• 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 8x32 compared to Nikon HG 8x42 (1 Viewer)

Zolarcon

Well-known member
Nikon 8x32 SE compared to Nikon HG 8x42

Hi BF,

Spent a week birding with my new 8x42 HG. Still no match to the 8x32 SE...

Comparisons:

- Color- SE is better, possibly more color neutral, more vibrant. HG color is wonderful but still lacks a little kick.

- Sharpness- SE still outdoes the HG eventhough the HG image is bigger still SE sharpness is better.

- Brightness- Is questionable because I felt the SE was brighter but I questioned myself in certain situations because the 42mm objective against the 32mm objective.

- Handling/ Ergonomics- Field of view goes to the SE at 7.5 degrees vs. the HG's 7 degrees. The HG's focus knob is the best period- Snaps into focus very fast and easy (not like the 8x32 HG which you are constantly over focusing). The SE focus knob is slow. The weight of the HG is bit overwhelming unless you get the proper neoprene strap but the HG is extremely well balanced. The SE is the lightest and I love it in my hands. Waterproof and ruggedness goes to the HG. Eye cups go to the HG but It doesn't matter much because I wear glasses. And I have never gotten black outs with my SE. I roll the rubber eyecups all the way back and that's it.

Conclusion- The best out there for me so far is the 8x32 SE. The next comparisson will be the Leica Ultravid 7x42 against my 8x32 SE. The Nikon HG 8x42 is not close to the view of the SE but is a good back up in bad weather. Unfortunately, I see the Nikon SE becoming a dinosaur that no one will give serious considerations to upgrading to a waterproof porro.

*The two bins in my comparisson were the old Nikon venturer 8x42 HG/ LX vs. Nikon Se 8x32

Hope this helps.
Carlos.
 
Last edited:
Zolarcon said:
Hi BF,

Spent a week birding with my new 8x42 HG. Still no match to the 8x32 SE...

Comparisons:

- Color- SE is better, possibly more color neutral, more vibrant. HG color is wonderful but still lacks a little kick.

- Sharpness- SE still outdoes the HG eventhough the HG image is bigger still SE sharpness is better.

- Brightness- Is questionable because I felt the SE was brighter but I questioned myself in certain situations because the 42mm objective against the 32mm objective.

- Handling/ Ergonomics- Field of view goes to the SE at 7.5 degrees vs. the HG's 7 degrees. The HG's focus knob is the best period- Snaps into focus very fast and easy (not like the 8x32 HG which you are constantly over focusing). The SE focus knob is slow. The weight of the HG is bit overwhelming unless you get the proper neoprene strap but the HG is extremely well balanced. The SE is the lightest and I love it in my hands. Waterproof and ruggedness goes to the HG. Eye cups go to the HG but It doesn't matter much because I wear glasses. And I have never gotten black outs with my SE. I roll the rubber eyecups all the way back and that's it.

Conclusion- The best out there for me so far is the 8x32 SE. The next comparisson will be the Leica Ultravid 7x42 against my 8x32 SE. The Nikon HG 8x42 is not close to the view of the SE but is a good back up in bad weather. Unfortunately, I see the Nikon SE becoming a dinosaur that no one will give serious considerations to upgrading to a waterproof porro.

*The two bins in my comparisson were the old Nikon venturer 8x42 HG/ LX vs. Nikon Se 8x32

Hope this helps.
Carlos.

Carlos,

Optically, the SE is the best. Period.

I once stood in the pouring rain with a non-Nikon $120 porro that showed no sign of leaking or fogging. Nikon makes waterproof porros and can "waterproof" SE optics anytime they want to. Personally, considering the quality of the optics, I think they're crazy not to do it. Surely, they've recouped design costs by now. I'll bet a waterproof SE could be produced under $500 (probably a whole lot less) and I think it would sell very well. Absolutely nothing in that price range begins to compete with the SE and the top roofs have a very hard time matching it, if any truly do.

Some time ago, Nikon told me the optics in the HG's were virtually identical to the optics in the SE's. Let me publicly say that's a load of marketing nonsense and Nikon knows it. Nothing I've seen presents an Indigo Bunting, bathed in sunlight, to the human eye, the way the SE 8X32 does. It's simply addictive.

John
 
John Traynor said:
Some time ago, Nikon told me the optics in the HG's were virtually identical to the optics in the SE's. Let me publicly say that's a load of marketing nonsense and Nikon knows it.

Quite! Apart from the different prism type, the different objective diameter, the different focus mechanism (moving the eyepieces versus moving an internal lens) they are identical.

Leif
 
Leif said:
Quite! Apart from the different prism type, the different objective diameter, the different focus mechanism (moving the eyepieces versus moving an internal lens) they are identical.

Leif

My guess is the assertion was regarding the quality of the glass and coatings. Being porro prisms would give the SEs the edge all things being equal. Roof prisms introduce an extra degradation (splitting the path of light) that must be engineered out, whereas porros do not.

A portion of the price difference is because roofs are considered more stylish. The in vogue look commands a higher price.
 
Last edited:
Leif said:
Quite! Apart from the different prism type, the different objective diameter, the different focus mechanism (moving the eyepieces versus moving an internal lens) they are identical.

Leif

Those are many differences and could lead me to think that the SE has a better image because of those things you mentioned. Please don' t take Nikon's side, lets just get them to make the SE waterproof. I really don't see anyone with an SE around their necks here. How can that be? It just doesn't make sense?

Carlos.
 
Zolarcon said:
Those are many differences and could lead me to think that the SE has a better image because of those things you mentioned. Please don' t take Nikon's side, lets just get them to make the SE waterproof. I really don't see anyone with an SE around their necks here. How can that be? It just doesn't make sense?

Carlos.

I have never seen one here either, and they are hard to find in shops too. Several dealers have told me something along the lines of "A porro prism binocular can't match the best roofs from Leica et al". I suspect that a mixture of ignorance and the higher profit from the roof is the real reason. Also it's hard to compare two binoculars in a shop. It's only in use that you can see which ones really shine.

There was an interesting post on BF not so long ago explaining that part of the problem with a porro is that making the seal between the eyepieces and the tubes they ride on tight leads to a stiff focus.

Leif
 
Sorry to go slightly off subject, but is anyone able to provide an informed comparison of the 8x32 SE vs:

Nikon 8x30 E
Nikon 8x30 EII
Zeiss (West) 8x30?

I'm particularly interested in the Zeiss 8x30 which is now many years old.

Thanks,
-elk
 
streatham said:
Hi Elk,
Try Better View Desired for the E2 : http://betterviewdesired.com/501/index.html I find the reviews fairly balanced.

Luke

Thanks, Luke. That does explain the difference rather well, at least vs. the Nikon Es. He was struggling to find a distinction, so I don't think my 10x35Es will be replaced any time soon to capture the difference. Interesting discussion about being able to hold porros elbows in. I also have a pre-E 8x30 Mikron that is easily focused from below, making for a natural elbows in hold. I'm still very curious about the Zeiss (West) 8x30 by comparison to either the SE or E series Nikons. Probably hard to find anyone who can make a head to head comparison.

Thanks again,
-elk
 
Last edited:
If you read up on BVD, the 10x35 EIIs are second only to the newer 10x42 SE design in his testing. They even score higher on his NEED test than the top of the line full-sized stuff from Europe at the time.
 
elkcub said:
Sorry to go slightly off subject, but is anyone able to provide an informed comparison of the 8x32 SE vs:

Nikon 8x30 E
Nikon 8x30 EII
Zeiss (West) 8x30?

I'm particularly interested in the Zeiss 8x30 which is now many years old.

Thanks,
-elk

elk,

There were at least three Zeiss (West) center focus 8X30 porros. A wide field (68 degrees) with short eye relief made from the 50's to the 70's, and two 8X30 B's. The first had a standard field of about 52 degrees and was made from about 1957 to 1968. It was replaced by one with a 60 degree field which was discontinued in 1978. All three used air spaced objectives and appear to be identical except for eyepiece design. I have a pair of the early 8X30 B's with the narrow field. They are optically very nice with excellent sharpness across the field, but of course they use single layer coating (and no coating at all on the outside of the eye lens) so they do not compare to modern binoculars in brightness and contrast. The 60 degree 8X30 B should be quite good. I have yet to see a pair of those. They should be the closest to the Nikon 8X32 SE in eye relief, field width and field flatness, but unfortunately still without multi-coating. My Nikon 8X30 E with magnesium fluoride coating compares favorably my Zeiss 8X30 B in center sharpness, contrast and brightness, and my multi-coated pair of 8X30 E's is also just as sharp in the center as the Zeiss, but much brighter and higher contrast. The 8X32 SE is optically better in every way compared to the Zeiss, and while sharper across the field it is really not much brighter or higher contrast than a multi-coated 8X30 E.
 
I may be able to add a bit to the above discussion, although I have very limited experience of the 8x32 SE. The SE is very uncommon here as well, although some stores have at times had it on display. In 2001, I had an 8x32 SE on loan and tested it over a few days. That unit had some problems in the left barrel, which tested only mediocre, but the right barrel resolved very well - with a booster the result was identical with what I have since obtained with a Leica 8x42 Ultravid.

I have owned for many years a 10x42 SE, which still resolves better (booster measured) than any other conventional binocular I have tested save for the Zeiss Victory 10x40 and 10x42 FL, which reached the same level.

I have also tested a few samples of the 8x30 E II. The best units showed boosted resolution equal to that of the Zeiss 8x42 FL, also with equal contrast and overall "snap" in the boosted, 24x image.

Thus I would conclude that the only differences in optical quality between the E II and the SE are:1) the latter has a flatter field whereby off-axis sharpness is significantly better, there being a clear difference also in the amount of astigmatism creeping into the image towards the edges - however, the infamous "sweet spot" is plenty large enough in the E II. 2) the E II has a much wider field of view. 3) the SE has a few millimeters more eye-relief, so it suits bespectacled users better - however, the E II has enough to work well with those whose glasses sit close to their eyes.

Since I have not had the chance to compare side-by-side an SE and an E II of equal vintage, I cannot say for sure whether or not they are equally bright light-transmission-wise. Both are fully multicoated, but it is possible that the quality of the multi-coatings is not identical. However, the E II certainly is so bright that any difference would be insignificant.

I have never tested the 10x35 E II, but vis a vis the 10x42 SE there is more difference in exit pupil diameter than with the 8x siblings. Therefore there likely is more difference in the twilight performance and possibly also resolution between these two models. Otherwise the same differences should apply to them as well.

If you can handle your binoculars with care and respect, the E II is an extremely fine instrument.

Kimmo
 
Kimmo and others with EIIs,

Have you had many issues with prism alignment. I have a new 10x35 EII, which is optically excellent, but I have a heart attack every time I bump them a little hard. I would've preferred the SEs, but I was not planning to get new binocs and came across these on clearance.

Kiitos
 
kabsetz said:
I may be able to add a bit to the above discussion, although I have very limited experience of the 8x32 SE. The SE is very uncommon here as well, although some stores have at times had it on display. In 2001, I had an 8x32 SE on loan and tested it over a few days. That unit had some problems in the left barrel, which tested only mediocre, but the right barrel resolved very well - with a booster the result was identical with what I have since obtained with a Leica 8x42 Ultravid.

I have owned for many years a 10x42 SE, which still resolves better (booster measured) than any other conventional binocular I have tested save for the Zeiss Victory 10x40 and 10x42 FL, which reached the same level.

I have also tested a few samples of the 8x30 E II. The best units showed boosted resolution equal to that of the Zeiss 8x42 FL, also with equal contrast and overall "snap" in the boosted, 24x image.

Thus I would conclude that the only differences in optical quality between the E II and the SE are:1) the latter has a flatter field whereby off-axis sharpness is significantly better, there being a clear difference also in the amount of astigmatism creeping into the image towards the edges - however, the infamous "sweet spot" is plenty large enough in the E II. 2) the E II has a much wider field of view. 3) the SE has a few millimeters more eye-relief, so it suits bespectacled users better - however, the E II has enough to work well with those whose glasses sit close to their eyes.

Since I have not had the chance to compare side-by-side an SE and an E II of equal vintage, I cannot say for sure whether or not they are equally bright light-transmission-wise. Both are fully multicoated, but it is possible that the quality of the multi-coatings is not identical. However, the E II certainly is so bright that any difference would be insignificant.

I have never tested the 10x35 E II, but vis a vis the 10x42 SE there is more difference in exit pupil diameter than with the 8x siblings. Therefore there likely is more difference in the twilight performance and possibly also resolution between these two models. Otherwise the same differences should apply to them as well.

If you can handle your binoculars with care and respect, the E II is an extremely fine instrument.

Kimmo



What's most striking is the much larger field of view in the EII, 461 ft at 1000yds vs only 393 for the SE
 
Robert,

I have never owned an E II, only the SE. I have talked to several E II owners and E (I) owners. Many have had no problems, but some have had theirs knocked out of alignment by what they considered minor bumps - some more than once. I take pretty good (but not obsessive) care of my gear, and my SE has retained the collimation it got by my trusted binocular doctor (out of the box, it was slightly off, but within any and all generally accepted margins so I did not even try to have it done under warranty). From what I have understood from other SE owners, on the web and otherwise, it seems that the SE is less fragile. Much of the price difference between the two model series probably comes from the better body (materials and design) of the SE.

As you have an E II now, enjoy it, handle it with care, and if it does get out of alignment, have it competently repaired. If it happens more than once, then it is time to think whether another model would suit your "binocular parenting style" better.

Kimmo
 
If we all bought more porros like the SE. I guarantee Nikon and the other companies would have the best waterproof porro bins out there but unfortunately money talks and the rest are trends. I still don't understand why some one would settle for second best. I 've tried to settle for second best but it didn't stick. BUY MORE SE'S!

Carlos.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 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