Okay Otto, the 10x35 E2 seems the be the steadiest 10x in my hands, but I have nearly and $800 budget now and I would prefer something that I know would last forever. You seem sold on them so convince me. I do have a tendency to wander shorelines (not sure if I need waterproofing as much as advertising says I do) and also bird in the woods (exit pupil and fov/dof) but I am enamored with the detail this binocular can give me.
-
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.
EII, good news & bad news. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Otto McDiesel
- Start date
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
RobConnel said:
You need to analyze yourself first. If you are capable of being careful with your equipment, than you could use the E2 for a very, very long time. As a field biologist, you will not need to work in the rain (for most survey methods and observations rain is a no-no, and it’s also a good excuse for the grad student to take a nap). Swimming with binoculars around your neck is also not recommended due to their poor flotation properties. The point of my rambling here is that it matters how you treat your optics. If you are rough, then even Swarovski’s will break. Besides, E2 ‘s are covered by an excellent warranty.
The E2 will have their rubber peel off sooner rather than later. But boy, they are so good…Their good depth of field, wide angle, smooth and quick focus, and brightness make them excellent for forests.
Or, if you have $800 to spend, save another $400 (kick Uncle Larry off the wedding list o
) and get a Leica Trinovid 10x42. Swaro SLC is another one that will last a lifetime for sure, but, for some reason, i feel that colors are nicer through the Leica's.
Last edited:
Sailcat
Fearless Spectator
All of you have made very interesting points in the EII vs SE discussion, but what about the venerable E model? How is the 10x35E different from, or similar to, the 10x35EII, for example? Is there, in fact, no significant difference, and could the change in nomenclature simply be Nikon's idea of freshening the image of this line? What say you?
Walter :h?:
Walter :h?:
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Walter,
Please read the following post, a thorough comparison of the Nikon E, EII, and SE:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202&highlight=Nikon
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
Please read the following post, a thorough comparison of the Nikon E, EII, and SE:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202&highlight=Nikon
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
Last edited:
chartwell99
Well-known member
Otto McDiesel said:
