Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Nikon 8x32mm Premier SE has been discontinued by the manufacturer???

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 11 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Monday 3rd March 2014, 13:31   #26
SUPPRESSOR
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: cornwall
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
The 8x32 SE is, for me, "long in the tooth" for the following reasons:

1) Rubber fold down eyecups. Heaven forbid you try to share an SE with someone who doesn't wear glasses (I do, my wife doesn't). The SE's got left behind many times for that reason alone. In addition I had to fold the cups down halfway to get the eye relief right, and twiddle with them a few times in the course of an afternoon. This leads to:

2) That finicky blackout-prone eyepiece. It seems half the users or more have an issue with it. I did, especially if I was in a hurry to get on a bird.

3) Not waterproof. The SE's got left behind at times for this reason too, although I was somewhat overprotective.

4) No hydrophobic, easy-to-clean coatings. Those coatings work.

5) Field of view. The 8x32 SV, for instance, has an extra 33 feet of it.

6) Price. $700-800 is too high for the SE. I paid $500 in, I believe, 2009 for a 550. Brand-new. What happened?

7) The 3D view was of little consequence to me and not a selling point.

8) Poor close focus because of widely spaced objectives.

I had the 8x32 SE for two years but I ended up selling it and I wouldn't really want another. The 8x32 SV solves every issue mentioned above--except price of course.

Just my experience,
Mark
I can add another. C A and lots of it. Kept mine for 11 1/2 months. good bins,but,better binoculars out there,much better.
suppressor
SUPPRESSOR is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 3rd March 2014, 15:07   #27
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,123
I have`nt tried the SE` with the newest coatings but I have tried mine alongside all the current Alpha 8x32 roofs, the SE view is unique compared to all of them, and, IMO better in the area`s which matter most to me, and the fact it can compete with them head on at a fraction of their price makes me love them even more.

Simply the finest vfm binocular ever made IMO.
Torview is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 3rd March 2014, 16:00   #28
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,484
In 2010 I spent 4 hours between 1100 AM and 300PM comparing my 10 x 42 SE (which I had purchased 2nd hand years earlier) and my new 10 x 32 EDG I at Hawk Mountain Sanctuary.

It was a brilliant, cloudless, sunny autumn day. There was virtually no difference between them except while looking though very light haze at farms and houses up the valley several miles away. The EDG showed more detail than the SE there and I attributed it to newer coatings on the EDG. There were no other differences even in the edges of their views.

I let a Hawk Mountain Intern working there, who was from Nepal, try both of them. He had been studying Himalayan Vultures at home. He preferred the SE. He liked the handling better because he said it was like the binoculars he used in Nepal. He was using a Nikon Monarch while counting raptors at the South Lookout.

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Monday 3rd March 2014 at 16:05.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 3rd March 2014, 18:54   #29
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
The 8x32 SE is, for me, "long in the tooth" for the following reasons:

1) Rubber fold down eyecups. Heaven forbid you try to share an SE with someone who doesn't wear glasses (I do, my wife doesn't). The SE's got left behind many times for that reason alone. In addition I had to fold the cups down halfway to get the eye relief right, and twiddle with them a few times in the course of an afternoon. This leads to:

2) That finicky blackout-prone eyepiece. It seems half the users or more have an issue with it. I did, especially if I was in a hurry to get on a bird.

3) Not waterproof. The SE's got left behind at times for this reason too, although I was somewhat overprotective.

4) No hydrophobic, easy-to-clean coatings. Those coatings work.

5) Field of view. The 8x32 SV, for instance, has an extra 33 feet of it.

6) Price. $700-800 is too high for the SE. I paid $500 in, I believe, 2009 for a 550. Brand-new. What happened?

7) The 3D view was of little consequence to me and not a selling point.

8) Poor close focus because of widely spaced objectives.
Just to provide a different perspective.

1): I don't usually share my bins with anyone. No problem there, and fold-down eyecups have one real advantage: there's nothing that can break, and they don't get stuck.

2): I never ever had any problem with blackouts with the SE. I couldn't even see them, no matter what I tried.

3), 4) and 5): Agreed, even though I don't find the field of view too restrictive. Waterproofing is the really important point here, I think. Hydrophobic coatings are nice but not essential, as far as I'm concerned.

6): For the optical quality of the SE they're cheap. Almost as good as one of the top roofs at a third of the price. Talk about bargains.

7): I prefer the 3D-effect over the flat view of a roof any time.

8): I don't need very close focus. Birds don't usually land on my boots. And the short focus of many roofs may lead to all sorts of problems in the design of binoculars, like problems when viewing against the light or mechanical problems with the focuser. Close focus isn't for free. There ain't such a thing as a free lunch.

Hermann
Hermann is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 3rd March 2014, 19:03   #30
mikefreiberg
Registered User
 
mikefreiberg's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 248
The SEs are definitely discontinued. That is a fact at this point.

