• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon EDG II users, past or present.... (1 Viewer)

Chill6x6, post 52,
I am sorry that I forgot to reply on your question in post 52. We have investigated the first NIKON EDG with open bridge (I hope I gave the correct type indication). I first saw it at the Photokina and was very much impressed by the whole construction, handling comfort, optical quality and simple beauty of the design and construction of the binocular. Then we tested it in comparison with the (at that moment revolutionary) new Swarovski EL and some other top quality binoculars. That was actually the first use of our then new spectrometer for the measurement of transmission spectra. That particular Nikon type binocular disappeared fairly quickly and one day I hope to get one (marvellous collectors item now).
The Nikon scored very high but was also exceptionally expensive and its color reproduction was slightly shifted to the red. Later in time we have investigated a number of other Nikons including the new telescope.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Nah. The few discounted ones went fast and the older model 10x50 SV's are fetching $2300 to $2400 again and the 8x32 SV's are selling at about $1500 to $1700. It is the law of supply and demand. There is not enough supply to keep up with the demand hence the price stays strong. I bought my 8x32 SV's three years ago for $1500 and I bet I could get what I paid for them. You would NEVER do that with a Nikon EDG. If you buy and EDG new and pay $2000 you would be lucky to get $1000 for them a week later if you sold them. They depreciate faster than a new car. Part of it could be if you buy used you have no warranty. It's not transferable. Here is a 10x50 SV that sold for $2300 and here is a Nikon EDG II that sold for $1007. ............................................

......................... .


Dennis,

Referencing your last 3 sentences; if one purchases a used Alpha binocular like a Swarovski which has a transferable original warranty for $2300.00 it will cost one $1,293.00 more than if one purchases a comparable used Alpha binocular like a Nikon binocular which does not have transferable original warranty for $1,007.00.

Now, suppose someone buys the used Swarovski binocular and never needs to use the warranty that came with it?

And suppose someone else buys the used Nikon and after a few years of use it has to get sent back to the manufacturer to get something fixed on it and they get charged $300.00 to $500.00 or so for the work on it and it is returned in a like new, refurbished condition and they get 12 more years use out of it.

Who is ahead of the game?

You pay your money and you take your chances. You may never need the insurance you bought with your used Swarovski. And you may never have needed any with the used Nikon.

I note here, anecdotally, that I purchased a Refurbished Alpha Nikon 10x35 EII over 12 years ago. It came with a 90 day warranty. I paid $250.00 for it and it is still working perfectly.

Bob
 
Last edited:
You should try the 10x50 SV. Only binocular I have seen that beats the 10x42 SF.

That would be off topic, but could you describe briefly why the SV 10x50 beats the SF 10x42?
The SV should be slightly brighter, but the SF should have similar DoF, better glare control and it has no RB (at least I do not see any). The main question here is this: if you have the SF why should you also buy the SV? On the other hand, if you have the SV and want a much lighter bin with similar performance, then you might want to consider the SF....

Peter
 
Accessories... I can see how this would matter to you. This doesn't matter so much to me as I usually don't even remove the neck strap from the box preferring a Rick Young harness instead. Objective covers that stay in place would be nice. [/QUOTE

The accessories do not matter too much to me either, but it's a bit strange that a set with excellent optics comes with comparatively poor accessories, like the over-engineered objective caps that never stay in place. Did I also mention the winged eyecups? IMO they are useless: they're too high for an ER of about 18mm, and their use produces a tunnel like view. Has anybody been able to use them on the 42mm models?
 
Sample variation... I've never understood this. Either the unit meets the specs or it doesn't. Shouldn't exist in a $2000 plus binocular.

I cannot agree more. However it appears that it is more cost-effective for manufacturers to accept returns of defective units and repair them (and many such units have only minor issues and are never returned) than implementing the rigorous QC that would be required to find small deviations from the specs .
 
Resale value... I don't guess anyone beats the big three and even Swarovski's resale value seems to have plummeted lately. Probably the non-transferable warranty hurts this a little.

As far as I know Swaros (new or used) sell very well. The EDGs do not, I do not know if they sold more than 1500 units of 10x42s worldwide (I am making this guess based on SNs of recent units)---I hope I am mistaken. Reselling an EDG is hard, unless one is ready to accept a price less than 1/2 of the original price. This is a pity, as the EDG has excellent optics and very good mechanics. My heart tells me that I should buy another EDG (I am weak...) but my mind tells me no: the EDG is a relatively old model (about 6 years old), and newer better models are likely to appear in the near future ( IS 12x L? SF 10x32mm might be able to compete well with the EDG 10x42? Also, afaik, Nikon is planning to unveil an upgrade of the HGL line, maybe M9?). For a bin collector the EDG is a must-have set. But if you, like me, want to have only a couple (a few) of always up-to-date bins, then buying an EDG might not be such a good idea. (I guess...I might reconsider...).

Peter.
 
I cannot agree more. However it appears that it is more cost-effective for manufacturers to accept returns of defective units and repair them (and many such units have only minor issues and are never returned) than implementing the rigorous QC that would be required to find small deviations from the specs .
And risk ruining their reputation? Swarovski checks every other unit going out the door.
 
Accessories... I can see how this would matter to you. This doesn't matter so much to me as I usually don't even remove the neck strap from the box preferring a Rick Young harness instead. Objective covers that stay in place would be nice. [/QUOTE

The accessories do not matter too much to me either, but it's a bit strange that a set with excellent optics comes with comparatively poor accessories, like the over-engineered objective caps that never stay in place. Did I also mention the winged eyecups? IMO they are useless: they're too high for an ER of about 18mm, and their use produces a tunnel like view. Has anybody been able to use them on the 42mm models?
IMO nice accessories should come with a $2000 binocular. The big three have nice accessories why shoudn't Nikon?
 
That would be off topic, but could you describe briefly why the SV 10x50 beats the SF 10x42?
The SV should be slightly brighter, but the SF should have similar DoF, better glare control and it has no RB (at least I do not see any). The main question here is this: if you have the SF why should you also buy the SV? On the other hand, if you have the SV and want a much lighter bin with similar performance, then you might want to consider the SF....

Peter
Easy view. The SF is nice but the bigger aperture of the SV just gives you an easier view. Now if Zeiss made a 10x50 SF it would compete more directly with the SV but back to the EDG. I wouldn't buy an EDG again either unless I got one really cheap on the used market. Probably wouldn't even then though because I think the big three have a better overall package for the same money.
 
Last edited:
Nah. The few discounted ones went fast and the older model 10x50 SV's are fetching $2300 to $2400 again and the 8x32 SV's are selling at about $1500 to $1700. It is the law of supply and demand. There is not enough supply to keep up with the demand hence the price stays strong. I bought my 8x32 SV's three years ago for $1500 and I bet I could get what I paid for them. You would NEVER do that with a Nikon EDG. If you buy and EDG new and pay $2000 you would be lucky to get $1000 for them a week later if you sold them. They depreciate faster than a new car. Part of it could be if you buy used you have no warranty. It's not transferable. Here is a 10x50 SV that sold for $2300 and here is a Nikon EDG II that sold for $1007. ............................................

......................... .


Dennis,

Referencing your last 3 sentences; if one purchases a used Alpha binocular like a Swarovski which has a transferable original warranty for $2300.00 it will cost one $1,293.00 more than if one purchases a comparable used Alpha binocular like a Nikon binocular which does not have transferable original warranty for $1,007.00.

Now, suppose someone buys the used Swarovski binocular and never needs to use the warranty that came with it?

And suppose someone else buys the used Nikon and after a few years of use it has to get sent back to the manufacturer to get something fixed on it and they get charged $300.00 to $500.00 or so for the work on it and it is returned in a like new, refurbished condition and they get 12 more years use out of it.

Who is ahead of the game?

You pay your money and you take your chances. You may never need the insurance you bought with your used Swarovski. And you may never have needed any with the used Nikon.

I note here, anecdotally, that I purchased a Refurbished Alpha Nikon 10x35 EII over 12 years ago. It came with a 90 day warranty. I paid $250.00 for it and it is still working perfectly.

Bob
Yes, I agree you may never need the warranty but with the inconsistent QA of the EDG's as Pesto pointed out I think you are taking a big risk. The EII is a different animal than the EDG. It is an older tested design that has been around for years and all the problems have been ironed out of it. I NEVER had one problem with any of the EII's I had either but I had the diopter problem with my EDG that Pesto mentioned which is common on the EDG's. Also, the EII's have better resale than the EDG's. You pay $400 for a pair and in a couple of years you can probably get your money back. Not so with an EDG. If you pay retail price for an EDG you would have to be insane. You are going to lose a LOT of money if you try to unload it. The older EDG's were really lemons and Nkon knew it. You send one of those in for repair and they didn't even try to fix it. They sent you an EDG II.
 
Welcome to BF. How do you compare the optical qualities of EDG II and UVHD? Is the EDG II better than the Leica?

I prefer the colours of the Leica and it is brighter while the EDG has its flat field combined with better eye relief and again that smooth focus. I picked up my EDG for rougthly half the cost of the Leica and I picked up the Leica at a very good price. If I was asked to do it all again I would be happy just with the EDG and the extra money in my pocket.
 
Yes, I agree you may never need the warranty but with the inconsistent QA of the EDG's as Pesto pointed out I think you are taking a big risk. The EII is a different animal than the EDG. It is an older tested design that has been around for years and all the problems have been ironed out of it. I NEVER had one problem with any of the EII's I had either but I had the diopter problem with my EDG that Pesto mentioned which is common on the EDG's. Also, the EII's have better resale than the EDG's. You pay $400 for a pair and in a couple of years you can probably get your money back. Not so with an EDG. If you pay retail price for an EDG you would have to be insane. You are going to lose a LOT of money if you try to unload it. The older EDG's were really lemons and Nkon knew it. You send one of those in for repair and they didn't even try to fix it. They sent you an EDG II.


Where did Pesto "document" Nikon's "inconsistent QA?" Documenting "inconsistent QA" is pretty tough to do. If you want to talk about "Inconsistent QA" in a binocular you can do it but you have to take responsibility for it. By the way, poor design is different than poor QA and the former was the problem with the EDG I.

The diopter problems with the EDGs that you mention, as you know, were well known in the earlier version EDG I binoculars with the open frames which were released in 2008. They were released only in the USA, not in Europe. Meanwhile Nikon was working on an EDG II that later was released; first in Europe and later in the USA.

The EDG I versions in USA which had diopter problems and bubbling on their leather coverings were replaced rather than repaired by Nikon, as a policy, with the new EDG II versions when they showed these problems

The EDG IIs were first released in 2010 in Europe and then later in the USA.

Nikon's Binocular marketing strategy and public relations are proper subjects of criticism and they have been discussed here often. None the less, there is nothing wrong with a binocular manufacturer replacing a binocular that has problems with a new one rather than fixing it. Nikon routinely does that with its inexpensive ones, as you well know and they decided to do the same thing with the EDG I in an attempt to remove them from the market. This was a singular occurrence among Alpha Binocular manufacturers.

As far as resale prices of binoculars go, the great majority of binocular users are not in the business of buying binoculars, playing with them, and then selling them as used items at the best prices they can get so they can start all over again recycling the new ones that come on the market.

Free internet sites like this one are great places for these people to advertise a binoculars putative merits and other binoculars demerits whether they have been confirmed or not.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Where did Pesto "document" Nikon's "inconsistent QA?" In post #48 Pesto quotes:

"There is sample variation (I noticed that different units needed significantly different diopter settings; more importantly, the baffling of some units was slightly worse in one barrel than in the other, which produced some minor internal reflections)."

I really think the first EDG introduction was a fiasco for Nikon and I think it was because they introduced it obviously without enough testing and research. Like you said yourself Nikon was the only alpha binocular manufacturer ever that had a recall of their binoculars and then had to redesign them to eliminate problems inherent in the first model. It was almost like they introduced a prototype or beta model without testing it thoroughly. This happens all the time in the auto industry but rarely in the binocular industry. At least they did the right thing by replacing the first models with the newer improved models. As far as resale I think it is an important factor to anybody buying new and used binoculars. Nobody wants to pay $2K for something and then in 6 months it is only worth $1K. It almost shows that the item was never worth the $2K in the beginning. I know resale is always something I consider because I know even though I may think I will keep the binocular a long time I know the manufacturers are always releasing new models and I may decide to trade up. If you buy an EDG new and pay retail you are stuck with it.
 
Last edited:
As far as resale prices of binoculars go, the great majority of binocular users are not in the business of buying binoculars, playing with them, and then selling them as used items at the best prices they can get so they can start all over again recycling the new ones that come on the market.

Bob:

IMO bin users belong to one of the following three categories:
a) You buy one bin and stick with it all your life.
b) You buy several bins along the years but never sell any (or you sell just a few), and end-up with a "collection".
c) You keep only a few bins (maybe just a couple) and strive to have their latest (or at least recent) versions by selling the older ones.

I agree that many birders fall in a), but I believe that most members of the BF are in b) or c). You appear to suggest that b) is better than c) but I am leaning towards c)....

Peter.
 
It makes no difference if you buy and sell fifty a year, or buy one and keep it forever. Do whatever you enjoy, we're not curing cancer on here, just looking at and talking about binoculars.

^^^^^^^^THIS! :t:

If I were concerned about "losing money," I SHOULD have quit and long, long time ago.
 
Where did Pesto "document" Nikon's "inconsistent QA?" In post #48 Pesto quotes:

"There is sample variation (I noticed that different units needed significantly different diopter settings; more importantly, the baffling of some units was slightly worse in one barrel than in the other, which produced some minor internal reflections)."

I really think the first EDG introduction was a fiasco for Nikon and I think it was because they introduced it obviously without enough testing and research. Like you said yourself Nikon was the only alpha binocular manufacturer ever that had a recall of their binoculars and then had to redesign them to eliminate problems inherent in the first model. It was almost like they introduced a prototype or beta model without testing it thoroughly. This happens all the time in the auto industry but rarely in the binocular industry. At least they did the right thing by replacing the first models with the newer improved models. As far as resale I think it is an important factor to anybody buying new and used binoculars. Nobody wants to pay $2K for something and then in 6 months it is only worth $1K. It almost shows that the item was never worth the $2K in the beginning. I know resale is always something I consider because I know even though I may think I will keep the binocular a long time I know the manufacturers are always releasing new models and I may decide to trade up. If you buy an EDG new and pay retail you are stuck with it.




I agree that a transferable warranty is important to the people who buy new binoculars and routinely sell them after use but I also argue that few Alpha binoculars would be "worth" $2K if the original purchaser didn't have to pay for the transferable warranty, which is nothing more than an insurance policy for the person who buys it 2nd hand.

The original owner pays for it and the manufacturer pockets that insurance money as profit if it is never used by the original owner or the 2nd hand owner.

Nikon doesn't do this. Its binoculars are still priced new to compete with the companies that sell these transferable warranties with their binoculars like Swarovski does but Nikon keeps the difference that would have gone to cover insurance for 2nd hand purchasers. The original buyer is always covered by Nikon's warranty which is factored into the price.

Because of this the person who buys a used Nikon gets a better deal than someone who buys a 2nd hand Swarovski and who never has to use the warranty he purchased with it.

Some people are upset because they can't get back the money they invested in a new Nikon when they try to sell it because the warranty is not transferable but the people who buy their Nikons to keep lose nothing and those who buy Nikon used get a big break on the price because of this.
 
Well I'll disagree about non transferable warranties. I see them as invaluable because stuff does happen, and more than seldom. It's called peace of mind, and you do not get that with Leica or Nikon, given their non-competitive warranty and suspect customer service. Nikon can't give away an EDG, for good reason. Any premium glass without a lifetime transferable warranty needs to reevaluate, and is a big reason why Swaro continues to be the most popular choice for high end optics.
 
Bob:

IMO bin users belong to one of the following three categories:
a) You buy one bin and stick with it all your life.
b) You buy several bins along the years but never sell any (or you sell just a few), and end-up with a "collection".
c) You keep only a few bins (maybe just a couple) and strive to have their latest (or at least recent) versions by selling the older ones.

I agree that many birders fall in a), but I believe that most members of the BF are in b) or c). You appear to suggest that b) is better than c) but I am leaning towards c)....

Peter.
I am a C. Most definitely.
 
Well I'll disagree about non transferable warranties. I see them as invaluable because stuff does happen, and more than seldom. It's called peace of mind, and you do not get that with Leica or Nikon, given their non-competitive warranty and suspect customer service. Nikon can't give away an EDG, for good reason. Any premium glass without a lifetime transferable warranty needs to reevaluate, and is a big reason why Swaro continues to be the most popular choice for high end optics.
Swarovski has the best customer service I have ever seen in ANY company. They are amazing. I could go on and on how they have bent over to satisfy me. The CS is worth a LOT.
 
Swarovski has the best customer service I have ever seen in ANY company. They are amazing. I could go on and on how they have bent over to satisfy me. The CS is worth a LOT.

The only company I've had better experience with than Swarovski is Vortex - they will literally repair/replace any pair of binoculars damaged for any reason, no questions asked.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top