Good Nikon Porros? (1 Viewer)

Steve C said:

Not quite sure what you mean by good action models. Unless you are talking about the earlier versions of the Nikon Action. You will have to buy those used form someplace like that big internet site, then it's a crap shoot. Those were all pretty decent, but I'd go with the new ones for the better coatings. You also get new equipment warranty. Go an extra few bucks for the Action EX if you want waterproof

I would not take the Aculon in preference to an Audubon, Rangemaster, or a Zephyr for a day in the field. But that is just me. I'd have to think long and hard about leaving the Zephyr in the case

Click to expand...

I was talking about the Actions mentioned in Henry's link, the 80'S models. I've been buying and taking apart old porros and so that's more a plus than a minus for me in some ways. I'd rather be able to fix a binocular if there's a problem at an inopportune time.

I suppose a professional can do better, but I can get collimation pretty close. I like the old ones better, but the coatings are better now, I am sure.

Pair Got dropped on vacation a couple years ago, that is lousy. Now I could fix them. I probably would be hesitant to touch new ones. I kinda like the old ones

Red_Shoulder said:

I was talking about the Actions mentioned in Henry's link, the 80'S models. I've been buying and taking apart old porros and so that's more a plus than a minus for me in some ways. I'd rather be able to fix a binocular if there's a problem at an inopportune time.

I suppose a professional can do better, but I can get collimation pretty close. I like the old ones better, but the coatings are better now, I am sure.

Pair Got dropped on vacation a couple years ago, that is lousy. Now I could fix them. I probably would be hesitant to touch new ones. I kinda like the old ones

Click to expand...

I can also get them pretty close. Certainly good enough for me, for most uses. However when you get one back from servicing that you thought was pretty close, the proper collimation effect can be pretty dramatic. Sometimes I'm closer that I think, sometime nowhere as close as I thought.

As to some of the early Actions, to get somewhat back on the posted topic, I have a Nikon Action Naturalist II. It has an 8.6* field. Decent, quite usable image. However they evidently subcontracted the body work to Toys-R-Us. They were out of whack when I got them, I sent them to Nikon and they were fixed, but they are out of collimation again, and not just a little. I went into them the other day and there are no eccentric rings on the objective, the prism assemblies are without adjustment, and there appears to be no screws to tilt the prism assembly anywhere. What you would have to do to collimate these is anybody's guess (unless of course you know what you are doing).

this is for Henry Link: off topic, sorry!

Hi Henry, it seems that you are an authority in this field, so please could you help me? I have read (from you) that the ED50A has a semipentaprism after the porro but, on My ED50 instruction is stated that 50ED has PORRO and ED50A has SCHMIDT prism. I have a new one: maybe Nikon has changed?

May you help me to understand? I have bought an angled one but now I am in doubt. Is the straight better? should I change it?

Thanks from Pier Paolo, Rome, Italy

Pier Paolo,

It's been a long time since I looked at that scope. I must have seen a Porro prism inside the angled version to have made that statement.

You can do the same thing. Just look through the front as you move the focusing knob. If it has a Schmidt the focusing will have be done by a focusing lens that moves back and forth. If it's a Porro and semipentaprism it could still use a focusing lens, but it's more likely that you'll see half the Porro prism cluster moving back and forth. If you're unsure about what you're seeing maybe you can photograph the interior and post it on the scope forum.

Henry

thanks Henry, I have made 2 photos: open and close. It seems that the porro cluster is moving, but I don't know how to post photos here.........

open


close

I hope you can understand

Steve C said:

No Arthur, mine are 1951 made in Rochester NY. They, if I understand (or recall) correctly possessed of multiple layers of MgFl. B&L called the process Balcote and applied it to all air glass surfaces. They advertised it as a hard coating. B&L said it is colorless, but there is a definite MgFl blue tinge to the lenses. I was not then prepared for the image they give. I still have to sort of pinch myself to realize these things are over 60 years old. They are 8x30 with an 8.3* (445') fov. I have all factory literature, case and box.

Dim they are not. They will fall off faster in twilight faster than multicoated types, but if that is a concern, I'll have a 5 mm EP binocular. Gray cloudy days they are not as bright as a multicoated glass, but I'd not ever call these dim. I suppose it depends on individual eyes and eyesight,, individual needs and perceptions as to how much one will like an older glass. One thing sure is that they have exceedingly limited eye relief.

I got these from an internet auction supposedly in "pristine" condition. Not so, not by a long ways. I was able to secure a substantial partial refund and sent them to Nicholas Crista. Nick does good work and it shows.

Click to expand...

I'd be very surprised if B&Ls were mulitcoated. I don't think most companies didn't start using MCs until the late 1970s/early 1980s, FMC in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Plus, the blue tint suggests single layer coating MgFl like the Nikon 7x35 and 8x35 WF Actions and other older Porros that I've owned. Still, as you say, they are still quite impressive, as is my 804 Audubon, Octarem, Nikons, Celestron Novas, etc.

My point earlier was that what these old Porros lack is the contrast and color saturation of modern bins, not that I would chose an Aculon or Action EX over a fine old Porro if given the choice, but I do wish there were a way to update the coatings, because for birding in particular, the enhanced contrast and color saturation are nice to have.

Brock

"-----------

I would not take the Aculon in preference to an Audubon, Rangemaster, or a Zephyr for a day in the field. But that is just me. I'd have to think long and hard about leaving the Zephyr in the case and using an SE or an EII.
-------------"

That's me too, or most here. Aculons are great for the money, but offered a swap, I'd grab one of those.
In all three cases you're talking about a better field near the edges. I might not do the Rangemaster,
great as it is. Not into extra-wides or bulk right now.

PIER PAOLO said:

View attachment 531050
open

View attachment 531051
close

I hope you can understand

Click to expand...

Yes, that's a Porro. The disadvantage is lower light transmission compared to a Schmidt or a straight Porro. How much lower depends mainly on the type of mirror coating applied to the semipentaprism. It might be 10% or more if it's aluminum, maybe only 3% if it's dielectric, somewhere in between if it's silver. Your preference between straight and angled might be more important than the light loss.

Henry

henry link said:

Yes, that's a Porro. The disadvantage is lower light transmission compared to a Schmidt or a straight Porro. How much lower depends mainly on the type of mirror coating applied to the semipentaprism. It might be 10% or more if it's aluminum, maybe only 3% if it's dielectric, somewhere in between if it's silver. Your preference between straight and angled might be more important than the light loss.

Henry

Click to expand...

thank you very much, henry.

Steve C said:

No Arthur, mine are 1951 made in Rochester NY. They, if I understand (or recall) correctly possessed of multiple layers of MgFl. B&L called the process Balcote and applied it to all air glass surfaces. They advertised it as a hard coating. B&L said it is colorless, but there is a definite MgFl blue tinge to the lenses. I was not then prepared for the image they give. I still have to sort of pinch myself to realize these things are over 60 years old. They are 8x30 with an 8.3* (445') fov. I have all factory literature, case and box.

Dim they are not. They will fall off faster in twilight faster than multicoated types, but if that is a concern, I'll have a 5 mm EP binocular. Gray cloudy days they are not as bright as a multicoated glass, but I'd not ever call these dim. I suppose it depends on individual eyes and eyesight,, individual needs and perceptions as to how much one will like an older glass. One thing sure is that they have exceedingly limited eye relief.

I got these from an internet auction supposedly in "pristine" condition. Not so, not by a long ways. I was able to secure a substantial partial refund and sent them to Nicholas Crista. Nick does good work and it shows.

Click to expand...

Hello Steve,

Balcote was the proprietary name for B&L MgFl coating, which they started using, during WWII on military binoculars, and then on the civilian models, after WWII. Just before WWII, some optical companies, like Kodak for its Extra camera lenses, were using a soft coating, on internal surfaces, only. Multi-coating developed in the very late 70's, if I recall correctly.

So your 8x30 Zephyr probably has single coating, which makes a huge difference. Many binoculars did not have coating on their prisms, from 1946 until 1965, or so. My Leica Binuxit, made in 1953, probably does not have coated prisms according to Dr. Merlitz.


Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

Pinewood said:

Hello Steve,

Balcote was the proprietary name for B&L MgFl coating, which they started using, during WWII on military binoculars, and then on the civilian models, after WWII.
Arthur :hi:

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

I'd be very surprised if B&Ls were mulitcoated. I don't think most companies didn't start using MCs until the late 1970s/early 1980s, FMC in the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Brock

Click to expand...

Brock, I'm not surprised that you aren't surprised either.

Arthur,

I realize Balcote was B&L's proprietary MgFl coating process. I should have figured you did too, but didn't.

On to the Single vs Multi coating. As far as I can see, the first day that multiple coatings of MgFl were tried was the day after Karl Abbe applied the first single layer of MgFl. We tend to forget that we know the binocular as we know it today, we owe to Dr. Abbe. It was he who applied for the first patent of what we know as the porro prism. At the point of Abbe's patent application, nobody knew about Ignacio Porro. It was happenstance that somebody in the German Patent office, doing their due diligence happened to stumble upon Porro's work.

The technical superiority of Zeiss went to Japan, where the Japanese learned their optical lessons. Baush & Lomb was also associated , like Japan, in the years before WW I, with Zeiss. So Zeiss taught much of the world about Optics.

Arthur, you are right about coatings being applied during WWII. I think that everybody, starting with Zeiss, started more than one coating of MgFl during that time as well. It is illogical that they did not.

Further, B&L was the major optical manufacturer that came unscathed from the damage of WWII. They had state of the art technology for vacuum coating application. Their links to military research may have gone further than state of the art at some points.

I'll have to do a little more digging, but during my research on the Bushnell Rangemaster, I came across statements that Fuji was using multiple MgFl coatings in the early 50's. I read that about the Zephyr as well. Most of that is likely found on europa.com.

Just because companies did not start advertising the fact until the 70's and beyond, does not mean they weren't using them. It took the marketers awhile to realize the advantages of promoting it. I also do not intend to be making a definitive statement that my 1951 Balcote Zephyr is indeed a multi coated MgFl instrument.

Pinewood said:

Hello Steve,

Balcote was the proprietary name for B&L MgFl coating, which they started using, during WWII on military binoculars, and then on the civilian models, after WWII.
Arthur :hi:

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

I'd be very surprised if B&Ls were mulitcoated. I don't think most companies didn't start using MCs until the late 1970s/early 1980s, FMC in the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Brock

Click to expand...

Brock, I'm not surprised that you aren't surprised either.

Arthur,

I realize Balcote was B&L's proprietary MgFl coating process. I should have figured you did too, but didn't.

On to the Single vs Multi coating. As far as I can see, the first day that multiple coatings of MgFl were tried was the day after Karl Abbe applied the first single layer of MgFl. We tend to forget that we know the binocular as we know it today, we owe to Dr. Abbe. It was he who applied for the first patent of what we know as the porro prism. At the point of Abbe's patent application, nobody knew about Ignacio Porro. It was happenstance that somebody in the German Patent office, doing their due diligence happened to stumble upon Porro's work.

The technical superiority of Zeiss went to Japan, where the Japanese learned their optical lessons. Baush & Lomb was also associated , like Japan, in the years before WW I, with Zeiss. So Zeiss taught much of the world about Optics.

Arthur, you are right about coatings being applied during WWII. I think that everybody, starting with Zeiss, started working with more than one coating of MgFl during that time as well. It is illogical to assume they did that they did not.

Further, B&L was the major optical manufacturer that came unscathed from the damage of WWII. They had state of the art technology for vacuum coating application. Their links to military research may have gone further than state of the art at some points.

I'll have to do a little more digging, but during my research on the Bushnell Rangemaster, I came across statements that Fuji was using multiple MgFl coatings in the early 50's. I read that about the Zephyr as well. I had it in my mind that the hard coatings were more than one layer of MgFl (an here I freely admit I might well be incorrect) Most of that is likely found on europa.com.

Just because companies did not start advertising the fact until the 70's and beyond, does not mean they weren't using them. It took the marketers awhile to realize the advantages of promoting it. I also do not intend to be making a definitive statement that my 1951 Balcote Zephyr is indeed a multi coated MgFl instrument.

Steve C said:

I can also get them pretty close. Certainly good enough for me, for most uses. However when you get one back from servicing that you thought was pretty close, the proper collimation effect can be pretty dramatic. Sometimes I'm closer that I think, sometime nowhere as close as I thought.

As to some of the early Actions, to get somewhat back on the posted topic, I have a Nikon Action Naturalist II. It has an 8.6* field. Decent, quite usable image. However they evidently subcontracted the body work to Toys-R-Us. They were out of whack when I got them, I sent them to Nikon and they were fixed, but they are out of collimation again, and not just a little. I went into them the other day and there are no eccentric rings on the objective, the prism assemblies are without adjustment, and there appears to be no screws to tilt the prism assembly anywhere. What you would have to do to collimate these is anybody's guess (unless of course you know what you are doing).

Click to expand...

subcontracted to Toys-R-Us! Good one! Here's a link to binocular collimation. He uses a finderscope for astronomy for higher power. 6x. Do you know if both sides are supposed to point in exactly the same spot?

http://m.instructables.com/id/Binocular-Tune-Up-With-Collimation/2/

Would like to get some Zephyrs at some point

Hmmm...an instructable without instructions. I note Bill Cook's comment below in the link.

I have no idea how to go about using the apparatus shown. Well, sort of, but I'd need to see it myself.

Red_Shoulder said:

... Do you know if both sides are supposed to point in exactly the same spot?

Click to expand...

Hello Red_Shoulder,

Is that not the whole point of collimation? Each barrel is parallel to the axle.
Conditional alignment, as per Bill Cook, is another matter.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

To be clear....both sides are supposed to be perfectly parallel.
Two spots a distance apart equal to the distance between objectives.
To aim at the same spot means they are aligned at just one distance and bad at others.

If you aimed for the same spot (center) at 50 ft distance, the sides would be
out of alignment by 1375 arc-seconds....very painful to look at at 25 ft or 100 ft.
(using 4 inch objective spacing)

Yeah is that WJC!? I thought I could put the binoculars on a tripod or something, use a finderscope off my Dobsonian and see exactly where it's pointing. But I haven't tried it yet.

Maybe the gadget the binoculars are on is important ?

I noticed that when you look straight at something, then close one eye, it doesn't really look centered. So I thought maybe binoculars were supposed to be the same.

You can kind of feel it if they're off a bit.

Without the collimator, we have no idea where the thing is pointing in relationship to the true center of axis alignment, none. The only thing we can do is to try and assess which barrel is the most off center. Putting the binocular on a tripod we can sorta kinda center some distant object, or center (what appears to be centered anyway) and then adjust the other barrel to the first one by eye. That is a crap shoot, and while I have done that with a couple of older binoculars, and I think I have them very close, I will wager not one red cent that they are anywhere nearly collimated. Personally I find it easier to not use a finder or booster scope. It is simply another variable to try and keep centered when we have no way to really tell what is or is not centered.

I have Nikon 12x50 SE since a few weeks. Probably the highest optical quality in my collection. It works good with eyeglasses but does not provide really the same ease of view and "open window" feeling like the modern roofs, who have larger ocular lenses. I wish Nikon had developed the SE series further(with larger eyepieces) instead of discontinuing it. Likely it had become superior to the best roofs out there but still to a lower price.