Best,
Mike
mikefreiberg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 3rd March 2014, 19:32   #31
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
Just to provide a different perspective.

1): fold-down eyecups have one real advantage: there's nothing that can break, and they don't get stuck.

Hermann
But the rubber cracks where it is folded Hermann.
Or at least the rubber eyecups my wife and I have experience of (Leica and Zeiss) all cracked in this way.
Mostly the cracks ran across the line of the fold so it looked like ozone attack to me.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 3rd March 2014, 19:52   #32
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
Just to provide a different perspective.

1): I don't usually share my bins with anyone. No problem there, and fold-down eyecups have one real advantage: there's nothing that can break, and they don't get stuck.

...
Hermann
I generally don't share either, but my wife often doesn't like to carry binos, so back and forth they go. Maybe I can get her to carry the 8x25 CL this year.

Even though I wouldn't be interested in buying another SE, it's sad to hear they are truly gone.
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 01:03   #33
Pinewood
New York correspondent
 
Pinewood's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 3,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
...
I had the 8x32 SE for two years but I ended up selling it and I wouldn't really want another.
...
Just my experience,
Mark
Mark,

I understand, perfectly.

Two things are probably going on. First, the profit margins on the EDG are higher, so the company is sticking to one premier line. Simultaneously, they are selling poorer Porro binoculars to a mass market. Secondly, anyone who wanted an SE, probably has one. Nikon cannot demand a sufficiently high price for the SE to be produced in smaller and smaller lots.

It may have had a singular following among some bird watchers, but the European firms have put out some very good glass, in the last decade, or so, while Canon's IS binoculars have taken a sizable share of the 10x binoculars. The technology has moved on.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
__________________
Bread is not enough. Give us circuses!
Pinewood is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 08:10   #34
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
BF Supporter 2018
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikefreiberg View Post
The SEs are definitely discontinued. That is a fact at this point.

Best,
Mike
Mike,

Are they discontinued for just Nikon USA or are they discontinued worldwide?

The SE series is still shown as an active model line on the Nikon Worldwide website.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 10:37   #35
[email protected]
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
The 8x32 SE is, for me, "long in the tooth" for the following reasons:

1) Rubber fold down eyecups. Heaven forbid you try to share an SE with someone who doesn't wear glasses (I do, my wife doesn't). The SE's got left behind many times for that reason alone. In addition I had to fold the cups down halfway to get the eye relief right, and twiddle with them a few times in the course of an afternoon. This leads to:

2) That finicky blackout-prone eyepiece. It seems half the users or more have an issue with it. I did, especially if I was in a hurry to get on a bird.

3) Not waterproof. The SE's got left behind at times for this reason too, although I was somewhat overprotective.

4) No hydrophobic, easy-to-clean coatings. Those coatings work.

5) Field of view. The 8x32 SV, for instance, has an extra 33 feet of it.

6) Price. $700-800 is too high for the SE. I paid $500 in, I believe, 2009 for a 550. Brand-new. What happened?

7) The 3D view was of little consequence to me and not a selling point.

8) Poor close focus because of widely spaced objectives.

I had the 8x32 SE for two years but I ended up selling it and I wouldn't really want another. The 8x32 SV solves every issue mentioned above--except price of course.

Just my experience,
Mark
I agree. The SV 8x32 is the waterproof, updated and improved SE.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 11:30   #36
cycleguy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: mile high, colorado
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I agree. The SV 8x32 is the waterproof, updated and improved SE.
Great! So where can I get one for six to seven hundred bucks?

You just don't get it.

CG
cycleguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 14:32   #37
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,767
The cost question is interesting. Some care about it, some don't.

It's a bit like saying, "My Ford Mustang GT is as fast as your Porsche Cayman 0-60 and pulls the same g's on a skidpad so why should I spend the money on a Porsche?!?"

OK, don't. Enjoy your ride. What's to get miffed about?

Besides, I think Dennis rarely has more than 3-4 binoculars at a time. He sells the rest, doesn't he? In fact, he's probably got less invested in optics than many of us. I find his perpetual revolving optics quest a little odd, but heck it's none of my business.

Mark--who has neither Mustang nor Porsche (well, there's a 27 year-old Porsche sitting in the garage with a dead battery if that counts. Some day I hope to dig it out of the snow).
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 14:47   #38
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,123
The cost is not what stops me buying an SV, I simply don`t care for it much and frankly none of the alpha 32mm glass represents value in my book as the only advantage I can find over the SE is waterproofing.

I`m far more likely to buy one of the latest SE` or a top 7x42 before I`d consider 1400+ on a 32mm roof.
Torview is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 15:02   #39
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torview View Post
The cost is not what stops me buying an SV, I simply don`t care for it much and frankly none of the alpha 32mm glass represents value in my book as the only advantage I can find over the SE is waterproofing.

I`m far more likely to buy one of the latest SE` or a top 7x42 before I`d consider 1400+ on a 32mm roof.
But isn't "value" the same as caring about cost? And why does that "sour grapes" tone always seem to creep into the discussion?

I parked in front of a guy downtown yesterday, a local developer who drives the latest supercharged Jaguar XJ. Gets a new one every two years or so. For some reason I felt absolutely no desire to point out that my Subaru AWD is just as good in the snow.

Mark
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 16:39   #40
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,123
Sour grapes was not my intention nor my position, and caring about value does not equal caring about cost in my book.

To take the on idea of sour grapes from a non Swaro owner, I must say I`v never read a response on here from a Leica or Zeiss owner suggesting that affordability is the reason for putting down their chosen optic, the more time I spend around this forum the more it seems Swaro brings out the superiority complex.

Me ? I just don`t see what all the fuss is about, never been enticed to buy one yet.
Torview is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 16:52   #41
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torview View Post
Sour grapes was not my intention nor my position, and caring about value does not equal caring about cost in my book.

To take the on idea of sour grapes from a non Swaro owner, I must say I`v never read a response on here from a Leica or Zeiss owner suggesting that affordability is the reason for putting down their chosen optic, the more time I spend around this forum the more it seems Swaro brings out the superiority complex.

Me ? I just don`t see what all the fuss is about, never been enticed to buy one yet.
torview,

I think it often brings out what might best be called Swaro-tude. To cop a bad attitude (tude, as the kids say) towards Swaro just because it's Swaro. Check out another current thread where SV is called a "gimmick," and the suggestion is made that buyers are just suckers for marketing. Has anybody suggested that HT glass was a "gimmick"? Not that I've seen.

I currently use stuff from seven different optics companies (yes, I've been meaning to sell some) so, as we say in my neck of the woods, "I got no dog in this hunt."
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 17:09   #42
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,337
[quote=Torview;2941511

Me ? I just don`t see what all the fuss is about, never been enticed to buy one yet.[/QUOTE]

I know what you mean Torview: I have never had lust for a Ferrari at all. Love Astons, Maseratis, Jaguars, Porsches (with fully charged batteries) but never swooned over a Ferrari.

But I can see what the fuss is about.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 17:16   #43
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
The cost question is interesting. Some care about it, some don't.

It's a bit like saying, "My Ford Mustang GT is as fast as your Porsche Cayman 0-60 and pulls the same g's on a skidpad so why should I spend the money on a Porsche?!?"

OK, don't. Enjoy your ride. What's to get miffed about?
Well, I think the reason Cycle Guy brought up price was because Dennis acted as if you could simply replace an SE with a SV - something that is not true for most. I do not, of course, know if this was truly CG's intent, but from my understanding I believe it was.

Best,
Justin
jremmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 17:24   #44
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,123
Lee, I could be way off the mark here but I have a theory the reason many buyers (not members of this forum) instantly proclaim the SV superior (in the 42mm range) is the fact that they are 8.5x, I find it hard to fathom other manufacturers have`nt noticed this brilliant marketing tactic.
Torview is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 17:33   #45
brocknroller
Registered User
 
brocknroller's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikefreiberg View Post
The SEs are definitely discontinued. That is a fact at this point.

Best,
Mike
Mike,

Thanks for confirming that fact. Wish Nikon had announced it on their website rather than having to read the announcement on Optics Planet.

Is the EII also being discontinued or will that still be sold in Japan and Hong Kong?

The EIIs are still listed on the Nikon Sport Optics website, but then again, so are the SEs.

Naure Watching

Also, do you have Makoto Kimura's email address or snail mail address, so I can personally send him a letter of protest and tell him why discontinuing the SE series is a BIG mistake?

Brock

Last edited by brocknroller : Tuesday 4th March 2014 at 17:50.
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 17:36   #46
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torview View Post
Lee, I could be way off the mark here but I have a theory the reason many buyers (not members of this forum) instantly proclaim the SV superior (in the 42mm range) is the fact that they are 8.5x, I find it hard to fathom other manufacturers have`nt noticed this brilliant marketing tactic.
You're definitely on to something there. It's a just-noticable difference and generally leads to a bit more detail than 8x. But is it a "marketing tactic" or just a different feature? Is 9x a marketing tactic? 10x?

Pretty sure we can all agree this one is pure marketing:

http://www.brilliantstore.com/campin...os-hl1054.html
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 17:49   #47
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torview View Post
Lee, I could be way off the mark here but I have a theory the reason many buyers (not members of this forum) instantly proclaim the SV superior (in the 42mm range) is the fact that they are 8.5x, I find it hard to fathom other manufacturers have`nt noticed this brilliant marketing tactic.
There could be something in what you say Torview, but half a point extra magnification wouldn't mean anything unless the optics were not at least fully competitive.

