• 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.

Optical performance: Nikon 8x32 SE vs the new EDG? (1 Viewer)

Thanks Henry.

I think I'm beginning to see it...or not as the case may be.

It does seem surprising that Nikon produced a binocular that is so optically brilliant yet has this fundamental blackout issue. Seems to be a fairly prevalent issue with many users. Anyhow I guess this is all in the past, roofs are the future whether we like it or not. Shame I'm such a traditionalist.

PS: Just watching a fieldfare eating rowan berries with my Viking 10x42 stunning! Breakfast in Fife!
 
ceasar said:
That wasn't an opinion, Tom. It was a prediction. ....
Cordially,
Bob
Click to expand...

Ah. I see. It makes a difference ;)

ceasar said:
...The major complaints against it are it's lack of waterproofing and the Kidney Bean effect discussed above.
Cordially,
Bob
Click to expand...

It's odd, isn't it? The SEs have received so much praise, and there is clearly a high number of "Porristos" as potential buyers.
Putting in some O-ring seals to render it watertight cannot be too much of a problem. I am not an engineer but I should guess it can be done without changing the optical design at all.
So why Nikon does not do it escapes me ...

Tom
 
ThoLa said:
Ah. I see. It makes a difference ;)



It's odd, isn't it? The SEs have received so much praise, and there is clearly a high number of "Porristos" as potential buyers.
Putting in some O-ring seals to render it watertight cannot be too much of a problem. I am not an engineer but I should guess it can be done without changing the optical design at all.
So why Nikon does not do it escapes me ...

Tom
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you there Tom!
Bob
 
iporali said:
Bob,

I doubt there would be a big difference. Anti-reflection coatings have already been very good in the first generation of the SEs, and all those advanced & expensive dielectric mirrors and phase-coatings are not even necessary in the porros. Improved scratch resistance and water-repellent coatings would be nice though. :t:

Best regards,

Ilkka
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Ilkka.
Bob
 
ThoLa said:
Ah. I see. It makes a difference ;)



It's odd, isn't it? The SEs have received so much praise, and there is clearly a high number of "Porristos" as potential buyers.
Putting in some O-ring seals to render it watertight cannot be too much of a problem. I am not an engineer but I should guess it can be done without changing the optical design at all.
So why Nikon does not do it escapes me ...

Tom
Click to expand...

Business/marketing reasons ...

They "do not want to confuse the consumers" by having a optically equivalent porro and roof selling from $500 and $2000 respectively.

The "quote" was reported here by someone who asked them and that was the response.

The real reason is you can make more money by selling a $1800 product than you can a $500 product when they both have the same profit margin. This is the same reason Leitz and Zeiss stopped work on new porros back in the 1960s (1962 for Leitz at least). They could see the writing on the wall theywere building the best porros they could then (except for waterproofing and multilayer coatings) so there was no way to differentiate.

Back to may comments on "price anchoring" ... people now "know" that you have to spend $1000 to $2000 to get the best quality bins. Things like SE and the Swift Audubon porro and even the new Chinese ED roofs challenge that belief.
 
ThoLa said:
...
It's odd, isn't it? The SEs have received so much praise, and there is clearly a high number of "Porristos" as potential buyers.
Putting in some O-ring seals to render it watertight cannot be too much of a problem. I am not an engineer but I should guess it can be done without changing the optical design at all.
So why Nikon does not do it escapes me ...

Tom
Click to expand...

A good example might be to compare the standard Swift 804 Audubon to its water resistant 804ED sibling. The addition of O-rings to the ocular assembly actually reduced the mechanical effectiveness of the bridge mechanism, increased the number of parts and reduced focusing smoothness. The optical redesign of the air-spaced ED objective turned out to be fantastic, but one could really question the mechanical "improvements," which added significantly to manufacturing costs and provided questionable performance gains.

In my opinion, the SE design would be really hard to waterproof without sacrificing much of the quality/price advantage. I'm not quite certain about this, but even incorporating twist-up eyecups seems to be at odds with eye lens diameters used in many Porros, particularly wide-angle models. In any case, such redesigns would not be inexpensive, possibly compromise performance features, and escalate production costs, — ultimately sacrificing this hi-end Porro's desirability and profit margin.

Ed
 
Last edited:
I have seen and tested the Nikon Action EX which is waterproof and it is really nice except a bit heavy.

So why don't Nikon makes the SE waterproof too ?
 
30 year old SE, Audubon, and FMT-SX porros give clearer views than the "latest thang from Stuttgart". What can be done about this awful situation? What is needed is some new twist to bring the price of porros UP to the level of top roofs. This would get the attention of well heeled birders, and consequently, manufacturers, which is what the porro world needs now. Since porros have obvious optical advantages, they ought to be WORTH more, right? There must be a way. How about, just, raise the price?
Ron
 
Ron,

Horukuru may be on to something. The combined virtues of the SE and EX would make ... SE-X. That might have a stimulating effect in some markets, anyway. :-O

Ed
 
elkcub said:
Good question. Really! If these are what you mean, then we might also ask why the SEs are so expensive? Must be "price anchoring" again. ;)

Ed
Click to expand...

There we are. Yes, watertight Porro models exist. :t:
And they do not cost fortunes.

Nikon Action EX
Pentax PCF WPII , ....

So it can be done at a moderate cost, and the companies in question have the knowhow.

So I guess it is the expenditure/profit return ratio that is an issue here. Salesnumbers of these models are probably deemed inadequate to justify a redesign.

Swarovski shows it can be done at the high level without compromising the design (Habicht Porros). Even the focussing of these gems is significantly better than that of a lot of mediocre roof prism instruments. There does not seem to be a grave rearrangement of any internal components. Maybe the SE is altogether different(?).

The bottom line is: for the Porristo who seeks top quality there is but one road to travel (or did I miss a side-street?)

Tom
 
And there are also waterproof internal-focus porros by at least Minox and Opticron. These have twist-up eyecups, too. The current models have rather narrow fields, but that can hardly be a direct result of the wp-if design. Image quality is very good.

As for the SE, the dimensioning of the eyepiece lenses cannot be the reason why twist-up eyecups were not included. Just looking at the thing (I have a 10x42 SE on my windowsill), it looks like the diopter adjustment on the right eyepiece is the bit that would require most thought if I were to take it upon myself to redesign this with twist-ups. But much harder things have surely been done before. Nikon probably just does not want to do it, for reasons mentioned in this thread or others we have not guessed at yet.

Kimmo
 
elkcub said:
Good question. Really! If these are what you mean, then we might also ask why the SEs are so expensive? Must be "price anchoring" again. ;)

http://scopesbinoculars.com/nikon_action_extreme_atb_binoculars

Ed
Click to expand...

I think one of the reasons for it's high cost is because Nikon took pains to make the SE as good as it could be made.

There was a recent popular thread here about the Celestron 8 x 32 Porro Prism. It was being discontinued and the consensus (and I agreed) was that it was a remarkably good binocular being sold at a bargain price. I took the time to examine it and compare it to my Nikon 8 x 30 EII and my Nikon 8 x 32 and 10 x 42 SE's. The quality of workmanship and finish put into the Nikon SE's is clearly much, much better, both on the exterior and in the interior, than the workmanship on the EII and the Celestron. The quality of it's workmanship, especially in the interior is as clean and good, as far as I could see, as the quality of the work on the interior of my Leica 7 x 42 Trinovids.

Nikon did not advertise the SE as a "Flag Ship" but they certainly treated it as one!:t: First rate, all the way!

Bob
 
Last edited:
ceasar said:
Nikon did not advertise the SE as a "Flag Ship" but they certainly treated it as one!:t: First rate, all the way!

Bob
Click to expand...

So we should all the more encourage them to give themselves it little push (does it take more?) to "brush it up" a bit, shouldn't we!?

There is much less competition in the Porro realm than up there on the roof edge! So doing the numbers again might lead to the conclusion that it will pay off.

El Porristo |=)|
 
ceasar said:
Nikon did not advertise the SE as a "Flag Ship"...
Click to expand...

Actually, I would say they did. In the 2-3 years after the 10x42 SE was released and before Nikon had a phase-coated roof line (which began with the Venturer LX), the SE was Nikon's top binocular, and they treated it as such (Their best roof at the time was the 8x40 Classic Eagle), at least in their adverts in birding magazines. Those were the days when they prominently touted the SE's status as a BVD reference standard, and made much use of Pete Dunne's comment about founding a religion around the 10x42 SE.

Maybe the campaign didn't work. Certainly, after the release of the LX, and shortly thereafter, the Swarovski EL, less promotion and attention was given to the approximately concurrently released 8x32 SE, and unfortunately, even less to the subsequently released EII.

--AP
 
Last edited:
kabsetz said:
...
As for the SE, the dimensioning of the eyepiece lenses cannot be the reason why twist-up eyecups were not included. Just looking at the thing (I have a 10x42 SE on my windowsill), it looks like the diopter adjustment on the right eyepiece is the bit that would require most thought if I were to take it upon myself to redesign this with twist-ups. But much harder things have surely been done before. Nikon probably just does not want to do it, for reasons mentioned in this thread or others we have not guessed at yet.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

Hi Kimmo,

I would add that the size of the current SE and EII eyecups has already pushed the facial anthropometry limits of the population. This is partly due to the diameter of the eyecups, and partly due to the nose room remaining after the IPD is set. Substituting a rigid retractable eyecup would greatly exacerbate the problem in my opinion. Those who wear eyeglasses are less effected by the current problem, but they would also benefit least from a new design. It always seemed to me that a narrower rubber eyecup would be fairly easy to design and retrofit.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Nikon SE Binoculars

Had a pair for a year,nicely made, apart from the floppy eyecups.not alot to get hold of and poncey looking. The view was nice until you looked at dark birds against a cloudy sky, far too much C A ,one of the worst I have owned for this aberration.
I am not surprised they have not sold in great numbers to birders a good pair of roof prism bins not only give a great image they look the part and feel right for most people too. For the last thirty-five years roof prism binoculars have been taking the place of porro's at least as far as birders are concerned. Roofs were inferior,but surely thats not the case now I have owned or do own the best from zeiss and leica and I think roof prism binoculars will be the preferred choice for many, many years to come.
So all you porro lovers leave yesteryear behind come into the 21st century and see the light and what better way to do that than through a top quality pair of Germanys finest roofs.!!!
fiddler.
 
elkcub said:
Hi Kimmo,

I would add that the size of the current SE and EII eyecups has already pushed the facial anthropometry limits of the population.

Ed
Click to expand...

Hello Ed,

I believe you are referring to the dimension knows as "nasal relief," in some quarters, including Cloudy Nights Forum. I think Kenny Jones used that term.

In response to a request, I would certainly put myself in the segment of the population which found the 8x32 SE to be unfriendly. It seems to be a minority opinion, but that SE was uncomfortable for me and almost unusable in my hands.

As the 8x32 SE has a devoted following, my remarks should not be taken as deprecating those who use it, nor is it a general dismissal of the binocular as there are many who enjoy its use.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
 
As the old saying goes, Arthur, "The nose knows." ;)

Happy Thanksgiving everyone,

Ed
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

dries1
Nikon SE
Replies
11
Views
2K
Patudo
P
dries1
Rubber eyecups for Nikon HG/LX 8X32
Replies
8
Views
989
dries1
dries1
brocknroller
Nikon 8x32 SE Chinese Clone
Replies
7
Views
2K
brocknroller
brocknroller
P
Nikon EDG and MHG 8x42 comparison.
Replies
8
Views
2K
Paultricounty
P
yarrellii
Allbinos review of the Nikon SE 12x50
Replies
19
Views
3K
Duende
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top