-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
As a fan of SEs... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter John M Robinson
- Start date
falcondude
Well-known member
don't wine glasses have lead in it? If we can drink with it, I am sure I can use lead glass in SE. Of course, one should consider otherwise if he likes to clean the lens by licking it.
Goodness, all this fuss.....what difference does it make? Nikon marketing dept doesn't want the SE sold here 'cause it would likely cut into the sales of their h-i$ EDG's, and profits are the crux of the issue. Also, market share, in %, is apparently a big deal, vis a vis the "other alfas", ergo no SE for the US. Lead free, leaded, eco this, eco that.....how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin?......
We could test this by eating our binoculars. Whoever dies of lead-poisoning first is the winner.
Brock,
I've spoken with several dealers over the years and all reported slow SE sales. The 8X32 was priced for many years at $699, an unattractive price for a non-waterproof porro. The 10X42 sold at $899 and the 12X50 at $999.
Internet boards generated renewed interest in the SE, but I doubt sales have been on par with other bins in that price range.
BF is a world unto itself. Except for Frank's, I haven't seen another SE in the field in more than four years and I encounter a lot of birders. Most people don't even know what an SE is...even after you explain it to them. So much for popularity.
As far as lead is concerned...I don't know if SE's utilize leaded glass or not. My point was, and is, that until Nikon reveals the history of the SE no one will know for certain. CA is very well controlled in every SE I've seen and it's not something to worry about.
Hopefully, Myron will settle the issue for you.
John
Will second John's take on the popularity of the SE, they are very rarely seen on birding trips, at least in my experience. At the same time, I see them used by some of really hard core birders here in NYC, so their merits are recognized. It may be that the emergence of good fully waterproofed optics has raised the minimum standard for high end field glasses,
so people won't take their SEs other than on day trips.
so people won't take their SEs other than on day trips.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Bonjour étudiant français,
I don't think I'm speaking "out of school" by revealing that one of those "hard core birders" in NYC was BF member Arthur Pinewood, who sold his 8x32 SE and bought a Zeiss 8x32 FL (please correct that if I'm wrong, Arthur).
Due to its lack of waterproofing (only "weatherproofing," whatever that means), the EPs vulnerability to glare from sunlight, and its...its...how you say propension? ... yes, propensity, for causing image blackouts, the SE is not everyone's cup of tea.
It could be that people won't take out their SEs other than on day trips, because they are afraid if the bin was damaged or stolen, they may not be able to repair of replace it because the SE has been discontinued (at least I'm going with that story until I speak with Myron), or for some, it might be because it doesn't hold the same "cachet" in the field as alpha roofs.
I remember a story Steve Ingraham told on BF about his 8x32 SE. Other birders would see him with this porro in his hands, and ask him, "With all the bins you get to review from optics companies, you couldn't get a better one than that?" (I heavily paraphrase, but that's the gist of it).
So then Steve handed them the SE, and after one look, they shut up.
True story. Of course, that was some time ago.
The emergence of good fully waterproofed optics has also raised the minimum price for high end field glasses that are optically similar or equivalent to the SE.
For example, the Nikon 8x32 EDG costs $1,749.95. :eek!:
After spending a month looking through the 10x42 EDG, and a month looking through the 10x42 SE, I can say with confidence that if Nikon merely added an ED element to its 10x42 SE, that except for the 1/2* larger FOV on the EDG, the SE ED would be on par optically with the 10x42 EDG.
There is only a $150 difference between the Swift Audubon 820 and the ED version; however, even if Nikon were to double the price to $300 for the addition ED to the SE (as Pentax did when it moved from the SP to the ED), that would raise the 10x42 SE's price from $649 (at Amazon) to $949.
The going price for the 10x42 EDG is $2,000. So you could buy a 10x42 SE ED for $1,000 less.
The Leupold Cascades porro, which has an internal focuser, costs $200. So add another $200 for an internal focuser for the 10x42 SE.
Now you are up to $1,200 for the 10x42 SE.
My point being that Nikon could update the SE series to be on par with the alpha roofs by adding a couple "bells and whistles," but it won't because its simply not "trendy" to use porros for birding these days.
I think it's a communist conspiracy, of sorts. But it goes back further -- I blame it on the Nazis and the drought that occurred in the Mississippi Valley in 1930.
Yes, it's a complex, slippery slope of events that led to this roof prism rule time line.
My revisionist view of bin history:
After WII, the Soviets took over Eastern Europe and East Germany including the factories at which Zeiss made their amazing porros.
Zeiss reorganized itself in West Germany and started to produced amazing porros once again (the "ClassiCs").
However, since Zeiss Jena in East Germany was turning out high quality porros too, there wasn't much, other than labels, to distinguish one from the other (although I'm sure some would argue differently, and the higher resale price of Zeiss West bins reflects this bias).
In fact, Zeiss West was so perturbed at Jena using its name that it took legal action against the company to prevent it from using the name "Carl Zeiss" in bins sold in the US.
I think this happened in 1972, but I'm not sure, I'm extrapolating that from Zeiss' history Website.
Thus, my Carl Zeiss Jena 8x50 Octarem made in the 1980s was labeled "aus Jena".
Meanwhile, Lecia (Leitz) was having it's own war-related problems. Its U.S. distributing subsidiary was confiscated during the war.
In 1952, the "Alien Property Custodian" sold it to the highest bidder at an auction from which Leitz was barred.
So Leitz located its new North American plants in Canada instead of the US. It's cold up there, hey? Porro focusers slow to a crawl in cold weather....
Fractured Factoid: Even though Leicas are the darlings of birders today, they were originally designed for hunting!
Ernst Leitz II was a hunter. He and his hunting buddies developed ideas for sports optics, many of which were produced including roof prism binoculars. And hunting season is mainly in the fall and winter when the weather is foul....
Well, I'll leave my fractured fairy tale optics history to the optics history aficionados to correct and fill in the blanks, but the point of my story is what if WWII had not happened or what if it unfolded differently, and what if if Ernst Leitz II had been a vegetarian or was afraid of guns, and what if the U.S. allowed Leitz to buy back their own plant, and they relocated it in San Diego?
If some or all of those what ifs had happened, would Leica and Zeiss still have switched over to making roofs or stuck with porros?
In some parallel universe planet named Qo'noS (aka the "Sub Planet") where Churchill was prime minister rather than Chamberlain when Hitler came to power, and where the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor before the Nazis took over Poland, and the Allies defeated the Nazis before they became too powerful and broke their treaty with the Soviet Union, such that the Allies won the war without the help of the Soviets, what if someone on that parallel world is looking up right now at a lone yellow star in the O'rion Arm of our G'alaxY with N'kon 10x42 S'uperioR E ED binoculars with internal focus and wondering if humanoids on a life-supporting planet orbiting that ordinary yellow star watch birds with porros or roofs?
--------------------
B'rock, son of Grilka
Member of the House of Kozak
Klingon Poet-Warrior, un étudiant perpétuel
----------------------------------------------
"The character of a Klingon poet-warrior is measured not only by the metal of his blade--but also by the mettle of his words."
http://magblog.audubon.org/node/106
Excerpt...
"I have spoken to several friends in the binocular industry to try to convince them to make a $1,000 porro that would blow the doors off everything else. No sale. People just won’t buy porroprisms. In fact, Nikon sold very few of Superior Es despite the fact that they were so good. In fact, Nikon discontinued this model earlier this year."
Excerpt...
"I have spoken to several friends in the binocular industry to try to convince them to make a $1,000 porro that would blow the doors off everything else. No sale. People just won’t buy porroprisms. In fact, Nikon sold very few of Superior Es despite the fact that they were so good. In fact, Nikon discontinued this model earlier this year."
Last edited:
Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
Means the EDG 10x42 is better than 10x42 SE brock ? How about the EDG 8x32 vs 8x32 SE ?
I wouldn't change them at all. The eyecups are perfect for me and I don't have to adjust them like twist-ups. ED glass wouldn't make them that much better and if you waterproof them they would probably be heavier and bulkier. Maybe a better case like a Zeiss FL and tethered objective covers.
Dennis
brocknroller
porromaniac
I had to laugh at his description of the 8x32 SE as "a Birkenstock-ugly, stubby little porroprism binocular."
I think there's more going on here than meets the eye, good citizens, as I proposed in my "thought experiment" above.
If the Nikon SE and EII are the standards by which other birding bins are measured, why won't Nikon capitalize on that fact, literally, and reissue WP and WP ED versions of the SE and EII like Swift did with the 820 and 820 ED Audubon (though admittedly inferior in some ways to their 804 predecessors).
Because "People just won’t buy porroprisms"?
If companies could sell a "pet rock," the no-talent lip syncing "Milli Vanilli," gas guzzling SUVs, "no-doc" mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps for those securities that had no reserves to back them up, then surely Nikon could sell a WP SE!
(I'd add "put a man on the moon" but that's been so overdone
It would have been a snap to update the SE compared to starting from scratch and creating the EDG, and even if the new 8x SE cost $799 or $899, don't you think more birders would buy a WP SE than a $2K EDG? Especially in this bad economy?
Not according to what you've posted about dealers not being able to move their SE stock, and what BVD's Wayne Mones, echoing his predecessor's love for this bin, said about the response he got from his "several friends in the binocular industry."
WHY have the avid birders and optics aficionados who don't give a damn about the "cachet of the red dot in the field" but only what they see through the EP, turned a blind eye to the SE?
If it's merely lack of WP, wouldn't updating the SE with WPing overcome that objection?
I don't think it's that "simplistic," to borrow a word from your earlier post.
As you or someone else mentioned, Nikon never did a very good job of promoting the SE or the EII for that matter, and that combined with a "follow the leaders" attitude (Big Three), and the Chinese economic revolution (made possible, in part, by tax breaks to take US companies to China) that allowed roof prism bins to be manufactured more cheaply, had more to do with our present dilemma than simply optics companies trying to "Give the People What They Want".
Consumers are manipulated into buying items based on advertising (sometimes including false or exaggerated claims), subliminal suggestion, and the promise of prestige, happiness, and being better liked or accepted by their girlfriends/boyfriends, wives/husbands, their peers, their employers, etc.
And, like the former quality porro manufacturers, many birders too have played "follow the leader".
I've conducted some focus groups for a real estate company, and the questions they asked potential buyers who met the economic and demographic requirements were very pointedly aimed at evoking emotions rather than reasoning.
I believe that many birders have been seduced by optics sellers, advertisers, and reviewers (some of whom are paid by optics companies to hawk their wares).
They have enticed birders into buying higher priced roofs over the diminishing (in both quantity and quality) porros while manufacturers have deprived consumers the right to chose an equivalent quality porro.
Someone said: The best slaves are those that think they are free. Slaves which shut up and pay up.
I urge the good citizens of the BF community who read this thread to throw off the shackles of roof prism oppression, and fight the good fight by raising awareness of the virtues of porro prism binoculars in every manner possible.
Write your bin companies, write your Congresspersons, speak to your fellow birders.
Then hold your head up high and proudly carry your Birkenstock-ugly, stubby little porro prism binoculars into the field and ignore the chuckles, insults, and rotten tomatoes being hurled at you.
For SE and EII devotees everywhere, "the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Brock
Last edited:
On a political level, Brock old boy, I´m with you. And I´m really, really not a slave to marketing. But I had EII´s, and SE´s, and Swaro EL´s. I love, adore and revel in the view through the Nikon Premium Porros, but repeatedly, when all three binos were sitting on the shelf and I was rushing out the door to do some hard-earned birding, my hands instinctively reached for the Swaro Roofs! Reason being, (if I understand my own behaviour, which is doubtful), that (as brought up by a thread some years ago), it´s a question of the "overall package". I don´t mind "stubby" porros, but the roofs are easier to hold, focus and use "one-handed" (as I stride along with other hand on tripod over shoulder). I have never in my life seen any other EII´s or SE´s, other than the ones I owned/own, as birders here in Ireland don´t use them, or are unaware of them, or are psychologically healthy and concerned more with birds than with binoculars (not like us lot on BF-Binos). So I can´t compare with anyone I know. But I think that the actual optical differences in the field between the various "alpha" roofs and Nikon´s alpha porros are so minimal that other factors, basically ergonomics and the focus-wheel, determine my preferences. The SE´s are wonderful, wonderful binoculars to test and play with. But stacked up against premium roofs, with non-optical factors taken into consideration....(I´m not going to finish this sentence because on this thread, I may be burned at the stake). Of course, I may be talking nonsense and change my mind next week, and the science of optics is far too esoteric for my small brain. In fact, when I went out yesterday looking for one of your American Blue-Winged Teal that seems to have gotten lost and ended up in Dublin, I reached for my Canon IS 10x30, which after all are porros.....with an important difference. Which is a whole different discussion.
). Of course, I may be talking nonsense and change my mind next week, and the science of optics is far too esoteric for my small brain. In fact, when I went out yesterday looking for one of your American Blue-Winged Teal that seems to have gotten lost and ended up in Dublin, I reached for my Canon IS 10x30, which after all are porros.....with an important difference. Which is a whole different discussion.
Last edited:
Jonathan B.
Well-known member
Dennis, I agree. The SE isn't perfect, but it's spectacular. Tethered objective covers would be nice, though the Eagle Optics ones work very well and mine have lasted for several years--much longer than I expected.
Nikon ain't gonna do it, and even if they did and took the advice of everybody here, the poor SE would turn out like a camel, which as we all know is a horse designed by a committee.
I wonder if they could put the 16mm SE oculars, which are used in all the SE's, into the STABILeyes VR 14 x 40? If they fit and if the objectives of that binocular are f4 then, theoretically, you would get a stabilized 10 x 40 binocular. Just daydreaming, of course!
http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/nikon.pl?page=nikon8211
Bob
http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/nikon.pl?page=nikon8211
Bob
brocknroller
porromaniac
On a political level, Brock old boy, I´m with you. And I´m really, really not a slave to marketing. But I had EII´s, and SE´s, and Swaro EL´s. I love, adore and revel in the view through the Nikon Premium Porros, but repeatedly, when all three binos were sitting on the shelf and I was rushing out the door to do some hard-earned birding, my hands instinctively reached for the Swaro Roofs! Reason being, (if I understand my own behaviour, which is doubtful), that (as brought up by a thread some years ago), it´s a question of the "overall package". I don´t mind "stubby" porros, but the roofs are easier to hold, focus and use "one-handed" (as I stride along with other hand on tripod over shoulder). I have never in my life seen any other EII´s or SE´s, other than the ones I owned/own, as birders here in Ireland don´t use them, or are unaware of them, or are psychologically healthy and concerned more with birds than with binoculars (not like us lot on BF-Binos). So I can´t compare with anyone I know. But I think that the actual optical differences in the field between the various "alpha" roofs and Nikon´s alpha porros are so minimal that other factors, basically ergonomics and the focus-wheel, determine my preferences. The SE´s are wonderful, wonderful binoculars to test and play with. But stacked up against premium roofs, with non-optical factors taken into consideration....(I´m not going to finish this sentence because on this thread, I may be burned at the stake
Sancho,
The WP/ED redesign and new 8x42 configuration suggested above might overcome the non-optical advantages of the EL except the one-hand hold.
Plus, if you are sensitive to CA, the optics should be superior to the EL in that regard (even the existing SE probably shows less CA, from what I've read about CA in the EL).
I was wondering where those American Blue-Winged Teal were! They had a nice pond a couple blocks from my house, but now it's next to a construction site.
So I figure they probably got tired of all the construction noise at night and decided to fly south early this year when they heard the construction was resuming.
A group of developers is building an upscale hotel & spa for wealthy alumni who come to town for football games and other events (up to 80 alumni events per year), and who feel they are too important to rub elbows with the commoners at the local Motel 6.
They are charging $259,000 and up, depending on the condo size and amenities. The hotel & spa will also maintain and rent condos when the owners are not in town, for a fee, of course.
However, you can tell the ducks, they can come home. Despite the fact that the hotel's sales & marketing manager told me the construction was back on this month after a year hiatus, which I wrote in my article for the business newspaper, I heard from her last week, and she said that due to the bad economy, the developers decided to delay the project until next year.
As the bank CFO I interviewed last week told me, the recession took a longer time to hit our area, but it's finally arrived.
I think what probably happened to the ducks is that on their way south, they flew into the Bermuda Triangle, and that messed up their internal compasses so they headed north and ended up in Dublin where they flew into an open barrel of Guinness and after sipping the "water" decided that they liked Irish "water" better and decided to stay.
Happy 250th to Arthur (Guinness)!
Brock
http://magblog.audubon.org/node/106
If Mones thinks that the 8 x 32 SE is stubby and ugly he must think that the 8 x 30 EII, (which is REALLY stubby and ugly), should have been "drowned at birth!"
Bob
If Mones thinks that the 8 x 32 SE is stubby and ugly he must think that the 8 x 30 EII, (which is REALLY stubby and ugly), should have been "drowned at birth!"
Bob
spacepilot
Well-known member
Water-proofing and 20% faster focus are the only things I'd change on the SE.
Ning
Ning
John Dracon
John Dracon
Brock's comprehensive analysis of SE cost in relation to optical quality only confirms what I have long suspected about the optical industry. It is trying to make as many bucks as it can (with good reason), and has discovered that "status" attached to an object may be the most compeling reason a consumer buys brand X as opposed to brand Y. But in an economy which is imploding, the masses may not be able to afford the almost insanely costly high end stuff. I believe that the German engineers were the first to develop the roof design, something different and more compact, but not superior to the porro. The gagetry the Germans can come up with is simply breathtaking. What we are seeing now reminds me of the last invention of the mad scientist before he committed suicide. Rifle scopes and binoculars are now festooned with doodads. Rangefinders and exotic reticles. It reminds me of the trash compactor rage - taking 20 pounds of trash and compacting it into 20 pounds of trash. The Japanese engineers evidently stumbled on to a design with the SEs that works. We now have what we call "an inconvenient truth", a superior optical piece that is virtually ignored in favor of something(s) much more expensive. This may be an outstanding example of what happens when disposable income is what it is. As has been pointed out in previous posts, a few tweeks to the SE line can make it equal to any binocular for much less. John
brocknroller
porromaniac
Horukuru,
To say one bin is "better" than the other is a judgment call. But from an optical standpoint, the SE would need 1/2* larger FOV and ED glass to equal the EDG's optical performance.
What I find lacking in the 10x42 SE is the 6* FOV.
I thought it might be because the hard rubber eyecups on the older version kept my deep-set eyes from getting close enough to see the entire FOV, plus the SE shows some vignetting at the edge.
However, when I compared the 10x42 LX with the 10x42 SE on the night sky (with the SE eyecups OFF), I found the LX's TFOV was slightly larger.
An optics expert meticulously measured the 10x SE's FOV at 6.2*, at least on his sample. According to the manufacturer's specs, both the 10x LX and 10x SE have the same TFOV (6*).
For daytime use, the 10x LX seemed to have a more comfortable, "open" view than the SE (i.e., larger AFOV).
This may be, in part, due to the illusion of larger apparent image scale in the roofs, and, in part, that in the samples I compared, the LX actually had a slightly wider TFOV.
The 10x42 EDG has a larger specified TFOV (6.5*) and gives a more "open" apparent view than either the SE or LX, and unlike the 10x LX, the EDG is not plagued with excessive "rolling ball".
Unlike the 10x SE, I don't feel the field closing in around me with the 10x EDG, and I find that more aesthetically pleasing.
Ergonomically, the SE and EDG are both very comfortable for me to hold, but the EDG gets the nod due to its three extra ounces of weight and better distribution of that weight with its open bridge frame so that the weight doesn't seem burdensome, and it helps dampen vibrations.
So yes, IMO, the 10x EDG is "better" than the 10x SE, but whether it's better to you or if the $1300-$1400 difference in price makes it better enough to justify the higher cost, only you and your wallet can decide (or you and your wife's wallet if you're married - I'm not sure how it works in Borneo
. Brock
Addendum: The EDG is also waterproof and fog proof, which isn't that important to me, but it is to many birders and hunters.
I have not yet tried the 8x32 EDG, and since the optical design of the 42mm LX/ L models and 32mm LX/ L models are significantly different from each other, I would be reluctant to guess how the 8x32 EDG compares to the SE since there might also be significant differences between the full sized and mid-sized EDG models.
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Ditto. I have seen one Nikon SE 8x32 (in a rather well used shape!) when on a chase for a Least Flycatcher south of Seattle. But aside from the 10x42 SE I'm often see with (part of my "can an SE survive the PNW winter without much babying" project) I haven't seen any others. So they are the "rara avis" of bins.
There are few "good" porros used except on a couple of other locals (e.g. one nice condition Zeiss 7x35 porro on a local who is perhaps mid-30s so not an old fart!). But the other porros I see are mostly cheap ones (even on the occasional good birder!).
I think it's a mix of fashion (being seen with the right type (roof!) or brand) and practicality (waterproof roofs are easier to deal with in bad weather; easier to clean with detergent and water).
I also suspect as most folks never get taught about "military" or "thumbs up" grip they find roofs less shaky too.
Each to their own. I like both which leads to a conflicted life
All that said if I had a set of waterproof Canon IS 10x30 (or 10x36 ... not actually made) I could be happy. Maybe the 10x42 IS some day. They are both porros after all (with field flattener and small roof like enclosure and even ED glass. Perhaps the future for porro fans.
Last edited:
