They don't use the same objective lens in an EDG as they do in a Monarch.Very few of even the internal lenses are exactly the same. An EDG has higher quality glass through out, as well as, more layers of coatings applied to the internal lenses. Most binoculars are designed from the ground up with a specific design in mind. The higher end binoculars of course have more complex eyepieces just like a Nagler eyepiece on a telescope to a give a wider field or whatever performance criteria they are seeking.
-
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.
Worlds best roof prism versus the world's best porro prism binocular! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
David Swain
Well-known member
I believe the purported 550400 cut-off is utterly arbitrary. In any case, current SEs are in the 5508xx range (based on a sample of two, admittedly: mine and Dennis'). But it is a fallacy to assume any correlation between purchase and manufacture date; new old stock will continue to surface.
David
Exactly.
Dennis,
Our posts crossed in cyberspace. While you were writing the above I edited my original reply to you to account for the binoculars that Nikon subcontracts out to China, like the Monarchs. The ones made in Japan like the EDGs, Premiers, SEs and EIIs use glass made by Nikon.
Dennis,
The eyepiece of the 10 x 32 EDG is the same as the one in the 10 x 32 LX L even though the EDG is longer than the LX L and has longer eye relief. The eyepieces have been tweaked to allow for the differences.
They both have about the same edge sharpness and pincushioning, and they have exactly the same FOV. I know because I still have both of them. The only difference between them otherwise is that the EDG is brighter because of it's dielectric prisms and it controls glare better because the objectives are set deeper into the tubes. I assume the coatings are different but the objectives are the same otherwise.
And most noticeably, externally and ergonomically, the EDG is a complete redesign of the LX L.
The Monarchs, as I noted above, are outsourced to China to the best of my knowledge and in any case, if they were made in Japan would have cheaper components in order to be priced the way they are and they don't belong in this discussion.
The title to this thread is "Worlds best roof prism versus the world's best porro prism binocular!
Last edited:
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
I've never noticed CA in the SE and cant say I ever really have in the Opticron either, though I've never gone out of my way to look for it. Though I certainly notice it when its there in binos and scopes, most recently in an old Kowa ts 611 scope and zoom that was almost psychedelic with it.
You're right the Opticron/Minox are crazy good value, way better in my experience than all the chinese ED stuff. In fact if I was mainly into coastal or fairly open habitat birding the HR WP would be my choice over the SE regardless of price.
Really, anyone who doesn't want to fork out for an SE and wants to see what all the fuss is about regarding the legendary view of the SE just get an HRWP instead, the overall view of both is of exactly the same washed clean, transparent pin sharp quality that I certainly never saw in either my Hawke ED 8x43 or my Zen ED2 7 x36.
Interestingly the only roofs I've tried that gave me that feeling were the EDG II 8x32 and the SV 8.5x42 I recently tested out, ( this was just in the street outside a bino shop though so maybe not a very good test ) I thought the FL 8x32 I also tested was clearly really poor in comparison.
You're right the Opticron/Minox are crazy good value, way better in my experience than all the chinese ED stuff. In fact if I was mainly into coastal or fairly open habitat birding the HR WP would be my choice over the SE regardless of price.
Really, anyone who doesn't want to fork out for an SE and wants to see what all the fuss is about regarding the legendary view of the SE just get an HRWP instead, the overall view of both is of exactly the same washed clean, transparent pin sharp quality that I certainly never saw in either my Hawke ED 8x43 or my Zen ED2 7 x36.
Interestingly the only roofs I've tried that gave me that feeling were the EDG II 8x32 and the SV 8.5x42 I recently tested out, ( this was just in the street outside a bino shop though so maybe not a very good test ) I thought the FL 8x32 I also tested was clearly really poor in comparison.
I agree with everything you said. Hardly any CA in the SE. I wish I could try an Opticron. They are not available over here in the US.
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
Be prepared for the small field of view if you ever order them, plus they don't focus as close as the SE's.
I know this is off the point but in view of edge sharpness comparison made of EDG and LX L 10x32s, I would appreciate knowing your impression of the central sharpness of these two binoculars.
Chhayanat
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
This is what i was getting at in my previous post, i got side tracked and had to go!!! Bryce...
bh46118
Well-known member
You are one of maybe four or five people I know of who sees the same thing I see through the Opticron, Minox Porro's. Most see the Chinese ED roofs as superior and I can't for the life of me see why. With the eye cups down and my glasses on, the image is far more comfortable and gives the sensation of being more immersive. With the eye cups out, the view is very tunnel like. They are much like the Vortex 6.5X32 Fury in that regard. The only serious image issue I have with them is the amount of CA I see. If the CA was as low in the Minox as the Zen ED2 then I would have reached optical Nirvana. As it stands, I'm probably closer to optical Disneyland.
