• 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.

Nikon EDG Sports Line - Dead Or Alive ? When discontinued ? (1 Viewer)

I had those! I returned them to Zen Ray and they sent me a free pair. The 2nd pair weren't any good either! I sold them for about $300.00. Those were the good old day's when Zen Ray was a "Big Dog" in the binocular arena and Charles was on the forum all the time. All this talk about how good EDG's are made me pick a pair up from Japan. You can get them from Japan for $600.00 less than in the US. I haven't tried the 8x32 EDG in awhile so I thought I would compare them to my SV 8x32's. The SV's are going to have the FOV advantage and edge sharpness advantage but I expect the EDG to have the glare advantage. The 32mm SV's can have a little glare and the 10x32 SV was worse than the 8x32 SV. The bigger SV's have less glare like the 42mm or 50mm. I wrote to Nikon asking them if the EDG was discontinued and they haven't replied yet.
 
Last edited:
The good news is if we all go over to Chuck's house to bird, he has enough loaners for all of us! ;-)

Dibs on the 7x42 Edg...

-Bill

Of course! Chuck's Binocular Loaner Service guarantees you a binocular as good or better than you are used to!

I get the Zen Rays!:-O

I don't even loan them out because that focus adjustment is so bad! I'm really saving those Zen-Rays in case Chosen ever comes to Alabama! LOL!
 
Last edited:
This was the email and answer I received from Nikon Support. I asked Nikon if the EDG's were discontinued.

"Your question was answered.
Hello Dennis,
Your support question has been answered by one of our team members.
Question details:
Are the Nikon EDG Binoculars discontinued?
Created: 09/20/2019 by Email | Reference #: 03745698
Response from Gabriela M.
Thank you for contacting Nikon. The EDG binoculars have been discontinued for over 7 years. For further questions or concerns, feel free to call us in at 1-800-NIKON-US.

Regards,
Gabii M

Nikon Tech Support"
 
Tom, anxiously awaiting any information you might obtain from your source.

Mike

Gwen & Mike,

My source is a personal friend who has very strong links with Nikon. He has made enquiries for me and should soon come back with an answer privately. I should prefer not to share the answer out of respect for his position, however. I am sorry and hope you understand my own position of trust here.

Tom
 
To cheer you up after my 'I may know but shan't tell' post: in case anyone interested hasn't seen the Nikon UK website, the following EDG models are still listed:

EDG 10x32 is the only 32 listed;
EDG 7, 8 & 10x42 are all listed. So of the alphas (Nikon isn't a beta surely?) that's two manufacturers still offering a 7x. Leica with Ultravid HD Plus and Nikon with the EDG.

The prices go up from £1,889 thru £2,159 moving from the 10x32 thru the 42s to the 10x42.

A lot of money but if you like Nikon (which I do) it is on a par with Swarovski and without getting into the flat field pros and cons I suppose with Nikon you do get a flat field with just a tiny touch of 3D at the edges to mitigate any 'Globuseffekt'. Anyway, that's what is still officially on the menu over here.

Enjoy!

Tom
 
I haven't tried the 8x32 EDG in awhile so I thought I would compare them to my SV 8x32's. The SV's are going to have the FOV advantage and edge sharpness advantage but I expect the EDG to have the glare advantage. The 32mm SV's can have a little glare and the 10x32 SV was worse than the 8x32 SV.

Here's my prediction on the outcome: The Nikon 8x42 MHG wins. Not the EDG, not the SV...

But you're welcome to disagree. ;-)
 
Here's my prediction on the outcome: The Nikon 8x42 MHG wins. Not the EDG, not the SV...

But you're welcome to disagree. ;-)
My Nikon is a 10x42 HG so that is not really a good comparison. I think the SV 8x32 and the EDG 8x32 are well matched. They are probably about equal with each having their strong points. With these two it will come down to personal preference. The SV will have the FOV and sharp edge advantage and the EDG will have the glare advantage. SV's are really good binoculars but the smaller apertures can have glare problems. They are both pretty good binoculars.
 
Out of curiosity , who here owns a Nikon EDG Sports Product ? Does anyone know when Nikon actually stopped their manufacturing ?. There still is a ample supply from Japan dealers on Ebay selling new binoculars and spotting scopes/eyepieces at very reduced prices. I own a EDG product. I also know many here have their own personal opinions of why they do or do not care to own a Nikon EDG Binocular or Scope. For those of you who own a EDG, I know why ... it’s the same reason I own one. So we do not need anyone’s opinion of why they think their favorite Binocular or Scope is better. I am just interested in how many members here own a Nikon EDG product and when they were actually discontinued. Thanks, Gwen
Hi, they are still available in Germany :

1: https://www.nikon.de/de_DE/products...tics&Subnav1Param=Binoculars&Subnav2Param=edg

2: https://www.optik-pro.de/fernglaeser/20/m,Nikon/a,Fernglaeser.Allgemein.Serie=EDG
 
My Nikon is a 10x42 HG so that is not really a good comparison. I think the SV 8x32 and the EDG 8x32 are well matched. They are probably about equal with each having their strong points. With these two it will come down to personal preference. The SV will have the FOV and sharp edge advantage and the EDG will have the glare advantage. SV's are really good binoculars but the smaller apertures can have glare problems. They are both pretty good binoculars.

As an SV owner, I'm looking forward to the results of your test. Should be interesting...
 
As an SV owner, I'm looking forward to the results of your test. Should be interesting...
Well that post was almost 1.5 years ago so it's likely that the results of the test have flip-flopped about a half dozen times in the intervening time :p

For what it's worth, I much prefer the 10x32 EDG to the 10x32 SV. The 10x32 SV has severe AMD, with the correction starting much closer to the center so the "rolling ball" is very obvious when panning. The EDG 10x32 has a much more "natural" distortion profile, it's a "flat field" but retains a bit of pincushion in the middle and the straightening/AMD is much closer to the edge of the field stop, so it's not nearly as distracting when panning.

And the EDG has much better color saturation, with deeper colors and a rich, warm feel to the image. Switching back and forth the Swaro felt a bit "flat" and washed out vs the EDG.

Both of the above are more personal taste vs objectively better/worse. Some prefer the cooler, crisper look of the Swaro and the more aggressively corrected rectilinear distortion, I prefer the richer/deeper colors and reduced "rolling ball" of the EDG.

Obviously there are also ergonomic differences, the focus knobs feel very different, but again it's personal taste.
 
Well that post was almost 1.5 years ago so it's likely that the results of the test have flip-flopped about a half dozen times in the intervening time :p

For what it's worth, I much prefer the 10x32 EDG to the 10x32 SV. The 10x32 SV has severe AMD, with the correction starting much closer to the center so the "rolling ball" is very obvious when panning. The EDG 10x32 has a much more "natural" distortion profile, it's a "flat field" but retains a bit of pincushion in the middle and the straightening/AMD is much closer to the edge of the field stop, so it's not nearly as distracting when panning.

And the EDG has much better color saturation, with deeper colors and a rich, warm feel to the image. Switching back and forth the Swaro felt a bit "flat" and washed out vs the EDG.

Both of the above are more personal taste vs objectively better/worse. Some prefer the cooler, crisper look of the Swaro and the more aggressively corrected rectilinear distortion, I prefer the richer/deeper colors and reduced "rolling ball" of the EDG.

Obviously there are also ergonomic differences, the focus knobs feel very different, but again it's personal taste.
I really need to start noting the dates on some of these threads!
Thanks for the information. Its interesting to see the differences between mfgs or are they really design choices?
Can you explain what AMD means? Also, are there any references that explain the technical details of binoculars, lenses etc? I would like to learn more about this.
thanks
z
 
I had to do a double-take there myself. I've suggested (in the BF upgrade section) that the forum should draw a distinctive line to indicate when someone has reactivated a thread more than a year old. (Some other forums don't allow this at all.)

AMD = Angular Magnification Distortion. If you search on that you'll find repeated discussions here. Very briefly, it refers to the way shapes are distorted (radially compressed) as an object approaches the edge of the field when pincushion rectilinear distortion is low or absent, which is a trade-off. And not to be confused with field flatness, as often happens because Swarovision involves both.
 
Last edited:
I really need to start noting the dates on some of these threads!
Thanks for the information. Its interesting to see the differences between mfgs or are they really design choices?
Can you explain what AMD means? Also, are there any references that explain the technical details of binoculars, lenses etc? I would like to learn more about this.
thanks
z
Ha, sorry, I assume people familiar with the jargon around here.