I preferred the view through the SLC 8x myself, although I would need a lot more time with them both to explain just why.

But I don't think there is any denying that Swaros are first class instruments and were the first ones to offer a different appearance and handling experience for years. The original ELs were a breath of fresh air that blew through 'bin-world' like a hurricane and they had the optical chops to go with it. They even seduced me from my Dialyt 10x40 BGAs although a focuser that went grungey sent me scuttling back to FLs.

But the ELs were and remain a design icon thoroughly deserved their success despite focuser issues on some examples, and the Swarovisions have capitalised on this.

However, like success for a football club, popularity comes and goes. Leica and then Swaro have had their time in the sun and now Zeiss is coming.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 19:39   #48
brocknroller
Registered User
 
brocknroller's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Those prices are about the same as they were selling for about 6 or 7 years ago. I remember when the 12x50SE was selling for $999.00 and at times it was listed at $1099.00. The 10x42 SE was selling for $899.00 up to $999.00 at times and the 8x32 was selling for $699.00 which was the highest price I ever saw it offered at. If it is priced higher than that now one could argue that the sellers are profiteering on a scarce commodity.

Factor inflation into the current prices and they are a bargain unless they are a mixture of old stock with older coatings and newer ones with newer coatings. That's a chance you will have to take. In any case, optically they all will be excellent binoculars.

Bob
There are always stores that sell bins at inflated prices or at the MSRP. How they manage to move their merchandize I have no idea. In some parts of the world, prices are always higher, so they ether buy them at a high price or buy on the gray market and perhaps pay an import tax and.or VAT.

However, historically, the SE prices were separated by about $100 each. The 12x50 SE typically sold for $799, the 10x42 SE for $699, and the 8x32 SE for $550-599. This was the trend for at about a decade with NYC camera dealers. Smaller stores priced them closer to the MRSP or higher, the prices you quoted above. There used to be a website that tracked price trends in sports optics. They even had bar graphs that showed the trends visually. Miss that website. I used to follow Nikon Sport Optics prices.

Then the tsunami hit in 2011, and prices on Nikon's Japanese-made optics went up across the board. In the case of the SE, it was a $100 increase. The 8x SE jumped to $679-$699, the 10x42 SE to $799, and the 12x50 SE to $899.

The time between back order arrivals grew longer. SE buyers were paying more and waiting longer to receive their SEs. Demand built, higher demand = higher prices.

I interpreted all this as impacts from the tsunami, which was very disruptive to some business sectors, but also to the fact that with only two out of 50 nuclear reactors running, the price of electricity, and therefore manufacturing, had increased.

So the discontinuation of the SE series comes as kind of shock since other factors could have easily explained the price increases, but also because how many times have we heard that the SEs were being discontinued only to find out that it was a false rumor based on some store that was out of stock and posted on their website that the SEs were "no longer available."

My concern going forward is what this will do to the price of SEs on the second hand market. Only one of my six SEs was bought new, my present 8x32 SE, the five others were bought "like new" second hand, all for under $600 including the two 12x50 SEs, one of which was cosmetically a bit worn (the serial number had been rubbed off) but was still excellent optically.

It's always been my dream to own all three models since each fills a niche, but I could only afford one at a time, although I did own the 8x 550xxx and the 10x 050xxx for about a year or so before I sold the 10x SE to buy a Nikon 8x30 EII BB, which I had to sell after the "Big Crunch" in January. I didn't even get to use it!

Right now, holding on to the 8x32 SE 550xxx is my goal, but others are on my Bucket List:

1. Back up 8x32 SE (551xxx)
2. 10x42 SE (050/051xxx)
3. 12x50 SE (350xxx).

Total cost???

<B>

Last edited by brocknroller : Tuesday 4th March 2014 at 19:55.
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 20:54   #49
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocknroller View Post
My concern going forward is what this will do to the price of SEs on the second hand market.

<B>
How about these ?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2013-Nikon...item2eca2e934c
Torview is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 21:50   #50
looksharp65
Registered User
 
looksharp65's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Varberg, Sweden
Posts: 1,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torview View Post
Dang! The seller won't post to Sweden!
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses - The Viking optics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuBYpRkbzrs - The Viking War Cry
looksharp65 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon SEs Discontinued ronjax Nikon 19 Friday 26th August 2011 04:23
Discontinued Nikon EDG bino. Why? SzimiStyle Nikon 32 Saturday 9th October 2010 15:43
Nikon Fieldscope 82A Discontinued? bm571q Nikon 19 Friday 24th August 2007 23:47
Nikon CP4500 discontinued? Dave Smith Nikon 24 Monday 4th August 2003 23:19

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.22233105 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:27.