• 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 se 10x42 (1 Viewer)

Hati

Active member
Hi, I want to ask what is the resolution, contrast and brightness of the nikon se 10x42 comparing to the swarovski slc 10x42? Which are the strengths of the nikon se in comparison with the swarovski 10x42 and other high roof alphas? Thank in advance!
 
The optics are exellent - resolution, contrast are both really very good indeed. I wouldn't say they are better than the current rop of top roofs though, but they can still hold their own, even though the coatings are not really up to scratch compared to, say, a Zeiss HT.

However, the SE went out of production some time ago now, so you can't buy new ones nowadays. And it's NOT waterproof. It's ok in wet weather, but you have to be careful. And I certainly wouldn't use it as my main pair in really tough weather condidtions or at the North Sea coast. Too much salt in the air for the SE, at least in my opinion.

Hermann
 
Hi Hati,

I have the Nikon 8x32 SE's and they're a fantastic binocular. Beautifully made with very nice, tactile rubber armour. Optically crystal clear.

Its true they're not "waterproof" but I've had mine for over 10 years in the damp Scottish climate including rain and never had any problem. Indeed if it was a problem it wouldn't have been one of the most successful binoculars of all time.

For the price they'll be hard to beat. The HT's are of course another level up and probably the best binocular I ever looked through.

The dilemma of course is how much you spend for what you crave..... all about finding the balance though.
 
Hi,

I don´t know the actual street price for a mint SE 10x42. Some 7 years ago I compared side by side a SE 10x42, new, with my Swarovski Habicht W GA 10x40, in very good condition.
The "test" was made at the evening, looking at buildings, trees, cars, lights, etc.
The S Habicht was, clearly, better in almost all optics caracteristics. And, a big plus, is water/weather proof by the factory. And is still made or offered.

Good luck

PHA
 
Optically the Nikon 10x42 SE is behind the top alpha's now although for the money it is a pretty good buy IF you can find one. For similar money though I would buy the Tract Toric 10x42 instead and then you have optics that are at least as good plus it is waterproof. The SE can't compete with the big AFOV of the top alpha's like the 10x42 SF Zeiss or even the Swarovski SV 10x42. It doesn't have the WOW factor for that reason.
 
I don´t know the actual street price for a mint SE 10x42. Some 7 years ago I compared side by side a SE 10x42, new, with my Swarovski Habicht W GA 10x40, in very good condition.
The "test" was made at the evening, looking at buildings, trees, cars, lights, etc.
The S Habicht was, clearly, better in almost all optics caracteristics. And, a big plus, is water/weather proof by the factory. And is still made or offered.

Hi,

in the evening the main optical problem of the Habicht series - lack of internal blackening leading to haze and or reflections - might not be visible unless you look almost into the setting sun... the 10x40 is not as bad as the 8x30 but the SE is classes better.
Plus the Habicht 10x40 hat undersize prisms leading to truncated exit pupils and even more reflection.
The SE has a very nice field flattener which makes image sharp to the edge - with the Habicht the outer 25% of the field are blurry due to field curvature.

And then there's ergonomics... eye relief on the Habicht is 13mm - forget about glasses and the focuser is kind of stiff due to the waterproofing.

Joachim
 
Last edited:
Don't see any point in buying a porro these days. Mainly because the lack of usability (ergonomics, focuser, eye relief) and/or weather sealing. SE have good optics but is a pain to use and hold IMO. But you might like it, preferences differ.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

well, of course if one doesn't like the form of porro bins in general, then don't bother with them - for me the SE works very well.
And since I managed to get one and like it a lot, I don't feel like spending a 4 digits amount for a roof which comes close.
And I have dragged my SE through the jungle without problems - put it in a ziplock bag with a silicagel pack along with photo stuff if it got wet (or a drybox if offered).

For me the Habicht is not even equal due to the focuser and glare.

Joachim
 
Hi jring,

I don't know if you have or have seen a S. Habicht 10x40 of the last versions. I have one and comparing it with my Zeiss Victory HT 10x42, I can assure the Habicht is CLEARLY better in its veiling glare correction than the HT. CLEARLY.
And, side by side with the Nikon SE 10x42, I have no doubt about the optical superiority of the Habicht.
About the mechanics and construction, well, the Habichts are in other galaxie!
But, of course, different people, different opinions!

Best Regards.

