Help a Nikon 7x35E Owner In distress !!!! (1 Viewer)

gautamsrivastav · Sep 30, 2005

Hello People, I joined this forum to remedy severe mental distress. I have for many years owned and used a pair of Nikon 7x35 E's. Recently I decided to update my bins for a better pair. Thought this would be easy to do as much time had passed since my bins were made and was sure that a better image would be easily obtainable.That was 4 Binoculars and one eye test ago.
I have spent many nights looking at dollar bills in dimly lit rooms and as many days looking at flowers in my neighbour's balcony without finding a pair of bins with a significantly better image than my Es. The bins I have runs comps on are 2 new standard Nikon 7x35s, The Zeiss 8x30 Victory and (the one that broke my heart) a new Zeiss 7x42 Bgat Classic that arrived last evening.
The Image on the Zeiss 7x42 is marginally brighter in the day but in the evening with the lights turned low the Detail or color rendition on the dollar bill is no better through the Zeiss 7x42 than it is through the Nikon 7x35E.
I was about to order a Zeiss 7x42 FL this evening but thought that I had better talk to some sane people - you guys.
What is going on here ??? What do I need to do to better my view without being rediculous (buying 7x42 FL) ? Am I doing something wrong in the way I am comparing views ? What should I do to test Bins against my Bin ? The image is my primary ( and maybe only) consideration. Given a better Image , I will live with other problems ie weight , non waterproof etc.
Please do give me your thoughts and advice.
Cheers,
Gautam

denco@comcast.n · Sep 30, 2005

gautamsrivastav said:
Hello People, I joined this forum to remedy severe mental distress. I have for many years owned and used a pair of Nikon 7x35 E's. Recently I decided to update my bins for a better pair. Thought this would be easy to do as much time had passed since my bins were made and was sure that a better image would be easily obtainable.That was 4 Binoculars and one eye test ago.
I have spent many nights looking at dollar bills in dimly lit rooms and as many days looking at flowers in my neighbour's balcony without finding a pair of bins with a significantly better image than my Es. The bins I have runs comps on are 2 new standard Nikon 7x35s, The Zeiss 8x30 Victory and (the one that broke my heart) a new Zeiss 7x42 Bgat Classic that arrived last evening.
The Image on the Zeiss 7x42 is marginally brighter in the day but in the evening with the lights turned low the Detail or color rendition on the dollar bill is no better through the Zeiss 7x42 than it is through the Nikon 7x35E.
I was about to order a Zeiss 7x42 FL this evening but thought that I had better talk to some sane people - you guys.
What is going on here ??? What do I need to do to better my view without being rediculous (buying 7x42 FL) ? Am I doing something wrong in the way I am comparing views ? What should I do to test Bins against my Bin ? The image is my primary ( and maybe only) consideration. Given a better Image , I will live with other problems ie weight , non waterproof etc.
Please do give me your thoughts and advice.
Cheers,
Gautam

I have had Nikon Superior E's namely the 10x42 and I can't see how people can say they are better optically than the top line roofs. The Zeiss 10x42 FL is better optically, ergonomically and it's waterproof and dustproof. I think people rationalize keeping their Superior E's because they don't want to spend the money to get top line roofs. Saying they are better optically is crap. They are not. Just my opinion.

Dennis

solentbirder · Sep 30, 2005

Personally, I'm not that surprised by your results. I used to own a 7x35E and they are excellent. Roof prism binoculars have to be made to exceptionally high standards to match the performance of porro prisms - this is just due to the physics of light. Where is gets confusing is that manufacturers have chosen to optimise the roof-prism design for their high-end models (the exception is Nikon with the SE series) and there's no doubt that the top roof-prism binos are fantastic. What doesn't get mentioned much is that this performance could easily be delivered in a porro design at much lower cost if the manufacturers wanted to do it. This last point will make you laugh (or cry)...I've owned a fine pair of Zeiss 7x42 BGAT's for several years. I recently picked up a used pair of Pentax 7x50's off e-Bay for virtually no money. The Pentax visibly beats the Zeiss for central sharpness. Remember though, that optical performance is not the only reason for buying a binocular. For example I find the Zeiss very comfortable and easy to look through. Don't worry, you're not crazy.