Bruce
Bruce
Then that's that, and it seems the effect is due to the model being simply better in some parameter/s. My odd experience with several Opticrons across their range is described here (in three posts): http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=232033
Maybe Opt. is less sensitive to red. The hawk incident I can only attribute to shallower depth of field. The "immersive" feeling (as you call it, and described by me elsewhere rather less elegantly as "taking you there vs bringing it to you") is to me apparent most in Nikon porros - in my limited experience with different models of bins - and it seems from what you say the Opt. HR WP is still better even in that respect! Opt. themselves, in their lit. and insider comments, are nicely modest in their claims for it.
I would think, as others in this or recent threads say or imply, that porros except for astronomy are doomed. "The market rules," and making a relativel low-profit - so I reckon - item, with roofs improving all the time, may soon not be viable. I'd guess 90+% of bins bought worldwide are roof, 95+% of buyers prefer roof, and the 5% in between go for porro only due to cost or availability - e.g. a rushed buyer at a shop finds the better roofs sold out. Those figures are not based on any data or analyis, but I think close enough to convey the reality. E.g., Swarovski continues to make several porro models but Eagle Optics (say) seems to stock none of them. I have a 10x roof used mostly, a 6x wide-angle and a 16x used seldom and porro because they cost less.
Last edited:
How small of a FOV on the Opticron on an 8x32?
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
The 8x42 you mean? 6.4 deg. Wish there was an 8 x 32 version.
After using the SE its definitely a little cramped, though I find I quickly adjust.
After using the SE its definitely a little cramped, though I find I quickly adjust.
Tonite while watching TV I set up a DVD case about ten feet away from me and compared my Nikon 8x32 EDG to my Nikon 8x32 SE on the fine print of the DVD case. It was easy to see the SE was sharper than the EDG on the fine print of the DVD case at that distance. Try the test yourself if you don't believe me. I am sure the SE will be sharper than any of the top roofs in this type of test. The SE is one amazing binocular! Porro's rule!
Jonathan B.
Well-known member
Porros do indeed rule, except when one needs a waterproof/fogproof bin, and then we all have to debate which roof-prism bin to buy. What surprises me is the fact that some qualities of porro bins have existed for many decades. For me, the SE rules over all bins. Period. So I have no argument here. However I have an immaculate and optically perfect B&L Zephyr 7x35 made (I believe) in the 1960s. This binocular was first made and sold in about 1936, and the only difference between the first one and mine, as far as I know, is that the pre-war models had no antireflective coatings, and mine (and all other post-war examples) has single-layer (magnesium fluoride) coating on the external surfaces of objectives and oculars.
There are many limitations to this bin, including close focus (about 17 feet), field of view (about 382 feet at 1,000 yards), and color (which is yellowish due to the blue coatings). However the focus is magnificently smooth (in warm weather), and the center of the field is phenomenally sharp and contrasty. Here I believe we can understand what Nikon was after when they designed the SE. For years they had made marvelous porro bins modeled after products made by B&L and Zeiss. Like other manufacturers, they upgraded coatings, and on their own they succeeded in innovations in eyepieces. In designing the SE, it is almost as if they took what amounted to a superb concept in the porro-prism design and went about proving that it could be perfected to an almost absurd degree. I can't help but wonder if the SE was made to prove a point, as much as to make a great bin.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
In speculating on Nikon's motivations behind bringing the SE to market, I think it is important to consider that the company was without a competitive top-end roof prism model starting in 1988 when Zeiss, and shortly thereafter Leica and then B&L introduced phase coatings, and so the company lacked a flagship product with which to get the attention of birders and hunters. They didn't fill the void until 1995 with release of the 10x42 SE, which they heavily advertised in birding magazines (Those were the days when they prominently touted the SE's status as a BVD reference standard, and made much use of Pete Dunne's comment about founding a religion around the 10x42 SE). Finally, in 1998 they released their first phase-coated roof, the Venturer LX/HG, which was arguably the best birding bin of the day. It is a mystery to me why it it took Nikon a full decade after Zeiss, nearly as long after Leica, and 6+ years after B&L/Bushnell to come out with a phase-coated roof, but clearly that time allowed for some uniquely invested porro product development, including the other SE models, the EII models, some excellent compact models, and updates to the Fieldscopes. To my recollection, the B&L 8x50 Elite is the only porro binocular that was designed and marketed as a top-end model to birders and hunters subsequent to the Nikon SE.
--AP
Last edited:
mooreorless
Well-known member
Alexis I had a chance to look through the B&L 12x50 Elite Porro at the Lost Creek Shoe Shop, I was impressed. It was used, price was pretty high.
M. Owl, sorry, I now find it's not you who said "immersive" on this thread but someone else. Googling brings up several others on other threads. Why apologise for the mistake after complimenting you on the word? (a) The mistake of fact. (b) You may not like using the word that way. (c) The foll. comment in repsonse to one of those instances! It's wide field of view is friendly and welcoming! (I think that is better than describing it as "immersive" which brings up connotations of baptism, or heaven forbid, drowning:eek!:. BTW, in most if not all of those instances the mag. was ≤ 8x.
