Got some new Nikon 10x35 EII's the other day. News that they were being dicontinued and glowing reports made me pull the trigger. Unfortunately there is not a dealer that carries the higher end Nikons within 500 miles of me so I bought them via mail sight unseen. The first day I spent looking through them congratulating myself on what a fine buy I had made. Then I had to go and compare them to my SE's. I went with the 10x35's, since my SE's were the 8x32's, thinking they would be nice for getting a tad more detail. I spent several hours yesterday from dusk till dark looking through them both. Most of that time was spent observing a mule deer doe and her two young, spotted fawns. Everytime I went from the EII's to the SE's I was struck by the rather dramatic increase in the contrast and brightness of the SE's. I had thought under these conditions the 10x would shine. Depth of field certainly came into play here as the deer through the SE seemed to literally "jump" out at you. A very 3 dimensional image. By contrast through the EII the deer seemed to muddle into the background and the image was much more 2 dimensional. I was consistently able to discern more detail through the SE's, due I believe to the increased brightness and contrast. That I guess is where my disappointment comes through, since I bought the 10x primarily as a glass to see more detail. Oddly enough the most commonly mentioned difference I've heard when comparing EII's to SE's, sharper edge to edge on the SE's, did not come into play for me. In this area I did not really notice any significant difference between the two. In the EII's defense it is quite a bit of glass for the money and it does appear to be much less finicky in regards to eye placement than the SE. However, the more I use my SE's the less finicky they seem to be. Bottom line....I'm not sure, unless its I should have saved up some more pennies and bought the 10x42 SE.
-
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.
Nikon 10x35 EII disappointment (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cbushme
- Start date
I recently had a similar experience, only started with the 8x30 EII. Making side-by-side comparisons with the 8x32 SE, I found better contrast and brightness in the SE much as you describe, and due to a quality control issue with the EII, decided to trade up to the SE. Close inspection seems to indicate that the SE would be the more durable of the two as well, so time will tell. While I liked the "user-friendliness" a bit more with the EII due to its lack of black-out and it's great 8.8 degree TFOV, I found myself preferring the flatter field and closer to edge performance for casual stellar viewing. The EIIs are great binoculars for the money, but still fall short of the SEs which I still personally consider some of the best porro glasses ever made.
Bryant
Bryant
WJC
Well-known member
Bryant said:
Yep! But I must say, without hesitation, that if I were not using the SE, I would have opted for the EII. To my way of thinking if they drop the EII, someone needs to have his head examined. Of Course, if Zeiss can come out with the "Nightowl" (or Albatros) I guess Nikon is owed a turn at doing something stupid.
I sure wish some of our better optics companies would get prodution out of the hands of those who like to draw pretty pictures on the computer and back into the hands of real opticians.
But then, that's just me.
Cheers,
Bill
henry link
Well-known member
cbushme,
Sorry to hear about your problem. The 8x32 SE is certainly stiff competition for any binocular, but I don't think it should actually show more detail than the 10x35 EII or any other good 10x binocular. I would suggest a more controlled test to be certain there isn't a problem with your EII. Start by tripod mounting or somehow bracing the binoculars. Use a static test target with small detail like a dollar bill so you will always be looking at exactly the same details. Using one eye check each barrel separately, recentering the target in each barrel. Is there any difference in detail between the two sides of the 10x35? You might pick some small detail like the "legal tender" writing and measure the distance at which you can read it with one eye through each binocular. Now try two eyes. If the result is worse with two eyes you may have a collimation problem, or you may need to adjust the diopter setting. Diopter adjustments can be tricky, especially in high power porros were unfortunately due to the large image offset the diopter setting for long distance may not be quite right close up. The IPD setting is also probably fairly critical with the 10x35 because of the small exit pupil and it may also need to be changed up close.
I didn't mention the 10x35 in my review, but like you I considered it to be a better compliment to the 8x binoculars I usually use so I really wanted to like it. I compared it to the 8x30 in the store for a few minutes and found it just wasn't as comfortable for me to use as the 8x30. I attributed that to the higher magnification and the smaller exit pupil rather than any difference in quality. Depth of field will be narrower in any 10x binocular compared to any 8x. I don't see any significant difference in Dof between the 8x32 SE and the 8x30 EII.
Sorry to hear about your problem. The 8x32 SE is certainly stiff competition for any binocular, but I don't think it should actually show more detail than the 10x35 EII or any other good 10x binocular. I would suggest a more controlled test to be certain there isn't a problem with your EII. Start by tripod mounting or somehow bracing the binoculars. Use a static test target with small detail like a dollar bill so you will always be looking at exactly the same details. Using one eye check each barrel separately, recentering the target in each barrel. Is there any difference in detail between the two sides of the 10x35? You might pick some small detail like the "legal tender" writing and measure the distance at which you can read it with one eye through each binocular. Now try two eyes. If the result is worse with two eyes you may have a collimation problem, or you may need to adjust the diopter setting. Diopter adjustments can be tricky, especially in high power porros were unfortunately due to the large image offset the diopter setting for long distance may not be quite right close up. The IPD setting is also probably fairly critical with the 10x35 because of the small exit pupil and it may also need to be changed up close.
I didn't mention the 10x35 in my review, but like you I considered it to be a better compliment to the 8x binoculars I usually use so I really wanted to like it. I compared it to the 8x30 in the store for a few minutes and found it just wasn't as comfortable for me to use as the 8x30. I attributed that to the higher magnification and the smaller exit pupil rather than any difference in quality. Depth of field will be narrower in any 10x binocular compared to any 8x. I don't see any significant difference in Dof between the 8x32 SE and the 8x30 EII.
Last edited:
WJC said:
I agree completely, Bill ! Dropping the EII was a very stupid move on Nikon's part. I suppose it will be "replaced" by some out-sourced Chinese model to fill whatever perceived gap was created as a result, as seems to be the ongoing trend these days, even for the bigger optics names. Besides, the SE is no doubt more profitable at twice the price or more (gotta pay for all those "free" warranties somehow). The EII was possibly the last, late, great bargain/quality/top performance bino on the market. A shame to see it go, but there are still a few out there on dealer's shelves ripe for the picking.........
Speaking of out-sourcing, what's up with the lower-end Fujinon binos of late ? Do these bigger companies simply put profits over name brand credibility these days ? It seems that with a few exceptions, many brand names no longer necessarily equate to quality optics. That's a shame, and affirms your point about the "pretty picture drawing designers" vs. the real opticians.
Bryant
Bryant said:
Bryant et al,
The mantra is to advertise and mass-market roof prism binoculars regardless of optical quality. Perhaps Nikon aggressively advertised the SE's when they were first introduced, but I've not seen one word about them in recent reviews or ads. The same can be said about the Nikon EII’s, and the Swift Audubon. Yes, top quality, expensive roofs are optically excellent, but there’s something wonderful about a $300 binocular that delivers a $1700 image!
John
John Traynor said:
Amen to that John ! Unfortunately, I think many bino users or potential users/buyers very often overlook some of these "best kept secrets" of the industry, and they eventually go the way of the dinosaurs for reasons of economics more than anything else. Why Nikon doesn't simply wage an aggressive advertising campaign, explaining that good Porros CAN outperform even the best Roofs, and maybe waterproof the SE series to deal with those concerns, is really beyond me. But then, we are back to the "money" issue......selling $900+ binos as compared to $300 binos. The Roofs seem to have overtaken the Porros from the standpoint of "quality perception" in recent years, I would suspect due to the great influx of Chinese porro (or "poor-oh") trash on the market, making it even more difficult to pick out the gems from amongst the junk. Sure, there are some importers of decent Chinese optics out there (Oberwerk for example), but that is more the exception than the rule when we start looking at total numbers of binos on the market these days. I suppose too, that is one benefit of forums such as this, to help find (or show others) where the real performers are hiding. I know I would not likely have even tried a $300 pair of 8x30 EII Nikons had it not been for the high regard given them by some very knowledgable folks here and on other forums. The same might have applied to the Nikon 8x32 SE, which now is my most prized small bino and used more than all of the others combined for daytime viewing. Glad to say that Nikon and Fujinon are still my preferred favorites in the field of porro glasses, even if they seem to be going the route of letting lesser quality/performance out-sourcing infiltrate their lines. Unfortunately, even with the best of brand-name optics these days, one has to be careful. Marketing trumping quality seems to be the name of the game, just as you say.
Bryant
WJC
Well-known member
Bryant said:
MOST of the bigger names in binoculars buy some of the products that bear their name from one of a handful or REAL binocular manufacturers.
SOME of the bigger names in binoculars buy most of the products that bear their name from one of a handful or REAL binocular manufacturers.
A FEW of the bigger names in binoculars haven’t actually MANUFACTURED a binocular in years.
A FEW have NEVER manufactured a bino.
And, regardless of what the tag says, there are no U.S. designed and manufactured handheld binos.
Some list members give me kudos for knowing these things. But, I am just scratching the surface. I know that some “European” binoculars are actually being made in Asia. But, the Europeans guard their secrets better than most.
And, before any bino enthusiast gets his or her knickers in a twist, there is nothing wrong with a company guarding its secrets or trying hard to stay in business by finding ways to make more profit. It is just up to the consumer to be savvy, and learn to choose a good bino based on common sense and a little pertinent knowledge. For every 10,000 words written in reviews and articles, an experience observer will probably be able to find 400 words of accuracy and lasting value.
It is most certainly “sour grapes” on my part, but I have been trying to get a column in a birding mag for a couple of years, with no luck. Birder’s World turned me down for the third time just this week. Oh, well, life goes on.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,
Bill
Wehr
Well-known member
John Traynor said:
John,
the problem is the market. We discussed it with some big dealers in Europe before: middle and high class porros are non-sellers around the world since more than 20 years and it's becoming worse every year. 98% of the customers do not even discuss roof or porro. They only think about a 8x32 instead of a 8x42 to save some weight. That's it. High quality porros are a big economical risk for manufacturers and dealers. So for Nikon (as is for Zeiss) it's a financial freeing to get rid of those porros. May be the market will change in future, but this is very unlikely.
Walter
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Wehr said:
Nikon seems to be doing very well with their Action series porros — providing an affordable and acceptable view. Some are even waterproof like the 8x40 I saw a few days ago. We keep forgetting that binoculars really are a luxury item for many/most, and I for one should be spending more time helping to identify the best lower cost products. Orion is another example in the somewhat higher $150-$250 range, and IMO they are quite good enough to satisfy many an avid bird watcher.
Elkcub
Last edited:
Robert Ellis
Larus marinus
EIIs are great, but I am finding that I use my Swifts more and more when I need the best image and a pair of compacts when I really want portability. The pincushion in the EIIs has started to bother me more as I bird open areas and shore more often, it leaves me with the feeling that I am standing on top of a globe.
henry link
Well-known member
cbushme,
Happy to hear your EII's have improved. I agree with you as to how they compare optically to roof prism binoculars. Only a few of the very best roof prism bins can stand comparison.
Henry
Happy to hear your EII's have improved. I agree with you as to how they compare optically to roof prism binoculars. Only a few of the very best roof prism bins can stand comparison.
Henry
