Nikon HGLs (1 Viewer)

Leif · Aug 7, 2004

John Traynor said:
I think the FL discussion centers around sharpness across the FOV not brightness or anything else. Henry made specific observations, not me, and his posts are pretty clear in what he's trying to say. Whether he'll come back and give us an updated opinion is up to him. He compared the FL, SE, and Swarovski EL and I'd like to hear his thoughts after he's had more time with the FL's.

This is why I'll miss BVD so much. Steve was fairly blunt and objective in his findings and I don't think owners, especially new owners, meet this standard. Henry, however, may be the exception.

John

I have Nikon 8x32 SE and Swaro 8.5x42 EL. The former has the better edge sharpness. In practice I don't notice the difference (daylight and night sky use) except when testing. Of course some people might be more sensitive to edge sharpness. IIRC the Zeiss FL edge sharpness is on a par with the Swaro.

I don't agree that the FL discussion (i.e. this thread) centres around edge sharpness. Almost all roof prism binoculars have too much CA for my tastes. The Zeiss does not. Comments in this thread also suggest that the Zeiss is noticeably brighter and contrastier than many competing instruments. The Swaro is a top grade binocular but IMO it is optically a shade below the Nikon 8x32 SE.

But as others have said, ergonomics also play a big role and is rather subjective.

oathkeeper · Aug 7, 2004

John Traynor said:
Manendra,

Are you enjoying those "Wow, that's so beautiful" views that the SE 8X32 produces?

John

You bet, John.

The view is absolutely breathtaking, and quite unbelievable considering the fact that a 32mm objective is producing that image! The only downside I see is the slight CA that is present and very noticeable to me.

I'm hoping the new HGLs would have drastically reduced, if not eliminated, CA from the image. We'll see.

Any ideas what the HGLs may be called in the U.S.?

Leif · Aug 7, 2004

mpedris said:
I'm hoping the new HGLs would have drastically reduced, if not eliminated, CA from the image. We'll see.

I somehow doubt it. I would expect an 8x42 HGL to have much more CA than the 8x32 SE i.e. as per the HG. Manufacturers of Schmidt Pechan roof prism binoculars have struggled to get contrast and brightness to high levels but thus far most have noticeable CA. I guess we will find out soon.

Curtis Croulet · Aug 7, 2004

John Traynor said:
Curtis,
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but Henry's intitial report clearly stated the sharpness issue based on detailed observations, some of which raised concern. John

I'm not disputing Henry's report, just its significance when he talks about resolution away from the center. The implication that the FL is "not sharp" anywhere but in the center is untrue and a disservice to those contemplating purchase of the FL for birding as opposed to testing as a hobby unto itself. I have looked at stars, and I had a fine time looking at star images and then picking out Messier objects, but I won't elaborate further, since it appears to be pointless.

iporali · Aug 7, 2004

Leif said:
I somehow doubt it.

Me too. The name HGl implies to me "only" reduced weight, maybe a change in the body material. The obvious optical evolution for Nikon would be the use of ED-glass - and if they did start to use it, the letters "ED" would quite surely be in the name. Speculation is fun, but let's see.

Ilkka

oathkeeper · Aug 7, 2004

iporali said:
Me too. The name HGl implies to me "only" reduced weight, maybe a change in the body material. The obvious optical evolution for Nikon would be the use of ED-glass - and if they did start to use it, the letters "ED" would quite surely be in the name. Speculation is fun, but let's see.

Ilkka

You make an interesting point there. But I do hope that that is not the case...

henry link · Aug 7, 2004

John Traynor said:
The real FOV test is in the stars. Perhaps someone will scan the skies and give us an objective analysis of the FL's nightime performance.

John

John,

FWIW this is what I have seen using the FL on the night sky. A star focused in the center of the field looks extremely good, a tiny point with very little spread. If the star is moved up and down or across the field from one edge to the other I see that excellent sharpness maintained over about the central 1/3 of the field. Outside that area the star first enlarges then it changes to a line parallel to the field edge which gradually lengthens toward the edge.

If I do the same thing with the Nikon 8X32 SE the central image of the star is not quite as sharp as the Zeiss (even though fewer photons are involved), but it's central sharpness is maintained over about 1/2 of the field. Outside that area the star very gradually enlarges, but is still "star like" at the edge with a slight tendency toward a line like the Zeiss, perhaps about 1/4 the length of the line in the Zeiss. I can refocus the star at the edge in the Nikon to almost the same as central sharpness, but not the Zeiss.

Henry

Pileatus · Aug 12, 2004

Hello everyone,

Nikon is expected to release lightweight HG/LX's sometime in September. Expect weight reductions of ~19% in the 42mm models. I have no idea if any other changes will be incorporated into the new bins.

If anyone has any additional information, please post it.

John

gorank · Aug 21, 2004

official press release for the HG L:s on the UK-site:

http://www.nikon.co.uk/press_room/pressreleases/112.shtml

optical specifications (and size) seems to be the same as the old models..

Ragna · Aug 21, 2004

Tried these at the Rutland Birdfair yesterday.They looked exactly the same handled the same(from what i could remember) and opticaly were superb but felt much lighter, they did'nt fell much heavier than the 8x32s.Recommended retail Price i was told would be about £1000 same as the old model.

gorank · Aug 21, 2004

Ragna said:
Tried these at the Rutland Birdfair yesterday.They looked exactly the same handled the same(from what i could remember) and opticaly were superb but felt much lighter, they did'nt fell much heavier than the 8x32s.Recommended retail Price i was told would be about £1000 same as the old model.

pretty amazing...
what did Nikon do ??
was the old models made of aluminum after all ?
and now changed to a magnesium alloy...?

found these density figures on aluminum and magnesium alloy (kg per cubic meter):

light alloy based on Al
2560 - 2800

light alloy based on Mg
1760 - 1870

Ragna · Aug 21, 2004

Gorank i didnt ask but the rubber armouring felt the same so i dont think they have saved any weight on that part.

scampo · Aug 21, 2004

They'll be an attractive pair of bins then, Graham - for those who prefer a more rugged look than say Swaro or Ultravid?

I didn't make it to the fair after all. Did you enjoy it? What did you think of the new Zeiss FLs?

Ragna · Aug 21, 2004

Steve if the the lighter Nikons had been out when i got my Ultravid it would have been a tough decision.They still have that amazing focusing wheel.The new Zeiss fls were op ticaly superb but i was'nt keen on the rubber armouring and the fact that the pull up eye cups seemed a bit thin and did'nt feel as comfortable as the other contenders.But from what i saw at the show i would go for the 8x32 Ultravids they felt very comfortable and opticaly could see no difference between them and the 8x42 ultravids even on what was a rather dull day.It was almost impossible to get a comparison between makes as buy the time you've gone from one stand to another and waited in line you forgotten how good the others were.Also after all the hype about the SEs i had to have alook at those as well it took them some time to find them but it was worth the wait,I considered them noticible better than the 8x32HGs far brighterand as good as the new 8x42HGLs, opticaly i was very impressed if they had pull up eyecaps and a broader focusing wheel then i might have Nikons instead of Leicas.We were at the fair for just over 8 hours it was very good well worth the travel.

scampo · Aug 22, 2004

Sounds like you had a good day there! I must get a good look through some 32s one day, Graham, as size and weight are, for whatever reason, getting to me these days! In my mind, I still can't see how 32 can equate to 42, any more than a 65mm scope can equate to an 85 - but so many folk are suggesting the former, at least, to be the case, I'm intrigued. Certainly the Swaro 65 we had (now with my brother) was not as bright as either the Nikon 82 or Zeiss 85, no matter what I have read on occasion - and digiscoping proves the point as the light levels drop a good stop.

kabsetz · Aug 23, 2004

From what the Nikon folks at the fair said, it is replacing aluminum alloys with magnesium that does most of it. The rubber compound of the exterior has also been changed - hopefully the new compound will wear better, since some HG's I've seen in the field have not aged well. Another weight-saving factor might be the use of lead- and arsenic-free "eco-glass," which might be lighter than what they used before. The 8x32 HGL will only be some 5% lighter because the previous model "was already a considerably lighter construction." Anyway, this weght reduction will drop the weight under the 700 g mark, which at least will look better on paper.

Considering size-performance, I have a nice graph about scopes in the Alula review of small top scopes at the www.alula.fi pages. This shows how resolution is affected by aperture in practice, measured with two scopes of different size and pretty much the same overall quality and similar amount of optical aberrations. With binoculars, a high-quality 8x32 can be superb, but it needs to be nearly faultless optically for that.
Kimmo

Bill Atwood · Aug 23, 2004

Wow I wouldn't think changing metals would would reduce weight that much.

Leif · Aug 23, 2004

kabsetz said:
Considering size-performance, I have a nice graph about scopes in the Alula review of small top scopes at the www.alula.fi pages. This shows how resolution is affected by aperture in practice, measured with two scopes of different size and pretty much the same overall quality and similar amount of optical aberrations. With binoculars, a high-quality 8x32 can be superb, but it needs to be nearly faultless optically for that.
Kimmo

I assumed the graph showed calculated values but evidently the values were measured. I find it interesting that two scopes of comparable quality but different aperture show different resolution at a given magnification. (I have seen the same with binoculars.) I wonder what the explanation is? Could it be that the increased contrast of the larger instrument makes it easier for the eye to see detail?

kabsetz · Aug 24, 2004

Increased contrast is part of the reason. The other part is that with scopes we use such high magnifications that even the best of the 60-85 mm aperture scopes do not reach resolution levels which would even match the eye's resovling power, let alone the roughly twofold margin over the eye's resolution which seems to be necessary before we cease to have any significant gain. Telescopes, for the purpose of the eye, at the magnifications we use with them, are limited by both diffraction (i.e. aperture size) and optical quality, whereas binoculars, at least the 8-10x32-and-up models are not, for practical purposes, limited by diffraction but only by optical quality.

Kimmo

dogfish · Aug 24, 2004

It may be of interest that Steve Ingraham, who was working for Zeiss at the British Bird Fair, told me he thought the HGLs were slightly brighter than the HGs; otherwise the same optically. Not sure whether that applies to the whole range, or just the older 42mms.

Sean

Nikon HGLs (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread