I recently bought some 10x42 SE's from the cloudy nights site. The decal with the serial number was missing, but the person posting the ad said they were outstanding, and were in very good condition. I took the chance, and picked them up. After using them for a few days, I'm thinking they are some of the later ones made, as the colors and general image quality are pretty amazing. What I have been struck by in particular with these binos are the combination of qualities they have. My only other binoculars now are the newer upgraded coating model of the 8x30 E11's. Comparing them, the sharpness seems pretty equal. The E11's are a bit brighter, with a more "white" image, more of a porro type look, with the huge fow and depth of field. Very nice 3D effect. The colors are very vivid and accurate, but they don't have quite the pop that some of the better roof binoculars seem to have. It's just a different look. I imagine the combination of phase coatings on the prisms and coatings in general on binos like Maven B1.2's or any of the comparable models add to the colors and contrast. But overall, the E11's are pretty amazing. Very, very sharp, huge fov and depth of field. I was very much wondering what the SE's would be like when they finally arrived. Do they like up to the hype? What I think is this- they give a unique view. For 10x42 binoculars, the depth of field is very good. Much larger than any 10x42 roof glasses I have had. No idea why, but it's obvious. You don't have re-focus very much in comparison. The colors are amazing. Very rich. The view has less of that white, bright tone the E11's have- almost more like a modern roof glass type of tone. I've never looked through porro-prism binoculars that had this view. The Habicht 10x40's I used to own, color-and-tone wise, were more like the E11's. That says a lot about how nice the E11's are. The fov is only 6°, but the field flattener helps a lot with mitigating that issue. The 3D effect is very strong. With me, the blackout issue is not much of a problem, fortunately. It's not just one thing, it's the combination of things. These binoculars put you out there with whatever object you are looking at, maybe more so than anything else I've tried. I love the contrast between the E11's and the SE's, but I'm favoring the SE's- they are that good. I'm lucky to have found them.
-
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.
Nikon se 10x42 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Harber8
- Start date
Enjoy your new purchase @Harber8! I've owned mine since the Covid year; it is my most regularly used birding binocular and I must have at least a few hundred hours, including many excellent trips, with it.
In comparison to the 8x30 EII I find the SE much more usable (EII has an awkward combo of not enough eye relief to use with glasses, and not enough focus beyond infinity to use without). I'd need to compare them side by side again to get a real feel for differences in image quality, but my feeling is that the SE (allowing for differences in mag etc) is indeed somewhat better, as its name (Superior E) suggests; and better made too. My SE is sharp but can require a bit of careful tweaking to extract maximum sharpness from the binocular. FOV is narrow but (just) acceptable. I think the field flattener does help offset the FOV and makes for a more contemporary kind of view, not totally unlike a modern roof binocular as you note. I did experience blackouts initially and still do on occasion but have learned how to mitigate them.
I did try the Habicht 10x40 some months back and thought sharpness on axis was (slightly) superior (Edit: as was perceived brightness) and colour rendition better, with more saturated colours. It's a great binocular in its own right, but I need my regular birding binocular to have long eye relief and it doesn't have that.
In comparison to the 8x30 EII I find the SE much more usable (EII has an awkward combo of not enough eye relief to use with glasses, and not enough focus beyond infinity to use without). I'd need to compare them side by side again to get a real feel for differences in image quality, but my feeling is that the SE (allowing for differences in mag etc) is indeed somewhat better, as its name (Superior E) suggests; and better made too. My SE is sharp but can require a bit of careful tweaking to extract maximum sharpness from the binocular. FOV is narrow but (just) acceptable. I think the field flattener does help offset the FOV and makes for a more contemporary kind of view, not totally unlike a modern roof binocular as you note. I did experience blackouts initially and still do on occasion but have learned how to mitigate them.
I did try the Habicht 10x40 some months back and thought sharpness on axis was (slightly) superior (Edit: as was perceived brightness) and colour rendition better, with more saturated colours. It's a great binocular in its own right, but I need my regular birding binocular to have long eye relief and it doesn't have that.
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
Perfect summary of these three binoculars. I might add that the 8x32 SE is IMO a bit better than even the 10x42 SE and quite clearly better than the EII. But the 10x42 SE is still so good it gives quite a few so-called "alphas" a run for their money.
Hermann
I agree about the 10x40 Habicht. Awesome binoculars. I regret selling mine- the only real issue I had with them was the edges being pretty soft- gave a bit of a tunnel view. Sharpness was unbeatable in the center. Great color and image quality. Missing having them was one reason I jumped on the chance to buy these SE's. I don't think you can go wrong with either one. But it shocked me a bit how different the SE's are, in a good way. I think they are very well designed. Nice comfortable view.
I had the Nikon SE 10x42 and SE 8x32, and they were very good porros, but they have one problem, Spherical Aberration. Spherical Aberration can lead to black-outs and finicky eye placement. I sold my Nikon SE's because of it, but it may not bother you, depending on how the binocular fit's your face and eye sockets. The SE's are definitely more finicky for eye placement than the EII's though.
"Spherical aberration is a type of optical aberration that occurs when light rays passing through different parts of a lens (especially the edges) are not focused to the same point."
www.birdforum.net
"Spherical aberration is a type of optical aberration that occurs when light rays passing through different parts of a lens (especially the edges) are not focused to the same point."
Regarding Nikon Se
Hi there, i know there are already alot of Nikon Se threads. But the newest one deos not fit to my question so i decided to open another one. Hope thats ok. Is it true that the SE´s are out of production? I think i heard they stopped the SE, EII and also the ED 82 scopes. Can someone confirm...
www.birdforum.net
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
You had an SE 8x42? Must have been a prototype, probably the only one in the world.
