Nikon SE 8x32 vs. Minox Porro 8x44 (1 Viewer)

I recently purchased both the Nikon SE 8x32 and the Minox porro 8x44. I did several tests at home to compare them. I used a dollar bill and other printed materials to test resolution and sharpness. Both seem very similar when it came to brightness, resolution, etc. but I feel unsettled because I could not detect THE SE to be much better. The SE has a better FOV and also feels better in hand. The SE is NOT waterproof. The SE diopter is loose and will probably shift every now and then. The Minox diopter is in the focus knob. The SE focus is slightly faster less turns than the Minox. Depth of field on both these bins are very close with the SE being a little better. Eye relief for eyeglass wearers is a little better on the SE and I did not experience any black out. Brightness is about the same with the Minox having a very slight edge over the SE. There where times when I was outside and the Minox seemed better than the SE and sometimes the SE seemed better than Minox. I do not have much experience testing or reviewing bins but I did do a lot of research before taking this task on. I do need some help... Can the Minox be this good? I agree that the SE is absolutely wonderful. I may be wrong but the Minox is not far behind, if not on the level? The major complaint of the Minox is FOV is terrible and the close focus is marginal. Out in the field with the Minox I do not notice the tunnel effect while birding because I find the image so pleasing.

If any one else can look at the Minox and the SE and give me their impressions. I would be very grateful.

I haven't seen the Minox, but your findings don't surprise me. Even an under $100 Porro that doesn't have any defects will show as much detail as any binocular of the same magnification (eyesight acuity is the limiting factor) and light transmission can be essentially state of the art in a simple Porro with high quality multi-coating. The best thing about the SE compared to most other Porros is an excellent eyepiecce design with almost no off-axis astigmatism, so there is a very large comfortable "sweet spot" (if you don't suffer the deaded "black-outs"). There are two things that trouble me about the Minox without even seeing them. One is the very narrow field that you mentioned, which makes me suspect that the eyepiece is a simple 3 element Kellner; a type of eyepiece used in binoculars since the 19th century and not very good outside the center 20-30 degrees of AFOV. The other is the unusually wide spacing of the objectives, touted as enhancing the 3-D effect, but very wide spacing of the objectives combined with narrow fields also causes poor overlap of left and right fields at close focus.

Hi Fieldbird,
I'm not very suprised by your findings. Most decent binoculars these days have very good/excellent definition in the center of the field (which is where we tend to look when doing resolution tests). Maintaining high image quality across a wide field is difficult (and therefore expensive). The 60 degree field of the Nikon vs. the 50 degree field of the Minox will be a big factor in manufacturing cost. Also, the perceived value of the Nikon brand is higher than that of Minox so that's another factor in the price we pay. I expect under real low light conditions you'll be able to see more with the 8x44 - would be interesting to hear your comments on that. My recommendation is to enjoy them both for what they are and not worry.
Hope that helps.

solentbirder said:

Hi Fieldbird,
I'm not very suprised by your findings. Most decent binoculars these days have very good/excellent definition in the center of the field (which is where we tend to look when doing resolution tests). Maintaining high image quality across a wide field is difficult (and therefore expensive). The 60 degree field of the Nikon vs. the 50 degree field of the Minox will be a big factor in manufacturing cost. Also, the perceived value of the Nikon brand is higher than that of Minox so that's another factor in the price we pay. I expect under real low light conditions you'll be able to see more with the 8x44 - would be interesting to hear your comments on that. My recommendation is to enjoy them both for what they are and not worry.
Hope that helps.

Click to expand...

I did go out this afternoon- over cast skies and gloomy in my tree- canopied backyard and you were right the Minox outperformed the SE by quite a bit. I was suprised. But the FOV did bother me on the Minox, after all. I guess I cant have it all. Thanks to everyone for their comments. Still for the money I am not completely satisfied with either.

Birded this morning with the SE and it started to rain and I became very nervous with the SE. May have to compromise and go with a roof bin with a wider field of view. There are no easy choices when it comes to bin choices too much.

FIELDBIRD said:

I did go out this afternoon- over cast skies and gloomy in my tree- canopied backyard and you were right the Minox outperformed the SE by quite a bit. I was suprised. But the FOV did bother me on the Minox, after all. I guess I cant have it all. Thanks to everyone for their comments. Still for the money I am not completely satisfied with either.

Birded this morning with the SE and it started to rain and I became very nervous with the SE. May have to compromise and go with a roof bin with a wider field of view. There are no easy choices when it comes to bin choices too much.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt in my mind that internal focus porros have a bright future and that someone can build a watertight porro with SE-like quality for less than $500. I have not seen the Minox offerings, but the Leupold Cascade porros reminded me of my SE the first time I looked through the eyepiece. The obvious shortcomings manufacturers must address to gain wide acceptance are: wider fields of view, minimum IPD ~ 54mm, first-rate eyecups with eyeglass-friendly eye relief, and robust construction (especially dead-on collimation).

The reality is that the images of the Leupold porros I've seen are every bit as good as the centerfields of ANY other binocular and, in some cases, superior. As much as I enjoy my Ultravid, I would trade it in an instant for a waterproof porro with the view, ergonomics, and build-quality of my SE 8X32.

John

Henry...
One thing that amazed me with the Leupold Cascade porros was the fact that, at close focus, I could easily resolve fine lettering, in spite of extreme parallax. The sweet spot was so good it just didn't matter where the target was located in either ocular. As you know, the SE behaves in the same manner. My IPD is ~57mm and I'm fairly certain it's one of the reasons I prefer porro prism, wide-spaced objective binoculars.