Porro or ? (3 Viewers)

[brocknroller]

huh?

I thought you had better reading comprehension.

Kevin, And I thought you had a better sense of humor!

Yes, I got that you were being ironic, but I'm not sure Dave and his FJ Cruiser did since he's only had 10 posts on BF, so I thought I'd kick our running joke again and make it more obvious. Besides, I think Dennis is pushing the 8x30 EII this month.

FJ, Another vote of confidence for the 8x32 SE. It's quite robust for a porro. I've had two of them and they've had a couple hard knocks, swinging from my neck in the deep woods, but no damage, not even a scratch, let along misalignment.

Nikon used to advertise them as being "showerproof" but I don't see that anymore (perhaps they didn't want people to push the envelope and end up receiving truckloads of fogged bins to repair).

If you haven't tried one, the only concern is the image blackouts, which some users experience. If that happens, try turning the eyecups over and using them upside down, that worked for me.

If that fails, try the MOLCET technique. I will let the inventors Bob and Steve explain that to you, because it's a bit technical and over my head.

The 8x30 EII is superb and optically on par in the centerfield with the SE though with a wider FOV (8.8*), however, it is not as robustly built. It can get knocked out of collimation more easily (though you don't need to use kid gloves, you just need to be a bit more careful). And unless you get one of the new black body samples with the high temperature Cheer glue, you might find the rubber armoring bubbling and peeling off on those dog days of summer in Midwest Ohio.

I use my EIIs for close-in birding in my densely wooded backyard, and in that arena, they are better suited than the SE because of their wider FOV and better close focus.

If you have a large glovebox, try one of these:

http://www.allbinos.com/index.php?test=lornetki&test_l=81

I haven't tried one yet, but I did own their forerunner, the CZJ 8x50 Octarem, and except for the FOV, which is narrower, they seem very similar but with improvements in terms of lack of color bias, and better edges and stray light control.

WARNING: The Doctor 8x56 B/GA is only recommended for the Big Handed.

Brock The Big Handed

 

[Kevin Conville]

Kevin, And I thought you had a better sense of humor!

I do, normally. I'm operating under sleep deprivation lately |8.|

I need a nap.......

 

[[email protected]]

Kevin, are you related to Dennis?

bRoCk

Brockroller
Are you related to any politicians? You seem to have to have the knack of talking alot but actually skirting the issues and not really saying anything meaningful!

 

[[email protected]]

Absolute nonsense Dennis!

Optically there is very little difference in practical every day use among the three. Ergonomics and ease of use will often trump the fine haired optical analysis so beloved by those who are blessed (or cursed? Dare I say it?) with eyes that see ALL defects.

I've been using all three of the above binoculars for years. You have to concentrate totally on optics and forget the benefits that using binoculars give you to come to the kind of conclusions you do.

Bob

PS: See the first thread. He wants a "rugged" binocular that he can carry around in a back pack or glove box. Of the 3 above, only the LX L fits that requirement. The other 2 are solidly made but they aren't the kind of binoculars that should be subject to bouncing around regularly. Besides, if I was in fear of damage or theft, I would take the LX L with me before I took the other 2. As I have done on long plane trips.

Sorry! But I have to disagree. To my eyes the LXL is not near the Nikon SE or EII optically. That's just my opinion though. The LXL's really smell good though. Best smelling binocular I ever had.

 

[brocknroller]

Brockroller
Are you related to any politicians? You seem to have to have the knack of talking alot but actually skirting the issues and not really saying anything meaningful!

Well, as a matter of fact, I am B'rock O'Bama's half brother by another mother! I changed the spelling of my name, because Professor Charles Kingsfield kept getting us mixed up during roll call at Harvard Law School.

But "skirting the issues"? Really? Have you been sleep writing?

Smelling rubber fumes can cause this condition.

See this forum for support:

http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic121266.html

After my detailed analysis of "binonomics," for which my co-authors and I were nominated for a Nobel, I would say that accusation is as much a gross exaggeration as your claims about the Leica 8x32 BN, particularly the one where you claim to be able to see the American flag on the moon!

B'rock O.

 

[ceasar]

We interrupt this discussion to report the news that at this very minute Roy Halladay of the Philadelphia Phillies completed a no hit, no run game against the Cincinnati Reds!

Go Phillies!

Bob

 

[FJDave]

I was wondering about you guys. Glad you all were j/k, :-O

I am keeping an eye open for either the SE or EII. This one don't have to be super rugged I guess. I normally take very good care of my "stuff". If I can find EII at a good savings over the SE I'd get them. Otherwise I'll try to find a good deal on new SE's. If anyone see's a deal on either please let me know. I would certainly consider either in pre-owned too as long as they're in excellent condition.

Thanks so much to all of you for your patience and help!

 

[[email protected]]

Well, as a matter of fact, I am B'rock O'Bama's half brother by another mother! I changed the spelling of my name, because Professor Charles Kingsfield kept getting us mixed up during roll call at Harvard Law School.

But "skirting the issues"? Really? Have you been sleep writing?

Smelling rubber fumes can cause this condition.

See this forum for support:

http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic121266.html

After my detailed analysis of "binonomics," for which my co-authors and I were nominated for a Nobel, I would say that accusation is as much a gross exaggeration as your claims about the Leica 8x32 BN, particularly the one where you claim to be able to see the American flag on the moon!

B'rock O.

Boring!! Sorry, Brock your threads are a little to esoteric for me. I prefer just simple straight forward stuff like I think the BN is not deserving of it's rather illustrious reputation and is a good antique that has it's place on a collectors shelf. Stuff like that brings out peoples emotions. When I read your threads I usually skip all the baloney and try to excise any useful information on binoculars that is hidden in there. Perhaps you could leave two versions. Your normal version and an expedited and to the point version for me. And by the way I think everbody is related to Obama in some way. Although most may not want to admit that considering his constantly decreasing popularity in the polls.

 

[[email protected]]

And Brock.....put yer glasses on. They don't look anything alike.....Dennis has a very pale head with a prominent, large, yellow hooknose, whereas Kevin has 5 heads....

We are from the same genetic line. I think inbreeding has took it's toll and produced some very interesting mutations.

 

[ceasar]

I was wondering about you guys. Glad you all were j/k, :-O

I am keeping an eye open for either the SE or EII. This one don't have to be super rugged I guess. I normally take very good care of my "stuff". If I can find EII at a good savings over the SE I'd get them. Otherwise I'll try to find a good deal on new SE's. If anyone see's a deal on either please let me know. I would certainly consider either in pre-owned too as long as they're in excellent condition.

Thanks so much to all of you for your patience and help!

Very good!
I'm glad you decided. They are both excellent binoculars. I recommend that you try the SE first to see if you are not one of the people who are affected by the "kidney beaning" black outs (discussed above) that some folks are prone to see while using them.

Brock also mentioned the tendency that the EII has for it's thin rubber covering to peel and work it's way loose after moderate use. It has been the subject of many discussions on this forum over the years. This is a bit annoying in a $400.00 binocular. Indeed, it happened to mine, but at the time I purchased it it only cost $235.00. I managed to fix it and avoided having to send it back to Nikon for the repair which would have taken weeks to complete. If it happens to you, start another thread and I will explain how I fixed mine to my satisfaction. I have explained it here before but can't find it now.

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the Swarovski Habicht 8 x 30 Porro Prism which is also optically superb and doesn't have either of the problems mentioned above. Perhaps Dennis can give his comments on that binocular? I've never used one so I can't comment about any "warts" it may have.

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/swarovski.pl?page=swarovskihabicht8x30

Any way, all 3 of the above are excellent choices.

Bob

 

[brocknroller]

Brock also mentioned the tendency that the EII has for it's thin rubber covering to peel and work it's way loose after moderate use. .....

Bob, Much to my surprise, I think I may have finally said something "meaningful"!

When it comes to the EII vs. SE, I'm torn between two lovers, feelin' like a fool, Lovin' both of you is breakin' all the rules....

Oh, oh, I'm getting "to [sic] esoteric" again. Let me simplify: Tarzan can no make up mind. Veronica or Betty?

And now back to my usual meaningless banter: The NY YANKEES came from behind 3-0 to take Game 1 of the Division Series 6-4! (I had my Yankee cap on the entire game, only threw it once when Girardi left Sabathia in after he walked a Twin 4-0 to tie up the bases and then walked the next guy to tie up the game).

Better stop before I start sleep writing like Dennis.

B.

P.S. I will PM you to find out how to rebind the rubber armoring on the EII. Mine is coming Toulouse.

 

[David Swain]

P.S. I will PM you to find out how to rebind the rubber armoring on the EII. Mine is coming Toulouse.

Brock's signal-to-noise ratio aside, perhaps we can start a definitive "When my EII hide's a-pealing" thread. Given the reports, I'll be facing that music sometime soon!

David

 

[[email protected]]

Very good!
I'm glad you decided. They are both excellent binoculars. I recommend that you try the SE first to see if you are not one of the people who are affected by the "kidney beaning" black outs (discussed above) that some folks are prone to see while using them.

Brock also mentioned the tendency that the EII has for it's thin rubber covering to peel and work it's way loose after moderate use. It has been the subject of many discussions on this forum over the years. This is a bit annoying in a $400.00 binocular. Indeed, it happened to mine, but at the time I purchased it it only cost $235.00. I managed to fix it and avoided having to send it back to Nikon for the repair which would have taken weeks to complete. If it happens to you, start another thread and I will explain how I fixed mine to my satisfaction. I have explained it here before but can't find it now.

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the Swarovski Habicht 8 x 30 Porro Prism which is also optically superb and doesn't have either of the problems mentioned above. Perhaps Dennis can give his comments on that binocular? I've never used one so I can't comment about any "warts" it may have.

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/swarovski.pl?page=swarovskihabicht8x30

Any way, all 3 of the above are excellent choices.

Bob

Never tried the Swarovski Habicht 8 x 30 Porro Prism. I would like to. I could compare it to the 8x30 EII. It's FOV looks a bit small compared to the EII though at 408 feet@1000yds. More like the Nikon 8x32 SE. For that reason I don't think I would like it as well.

 

[PHA]

Hi,

I have had 2 Swarovski Habicht Porro 8x30 WA. And 4 10x40 S H. And I have compared them with many other Porros: The pre Serie E Nikon Nippon Kogaku 7x35 and 9x35 (exelent binoculars by the way), and the SE 8x32 and 10x42. I have not tried the EII.
For me, the Habicht, specially the later ones after year 2000 with neutral colours, are better than the Nikons. Practically equal in optics but much better build and, the last ones since 1995 or so, also sealed. Right now I have only one, a 2004 made 10x40 WGA (rubber coated). It is a very nice binocular, made as in the "old days" all metal, true colours and sealed. Almost as good as my Zeiss Victory FL non-locutec 10x42.

Regards

PHA

 

[brocknroller]

Hi,

I have had 2 Swarovski Habicht Porro 8x30 WA. And 4 10x40 S H. And I have compared them with many other Porros: The pre Serie E Nikon Nippon Kogaku 7x35 and 9x35 (exelent binoculars by the way), and the SE 8x32 and 10x42. I have not tried the EII.
For me, the Habicht, specially the later ones after year 2000 with neutral colours, are better than the Nikons. Practically equal in optics but much better build and, the last ones since 1995 or so, also sealed. Right now I have only one, a 2004 made 10x40 WGA (rubber coated). It is a very nice binocular, made as in the "old days" all metal, true colours and sealed. Almost as good as my Zeiss Victory FL non-locutec 10x42.

Regards

PHA

Better than the SEs? Almost as good as your Zeiss Victory FL non-locutec 10x42?

Now if Swarovki just added hyrophobic coatings, they'd be equals to the FLs!

That's high praise indeed for technology that was developed before the pre-Cambrian Explosion.

You piqued my interest, being a porromaniac living in a roof dominated world.

One thing I've always been curious about the Habichts is the difference between the feel and ergonomics of the leatherette version versus the rubber armored version.

Since you have tried both, could you please describe the differences in regard to the "feel" and "ergonomics" between the two?

In particular, I'm wondering about the difference in the eyecups and if those "ribs" on the rubber version are comfortable in the hand.

Thanks.

Brock

 

[brocknroller]

Brock's signal-to-noise ratio aside, perhaps we can start a definitive "When my EII hide's a-pealing" thread. Given the reports, I'll be facing that music sometime soon!

David

David,

You should have never taken your EII to a Red Sox game, you know how the Irish like to drink beer, particularly when their team loses!

Having a separate thread on the armoring issue is a splendid idea. I'd like to hear from EII owners with the newer "black body" models to see if the armoring is now truly peel proof.

Brock

 

[Fireform]

Brock's signal-to-noise ratio aside, perhaps we can start a definitive "When my EII hide's a-pealing" thread. Given the reports, I'll be facing that music sometime soon!

David

For what it's worth, I've owned an E and three different E2's over the years (don't ask, please, it's a long story). I experienced no peeling with any of them.

Just clean living, I guess.

 

[PHA]

Hi Brock,

Yes, I recently (put a post here) compared among other two, one SE 10x42, new, and my Habicht 10x40 WGA (2004). Between this two examples, the Swarovski seems to me slightly but clearly better. And, I repeat, between my two examples, the S Habicht is ALMOST as good as my FL 10x42. And, also, for me, clearly better in colour, contrast, CA correction and equal in resolution than my (not longuer with me) Leica BA 10x42. As I said, this Swarovski Porro is my 6th of this model. The first one, 1970`s made, was my first really good binocular. Leatherette and hard eyecups. I had it until 2000 when was stolen. In all those years it received many hard knocks, rain, 100 % humidity, etc. Outside was very, very bad and ugly with almost no leather and many white parts. But never went out of collimation nor fog up. Period. Going to my actual one, rubber armored, sealed and with the last version of optics for this model, it is a pleasure to use and handling. A little heavier than the leather ones. Better for me: his weight is simmilar to the FL`s. Lighter than my former Leica BA. And the rubber eyecup is a lot better than the hard ones !! May be it has a little short eye releif, shorter of course than the FL eye releif. I don`t use eyeglasses but, anyway, I think the eye releif is enough for eyeglass users. Another "defect" is a rather long minimum focusing distance, about 4 meters. The same as in the Leicas BA 10x42...I tried once a 7x40 Habicht. I don`t like it because its very narrow field of view for a 7x.
As I said before, the Swarovski Habichts, specially the 8x30 and 10x40 are one of the more underestimated binoculars!

PHA


Better than the SEs? Almost as good as your Zeiss Victory FL non-locutec 10x42?
Now if Swarovki just added hyrophobic coatings, they'd be equals to the FLs!

That's high praise indeed for technology that was developed before the pre-Cambrian Explosion.

You piqued my interest, being a porromaniac living in a roof dominated world.

One thing I've always been curious about the Habichts is the difference between the feel and ergonomics of the leatherette version versus the rubber armored version.

Since you have tried both, could you please describe the differences in regard to the "feel" and "ergonomics" between the two?

In particular, I'm wondering about the difference in the eyecups and if those "ribs" on the rubber version are comfortable in the hand.

Thanks.

Brock[/QUOTE]

 

[Fireform]

The 8x30 Habicht is a very appealing binocular. It shares the same short eye relief with the 8x30 Nikon E2 and has less field of view (408' vs 468') but the quality of view is superb. It is a good deal more expensive, though, and about as hard as its Japanese competitor.

 

[David Swain]

David,

I'd like to hear from EII owners with the newer "black body" models to see if the armoring is now truly peel proof.

Brock

I was not aware there was a non-"black body" model. Mine sure is resolutely black. Wasn't the magnesium on the EII always black, unlike the matte chrome of the SE?. But let me guess: you believe the EII went to all black between serial # X and serial # y, and that with that change the glue was improved?

Fast avatar change!

David