• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Spoiled by the SE view...now what? (1 Viewer)

Dennis:

I am wondering about your experience with the Nikon SE, above you posted
that you had them all of (1 Day), and then returned them. And you had the objective collar fall off in that length of time.

They are firmly attached, so some here are calling you on your story. 8-P

Jerry

I had them for about a year and a half. Part of the problem could have been I had those Bushwacker objective covers on them which slip over the end of the objective. I think maybe a combination of heat under those covers loosened the glue around the objective covers so when I took them off the objective covers just fell off. I wouldn't recommend using Bushwackers on the SE for that reason. They really worked well but I think they might have contributed to the lens covers coming off. I wasn't impressed at all with the small amount of glue on the covers and I challenge anybody to reapply them with a little glue. It isn't that EASY to get them looking like factory. So take my advice and be careful with them especially if use Bushwackers! I guarantee you I did not fabricate this story to make the SE's look bad. I feel it is weak point in them though.
 
Last edited:
In the 10.5 years I have had my 8x32 SE, I have only encountered three other birders who have one. The beauty rings were missing from both objectives on one birder's SE, but it was clear that the bin had been used very heavily. I have never had a problem with mine.

I think the important point is that the SE and the EII are both superb, but they are really quite different from each other. The EII is a gem, but I still think the SE is the greatest binocular ever made, if judging solely the optics. I don't wear glasses, and I have never had the blackout problems that others mention.

Rather than argue about which one is better, I'm interested in knowing more about the vintage 8x30s that preceded them. 8x30 was a popular formula in Europe and the USA, though production in the USA was a fraction of that in Europe. The last great iteration of it in Europe was probably the Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30, which as Holger Merlitz points out would likely equal the EII in optical performance if it had modern coatings. I still haven't had a chance to handle one.

The other one I am interested in handling is the Bausch & Lomb Zephyr 8x30, introduced in about 1936, and made with a magnesium fluoride coating starting immediately after the war. Its field of view is 445 feet at 1,000 yards, while that in the Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 is 450 feet, and in the EII 460 feet. I doubt those differences are perceptible in the field.

The Zeiss and Bausch models evolved from bins introduced in 1920 and 1935, respectively (though Bausch had an 8x30 as early as 1922). The EII evolved from a model introduced by Nikon after the war, and it seems to have been inspired by the Zeiss 8x30 of the time. The Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 remained in production until the early 1970s, while at least one other Zeiss 8x30 was made until 1990 (the Deltrentis, representing a seventy-year production run). Production of the Bausch was moved from Rochester to Japan around 1970 and ceased not long after that.

The EII became the last great, classic, high-end 8x30, following in a very long tradition. The SE 8x32 does not seem to have evolved from any other Nikon model, but appears to have been a completely new concept.

I have handled an optically perfect and immaculate Bausch Zephyr 7x35 made in Rochester, and despite its shortcomings (relatively narrow field of view, yellowish color bias, distant close focus, and dropoff of sharpness toward the edge) its optical performance is superlative. It is amazingly sharp, bright, and contrasty. I am curious to know if the much scarcer 8x30 performs as well.

I also wonder if any of the Chinese manufacturers have considered making an optically and mechanically superior 8x30 porro bin. I assume that it would be possible to match the EII or Oberkochen 8x30 and retail it for under $300, but maybe nowadays there isn't a big enough market for anything at that price that isn't a roof-prism bin.

Yes, it is also interesting that the EII was developed AFTER the SE. Most people think that the EII is an older less modern design. It is not and was obviously developed with different design parameters in mind like a bigger FOV which probably meant it's edges couldn't be as sharp as the SE. I think the coatings between the two are a wash in that they are similar in contrast and glare control. I don't see why the Chinnese couldn't make a high quality porro it's just so many people are not aware of the optical advantages of the design and they see and EII or SE and they think they are OLD FASHIONED! Until they look through them and then they are blown away. If you want some alpha quality optics at about 25% of the price look no further than these two jewels though.
 
Yes, it is also interesting that the EII was developed AFTER the SE. Most people think that the EII is an older less modern design. It is not and was obviously developed with different design parameters in mind like a bigger FOV which probably meant it's edges couldn't be as sharp as the SE.

This begs certain questions. The fact the EII came out a year later does not mean it is more modern. Except for the EP design, most components of which it shares with the SE, the EII is the next step from, well, the E. Late model Es debuted the new green/purple coating inherited by both the SE and EII. As Henry Link indicated in his famous review of both models, the internal build (especially the prism brackets) of the SE is more rugged, while the EII shares with the E a more basic (and economical) design. The SE has "modern" ER, where the EII barely improves on E series (just enough, though, for eye-glass wearers like me). Additionally, the curved back panels on the EII mimic the curved dogleg of the SE.