On the first question, yes they are really design choices. With optical design, as with many engineering problems, there's a balance of trade-offs. It's impossible to 100% eliminate distortion, so different manufacturers make different choices. Same is true for color balance, different brands optimize for slightly different "looks" that are relatively consistent among different models.

As a very sweeping generalization:
  • modern Swarovski tends to be the most neutral and bright due to flat, high transmission across most of the visible spectrum, but with slightly reduced contrast and saturation (due to a falloff in the deep red wavelengths);
  • Leica and Nikon EDG tend to be a bit warmer and more saturated and contrasty (due to extended transmission well into the deep red);
  • Zeiss tends to be a bit cooler/greener, which aids subjective brightness and low light performance as they optimize for the wavelengths in the center of the visible spectrum where our eyes are most sensitive.

On the last question, as tenex noted AMD = Angular Magnification Distortion; this article covers it well (you can skip the math equations if that's scary, the description and images are very clear): http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html

Because Swarovski aggressively corrects curvature so that lines appear straight across the field, it creates a phenomenon colloquially termed "rolling ball" when panning where our eyes/brain perceive space as curving over a round surface. At the opposite end of the spectrum are binoculars with a ton of pincushion, when it gets really excessive you can get an opposite effect "rolling bowl" :p

People vary in how sensitive they are to these effects, but IMO the Swarovski is too aggressive, and the Nikon EDG strikes a better balance between "flat field" and having it look unnatural. Others differ, that's why we have choices!
 
Ha, sorry, I assume people familiar with the jargon around here.

On the first question, yes they are really design choices. With optical design, as with many engineering problems, there's a balance of trade-offs. It's impossible to 100% eliminate distortion, so different manufacturers make different choices. Same is true for color balance, different brands optimize for slightly different "looks" that are relatively consistent among different models.

As a very sweeping generalization:
  • modern Swarovski tends to be the most neutral and bright due to flat, high transmission across most of the visible spectrum, but with slightly reduced contrast and saturation (due to a falloff in the deep red wavelengths);
  • Leica and Nikon EDG tend to be a bit warmer and more saturated and contrasty (due to extended transmission well into the deep red);
  • Zeiss tends to be a bit cooler/greener, which aids subjective brightness and low light performance as they optimize for the wavelengths in the center of the visible spectrum where our eyes are most sensitive.

On the last question, as tenex noted AMD = Angular Magnification Distortion; this article covers it well (you can skip the math equations if that's scary, the description and images are very clear): http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html

Because Swarovski aggressively corrects curvature so that lines appear straight across the field, it creates a phenomenon colloquially termed "rolling ball" when panning where our eyes/brain perceive space as curving over a round surface. At the opposite end of the spectrum are binoculars with a ton of pincushion, when it gets really excessive you can get an opposite effect "rolling bowl" :p

People vary in how sensitive they are to these effects, but IMO the Swarovski is too aggressive, and the Nikon EDG strikes a better balance between "flat field" and having it look unnatural. Others differ, that's why we have choices!
Thank you! This is very helpful as is the link (I dont mind the math either:)). I'm enjoying learning more about this.

I do notice the "rolling ball" in my ELs IF I look for it, otherwise I dont really see it. Interesting comparison for me is my wifes Leica Trinovids BA...She has had them for at least 25 years or so and they really are nice optics. The more I pay attention to the details, the more I can see the differences in the two binos.

z
 
People vary in how sensitive they are to these effects, but IMO the Swarovski is too aggressive, and the Nikon EDG strikes a better balance between "flat field" and having it look unnatural. Others differ, that's why we have choices!

Hi,

it should be noted, that field flattening and the introduction of some amount of pincushion distortion into an eyepiece design to avoid the "rolling ball" or globe effect are quite different measures taken by manufacturers to improve the view through a pair of binoculars.

Field flattening is the introduction of an extra element (usually called a Smyths corrector) in order to eliminate an aberration called field curvature. Field curvature means that the image plane of most telescope objective designs is not flat but curved which leads to the effect that if you are at best focus in the center of the field, the edges will be out of focus, but can be brought focus (if they can't be brought to focus, other off-axis aberrations are at fault).
The EDG is usually regarded as the binocular line with the best field flattening, Swaro EL is a close contender but used to suffer from so-called Absam rings, a zone of non-optimal focus between center field and edges - not sure if they managed to iron it out in the redeign of the EL line or in the NL.

Angular Magnification Distortion (or AMD although that acronym is rarely used here) is introduced by some manufacturers to eliminate the globe effect when panning with the binoculars - at the expense of introducing some pincushion distortion.
The Nikon EDG has not a lot of pincushion distortion and can show the globe effect quite well, the Swaro EL on the other hand has quite aggressive pincushion distortion to remove it - at the expense of showing parallel lines visibly curved.

Joachim
 
Last edited:
I've come around to the view that the best target for analyzing distortion is not a straight line or lines but rather a small circle subtending about 2-3º of apparent field.

The change in shape of the circle as it is moved from the field center to the edge tells you everything about the development of AMD as well as the amount and type of rectilinear distortion. As long as the circle remains a perfect circle as it moves toward the edge you can be sure that AMD is zero and the amount of pincushion is conforming to the "circle condition" in the linked article by Holger Merlitz.

If the circle gradually becomes horizontally compressed you know there is insufficient pincushion to fully correct AMD. If the compression becomes very strong at the edge the distortion may have reached the tangent condition in which case lines will be straight near the edge, or it may even exceed the tangent condition so that there is barrel distortion at the edge.

If the circle becomes horizontally stretched then you know the amount of pincushion has exceeded the circle condition so that positive AMD has changed to negative AMD.

The Swaro EL, NL and the Zeiss SF have a compound "mustache" distortion that consists of "circle condition" pincushion in the inner 70% of the field, which then reverses and precipitously drops to the tangent condition near the field edge (or in the case of the SF seems to go slightly into barrel distortion at the very edge).

Henry
 
Last edited:
Thank you Henry, your comparison threads with images of the circles have really framed my thinking on these matters, and I usually try to speak of these things in terms of "compression" rather than "AMD".

I don't know if you have any thoughts on this, but in my experience the biggest factor in how bothersome the distortion is relates to how close to the center axis the deviation from the "circle condition" starts (i.e. at what point you begin to see compression or stretching). The test you suggest has become a staple for me, and it's something that's easy to check quickly in the field by finding a regular geometric shape and moving it from the center to the edge. And how quickly that compression/stretching is visible seems to correlate closely with how noticeable the "rolling ball/bowl" is when panning.

This old post of yours was super helpful in sorting this out: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/distortion-in-alpha-binoculars.161309/

I also have the Leica 7x42 UVHD and it clearly has the "extra pincushion" that you noted in the 8x42 in that thread. Because it's noticeable so close to the center axis, it creates a bit of "rolling bowl" effect when panning. It's my primary criticism of that binocular, which I otherwise love... a bit wider FOV and turning the pincushion dial down a couple notches and it would be virtually perfect for me.

When I recently compared the Swaro SV 10x32 to my Nikon EDG 10x32 the difference in compression was something I noticed quickly -- shapes begin to be visibly compressed not far from the center axis, and are severely compressed by the edge. Whereas with the EDG, the compression only becomes noticeable relatively close to the edge, and isn't as severe at the extreme edge. This correlated well to how "natural" the panning behavior felt; whereas I experience almost no "rolling ball" sensation with the EDG, with the Swaro it was obvious (to be fair I was also specifically looking for it).

According to Holger's chart (below) the 10x32 has stronger distortion than the other SV models other than the 42mm versions. I'd be curious to know where the EDG models would fall on this chart, I suspect close to where the 10x42 Noctovid sits.
1611777751935.png
 

Attachments

  • 1611777204491.png
    1611777204491.png
    765.9 KB · Views: 13
I have 10 pair and I thought that was a lot! Do you fish in that lake? The Optics for Birding Website says the EDG's have been discontinued.

"Nikon has discontinued the EDG II binoculars, but a few are still available. If you've had them on your wish list, now is the time to act before they are all gone."
https://www.optics4birding.com/nikon-edg-42-mm-binoculars-review.aspx
Hi Dennis,

In Britain Nikon is still listing 10x32, 7x42, 8x42 and 10x42 EDGs available new. The 8x32 was already gone over a year ago i think (when I got my 7x42). Prices are high, ranging from £1,889 for the 10x in 32 and £2,159 in 42. Prices unchanged for at least 18-20 months.

The handling all round fits me well, not just the smooth focuser. For anyone with EDGs or who has read about flimsy fall out objective covers, Nikon must have addressed this problem as mine stay in once you have the knack - no complaints at all.

Tom
 
Warning! This thread is more than 3 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