Hermann
The eye placement is much more forgiving with the 8x30 E11's, this is true. Also easier with the 10x35 E11's. But- for me at least, it's not a big problem. The Maven B1.2's I used to own were a bit finicky as well. The eyecups needed to extend out a bit more in my case. I must be about the right distance from the eyepieces(without glasses) with the 10x42 SE's.
I like the Nikon 8x30 E2 also for the big FOV, but it doesn't quite have the contrast and pop of a good roof prism like my Nikon HG 8x42. I compared the two closely and the HG 8x42 had better contrast, so I am selling the Nikon 8x30 E2 in the classifieds for $499.95. It is brand-new fresh from Japan with the latest S/N and the latest improved coatings. So if your E2 has the older coatings, you might want to upgrade to the latest coatings. The E2 is an easier view than the SE with easier eye placement because it doesn't suffer from Spherical Aberration.
ads
Well-known member
I thought it was agreed that depth-of-field in binoculars is solely dependent on magnification and effective exit pupil.
The only other explanation that comes to mind is that the field curvature of the device matches the subject you are viewing.
I have no idea why the 10x42 SE's somehow have better depth of field. I remember my 10x42 B1.2's very well, and looking at the same field and same trees, and it's not a small difference between the two binoculars. But without actually having both binoculars present, all I can say is the SE's seem to be better in that respect- can't really prove it without a direct comparison. But I certainly think it's a real difference. Many more objects stay in better focus. But logically, depth of field is strictly determined by magnification. I dunno.
What i meant to say was depth of field is determined by magnification plus exit pupil, as was stated earlier. This would seem to pretty much determine the light cone angles- should be the same with any 10x42 binoculars. So I'm not sure what I was seeing, even if I thought it was a real difference. It would be an interesting experiment to contast directly two or three different 10x42 binoculars directly to check this out. But logically, I can't see how one 10x42 binocular, just because it's a porro or roof, or any other reason, can have a better depth of field. ???
Depth of field is determined by the accommodation capacity of your eyes, the magnification of the binocular, and to a lesser degree by the diameter of the EP.
henry link
Well-known member
I had the Nikon SE 10x42 and SE 8x32, and they were very good porros, but they have one problem, Spherical Aberration. Spherical Aberration can lead to black-outs and finicky eye placement. I sold my Nikon SE's because of it, but it may not bother you, depending on how the binocular fit's your face and eye sockets. The SE's are definitely more finicky for eye placement than the EII's though.
"Spherical aberration is a type of optical aberration that occurs when light rays passing through different parts of a lens (especially the edges) are not focused to the same point."
View attachment 1635979Regarding Nikon Se
Hi there, i know there are already alot of Nikon Se threads. But the newest one deos not fit to my question so i decided to open another one. Hope thats ok. Is it true that the SE´s are out of production? I think i heard they stopped the SE, EII and also the ED 82 scopes. Can someone confirm...
Dennis, it's past time for you to google "Spherical Aberration of the Exit Pupil", which in post #6 above you are once again confusing with 'Spherical Aberration." As similar as they may sound the causes and effects are completely different between the two. One causes blackouts and kidney-beaning while the other makes it impossible to reach a completely sharp focus.
My 8x32 SEs have unusually low Spherical Aberration compared to other high end binoculars. Something that is easily confirmed by a high magnification star test. The kidney-beaning some people experience with them is not so much caused by high Spherical Aberration of the Exit Pupil, but by some old fashioned fold-down rubber eyecups with a cup length too short for the eye relief for some observers and with virtually no adjustability. Some of us who happen to land our pupils right at the proper eye relief distance when we put those eyecups to our eyes never notice a problem.
Last edited:
Yes, spherical aberration of the exit pupil is what I meant. I just got the two terms confused. Thanks for the correction, Henry!
Last edited:
tenex
reality-based
One has to wonder what to make of claims that one binocular has "noticeably better" or "much(!) larger" DOF than another of the same magnification... and yet they just keep occurring.
There's a real difference in magnification despite the nominal specification? (not likely sufficient)
The bin just isn't very sharp, so the difference between in and out of focus is less obvious?
It was actually different conditions (and pupil size), thus faulty comparisons from memory?
The user doesn't know what DOF actually is, and more field curvature fits typical scenes better, or varying speed of focus knobs gives a misleading impression of how much refocusing is required?
Some people just like to say this because they think it sounds knowledgable?
...?
There's a real difference in magnification despite the nominal specification? (not likely sufficient)
The bin just isn't very sharp, so the difference between in and out of focus is less obvious?
It was actually different conditions (and pupil size), thus faulty comparisons from memory?
The user doesn't know what DOF actually is, and more field curvature fits typical scenes better, or varying speed of focus knobs gives a misleading impression of how much refocusing is required?
Some people just like to say this because they think it sounds knowledgable?
...?
hopster
Well-known member
In photography, DOF is strongly affected by the f number, and in fact that is how you set it depending if you want the background blurred or not. Presumably binoculars have different f numbers depending upon their focal length?
Wow- looking back on various old posts, this DOF stuff is quite a rabbit hole. Science vs perception. Without a head-to-head comparison of 10x42's, and checking and comparing the DOF's immediately and directly, it's pretty hard to reach a real conclusion. At least some very knowledgeable reviewers have noticed differing DOF's comparing very good 10x42 binoculars. In this case, comparing the 10x42 SE's to how I remember my last good 10x42 roof binoculars being, it seemed a pretty substantial difference. Is this "reality" or perceived reality? I guess if it's my own perceived reality, I'll run with that, but I'm still not sure about why the difference exists. But as far as the SE's go, the more I use them the more I appreciate having them.