• 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.

What if...... (1 Viewer)

I have the EL SV 8.5X42, Noctivid 8X42, and have owned the SF 8X42. IMHO the Noctivid 8X42 is very much competitive with both, the SF is however is clearly the winner with respect to FOV, and both the SV and SF are flat field. If one prefers a flat field, then go with the SV/SF, if not, the Noctivid. At this level it is clearly an ergonomic preference issue.

My favorite Flat field is the Nikon EDG, no one does a flat field glass like Nikon, no one, just my 2cts.

Andy W.
 
Last edited:
dries1 said:
...My favorite Flat field the Nikon EDG, no one does a flat field glass like Nikon, no one, just my 2cts...
Click to expand...

Agreed that Nikon can do a wonderful flat field (and wonderfully low astigmatism) binocular, but not all such Nikon binoculars are equally good. Ever try a Nikon 10x42 LX? Major rolling ball along with Nikon's equivalent of the "Absam ring".

--AP
 
Alexis Powell said:
Agreed that Nikon can do a wonderful flat field (and wonderfully low astigmatism) binocular, but not all such Nikon binoculars are equally good. Ever try a Nikon 10x42 LX? Major rolling ball along with Nikon's equivalent of the "Absam ring".

--AP
Click to expand...

AFAIK and been told by the Nikon rep in Holland the EDG series, both in scopes and bins, are made by Nikon. All the other (the latest Porro wasn't there at that time) models are outsourced to OEM's. That explains the variation in quality.

Jan
 
Nikon LX

You mean this one below LX10X42, I also recently picked up one in 8X42. They are the heaviest 10X42 and 8X42 I own. I have no problems with either of them. Still enjoy the views.

Jan,

I believe Nikon actually made the glass them selves for the EDGs, and likely for these LX also.

Andy W.
 

Attachments

  • DSCF2429.jpg
    DSCF2429.jpg
    221.1 KB · Views: 36
  • Nikon HG 8X42ed1.jpg
    Nikon HG 8X42ed1.jpg
    93.8 KB · Views: 37
dries1 said:
You mean this one below LX10X42, I also recently picked up one in 8X42. They are the heaviest 10X42 and 8X42 I own. I have no problems with either of them. Still enjoy the views...
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the one, and yes they are heavy, and unfortunately a bit high in CA. Otherwise, great bins with superb eye-relief and close focus in a 10x (esp. against the competition of the day). You must be very immune to rolling ball. I use the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV without even noticing rolling ball most of the time, but it gets my attention in the Nikon 10x42 LX even when I try to ignore it. More bothersome to me is the low point in resolution about 4/5 of the way from the center to the edge.

--AP
 
dries1 said:
You mean this one below LX10X42, I also recently picked up one in 8X42. They are the heaviest 10X42 and 8X42 I own. I have no problems with either of them. Still enjoy the views.

Jan,

I believe Nikon actually made the glass them selves for the EDGs, and likely for these LX also.

Andy W.
Click to expand...

Hi Andy,

Can't help you here.
Nikon and we departed some years ago and this is what us was told.
In that time we sold this bin also.

Jan
 
Alexis Powell said:
Yes, that's the one, and yes they are heavy, and unfortunately a bit high in CA. Otherwise, great bins with superb eye-relief and close focus in a 10x (esp. against the competition of the day). You must be very immune to rolling ball.
Click to expand...

Same here. I find the 8x32 and the 10x32 of that series a lot better with regard to CA and rolling ball.

BTW, I'm quite sure these binoculars were also made by Nikon, just like the original Fieldscopes (with the exception of the ED50) and the Nikon SE. I'm also sure that the Nikon Monarch HG and the Monarch scopes were at least designed by Nikon. They are not typical run-of-the-mill OEM products. The angled Monarch scopes for instance also seem to have the oversized Schmidt prism that was so typical of the Fieldscopes.

Hermann
 
jan van daalen said:
AFAIK and been told by the Nikon rep in Holland the EDG series, both in scopes and bins, are made by Nikon. All the other (the latest Porro wasn't there at that time) models are outsourced to OEM's. That explains the variation in quality.

Jan
Click to expand...

Hmm...I've no information as to whether Nikon's binoculars up through the EDG (whether flat field, or not) were made in a Nikon-owned factory, but what _is_ clear is that they are (to my recollection) _all_ unique-to-Nikon designs, with no obvious relationship to any other binoculars, whether with respect to their glass design or to their housing components. They must have been made to Nikon's specifications, so I can't accept differences in manufacturing facility as an explanation for differences in the exact details of their flat-field performance.

--AP
 
When I was a kid I was visiting my fathers hometown in Enschede Holland, we were out side and there was a binocular on a table, I got curious and picked them up and remembered looking at a tree trunk which was straight but looked curved looking through the glass, (there is a pic in the first book by Bill Cook explaining distortion which reminded me of it).
My uncle Franz says now after you focus turn really fast while looking through the binocular, I did and will never forget it, very uncomfortable and dizzy at the same time.
The only glass recently that gave me a partial memory of that day was panning with with the SLC 15X56, not to the level but a reminder of it.

Andy W.
 
Hi Alexis (post #148),

It’s a widely mistaken belief that the premium Nikon roof prisms have unique optical designs (and it’s what I too initially thought)

The reasons are because:
- the cross-section views seem to show the use of fewer but thicker elements than in other premium designs, and
- Nikon does not state the number of lenses in their designs

However, I’ve managed to find some cut away images that show more detail and that somewhat disappointingly they are very conventional designs!

In chronological order:
A) HG - showing only groups
B) HG - lenses and groups
C) HGL - lenses and groups (i.e. the light weight version of the HG, with the same optical construction)
D) EDG - showing only groups


As can be seen the HG/ HGL construction is:
Objective 4 lenses in 3 groups (2, 1 + 1 focusing); Eyepiece 6 lenses in 4 groups (1, 2, 2, 1)

And the EDG construction is:
Objective 4 lenses in 3 groups (1, 2 + 1 focusing); Eyepiece 6 lenses in 4 groups (1, 2, 2, 1)

So notably there is a reordering of the objective construction. And most likely the details of the lenses (thickness, curvature, composition and spacing) differ between the two lines


John


p.s. the HG is also known as the LX in the North American market
 

Attachments

  • 8x42 HG - showing lenses.jpg
    8x42 HG - showing lenses.jpg
    83.3 KB · Views: 38
  • 8x42 HGL - with lenses.jpg
    8x42 HGL - with lenses.jpg
    126.7 KB · Views: 38
  • HG - typical cross section.jpg
    HG - typical cross section.jpg
    107.6 KB · Views: 31
  • EDG - typical cross section.jpg
    EDG - typical cross section.jpg
    56.2 KB · Views: 43
Last edited:
John:

Your post is not news, but what should be brought out is how Nikon has designed these binoculars with
lens differences, coatings of lenses, prisms and all the rest, these are unique, just like most all binoculars
are different. If you have any experience with the top Nikon binocular models, you would understand.

That is what that is important, the end result.

Jerry
 
Hi Jerry,

I'm unaware of those details - especially the lens differences - as I've not seen them mentioned elsewhere.
So could you provide some more information? I'm sure that others would also be interested.


John
 
Last edited:
John:

There are lots of things that binocular mfrs. use in their designs, in simple terms with lenses, different glass
types, shapes, spacing and coatings.

Binoculars are not all identical to each other, I suppose you should know that.

Jerry
 
dries1 said:
When I was a kid I was visiting my fathers hometown in Enschede Holland, we were out side and there was a binocular on a table, I got curious and picked them up and remembered looking at a tree trunk which was straight but looked curved looking through the glass, (there is a pic in the first book by Bill Cook explaining distortion which reminded me of it).
My uncle Franz says now after you focus turn really fast while looking through the binocular, I did and will never forget it, very uncomfortable and dizzy at the same time.
The only glass recently that gave me a partial memory of that day was panning with with the SLC 15X56, not to the level but a reminder of it.
Click to expand...
For what little I can remember (quick view), the SLC 15x56 does not present any "curvature of the trunks". Indeed, it seems to me that the cards indicate it as one of the bino alpha with the lowest distortion, but for this reason with a very evident "globe effect".
 
Hi Jerry (posts #151 & 153),

It seems that my initial post offended you, though I can’t see why

While you may have known of the correct construction, I’ve not seen it accurately described anywhere. So I think that it is news for most

Even the normally astute Roger Vine (my first stop for quality reviews), was misled by the standard EDG image
See the grab from his review of the 8x42, at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/NikonEDG8x42.htm
Roger assumed that the EDG had 9 glass components per side (i.e. 2 prisms plus 7 lenses)

We’re all aware that manufacturers produce variations on the commonly used optical patterns
However, I can’t see where I either said or implied that the Nikon’s were identical to those of other manufacturers

Between identical and unique there is a world of possibilities. And the Nikons seem to fit comfortably within the middle range


John
 

Attachments

  • Scope Views 8x42 EDG.jpg
    Scope Views 8x42 EDG.jpg
    195.5 KB · Views: 38
Last edited:
Judging from the review it looks like Roger Vine didn't do any better counting the optical elements in the Zeiss HT or the Zeiss SF eyepiece. I can understand undercounts when cementings are not clearly shown, but how did he overcount the lenses in the Zeiss models? I suppose some spaces must have been misinterpreted as lenses.

The official Nikon WX cutaway diagram I've seen is certain to be a problem since no effort was made to show cementings. If in doubt I think it's safest to assume that lenses in diagrams that look as thick as cemented doublets are cemented doublets.

Henry
 
Last edited:
Hi Henry,

In relation to Roger’s comment in the screen grab as to the HT having 14 glass elements per side:

It seems that at the time when Roger looked at the HT cross-section - which shows a vertical slice through the lenses (see the copy from his HT 10x54 review),
he saw it as if it was a cut away view - that is, showing an exterior view of the lenses

So the small curved shapes in the image were seen as extra lenses (rather than the rear face of concave surfaces)
If you count on that basis you get a total of 14
- - - -
And as you indicate, the same mistake is also in the SF 10x42 review at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissVictory10x42SF.htm
(see a corresponding SF cross section)


And where there is a lack of better information, your 'If in doubt' advice does seem the best way to go


John


p.s. as I've indicated before I have a great admiration for Roger's work, and it's particularly valuable for the insights about larger binoculars
but the above demonstrates that we all make mistakes and that some are bound to slip through, especially if one does not have the luxury of a suitably experienced editor!
 

Attachments

  • HT cross section.jpg
    HT cross section.jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 46
  • SF cross section.jpg
    SF cross section.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 55
Last edited:
Alexis Powell said:
Hmm...I've no information as to whether Nikon's binoculars up through the EDG (whether flat field, or not) were made in a Nikon-owned factory, but what _is_ clear is that they are (to my recollection) _all_ unique-to-Nikon designs, with no obvious relationship to any other binoculars, whether with respect to their glass design or to their housing components. They must have been made to Nikon's specifications, so I can't accept differences in manufacturing facility as an explanation for differences in the exact details of their flat-field performance.

--AP
Click to expand...

Hi Alexis,

What I was trying to point out was, that the EDG series were made inhouse and the other models outsourced which could explain the sample variation. They are made accordingly to Nikon specs, but are they? That is always the tricky thing with outsourcing.

Jan
 
John A Roberts said:
Hi Henry,

In relation to Roger’s comment in the screen grab as to the HT having 14 glass elements per side:

It seems that at the time when Roger looked at the HT cross-section - which shows a vertical slice through the lenses (see the copy from his HT 10x54 review),
he saw it as if it was a cut away view - that is, showing an exterior view of the lenses

So the small curved shapes in the image were seen as extra lenses (rather than the rear face of concave surfaces)
If you count on that basis you get a total of 14
- - - -
And as you indicate, the same mistake is also in the SF 10x42 review at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissVictory10x42SF.htm
(see a corresponding SF cross section)


And where there is a lack of better information, your 'If in doubt' advice does seem the best way to go


John


p.s. as I've indicated before I have a great admiration for Roger's work, and it's particularly valuable for the insights about larger binoculars
but the above demonstrates that we all make mistakes and that some are bound to slip through, especially if one does not have the luxury of a suitably experienced editor!
Click to expand...

Thanks John, I had forgotten about those somewhat misleading blue diagrams. I think I recall some discussion about how to correctly read them when they first appeared. Most curious to me is that the ocular in the SF diagram, while accurate as to the number of lenses, is quite inaccurate as to the curves and spacings, as you can see from a photo of the real thing supplied by Jan. Was that done intentionally so as not to provide accurate details to the competition?

Henry
 

Attachments

  • SF Cutaway.jpg
    SF Cutaway.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 54
  • Doorsnede ocular Zeiss SF doc size.jpg
    Doorsnede ocular Zeiss SF doc size.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 82
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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.

Similar threads

O
Passport Warranty - what are the rules?
Replies
3
Views
772
Wilbr
W
K
Duovid 10/15 x 50 coatings question
Replies
6
Views
912
ticl2184
ticl2184
etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
S
Leica view comparison idea...
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
LucaPCP
L
G
Leica Demo Shipment Just Arrived
Replies
0
Views
505
gr8fuldoug
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top