Pileatus · Sep 30, 2005

[email protected] said:
I have had Nikon Superior E's namely the 10x42 and I can't see how people can say they are better optically than the top line roofs. The Zeiss 10x42 FL is better optically, ergonomically and it's waterproof and dustproof. I think people rationalize keeping their Superior E's because they don't want to spend the money to get top line roofs. Saying they are better optically is crap. They are not. Just my opinion.

Dennis

Dennis,

I've never cared for the 10X42 SE. The Nikon SE 8X32, however, is a true gem and many of its owners also carry top line roofs. What many people are discovering is that in a sea of roof prism binoculars many "old" porro designs deliver images that are comparable and sometimes superior to some of the most expensive roofs.

John

matt green · Sep 30, 2005

John Traynor said:
Dennis,

I've never cared for the 10X42 SE. The Nikon SE 8X32, however, is a true gem and many of its owners also carry top line roofs. What many people are discovering is that in a sea of roof prism binoculars many "old" porro designs deliver images that are comparable and sometimes superior to some of the most expensive roofs.

John

we need a rennaisance of the porro prism format from leica,swarovski,ziess etc in my opinion.surely the next step in optical performance,but still keep the internal focusing just like those old swaro sl's

henry link · Sep 30, 2005

Gautam,

My experience is like yours. I've found that all high quality binoculars of the same magnification produce the same amount of detail in the center of the field, even with the binoculars tripod mounted. There are binoculars that are optically better than your 7x35 E in other ways like light transmission and contrast (if your pair is not multi-coated), off-axis sharpness, and field width. And any high quality 8x binocular will show more detail in the center of the field if that is what you want to see in a new pair.

cbushme · Sep 30, 2005

[email protected] said:
I have had Nikon Superior E's namely the 10x42 and I can't see how people can say they are better optically than the top line roofs. The Zeiss 10x42 FL is better optically, ergonomically and it's waterproof and dustproof. I think people rationalize keeping their Superior E's because they don't want to spend the money to get top line roofs. Saying they are better optically is crap. They are not. Just my opinion.

Dennis

I have to respectfully disagree with you Dennis. I own 8x32SE's and I also own Nikon HG roofs. I have owned Leica BN's and Swarovski SLC's. It ain't a matter of spending money. To my eyes the image I get through the SE's is "superior" to any roof I've looked through. I have also done direct comparisons with 8x32EL's and 8x32 Ultravids, and still not seen a better image than the SE gives. I'm not an unabashed SE fan either. I hate their bulk, I hate the narrow, stiff focus wheel, I hate the eyecups and I really hate the fact that they are not waterproof. If I found a pair of nice light, rugged and waterproof roofs that gave me the same image my SE's give me I would gladly pay (well, maybe not gladly) $2000 for them. I think what I love about the SE image is the lifelike, 3D effect that the porro/SE design gives. To my eyes looking through roofs is like I'm looking through two holes at a photograph. Looking through the SE's is like I'm looking through two holes at a diorama.

gautamsrivastav · Sep 30, 2005

[email protected] said:
I have had Nikon Superior E's namely the 10x42 and I can't see how people can say they are better optically than the top line roofs. The Zeiss 10x42 FL is better optically, ergonomically and it's waterproof and dustproof. I think people rationalize keeping their Superior E's because they don't want to spend the money to get top line roofs. Saying they are better optically is crap. They are not. Just my opinion.

Dennis

Dennis, with due respect, I think you missed my point. I am talking exclusively about the image quality. I bought the new 7x42 Bgats so it is not a money issue and the Bgats , great as they are, are not waterproof. Zeiss, guarenteeing them as waterproof makes them guarenteed NOT waterproof.

Pileatus · Sep 30, 2005

cbushme said:
I have to respectfully disagree with you Dennis. I own 8x32SE's and I also own Nikon HG roofs. I have owned Leica BN's and Swarovski SLC's. It ain't a matter of spending money. To my eyes the image I get through the SE's is "superior" to any roof I've looked through. I have also done direct comparisons with 8x32EL's and 8x32 Ultravids, and still not seen a better image than the SE gives. I'm not an unabashed SE fan either. I hate their bulk, I hate the narrow, stiff focus wheel, I hate the eyecups and I really hate the fact that they are not waterproof. If I found a pair of nice light, rugged and waterproof roofs that gave me the same image my SE's give me I would gladly pay (well, maybe not gladly) $2000 for them. I think what I love about the SE image is the lifelike, 3D effect that the porro/SE design gives. To my eyes looking through roofs is like I'm looking through two holes at a photograph. Looking through the SE's is like I'm looking through two holes at a diorama.

I agree.

Wehr · Sep 30, 2005

John Traynor said:
I agree.

John,

I am absolutely determined to neither agree nor to disagree - but only this time.
:storm: :storm: :storm:

Walter

denco@comcast.n · Oct 1, 2005

gautamsrivastav said:
Dennis, with due respect, I think you missed my point. I am talking exclusively about the image quality. I bought the new 7x42 Bgats so it is not a money issue and the Bgats , great as they are, are not waterproof. Zeiss, guarenteeing them as waterproof makes them guarenteed NOT waterproof.

I have 20/20 uncorrected vision and I find it incredible that so many people like the view through the Nikon Superior E's better than top line roofs like Swarovski's , Zeiss or Nikons own roofs. Every current test including Alula using tripods and doublers say the roofs are better. Better View Desired say that Nikon's own roofs are better than the Nikon Superior E's. They are using scientific methods to prove their results. I think you have some vision problems if you think Nikon Superior E's are better than roofs. Or there must be something about the view you prefer but they certainly aren't optically superior. You just don't want to spend the money to get a good pair of roofs. Crack that wallet open and get rid of those antique Porro's! It's only money!

Dennis

FrankD · Oct 1, 2005

Better View Desired say that Nikon's own roofs are better than the Nikon Superior E's.

Dennis,

I do not want to seem as if I am jumping in with everyone else though I have to question this statement of yours. I have read Mr. Ingraham's site more times than I care to count..both on the web and via hard copy. At no time do I remember him saying that any of the HG models outperformed the 8x32 SE.

If he wasn't working for Zeiss right now I would even be tempted to hear how the 8x32 SE compares to the 8x42 FL since, reportedly, he had alot of input on the latter and yet the former was his "go to" bin.

l have a pair of 8x32 SEs which I am waiting to come back from the Nikon service center. In their (the SEs) previous condition (long story) I would be inclined to agree that the 8x42 HGs outperformed them in contrast and resolution...at least to my eyes and at the time. Now that the SEs have been serviced though I am eager to make the comparison again.

cbushme · Oct 1, 2005

[email protected] said:
I have 20/20 uncorrected vision and I find it incredible that so many people like the view through the Nikon Superior E's better than top line roofs like Swarovski's , Zeiss or Nikons own roofs. Every current test including Alula using tripods and doublers say the roofs are better. Better View Desired say that Nikon's own roofs are better than the Nikon Superior E's. They are using scientific methods to prove their results. I think you have some vision problems if you think Nikon Superior E's are better than roofs. Or there must be something about the view you prefer but they certainly aren't optically superior. You just don't want to spend the money to get a good pair of roofs. Crack that wallet open and get rid of those antique Porro's! It's only money!

Dennis

Dennis, quit reading reviews and believe what your own two good eyes show you! My uncorrected vision usually tests slightly better than 20/20. I cracked open my wallet and spent twice as much hard earned cash than I spent on the SE's for my Nikon HG roofs and nobody wishes they were better than the SE's than me. However, when I take them both out for several hours and really compare them the roofs image is flatter, slightly less contrasty and in fading light dimmer than the SE's. And this is comparing 8x32 to 8x32. I've compared the SE's to 8x32 EL's, 8x32 Ultravids, 8x30 SLC's and 8x32 BN' & BA's among others. Again to my eyes, looking purely at image and nothing else, the SE comes out on top. If you don't consider a brighter, higher contrast, more 3-dimensional image to be optically superior, well more power to you. Now I use my HG's often because I like the ergonomics over the SE and they are waterproof. However, if I try to convince myself they have a better optical image I am only fooling myself. I suspect if the porro was a hot new design with the latest features instead of an "antique", and Nikon priced them at $1500, people would be falling all over themselves to buy SE's. Happy viewing, Clark

Jonathan B. · Oct 1, 2005

[email protected] said:
I have 20/20 uncorrected vision and I find it incredible that so many people like the view through the Nikon Superior E's better than top line roofs like Swarovski's , Zeiss or Nikons own roofs. Every current test including Alula using tripods and doublers say the roofs are better. Better View Desired say that Nikon's own roofs are better than the Nikon Superior E's. They are using scientific methods to prove their results. I think you have some vision problems if you think Nikon Superior E's are better than roofs. Or there must be something about the view you prefer but they certainly aren't optically superior. You just don't want to spend the money to get a good pair of roofs. Crack that wallet open and get rid of those antique Porro's! It's only money!

Dennis

That's the biggest load of crap I have read on this forum. Go back and re-read BVD. And then go get an eye exam. I have better than 20/20 uncorrected vision. My eyes are not fooling me, and I am not fooling myself. I have no devotion to any brand. I have spent many hours comparing SE to every high-end roof-prism binocular. Not one of them outperforms the SE. With the exception of the incredible 3-D image at close range, several of the great roof-prism bins match it, but not one surpasses it.

denco@comcast.n · Oct 1, 2005

Get your eyes tested something is wrong!

cbushme said:
Dennis, quit reading reviews and believe what your own two good eyes show you! My uncorrected vision usually tests slightly better than 20/20. I cracked open my wallet and spent twice as much hard earned cash than I spent on the SE's for my Nikon HG roofs and nobody wishes they were better than the SE's than me. However, when I take them both out for several hours and really compare them the roofs image is flatter, slightly less contrasty and in fading light dimmer than the SE's. And this is comparing 8x32 to 8x32. I've compared the SE's to 8x32 EL's, 8x32 Ultravids, 8x30 SLC's and 8x32 BN' & BA's among others. Again to my eyes, looking purely at image and nothing else, the SE comes out on top. If you don't consider a brighter, higher contrast, more 3-dimensional image to be optically superior, well more power to you. Now I use my HG's often because I like the ergonomics over the SE and they are waterproof. However, if I try to convince myself they have a better optical image I am only fooling myself. I suspect if the porro was a hot new design with the latest features instead of an "antique", and Nikon priced them at $1500, people would be falling all over themselves to buy SE's. Happy viewing, Clark

The tests are unbiased scientific tests with resolution charts and doublers to eliminate the errors of human judgement. You didn't mention if you have tried the Zeiss 8x32 FL's (They are way better than the other binoculars you mention in your list). If you think the Nikon Superior E's are better than the Zeiss FL's your vision is definitely distorted or your judgement is biased. I think if you did a blind test and didn't know which binocular the Nikon Superior E was you wouldn't pick it out of a group of binoculars. I believe it is called a mental block. I sold my Superior E's on Astromart after comparing them to high end roofs and I would never go back. That is just my opinion though.

Dennis

cbushme · Oct 1, 2005

[email protected] said:
The tests are unbiased scientific tests with resolution charts and doublers to eliminate the errors of human judgement. You didn't mention if you have tried the Zeiss 8x32 FL's (They are way better than the other binoculars you mention in your list). If you think the Nikon Superior E's are better than the Zeiss FL's your vision is definitely distorted or your judgement is biased. I think if you did a blind test and didn't know which binocular the Nikon Superior E was you wouldn't pick it out of a group of binoculars. I believe it is called a mental block. I sold my Superior E's on Astromart after comparing them to high end roofs and I would never go back. That is just my opinion though.

Dennis

I think scientific tests are very interesting, but in the end the only test that means anything to me is that the best image is going to be determined by my particular set of eyes which could yield somewhat different results than your particular set of eyes. No, I have not looked through FL's. Here on the outskirts of WY Nikon, Leica and Swarovski can be found with a little effort, but for some reason Zeiss seem particularly hard to come by. I do find it hard to believe that your Zeiss are "way better", since the others I mentioned are all exceptionally fine views with relatively subtle differences. Again though I have not had the pleasure of looking through an FL.
I would be happy to do a blind test with all these binoculars and although I would probably not be able to tell the HG from the EL from the UV from the FL, I believe the 3-dimensional view of the SE and edge to edge sharpness would give it away in a heartbeat. Then we could have you pick your FL's out of a blind test. Since they are "way better" should be no problem. Could even throw a 10x42SE in the mix to make it easier since the obviously inferior optics of the antique porro design should stick out like a sore thumb. 8-P

ceasar · Oct 1, 2005

Just about any decent bino tested while on a tripod will outperform any bino that is hand held while undergoing the same test. We all have subtle shaking that we are not aware of which affects the sharpness of any optic we may be using. Some days we have more shaking than on other days. There is only one way to determine which bino is better than another and that is to get one of Edmund Scientific's optical charts, bolt the bino's down and test them under equal light conditions. It is a long tedious process and not really needed when picking out an everyday binocular for bird watching. What is important is that you get a bino that fits you, one you are comfortable with, that you can point with instinctively with a little practice, that will not wear you out if you have to carry it around all day and that, finally, has
quality optics. The average person will have many to choose from. I do not mean to be critical or demeaning here, but you are not going to be able to get all this information from comparing the performance of bino's by looking at dollar bills or your neighbors flowers. In your experience, you liked the 7 x 35 E's. You might be more comfortable staying with porro's. I suggest trying Nikon's 8 x 30EII's and 10 x 35 E's. If you want to spend the money you might prefer the SE's. Try them, but try them "under game conditons" so to speak. The same thing goes if you want to change to roof prism bino's. You might like them better, but top quality in a roof prism costs a lot more than top quality in a porro, albeit there are more roofs to choose from, except from Swift, which appears content to stay with making affordable but excellent porros.

What do I use? I have 2 kids to put through college. I use Nikon porros. An 8 x 30E2 and a refurbished pair of 10 x 35E's. My back up pairs are (believe it or not) a Leica 7 x 42 BA Trinovid about 18 years old and an Eagle Platinum Roof Prism 6 X 32 which is a superb little bino. I also have Minolta 10 x50's for casual astronomy.

denco@comcast.n · Oct 1, 2005

cbushme said:
I think scientific tests are very interesting, but in the end the only test that means anything to me is that the best image is going to be determined by my particular set of eyes which could yield somewhat different results than your particular set of eyes. No, I have not looked through FL's. Here on the outskirts of WY Nikon, Leica and Swarovski can be found with a little effort, but for some reason Zeiss seem particularly hard to come by. I do find it hard to believe that your Zeiss are "way better", since the others I mentioned are all exceptionally fine views with relatively subtle differences. Again though I have not had the pleasure of looking through an FL.
I would be happy to do a blind test with all these binoculars and although I would probably not be able to tell the HG from the EL from the UV from the FL, I believe the 3-dimensional view of the SE and edge to edge sharpness would give it away in a heartbeat. Then we could have you pick your FL's out of a blind test. Since they are "way better" should be no problem. Could even throw a 10x42SE in the mix to make it easier since the obviously inferior optics of the antique porro design should stick out like a sore thumb. 8-P

That edge to edge sharpness you talk about was not there on my 10x42 Nikon SE's maybe that is particular to the 8x32's. The edge sharpness on the Zeiss FL's is not perfect either it's just that there sweet spot is so damn good! The best edge sharpness I have ever seen was on Canon 10x30 IS's. Compare them sometime to your Nikon's and you will see what I mean. The Canon's don't have the contrast or 3D image of the Nikon's but they are sharper at the edge. You can buy a pair of Zeiss FL's at Eagle Optics and try them for a month and if you don't like them you can send them back. Good way to compare to your Nikon's. I am sure you will keep them. What area of Wyoming are you from. I do quite a bit of fishing in SE Wyoming out of Laramie and also Saratoga.

Dennis

gautamsrivastav · Oct 1, 2005

Honest or Colored brightness ?

ceasar said:
Just about any decent bino tested while on a tripod will outperform any bino that is hand held while undergoing the same test. We all have subtle shaking that we are not aware of which affects the sharpness of any optic we may be using. Some days we have more shaking than on other days. There is only one way to determine which bino is better than another and that is to get one of Edmund Scientific's optical charts, bolt the bino's down and test them under equal light conditions. It is a long tedious process and not really needed when picking out an everyday binocular for bird watching. What is important is that you get a bino that fits you, one you are comfortable with, that you can point with instinctively with a little practice, that will not wear you out if you have to carry it around all day and that, finally, has
quality optics. The average person will have many to choose from. I do not mean to be critical or demeaning here, but you are not going to be able to get all this information from comparing the performance of bino's by looking at dollar bills or your neighbors flowers. In your experience, you liked the 7 x 35 E's. You might be more comfortable staying with porro's. I suggest trying Nikon's 8 x 30EII's and 10 x 35 E's. If you want to spend the money you might prefer the SE's. Try them, but try them "under game conditons" so to speak. The same thing goes if you want to change to roof prism bino's. You might like them better, but top quality in a roof prism costs a lot more than top quality in a porro, albeit there are more roofs to choose from, except from Swift, which appears content to stay with making affordable but excellent porros.

What do I use? I have 2 kids to put through college. I use Nikon porros. An 8 x 30E2 and a refurbished pair of 10 x 35E's. My back up pairs are (believe it or not) a Leica 7 x 42 BA Trinovid about 18 years old and an Eagle Platinum Roof Prism 6 X 32 which is a superb little bino. I also have Minolta 10 x50's for casual astronomy.

Thank you.This is good advise.
Last night I spent another few hours testing my ageing Nikon 7x35 E against my new Zeiss 7x42 Bgats. I found the detail and resolution alike, the Zeiss easier to look through but the Nikons have a truer color rendition. I found the zeiss have a yellowish tinge to them that makes them brighter but it is a "colored" brighter. If your are a purist you do not like this. If a binocular is bright then It should be "honest Bright" not "colored bright".
Has anyone else sensed this with the Zeiss Bgats or FLs ? Would appreciate thoughts.
Do you find that the Nikon 8x30 EII or 8x32 SE ( I have not looked through either but am seriously considering buying one after reading this forums comments) colored or honest in their brightness ?

Pileatus · Oct 1, 2005

Steve Ingraham speaking of the Nikon SE 8X32

"And what a view! The 8x32s provide the same crisp, sharp, effortless view that made the 10x42s so clearly superior. Their NEED score, tripod mounted, equals the score of the best 8x50 binoculars I have yet tested. They come very close to the theoretical promise for 32mm objectives of delivering all the detail the human eye can absorb. Contrast and color fidelity are also exceptional. It is very easy to forget that you are looking through binoculars at all when using the Superior Es...the view is that natural. You might think you just walked 8 times closer."

Crisp, effortless, all the detail, exceptional contrast/color fidelity, and natural. This is what SE fans are talking about.

John

Help a Nikon 7x35E Owner In distress !!!! (1 Viewer)

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Norfolkman gone walkabout

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

"Experientia Docet”

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread