I know waterproofing and twist up eyecups are nice but I have that in my roof. When I buy a porro I want super optics as my number one priority. I save them to use when it's dry outside.
-
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.
Are Nikon SE's and EII's the best porro's made? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
bh46118
Well-known member
At a casual glance the ED2 appears very bright, but in shadow areas they are actually fairly dark. Dramatically so when compared to the Porro.
Bruce
Bruce
FrankD
Well-known member
Sorry, I missed those posts somehow Dennis. I might have a partial solution to one of your issues...the 8x32 Foresta porro. It has a field of view at the same level as the SE's. Not sure about the eyecups though. I haven't tried them yet myself. They are probably next on my list...eventually.
Might be worth a try. I wonder how big the eyecups are and if they are smaller than the Vixen 7x50.
So how many people think the Swarovski 8x30 Habicht is better optically than the Nikon 8x32 SE? It sound like the short ER, small eyecups and stiff focus on the Habicht could be deal killers for alot of people.
Last edited:
When I got my 10 x 32 EDG in midsummer 2 years ago I spent a lot of time comparing it with my 10 x 32 LX L and 10 x 35 EII. I was particularly interested in comparing their respective brightness and I did so on many evenings until after the sun went below the horizon. Most of the time I compared the three of them on the detail and colors they showed on doves, robins, house sparrows and song sparrows at distances up to about 80 feet in mine and the neighbors yards and while perched on fences. It was clear, under these conditions, that the EDG was the brightest of the 3 and showed the most detail on these birds.
I did not compare it under twilight conditions with my 10 x 42 SE. Under extremely bright daylight conditions at the South Lookout on Hawk Mountain there wasn't much difference between them. But when looking far to the east toward Allentown through a lot of atmosphere the EDG seemed to show more detail on distant objects than the SE did. Like it seemed to cut through distant haze better.
Last edited:
The EDG's definitely have excellent coatings and I think the ED glass makes a difference in situations like you describe. Showing more detail than an SE that has a 10mm bigger objective is testament to just how good they are. These are Nikon's flagship binoculars and I'm sure no expense was spared in their construction.
Last edited:
looksharp65
Well-known member
That's a very interesting statement. I'm curious about the colour rendition of these two. What you say definitely adds another dimension to what I recently have argued in:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=233869
and
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2481015
If the Zens are cooler, they should appear brighter, not darker in the shaded areas, and if they have a warmer bias, the fine discrimination of brown hues should be better.
So the Minox porro renders shaded areas brighter and the subtle colour hues better, despite its smaller exit pupil?
You make me wish I had bought one before I discovered the clockwise focus compulsion
Let's compare their exit pupil areas.
The Minox is 4.4^2 = 19.36 mm^2, and the Zen-Ray 28.89 mm^2.
The Minox is said to have 94% light transmission and I take that as a figure for all the visible wavelengths.
The brightness compares to (19.36*0.94)= 18.20, e.g. like a binocular with an exit pupil area of 18.2 mm^2 with a 100% transmission rate.
Only if the Zen-Ray had less than 63% transmission, there's a chance that it could be dimmer than the Minox. 28.89*0.63 equals 18.2
Of course, this is absurd, as is this method for computing brightness in daylight, since your pupils will constrict and dilate just as they always do, regardless of if you're using binoculars or not.
There must be something else going on. If it's not the transmission curve, it could be how your eyes react when you put the bins in front of them.
This is something I discovered very recently, when I was evaluating the in-shade brightness of a scene with and without a weak blue-tinted filter (in fact, a contact lens). When the result didn't seem plausible, I found out that light entering from the side biased the result. When covering the gap between the eye and the ocular, the results were more consistent.
Possibly, the smaller AFOV of the Minox acts in a similar way - although for myself, I experience the opposite, that wide AFOV bins look brighter to my eyes.
Once again, owning one of the Minox porros would have been great. I believe every word you say about them, although I can't seem to figure out what actually happens. :t:
//L
I am getting a new from Adorama for $599.99(Good Price) Nikon 8x32 SE with the latest coatings on Tuesday. I will compare it too my Nikon 8x32 EDG II when I get it. You know my reviews are the best and totally unbiased so it will finally end the debate or will it? I will try to conduct tests under varying conditions including looking into shadows, glare control, sharpness,contrast and 3D effect. as well as, ergonomics. The question will be can a $600 porro prism binocular compete with a $2400 roof prism binocular. Two of the best binoculars if not THE best binoculars in the world with different prisms head to head. This is exciting!
Last edited:
bh46118
Well-known member
I have zero technical knowledge about optics, so I rely on what I see when I look through them. I really don't think anything but an alpha roof or top Porro will provide a significantly better image than your Fury, and in the areas that they are excellent, they may be almost unique. The Vixen 7X50 that Frank enjoys so much is a binocular that I would like to try. I really believe that they would be have a stellar "Porro" image for a very fair price, although the close focus and weight of a Porro might be an issue after using the Fury.
This thread may or may not shed some light on what I see with my binoculars. If you look through the BEST OF section of Cloudy Nights, EdZ has a ton of great info, but the majority of it is WAY over my head.
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/2119523/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1
This thread may or may not shed some light on what I see with my binoculars. If you look through the BEST OF section of Cloudy Nights, EdZ has a ton of great info, but the majority of it is WAY over my head.
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/2119523/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1
looksharp65
Well-known member
To be frank, I did question the whole experiment already when reading the initial post. The number of posts criticizing the method and what actually is being measured didn't surprise me.
There are too many error sources in the experiment, and the most obvious is the size of the exit pupil. Consequently, the use of cardboard aperture masks was advocated by Kimmo and Ron H, just like I used a 21 mm mask when doing a rough estimation of the transmission of my 6.5x32 vs the 10x32s.
Furthermore, while the size of the exit pupil is a function of the magnification and the objective size, it does not correspond to the size of the apparent field of view.
The distance of the exit pupil (the eye relief) is the furthest place from the ocular that you can actually see the field stop.
Somehow, I suspect that the size of the FOV matters. The field stop won't change the brightness of what's inside the FOV, but for terrestrial use, a larger FOV should mean that more light enters the eye. (the field stop "moves out of way", thus allowing more of the scene to be seen rather than blackness)
- Saying that "larger exit pupils are brighter" will not be correct for terrestrial use where the observer's pupil usually is smaller than the exit pupil of the binocular.
- Another error source is the colour temperature of a 60W light bulb, which is extremely red at about 2900 K.
- The roofs in the comparison are not top notch by current standards.
- The probe is larger than the exit pupils, so it took a vast number of measurements to get a consistent result. This is not necessarily an erroneous method, but going by immediate "feeling", I'd have it match the exact exit pupil size for each specimen of the binoculars, or maybe use a probe so small that it's "drenched" in the light beam.
After all, the result of the experiment seems feasible with regard to the various levels of optical and coatings quality of the binoculars involved.
But what really was measured, I don't have a clue about.
//L
There are too many error sources in the experiment, and the most obvious is the size of the exit pupil. Consequently, the use of cardboard aperture masks was advocated by Kimmo and Ron H, just like I used a 21 mm mask when doing a rough estimation of the transmission of my 6.5x32 vs the 10x32s.
Furthermore, while the size of the exit pupil is a function of the magnification and the objective size, it does not correspond to the size of the apparent field of view.
The distance of the exit pupil (the eye relief) is the furthest place from the ocular that you can actually see the field stop.
Somehow, I suspect that the size of the FOV matters. The field stop won't change the brightness of what's inside the FOV, but for terrestrial use, a larger FOV should mean that more light enters the eye. (the field stop "moves out of way", thus allowing more of the scene to be seen rather than blackness)
- Saying that "larger exit pupils are brighter" will not be correct for terrestrial use where the observer's pupil usually is smaller than the exit pupil of the binocular.
- Another error source is the colour temperature of a 60W light bulb, which is extremely red at about 2900 K.
- The roofs in the comparison are not top notch by current standards.
- The probe is larger than the exit pupils, so it took a vast number of measurements to get a consistent result. This is not necessarily an erroneous method, but going by immediate "feeling", I'd have it match the exact exit pupil size for each specimen of the binoculars, or maybe use a probe so small that it's "drenched" in the light beam.
After all, the result of the experiment seems feasible with regard to the various levels of optical and coatings quality of the binoculars involved.
But what really was measured, I don't have a clue about.
//L
Last edited:
bh46118
Well-known member
The only test I actually concern myself with is what I see when I look with my eyes.
Bruce
Bruce
looksharp65
Well-known member
To me, that approach is very appealing. That's the purpose of using binoculars, and that's the only way to use them.
But the greater number of different binoculars you've tried, the more aware of the tiny differences you will become.
Reading discussions and reviews here and elsewhere will make us more aware of what to look for, what to compare with and and possibly what to avoid.
The purchase of first the Fury, then the ED50A opened my eyes for what I want and not want from optics. I do want wide FOVs and AFOVs or at least great PFOVs and I want clockwise focusing knobs. Lately, I have also become aware of what a colour bias can add to the viewing experience and what its downside may be.
Quite many people here have claimed the 7x36 ED2 to be significantly better than the Fury, which I've mostly taken with a pinch of salt.
But the 7x43 should be a bit better still.
As an owner of the 8x43 ED2, would you discourage me from getting the 7x43?
//L
Last edited:
bh46118
Well-known member
Then Zen is much better at controlling CA, but I believe the Fury has a much more "comfortable view". Assuming the 7X43 are the same optically as the 8X43, and the CA of the Fury doesn't bother you, then I would stay with the Fury. I would probably try the Nikon SE or Vixen 7X50 Porro, but you might love the Zen 7X43. There is no way to know unless you see it for yourself.
Bruce
Bruce