PHA
 
I don't know if you have or have seen a S. Habicht 10x40 of the last versions. I have one and comparing it with my Zeiss Victory HT 10x42, I can assure the Habicht is CLEARLY better in its veiling glare correction than the HT. CLEARLY.
And, side by side with the Nikon SE 10x42, I have no doubt about the optical superiority of the Habicht.
About the mechanics and construction, well, the Habichts are in other galaxie!
But, of course, different people, different opinions!

Hi,

well, my impression was different when meeting a fellow birder with a new Habicht 10x40 a few week ago and so was his unfortunately, which made things a bit awkward...

In short, the Habicht was probably a little bit better in center field sharpness and maybe transmission but not visibly so.

Sharpness in the field obviously went to the SE by a huge margin due to the field flattening as did the false-light test - veiling glare was easy to see in the Habicht with light reflected from the river. Not so in the SE.

The focuser on the Habicht was stiff as hell (hopefully it gets a bit better with time) and of course 13mm ER and the owners glasses didn't go well...

I could have swapped my SE for a barely used Habicht that day but I had to decline...

Joachim
 
Hi jring,

Good for you! If you prefer the Nikon SE. It is a very good binocular, indeed! I am very happy, also, with my Habicht. The stiff focusing ring is due to the sealing in the tubes of the moving objective saddle. I think (and hope...), this SHOULD be no better with time!

Good luck!

PHA
 
Stunning optics aside (including solid glare resistance in the 10x40), I'm a huge fan of the focus mechanism on Habicht binoculars. It's smooth and perfectly firm and you know it will last a few lifetimes. Understandably, those with extremely effeminate or soft and delicate hands/fingers could find a Habicht slightly challenging...so those folk should perhaps take note. An excellent reference point on this topic is that small children have no problems focusing Habicht binoculars or using them regularly!
 
Stunning optics aside (including solid glare resistance in the 10x40), I'm a huge fan of the focus mechanism on Habicht binoculars. It's smooth and perfectly firm and you know it will last a few lifetimes. Understandably, those with extremely effeminate or soft and delicate hands/fingers could find a Habicht slightly challenging...so those folk should perhaps take note. An excellent reference point on this topic is that small children have no problems focusing Habicht binoculars or using them regularly!
Are those small children from a different Primate family than Homo sapiens?:-O
 

Attachments

  • chimpanzee_thumb.JPG
    chimpanzee_thumb.JPG
    343.2 KB · Views: 93
Last edited:
If anyone is considering the Nikon SE then they should also take a serious look at the Habicht.
If you don't require spectacles, the Habicht 10x40 will happily compete with most any current 10x40/42 binocular. I'm a big fan of its shorter eye relief. I also love the fact that it doesn't employ field flatteners. Big Thumbs up for a silky smooth firm focus. Habicht light transmission is still in a class of its own. Habicht come with a 30year warranty in australia, and a rubber armoured Habicht would easily be the toughest binocular I've ever handled. Most importantly, It suits my personal viewing preferences. One of the reasons I enjoy the Leica Noctivid so much is that, to me, it is the first roof binocular I've looked through which offers a Habicht porro image aesthetic to its view. This is a personal thing. The Noctivid offers numerous modern roof advantages.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3233.jpg
    IMG_3233.jpg
    231.1 KB · Views: 185
Never really thought I'd be able to offer an opinion on this thread, as the 10x42 SE is fairly uncommon here in the UK, or at least seldom crops up. I don't use Ebay either, which rules out probably the most likely source of finding one. But, while looking at options to suggest to another poster, I found a secondhand example advertised on one of the camera/optics sites. Fortunately this was in early November, before the country was locked down, so it was possible to try before buying. After comparing it to my regular 10x40 (Dialyt P model) and my brother's 8.5x42 SV Fieldpro I decided (somewhat against my better judgement) to purchase it and have been using it for almost all my birding since.

My observations thus far...

The good:

Optically very good, slightly but visibly brighter than the Dialyt, with (I thought) slightly less saturation in terms of colour rendition but a cleaner look to the image which, together with its brightness, seems to offer a slight (again) but noticeable improvement in detail at distance. Sharpness to the edge, thanks to the flat field design, is excellent, which helps make up for its field of view being a little less than the Dialyt's.

Compared with the 8.5x42 Fieldpro the SE seems remarkably similar image-wise, not just in sharpness and brightness but also (on closer targets) in magnification thanks to the impression of smaller image size given by porros. The main differences between the two are field of view and that the Fieldpro, possibly because of its lower actual magnification, seems to come to focus more easily and quickly and can give the impression of being sharper. After spending some time looking through both binoculars at small text at about 5.5m distance my conclusion was that the SE was in fact very close in sharpness but required more tweaking to achieve it.

My expectations in this area were very high given the praises sung about the SE series here. I would have to agree with Hermann's post #2: while the top alphas offer an image that is at minimum at least as good, and in some cases a fair bit more of it, what the SE shows you is remarkably competitive and (I hate to sound like d***o here, but...) I paid a lot less for it than what a SF or NL would cost.

Comparing it with the sub-alphas (Conquest HD, Meostar HD, Monarch HG, Canon IS-L) would be a really interesting exercise as I've tried all four and found them superior to the Dialyt and not far off the alphas at all. Going by memory alone, I'd say the most comparable image-wise to the SE is the Meostar 10x42 HD - very alpha-like image, but less of it than the leaders of the pack. A comparison between the SE and its Japanese porro rival the Canon (as kabsetz has done in the past) would be fascinating, but the latter's magic button would have to be switched firmly off...

Other aspects I like - its light weight makes it pleasant to carry around whether around your neck or in a knapsack. The "protein" style body covering seems to give adequate protection without being too heavy. Key mechanicals (hinge, focus wheel, diopter) seem solid. I like the diopter control being on the right eyepiece - simple and functional. Internals have met with the approval of more knowledgeable folks than me.


The bad:

I find this binocular quite difficult to hold steady when used "off-hand", as the shooters say, despite having tried several holds/grips. This may be partly due to its light weight, but I think the wider porro design is harder for me to steady compared to the closer-spaced barrels of a roof binocular. I don't seem to have this problem with my other porros, probably due to the fact that their short eye relief requires me to use them without glasses and the eyecups can then be steadied against the underside of my eyebrow (which I've found makes quite a difference in terms of steadiness). The SE's steadiness increases noticeably when I can brace myself against something and in particular with elbows braced. This is my main quibble.

Blackouts are the reason a good many users cannot get on with the SE and I did have some issues in the first few weeks but these have largely gone away after some trial and error. In duller grey conditions when I seem to need more eye relief the SE seems to be perfect. In very bright conditions I often have to push up the rubber eyecups a little. Twist-up eyecups would really improve this aspect of its performance. Placing thin rubber washers under the eyecups to shorten the eye relief slightly might also help, but as of now I've found it less of a hassle to push up the eyecups and adjust my glasses on my nose than to hunt down the right washers.

The narrow focus wheel (in common with many porros) is not as easy to operate when wearing bulky winter gloves than the large focus wheel of most modern roofs. This isn't an issue with my other porros as I tend not to use them in winter.


The ugly:

I'd have to agree with Tobias (greatestbinoculars.com) that the SE is somewhat of an ugly duckling, functional but lacking the elegance of more classically styled porros. However, there is a certain satisfaction in using the pragmatic and (apparently) cheap and cheerful that then SE-owner Torview touched upon when he commented: "Almost all my Birding friends and numerable Birding acquaintances on noticing my SE around my neck have commented as to where my Victory went and why am I using a small old binocular."


In summation I find the 10x42 SE a very good performer optically, but one that has a number of quirks which, however, I can live with considering its price. I can't say I love it as much as some other owners love theirs, but until such time as something like a SF or NL is within my reach, this "Austerity Alpha" will do just fine.
 

Attachments

  • 20201222_133806-1_01.jpg
    20201222_133806-1_01.jpg
    319.4 KB · Views: 45
  • 20201225_131325-1_01.jpg
    20201225_131325-1_01.jpg
    547.6 KB · Views: 44
Patudo,

Nice write up, and photos also. The nice thing about these is that they can be serviced by most qualified personnel, as compared to a roof prism.

Andy W.
 
Hi Patudo

as for your problems bracing the SE against your face - do you wear glasses when observing or why are the rubber eyecups folded down? With the eyecups unfolded, they work nicely with my face... at least for a 10x pair... of course 8x is easier to hold steady.

Joachim
 
I have the both the 8x32 and 10x42 SE and while I did have blackout problems with the 8x32, the view through the 10x42 is just very pleasurable and I might be the only person in the world who likes the looks of the SE very much :D :D :D But then, I'm usually fond of designs that spark controversy, like the Meostar B1 (I like the looks and the grip of that one very much).

As for my main concerns with the SE 10x42 are basically FOV, which coupled with the apparent smaller image of porros (compared to roofs) makes for a less impressive 10x experience. I was comparing it recently against a middle-range 10x, the Viper HD 10x50 and the 6,5º of the Vortex together with the perception of increased image size of roofs makes the view through the Viper quite more impressive, more "on your face", it's hard to describe, but it clearly seems to have more magnification (although I know that technically it isn't so): in this case, the bigger apparent magnification and bigger FOV of the Viper make them fulfill their goal as a long range device better. I also noticed that the image on the SE has a cooler hue (compared to the Viper) and this makes for a somewhat more "washed" image, less contrasty. The blacks seem more black on the Viper. This is somehow what I experienced comparing a very bright ELSV 8x32 against the Retrovid 7x35. The former image seems a bit washed, lackluster, while the Retrovid had clearly more bite. In the case of the SE and Viper HD, the difference was not as distinct, but the impression was somehow similar. I'm sure some members with bigger knowledge of optics and perception will be able to explain this (maybe choices in coatings enhance this perception of improved contrast that in turn creates an impression of a sharper image).

In terms of handling, I really like the wide shape of the 10x42 and find it easy to hold it steady (impossible to single-hand it however).
 
Hi jring, yarrellii - I use glasses with the SE and my roofs (which have enough eye relief), but all my older porros need to be used without. I always had this feeling that those porros were steadier when I could place the eyecups directly under my eyebrows compared to using the roofs with glasses, and now I've been able to use a porro (SE) with glasses, I'm sure of it. Bearing in mind that wobble/shake is probably the #1 reason for losing the faint "black star", a binocular that is difficult to hold steady is far from ideal. Fortunately when I'm doing most of my long distance spotting I can brace myself in some way, which makes a big difference on all binoculars but especially the SE. The SE shape is supposed (per Ingraham's writings) to allow better arm positioning and I've tried different hand holds but none are as steady as how I can hold a roof. I find no advantage to the round shoulders of the SE and in fact almost prefer the more usual squared-off style, which is easier to brace my hands against my face when following a high bird.

I've never tried the Viper HD 10x50 or any Vortex for that matter, but a well executed 10x50 is quite the weapon. I love (maybe too strong a word, but) the view through my old Zeiss West 10x50 more than the SE because of its quite wonderful combination of field of view (130m - that exceeds the 10x42 SF and is only 3m short of the 10x42 NL!) with a 5mm exit pupil. Unlike my brother who has a very strong preference for 5mm exit pupil, I can use 4mm well enough, yet 5mm is undeniably better - making eye placement easier, and easier on the eye over long sessions. There is a sense of immersion, thanks to the way the eyecups cut out side light, that you just don't get when using glasses (although in some situations the spatial awareness you get using binoculars with glasses is very valuable). It even manages to be quite compact and although no lightweight (at about 1kg) is fairly tolerable in that respect. But... the 1950s era single coatings just don't perform as well when trying to follow distant targets. I would use that superb old masterpiece a lot more... if only I could be sure the birds would never fly more than say one mile away, and that I'd never need to come off the binoculars in a hurry. So the SE with its long eye relief and modern coatings may give less pure satisfaction to use, but it is ultimately a superior performer, and is used where that kind of performance is necessary. But a really good modern 10x50 would (and I really hate to sound like d***o here, but...) be better yet. The 10x50 SV I tried at Birdfair was one of the most impressive binoculars I've ever looked through. I can definitely see why you think the Viper HD 10x50 is more impressive than the 10x42 SE.

Colour rendition wise, I cannot find any fault with the SE (or in pretty much every other respect optically for that matter - I can't honestly say that the image feels in the slightest "muddy", as Tobias found with his 8x32 SE). I do need to note, though, that the appreciation and discernment of various shades of colour does not feature much in my birding, and my eyes may also be quite flexible/tolerant in this regard. I liked the Leicas I looked through but not to the extent that eg. Tobias or eronald from this site do.

I hasten to add that despite the various gripes I've outlined above, I have a lot of respect for the optical qualities of the "Austerity Alpha". It may not give the same kind of warm fuzzies as ssome of my other binoculars, but I'll probably end up spending a lot more time looking through it.

Somewhat ironically, the very first binocular I ever owned was a 1950s or 1960s era Japanese 10x42, single-coated, short eye relief. It was probably fairly reasonable in terms of sharpness, but I thought colour and detail at distance had a distinctly subdued look to them even then, and I needed to remove my glasses every single time I brought it to my eyes. I did eventually learn to do so quite quickly and deftly, but there was no shortage of frustration along the way, I can tell you... Now I find myself using a Japanese 10x42 porro again, it feels in some respects as though the wheel has turned full circle. Alas, I can never return to those days of enthusiasm and discovery, but I can at least be aided in my endeavours by a binocular superior to that first 10x42 in performance and capability to an extent I could not have conceived of back then.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 3 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