Nikon 8x30E11 (3 Viewers)

Now to find a rain cover to fit folded-down eyecups with IPD set at 60mm? The stock one-piece won't work - it's too narrow near the center. Diameter is about 1.75 inches. I like the Swarovski hinged design but none are likely large enough.

Camshaft said:

Now to find a rain cover to fit folded-down eyecups with IPD set at 60mm? The stock one-piece won't work - it's too narrow near the center. Diameter is about 1.75 inches. I like the Swarovski hinged design but none are likely large enough.

Click to expand...

I was just looking at a tripod at B&H so checked out the rain guards they have. This one might work, but no size is provided in the specs:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/113909-REG/Zeiss_52_92_01_Eyepiece_Cap.html

Ah! Just found the Vortex XL rainguard, spec'd to fit 45-48mm eyecups. The folded-down EII eyecups run about 46-47mm. Unless I hear of something better these seem nearly perfect at a mere $11.99 from Eagle.

ceasar said:

Adlerblick had an earlier version which was made in standard black back in the 70's and the 80's which were excellent. The notorious Astronomy mail order store up in Daleville, PA, northeast of Scranton, PA, which closed when the owner tried to establish a headquarters in Las Vegas had a bunch of Carton 7x42 Porro's on sale for a while for about $240.00. They were really good! I'm sorry I never bought one.

Bob

Click to expand...

I wish I did, too, but at the time, 7x seemed too low since 8x was the "IT" magnification. Now I could use a good quality 7x bin.

Swift also made a 7x42 Ultralite. I've often wondered if Swift Ultralites and Carton Adlerblicks were re-badged Vixens like Celestron Ultimas and the leatherette Orion Vistas. They look the same and have similar specs.

From Valley Microcope's website, it appears Carton dropped the 7x42 and 8x32 models, and now only offers the 8x42. 10x50 and 7x50.

They have the resolution numbers for them, and they aren't too impressive. The FOV is rather narrow, too.

8x42 = 6.6″ (6.5* FOV)
7x50 = 5.6″ (6* FOV)
10x50 = 5.6″ (5.3* FOV)

That's sub par resolution for an 8x42, and a 10x bin that only resolves as much as a 7x bin? That doesn't seem right. Edz measured the resolution of the 10x42 SE as 3.6".

Brock

New EII owner here. They just came in the mail today and I've only used them very little, but I'm happy. Did some controlled tests in low light against a few of my other binoculars and was very impressed with the light transmission. They may be the brightest binocular I have. I was surprised they beat out the Vanguard Endeavor ED 8x42 for brightness, just does not seem right for a 30mm objective to do that. Maybe it was the FOV that made the overall image look brighter as it was able to capture brighter areas.

I've not been able to really appreciate the FOV yet, but I will in a few days when I can take them out for a proper test. Handling and eye relief (rolled cups) worked very well for me with my glasses. This is a great set to have for comparison purposes and I'm sure they will get a lot of use given their fairly small size and performance. It will be interesting to compare them with my compact binoculars next over the coming week.

Thanks to this great forum, I'm happy to find out about these before they are gone like the SE model.

Welcome Bostonian to the EII Club and to Bird Forum!

We've debated this before about the apparent brightness of the EII vs. other bins. They seem brighter to me than the 8x32 SE, even though given equal quality coatings, the SE should look brighter because of its larger objetives. I think it is the much wider FOV that makes the appear brighter. OTOH, the EII's light transmission is higher than the Vanguard's, according to Arek at allbinos.

He rated the 10x42 Endeavor @ 79.9% light transmission and the 8x30 EII @ 89.1%, so that's a significant difference between the two that your eyes could see. Like Anon Y. Mous once said, "It's hard to beat a good porro."

The EII is my favorite birding bin and all arounder. If you find the body too stubby kay, you can add a pair of #5 Buswacker covers, which will give your pinkies some place to rest and balance the bin better.

I'm surprised the 13.5mm ER works for your glasses. Are they polycarbonate? I had wire rim thin polycarbonate glasses that I wore close to my face to help me see as much field of view as possible. Couldn't see the entire FOV with the EII, but there's so much FOV that the view was still wide. My glasses worked better with the 17.4mm ER 8x32 SE.

Now don't go jinxing the longevity of the EII, they have to keep in production until my pig's feet jars are filled with quarters, so I can either buy a new one or the older one I sold, preferably both!

Brock

P.S. Go Yankees!

Nikon EII live up to their billing.

I'm a happy EII owner. Got out with them the other day along with 3 other binoculars and they continued to impress. They have a bit of a geometric compression when viewing close targets small birds look miniature and such. This is maybe an aspect of the WAV, but they have several elements of the view that were different from roof prism designs and others. On many close targets I preferred what I would call the more natural view of some of the others I had with me that seem to keep the different subjects in better relative proportions to each other and to the unaided view.

I really like that I bring them to my eyes and the image is there I don't need to fuss with eye placement on these. I think this might be true of porro designs in general for me, as all 4 I have seem to have this attribute despite differences in eye relief.

The image does appear really nice an bright and clear, there is a small tint when viewing the sky with clouds and at sunset, others can have a better white-balance. I hardly ever notice the tint, but it's there.

The size and weight are really great, especially when the optical performance is considered. At distance targets they beat out the 8x25 Pocket CL for contrast and resolution. As the light dropped the difference narrowed a bit.

I found the focus easy to use.

The 8x30 EII are a good binocular that really lives up to its internet billing as one of the best porro ever made, and certainly one of the best values.

More testing to follow as I get an even better idea where I like to use each binocular.

These might be available now in many countries because they are clearing out everything they have; seems to be the way it is done. Very happy to get one of these.

ads said:

The natural 3-D effect provided by my unassisted eyes is very natural (to my brain). My eyes/brain sees the world looks as mostly flat-looking, with subtle 3-D cues.

The enhanced 3-D effect through the EII looks like a cheesy 3-D movie to me. It's kind of cool... but I don't know what value it adds, and it's distracting to the plot.

.

Click to expand...

I realise everyone is different, but.... The 3D Bino effect looks cheesy? We do live in a 3D world. Even Birds are three dimensional! :smoke:

If, for you, the EII is overwhelmingly 3D, then tread with extreme caution around the likes of the big porro 7x50 Fujinon...3D??? - you'll be certain that some deviant has spiked your eye drops with Lycergic Acid Diethalmenide.

I enjoy live music. Rock (not so much anymore), jazz and unamplified orchestral music. Within my smallish budget, over many years, I've done my best to set up a half decent hifi so I can enjoy some dulcet and lucid tones at home. I've never installed a 'mono' mode switch so I can flatten and suck the 3D depth, width, height from the soundstage...so it's more like an old radio and less like the live performance. I see no difference with binocular viewing.

One last thing...imo, people are often in search of instant gratification. I do feel that modern roofs provide an alluring element of this. Not much technique is required - a little kid or binocular novice can look through my 8x32 or 8.5SV and get a big, quick, clean easy view. My Habichts are different. To delve into their full repertoire of talents requires technique and some acclimatisation over time. Don't rush. Get to know your porros. Facial/eye positioning is paramount. Play with the eye cups. The reward, IMO, is a view which is brighter, sharper and with a realistic and stunning 3D view. I also like the old school big sweet spot with a roll off towards the edge. No bizarre magic fieldflatteners here.

I'm getting my first pair of new 8x30EII in a couple of weeks. Here are my expectations having never looked through them...and I'm happy to be wrong! I expect the Nikon to be a little easier to use than the habicht, more forgiving of eye positioning, a slightly bigger fov, maybe less glare, but not as well made (no sealing or 35yr warranty), nor as bright, and not as sharp on axis as the habicht. I'm keen to compare the useable size and quality of the sweet spot on both. Either way, it'll be fun finding out B

Cheers, Rathaus

EnjoyTheView said:

I'm a happy EII owner. Got out with them the other day along with 3 other binoculars and they continued to impress. They have a bit of a geometric compression when viewing close targets small birds look miniature and such. This is maybe an aspect of the WAV, but they have several elements of the view that were different from roof prism designs and others. On many close targets I preferred what I would call the more natural view of some of the others I had with me that seem to keep the different subjects in better relative proportions to each other and to the unaided view....

Click to expand...

I was wondering what you meant by this, until I experienced it shortly after that, when I was using my 8x32 Sightron Blue Sky II's, and I was trying to focus on a close-up butterfly. Yes, truly not a magnified image, was I surprised too! Don't understand why, but I'm not a technical guy anyway, so even if someone wanted to try to explain optically why it occurs, it might be lost on me.

But, does it happen to all higher power binoculars in close focusing? I have a pair of 6x32's that don't seem to act that way, at least all the times I've close focused them. Interesting though.

Got my new EII

I'm not sure which E2 thread to post in...but then decided that this was appropriate because the OP queried how the E2 performed against the current Swarovski Habicht 8x30. I've got both so I can share some observations...over time.

Holy smoke...I've had another quick peek through the nikons...my first Nikon product, just freshly arrived...right off the bat these things are brilliant. The Habicht has a fight on its hands here. I'll be putting the GA eye cups on the Habicht and cleaning their lenses for sure. :t:

When high quality binoculars are compared, I believe many times the comparisons are almost subliminally affected by ergonomic factors.

John

bluespiderweb said:

I was wondering what you meant by this, until I experienced it shortly after that, when I was using my 8x32 Sightron Blue Sky II's, and I was trying to focus on a close-up butterfly. Yes, truly not a magnified image, was I surprised too! Don't understand why, but I'm not a technical guy anyway, so even if someone wanted to try to explain optically why it occurs, it might be lost on me.

But, does it happen to all higher power binoculars in close focusing? I have a pair of 6x32's that don't seem to act that way, at least all the times I've close focused them. Interesting though.

Click to expand...

Henry might chime in with the technical reason, as he has before, I don't remember what it was, but magnification at closer distances does diminish with porros, but with roofs, it can be the opposite, because of the roof magnification illusion that actually makes the image look bigger at closer distance with roofs vs. porros of the same power. Not everybody can see this however, but I gather from reading BF that many people do.

Try looking at a target at 10, then 30, then 50, then 100 ft. with both the 8x32 BS II and 8x32 SE and see if you notice any difference in image scale between the roof and porro, and if the image scale changes as you move from close to farther distances.

Brock

bluespiderweb said:

....
But, does it happen to all higher power binoculars in close focusing? I have a pair of 6x32's that don't seem to act that way, at least all the times I've close focused them. Interesting though.

Click to expand...

Definitely not. I'm happy with two very different binoculars, 1 10x porro and and 8x roof which I compared at the same time on the same scenes. In fact I don't think I've seen it in another binocular, but it is something one may not notice very quickly unless they are familiar with the scene. I will have to check the BSII as I have not noticed the same effect on that one, but there may be a certain close distance where the effect is removed again, because it was not until I was outside with various objects in close proximity to each other of various shapes and sizes that it really became apparent. Didn't notice it in really close indoor tests which is strange. Different optiical focusing designs can affect the focal length of an optical system with focus, so it's possible I guess this may affect the image presented to the ocular in a binocular, but don't really know much about binocular optics.

Habicht vs EII

Today I spent a good couple of hours at the airport watching Hawks, aircraft and the wound razor wire atop the runway boundary fence which was about thirty metres away.

I took a selection of Habichts and my new 8x30 EII. I think I'll just blab a bit about some of my observations.

Here's a snapshot of the EII infested by habichts. Three newish habichts (1x 10x40, one new current military DF 8x30, and one newish 8x30 traditional) , and two late 80s early 90s habichts, 8 and 10x.

Firstly, the images through the EII are truly outstanding. If I had to use only this bino till the end of my days, I'd be a happy chap..excepting its vulnerability to water or water vapour.

The FOV is big, but does fuzz out nicely 2/3 to the edge. I like that. Swivelling my eyes round the entire apfov would give me a migraine anyway. It has a nice sweet spot. From my distance, I could get a a full 747 in view with a little bit of room to spare on each side.

The 3D effect of this bin is just brilliant. I can't live without that in a bino.

No CA today.

Contrast is ok/good.

A very sharp Bino too. On its own, this Bin is very hard to fault. I can see why it is so revered.

I experienced absolutely no facial, eye, visual cortex or brain dissonance while using the EII today. Just lovely easy and rewarding views..........nothing unpleasant stands out in this bin. It's is wonderfully balanced in that regard. I can see that any sins or shortcomings of the EII will be merely sins of mostly subtle omission.

Now...to the Habicht...

brocknroller said:

Henry might chime in with the technical reason, as he has before, I don't remember what it was, but magnification at closer distances does diminish with porros, but with roofs, it can be the opposite, because of the roof magnification illusion that actually makes the image look bigger at closer distance with roofs vs. porros of the same power. Not everybody can see this however, but I gather from reading BF that many people do.

Try looking at a target at 10, then 30, then 50, then 100 ft. with both the 8x32 BS II and 8x32 SE and see if you notice any difference in image scale between the roof and porro, and if the image scale changes as you move from close to farther distances.

Brock

Click to expand...

I remembered what Henry wrote about Porro images seeming smaller than roof and found it http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2503413&postcount=15

henry link said:

Ah...the power of suggestion!

Go back and look again guys. If you use both eyes it's the binocular with wider objective spacing that seems, because of the increased parallax, to have the smaller image at close range. The difference can appear so large that a 10x Porro image at 10' can seem about the same size as an 8x roof prism image. Close one eye and the illusion evaporates.

Click to expand...

Sorry to add to the confusion but the parallax explanation, while plausible, is just a conjecture. This illusion of smaller apparent size of the objects viewed through a porro is related to the "Moon illusion" about which there are books but no universally accepted explanation, despite the fact that it was first stated about 2000 years ago....

pesto said:

Sorry to add to the confusion but the parallax explanation, while plausible, is just a conjecture. This illusion of smaller apparent size of the objects viewed through a porro is related to the "Moon illusion" about which there are books but no universally accepted explanation, despite the fact that it was first stated about 2000 years ago....

Click to expand...

Pesto,

Just when I thought Henry had it nailed! Even though he's an artist not a scientist, people take his word as gospel, so his explanation would never have otherwise been questioned if you hadn't, so thanks for confusing things.

The Moon Illusion, now that's a conundrum.

I've read that some people don't experience the Moon Illusion, and I would imagine that just as some people don't see the roof magnification illusion, some probably don't notice that the image through porros at closer distances is smaller than roofs. And that's okay, people are wired differently. The only thing that really bugs me is when people don't see or experience what others do and then imply that everybody else besides them and those who agree with them are wrong/nuts. Six out of the seven people on my Ignore List and there for that reason. We should embrace the diversity of opinions not oppress them.

Romesco

Here comes even a more confusing fact: The Moon illusion disappears when you bend down and look at the Moon between your legs (no jokes please.....). I believe that no current "theory" can explain why that happens.

Regarding the "parallax explanation", its main claim is that due to a different parallax objects viewed through porros seem to be closer and then the brain "thinks" they should be smaller. But this is open to questioning: why should the brain "think" so?----it looks like making up an explanation when we know beforehand what we want to explain. Also, if that was true then one might wonder if people with larger IPDs would see a "smaller world" around them.....maybe the composer of the song "It's a small world" had a huge IPD.....

Peter.

Subzero888 said:

I remembered what Henry wrote about Porro images seeming smaller than roof and found it http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2503413&postcount=15

Click to expand...

Yes, that was easy for me to see too, the difference in object size between Porros and roofs. But that isn't what I was referring to in my post-just the small image size of a close object (butterfly) at short range through my 8x32 roofs. I've never encountered this in my 6x32 roofs, which were often focused at close range. That always looked magnified, but not the 8x32 view of the short range butterfly.