Revisiting a Classic Nikon Porro (1 Viewer)

brocknroller · Jan 19, 2012

[email protected] said:
Brock
I am glad you are so enamored with my threads and posts that you use my now infamous quotes in so many of your threads. I had the 7x35 Nikon Action also back in the eighties and I remember it as having excellent optics on-axis but I don't remember the edges being that sharp compared to more modern binoculars. Does that agree with what you see through yours Frank and Brock?

Dennis,

It's more for you than for me or anyone else. You tend to have a selective memory, which sometimes needs jogging. You say one thing, then do an about face, and forget what you said before like you did with the EDG.

As Rocky Graziano used to say: Repetition is the mother of memory.

By repeating your quotes, I'm hoping what you said in the past will stay fresh in your mind and influence what you say in the present rather than be completely erased like an Etch-a-Sketch.

Yeah, it's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

Brock

denco@comcast.n · Jan 19, 2012

brocknroller said:
Dennis,

It's more for you than for me or anyone else. You tend to have a selective memory, which sometimes needs jogging. You say one thing, then do an about face, and forget what you said before like you did with the EDG.

As Rocky Graziano used to say: Repetition is the mother of memory.

By repeating your quotes, I'm hoping what you said in the past will stay fresh in your mind and influence what you say in the present rather than be completely erased like an Etch-a-Sketch.

Yeah, it's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

Brock

"It's more for you than for me or anyone else. You tend to have a selective memory, which sometimes needs jogging. You say one thing, then do an about face, and forget what you said before like you did with the EDG."

Brock, It's called changing your mind. As I evaluate binoculars I sometimes learn new things about them and change my mind. Sometimes I go by memory how a certain binocular performed against another binocular and maybe at that point in time my opinion was accurate or I could have tested a 10x42 EDG instead of an 8x32 EDG which might have performed a little differently and I made an assumption that they were the same. I see everybody doing that to a certain extent on Bird Forum. In this thread Henry is making an assumption when he says. "Axial resolution is outstanding. Using the USAF 1951 chart at 56x I measured 3.5 arc seconds in the better right barrel and about 4 arc seconds in the left (which has a little coma). The right barrel works out to 122.5/D, about as good as binoculars get." Now Henry has tested alot of binoculars but he has not tested EVERY binocular made so there is no way that statement is true! He can't say these Nikon 7x35's are about as good as binoculars get because he has not tested EVERY binocular made. At least my reviews rely on memories of actual binoculars I have tested or actual binoculars I have in hand at the time. Your opinons are just summaries of other peoples opinions because you have not really ACTUALLY had any of those binoculars. My reviews are more accurate than yours because yours are just second hand information coming from somebody else or from a review site. When I say I saw Rolling Ball in the Swarovision it is because I saw it with my own eyes not because I heard somebody else say they saw it. Big difference.

lilcrazy2 · Jan 19, 2012

[email protected] said:
At least my reviews rely on memories of actual binoculars I have tested or actual binoculars I have in hand at the time. Your opinons are just summaries of other peoples opinions because you have not really ACTUALLY had any of those binoculars. My reviews are more accurate than yours because yours are just second hand information coming from somebody else or from a review

Oh really? How quickly we seem to forget! Or do you need me to remind you?

henry link · Jan 19, 2012

If you try to remove an irritant by placing someone on an “Ignore List” you’ll soon discover that the system has some leaks. If that person is quoted in someone else’s post you will see the quote and if you visit here without signing in you will find all that person’s posts, unexpurgated. So, Dennis has not completely disappeared from my universe and it looks like this thread is in danger of being “Dennisized”. I hope everyone will resist rising to the bait.

henry link · Jan 19, 2012

Steve C said:
Henry (or Frank)

How does the Nikon Naturalist fit into this scheme? I see the Naturalist in several number variations. Some even say Nikon Action Nauralist. The Naturalist looks a fair bit smaller and has an 8.6* fov.

Steve,

At some point Nikon (at least in the USA) began to give names to the individual models in the original Action Series. As I recall the first ones were: 7x35 - "Naturalist", 7x50 - "Owl", 10x50 - "Lookout" and 8x35 - maybe "Eaglescout", but I'm not so sure about that one. The Action II and III series had 7x35's with 8.6* fov. Those were called "Naturalist II" and Naturalist III. The II series looked like smaller versions of the originals and the III series adopted a completely new "ergonomic" body shape that didn't last. The numbering system got confusing when new types where added. For instance, a zoom binocular was added to the Action II series and was simply called "Scoutmaster". The zoom in the Action III series was called "Scoutmaster II".

