Couple of queries Nikon 8 x 20 HGL (1 Viewer)

seawatcher · Feb 20, 2006

A couple of things about the Nikon 8 x 20 HGL compact binoculars:

1. When I rotate the eyecup on my model I notice the following: when I turn the left eyecup then only the rubber cup and the sliding mount rotate. When I turn the right eyecup the rubber cup and sliding mount also rotate, which is how it should be. BUT, in addition, the metal ring between the ocular glass itself and the eyecup also rotate on the right side. Could HGL compact owners please tell me if this is supposed to move, or is something loose.
2. What material is the upper part of the bridge made from? The big gray bit with the Nikon badge attached. Feels like plastic and sounds plasticky when I tap it. Is it really plastic, or a lightweight metal alloy? Any ideas.

Have to say that these are superb compacts – just would like advice about the above two points.

SW

Jeffintercamb · Feb 20, 2006

I've just been to check my 8x20HGs (essentialy the same binocular) and ONLY the eyepiece rubbers/sliding eyecups rotate so it sounds like the metal ring you describe may well be loose.

I also noticed the "plasticky" upper part of the bridge and I suspect, like you, that it is simply plastic - the underside which appears to house the focus mechanism (theres a ridge where it runs internally) had a much more metallic sound when tapped.

This doesn't even enter my mind when I'm using them as the image is fantastic - and is well ahead of the image given by a sample of 8x20 Ultravids I tested. I did however try a pair of 10x25 Ultravids which were much better (sharp over the full FOV) and gave me the type of view my Nikon's have made me accustomed to. In short, they are my "benchmark" when comparing compacts...

Hope you get the ring issue sorted out (mine have a ten year guarantee) and can go on enjoying what are a great little pair of binoculars.

bradshrike · Feb 21, 2006

I've a queston... what's the "leather" looking material on the 8x20 HG's?

Also, does the diopter adjustemnt lock?

Thanks...

seawatcher · Feb 21, 2006

Jeffintercamb said:
I've just been to check my 8x20HGs (essentialy the same binocular) and ONLY the eyepiece rubbers/sliding eyecups rotate so it sounds like the metal ring you describe may well be loose.

Thanks Jeff,

Interesting that the metal bit on your HGs doesn't rotate whereas mine does (on the right side only). Just to check that we are talking about the same part
- screw the eyecup as far down as possible
- look at the eyepiece from above. From the outside working inwards you will see rubber eyecup, metal ring, glass
- rotate the eyecup - does the metal ring rotate as well (might not be easy to see - mark it with a piece of tape or something so it is easier to see.

It's that metal ring that moves - and it is not part of the eyecup assembly itself.

SW

seawatcher · Feb 21, 2006

Brad_A said:
I've a queston... what's the "leather" looking material on the 8x20 HG's?

Also, does the diopter adjustemnt lock?

Thanks...

Not sure what the leather looking material is made from. But it does help to give a better grip and it is warm to touch.

The diopter adjuster does not lock on the HG compacts (whereas it does on the full size models). However, the diopter adjuster is so stiff (on mine at least) that it has never moved despite months of use.

seawatcher · Feb 21, 2006

seawatcher said:
Jeffintercamb said:

I've just been to check my 8x20HGs (essentialy the same binocular) and ONLY the eyepiece rubbers/sliding eyecups rotate so it sounds like the metal ring you describe may well be loose.

Thanks Jeff,

Interesting that the metal bit on your HGs doesn't rotate whereas mine does (on the right side only). Just to check that we are talking about the same part
- screw the eyecup as far down as possible
- look at the eyepiece from above. From the outside working inwards you will see rubber eyecup, metal ring, glass
- rotate the eyecup - does the metal ring rotate as well (might not be easy to see - mark it with a piece of tape or something so it is easier to see.

It's that metal ring that moves - and it is not part of the eyecup assembly itself.

SW

Click to expand...

Since writing the above I have taken a closer look (as I was curious as to why the metal part on the eyepiece moves o my binocs but not on jeffintercamb's binocs). As suspected the metal ring WAS loose. I think the ring is to hold the eyecup assembly in place, rather than to hold the lens itself. Whatever it's function I have managed to tighten it - a very fiddley job bearing in mind the small size of the part and the risk of scratching the lens. I covered the lens with a piece of soft (Opticron) lenscloth. Then I used my fingers to turn the metal ring as far as it would go. It is at least hand-tight now, so I can check to see if it sits well enough or if it needs retightend.

Am happy to ahve fixed the problem - thanks Jeff!

SW

Jeffintercamb · Feb 22, 2006

Glad to hear you've worked out what the problem was.

I realise just how annoying it can be when an otherwise high quality product can lose its appeal somewhat when there's a niggling defect.

If the ring works loose again and you're thinking of keeping the binoculars, I'd get in touch with Nikon/the seller and deal with it once and for all.

Personally, I feel no need to change or "upgrade" - because there isn't a better 8x20 binocular to upgrade to...

I only wish I'll last as long as my binoculars look like they're going to. ;-)

Jeff

Sancho · Apr 4, 2006

Jeffintercamb said:
Personally, I feel no need to change or "upgrade" - because there isn't a better 8x20 binocular to upgrade to...
Jeff

Are you chaps happy with the Nikon 8x20 HGL then? (Well obviously 'cos you said so...). I'm in the market for quality compacts, and have narrowed my choice to Ultravid 8x20 or the Nikon HGL. Another forum member recommended the Nikons, but I can't find a pair to test in Ireland, I can only get them ordered. I've tested the Ultravids, they're lovely, feel nice, well armoured, but what puts me off is the narrow FOV compared to the Nikons. I just get a bit jumpy when I hear you chaps talking about loose rings and plasticky feeling housing. They're going to spend their life in my pocket, my bike bag, or my rucksack, which are not pleasant or luxurious places to be. Can you armour these things yourself with a load of Duct tape?

trashbird · Apr 4, 2006

Sancho said:
Are you chaps happy with the Nikon 8x20 HGL then? (Well obviously 'cos you said so...). I'm in the market for quality compacts, and have narrowed my choice to Ultravid 8x20 or the Nikon HGL. Another forum member recommended the Nikons, but I can't find a pair to test in Ireland, I can only get them ordered. I've tested the Ultravids, they're lovely, feel nice, well armoured, but what puts me off is the narrow FOV compared to the Nikons. I just get a bit jumpy when I hear you chaps talking about loose rings and plasticky feeling housing. They're going to spend their life in my pocket, my bike bag, or my rucksack, which are not pleasant or luxurious places to be. Can you armour these things yourself with a load of Duct tape?

The HGL 8x20 are built like a tank -- almost all alloy construction. There is only a a little rubber armouring on them, though, which could be a concern. Metal housings are durable against certain kinds of abuse, but rubber armouring would seem to be more protective against bumps and thuds -- shock absorbtion, I guess.

I never tried the Ultravids. But the HGLs seemed much better to me than the Zeiss 8x20s. From what I've read, the Ultravids have a bit more eye relief and a little less FOV. If you wear glasses, the usable FOV on the HGLs and the Ultravids might be about the same. Without glasses, the HGLs are clearly better.

Sancho · Apr 4, 2006

trashbird said:
The HGL 8x20 are built like a tank -- almost all alloy construction. There is only a a little rubber armouring on them, though, which could be a concern. Metal housings are durable against certain kinds of abuse, but rubber armouring would seem to be more protective against bumps and thuds -- shock absorbtion, I guess.

I never tried the Ultravids. But the HGLs seemed much better to me than the Zeiss 8x20s. From what I've read, the Ultravids have a bit more eye relief and a little less FOV. If you wear glasses, the usable FOV on the HGLs and the Ultravids might be about the same. Without glasses, the HGLs are clearly better.

Thanks for that, Trashbird. You´ve helped me make up my mind. In a recent ´Alula´review, the reviewer decided that the Nikons and Leica were better than either Zeiss or Swarovski compacts. But he couldn´t decide between the top two, said it would really be a matter of personal choice. I think I prefer the idea of the wider FOV. (Interestingly enough, he reckoned that Opticron Taigas were better optically than either the Zeiss or the Swaros). Thanks again, Éanna

iporali · Apr 5, 2006

Sancho said:
But he couldn´t decide between the top two, said it would really be a matter of personal choice.

I wish you had a chance to handle them both. This is obviously a Nikon forum, which means that some vocal Leica fans don't necessarily find this discussion

. I don't have either of these bins, but I would find it hard to get used to Nikon's embedded "front end" focuser. There is a difference in fov, but I would call them both quite narrow. In my hands the Ultravid's large, less hypersensitive and "correctly placed" focuser (which can be used with two/three fingers) makes a much bigger difference. Optically the Nikon HGs are great, but I would really try to make it sure that also the "fit and feel" are OK.
Sorry if I have confused making your mind up.

Best regards,

Ilkka

trealawboy · Apr 5, 2006

iporali said:
I wish you had a chance to handle them both. This is obviously a Nikon forum, which means that some vocal Leica fans don't necessarily find this discussion . I don't have either of these bins, but I would find it hard to get used to Nikon's embedded "front end" focuser. There is a difference in fov, but I would call them both quite narrow. In my hands the Ultravid's large, less hypersensitive and "correctly placed" focuser (which can be used with two/three fingers) makes a much bigger difference. Optically the Nikon HGs are great, but I would really try to make it sure that also the "fit and feel" are OK.
Sorry if I have confused making your mind up.

Best regards,

Ilkka

I have the Nikon 8x20 HGs. They are fabulous compact binoculars. The placement of the focuser however, could be an issue for some a Ilkka rightly points out. I bought mine before the Leica Ultravids were around, and they were clearly, to my eye, better than any of their competitors. When I was trying them in the shop, I found the focuser position strange. On using them for a few minutes though, I was soon used to it.

Having used the binoculars for over two years now, I find the focuser fine, and tend to use my ring finger rather than little finger for focussing. I dare say the more natural placement of the focuser on the Leica is better, as a choice of finger for focussing could be used and it may be possible to focus more precisely, fractionally quicker.

Would I buy, the Nikons again? Yes, definately, and I'll be ordering a pair of 10x25 soon.

Alexis Powell · Apr 5, 2006

Alula review of Zeiss 8x20

Sancho said:
... In a recent ´Alula´review, the reviewer decided that the Nikons and Leica were better than either Zeiss or Swarovski compacts...

I really enjoy Kimmo's reviews in Alula, and they are perhaps the best of contemporary reviews, but I don't think choosing among the pocket roof models is as clear-cut as his evaluation implies. In particular, I think he dismisses the Zeiss 8x20 Victory too quickly. I own both the Zeiss 8x20 Victory and the Leica 8x20 Ultravid (so I don't have a "vested interest" in defending one over the other), and I prefer the ergonomics of the former. The asymmetric bridge shape allows me to grip the Zeiss just like a full sized bino, and the focus knob falls right under my right index finger (and in my unit, turns smoothly). The superior hand grip makes getting the optics aligned with my eyes quicker and easier than with the Leicas, which makes the Zeiss seem easier to look through. Yes, the Leica have very slightly better contrast, deal with backlighting better, and focus to 5.5 feet (versus 6.5 feet for the Zeiss), but when I reach for a compact roof I tend to favor the Zeiss. I appreciate its wider field of view as well, and I don't find the resolution or edge of field performance to be at all below that of the Leica.

Main point of all this? The optics of these top-end binos are very similar. Ergonomics is what makes the difference, and that is a property that is very much a matter of individual preference. Obviously the Zeiss is not a good match for Kimmo, but many other reviewers have greatly appreciated the handling properties of the Zeiss Victory compact (and its Design Selection predecessor). I'd follow the general rule of try before you buy--it is especially important with these silly little binos. I personally dislike the Nikon and Swarovski for their focus wheel position, and I find the optics of the latter to be very dim compared to the others.
--AP

Sancho · Apr 6, 2006

Alexis Powell said:
I really enjoy Kimmo's reviews in Alula, and they are perhaps the best of contemporary reviews, but I don't think choosing among the pocket roof models is as clear-cut as his evaluation implies. In particular, I think he dismisses the Zeiss 8x20 Victory too quickly. I own both the Zeiss 8x20 Victory and the Leica 8x20 Ultravid (so I don't have a "vested interest" in defending one over the other), and I prefer the ergonomics of the former. The asymmetric bridge shape allows me to grip the Zeiss just like a full sized bino, and the focus knob falls right under my right index finger (and in my unit, turns smoothly). The superior hand grip makes getting the optics aligned with my eyes quicker and easier than with the Leicas, which makes the Zeiss seem easier to look through. Yes, the Leica have very slightly better contrast, deal with backlighting better, and focus to 5.5 feet (versus 6.5 feet for the Zeiss), but when I reach for a compact roof I tend to favor the Zeiss. I appreciate its wider field of view as well, and I don't find the resolution or edge of field performance to be at all below that of the Leica.

Main point of all this? The optics of these top-end binos are very similar. Ergonomics is what makes the difference, and that is a property that is very much a matter of individual preference. Obviously the Zeiss is not a good match for Kimmo, but many other reviewers have greatly appreciated the handling properties of the Zeiss Victory compact (and its Design Selection predecessor). I'd follow the general rule of try before you buy--it is especially important with these silly little binos. I personally dislike the Nikon and Swarovski for their focus wheel position, and I find the optics of the latter to be very dim compared to the others.
--AP

Many thanks for that, AP, you alerted me to something important about the Nikons, which is the focusing wheel position. I can´t find a pair in Ireland to test, but I don´t like focusing with 3rd or 4th finger. Good point. I´ll take your advice and try before I buy. (This is why I love this forum...people are happy to give their time and experience helping out other people. Like old folk say used to happen in the old days).

trealawboy · Apr 7, 2006

trealawboy said:
Would I buy, the Nikons again? Yes, definately, and I'll be ordering a pair of 10x25 soon.

I recieved my 10x25s this morning. £199 from Warehouse Express. Inital impressions are that they are a little better than the 8x20 in brightness and sharpness. Along the lines of the arguments set out here.

One other obvious difference is that they are a little more comfortable to hold. The extra 16mm barrel length of the 10x makes a significant difference in my opinion in handling quality. It allows you to 'rest' your fingers on the bins. Sometimes with the 8x, my fingers are left dangling over the end of the barrel, which feels odd and a little uncomfortable at times.

Both sets of bins are terrific!

Couple of queries Nikon 8 x 20 HGL (1 Viewer)

More options

seawatcher

Well-known member

Jeffintercamb

Member

bradshrike

Guest

seawatcher

Well-known member

seawatcher

Well-known member

seawatcher

Well-known member

Jeffintercamb

Member

Sancho

Well-known member

trashbird

Well-known member

Sancho

Well-known member

iporali

Well-known member

trealawboy

Well-known member

Alexis Powell

Natural history enthusiast

Sancho

Well-known member

trealawboy

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread