nikon EDG 10x42 review (1 Viewer)

I have been using the new Swarovski EL 10x42 now for already 1.5 year and it's a great bin.
This week I had the opportunity to have an appointment with the local distributor of the Nikon EDG line in Brussels and was curious to compare the SV with the EDG
( 8x42 ,10x42 and 10x32)
Weather conditions were cloudy and sometimes sunny.

General impressions of the EDG : overal these bins gave me the feeling of high quality and very stable in the hand during the 1 hour testing.

Optics :no very big difference between the 10x42 and 10x32.
SV : bit brighter (higher transmission)
more colourfringing (chromatic aberration more pronounced?)
very good contrast impression , stable view impression.
quite some glare when sun came trough.
EDG :- no glare at all , which surprised me a lot. I thought the SV would be just unbeatable on this field.
(By the way , a friend of me has a 12x50 SV and there the internal glare is also quite present , though not very disturbing.)
-very high impression of resolution , could see more details than with SV.
SV was however more contrasty.
-less color fringing surprised me as well.
- a pity that close focus was not so near as the SV (I love insects to watch)
- very high depth of field , better than SV ( not a huge difference however)

Other issues :

EDG : diopter adjustment : pulling up the focus drive needed some extra effort.
Focus drive was very pleasant and much smoother than the SV.
rubber feeling is more sticky than with SV.
eyecups : OK
more nervous impression of the view
SV : even after 1.5 year of use , the focus drive remains less smoothy.
I just like the SV rubber feeling.
eyecups : i still don't like them! the pull out mechanism is not my thing.
the image gives a more calm and less nervous impression.

Conclusion : If I could choose between between the EDG and the SV right now,
It would be very difficult!!
What I like the most with the edg is the less glare in sunny conditions.

Arran,

Thanks for that comparison. If they are so close in performance, I think I would go for the bin with the more "smoothy" focuser!

Do your comments cover all three EDG models or just the 10x42 and 10x32? I'd like to know how the views through the 8x42 EDG looked to you.

I tried the 10x42 EDG. I liked the views and the ergonomics, but I prefer the better depth perception and 3-D effect of the 10x35 EII and 10x42 SE.

The 8x42 EDG would probably do better with those qualities than the 10x42. I would be interested in hearing your impressions of the 8x42 model. Thanks.

Also, am I correct in assuming these were the EDG II models you tried? I don't think the EDG I was released in Europe (the first model with double hinged open bridge).

Brock

The models I tested were the new EDG models.
I did not see a difference between 8 and 10 x of the EDG models.
Although , the more "nervous" impression of the image ws however more pronounced with the
10 X 42 than with 8 X42.
No 3D effect difference was observed .

Arran,

Thanks for the report. I've not seen the Swaro range yet but a couple of weeks ago I spent an hour trying the 8x42 EDG along side the Zeiss 8x32, 8x42 and 7x42 FL. To be honest I'm not sure what to make of the EDG.

While I've been exploring the low to mid range binos for a while now I hadn't ventured into the alphas so didn't really know what to expect. There was something immediately comfortable or perhaps familiar about the Zeiss pairs. Certainly better than I'm used to but there was a subtlety to the enhancement to the view and handling that gave me the 'that's rather nice' feeling. Pass the cocoa, relax and enjoy!

The EDG on the other hand was a quadruple espresso. Just about everything in the view grabbed my attention at the same time. A little disconcerting yes, but enjoyable all the same. In the time available I couldn't really pin down the reason why. Perhaps the brightness and sharpness at the edges, different colour balance, unfamiliar contrast, geometric differences? I couldn't say. Perhaps that's the "nervousness" you mentioned.

Which is the better tool for observing nature? I'd need a lot more time to figure that out. I was just beginning to find the more subtle aspects of the view where I felt one or other had a small advantage. Trying to be objective I thought they were scoring pretty even. The Zeiss would be the easy choice... but I do like a shot of espresso.

David

david ,

My brother has a 10x42 zeiss fl , which is in use for about 5 years now.
I like these bins , especially because they are very bright!! (hight transmission )
But what disturbes me is the high amount of internal glare when observing in sunny conditions.

Arran,

Thank you for the review and the comparisons.

I have been using a 10 x 32 EDG I--the double hinged model-- for a year now and I have also noticed it's remarkable resistance to glare. Especially looking at birds in the general direction towards the sun. I have also had no problems with the focus wheel/diopter mechanism. It is wonderfully smooth and is noticeably slower than the older HG/L LX/L models were.
Bob

arran said:

I have been using the new Swarovski EL 10x42 now for already 1.5 year and it's a great bin.
This week I had the opportunity to have an appointment with the local distributor of the Nikon EDG line in Brussels and was curious to compare the SV with the EDG
( 8x42 ,10x42 and 10x32)
Weather conditions were cloudy and sometimes sunny.

General impressions of the EDG : overal these bins gave me the feeling of high quality and very stable in the hand during the 1 hour testing.

Optics :no very big difference between the 10x42 and 10x32.
SV : bit brighter (higher transmission)
more colourfringing (chromatic aberration more pronounced?)
very good contrast impression , stable view impression.
quite some glare when sun came trough.
EDG :- no glare at all , which surprised me a lot. I thought the SV would be just unbeatable on this field.
(By the way , a friend of me has a 12x50 SV and there the internal glare is also quite present , though not very disturbing.)
-very high impression of resolution , could see more details than with SV.
SV was however more contrasty.
-less color fringing surprised me as well.
- a pity that close focus was not so near as the SV (I love insects to watch)
- very high depth of field , better than SV ( not a huge difference however)

Other issues :

EDG : diopter adjustment : pulling up the focus drive needed some extra effort.
Focus drive was very pleasant and much smoother than the SV.
rubber feeling is more sticky than with SV.
eyecups : OK
more nervous impression of the view
SV : even after 1.5 year of use , the focus drive remains less smoothy.
I just like the SV rubber feeling.
eyecups : i still don't like them! the pull out mechanism is not my thing.
the image gives a more calm and less nervous impression.

Conclusion : If I could choose between between the EDG and the SV right now,
It would be very difficult!!
What I like the most with the edg is the less glare in sunny conditions.

Click to expand...

Arran:

Good of you to post your experience with the Nikon EDG 10x42.
I agree with much of your findings, as I have had the EDG, in both models, I and II for well over a year.

My experience with the Swaro SV. is with the 8.5x42, for several months.

I agree that both of these binoculars are very good.
For the SV, some positives are the great view all the way to the very edge.
Very good contrast and brightness, just a nice handling binocular, with the open
frame, etc. The EDG has much the same view, and I do not favor either one.

The Nikon EDG, is very good binocular, and it has the nice grippy armor, and with
the Nikon here is a couple of things I like over the Swaro. The eyecups have a
better detent to find the best position. The other thing is the focuser with the
EDG, it has a larger diameter knob, and just the smoothest motion that I have
found available on any binocular. They are both the same weight.

Optically, they seem to be very good.

I suppose some are wondering about how I have ranked these binoculars.
They are both great. :t:

Jerry

Jerry,
Thanks for your comments, which I always enjoy. Unlike many of us, you are so controlled that very good is as good as it gets. I hope that one day you will find a binocular that you rate utterly fantastic, superb, and unbelievable, blows everything else away (we will all buy it immediately), but till then, keep walking the middle path. A special thank you for not "ranking" two essentially equal binoculars!
Ron

Piergiovanni at Binomania posted his report on the 8x42 EDG last week.
http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/nikonEDG8x42_7x42.php/nikon_edge_8x42.php

Use the Google translate button at the top of the page. The one in the text goes to a Docter review.

David

ronh said:

Jerry,
Thanks for your comments, which I always enjoy. Unlike many of us, you are so controlled that very good is as good as it gets. I hope that one day you will find a binocular that you rate utterly fantastic, superb, and unbelievable, blows everything else away (we will all buy it immediately), but till then, keep walking the middle path. A special thank you for not "ranking" two essentially equal binoculars!
Ron

Click to expand...

Ron:

Thanks for the kind comments. A few years ago when I was bothered by the overuse of the word "awesome", I have made it a practice to not overuse the
highly positive words as you just mentioned.

Another reason I may have described these binoculars as very good, as I do
not want the companies to think they have things mastered.

Jerry

Jerry,
Could you comment on the balance of the Swaro's vs. the EDG? I was able to compare the models (FL and Ultravids too) this weekend. I am interested in how your experience compares with mine. Also, the EDG that I had access to was version 1 - so I am curious as to how version 1 balance compares to version 2. The models I was comparing were the 8 & 8.5 power......Rob

Argon said:

Jerry,
Could you comment on the balance of the Swaro's vs. the EDG? I was able to compare the models (FL and Ultravids too) this weekend. I am interested in how your experience compares with mine. Also, the EDG that I had access to was version 1 - so I am curious as to how version 1 balance compares to version 2. The models I was comparing were the 8 & 8.5 power......Rob

Click to expand...

Rob:

As far as handling I think the balance is very good on all of these models.
I do like the open frame, and so the EDG I version is good in that regard.
The EDG II is well balanced also, and I think you would be happy with either.
I hope this helps.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

Rob:

As far as handling I think the balance is very good on all of these models.
I do like the open frame, and so the EDG I version is good in that regard.
The EDG II is well balanced also, and I think you would be happy with either.
I hope this helps.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick response. Of the 4 models, the EDG felt the best in my hands. Since I can't seem to find a place to try the EDG 2 - I could go with Eagle Optics and their 30 day return policy.

brocknroller said:

Arran,

Thanks for that comparison. If they are so close in performance, I think I would go for the bin with the more "smoothy" focuser!

Do your comments cover all three EDG models or just the 10x42 and 10x32? I'd like to know how the views through the 8x42 EDG looked to you.

I tried the 10x42 EDG. I liked the views and the ergonomics, but I prefer the better depth perception and 3-D effect of the 10x35 EII and 10x42 SE.

The 8x42 EDG would probably do better with those qualities than the 10x42. I would be interested in hearing your impressions of the 8x42 model. Thanks.

Also, am I correct in assuming these were the EDG II models you tried? I don't think the EDG I was released in Europe (the first model with double hinged open bridge).

Brock

Click to expand...

Well, I finally answered my own question. Bought the 8x42 EDG II two years ago. Loved the sharp, sparkling image and real life color rendition, sharp edges, buttery focuser, W-I-D-E AFOV, and smooth panning, but I did not like the ergonomics. Not one bit, not one iota. The barrels were too fat to get fingers from both hands around, and the fat body and supersized focuser and bridge, forced me to stagger my hands, such that one hand was positioned back toward the EPs to work the focuser and the other toward the objectives to grip the bin.

The 8x42 EDG's 3-D effect, though lacking mooreorless in all roofs vs porros, was nearly 2-D, with landscapes looking like a pre-Florentine, 14th century painting lacking linear perspective. One treeline seemed to blend into the other regardless of the distance of one behind the other.

I learned to live with the 2-D view as a trade-off for the bright, beautiful views, which really "shined" especially in the forest. In the open field, flare suppression was the best I've seen in a bin, better even than my Nikon SE, which I thought was the Top of the Pops.

But, and it's a big butt the size of Jennifer Lopez's (sorry Jay-Lo), and that was the 8x42 EDG's fat barrels, which I could not wrap fingers from both hands around, so the view was very "nervous" to coin the term used earlier (though I think he was referring to the 10x42 model). I tried every grip known to man (and a few known to aliens), but I was not able to hold the binoculars steady unless I was seated with my back braced and that was limited to watching birds in my backyard. I saw the same ones so many times that I gave them names: Donald, Daffy, Road Runner, Tweety, Woodstock, Foghorn, Huey, Dewey and Louie.

So, I traded them for an 8x32 EDG II, which has much better ergonomics but not as much sparkle (different AR coatings) and very good but not spectacular flare supression. I find the 32s to be sharper at close range than the 8x42, but the 42 was maybe a bit sharper at medium to long distances. Go figure!

If the 8x42 EDG's views weren't so "nervous" I would chose the 10x42 model above the others since it seemed to have less distortion/aberrations (except CA) than the 8x42. But I liked the EDG I's ergonomics better, which I think Jerry mentioned. I tried his 10x42 EDG I, and I could hold it steadier than I could my 8x42 EDG II, but the focuser was so loose it kept falling off. The EDG I's fatal flaw (along with a drifting diopter).

The 8x32 EDG II's optics look very close to the 8x32 SE in a side by side comparison. Despite having field flatteners, the 8x32 EDG shows better 3-D perception than the 8x42. And the 32s are lighter and easier to hold. For my shaky hands, ergos are as important as optics, but not more important. I miss that 8x42 EDG sparkle.

As Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say: It just goes to show ya. It's always something. If it's not one thing, it's another.

So, my Quest for the perfect bin that combines the 8x42 EDG's sparkling image, excellent flare supression and buttery smooth focuser and the 8x32 EDG's lighter weight, sharp image at close focus and better ergonomics continues....

Hopefully, achieving binonirvana won't cost me $3,000+, but can be found on the used market for $1200 (my spending limit for roofs).

Brock

Brock - The 7x42 EDG is better with the shaking factor, and it has almost no rectilinear distortion or field warping with panning that comes with the higher power, wider-AFOV 8x and 10x. That's why it's my fave. But it has the same ergonomics. I don't find it as troublesome. I also grip in different places with my 2 hands. I usually move my right hand up to focus, then move it down the barrel near the lens for viewing. The left stays in the middle more.

It's hard to tell, but to me, the 7x42 EDG seems to have good "depth perception" or whatever you want to call it. I only saw a small increase in the stereoscopic feel with the 7x35E. It's probably the higher rectilinear distortion that makes for the "flat" feel in the 8x and 10x.

The Zeiss SF 42's are the ultimate comfortable grip, and the only bino I've tried that equals the EDG focuser. They are super expensive. I haven't owned them, but the 42mm Monarch HG's and also the Zeiss 40mm SFL's seem to have the widely-spaced barrels and high bridge of the SF's. This is the kind of design I like. I'm fidgety and move my hands around while viewing, I don't like being forced into thumb grooves or other features that limit the easy movement of my hands & fingers.

This thread is from 2012.

dries1 said:

This thread is from 2012.

Click to expand...

not any more!

That is a reach, LOL.

People complain about short attentions spans these days, well Brock's attention span is 11 years