Nikon Aculon 10 x 42 (1 Viewer)

. Here is a brief test of the binocular.

I was hoping that these might be an improvement over the Nikon action VII range which have been very popular. But the performance seems pretty similar.

During the day quite a lot of chromatic aberration was seen on a white pillar and elsewhere.
The eyepieces are generally low distortion.
The edge performance is variable with the lower edge being poor.
However, the central resolution and general performance is good and also this good performance extends quite a way from the centre.
Looking more closely the lower edge degradation is mainly due to a curved field which can be refocused.
However, the top and side edges although better cannot be easily refocused.
So there seems to be a variety of aberrations present.
In the day, this lower edge change of focus might be useful as when the centre and top edge are focused to a further distance the lower edge is in focus for a nearer distance.

At night the Crescent Moon looked very good centrally with earthshine bright and easily seen.
Star images are good centrally and also quite away of centre. Even Mars, which is bright now, looks very good and clean.
There is chromatic aberration on the moon's edge off centre but centrally there is little or no false colour.

The main problem is that the eye relief is very small and I don't think that these binoculars are suitable for eyeglass wearers.
In addition, the eyepieces or at least the housings are large and it may be that someone cannot actually get close enough to the eye piece because one's nose is in the way.

The quoted field of 6° is not particularly large but I must check what it actually is. I will also try to test it against a 10×40 Nikon action VII which apparently is closer to 11×40 and has little eye relief.

In actual fact the 10×42 may be quite a good choice for someone on a low budget as the collimation of this randomly selected binocular is good and seems to point to the same good quality control and robustness of the Nikon action VII.
I suspect that the 8×42 might be better for birdwatchers as the eyepieces will be longer focal length and probably have more eye relief.

At night with a street light in the field of view, ghost images are generally few and small. However, there is a large flare image at one position in each eyepiece which could present a problem, say looking into car headlamps or with the moon in the field of view. In daylight I don't think this would be a problem so it is unlikely that birdwatchers would notice it.

Binoastro, Is the diopter adj. hard to turn? It is in my 15x50 Aculon, well seems to come and go. Mine is not a bad binocular for the money.

BA,

Thanks for that review of the 10x42 Aculon. From what you've written, it seems the main improvement is in the AR coatings, which are now FMC. I haven't tried the Aculon, but I have used the 7x35 and 8x40 Action (IV and VII - what happened to V and VI - blew up on the launching pad?).

I liked the ergonomics on the Action vs. the Action EX, which was bulkier and heavier. Optically, the edges were pretty good, better than the Action EX, but the central resolution wasn't as fine I also noticed a slight "rolling ball" while panning with the 8x40 model. Now with FMC, for $79, not a bad starter bin or car bin.

However, for less than a $100 more, you can buy a Nikon 10x42 Prostaff 7, which I liked and thought was superior to the Action IV in terms of perceived sharpness and brightness. The long tubes on the P7 are also nice for getting a steady grip. If I were on a low budget (which I am), and I was looking for a 10x42 for under $200 (which I am not), I would probably go for the 10x P7. Don't know how they perform on the night sky, but I wouldn't buy them for stargazing.

Cheapie roofs have come a long way, baby, and although porros can still be had for less $, the gap is closing, and in some cases, in terms of performance vs. price, the roof might be the better choice, depending on your budget.

BP

. Dear Steve,
I found the dioptre control very hard to turn but I did not want to comment as my right hand has some problems at the moment. I thought that a stronger person might find it okay. But it is for me stiff, imprecise and it was difficult for me to get the correct dioptre position exactly right. I even had to resort to trying to move it with my left hand.
But I think somebody who is normally fit might find it okay although I'm not sure.

The 10×42 was probably the worst choice in the range, but for me the smaller exit pupil is preferable to the 5 mm of the other choices.

The 10×40 Nikon action VII is also probably the worst choice. Although the 12×50 and 16×50 performed well. I also tried the 8×40, 10×50 and 10 to 22×50 zoom. I cannot remember if I tried the 7×35. In all I must have tested about 15 Nikon action VII.
Only one of them was out of collimation although just about usable. All the others were fine and it is clear that Nikon are strict on quality control. In addition, all of the binoculars seem to be totally clean inside without dust.

It is not fair to compare a single sample of the Aculon and make definite conclusions.

. Dear Brock,
I'm not sure about the rolling ball except that it gathers no moss.

Also I'm not sure whether the coatings are actually any different on the Aculon compared to the action VII.

my initial impression was that the 10×42 had some multi coating, single coating and uncoated surfaces, which is very similar to the action VII.
But I must compare them more carefully. I don't think that either binocular has a particularly high transmission.
In fact, I don't know if there are any real changes at all between the two binocular series. There may be changes in production using different or cheaper glasses and slightly different techniques. Also I don't know if the resolution is any different or the precision of manufacture any different.
It would not surprise me if it is just a change of name, but of course I don't know. Also there are probably continual changes in production as the years go by even with the same name binoculars.
I was hoping for more eye relief with the 10×42.
Also it seems a bit silly to have eyecups that come out so far. I think that you would need to have your eyes on stalks to see anything with the eyecups fully out. I would prefer a simple rubber eyecup and a narrower eyepiece, which would make it easier to see the whole field.

I cannot really be sure about the coatings until I do more tests.
Also although I say that they are robust, this is only in comparison with cheap binoculars that fall apart if you cough too hard. I don't think these lower price Nikon binoculars would actually survive hard usage although I am not sure. I'm pretty sure there are more robust binoculars at higher prices or old second hand ones particularly ex-military.

P.S.
I have to apologise, as I've just tested the binocular again on a dull day and the eyecups do not come out as far as I thought.
I can just see the whole field of view with the eyecups fully extended if I get everything right. And my eyes are not on stalks.

In addition, the central resolution of this example is superb. This is my normal chimney pot test at 400 feet where I can see a tiny dimple which is only seen with a good binocular that can be held very steadily.

Binastro said:

. Dear Brock,
I'm not sure about the rolling ball except that it gathers no moss.

Also I'm not sure whether the coatings are actually any different on the Aculon compared to the action VII.

my initial impression was that the 10×42 had some multi coating, single coating and uncoated surfaces, which is very similar to the action VII.
But I must compare them more carefully. I don't think that either binocular has a particularly high transmission.
In fact, I don't know if there are any real changes at all between the two binocular series. There may be changes in production using different or cheaper glasses and slightly different techniques. Also I don't know if the resolution is any different or the precision of manufacture any different.
It would not surprise me if it is just a change of name, but of course I don't know. Also there are probably continual changes in production as the years go by even with the same name binoculars.
I was hoping for more eye relief with the 10×42.
Also it seems a bit silly to have eyecups that come out so far. I think that you would need to have your eyes on stalks to see anything with the eyecups fully out. I would prefer a simple rubber eyecup and a narrower eyepiece, which would make it easier to see the whole field.

I cannot really be sure about the coatings until I do more tests.
Also although I say that they are robust, this is only in comparison with cheap binoculars that fall apart if you cough too hard. I don't think these lower price Nikon binoculars would actually survive hard usage although I am not sure. I'm pretty sure there are more robust binoculars at higher prices or old second hand ones particularly ex-military.

Click to expand...

When I checked the price, one store had FMC listed, but after reading your reply, I checked Nikon's website and it lists MC, and so does B&H, which means that not all surfaces are MC. Physically, they look like the VII and use aspheric elements like IV and VII. As you suggested, it could be just a name change like Nikon did with the LXL/Premier.

My impression is that Nikon's latest MC coatings are improved over earlier MC coatings. I see this in the 550xxx 8x SE vs. older models and in the black body EII vs. gray body models, and also in the M5 and M7 vs. earlier Monarchs. So it's likely that the Aculon's MC are improved over earlier Actions, though perhaps not the VII, which immediately preceded it.

"Rolling ball" may gather no moss, but it does collect dust on the shelves where the bins were returned to the store because the buyers couldn't live with the side effects from low distortion.

<B>

Binastro, Thanks for the review.

Binastro, The diopter control on my 15x50 Aculon was hard to turn, esp. the one way, I just tried it again and it is a lot better. Did you get a tripod adapter with your 10x? Forgot to say thanks for your review.

No Steve, no tripod adapter.
I think 12x maybe, 16x definitely with Action VII.

brocknroller said:

When I checked the price, one store had FMC listed, but after reading your reply, I checked Nikon's website and it lists MC, and so does B&H, which means that not all surfaces are MC. Physically, they look like the VII and use aspheric elements like IV and VII. As you suggested, it could be just a name change like Nikon did with the LXL/Premier.

My impression is that Nikon's latest MC coatings are improved over earlier MC coatings. I see this in the 550xxx 8x SE vs. older models and in the black body EII vs. gray body models, and also in the M5 and M7 vs. earlier Monarchs. So it's likely that the Aculon's MC are improved over earlier Actions, though perhaps not the VII, which immediately preceded it.

"Rolling ball" may gather no moss, but it does collect dust on the shelves where the bins were returned to the store because the buyers couldn't live with the side effects from low distortion.

<B>

Click to expand...

Brock:

I had reported back on a post about 7x35 binoculars, that I have the
Nikon Aculon 7x35. When comparing coating color reflections off the
objective lens, the Aculon does seem to be a step up over the Action
models I have compared against.

The Aculon reflection is very similar with a more reflective green just
like the Action Extreme model I compared with.

I suppose it is hard to tell what surfaces are FMC vs. MC.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

Brock:

I had reported back on a post about 7x35 binoculars, that I have the
Nikon Aculon 7x35. When comparing coating color reflections off the
objective lens, the Aculon does seem to be a step up over the Action
models I have compared against.

The Aculon reflection is very similar with a more reflective green just
like the Action Extreme model I compared with.

I suppose it is hard to tell what surfaces are FMC vs. MC.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Fully MC means that all air-to-surface lenses MC. But that's still good if the Aculon has the same MC as the AX, though not every lens will necessarily be MC, as Binastro mentioned. Some could be single coated or uncoated. MC lenses don't always reflect green, the Nikon SE and EII have some green reflections, some purple and some pink. A white reflection would be uncoated.

Nikon's website lists the AX as MC, but Adorama's description says "The lens elements each incorporate multi-layered anti-reflective coatings formulated to deliver optimum brightness, high contrast, true color rendition and flare-free viewing in most lighting conditions." If each lens is MC, then it's FMC. I doubt that for the price, and Nikon would have bragged about it on their website. If each was MC, the copy should read: "Each lens element incorporates MC AR coatings..." rather than the way it was worded. Got to watch those marketing people.

Got my first sunny, dry day with the M7, but the transition from cold to hot over night (yesterday's high was about the same as tonight's low) made it impossible to see objects at a distance clearly since the air was too unstable. Couldn't get a clear view through the EII either, though oddly enough the SE could cut through the roiling atmosphere on some objects at medium long distance (about two blocks away), perhaps because the SE has long dew shields. I took the Bushwackers off the EII and put them on the M7. They didn't do much to stabilize the image, but they did allow me to wrap a third finger around the barrels.

So I came back home and compared the bins in the backyard where there are ample trees to keep the air stable. I could see through the trees half a block away, though not much, my yard and the two neighbors west of me all have heavily wooded backyards, the last woods other than the park in the neighborhood, which has been clear cut for new development).

A Pileated woodpecker visited my suet feeder, as did a downy woodpecker and a couple starlings.As usual, Maize, a female starling, is building a nest in an opening in the aluminum siding near the gutter. I bought suet that has insects in it! Maize has been a frequent visitor at the suet feeder and will visit even more frequently when she has her chicks since she needs to use all the insects she catches to feed her young every 15 minutes.

I had some finches at the tube feeder and threw some peanuts to blue jays and nuthatches. Thanks to the close set barrels of the M7, the Pileated woodpecker looked like Rodan through the bins. I haven't seen this level of "roof illusion" magnification since the 8x32 LX. Birds look much bigger than through the porros.

Brock

. In bright sunshine I took some photos of the chimney stacks that I use for my tests.
There is a stack of five chimney pots which are 124 m distance. Then there is a single chimney pot on a substantial brick stack at 118 m distance.
I used a 30 times optical, 60 times and 120 times digital camera. I measured the dimensions at maximum screen magnification on review.

The single chimney pot has a pyramid pimple on the top towards one edge.
From the photos it seems that it is 7 mm high with a base of 9 mm. This is as presented to me. The actual brick work on the chimney pot is aligned at almost exactly 45° to my line of sight and I have corrected for this.
A British brick is apparently 8.5" x 4" x 2.5". I used the 8.5 inch or 215 mm dimension for measurement.
taking the average size of the height and base of the pyramid as 8 mm this gives the size as just under 15 arc seconds. Although this is an odd shape for a binocular test object.

With the 10×42 Nikon Aculon I can repeatedly and easily see this tiny pyramid. This is partly down to the native resolution centrally but also to the nice handholds and ergonomics of the binocular which means I can hold it very still repeatedly.
In fact this optical performance equals or betters any non-stabilised binocular that I have tested including some which 10 or 15 years ago were supposedly the best.

However, image stabilised binoculars make short work of This tiny pyramid. In fact with the 18×50 IS there so much detail visible on this pyramid that it makes a nonsense of any normal handheld binocular without stabilisation. I think that this pyramid would be visible with the 18×50 at 500 m or at a size of may be 3.5 arc seconds.
I have just made out this pyramid on occasions with an eight times binocular but with extreme difficulty.
I've never tried this test with normal binoculars tripod mounted although I have tripod mounted very high magnification binoculars and scopes to view the tiny pyramid.

Also I tested the 10×42 Nikon wearing distance glasses. In fact by pushing very hard against the binocular with the glasses jammed against my face I can just see the whole field of view with the eyecups pushed in. The range of movement of the eyecups is perhaps 6 mm. I will measure this. But I don't think using glasses in this way is very comfortable unless one is wearing particularly small glasses that are very close to your eyes. As I don't normally wear glasses when viewing with binoculars I'm not good at testing this aspect. A person who normally wears glasses would much more easily say whether the Nikon 10×42 is any good when wearing glasses.

. Last night I tested the 10×42 Nikon on a bright star.
At the left and right side edges the star is heavily vignetted but this is not a great inconvenience.
At the top edge the star seemed bright and somewhat expanded but the performance is better than most.
At the bottom edge the star seemed bright but very expanded. For astronomy this is not very good as the bottom it is not really usable. However, for terrestrial use this might be useful as I think that it is mainly caused by field curvature at the bottom.

The weight without caps and without the strap is 752 g. The specifications give 760 g.

In general, I'm very happy with the performance of the binocular as I don't need to wear glasses.
I think that the main issue is that the eye relief is short and there is false colour away from the centre of the field.

As I have found with many binoculars the view in the first seconds and minutes is very revealing. But one needs to use and test the binocular over a period of time to know how to get the best out of it. And the first impressions may need to be modified.

Nikon Aculon 10x42 review

Binastro,

Thank you for your detailed and continuing review of this model.

It is interesting to read your observations of your example in active use.

Binastro said:

It is not fair to compare a single sample ... and make definite conclusions

Click to expand...

... this is well worth repeating from time to time as many here seem to sail under the flag of convenience of handling a unit briefly, once.

Binastro said:

one needs to use and test the binocular over a period of time ... and the first impressions may need to be modified

Click to expand...

... :t: I'm all for acquiring bins for which I have a practical use and using and testing them to see if they meet my specific needs.

Thanks again for the practical review.

. A brief test in the early afternoon in an essentially cloudless day with a very bright sun.

Comparing three 10×42 binoculars. The Aculon, a good second-hand SE probably not the latest coatings and a new conquest HD.

Looking at the 7 mm high triangular pimple at 118m the two Nikons had similar resolutions and the pimple was seen with difficulty. this triangular or pyramidal 7 mm high protrusion I think would be equivalent to a 5 mm high square protrusion. It is rather badly placed towards the end of the chimney pot and would probably be easier to see if it was at the top middle.
With the conquest HD it was considerably easier to see the pimple and it gave better resolution.
This is handheld completely unbraced.
The difference is due to the handling, weight distribution and is a very individual thing.
My pupils were probably about 2 mm.
on another day in different conditions the results may be different, and a different observer might get different results.
my eyes and hands were reasonably well rested but I would probably get better results if my eyes and hands were at their best.

The Aculon has a considerably duller image than the SE and also has colour fringing whereas the SE didn't.

However the conquest HD seem to have a brighter, punchier and more contrasty image than the SE.
I much preferred the conquest HD to the SE as the view is wider and to me it is just a better and more relaxed view. the measured field of the conquest HD is 6.65°, I think that the SE is 6.0° but I haven't yet measured the Aculon, but 6.0° is quoted.
The target was very bright, particularly the three white window frames.

The Aculon clearly has less transmission and lower contrast than the other two, but is still very good for about a 10th of the price of the other two.

As I said this is a personal view and the test was very brief and I may repeat it another time. But the results were clear-cut to me.

. Re. the last post.

At the edge of the field the 10×42 conquest HD has more false colour and is less sharp than the 10×42 SE.
However, the field of the conquest HD is a full 10% wider.
Restricting the field of the conquest HD to 6.0° then the edge performance of both binoculars is pretty similar.
again, centrally the conquest HD seems to have a brighter image even though the level of illumination is less now although the sky still cloudless and sunny.

. Early this morning at about 4 AM BST the sky was clear and I measured the field of the binocular as 5.88°, say 5.9°.
I must, however, check this again as the binocular was at a bit of an angle.
I did notice that the images in the two barrels don't exactly coincide and that there is a 2% overlap.
This means that at one radial position the field is 6.0° using the binocular normally using both barrels and 5.9° at right angles to this position.
. The overlap is not noticed in normal use, and with high quality binoculars there is often no detectable overlap at all. The overlap here is probably caused by the collimation process.
But this is my first attempt at measuring the field and I will repeat it later.
The claimed field is 6.0°.

I have not yet measured the magnification.

I had another go at measuring the field of the binocular.
By positioning my eyes as best as I could and also having the binocular at the best angle I measured the field size as 5.96°.
so the specified field of 6.0° is in fact correct for all practical purposes.
Personally, I would have preferred a field size of 6.5°.

It is always worthwhile measuring the field size as sometimes one is given a bit of a bonus even with top end binoculars. Sometimes the fields are 2.5% or even 4% larger than specified. In other cases they are spot-on.

Anyway, the 10×42 Nikon Aculon is a useful binocular even though the performance is definitely not as good as a top end and more pricey binocular.

Reasonable performance for 1/10th of the price rather than 1/10th of the performance for 1/10th of the price would seem to add up to a good value budget buy.

I'm surprised about the field curvature on the bottom of the field with the 10x42 SE. My sample had very little field curvature on any edge, stars were sharp quite close to the edge. Just a little of Henry's off-axis "hairy eyeball" astigmatism at the top like I see in all my bins. I didn't measure the edges to the tenth degree, but I'm pretty fussy about edge performance, and the 10x SE performed well in that regard both for stargazing and daytime use. I'd guesstimate it was sharp to nearly 90% out. I just checked allbinos, and Arek's figure for the 10x SE's edge performance is: The blur occurs in the distance of 98% +\- 3% from the field of view centre. Mine was good, but not good, that's closer to what the 12x50 SE had, nearly sharp to the edge.

My favorite 10x bin for astronomy was the Celestron 10x50 Nova, with an 80* AFOV! Like taking a space walk. The edges weren't as good as the SE or EDG or HGL, but the fall off was gradual. Coma was more an issue at the edges than field curvature, which wasn't extreme. If only I had a face like a bulldog (low ER/oversized oculars//high-bridged nose, not a good combo), I might have held on to them for those rare, clear, low moisture nights when the light dome from the university doesn't spill over into 'burbs.

Brock

The faster you shop the more you spend...unless you're the FLASH, then you'd save, because "time is money." :smoke: