NIKON EDG x NIKON SE (1 Viewer)

Hi Brock

I found this comment of you about the SE here in BF:

For example, let those with discerning eyes compare a 10x42 LX with a 10x42 SE (any year) and you will find that despite greater CA, the LX blows away the SE in terms of contrast and color saturation (particularly pre-2002 SEs).

When I first tried the 10x42 LX, which I now realize was ahead of its time and still holds up well against the "latest and greatest" ED bins except in CA control, I was blown away by the stunning sharpness, contrast, and super saturated colors of the images.


And...what about a comparison between the 10x42SE X 10x42 EDG on color saturation/contrast/sharpness?

I have found some complaints on the SE's blackouts issue, I have never tried one yet however - but I have experienced a lot of blackouts when using a Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 and I was dissapointed about that - is the 10x42 SE blackouts too annoying, I mean, too evident?

Pedro

shpeter said:

Hi Brock

I found this comment of you about the SE here in BF:

For example, let those with discerning eyes compare a 10x42 LX with a 10x42 SE (any year) and you will find that despite greater CA, the LX blows away the SE in terms of contrast and color saturation (particularly pre-2002 SEs).

When I first tried the 10x42 LX, which I now realize was ahead of its time and still holds up well against the "latest and greatest" ED bins except in CA control, I was blown away by the stunning sharpness, contrast, and super saturated colors of the images.


And...what about a comparison between the 10x42SE X 10x42 EDG on color saturation/contrast/sharpness?

I have found some complaints on the SE's blackouts issue, I have never tried one yet however - but I have experienced a lot of blackouts when using a Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 and I was dissapointed about that - is the 10x42 SE blackouts too annoying, I mean, too evident?

Pedro

Click to expand...

Pedro,

The contrast and color saturation in the Venturer LX series were aspects that reviewers talked about when it first came out, but they also talked about how heavy they were @ 35.6 oz. That's too heavy for a 42mm bin. All that lead glass, I guess.

The 10x42 SE I compared the LX to was an early model, made in the mid to late 1990s. So the coatings weren't as good as the LX. In fact, it wasn't until the latest iteration of the SE series (for the 10x, that's the 050xxx) that the SE could go head to head with the old LX. Even then, I wonder if the LX still is a bit better in regard to color saturation. I no longer have the LX, but I do have the latest 10x SE, and the resolution, color and contrast are superb. Except for not having ED glass, the overall image quality of the 050 10x42 SE is on par the EDG. "Premium optics at a non-premium price."

As to the blackout issues with the SE, that varies from user to user. Some people have no problem with it, others end up either returning their SEs or selling them because of the blackouts.

I don't have much problem with it, particularly with the 10x SE since I use it mainly for long distance where I don't have to reset the IPD. With the 8x32 SE, I have to reset the IPD when moving from close range to medium range to maintain the circular view, and if I don't get it right, I will experience some blackouts.

My deep set eyes keep me far enough away from the EPs to maintain the proper distance to avoid blackouts if the proper IPD is maintained, but if you have flat facial features, you might find that your eyes get too close to the EPs and you experience image blackouts. Then you have to use the MOLCET angled view to overcome that if you can manage to balance the eyecups under your brow. Being part Simian, that's hard for me.

I did not experience image blackouts with the 10x42 LX or the 10x42 EDG. I didn't have a 10x42 SE or10x42 LX on hand when I tried the 10x42 EDG, but I did compare it to an 8x32 SE and 8x32 LX.

The 10x SE has CA pretty well under control, so the ED in the EDG doesn't afford a great advantage in that regard as it does the 10x42 LX, but the ED glass does boost contrast and color saturation, and the light transmission is flatter than the LX, so blues are snappier. However, colors are slightly warmer in the EDG than the SE, more like the EII, a tint brighter, but not two tints brighter like the LXL. Otherwise, the overall image and distortion level of the EDG is very much like the SE.

The EDG seems to be Nikon's attempt to make the SE in a roof format, and from comparing the EDG to the 8x32 SE, they've managed to accomplish that feat and take it two steps farther with ED glass and by eliminating the spherical aberration of the exit pupil that causes the image blackouts with the SE.

Fortunately, for me, the SE works, so I don't have to dish out four times the cost for an EDG II. The SE also gives better 3-D effect and increased depth perception. Ergonomically, they are a wash. Both are very comfortable to hold, though for me, the SE is a bit more comfortable. I'm talking about the EDG I here, not the EDG II, which I haven't tried.

<B>

Part Deux

The issue I had with the LX, and why I don't own one now, is due to the "rolling ball" in the full sized models, because of the low distortion level (the midsized LX/Ls have a higher distortion level). Chances are good that you either won't see it or will adapt to it, but since there is a chance that you will, make sure if you buy one, the store has at least a two-week return policy so you have time to see if you can adapt.

Like the SE, the EDG nicely balances the AMD and pincushion, with the image neither rolling over or under the "ball".

I'm not sure about the open hinge ergos on the EDG II, but one thing I know I don't like about the EDG II is the price! Comparatively, the EDG I were bargains. If you decide to go that route, look for an EDG I refurb.

The Premier or LXL looks like the LX, but is 6 oz. lighter, and the apparent image is brighter, but the colors are skewed two tints lighter than the SE, closer to the EII, but even "warmer". To me, reds look a bit orangy through the LXL. That really brightens the image and makes the entire landscape look more colorful, but if you're a purist for colors, the Premier is probably not for you. On brightly lit objects, you also might experience some "wash out".

The 10x42 SE represents the best bang for the buck. If WP isn't a "must," it's the way to go. If you experience blackouts, you can send them back for a refund or to swap with a 10x42 Premier or EDG.

All three bins give spectacular views, it comes down to what you can afford, the best fit for your face and hands, and what priorities you have in terms of optical properties. Since the EDG and SE are practically the same in terms of optical properties (except for the EDG's ED glass and lesser depth perception), the choice is between an expensive roof and a more affordable porro.

Providing you are an RB immunie, the Premier falls in between, giving you the WP, twist up eyecups, no worry about blackouts, but not the best color fidelity due to greater CA and warmer colors.

If you know your likes and dislikes, you should now have enough information to figure out which one you want to try first.

<B>

brocknroller said:

I'm not sure about the open hinge ergos on the EDG II, but one thing I know I don't like about the EDG II is the price! Comparatively, the EDG I were bargains. If you decide to go that route, look for an EDG I refurb.

Click to expand...

Hi Brock

Thank you for all these information!

I own a Nikon EDG II 10x42 new which I pretty much like but let me explain why I am asking about the SEs - is just because I have a friend of mine who is selling a brand new 10x42 SE (serial number 0501XX) - he asked me if I am interested in a purchase (he is asking something around U$ 700) then I am now considering maybe IN BUY them (he lives unffortunately in a town too far from me so will be impossible to try them first) and who knows if I like it performance could I keep them and sell the EDG II and save some money to who knows some new idea...I am thinking carefuly about.

Pedro

shpeter said:

Hi Brock

Thank you for all these information!

I own a Nikon EDG II 10x42 new which I pretty much like but let me explain why I am asking about the SEs - is just because I have a friend of mine who is selling a brand new 10x42 SE (serial number 0501XX) - he asked me if I am interested in a purchase (he is asking something around U$ 700) then I am now considering maybe IN BUY them (he lives unffortunately in a town too far from me so will be impossible to try them first) and who knows if I like it performance could I keep them and sell the EDG II and save some money to who knows some new idea...I am thinking carefuly about.

Pedro

Click to expand...

Pedro:

I want to offer some thoughts as I have both the EDG II 10x42, and the
10x42 SE, a late model with the latest coatings.
Both binoculars are very good, with flat field eyepieces which offer views
without distortion to the edges. I find the EDG a bit better in brightness,
and they are very close in contrast and sharpness.
Some differences are, the EDG has a wider FOV 6.5 deg. vs. 6 deg. SE.
The EDG has a bit closer focus maybe 10 ft. vs. 15 ft. for the SE.
The EDG is waterproof and will focus smoother at colder temps than the SE.
That may be important if you need to use these in many climates.
Overall, the EDG is a better binocular, but they are very close optically.

If your friend is looking to sell the SE, and if you are interested, you should
see if he would send it to you to compare for yourself. You would just
have some mailing costs, and your eyes are what is important.

You have a very nice binocular with the EDG, and you will not find anything
that will top it. Binoculars at this level are all good, and it is then left to
personal preference.
Check the Allbinos reviews, they have a comparison on both of these
models, and they are to be trusted, as I have found them as I see it.

Jerry

Hi Jerry.

I will do that (I will borrow his 10x42 SE) and post my impressions here after my tests.
I believe according Brock comments that my friend's SE have the latest coating too since it serial number is 0501XX - Am I correct?

Pedro

shpeter said:

Hi Jerry.

I will do that (I will borrow his 10x42 SE) and post my impressions here after my tests.
I believe according Brock comments that my friend's SE have the latest coating too since it serial number is 0501XX - Am I correct?

Pedro

Click to expand...

Well, now that's a horse of a different color! If you can borrow the SE, that's the risk free way to compare them. Yes, your friend's sample has the "latest and greatest" SE coatings.

As Jerry mentioned, the EDG's FOV is a bit wider, resulting in a more open 65* AFOV, which I liked. The SE's FOV feels a bit "cramped" at times, particularly for stargazing, but for birding I find it adequate. There are members on here who rave about the 7x42 Habicht, which only has a 45* AFOV! That's tunnel vision to me. So the 1/2* difference may or may not be significant for you.

The EDG is definitely better at close focus, not only getting you closer, but in not having the cross-eyed barrel overlap you get with porros at close focus distances. However, 10x bins are made observing at longer distances, and the depth perception at close focus is fairly shallow, so a 10 ft close focus in a 10x42 is not that important to me. Combine that with the EDG's faster focuser, and achieving quick fine focus becomes a bit more challenging, though still easier than with the 10x42 LXL.

The advantage of having closer barrels at close focus becomes a liability when it come to depth perception at medium and even at longer distances since the more widely separated barrels on the SE afford you a better 3-D effect and better sense of depth.

The ED glass does give the EDG the "edge" over the SE, but as I said earlier, to me, that's not a significant difference in this case, because the CA control in the 10x SE is pretty good. The ED glass does make the views look brighter, but the actual light transmission of the EDG is less than the SE.

So IMO, it's a wash. I don't think one bin is "better" than the other, I think they just have different features that one user might prefer over the other. I prefer the 10x42 SE over the 10x42 EDG for its ergonomics and better 3-D effect, but I would like to have an EDG in the 7x42 format since it would have depth perception approaching a porro, and there is no SE or EII equivalent.

Let us know how the "shoot out" goes.

Brock

brocknroller said:

Let us know how the "shoot out" goes.

Brock

Click to expand...

Hi Brock and folks

After asking to a friend of mine for a "binoculars borrow" he gently sent me his 10x42 SE Nikon for a little performance test against my EDG II 10x42mm.
According some previous information I got here in BF (based on the SE's serial number) these 10x42 SE its the one those with the latest updated coating version.
My first impression when I first handled they was that they are very well made, nothing in these resemble a cheap binoculars, they were very friendly on hands.
I am not trying to do a "deep technical test" even because I am not used with this kind of test, its just to share my personal impressions (that can vary for sure from other members) about these two Nikon premium binoculars.
I tried both day and night for a while and then I have now something "short" to share with some EDG's / SE's owners and also (mainly) with some looking for some comparison between both:

WEIGHT / SHAPE - Both weighs "approximately" the same EDG = 790 grams SE = 710 grams -, they are both very well balanced but I think the SE is much better to handhold due their large shape which helps a lot to get a steady view under any situation and I found they less tiresome to my arms, EDG is fine but a bit heavy (I mean a bit of concentrated weight) in comparison because they are small (slim) on hands, I am used to prefer the PORRO shape ever (a personal preference however).

MECHANICS - both are very well builted (with a strong and precise construction), both carry I believe some of the best material available nowadays and apart a better eyecups system (much better in the EDG II to be precise), tripod socket and it waterproof benefit I have no one serious complaint about the SE's overall, for its price they are a very good option instead the expensive EDG II.

FOCUSER WHEEL - The SE have a nice smooth and well damped focuser, the focus wheel works even in all of it course and in both directions, not worse than the EDG but it is a bit stiff in comparison, under a hot climate (as I am here now) I see no problem at all, but I don't know how it would works under a cold climate in comparison - the EDG anyway is super smooth in both directions but still with a good amount of a damping resistance, the SE focuser is slow in comparison which I think as better for some distant subjects as the stars, airplanes, landscapes - the EDG brings the focal point a bit fast and then is a bit easy to accidentally pass of the focal point - I think the EDG speed is something as 2X faster than the SE speed - with the SE I can find the focal point and turn the wheel further for about 1/8 without loss the image sharpness while with the EDG is just a turn of 1/16 but the EDG speed it is better on the other hand when watching birds changing their position all the time among the branches. I think the EDG's dioptric adjustment a bit uncomfortable/complicated in comparison.

