arsenic-free Eco-Glass™

 

[ostling41]

I've had my 550 8x32 SE's for six days now. A tripod adapter arrived today, and I've been looking at the moon with this stable setup. I can't see any color fringing of the limb. I've not noticed CA any on daytime targets either. So although ED glass might help in principle, it's not on my list of any needed improvements.

I compare the views through the SE and my Canon IS 10x42L. I can hardly say which is sharper. Sometimes the Canon has the vaguest hint of IS quiver, but never when it's on a monopod. These are the only really fine binoculars I own, so I cannot compare them to any others.

The Nikon tripod adapter is heavy, though, weighing 6.7 oz. (190 g), cast in some metal which is heavier than aluminum. It's quite expensive. A carbonate version could weigh a third as much, and serve as well.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Hope someone from Nikon Sport Optics is reading this so we could get our new SEIII soon !

 

[Pileatus]

John,

I exercised "literary license" with my Hendrix parody.

(License #: 112742). {a special music trivia No Prize to the BF member who correctly guesses what those numbers mean}

My comparison was only between the L/L-F SEs and L/L-F LX/LX Ls.

The fact that the lead glass SE shows less CA than the lead glass LX, and the lead-free glass in the LX L shows much more CA than the lead-free glass SE proves your point, that it's not "The Simple Life" (just ask Paris and Nicole .

Plus, that's only lead/lead-free glass comparisons from one manufacturer in two lines of bins.

I'm sure if you threw other L/L-F bins into the mix, you'd find even more variation, particularly if you included bins of different quality.

However, I don't need Abbe numbers and refractive indices to show me which bins have the most CA. All I need are a buzzard and a gray sky.

Brock

Brock,

The LX/L models (all of them) were "new" models made with Eco-Glass. CA in this model was clearly a problem for many.

John

 

[Pileatus]

From the Nikon site Specs on the 8x32 SE...:

Multicoated lenses and BaK4 high index prisms: Deliver bright, high-resolution images.

Long eye relief: For a clear and comfortable view, especially for people who wear eyeglasses.

Smooth central focus knob: Fast range of focus for quick viewing.

Ergonomic body design: Comfortable for extended viewing.

Manufactured Responsibly with Lead and arsenic-free Eco-Glass™

Study, if possible, the history of the SE and Nikon's promotion and lack of promotion. I found this
http://nikonsportoptics.com/Products/Binoculars/7381/Premier-SE-8x32.html
of interest, considering the product is discontinued in the USA. During production years, the Nikon website carried incomplete information about the SE 8X32 and they did nothing in response to emails. Maybe it has Ecoglass, maybe it doesn't. Who cares?

In any case, SE's all look the same to me. New stock is very difficult to find because the line has been discontinued. If you don't believe me, ask the retailers who buy and try to sell them.

John

 

[ThoLa]

There
There is no definitive evidence of lead free glass use in SE's. Repetition is not fact. ....

John

#
Manufactured Responsibly with Lead and arsenic-free Eco-Glass™

ttp://www.nikonsportoptics.com/Products/Binoculars/7381/Premier-SE-8x32.html

 

[Pileatus]

#
Manufactured Responsibly with Lead and arsenic-free Eco-Glass™

ttp://www.nikonsportoptics.com/Products/Binoculars/7381/Premier-SE-8x32.html

That quote appeared on the new website nearly two years AFTER we were told "it's discontinued", by people from Nikon I might add.

In the end, the view is the same to me and I chalk this up as another endless debate. At least folks got the SE eyecups they needed, some after a year of pleading!

John

 

[brocknroller]

earlier post: Furthermore, sales of SE's have been dismal. There's been a lot of SE "talk" on BF in the last year but that does not translate into a tidal wave of purchases. Many dealers sat on stock for years.

That quote appeared on the new website nearly two years AFTER we were told "it's discontinued", by people from Nikon I might add.

In the end, the view is the same to me and I chalk this up as another endless debate. At least folks got the SE eyecups they needed, some after a year of pleading!

John

John,

Tokyo Rick claims the SEs are still being made in Japan but are not being exported to the US. The sales rep blogger at Binoculars.com wrote that she was told the SE had been discontinued.

I've read a number of yea or nay reports about the SE being discontinued for the past 5 years, and then Nikon brought out the 550 SE in 2007 or 2008 after a 4- or 5-year hiatus.

Rumors run rampart about the demise of the SE series, making it difficult to access fact from fiction, and from its 550 reissue, it appears that even Nikon couldn't make up its mind about whether to drop it or continue it!

While I cannot "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that either your 504 or 550 SE has lead-free glass, Nikon claims it switched all of its optics to lead-free glass in 2002, the year your 504 was made, based on the time line I put together using the years when people reported buying their SEs from dealers and the corresponding serial #s for those models, which appear to represent sequential years.

I discarded the '92 504 datum from the "data set" because Nikon didn't release the SE until 1997.

I plan to call my contact at Nikon (Myron) next week to see if he can settle the debate about if and when the SE was discontinued and also what year/serial # Nikon switched over to lead-free glass in the SE series.

If he has answers to these questions in his "knowledge base" or can find out from a Nikon technician, that will settle the debates for me.

However, since you don't take much stock in what Nikon has to say about its own products, you might still believe differently, and that's certainly your prerogative, but that won't make your opinions "facts".

Speaking of "facts"... where did you get the information about the "sales of SE's have been dismal".

Which dealers sat on their SE stocks for years, because they couldn't sell them?

Given how quickly my older sample was purchased on BF Classifieds, and how many 8x SEs have sold on Amart (which is not a birding site- 11 in the past 4 1/2 years, check the archives), and the score of 8x SEs I've had on my on eBay "Watch List," which were purchased during the past few years on the auction site, I wonder why those dealers couldn't sell their SEs???

Were their prices higher than the going rate of $499-$599? Did they attempt to sell them on eBay? Do they have Websites?

I'm sure Adorama would like to know since they have pre-orders for 8x SEs that they can't fill because they're waiting for their supplies to be replenished!

Brock