Early Reviews SE and EII Porro Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Sitting on a 10x35EII in great shape if someone is interested. I can't use them with my glasses. Priced to move, PM me.

Dereck

ceasar said:

There is an outstanding review of the Nikon 10x42 SE written by our own WJC aka Bill Cole in an issue of "Sky and Telescope" magazine (if my memory is correct) back around 1998 or so. I recall it as a classic example of how to write a binocular review!:t:

I have the magazine some where in my archives where I can't find it.

Perhaps Bill can come up with it?

Bob

Click to expand...

A pity that Bill Cook's review of the Nikon 10x42 SE cannot be found — it would have been a treat to read.

The older reviews so thoughtfully posted by John A. Roberts mostly came to my attention at the time but the choices I made while buying binoculars did not fully utilise the wisdom in them. After being shown four samples of the Nikon 8x32 SE ($475) at Adorama in 2000, I bought a Pentax 8x42 WP ($325). The Nikon was visibly better but not $150 better, or so I thought at the time. Now I think I should have bought the Nikon.

I was in East Africa on the coast when I needed a 10x binocular for field birdwatching. I ended up buying a Nikon 10x42LX (Europe 10x42HG) mainly because I was concerned about fungus in the non-waterproof 10x42 SE and not sure whether I would get the blackouts which many users were reporting. This, despite fairly firm evidence from these and other reviews, that the central and peripheral sharpness of the 10x42 SE was marginally but noticeably greater than that of the 10x42LX. There was a review from BirdForum member Stephen Green who found the 10x42HG was able to resolve details marginally but distinctly better than the 10x42SE at distances of 200-300m in low light. It might have influenced my choice to a degree.