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 Saturday 8th March 2014, 20:00   #76
SUPPRESSOR
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: cornwall
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocknroller View Post
No wonder your username is SUPPRESSOR! You need a lot of CA suppression if you can see CA in the 8x32 SE, assuming that's the model you're referring to. Even the 10x isn't bad, and I'm sensitive to CA. The 12x50, OTOH, does show noticeable CA while looking at BOP flying overhead and in high contrast situations. But I used the 12x mainly for stargazing where it was a "stellar" performer.

To my eyes, CA in the 8x in the centerfield is not present in most situations, and only noticeable in the 10x against high contrast backgrounds typically found in the winter, but still not bad at all compared to the LX/HGL roofs.

You must have had a hard time with roofs before they started using ED glass. I noticed more CA with non-ED internal focus roofs than porros, which I think is why they added the ED glass to roofs. The internal focuser element is great for sealing out the rain but you pay for it with increased CA. Like so much about roofs, you have to keep making modifications to compensate for their inferiority to porros.

<B>
Well the fact was my pair of 8x32se showed more CA than the 7x42 dialyt I had before them and the 7x42 dialyt I replaced them with.
Still we know how much you like the 8x32 se as you never cease in telling us, though a few days ago you had them up for sale.I thought you had come to your senses,but,alas it was not so!!
suppressor
SUPPRESSOR is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 10th March 2014, 18:50   #77
brocknroller
Registered User
 
brocknroller's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUPPRESSOR View Post
Well the fact was my pair of 8x32se showed more CA than the 7x42 dialyt I had before them and the 7x42 dialyt I replaced them with.
Still we know how much you like the 8x32 se as you never cease in telling us, though a few days ago you had them up for sale.I thought you had come to your senses,but,alas it was not so!!
suppressor
Suppressor,

I don't doubt you, a good quality 7x bin should show less CA than an 8x bin, particularly a long roof (due to the A/B prisms) with no internal focus such as the 7x42 Dialyt .

That's not surprising. I see less CA when comparing the SE against the Nikon 7x35 WF.and the Vixen 7x50 Foresta (though its triplet objective may also be a factor), But in your original post, you just wrote the SE had "CA and lots of it," without qualifying as compared to what. Compared to a Nikon 8x32 HG/L, I think you'd find the SE to be a much better CA SUPPRESSOR.

Even unqualified, I don't doubt what you saw. Perhaps you're used to ED roofs or are more sensitive to CA than even I am, however, if you read reviews of the 8x32 SE, you will find that most reviewers/users find the SE good to very good in controlling CA. It's well made and unlike modern roofs, which have more CA because of their internal focusing elements, the SE doesn't have that problem to overcome. You are the first person I've heard complain about the CA in the 8x SE, so it surprised me. I also couldn't resist goofing on your username since it fit perfectly in the discussion.

I was thinking about what you wrote when I took the 8X SE out on Saturday and was watching at least 50, probably more, crows on a snow covered field. I was looking south, with a treeline at the edge of the field positioned against a bright, cloudy sky.

In the central portion of the FOV, I didn't see any CA on the crows or the trees. About 60%-65% from center, I started noticing CA (purple on one side of the FOV, green on the other). I thought that many bins would be out of focus or certainly souring by 60%-65% out, and that perhaps the reason you see "lots of it" is because you could focus on objects both in the centerfield and edges at the same time, which makes it easy to compare the CA suppression from center to edge.

I then looked at the same scene with my 8x30 EII expecting to see more CA in the same area, but it was close to the same amount at 60%-65% as the SE, BUT I could see much more edge because of the wider FOV so therefore more CA, which worsens the farther I looked off axis. The fall at the edges is gradual so it didn't take much tweaking to get the edges in sharp focus.

In the past, I have written that the EII showed more CA than the SE. Now I realize that's because of the wider FOV not because it shows more CA on axis or up to 65% off axis. So certain features of bins such as field flatteners or wide fields of view can lead one into thinking that there's more CA than there actually is.

As to me deciding not to sell the SE, at least for now, it had nothing to do with "coming to my senses" (that is, I think what you're implying is that I was selling it to buy an ED roof, because the SE has "lots of CA"), but was purely a financial decision, which I mentioned in one of my posts. The reason I changed my mind was because the SE has been discontinued so replacing it later might be difficult and/or costly.

If you see too much CA in the SE, then stay away from the HGL series, it really could use ED glass. Although you have a few users such as Bob who don't see CA, but generally most who have used the Premier/HGL series have reported seeing anywhere from mor than average CA to "lots of CA."

The SE is not everybody's cup of tea for other reasons, the image blackouts probably chief among them, but to me, they still provide the best bang for the buck, the best ergos in an 8x32 (other than the original 8x32 EL, which are equally comfortable to hold), and a better 3-D effect than any 8x30/32 roof I've tried.

So if I never cease in touting them, those are the reasons. I was also hoping that by turning others on to the joys of the SEs and EIIs, that they would buy them, which would encourage Nikon to keep making them, but I see I failed at that mission!

However, unlike some Swaro fanboys who think their bins are perfect, I recognize the limitations or flaws of the SE, EII, HGL, EDG, and other Nikons Ive owned or tested, and I have discussed those shortcomings on BF.

No bin is perfect. There is always something that one user likes that another users abhors, and we are a good example. One reason I like the SE is that to my eyes, it does a good job of controlling CA. I only see it in the most extreme conditions.

So no harm or foul. To quote a famous sailor: I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam.

Brock

Last edited by brocknroller : Monday 10th March 2014 at 19:01.
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 10th March 2014, 22:17   #78
scatcat
Joe boy

 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: west cumbria uk
Posts: 94
Still available here!

Nikon 8 x 30 SE & 10 x 42 SE still available here.
Listed as in stock at 479.00 for the 8 x 32

cliftoncameras.co.uk
scatcat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 11th March 2014, 03:05   #79
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocknroller View Post
Suppressor,

I don't doubt you, a good quality 7x bin should show less CA than an 8x bin, particularly a long roof (due to the A/B

-------------------- Perhaps you're used to ED roofs or are more sensitive to CA than even I am, however, if you read reviews of the 8x32 SE, you will find that most reviewers/users find the SE good to very good in controlling CA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you see too much CA in the SE, then stay away from the HGL series, it really could use ED glass. Although you have a few users such as Bob who don't see CA, but generally most who have used the Premier/HGL series have reported seeing anywhere from mor than average CA to "lots of CA."

-----------------------------

Brock
Wow! "a few users such as Bob who don't see CA,.............."

It's hard to tell how many people this affects because those who don't see it have no reason to comment on it.

If they are like me they can see an insignificant thin purple line along the top edges of mountain ridges and the same with an insignificant green line just below the top of the ridge, but that's about it and that is normal AFAIK and it doesn't bother me. In fact I don't even see that it unless I look for it. I can't see it on the denuded branches of trees in winter or on crows in snow. But then I'm not looking for it either.

I don't have any idea how many people are like me but I'll bet most of them don't write about it.


Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Tuesday 11th March 2014 at 03:10.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 11th March 2014, 05:03   #80
brocknroller
Registered User
 
brocknroller's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Wow! "a few users such as Bob who don't see CA,.............."

It's hard to tell how many people this affects because those who don't see it have no reason to comment on it.

If they are like me they can see an insignificant thin purple line along the top edges of mountain ridges and the same with an insignificant green line just below the top of the ridge, but that's about it and that is normal AFAIK and it doesn't bother me. In fact I don't even see that it unless I look for it. I can't see it on the denuded branches of trees in winter or on crows in snow. But then I'm not looking for it either.

I don't have any idea how many people are like me but I'll bet most of them don't write about it.

Bob
Bob,

After you were born, they broke the mold.

I was mainly referring to you not being bothered by the CA in the 10x32 HGL. If you can tolerate that much CA, you have a high tolerance for it.

<B>
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 17th March 2014, 23:38   #81
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocknroller View Post
Bob,

After you were born, they broke the mold.

I was mainly referring to you not being bothered by the CA in the 10x32 HGL. If you can tolerate that much CA, you have a high tolerance for it.

<B>
Brock,

I meant to answer this earlier but as you know CA is not that important to me and I forgot to respond.

I was watching a Turkey Vulture soaring over the ridge line of the mountain to my east today when I remembered this discussion. A beautiful bright sunny day too!

I have to hold the binocular off axis to see this CA along a mountain ridge line and I didn't make that clear before. If I keep my binocular on axis I do not see it on these mountain ridge lines and trees along the top are sharply in focus.

Now my question is; do you see CA when you keep the binocular on axis and centered on the object you are viewing like a mountain ridge?

Bob

PS: I find it easy to fiddle, up and down, on and off axis using the MOLCET technique in holding my binoculars up to my eyes. The top edge of the eye cup is anchored slightly under my eye brows on my brow ridge for steadiness and it is easy to move it up and down and still keep it braced solidly.

Last edited by ceasar : Monday 17th March 2014 at 23:49.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 18th March 2014, 02:09   #82
[email protected]
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,498
You can criticize the Nikon 8x32 SE all you want. But I think everybody would agree for $500.00 they are the best optics you can buy. As Brock put's it. They are the best "Bang for the Buck" you can get. They are the "Poor Man's Swarovision". That is why they are so talked about.

Last edited by [email protected] : Tuesday 18th March 2014 at 04:07.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 18th March 2014, 03:27   #83
cycleguy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: mile high, colorado
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
You can criticize the Nikon 8x32 SE all you want. But I think everybody would agree for $500.00 they are the best optics you can buy. As Brock put's it. They are the best "Bang for the Buck" you can get. They are the "Poor Man's Swarovision".
There are still some of us that think they are better than Swarovision and shouldn't be compared to it at all.

CG

Last edited by cycleguy : Tuesday 18th March 2014 at 04:46.
cycleguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 18th March 2014, 04:01   #84
[email protected]
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycleguy View Post
There are still some of us that think they are better than Swarovision and shouldn't be compated to it at all.

CG
They are damn close for the price. HaHa! TOO CLOSE!
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 18th March 2014, 12:41   #85
mulligatawny owl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 265
I was told that Nikon supplied Clifton cameras their last batch of SE 8x32's. All serial number 551's apparently. Only 7 left now...hang on, make that 6
mulligatawny owl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 18th March 2014, 15:00   #86
barshnik
John F

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 265
Well, then they have not been selling like 'hotcakes'. I bought my SE's in January of 2013 ($679 from B&H) and they are serial number 550949.

That said (and I am a large Swaro fan) I can sit for hours comparing them to my 10x32 Swarovisions, and some days I like the Nikons better, more days I like the Swaros better. To my eyes they are both superb in slightly different ways.

John F
barshnik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 18th March 2014, 18:09   #87
[email protected]
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,498
Yes. The Swarovski's are better in ways and the SE's are better in ways. Really the SE's are hard to beat for the money. That is the bottom line. I bought another pair of SE's because they are being discontinued. They will soon be hard to find. $450 shipped at Amart. Good pricing for a soon to be classic. I really think after having ALOT of binoculars that the Swarovisions are the best roof and the Nikon SE series are the best porro's in the world. The thing is the Swarovision's are 4X the cost of the cost of the SE. It costs as least $2K to beat the SE. Even the Zeiss Conquest HD isn't as good as the SE IMO.

Last edited by [email protected] : Wednesday 19th March 2014 at 04:27.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th March 2014, 02:25   #88
barshnik
John F

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Yes. The Swarovski's are better in ways and the SE's are better in ways. Really the SE's are hard to beat for the money. That is the bottom line. I bought another pair of SE's because they are being discontinued. They will soon be hard to find. $450 shipped at Amart. Good pricing for a soon to be classic. I really think after having ALOT of binoculars that the Swarovisions are the best roof and the Nikon SE series are the best porro's in the world. The thing is the Swarovision's are 4X the cost of the cost of the SE. It costs as least $2K to beat the SE. Even the Zeiss Conquest HD isn't as good as the SE IMO.
Amart? Not finding any Nikons on any *amart* site. ??
barshnik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th March 2014, 04:25   #89
[email protected]
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by barshnik View Post
Amart? Not finding any Nikons on any *amart* site. ??
Astromart is a used binocular auction site. I got him down to $450 shipped. They are like new.

http://www.astromart.com/classifieds...fied_id=848641
denco@comcast.n 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 0.17540693 seconds with 24 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:25.