COATING COLOR / REFLEXION - The EDG's objective coating is deep green and the SE's objective coating is purple - both eyepiece's coating are deep green/purple - in a single test reflexion the SE's objectives coating shines less.

COLOR BIAS - I found both similar at first glance, but looking carefully through them several times I can tell now that the EDG is neutral while SE is slightly warm in comparison but not by much.

IPD ADJUSTMENT / EYE POSITION - I think the EDG II its a bit sensitive to a correct eye position than the SE - I mean, to get a perfect eye connection with the optical axis - nothing dramatic but there is some advantage to the SE.

SHARPNESS - I tried their sharpness under several situations at the daytime, nighttime, watching the Moon etc and while the SE is pretty sharp was obvious that the EDG is still a bit sharper, stars were tiny and tight in EDG than with the SE, the Moon's features were better distinguished through the EDG, I read some distant car plates and they were sharper and clear image through the EDG, maybe the absence of CA thanks to the extra ED optical element helps a lot here. There is not a huge gap between them but definitly is possible to notice it there.

BRIGHTNESS - According the Allbinos website the EDG 10x42 transmission is about 88,5% (+/-3%) and the SE 10x42 95% (+/-3%) and how the SE have less optical elements than the EDG then I was expecting to see some "visible" advantage and under the daylight I think the SE has really "a hair" (and nothing more than this) of color vividness (better contrast?) over the EDG in day time use but this may be only a personal impression since under the night sky I got a different story - I was able to distinguish better some faint stars with the EDG than with the SE, in both they were there and "hardly" visible there but no doubt easy to see when looking directly to them through the EDG, the sky bottom be a tad dark in EDG (better contrast?) and the stars are a little tight and blinking a bit less in EDG - maybe what I saw was a better resolution/sharpness due the extra EDG's ED optical element. It's hard to explain just using words but the SE while having a clear and clean image (transparency) the EDG is a step beyond...for some reason The EDG seem the "clearest" but not actually the "brightest".

CHROMATIC ABERRATION - I am particularly sensitive to CA then I can tell for sure that in a general daytime use the EDG is quite absent of any trace (or at least 95% if being extremely critical under ANY CONDITION on axis), the SE is also really very good in that regard since is necessary to look too carefully to find some but almost none is visible in a regular use - UNDER A HARD TEST - I tried both on a tree branch and also on a street electrical pole's "wire clamps" far for about 90 feet with the sunlight almost behind them (an extremely bright sky background) and there was a real advantage to the EDG that's really show no one trace of CA on axis (just a little trace of CA at the border but not intrusive) while I could see easily some CA on axis with the SE around the wire clamps and branches - I also tried both on some TV antenna against the blue sky and I could not detect it with the EDG but there were some tiny color fringes with the SE (on axis but hard to see) - for a regular use the SE works very very well and the EDG I can say they are almost perfect, wonderful performance for a Roof.

DEEP OF FIELD - I was unable to distinguish any significant difference between both.

STRAIGHT LIGHT/ INTERNAL REFLEXIONS - In both the internal reflexions are very well controlled, I recall for example as worse is the FMT-SX in comparison (by memory) I tried both (SE and EDG II) watching some street lights, the Moon, tried both mainly at the sunset and altough the SE showed just a small amount of glare and internal reflexions (in a very critical position close to the maximum sun light in the sky) the EDG II showed much less to almost none - when watching the Moon and some street lights I could see some ghost reflexions in both depending on the eye position but they were less evident anyway through the EDG II.

FIELD OF VIEW: The SE's 60 AFOV is flat and very well corrected - if you don't have no other binoculars at it side with a large AFOV I doubt this will be an issue, under de day time I found it very good and well illuminated not giving that kind of tunel vision - but at night I noticed there a very discreet vignetting over the field stop but nothing really bad or intrusive. Watching the night sky the stars remain sharp almost to the edge and this is a very positive thing - changing to the EDG however I felt a good difference - the entire AFOV is perceptibly wider and fully illuminated and also very well corrected (both seem similar in this regard) and the field stop is quite clean and clear with no one trace of vignetting over it - the EDG's 65 AFOV is really better to watch the night sky.

RELAXING VIEWS - Both are very good, very well collimated and easy to eyes but I found the EDG's views a hair comfortable, maybe due it large AFOV and it seems less prone to some blackouts.

MAGNIFICATION / OPTICAL ILUSION - Altough both are 10X the EDG II gave me sometimes an impression (when looking at some closest subjects mainly) to a very slightly large scale - but I know for sure that this is just a pure optical ilusion.

BLACKOUTS - I have a "more or less" flat set of eyes than I was worried about getting some blackouts with the SE (as experienced with the Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50) but I was surprised that I got much less with these than with the FMT-SX, actually I have not experienced no one serious blackout issue with the SE

CLOSE FOCUS - No doubt the EDG is the best here - I found the SE uncomfortable to use even at 9 mts (+ or - 30 feet) not impossible for many users for sure but not just as natural as the EDG is due their large objective angular separation (SE) which can cause some strong eyestrain.

Well, these were my impressions, they may vary from some owners here for sure but I know anyway by myself now that the EDG II is really a better binocular in some respects as CA control, large AFOV, waterprofness, slightly better sharpness, etc - but I need to admit too that the SE costing almost 3X less are very very close in optical performance.
To someone looking for an excellent binoculars at the best price these SEs deserve a serious consideration, they deserve his designation "Superior E" because they are really a "premium binoculars" with a non premium price.
I hope I make myself clear in my descriptions since I have some difficulties to express my things correctly in English, then sorry for my mistakes.

regards Pedro

Pedro:

Very nice review, well done. Your testing brings out the best of both of these
fine optics.

Jerry

Hi Jerry

Thank you

Pedro

Well done, thanks for posting. Bryce...

Nice review and I agree with you on most areas except for 3D image, sharpness and DOF. I feel the SE is a little sharper and it's DOF is a little better than the EDG. Also, the SE is superior in 3D imaging.Try looking at a DVD case at about 10 feet with both of them and really look at the fine print. You will see the SE is sharper.

[email protected] said:

Nice review and I agree with you on most areas except for 3D image, sharpness and DOF. I feel the SE is a little sharper and it's DOF is a little better than the EDG. Also, the SE is superior in 3D imaging.Try looking at a DVD case at about 10 feet with both of them and really look at the fine print. You will see the SE is sharper.

Click to expand...

Dennis, Pedro writes that he looked at very faint stars and found the EDG sharper, Pedro writes clearly and with conviction his own findings, I accept his findings as accurate, why should he try something as ridiculous as looking at DVD case`s ?

[email protected] said:

Nice review and I agree with you on most areas except for 3D image, sharpness and DOF. I feel the SE is a little sharper and it's DOF is a little better than the EDG. Also, the SE is superior in 3D imaging.Try looking at a DVD case at about 10 feet with both of them and really look at the fine print. You will see the SE is sharper.

Click to expand...

Hi

One of the most important things for me in any binoculars is just their sharpness level - I tried both carefully (extensively) for a dozen of times at several different subjects (day & night, close & far) to find which would be the sharpest between them and also to be really sure about a correct evalution then I have no doubt about the superior sharpness of these EDG II - I like PORROS a lot and to be honest they are my favorites over the ROOFS since they carry a low number of optical parts, they are better on hands (my preference) etc but I am quite sure about what I got from both - I don't know if is possible some QC variations on the Nikon production, but I can tell for sure that at least these both in my hands showed me exactly what I reported.

I would be REALLY happy in selling my EDG II, buying these SE from my friend for a good price (they are brand new boxed, etc) and getting some extra money to something else (this would be for me a big chance to do) then I was expecting to find the SE sharper and bright over the EDG II, and since I prefer PORROS this would be perfect but UNFORTUNATELLY they aren't - the EDG II 10x42 is superior in pure optical quality.

I have owned (but I don't have anymore) some fine binoculars as the Takahashi Astronomer 22x60 - Some Leicas (including the Duovid 10-15X50), Swarovski (8x30 - 15x56), Fujinons, Canons (several), etc then I have a good ideia now about how a really good optics should be.

About the 3D effect I am sincerly unable to identify some evident difference between a ROOF and PORRO as some are able then I prefer not put my opinion here.

regards Pedro

Torview said:

Dennis, Pedro writes that he looked at very faint stars and found the EDG sharper, Pedro writes clearly and with conviction his own findings, I accept his findings as accurate, why should he try something as ridiculous as looking at DVD case`s ?

Click to expand...

Very faint stars aren't a good judge of sharpness. It's a single light point source. A DVD case or a resolution chart or a 20 dollar bill is better at a distance.

shpeter said:

Hi

One of the most important things for me in any binoculars is just their sharpness level - I tried both carefully (extensively) for a dozen of times at several different subjects (day & night, close & far) to find which would be the sharpest between them and also to be really sure about a correct evalution then I have no doubt about the superior sharpness of these EDG II - I like PORROS a lot and to be honest they are my favorites over the ROOFS since they carry a low number of optical parts, they are better on hands (my preference) etc but I am quite sure about what I got from both - I don't know if is possible some QC variations on the Nikon production, but I can tell for sure that at least these both in my hands showed me exactly what I reported.

I would be REALLY happy in selling my EDG II, buying these SE from my friend for a good price (they are brand new boxed, etc) and getting some extra money to something else (this would be for me a big chance to do) then I was expecting to find the SE sharper and bright over the EDG II, and since I prefer PORROS this would be perfect but UNFORTUNATELLY they aren't - the EDG II 10x42 is superior in pure optical quality.

I have owned (but I don't have anymore) some fine binoculars as the Takahashi Astronomer 22x60 - Some Leicas (including the Duovid 10-15X50), Swarovski (8x30 - 15x56), Fujinons, Canons (several), etc then I have a good ideia now about how a really good optics should be.

About the 3D effect I am sincerly unable to identify some evident difference between a ROOF and PORRO as some are able then I prefer not put my opinion here.

regards Pedro

Click to expand...

"About the 3D effect I am sincerly unable to identify some evident difference between a ROOF and PORRO as some are able then I prefer not put my opinion here."

If you can't see something as obvious as the difference in the 3D image between a roof and a porro I question your judgement of sharpness also. It is EASY to see that a porro has a better 3D image. Check them back to back and notice how the roof has a flatter image ,whereas, the porro looks like one of those little 3D viewmasters that used to be very popular.

[email protected] said:

Very faint stars aren't a good judge of sharpness. It's a single light point source. A DVD case or a resolution chart or a 20 dollar bill is better at a distance.

Click to expand...

Just plain wrong. Faint stars at the very edge of visibility with an optical instrument are a very good way to judge sharpness, precisely because they are in effect a point source. Yes, it is not the only way, but it is a good way and a valid way. An optical instrument that is not sharp cannot bring the faint star at the edge of visibility to a good clean focus and so it will not be seen, whereas the faint star that is brought to sharp focus will be seen. I have seen this time and again in comparing telescopes of the same aperture, but with differing optical quality.

OsageArcher said:

Just plain wrong. Faint stars at the very edge of visibility with an optical instrument are a very good way to judge sharpness, precisely because they are in effect a point source. Yes, it is not the only way, but it is a good way and a valid way. An optical instrument that is not sharp cannot bring the faint star at the edge of visibility to a good clean focus and so it will not be seen, whereas the faint star that is brought to sharp focus will be seen. I have seen this time and again in comparing telescopes of the same aperture, but with differing optical quality.

Click to expand...

I am an amateur astronomer also. Telescopes and binoculars are two different optical instruments. There could be alot of other variables at play in bringing a faint star to focus including atmospheric conditions or seeing. Did he compare the two binoculars back to back. There are alot of variables that haven't been explained or controlled for. I find his results hard to believe again because a porro almost always outperforms a roof on astronomical objects. That is why they are way more popular than roofs for astronomy. Also, just because a binocular can focus a star better does not mean it will the show gradients of color and detail on a bird any better than some other binocular. Not really a good test for a birding binocular.

[email protected] said:

I question your judgement of sharpness

Click to expand...

Unbelievable.

[email protected] said:

If you can't see something as obvious as the difference in the 3D image between a roof and a porro I question your judgement of sharpness also.

Click to expand...

Hi

I know exactly what the 3D effect is but along the years I have found some so controversial discussions at some web fóruns about the 3D image on binoculars...I found some people who claim to have experienced a strong effect with the PORROS while another just in some ROOFS (can you believe) while some simply don't bother about it - then I don't think this is something so obvious for all the people - by "unable" I actually meant that for me (I am talking based on myself only) this is not an important thing as the sharpness level is.

Some stars I tried with both were not only the faint - I tried some brightest from the Scorpion constellation (for example) and those bright stars were tight, smaller with the EDG II - some tight double stars were better distinguished with the EDG II and for me this tell something when talking about sharpness. Under the daytime I tried some flowers and their delicate features were better distinguished with the EDG II to my eyes with no doubt.

I tried even a spiderweb (far for about 30 feet) and for me with the EDG II I could see it a hair better detailed - I have actually unfortunatelly some difficulties to express my impressions in English as you all easily do here - anyway, if this kind of overall better resolution don't mean for you something as a superior sharpness then I don't know really what you mean about sharpness.

Pedro