Have Nikon given up competing with the big three? (1 Viewer)

Alexis,

I did not really mean to toss a bomb in to the discussion, but my first look through an FL on a spring day was astonishing! The rendition of colors and gradations of color were far better than a Leica BN. Reduction of CA also improved both contrast and resolution which also impressed me.

There are many reasons to pick a binocular. I replaced the Nikon SE but I found it unusable, because its "superior" optics caused unacceptable blackouts. The optics are the heart of a binocular, everything else is the envelope. Even binoculars which attract on advantages of handling, precision of focus and flatness of field, will probably have to incorporate the new glasses.

The most significant improvements to binocular optics, over the last few decades have been multi-coating and phase coating. No one who wanted top performance would buy any binocular without the former and no roof prism binocular without both. Swift, Zeiss, Kowa and Leica have their HD, FL or ED models and I suspect that those glasses will be incorporated by other manufacturers so that non ED, etc. will be as rare an non phase coated premium roof prism binoculars are today. Because anything else will be "lagging behind the Kowa's performance on CA, contrast, resolution and colour neutrality," to quote Renze.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :brains:

burdup said:

... the 'deal breaker' for me was the continually migrating diopter. IMO not having solid diopter adjustments on a product of this class is completely unacceptable. Why have the best optics in the world if you can't experience them?

Click to expand...

I have not had any problems with the diopter ring turning on my EIIs. However, I do experience diopter problems related to BRIDGE FLEX from time to time. It isn't a severe problem. In fact, it's not as bad as I would expect based on the actual flexibility present; I can easily move a given side in and out of focus just by lightly pushing or pulling the eyepiece. In use, when I notice a diopter issue, I sometimes just push or pull a bit instead of adjusting the ring. A bit primitive, eh?

That said, it does seem like the truly excellent optics would be accompanied by simple things like a sufficiently stiff mechanical frame component.

But, this is not just a Nikon issue. In fact, while examining a pair of Swift Audubon Porros a while back, I noticed that the bridge flex was FAR worse than that on the EIIs. I would say that on the Swifts, it was near the point of being objectionable (again, in line with Alexis' comments: nice optics + poor mechanical execution = unsatisfactory overall performance).

Pinewood/Arthur: Firstly I'm sorry to hear about your troubles with the Nikon SE. I'm afraid I may have been one of quite a few people (on many forums and web sites) responsible for unwittingly misleading you, though I and others here are now aware that some people experience black outs.

As many of us here say (and I hope I have always said this) the only judge that ultimately matters is you.

Though I agree with much of what you say, I am not convinced that non FL/HD binoculars are obsolete. Many still produce marvelous views. Anyway I suspect a manufacturer could use the Zeiss 8x30 design (roof prism, focussed by moving the objectives) and get high quality at not so high a price. But it won't happen because it would not be water proof. They could add an extra fixed flat element in front of the moving objective to add sealing, at extra cost, but again I doubt it. Binoculars are a combination of optical theory, mechanical design, pragmatism, and marketing.

Leif said:

Anyway I suspect a manufacturer could use the Zeiss 8x30 design (roof prism, focussed by moving the objectives) and get high quality at not so high a price. But it won't happen because it would not be water proof. They could add an extra fixed flat element in front of the moving objective to add sealing, at extra cost, but again I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Swarovski 8x30 SLC

On Nikon:

I'd still like to see an "SEII" 8x36, which has a 425' FOV (less than EII, but more than SE), an ER of 15 (less than SE, more than EII), click-stop/twist-up eyecups, a stiffer bridge, and (only if practically possible w/o major drawbacks) WP seals.

Roof wise: That's tough. Not everyone agrees on their weak points. I wonder if insiders at Nikon know for sure "how to make them better" (when the time comes). Personally, there is something not quite tack sharp for me on the LXLs I've tried. Since others praise their contrast and resolution, perhaps the weakness is QC.

henry link said:

Swarovski 8x30 SLC

Click to expand...

My thought as well. It seems that if Swaro would just change the focus end on this particular model, they would have an instant renewed classic.

henry link said:

Swarovski 8x30 SLC

Click to expand...

Cheers Henry. Is that one waterproof? I've tried them, but not owned.

burdup said:

.....................the 'deal breaker' for me was the continually migrating diopter....

Click to expand...

Hi Burdup, welcome on board. I've recently bought EII 10x35 and still can't believe them. I've no problem with the diopter, but do have such a problem on my Canon IS 12x36 - the diopter has a mind of its own or is under the possession of a poltergeist. So I got 8cm of Duct Tape, set the diopter, and coiled the duct tape around it to fix it in place. The bins look like plumbing now, but they were pug-ugly to begin with so it doesn't matter. Great bins, though....I love the IS. If they had the optics of the EII, I'd marry them.

Renze de Vries said:

..... The Kowa's compare quite well with the first edition Nikon HG's with respect to weight .....Renze

Click to expand...

Which translates: "they are way too heavy" (at least for most people). The weight was always a major issue with the original Nikons, even at a time when they were still among the optically top models. It has completely eluded me why Kowa came up with a new top model without also paying sufficient attention to the weight factor. It is certainly a very poor record if they only just beat the heaviest outdated model, so to speak. Outdated meant here in the sense that Nikon has long ago issued their LXL line. Kowa certainly did much better in the scope line which they issued at about the same time as their binoculars.

Leif said:

Cheers Henry. Is that one waterproof? I've tried them, but not owned.

Click to expand...

Hi Leif,

Yep, waterproof. The Canon 10x42L IS also uses the same focusing and waterproofing methods, most likely because there's not enough room for both an internal focusing lens and the IS prism.

Henry

Swissboy said:

Which translates: "they are way too heavy" (at least for most people). The weight was always a major issue with the original Nikons, even at a time when they were still among the optically top models.

Click to expand...

This was my main concern. I could live with the FOV if the view was great, but coupled with greater weight--that's hard. And I bet they don't even have the build issues of the FL's! I'm sorry, but with so many options these days (and growing) if you're spending lots of money, the choices get to be very particular, and worth saving for. Weight is a big one for me, and I say that having read, reread and respecting very much Renze's review. I really wanted to think the Kowas would be great for me, but couldn't get past that weight issue. I have come to really like lighter weight binoculars when there are full days in the field!

David

Leif said:

Pinewood/Arthur: Firstly I'm sorry to hear about your troubles with the Nikon SE. I'm afraid I may have been one of quite a few people (on many forums and web sites) responsible for unwittingly misleading you, though I and others here are now aware that some people experience black outs.

As many of us here say (and I hope I have always said this) the only judge that ultimately matters is you.

Click to expand...

Leif,

I blame no one, not even Ingraham, of BVD fame. My troubles with the binocular only became evident, after I bought the SE, so judging took a long time. The problems got worse with use. I sold if for about 75% of the cost, which is not such a costly mistake.

I wrote of obsolescence, not uselessness. Roof prisms with silver or aluminium mirrors are still common but the dielectric coatings are far superior and more expensive. The advantages of ED glass will probably make their use in binoculars far more common.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

henry link said:

Swarovski 8x30 SLC

Click to expand...

Leif, Henry---
My old Minolta Mariner 8 x 32 (circa 1984) has that focusing arrangement with the flat plates in front of the moving objectives. Of course they also have no phase coating, virtually no eye relief and lousy edge sharpness extending 1/2 way into the center of the view, but they are waterproof and built like a tank. They have some dents on them to attest to that! I like their overall ergonomics. They are quite compact compared to my Nikon 8 x 32 LXL's and easy to handle. I still have them to remind me how much Roof Prisms have improved.

Bob

In all honesty i'm not sure that Nikon ever were "Competing" with the big 3 european manufacturers.

I think they cleverly realised that no matter how good a product they produced it would never command the prestige and premium prices that people are prepared to pay for European binoculars. That said, with their HG series of bins they were able to manufacture a binocular that offered performance on a level with anything that was around at the time, and for a fraction of the price. Nikon HG'S are readily availabe in Europe for around 1/3rd of the price of Leica ultravids and Swarovski EL's, and after having had the opportunity to test 8x32's from all 3 manufacturers over an extended weekend the decision on which one to buy was easy.

Lets wait and see what Nikons next efforts bring on to the market. It certainly wont be bad and will definately add a bit more fuel to the Best Binocular debate.

Rgrds, Jon.

Although this is a Nikon thread, I'll offer a couple of brief comments on the Kowa 8.5x44 Prominar, since some people on this forum seem interested in it. I had one specimen for testing a while ago, although since I don't own one like Renze, my experience is more limited.

I'm used to heavy binoculars, so I was not put off by the weight. With a good strap, it does not pain my neck, and I appreciated the solidity. Built seemed very good, rivaling Swarovski's 42mm SLC's in being able to convince me that these could take almost any use and abuse likely to come their way.

The field of view is narrower than in top rivals (except for the Nikon 8x42 LX L), but not all that narrow. What I noticed more was the rather prominent "barreling effect" when panning. Kowa has opted to correct rectilinear distortion almost completely, and this is the tradeoff. I would probably get used to it, but in the few days I used them I did not yet do that. I second Renze in praising the contrast and apparent resolution brought by low longitudinal CA. I cannot measure CA, but evaluating it with point source diffraction patterns and visual comparisons I would say that there is even less than in corresponding Zeiss FL's. However, the sample I had did not have boosted resolution quite as good as some of the best specimen of 8x42's I have measured. Star tests revealed some miscollimation in one barrell as well as slight pinching artefacts in both barrels. Spherical correction was rather o.k. for a binocular, but one barrel showed some zonal aberrations. All in all, the star test was not bad for a premium binocular, and based on star-tests alone I would have expected somewhat better boosted resolution results.

Flare suppression when viewing towards the sun was very good also, but not quite as good as in my reference Canon 10x42. Perceived brightness was not as quite as good as in Zeiss FL's or Leica Ultravids.

I'm thinking of including the Kowa in a review we'll have in Alula on the Ultravid HD's, but that will be some time still as we don't have test samples of the latter available yet.

Kimmo

henry link said:

Hi Leif,

Yep, waterproof. The Canon 10x42L IS also uses the same focusing and waterproofing methods, most likely because there's not enough room for both an internal focusing lens and the IS prism.

Henry

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction and extra information. I didn't know that the Canon also used this system. Seems I am wrong about the construction being unpopular. Maybe we will see more examples. I hope so.

nikfan said:

In all honesty i'm not sure that Nikon ever were "Competing" with the big 3 european manufacturers. I think they cleverly realised that no matter how good a product they produced it would never command the prestige and premium prices that people are prepared to pay for European binoculars.

Click to expand...

They definitely were competing with the European manufacturers in the USA market. The LX/HG roofs were released on the heals of the widely acclaimed Superior E models and promised to be as much an advance over other roofs as the SE had been over competing porros (they didn't turn out to be that big a leap, but Steve Ingraham in Better View Desired considered them the best by a small margin). When first released, the LX were priced at $1200, which was an extraordinarily high price at the time since Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski sold for $750-$950 (those were the days!). Apparently, probably because consumers weren't convinced, Nikon reconsidered the pricing because after a year or so it dropped to approximately the same price (slightly above actually, $900-$1000) that of the European makes. The next company to try pricing a binocular way above all its competitors was Swarovski when the EL was released at ~$1250. They stuck with it, got away with it, and binocular pricing has never been the same since! (I recognize that current prices reflect exchange rates, not just pricing schemes, but both are clearly at work given the continued discrepancy between prices in different countries).

Leif and others--On the topic of roofs designed with a waterproofing window in front of a moving front element, that's the way the Nikon 8x40 Classic Eagle was designed, and if memory serves me right, that is how the Zeiss 8x30 Diafun (and maybe one or another of the Conquest models?) is waterproofed.

--AP

Alexis, I think the Bausch & Lomb Elite 8x42 was also priced in the stratosphere when it was introduced, though that was before my time, really. The Elite still has a good reputation so it must have been truly excellent when new. It's a shame that B&L got out of the business.

Leif said:

I recall that there was a lot of disbelief that using an extra low dispersion element in the objective could help reduce CA, on the grounds that the objectives are so small.

Click to expand...

A binocular with a short focal length objective uses a short focal length eyepiece to produce the same magnification (e.g. 8x) as one with a longer objective focal length and longer ocular focal length. In the short focal length binocular the image projected by the objective is smaller, so all aberrations are smaller at that point in the light path, but that is exactly cancelled out by the increased magnification of the short focal length eyepiece. The extent of visible chromatic aberration therefore shouldn't vary much with focal length, but objectives with a low f-number (fast systems) and/or eyepieces with a wide field of view are more difficult to design and manufacture to a high optical quality.

To reduce chromatic aberration, especially in high-power binoculars of sensible size, you really need glass with anomalous partial dispersion.

Leif said:

To be honest I'm not convinced that the best optical quality is necessary to achieve high sales.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I think that's okay, as other factors are also very important in the real world.

Renze de Vries said:

The Kowa 8.5x44, which is the type I own, performs on par, or better, with Zeiss 8x42 FL, Swarovski 8.5x42 EL and Leica Ultravid 8x42.

Click to expand...

I can believe that, though I've never looked through one myself. How does it feel in the hand? I see it weighs quite a bit more than the others, though it does have 44 mm objectives while the rest are 42 mm. Claimed field of view is okay though not great. Here's a brief overview:

Angle of view (claimed):
Zeiss Victory 8x42 FL - 7.7 degrees
Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD - 7.4 degrees
Swarovski EL 8.5x42 - 7.4 degrees
Kowa Prominar XD 8.5x44 - 7.0 degrees
Nikon 8x42 HG L - 7.0 degrees

Apparent angle of view (based on power and actual angle of view):
Swarovski EL 8.5x42 - 63 degrees
Zeiss Victory 8x42 FL - 62 degrees
Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD - 60 degrees
Kowa Prominar XD 8.5x44 - 59 degrees
Nikon 8x42 HG L - 56 degrees

Weight:
Zeiss Victory 8x42 FL - 755 grams
Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD - 790 grams
Nikon 8x42 HG L - 795 grams
Swarovski EL 8.5x42 - 820 grams
Kowa Prominar XD 8.5x44 - 950 grams

Length:
Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD - 142 mm
Nikon 8x42 HG L - 157 mm
Zeiss Victory 8x42 FL - 161 mm
Kowa Prominar XD 8.5x44 - 165 mm
Swarovski EL 8.5x42 - 165 mm

This might interest some. I took this info from a trusted source so; I'm reasonably confident it is accurate.

"Nikon has announced for spring, 2008 release a brand new binocular line named "EDG." The EDG line is set to supplant the Premier LX-L line as Nikon's top-of-the-line binocular, with retail prices up to $1999.99. Features include proprietary ED glass and a completely redesigned body and housing. Sizes will include 8x32, 10x32, 7x42, 8x42, and 10x42."

Here's a link that even includes a picture:

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=3195949

Personally, I'm disappointed with the styling. It looks very much like a Steiner Peregrine XP. Ugly.

Leica, Zeiss, Swift, Kowa and now Nikon join the ED/HD/FL family, which may answer the question posed in this thread's title.

I expect another firm to join the club within two years.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur