HG or SE. That is the question (1 Viewer)

Leif said:

Gunvald: Wow. An interesting post!

Click to expand...

Here, here - I'd missed your posting, Gunvald. I'm not myself yet convinced that absolute edge sharpness is so vital as we never look at the periphery without naturally moving the bins slightly on a very wide fov. Edge to edge sharpness is, I think, more of a first impressions marketing tool that sells optics but which is not at all useful in the field if it means a less wide fov. In practical usage terms, I think I'd rather trade some slight peripheral loss of acuity for the widest possible fov.

Gunvald, My hat's off to you. Your post is model of careful comparison, truly useful to the rest of us. Henry

Ahum, thank you for those kind words!

When I look at my posting now, it seems like an awful lot of words, I must have been slightly exalted when I wrote it, I guess.

I have now become a very satisfied owner of a pair of SE 8x32s. I have seen their strenghts and also their few weaknesses against a a true classic reference, the Zeiss 7x42s. In the end I decided that given the combination of low weight, the mechanical and optical quality, and a very good price level, the SEs simply have to be quite phenomenal binoculars.

And many agree with you across different continents - let's hope that they allow you some fine views of interesting birds, Gunvald! No doubt, you will let us all know when something interesting is espied!

I own both of these bins and I can tell you that I always prefer taking the SEs out than the HGs. There is something about these quirky little porros that is difficult to define - perhaps its the contradiction between how they look, and how they are to look through. Its definitely something more than you can rationally put your finger on. However, when walking along coastlines or in dusty, rainy, humid conditions, their is a lot of comfort in knowing your investment is sealed, and the superb view you are seeing will be more or less sustained over the years - a level of comfort I dont have with my SEs.

About a year ago I was pondering the same question ( SE vs HG). I chose the 8 x 32 HG (Venturer LX over here) on the basis of weatherproofness and the screw up/down eyecups. I wear glasses all the time and I could just picture the folded-down rubber eyecups of the SE's perishing from UV.

My experience with the HG bins has been overwhelmingly positive. I love the wide field-of-view and the fast and silky focus mechanism. For following acrobatic birds like Barn Swallows they are outstanding!

If I actually go looking for the peripheral CA fringeing I can find it, but in use I never notice it.

My one gripe with the HG's is the way they hang around my neck. The location of the strap hangers makes them sit on your chest at an odd angle, which is annoying if you're trying to cover ground quickly on foot.

This has got me wondering what is the practical limit on the field-of-view in binoculars. Could they be made with 10 or 12 degree field? I'd go for that sooner than for higher mag power!

Robert, I agree with you - The 8x32hg are outstanding roof bins. I often watch sea birds from the top of cliffs sweeping over the ocean, and I think the hg focusing mechanism is the best I have ever owned or tried. I am looking for another pair of waterproof bins and dont want to be the owner of another hg, but am finding that to my eyes, there is not much out there to beat them, at any price. The resolution, brightness and contrast do not cease to amaze me. CA is very apparent to me particularly when looking at white birds over a dark ocean, but all the roofs I have tried have the same issue. The leica ultravids seems marginally worse to my eyes and the swarovskis EL slightly better, but there is not much in it. The nikon SE are much better, but I dont like to carry them at the ocean.
You may be right about the hanging position of the hgs being poor, but I find all bins uncomfortable hanging on my chest when walking (and dont try running!) - perhaps the hg is slightly worse? I often end up wrapping the neckstrap around my wrist/hand, and simply carrying them in my hand - otherwise in a bag/rucksack.
My thinking on field of view is also leading me to consider a 7x bin. Could that be the answer? I notice the ultravid 7x also has greater resolution than the 8x according to one comparison.

scampo said:

Here, here - I'd missed your posting, Gunvald. I'm not myself yet convinced that absolute edge sharpness is so vital as we never look at the periphery without naturally moving the bins slightly on a very wide fov. Edge to edge sharpness is, I think, more of a first impressions marketing tool that sells optics but which is not at all useful in the field if it means a less wide fov. In practical usage terms, I think I'd rather trade some slight peripheral loss of acuity for the widest possible fov.

Click to expand...

I think overall sharpness is extremely important to the "total" viewing experience. I have a mid-priced pair of roofs that are extremely sharp in the centerfield, but are not so clear about 50% of the way out...and it degrades from there. In contrast, my Nikon 8X32 SE's are so sharp across the field I can actually feel my eye relax (no out-of-focus distractions to contend with) and, as a result, my brain also relaxes and I just enjoy the view. I don't think 100% field sharpness is mandatory for that "with your own eyes" feeling, but I will never again settle for anything less than ~90%.

I will readily admit, however, that if the centerfield is sharp you should have a very satisfying view whenever the target is stable.