Let's get the history correct.
 
This begs certain questions. The fact the EII came out a year later does not mean it is more modern. Except for the EP design, most components of which it shares with the SE, the EII is the next step from, well, the E. Late model Es debuted the new green/purple coating inherited by both the SE and EII. As Henry Link indicated in his famous review of both models, the internal build (especially the prism brackets) of the SE is more rugged, while the EII shares with the E a more basic (and economical) design. The SE has "modern" ER, where the EII barely improves on E series (just enough, though, for eye-glass wearers like me). Additionally, the curved back panels on the EII mimic the curved dogleg of the SE.

Let's get the history correct.

I don't think either one is more modern than the other. Just different design parameters for a different price point. For non-eye glass wearers the ER on the EII seems to work better so maybe the SE ER was designed with that in mind to cover a larger base of people. That is one thing I prefer on the EII the ER is just right for my eyes and I do not wear glasses.
 
Boys, boys, Nikon is not the only 8x30 Porro on the planet.

China do indeed make a good one, according to Holger Merlitz:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/ares8x30.html

Individual focus, AIEE!, the plague, stay away! Or you will soon be like me, with 6x30 and 8x30 FMTR-SXs, and a 60s era Hensoldt DF, http://www.holgermerlitz.de/image8x30/hensoldt_df_8x30.jpg which, cross my heart and hope to die, has a view which, except for the dullsville old coatings, I would put equal to anything I have ever seen.

Focussing IF is really not that bad. Wanna see me cross my hands?
Ron
 
Boys, boys, Nikon is not the only 8x30 Porro on the planet.

China do indeed make a good one, according to Holger Merlitz:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/ares8x30.html

Individual focus, AIEE!, the plague, stay away! Or you will soon be like me, with 6x30 and 8x30 FMTR-SXs, and a 60s era Hensoldt DF, http://www.holgermerlitz.de/image8x30/hensoldt_df_8x30.jpg which, cross my heart and hope to die, has a view which, except for the dullsville old coatings, I would put equal to anything I have ever seen.

Focussing IF is really not that bad. Wanna see me cross my hands?
Ron

I have been tempted to acquire some of those great IF bins. But implied in my comments (not very clearly) is 8x30 usable for birding. I have played with IF bins for birding, but only on bodies of water, where close focus is irrelevant, and it took a really long time before I was convinced that focus was ideal. I suppose it might be a little easier for astronomical use. I have not been able to find that Chinese bin on the market. Holger gets access to beautiful bins for his tests. Some of those European 8x30 IF bins are in virtually new condition.
 
The hard thing about using IF is not the physical effort of turning two knobs at once, but the left/right visual awareness that is required. When I first started using IF for all distances and birding, I would see that something was screwy about the view, but could not even tell which eye was out of focus! Somehow though, I married myself to the idea, and got over this deep level physio/perceptuo learning thing, which I think would interest forum member Ed. But it's weird at first. I'd recommend getting one of Holgers IF "classics" for practicing, which can be had for only $100-$150 in many cases, and is a historic prize too.

I find the IF system attractive:
1) Almost impossible to make NOT waterproof.
3) Functions well in bitter cold
2) Lightest weight focusing system
4) Simplest mechanics, best aligned, flex-free

Mountain weather is nuts, I tend to get rained on.
Ron
 
Mountain weather is nuts, I tend to get rained on.
Ron

Rained on? In New Mexico? Bang goes another one of my illusions. The Hensoldt are readily available on e-bay, in various conditions, ranging from 100 to 200 euro. The Chinese Mil 8x30 seem to be only available from Italian dealers. They look very interesting, especially if they´re approaching the same league as the EII/SE´s, and waterproof to boot. I get rained on a lot.
 
Here at 7500 ft., the mountains are full of big evergreen trees that use a lot of water. Summer thunderstorms are sudden and violent. There's downhill skiing 5 miles away.

Down low in the desert, though, that is the popular New Mexico stereotype, you need a binocular that is mainly drought-resistant, and rattlesnake-proof!

Ireland, well obviously it is not green for no reason.
Ron
 
I'd recommend getting one of Holgers IF "classics" for practicing, which can be had for only $100-$150 in many cases, and is a historic prize too.

Okay, I'll try searching on eBay a little harder and give it another try.

Sancho, I'm in New Mexico, and outside of town here last winter we had more than fifteen feet of snow cumulatively. This is the southern end of the Rocky Mountains. I go snowshoeing up to 12,000 feet and above to look for wintering species like rosy-finches and White-winged Crossbill.

Like Ron, I put sunblock on my bins in summer.
 
Dennis:
Your views are amusing, the armored SE is clearly better than than EII, with the metal
clad objective. Anyone who has handled both would prefer the SE, when they set them
down on the table, "be careful with the EII, and no 10 yr. old kids are allowed to handle".
Perhaps it's the climate or the way I use my binoculars or maybe I'm just plain weird but for me optical performance has always been Number One, with all that armouring stuff close to a complete irrelevancy. I'll always select an optically good but delicate binocular over a well-built but optically inferior one. Just a personal preference. I understand that for some climates/applications this may not be a realistic attitude.
[...] the SE has a great sweet spot and a tack sharp view to the edges, that the EII does
not have.
I've seen this kind of argument too many times and finally I must ask: what is accomplished by saying binocular X is sharp edge to edge compared to binocular Y while knowing that X's apparent field of view is full 10 degrees smaller than that of Y? I mean, obviously one can make a binocular that's sharp edge to edge by cutting off the unsharp bits - what does this prove exactly?
 
I see Jan's point for sure about field width and edge sharpness.

But I don't think it's that simple for the SE and EII. I think their eyepieces are fundamentally different, not just fitted with different field stops.

The SE gives a lot of people trouble with blackouts, despite its modestly wide 60deg apparent field. (I have experienced this with the 10x42 SE, which has the same eyepieces.) I think that in achieving that exemplary field sharpness, the designers made a compromise, and accepted some "spherical aberration of the exit pupil", or varying eye relief for varying viewing angle.

The EII's field is not only wider and more blurred at the edge, but despite its great width, is famously easy and comfortable to view. I've never seen reports of blackout problems with the EII.

The Fujinon 8x30 by the way, is by all accounts (I'll include/namedrop Holger and Henry Link here as concurring) just as wide and well corrected as the SE, but gives no particular blackout problems. It's issues are not optical, but its ungainly IF clunkyness.

Johnathan,
I saw Rosy Finches above 13,000 feet on Mt. Shavano, and on top of Mt. Yale (about 14,300) this summer. Hey, summer's easy.
Ron

PS everybody: I'm sorry for derailing this perfectly good thread into the irrelevancies of IF, elevation, precipitation, and birds. I love Nikons, really, and I'll shut up now.
 
Last edited:
I see Jan's point for sure about field width and edge sharpness.

But I don't think it's that simple for the SE and EII. I think their eyepieces are fundamentally different, not just fitted with different field stops.

The SE gives a lot of people trouble with blackouts, despite its modestly wide 60deg apparent field. (I have experienced this with the 10x42 SE, which has the same eyepieces.) I think that in achieving that exemplary field sharpness, the designers made a compromise, and accepted some "spherical aberration of the exit pupil", or varying eye relief for varying viewing angle.

The EII's field is not only wider and more blurred at the edge, but despite its great width, is famously easy and comfortable to view. I've never seen reports of blackout problems with the EII.

Agreed. I´ve owned multiple samples of each (SE and EII, the latter in 8x and 10x). I find it impossible to say which I "prefer". They are fundamentally different beasts, even if optically they are very close to each other. The EII is comfortable and panoramic, giving a relaxed and easy view, and with a pair of Bushwackers on, fine to hold. The SE´s don´t seem narrow in FOV, they´re about right, but they are more than simply a "cut-off" version of an EII. There is something really sharp and contrasty about them that I don´t have the expertise or vocabulary to describe, and they are a serious contender optically for my 8.5x42 Swarovisions, with similar edge sharpness, which I like, even if it is irrelevant to most folk. In fact, in one scenario, the SE´s outperform the SV´s, i.e. in low winter sun, looking generally towards the southern horizon, they exhibit significantly less glare than the SV´s. (I imagine in New Mexico, there´s no such thing as "low winter sun", but I thought there was no rain there either...). The SE´s are far more comfortable to hold because of the armouring. Both the EII´s and the SE´s suffer from that rather bizarre Nikon "pigeon-chested" hang, because of the position of the lanyard-attachments. Optically, both have their strengths, and it´s impossible to call. To get back to the OP´s question, I reckon the answer has already been given - if you have SE in 8x32 format, and you want to cover all the bases, aim for 1) a pair of Canon IS 15x50, and 2) a pair of Leica Ultravid 8x20. That should about do it.
 
Perhaps it's the climate or the way I use my binoculars or maybe I'm just plain weird but for me optical performance has always been Number One, with all that armouring stuff close to a complete irrelevancy. I'll always select an optically good but delicate binocular over a well-built but optically inferior one. Just a personal preference. I understand that for some climates/applications this may not be a realistic attitude.

I've seen this kind of argument too many times and finally I must ask: what is accomplished by saying binocular X is sharp edge to edge compared to binocular Y while knowing that X's apparent field of view is full 10 degrees smaller than that of Y? I mean, obviously one can make a binocular that's sharp edge to edge by cutting off the unsharp bits - what does this prove exactly?

Jan:
It seems the point that I was making is that I prefer the SE over the EII, I
own both and I find the SE easier to hold steady, and handling is important also.
As you reference,I am surely hoping you don't think the EII is better optically than
the SE.

Don't worry, I am not planning to get rid of either anytime soon.

Now, for dollar spent, the EII, has to be one of the greatest values there is.
So, I guess some prefer one over the other. And that is what keeps the
forum full of posts.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
Agreed. I´ve owned multiple samples of each (SE and EII, the latter in 8x and 10x). I find it impossible to say which I "prefer". They are fundamentally different beasts, even if optically they are very close to each other. The EII is comfortable and panoramic, giving a relaxed and easy view, and with a pair of Bushwackers on, fine to hold. The SE´s don´t seem narrow in FOV, they´re about right, but they are more than simply a "cut-off" version of an EII. There is something really sharp and contrasty about them that I don´t have the expertise or vocabulary to describe, and they are a serious contender optically for my 8.5x42 Swarovisions, with similar edge sharpness, which I like, even if it is irrelevant to most folk. In fact, in one scenario, the SE´s outperform the SV´s, i.e. in low winter sun, looking generally towards the southern horizon, they exhibit significantly less glare than the SV´s. (I imagine in New Mexico, there´s no such thing as "low winter sun", but I thought there was no rain there either...). The SE´s are far more comfortable to hold because of the armouring. Both the EII´s and the SE´s suffer from that rather bizarre Nikon "pigeon-chested" hang, because of the position of the lanyard-attachments. Optically, both have their strengths, and it´s impossible to call. To get back to the OP´s question, I reckon the answer has already been given - if you have SE in 8x32 format, and you want to cover all the bases, aim for 1) a pair of Canon IS 15x50, and 2) a pair of Leica Ultravid 8x20. That should about do it.

Sancho:
Good to hear your experience, as a user of both, now it seems you use the
SE, and not the EII, as your comparison to the Swaro. SV. I agree the SE does handle difficult lighting conditions very well, and I think it also "edges" out the Nikon EDG in my experience also, in those conditions.

But, now the question I have, in your last comments, to cover all the bases,
you have left out the Swaro. So that means the SE would be sufficient
to cover the 8x. Good to hear that, it will be much easier on the budget.;)

Jerry
 
The EII's field is not only wider and more blurred at the edge, but despite its great width, is famously easy and comfortable to view.
I read somewhere EII has some field curvature, hence the corresponding annoyance factor depends on one's eye accommodation range. Younger people may barely notice it. I verified it by looking to the field edge and making it fully sharp by turning the focusing ring. This naturally throws the center out of focus a bit.

If the lack of sharpness was due to astigmatism (as it's apparently the case with the Zeiss Victory FL) then it won't be correctable this way.
 
But, now the question I have, in your last comments, to cover all the bases,
you have left out the Swaro. So that means the SE would be sufficient
to cover the 8x. Good to hear that, it will be much easier on the budget.;)

Jerry

Good point, Jerry. If total waterproofing isn´t an issue, I think the SV´s don´t necessarily have a place in the "Holy Trinity" (compacts, top-class 8x, and Image-Stablisied "big eyes"). In most conditions, the SV´s outperform the SE´s in detail, but I´m not sure if that´s simply because of the extra mag. It´s up to the user to decide if waterproofing/build, easier oculars, brightness in low light and superb after-sales of the SVs are deciding factors, and worth the significant extra money. (Note that on this side of the Atlantic, Nikon after-sales is good, but not superb - we don´t get the "no-fault warranty" you guys have). I got used to the eye-placement of the SE´s; if I were sure they would withstand the climate here (which banjaxed a pair of Bushnell Elite 7x26 I bought recently), I´d be happy with them as the "all-purpose" bino.
 
Rained on? In New Mexico? Bang goes another one of my illusions. The Hensoldt are readily available on e-bay, in various conditions, ranging from 100 to 200 euro. The Chinese Mil 8x30 seem to be only available from Italian dealers. They look very interesting, especially if they´re approaching the same league as the EII/SE´s, and waterproof to boot. I get rained on a lot.

It doesn't rain in Ireland does it?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top