Brock,
Of course the bridge is larger on the EDG II! Anybody can see that. Where did you get the idea I said that it wasn't? I did mention that there is more exposed metal to use in reconstructing it on the 42's than on the 32's. I thought that might be the reason for it's appearance as a raised double trapezoidal shape. I haven't seen a new 32mm EDG so I can't tell if it has that shape or not. The EDG I's is pretty well standard in appearance.
I also wasn't aware that the "vestigial protrusions"were not part of the original front hinge and that they are really molded into the armor to anchor the objective covers.
Frankly, I think that there were several reasons for the redesign. In addition to the penchant of the objective covers to fall off, they may also have decided there wasn't enough room between the hinges for people with big hands and decided to go with a traditional bridge. There is just enough room for my ring finger and little finger to fit inside it. My middle finger and index finger won't fit there.
Some people like open bridges. Some don't. Given my choice at equal prices I would always chose the latter. They are more comfortable and adaptable to variations of they ways they can be held.
Finally: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the diopter setting mechanism on my EDG I. The focus wheel has 3 positions: All the way down is for focusing. The next one up is a FOCUS LOCK where it free wheels; the focus that is set at that time stays set there. The top position is where you put it when you set the diopter. All snide remarks to the contrary, this is a basic and quite simple operation to use in setting the diopter. Space Pilot has confirmed that this has not been changed.
I don't know how many of these EDG I's were made and sold. I don't think it was many and it doesn't look like many are left. (If any are left at all.) All I know is that they were a great bargain while they lasted! And my guess is the new ones will sell for less than their competition will sell for now that they have got them the way they want them. Nikons always do.
Bob
Bob,
If everybody could plainly see that the EDG II bridge was larger, I wouldn't have written my detailed post above.
Kevin couldn't see the difference and was giving me "lip" about it, so I decided to give a detailed A/B comparison. If you scroll back a page or two, you'll find that he insisted all that was done to the EDG II was simply removing the bottom bridge and that the reason for the redesign was to drop an ounce in weight.
I couldn't abide by either of those assertions, one that is plainly wrong about the bridge size, and the other about why they did the redesign, which made no sense that Nikon would redesign its top of the line model merely drop an ounce. Now pre-Bailout GM might have done that.
American automakers feel they must redesign their models every four years. When Honda moved its design team to California, it caught this contagion, and it now does the same thing with its models.
Continual improvement of the mechanics and electronics in subsequent reissues of the same model makes sense (up to a point, Blue Tooth and OnStar and such should always be optional, I don't want to pay for stuff I don't use). But to change the body design simply because other companies have fallen into this trap of "change for change's sake" is wasteful, IMO.
I had an Olds Cutless Sierra and GM kept the body style mooreless the same for 14 years. They rounded off the back window at some point to lower the drag co-efficient, and they slightly changed the shape of the back lights, but that was about it, externally.
Then some administrator got the bright idea to mess with a good thing and bring out a totally redesigned fancy smantcy ("not your father's Olds") Cutless, and it bombed.
Heck, it was my father's Olds, I gave him my Honda to trade in on a new car! I liked my Honda, it was the most reliable car I ever owned (WAY more reliable than my Saab yuppiemobile), but I needed more leg room and I also fancied a quieter and more comfortable ride.
GM tried to change their customer base overnight and bring the old farts over to Buick, but the "It's not your father's Oldsmobile" campaign was an abysmal failure and the entire Olds brand got dropped from GM's line up.
Back to bins. The bridge redesign and other elements were easy to show, but the reason for the redesign is still a mystery.
Tethered objective covers tend to fall off on a lot of bins, so to me that doesn't seem to be a strong enough reason for a make over, they could have come up with a fix to the covers themselves like making Nikon Bushwackers.
The redesign does address the cover issue and what I fancifully called the "vestigial bridge" (an evolutionary term
are the "nibs" protruding from the end of the barrels actually kills two stones with one bird by fixing the loose covers problem and also providing a rest stop for the fingers. But that's still not enough reason for a redesign, IMO.
Your idea of it providing more finger space is a more appealing answer, but it has a "bug". As long as your fingers extending beyond the barrels don't interfere with the light path or do not reflect light into the light path, the one bridge design could give you more room, but the fact that there's less room at the top of the open space pushes your hands farther down the barrels because of the longer focuser, so it's a toss up as I see it. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Swaro offers both "open bridge" designs, the two bridge EL and the one bridge SLC-HD. Apparently, they didn't think it was necessary to drop the double bridge on the EL, perhaps because they slimmed down the barrels.
In any case, your guess is as good as mine, maybe it was about providing more finger room. We won't know for sure until Nikon tell us why they redesigned the EDG, and don't hold your breath waiting for that answer!
Finally (I hope!): The sample that I tried "freewheeled" too easily, the focuser knob would not stay put in the "all the way down" position. I PMed the owner yesterday who confirmed this. Nikon replaced his original sample with a newer sample that had a functional focuser knob like the one you describe.
But this was not an isolated example. There were other complaints about the same issue, and I have posted links to those before, and I also posted a comment from Mike Freiberg, stating that Nikon was progressively working on the "fix" to that problem.
If you got a good one, thank your lucky stars. And if you bought it during the $999 plus $500 free camera extravaganza, then you kissed the Blarney Stone!
If I do buy an EDG, it will be the first model because of the much better price I can get on refurb, old stock, or used sample. But my concern is that I might get one with a tuolouse focuser like Jerry did, and I wonder if Nikon would replace it the way they did his or if I'd be stuck "freehwheelin' forever like Bob Dylan?
