EII's or SE's better? (3 Viewers)

[gwsudiro]

I will go with Arthur's definition of "sharpness" being resolution + contrast rather than merely resolution, and I may even amend that to + color saturation. If you see colors more vividly, the image seems sharper.

I have not seen a resolution comparison between the 10x32 FL and 10x35 EII, but it's quite possible that the difference you're perceiving is not in actual resolution but in the increased contrast and color saturation due to the better coatings and FL glass in the Zeiss.

An example where I noticed this was in comparing the 8x32 HG to an older model (~1998) 8x32 SE.

The SE was very "sharp" but when I compared them back to back, the HG appeared "sharper" because the more advanced coatings provided increased contrast and color saturation.

Colors were more vivid and subtle color variation more obvious whereas the colors in the SE were more like a gray scale whereby similar colors tended to blend together more easily.

When I compared the two bins using a resolution chart, I found that the HG was actually an element behind the SE.

So while the views through the HG seemed "sharper" it wasn't because the resolution was higher.

This might not be the case with the 10x32 FL vs. the 10x35 EII since the FLs are generally regarded as having the highest center field resolution among the alpha bins, but even if the two bins were on par in resolution, the FL would probably still appear "sharper" because of its superior contrast and color saturation.

The 10x32 configuration is not very popular and not all bin manufacturers carry that model, but from what I've read on the Web, the 10x32 FL seems to be the "best of the best". Here's a rave review:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_10_52/ai_n26970132/

The reviewer is a hunter. As an aside, I found these comments about birders very interesting:

"Apologies to this and other shooting magazines, but when I want to learn what's hot in binoculars I go to birding Web sites. These people really know. I do find it astonishing how foolishly people spend money. Birders think nothing of spending $1,600 on a binocular just to look at birds. Why, the same money could pay the trophy fee on an eland or kudu."

Or a trip to Borneo to watch exotic birds.

Brock

I have yet to see a roof-prism that is as sharp as a good porro-prism. Compare them again and use a resolution chart or some fine print at a distance. Look CLOSELY you will see the porro is sharper! I think Brocknroller has a good point in that better contrast and color saturation could be perceived as better sharpness. Zeiss FL's are very good roof prisms and if any roof could give a porro a run for the money it would be an FL. If you compare them with a resolution chart I think you will find the porro is just as good if not better than the FL. The contrast and color saturation could be slightly superior on the FL though.

Hello Brock, Dennis, everyone...^_^

hmm.... maybe thats the case....

best regards

Galih

 

[ronh]

Pardon a further digression into the issue of resolution, but seems like a good place to get on my soapbox.

It is a pretty common position around here that since a good binocular will "resolve" 3 or 4 arcseconds, then the blur associated with its resolution will never be seen at typical binocular magnifications because the eye can only resolve around 60 arcseconds. Therefore a "4 arcsec resolving" optic at 15x should look as sharp as at 8x.

But I'm not quite convinced. The thing that bothers me about that argument is that what is called "resolution" at the limit in fact amounts to a utterly lousy view of a black and white striped target, with the aid of a second magnification-boosting optic. In such a test, the 3 or 4 arcseconds that might be pronounced to be a good binocular's "resolution" is the tightest pattern whose direction can be just barely made out. A more relevant quantity, in my opinion, for predicting how much magnification a binocular might stand without any perceptible softening, is the magnification multiplied by the spacing of the tightest pattern that looks GOOD, rather than what can barely be discerned.

Of course deciding what looks GOOD would introduce subjectivity, or necessitate clinical MTF measurement, not where we want to go. Boosted resolution is a sweet little homemade yet objective test for comparing different binoculars, and I don't really mean to throw out the baby, only the bathwater.

If the boosted result for a good binocular was rephrased from "resolves 4 arcsec", to the completely true statement "darned near target invisibility at 4 arcsec", it becomes easy to see why the image might look great at 8x, but not so hot at 15x, which is consistent with my experience. 4x15=60 is misleading. Maybe we should double or triple this value for a realistic idea of how sharp the image will look in practice.

Thank you, I feel better now.
Ron

 

[henry link]

Hi Ron,

I'm glad you feel better and I agree, resolution and sharpness (or goodness) are not to be confused. If the image in a telescope looks "GOOD" or even shows a little "perceptible softening" you can be sure you're not looking at the limit of it's resolving power. My understanding is that the resolution limit for a telescope on a line pair chart occurs at the spacial frequency where the contrast of the MTF curve drops to about 5% and that won't be pretty when it's magnified enough to see it. I think we need to use that standard simply because it's the accepted one for telescope resolution and we want to be able to compare things. The contrast of the MTF curve of any decent binocular should be well above 20% at the spacial frequency where the eye runs out of gas. So, the eye is being fed enough contrast even from a pretty crummy binocular if it could only use the contrast to separate the lines, but it can't because those little lines and separations are just too small.

BTW the 60 arc second figure for eyesight is based on lines, not line pairs, so 20/20 eyesight is an even worse 120 arc seconds when expressed in the line pair resolution used for telescopes.

There are so many variables in what makes an image look "sharp" in binoculars, particularly when the effective objective size and focal ratio are constantly changing with different light levels and as viewed by people with differing acuity, expectations, biases, etc. I think we're stuck with the subjective there. I'm OK with that. My objection is to the spurious "objective" measurements that result from attempting to use resolution charts at normal magnification.


Now I feel better.

Henry

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Kevin,

Could it be you were alluding to the unreliability of "resolution" testing at low magnification? If so, I agree. It seems so natural to use resolution charts to compare binoculars, but beware, it's the viewer's wandering eyesight acuity pushed to it's limit that determines the result, not the binoculars (and that goes double if the binoculars are hand held)

That's precisely what I was alluding to.

If Brock didn't use a booster then we just have a measurement of the variability of his Klingon eyesight

But I don't think that negates his subjective comments. The "sharpness" perceived is not jsut the monochromatic (for the pros) or white light (for the rest of us) "resolution" but some other parameters too.

 

[brocknroller]

That's precisely what I was alluding to.

If Brock didn't use a booster then we just have a measurement of the variability of his Klingon eyesight

But I don't think that negates his subjective comments. The "sharpness" perceived is not jsut the monochromatic (for the pros) or white light (for the rest of us) "resolution" but some other parameters too.

Yes, indeed, "sharpness" does include "other parameters," which in the case of the 8x32 LX, gives the subjective impression of the image being "sharper" than the 8x32 SE even though in our resolution tests the 8x32 SE surpassed the 8x32 LX (though only one element).

Fortunately, Klingon eyesight is far superior to mere humans so there was no need to boost the image 64x!

I think Steve used a 3x (or was it 2.5x?) booster for our tests? Not sure if that's "good enough" to compensate for "variability" in one's eyesight, although we both arrived at the same results independently.

I see Steve asked about how much magnification is enough, so I will leave this for Vulcan minds to expound.

A 2.6mm exit pupil certainly reduces aberrations in my eyes (the Nikon 8-16x40 @ 15x had a 2.6mm exit pupil). Under bright, sunny conditions, I could see fine @ 15x, but once light levels dipped, the image grew dim, and details were harder to see.

For an 8x32mm bin, the exit pupil drops to 2mm @ 64x. So you'd need bright natural lighting or artificial lighting to test an 8x32/30 bin at 64x.

B'rock, son of Grilka
Member of the House of Kozak
Klingon Poet-Warrior

 

[mooreorless]

I think anybody with "good" eyesight can tell whether a binocular is very good, so so etc.

 

[brocknroller]

I think anybody with "good" eyesight can tell whether a binocular is very good, so so etc.

Oh, oh... I think your populist statement threw down the gauntlet for a major mind meld battle with the Vulcans (who, as you may recall, share a common ancestry with Romulan warmongers

OTOH, I think you may find support from at least one - Holger, who at the beginning of his bin reviews often states:

"All quality binoculars offer a sharp and crisp image at least near the central region of the field, and there are rarely any significant differences discernible."

That bears out in finding only one element difference btwn the 8x32 SE and HG.

Consequently, when Holger refers to "image sharpness" what he actually means is "edge sharpness".