Henry

FrankD · Jan 19, 2012

Steve,

Henry is much more of the expert on this than I. My experience with these is simply from watching ebay and from making purchases. Henry's observations are spot on. The Naturalist II is the one that you and I have been discussing via email. I believe there is a Naturalist III up on ebay as we speak. One sold last week and there is another for an attractive price now. It has a different body design from the Naturalist II and any models that followed it. More of an "open bridge" design.

I have seen the Owl, Lookout and 8x35 WF up on Ebay recently as well. I almost bit on the Owl except the apparent field of view was too narrow for my tastes. I think it was only 6.3 degrees IIRC.

The Naturalist II and Naturalist IV are up on my Flickr page.

NDhunter · Jan 19, 2012

FrankD said:
Steve,

Henry is much more of the expert on this than I. My experience with these is simply from watching ebay and from making purchases. Henry's observations are spot on. The Naturalist II is the one that you and I have been discussing via email. I believe there is a Naturalist III up on ebay as we speak. One sold last week and there is another for an attractive price now. It has a different body design from the Naturalist II and any models that followed it. More of an "open bridge" design.

I have seen the Owl, Lookout and 8x35 WF up on Ebay recently as well. I almost bit on the Owl except the apparent field of view was too narrow for my tastes. I think it was only 6.3 degrees IIRC.

The Naturalist II and Naturalist IV are up on my Flickr page.

Frank:
I have seen your Naturalist II on your site, and was wondering about what
happened to the eyecups? Were they missing, and I wonder if you can get
new ones. I have the Nat. II, and they are quite good, and I am thinking
the Nat. III started with the more rubber like armor.

Jerry

FrankD · Jan 19, 2012

Jerry,

I take the eyecups (rubber or metal) off of almost all of the older porros that I purchase. I need to in most cases in order to see the full field of view. I still have them and they are in excellent condition considering how old the bins must be. I am guessing the original owner did not use them much. That is a shame considering how good they are in a variety of optical areas.

The Naturalist III does look like the model which starts to make the body transition towards the more common Action models seen today. I do like the look of it though as it appears as if it would be very ergonomic.

Steve C · Jan 19, 2012

henry link said:
Steve,

At some point Nikon (at least in the USA) began to give names to the individual models in the original Action Series. As I recall the first ones were: 7x35 - "Naturalist", 7x50 - "Owl", 10x50 - "Lookout" and 8x35 - maybe "Eaglescout", but I'm not so sure about that one. The Action II and III series had 7x35's with 8.6* fov. Those were called "Naturalist II" and Naturalist III. The II series looked like smaller versions of the originals and the III series adopted a completely new "ergonomic" body shape that didn't last. The numbering system got confusing when new types where added. For instance, a zoom binocular was added to the Action II series and was simply called "Scoutmaster". The zoom in the Action III series was called "Scoutmaster II".

Henry

Thanks Henry. I see the Nikon Naturalist II looks physically identical to the Nikon you posted about. The obvious difference between the two is the Naturalist II shows an 8.6* fov vs 9.3*. I have no idea if the Naturalist II is the same size or smaller than yours. Nor do I have any idea how the optical quality compares.

I find myself at the moment committed to two Naturalist II's, so I will find out soon enough what I think of the optics. I had them bought to satisfy my curiosity, I might add, just before your post.

I hear you about Dennis. What with the way he always "changes his mind" he needs to run for political office. I think he may have missed his calling there.

Frank,

I might kick myself (I already am a little) over the Naturalist III you referenced in the bay. It only went for $5.51 US. I couldn't see a reason why it generated no interest either. I held off for two reasons. One is that they wanted to ship with expedited international shipping. I can drive to Surrey BC in a day, so I asked them about a less expensive, even if slower shipment method. They were unwilling, without explanation, to consider that. That was the policy, period. I am somewhat reluctant to deal with what appears to be overly rigid sellers. Shipping was 5x the cost of the binocular, no big deal either I guess, but a factor. Second, and this was really the deal breaker, they failed to even attempt to answer a couple of basic questions I posed about the glass, namely what its physical size (with weight if they could get that) and did the diopter work?

henry link · Jan 19, 2012

While we wait for Frank to collect and photograph them all, here are some brochure photos of Action Series I, II, III, and V. You can see that Series III had a unique shape. I believe Series IV was similar to V, which looks a lot like the current Series VII.

henry link · Jan 19, 2012

Steve,

I posted photos of some spec sheets here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2334547&postcount=22

As you can see the Series II binoculars are smaller and lighter. I don't think the optical quality was as good as Series I, but I may be able to track down a Naturalist II to test the same way as the original.

Henry

NDhunter · Jan 19, 2012

Nikon Sky & Earth Series

Here is another series of Nikons that look to be from the same time as the
Action III, with the same chunky look. I have the 7x50 Wolverine, with a
small FOV of 6.2 deg. narrow but sharp to the very edge.
These are reviewed on BVD, and were brought out to offer a bit more eye
relief, and were also available in the 7x35 Lemur, 8x40 Talon and the 10x50
Kestrel. Heavy bodied, with a sharp dogleg, and almost have a time standing up without falling.
Just another offshoot and a step above the Actions of the time.

Jerry

denco@comcast.n · Jan 20, 2012

henry link said:
If you try to remove an irritant by placing someone on an “Ignore List” you’ll soon discover that the system has some leaks. If that person is quoted in someone else’s post you will see the quote and if you visit here without signing in you will find all that person’s posts, unexpurgated. So, Dennis has not completely disappeared from my universe and it looks like this thread is in danger of being “Dennisized”. I hope everyone will resist rising to the bait.

Henry, I resent you using my name "Dennisized" and being referred to as an irritant in a derogatory way on a public forum. Be careful with that. You don't say things like that about people on a forum like this. To be honest I was glad I was on your ignore list . I usually don't read your posts anyway because I find them boring and pretty much the same old stuff. I can read an optics book if I want to hear about eyepiece or prism design. You don't impress me or fool me with you optical jargon. Your threads are nothing new or groundbreaking just quotes from an Optics Book. I was merely responding to Brock's "Out of the Blue" attack on the validity of my binocular reviews. It had nothing to do with you or your thread. Brock's reviews are merely a summary of other people's opinions and the reviews sites. He does not actually test any binocular because he doesn't have it in hand. Yet he attacks my reviews as being inconsistent. They may sometimes be but at least they are based on real tests of real binoculars that I have. As far as this thread goes I find it hard to believe a 25 year old binocular is as good as the latest alpha offerings from Nikon like the EDG. Progress must be going in reverse if they are. I had alot of the old Nikon Action Porro's and although some of them were pretty good they DID not compare to the modern alphas and you must be smoking something good in your optics room or wherever you sit around amongst a collection of old dusty binoculars and optics books looking like Rumpelstiltskin and coming up with these humorous threads.

steve@37n84w · Jan 20, 2012

[email protected] said:
Henry, I resent you using my name "Dennisized" and being referred to as an irritant in a derogatory way on a public forum. Be careful with that. You don't say things like that about people on a forum like this. To be honest I was glad I was on your ignore list . I usually don't read your posts anyway because I find them boring and pretty much the same old stuff. I can read an optics book if I want to hear about eyepiece or prism design. It's nothing new or groundbreaking. I was merely responding to Brock's "Out of the Blue" attack on the validity of my binocular reviews. It had nothing to do with you or your thread. Brock's reviews are merely a summary of other people's opinions and the reviews sites. He does not actually test any binocular because he doesn't have it in hand. Yet he attacks my reviews as being inconsistent. They may sometimes be but at least they are based on real tests of real binoculars that I have. As far as this thread goes I find it hard to believe a 25 year old binocular is as good as the latest alpha offerings from Nikon like the EDG. Progress must be going in reverse if they are.

At first glance your "review" of the EDG appears to be inconsistent but when you look closer it really isn't. When I mentioned a few weeks ago that overall I preferred my EDG to my FL you were replete with reasons as to why the Zeiss was a superior binocular. YOU were pointing out the supposed faults of a binocular YOU didn't "have in your hand".

Now that you have the EDG it's a "near perfect binocular" and while at first glance this appears to be inconsistent as Brock pointed out in reality it's the opposite. While it's true you did a complete about face we all know it's because you now have the EDG and we also know that is very consistent with your past posts, i.e. if it's Dennis's binocular it's the best binocular.

As far as Henry's review of the Nikon porro you might find it hard to believe but I don't. I recently purchased a Canon porro (vintage 1968) that is as sharp as my alphas and premium porros--some of the old stuff is that good whether you want to believe it or not. Another reason Henry's posts seem valid is that unlike you he tries to be objective/factual in his reviews and he doesn't embellish the qualities of a particular binocular just because it's his or in hopes of making a sale.

Steve

denco@comcast.n · Jan 20, 2012

steve@37n84w said:
At first glance your "review" of the EDG appears to be inconsistent but when you look closer it really isn't. When I mentioned a few weeks ago that overall I preferred my EDG to my FL you were replete with reasons as to why the Zeiss was a superior binocular. YOU were pointing out the supposed faults of a binocular YOU didn't "have in your hand".

Now that you have the EDG it's a "near perfect binocular" and while at first glance this appears to be inconsistent as Brock pointed out in reality it's the opposite. While it's true you did a complete about face we all know it's because you now have the EDG and we also know that is very consistent with your past posts, i.e. if it's Dennis's binocular it's the best binocular.

As far as Henry's review of the Nikon porro you might find it hard to believe but I don't. I recently purchased a Canon porro (vintage 1968) that is as sharp as my alphas and premium porros--some of the old stuff is that good whether you want to believe it or not. Another reason Henry's posts seem valid is that unlike you he tries to be objective/factual in his reviews and he doesn't embellish the qualities of a particular binocular just because it's his or in hopes of making a sale.

Steve

The Canon porro might be sharp on-axis but most of these older porro's that I have looked through do not have the sharp edges of the modern alphas or even a Nikon SE. There is a big difference. I see the interest from a historical viewpoint but optics wise compared to the latest offerings I think they are lacking. I have grown to like a totally sharp FOV. To some it may not be a big deal. To each his own. I have remained consistent with my reviews. The EDG has sharper edges than the Zeiss Fl and I decided after awhile that I like that. That's the only real big difference between the binoculars.

jaymoynihan · Jan 20, 2012

[email protected] said:
Progress must be going in reverse if they are.

"Progress" is itself a subjective concept.

It should not be confused with a world line http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A3086039 A world line cannot reverse.

A classic, large example is the the deployment of rail transport across the western U.S.. Most Euroamericans viewed it as "progress". The Native Americans resident to the great plains did not.

FrankD · Jan 20, 2012

Dennis,

I don't want to get into the emotional aspect of this thread. However, I do want to bring this back to the brief exchange that you and I had on edge sharpness.

Earlier I asked if Edge Performance was the defining characteristic in what separates the "best binocular" from the rest of the pack...in so many words. Your response was that it basically was. To quote:

When a manufacturer comes out with a new binocular they usually design it with field flatteners so it performs well at the edge. That is not to say these older porros were poor performers because there edges were not as sharp as the modern alphas. Alot of them like this Nikon 7x35 porro are a delight to look through and there big wide FOV makes a sharp edge unnecessary for viewing enjoyment because you really have to move your eyes around to even see the edge.

I agree with you on both counts. Many of the newest Alphas are focusing on edge performance. I am sure the new Zeiss will have this feature also but with a higher light transmission value to put it ahead of the rest of the pack. I do also agree that many of the older porros have a variety of optical characteristics, such as their super wide field of view, that sets them apart from any binoculars being offered today.

My point is simply that one optical characteristic does not define how good a binocular is. It is the sum of its parts. For those that prefer a wide field to sharp edges many of the current alphas might not meet their preferences.

Just a thought.

FrankD · Jan 20, 2012

henry link said:
While we wait for Frank to collect and photograph them all, here are some brochure photos of Action Series I, II, III, and V. You can see that Series III had a unique shape. I believe Series IV was similar to V, which looks a lot like the current Series VII.

Henry,

Thank you for all of the excellent pics and info. It has broadened my knowledge on this product line greatly. I have to apologize. I meant to take a side by side pic of the original Action, Gold Sentinel, Naturalist II and Naturalist IV last night but did not have the time. I will do so this evening though and post it here.

Steve,

For what it is worth I did put the Naturalist II side by side with the original Action "Wide field" model. I had thought the Naturalist II was smaller but it is actually the exact same size as the Action Wide Field and Gold Sentinel. It feels lighter though. This may be in part to the use of more plastic than either of the other two models. The front prism plate, for example, is plastic rather than the metal of the WF and Gold Sentinel.

Interestingly enough I expected to see a difference in the external appearance of the eyepieces but did not note any under casual inspection. I did not use the "shine the light off of the oculars" method to check for reflections but will do so this evening as well.

JanPB · Jan 20, 2012

[email protected] said:
The Canon porro might be sharp on-axis but most of these older porro's that I have looked through do not have the sharp edges of the modern alphas or even a Nikon SE.

"Sharp edges" without mentioning AFOV at the same time is not very meaningful though.

This is BTW the #1 problem with Allbinos' edge sharpness score which nonsensically rates it based on the percentage of the AFOV rather than the absolute perceived angle. So they end up assigning extra points to bins which are sharp all the way to the edge merely because the unsharp part is masked off!

Stet · Jan 22, 2012

NDhunter said:
There's one right now on the auction site, and it is going well. No doubt
some here are watching.

Oscar

I am now the proud owner of these puppies from the bay. I was expecting more of a bidding war from the interest being generated here and on Frank's vintage porro post, but aside from a couple bids they were easily won at a reasonable price.

I have been watching for these ever since my experience with Frank's pair. Of all the vintage porro's I tried of Frank's, these were my favorite.

In fact if this sample is as good as Frank's, I'm thinking that it just may replace my SE's. We'll see when they arrive.

John

Revisiting a Classic Nikon Porro (1 Viewer)

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread