• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon 7 / 8 x 42 EDG experiences sought (1 Viewer)

I like many posting here I'm sure have read this particular review. I'm currently posting from my phone so not the best monitor but anyway here's what I'm seeing - in order of brightest to most dim it appears UV, SF, HT, EDG.
Regarding the validity of this test I'd call it questionable at best. While I think the publisher believes he's on to something I don't think he's conducted a worthwhile scientific test.
Make of it what you will.
Unfortunately it seems some here have the attitude that if it's not what you choose then everyone else is wrong. While there are many excellent choices out there the EDG remains among the top performing binoculars in their class and no, they are not dim.
I could further praise my 8x32 EDG for their amazing view, handling and leading focus feel but I really don't need to.
Regarding the whole purpose of this thread I'll give it away, Tom ended up with a 7x42 EDG which I'm sure he'll thoroughly enjoy and I look forward to his assessment for good, bad or indifferent.
"Regarding the validity of this test I'd call it questionable at best. While I think the publisher believes he's on to something I don't think he's conducted a worthwhile scientific test."

Did you read through the methods Tobias used to conduct the test? I think it was a very worthwhile and a professionally done well controlled test. Tobias is a producer of Wildlife Documentaries and Cinematographer so he is well qualified to do this type of testing.

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/articles/coloursandbrightness.html
 
Last edited:
"Regarding the validity of this test I'd call it questionable at best. While I think the publisher believes he's on to something I don't think he's conducted a worthwhile scientific test."

Did you read through the methods Tobias used to conduct the test? I think it was a very worthwhile and a professionally done well controlled test. Tobias is a producer of Wildlife Documentaries and Cinematographer so he is well qualified to do this type of testing.

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/articles/coloursandbrightness.html

Tobias has been downrated before because of his calling the Nikon EDG binoculars "dim". As a reviewer he should know that is a term that
should not be used, as it is not a proper term, just a subjective blurt.
By using the word dim, he lost some credibility.

The Nikon EDG is one of the best binoculars at the higher level.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
"Regarding the validity of this test I'd call it questionable at best. While I think the publisher believes he's on to something I don't think he's conducted a worthwhile scientific test."

Did you read through the methods Tobias used to conduct the test? I think it was a very worthwhile and a professionally done well controlled test. Tobias is a producer of Wildlife Documentaries and Cinematographer so he is well qualified to do this type of testing.

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/articles/coloursandbrightness.html

Short answer Dennis, yes I did.
I did say make of it what you will. I stand by my statement, you stand by yours.
 
I think it was a very worthwhile and a professionally done well controlled test.

I am not at all convinced that this is correct.

Looking at the 4 images, the one of the EDG appears to have a shadow all around the edge of the field of view but it is not evenly dark all the way round. To my eyes it is more dim from around the 10 o'clock position round to 4 o'clock and the pic of HT has something similar from around 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock. I am doubly suspicious of these images because although these shadowy arcs are in slightly different positions they are both around '6 hours of arc' if we imagine the pics are clock faces, which suggests they are due to the same cause.

Is this caused by some misalignment of the camera vs the bino? Was either the bino or camera or both not 'square-on' to the other? Who knows what effect this can have on the overall impression of the images?

I have no horse in this race having barely any experience of EDG binos at all.


Lee
 
Talk about coincidence!
Regarding brightness in the EDG 8x42, Tobias Mennle has just posted the following on his website
see: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/index.html

John

Interesting. My guess is his brain got "rewired".
Can't agree that the EDG lacks a 3D like quality as much as most roof's. I've actually experienced some pretty nice 3D like views through mine on occasions. For the record I also have an UV HD+ 7x42 as mentioned there.
I can agree on pretty well all the rest.
 
Not to be contrary, but Kevin is entirely correct imho, Nikon indeed has suffered because of a fickle product policy.

Note the Swaro Habicht porro, comparable to the Nikon E and EII models, dates back to 1948. The Zeiss Jena Deltrintem lasted from the 1920s till the dissolution of that enterprise in the 1990s.
Binoculars change only gradually, as the engineering space is well mapped.
So 16 years with 3 name changes seems more frantic than deliberate.
Admittedly, neither Zeiss nor Leica either showed anything comparable to Swarovski's consistent model policy, so Nikon had good company.

Still, the EDG stands out as a top tier line, including some superbly built and technically innovative stabilized scopes, which was terminated before it had really built any substantial market following or presence.



I think you should have been more "deliberate" when you chose the word "frantic" to describe the two name changes (not three) of the Nikon LX over 16 years. The main purpose of the name changes was to convey information about changes and status of the binoculars. The first was done because Nikon made the LX binoculars lighter in weight. It helps potential 2nd hand purchasers in aging the binocular.

(You will recall that Leica did the same thing when they made some changes in their Trinovid BA binoculars and changed their name to Trinovid BN.)

The 2nd name change to "Premier" came about to inform the public that the LXL's were now Nikon's 2nd line of binoculars.

The EDGs lasted about 10 years which is about average in this day for top of the line binoculars. We will see what happens in the next 2 years about Nikon bringing out a new flagship binocular.

That aside, some binoculars hardly change at all over the years like the 70 year old Swaro Habicht Porros you mentioned. We do read enthusiastic comments about how they were made much brighter with new coatings over those years in the near Ultra-Violet range of the light spectrum and that is a good thing but nothing appears to have been done in making them more user friendly.

Perhaps that is Swaro's intention? I wouldn't call it good business policy though.

I believe that Dennis called their 8x30 version "Glare Monsters" and the name seems to have stuck with them.

Bob
 
Interesting. My guess is his brain got "rewired".
Can't agree that the EDG lacks a 3D like quality as much as most roof's. I've actually experienced some pretty nice 3D like views through mine on occasions. For the record I also have an UV HD+ 7x42 as mentioned there.
I can agree on pretty well all the rest.

I kinda agree! I sure wouldn't spend my dollar on a binocular I had all ready classified as "dim" or "dark." I don't have a single 8X42 binocular I would so classify.

I noticed the allbinos staff did their EDG 8X42 test in 2012 that bettered the SV 8.5X42 in light transmission also tested in 2012.
 
I think you should have been more "deliberate" when you chose the word "frantic" to describe the two name changes (not three) of the Nikon LX over 16 years. The main purpose of the name changes was to convey information about changes and status of the binoculars. The first was done because Nikon made the LX binoculars lighter in weight. It helps potential 2nd hand purchasers in aging the binocular......

Bob

Absolutely true, which is why I said 'seems'.
That does not change the reality that Nikon did not build on its achievements in this space, but scattered itself among several different names and failed to gain recognition for any of them. That hurt financially so badly that they retreated to the mid tier and below, leaving their excellent EDG scope line in limbo.
Zeiss is almost as culpable with its meaningless Victory and FL, HT and SF variations, but Zeiss has a bigger reservoir of customer goodwill to draw on.
 
Last edited:
But more to the point is the way Nikon has handled their spotting scopes.
They never addressed the need for a wider field zoom EP for the Fieldscopes.
They quit producing certain EPs like the MC wides while the 82 and 60mm Fieldscopes were still available.
They had poor support for digiscoping with their Fieldscopes.
They discontinued the 82 and 60mm Fieldscopes ( some of the best spotting scopes produced IMO) and went all-in with their EDG scopes of which were heavy, expensive, and now discontinued.

Monarch is their "Premier" line in both binoculars and spotting scopes now.

The current Monarch ED spotting scopes shouldn't be underestimated, but they may also founder from a lack of marketing support. They've been around for over two years, but little has been written about them and there are very few reviews. Most people (like me until a few weeks ago) probably assume they are just another line of mid-priced scopes. When I recently tested the $1600 angled 82mm Monarch ED I was astonished to find it to be one of the very best birding telescopes I've ever encountered. The unit I tested was not just as good as the so called "alpha" scopes, it was better than all but a very few cherry specimens. Nikon USA continues its run of stupid marketing by making the scope bodies available only in combination with the standard field width zoom or a fixed 38x with a reticle for hunters. The wide field zoom and fixed 38x without reticle have to be purchased separately. Who wants to to be forced to buy two 20-60x eyepieces?
 
Regarding the whole purpose of this thread I'll give it away, Tom ended up with a 7x42 EDG which I'm sure he'll thoroughly enjoy and I look forward to his assessment for good, bad or indifferent.

Yes, Dave is right.Take a look at my report today; it's far from being a thorough, scientific review, which is beyond my ability to produce, but feel free to ask anything that occurs to you and I'll do what I can to help.

Here's the link:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=377104
 
Absolutely true, which is why I said 'seems'.
That does not change the reality that Nikon did not build on its achievements in this space, but scattered itself among several different names and failed to gain recognition for any of them. That hurt financially so badly that they retreated to the mid tier and below, leaving their excellent EDG scope line in limbo.
Zeiss is almost as culpable with its meaningless Victory and FL, HT and SF variations, but Zeiss has a bigger reservoir of customer goodwill to draw on.



I can't understand how you don't see that Nikon was building on its achievements with its LX and HG series of binoculars when it introduced the EDGs. 10 years is a long time to last at the top of the Binocular hierarchies. My guess is that they will announce a new release of a new top of the line series of binoculars in the next year or so.


Nikon is a very large Corporation. Zeiss is probably even bigger. Their recreational Optics businesses are small compared to the rest of their corporate businesses.

Schott employs over 15,000 people in North America and one of their smaller plants is 20 miles from where I live. It's 140 employees contribute to our local economy and we are happy about that. Schott rebuilt it after a recent fire.

If you have knowledge of any financial problems Zeiss and Nikon suffered from their recreational Optics Divisions you should offer proof of it.

Bob
 
Zeiss binocular production is leaving Wetzlar, with largely only marketing and engineering being retained, while Nikon EDG scopes are getting peddled as new old stock on Ebay, with no successor in sight.
Imho those are much more informative developments than any press release.
It is because these are small pieces of a big pie that it is important to look at what is actually happening in the market place. There will be no way to tease it out of the financials.
 
Last edited:
Zeiss binocular production is leaving Wetzlar, with largely only marketing and engineering being retained, while Nikon EDG scopes are getting peddled as new old stock on Ebay, with no successor in sight.
Imho those are much more informative developments than any press release.
It is because these are small pieces of a big pie that it is important to look at what is actually happening in the market place. There will be no way to tease it out of the financials.

It is also important to remember that these "small pieces of a big pie" are useful as advertising in keeping Nikon's and Zeiss's names before the public whenever they are being used for their recreational purposes. Even the low priced ones.

Bob
 
Interesting. My guess is his brain got "rewired".
Can't agree that the EDG lacks a 3D like quality as much as most roof's. I've actually experienced some pretty nice 3D like views through mine on occasions. For the record I also have an UV HD+ 7x42 as mentioned there.
I can agree on pretty well all the rest.

It seems Tobias keeps tabs on this forum. I offered criticism early on of his
use of the word dim in his earlier review of the EDG. The timing of this new review is interesting.

I guess he has changed his mind, good thing, the EDG is not dim,
and I like to call it like I see it.

A reviewer needs to be even handed, not too subjective and this takes
much knowledge and great writing ability.

Jerry
 
It seems Tobias keeps tabs on this forum. I offered criticism early on of his
use of the word dim in his earlier review of the EDG. The timing of this new review is interesting.

I guess he has changed his mind, good thing, the EDG is not dim,
and I like to call it like I see it.

A reviewer needs to be even handed, not too subjective and this takes
much knowledge and great writing ability.

Jerry

The timing is just by accident, I just had the chance and money to buy a good sample of an EDG and it seemed like a last chance. I have small hope getting the Nikon demo sample again which I found somewhat dark but I will try. But there are more than 900 units between that sample and my newly bought EDG 8x42. I see some other differences as well which I would not want to explain with sample variation. It is well possible Nikon improved the EDG somewhen in between. Anyway this newer sample is very bright, just a bit darker than the Habicht.
 
No, compared to the very neutral HT, warm [reddish] bias was clear. Not to disparage the EDG [which is excellent] but clean whites and completely neutral colours are important to me.

My EDG 8x42 sample is the definition of neutral. HT is not quite. Maybe Nikon has really evolved the EDG over this decade.
 
Interesting. My guess is his brain got "rewired".

Shelling out one's own dollar, or Euro in this case, has been known to "make the heart grow fonder" (eh Dennis?) and I suppose could rewire one's brain as well - but rather than be so uncharitable, it's at least as likely that the manufacturer has tweaked coatings, etc. That the Nikon EII has had, it seems, a similar improvement also suggests so. Maybe some coating processes used in the WX program, or Nikon's high end camera lenses, have trickled down? :cat:
 
No offence directed towards Tobias whatsoever. He gave two possible reasons and I'm leaning towards the "rewired" thing in his own words.
On that note, I hope Tobias thoroughly enjoys his new EDG and it's clear that he will.
As far as Dennis goes I believe his heart is in the right place, most here seem somewhat more open but if that's how he sees it then I can't argue with one choosing what they feel is best suited to them.
After all, we are all in complete agreement that the EDG is the best (insert smiley face etc, can't seem to get it done on my phone).
 
IMO I still feel the EDG's I had were less bright than some of the other alpha's I have compared them too and especially to a high transmission porro like the Habicht. It could be mine were new old stock because I purchased them off Ebay from Japanese sellers. I just highly doubt that Nikon would upgrade the coatings on the EDG when they won't even fix the objective covers that have been loose forever. I think dim or dark is probably the wrong word to use. The EDG is not really dark it is just less bright and I believe two or three other members agreed with me even though Tobias changed his opinion after sampling a newer pair. They could be that way for a reason because there are always tradeoff's in the design of binoculars. Perhaps for better contrast or some other reason. In other areas like glare control they are exceptional. All binoculars even alpha's have their strong and weak points. The 8x32 SV is weak in glare control but It is still one of my favorite binoculars overall. You have to choose the binocular that checks the biggest percentage of your boxes. None will check all your boxes. Kind of like picking a wife!. It is easy to see why the EDG is "dead" in the marketplace. It is because of Nikon's lousy customer service and support. If I am going to pay $2K for a pair of binoculars I want superior customer service and support like Swarovski gives you and most people do. That is why you don't see ANY birder's carrying EDG's and the majority are carrying Swaro's. I want a company that will send me a new objective cover when I lose one in the field without having to send my binoculars in for repair. I want a company that is concerned that the objective covers fit correctly on my binocular so they don't fall off in the field. I have had Swarovski send me replacement eye cups for my Habicht, cases, straps and even binocular harness's at no charge. The only reason I bought the EDG's I did was because I got them for 1/2 price and I wanted to try them. Personally, I would never pay full retail for an EDG but I would a Swarovski or Zeiss. I would still buy a mid-priced Nikon like the M7, MHG, or EII because they are a good value but as far as I am concerned Nikon is not competitive in the alpha market. Obviously Nikon thinks so to because they have withdrawn the EDG from the market.

Patudo
"but - to my eyes anyway - not as bright. I'm sure the light transmission figures are in the same ball park as the other top makers, so this may be due to Nikon favouring the red spectrum or (as has been commented upon) Swarovski for instance not baffling their binoculars to the same degree. "

Canip
"Separately, I have several times compared the EDG 7x42 with two other top 7x42s, the Zeiss FL and the Leica HD Plus (no detailed tests, just brief side by side reviews). And there, I got the clear impression that the EDG lacks the brightness of either the Victory or the Ultravid.
Otherwise, the image is everything you could wish for, but in terms of image brightness, the 7x EDG in my eyes is a clear number 3 behind its two competitors. The difference isn‘t huge, but a certain „lack of brilliance“ struck me each time."

James Holdsworth
"In my brief usage of the EDG 10X42, I disliked the distinct warm [reddish] colour bias."
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top