Jola'tru,
B'rock

 

[jimtrader11]

hello...^_^

anyone find out that Nikon EII have "tricky" focuser to achieve fine tuning?? ....hmm..|<|

best regards

Galih

What do you mean by "tricky" focuser? Please explain your problem with more detail.
Thanks
Jim

 

[gwsudiro]

What do you mean by "tricky" focuser? Please explain your problem with more detail.
Thanks
Jim

hi Jim! ^_^

mmm...you know...its like the focus never "snap"..have to carefully adjust the focus wheel to achieve it...

but, further research, I found that tricky focuser caused by shakiness when I hold the bins...it seems Nikon EII (10x35) to myself exhibits more shakiness than other 10x binoculars I've ever used...and maybe thats individual....IMHO..

and maybe thats the main problem due to my previous post, said that the Zeiss FL sharper than EII...|:S|

just my 200 IDR..(we have no cents here in Indonesia..khekhekhekhe.:-O)

best regards

Galih

 

[squidge]

Just received my new nikon EII 8x30 and I must say wow. The view is amazing, I've looked through Zeiss FL and the swaro sv and imo the picture is up there with them. Why oh Why didnt they make these waterproof. For what you pay for these bins compared to the alpha's then pound for pound, dollar for dollar, euro for euro these bins are no.1. Ok so its off now to look through them again and wonder how these new edg compare Ger

 

[brocknroller]

Just received my new nikon EII 8x30 and I must say wow. The view is amazing, I've looked through Zeiss FL and the swaro sv and imo the picture is up there with them. Why oh Why didnt they make these waterproof. For what you pay for these bins compared to the alpha's then pound for pound, dollar for dollar, euro for euro these bins are no.1. Ok so its off now to look through them again and wonder how these new edg compare Ger

Ger,

Congrats! on your new EII.

They didn't make the EII waterproof because: (1) the basic design was made from before the KT boundary extinction event; (2) you can't make a porro as waterproof/fog proof as a roof w/out redesigning it with an internal focuser; and (3) when you do make an external focus porros waterproof, the sealing often makes the focuser very stiff.

A word of caution about the EII - the rubber armoring can bubble or even peel off if exposed to heat for a long time or in very humid conditions. When you're not using the bins in the summer, don't leave them lying on a table exposed to the sun. When the air is supersaturated with moisture, switch to your roofs. Or keep some Crazy Glue handy. -

If you find that the 8x EII's length is too short for your hands, you can add Bushwacker objective covers (#5). That will also prevent reflections off your palms. Arrange the caps to open toward the center so they are not in your way.

Brock

 

[squidge]

Thanks for the info Brock, As I'm from Ireland the heat will not be an issue, We have one season cool and cloudy with a 100% chance of rain As regards the length I think nikon used my hands as a template as they seem to fit my hold perfectly. As I keep trying to explain to my wife who keeps saying "Why do you need so many Binoculars when you only have one pair of eyes" different scenarios require different optics and as you have explained the weather can play its part aswell:t: So this means when the weather is a bit misty I'll have to get a new pair of bins as opposed to the roofs I have for really wet weather Well thats my excuse anyway. Ger.

 

[brocknroller]

Thanks for the info Brock, As I'm from Ireland the heat will not be an issue, We have one season cool and cloudy with a 100% chance of rain As regards the length I think nikon used my hands as a template as they seem to fit my hold perfectly. As I keep trying to explain to my wife who keeps saying "Why do you need so many Binoculars when you only have one pair of eyes" different scenarios require different optics and as you have explained the weather can play its part aswell:t: So this means when the weather is a bit misty I'll have to get a new pair of bins as opposed to the roofs I have for really wet weather Well thats my excuse anyway. Ger.

Except for the summer, my area's weather is similar to yours (we call it "Happy Valley" because it's real name - "Seasonal Affective Disorder Valley" - would scare away the tourists . I posted a link to a cloud % graphic for my area on another thread. It's around 60% for any given day except two and a half months in the summer.

I liked your wife's question so much I plan to include it (anonymously) in my upcoming book "WIFAQ: Frequent Questions Wives Ask Their Husbands". It's co-authored by Dr. Phil. .

As Holger said in his review of the EII vs. the 8x32 Meopta: The Nikon is the best choice for those purists who want maximum optical performance at a moderate price, and who are able and willing to take care of their instrument.

I take good care of my EII, but I'd like to have a back up sample, JIC.

Enjoy!

 

[[email protected]]

Just received my new nikon EII 8x30 and I must say wow. The view is amazing, I've looked through Zeiss FL and the swaro sv and imo the picture is up there with them. Why oh Why didnt they make these waterproof. For what you pay for these bins compared to the alpha's then pound for pound, dollar for dollar, euro for euro these bins are no.1. Ok so its off now to look through them again and wonder how these new edg compare Ger

Ha, Ha, Ha! I told you! Buy the Nikon 10x35 EII also. It is great too. It will make you like 10X. Best buy out there and it won't last forever. Totally blows the Zen Ray ED's away! I have the Zeiss 8x32 FL, the Nikon 8x32 EII, the Nikon 10x35 EII and the Zeiss 8x20 Victory. All my Zen Ray's and my Nikon 8 x32 SE's are gone! Victims of E-bay and Astromart.

 

[squidge]

I have the nikon monarch 10x42, I'll use these for wet weather birding.I'll use the EII for fair weather birding. The opticron verano I'll leave them as my car bins. The compact canons I'll use as my back garden birding so that leaves my upstairs binocularless which means I have to go testing more bins maybe nikon edg, swaro slc or even the opticron aurora which I was very impressed with. Were it ends who knows. Ger

 

[[email protected]]

I have the nikon monarch 10x42, I'll use these for wet weather birding.I'll use the EII for fair weather birding. The opticron verano I'll leave them as my car bins. The compact canons I'll use as my back garden birding so that leaves my upstairs binocularless which means I have to go testing more bins maybe nikon edg, swaro slc or even the opticron aurora which I was very impressed with. Were it ends who knows. Ger

Yes, the Monarchs are very good binoculars for the money. They are my favorite sub $500.00 roof prism. I sold mine because they were not quite as good as my Zeiss 8x32 FL's. They are close but not quite the FOV and a little more CA.

 

[spyglass]

So, is everybody happy now? I'm happy, an' I'm keepin' my SE's (both) & the FL's (both) & the Canon IS & the Garrett....well, an' the scope, too. The biggest problem is findin' somethin' worthwhile to look at, that I haven't seen dozens of times before. I need migration to start early this year.....

 

[squidge]

Brought the nikon EII out to the beach today for their first real test. I must say I enjoyed every minute. My eyes feel so relaxed after this little outing. I wasnt to sure what people were talking about when they were talking about 3-D effect, Now I do, I was about to get the popcorn out until I realised I was at the beach. These bins just fit my hands perfectly, Its like just holding my hands to my eyes its that comfortable. The only down side to this outing was when I was watching little terns catching fish and I stood on a beached jellyfish stumbled but saved the bins. Its a dangerous business this birding especially when the bins your looking through are so brill you forget were your walking:-O. So my conclusion is get the finger out Nikon and give us a waterproof version. Ger

 

[shorebirder]

Had an hour with a pair of EII 8X30 today and compared them with 8x32fl. Is it just me or does the EII seem to have a little less magnification?? I am sure you binocular buffs out there will explain this away but there does seem to be a difference to my eyes. As if the EII were perhaps 7x magnification. The field of view is a tad wider with the EII, does this appear to make the magnifcation lower??
Cheers
Dave
ps EII image was great and on a par with the Zeiss. 'Impressive'

 

[Sancho]

... Its a dangerous business this birding especially when the bins your looking through are so brill you forget were your walking:-O.... Ger

LOL! Walking while looking through binoculars...interesting. Check out "Japanese Binocular Football" on U-tube for an equally thrill-inducing experience. Anyway, Ger, now that you and I are possibly Ireland´s only Nikon 8x30 EII buffs, keep us posted. (I was out the Bridges a few days ago with mine. It rained. Nothing happened.)