Hermann
Well-known member
Yep. It's really a shame Nikon discontinued the SE. Still quite an amazing binocular.
Hermann
-
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.
8x32 binocular with the most 'wow!' effect (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter takitam
- Start date
Hermann
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I use specs ;-). For me, the biggest WOW comes not from stuff such as low CA, flat field, etc., but from how big and immersive the field is. I’ve concluded that a big ocular diameter and a design which doesn’t easily blackout, is the best. Obviously the Noctivid is my best (but 42) followed by 40SFL. In 32 I guess it’s the SF. I suppose I should taste the swaro koolaid but strap thingies, armor issues, extreme flat field, etc have keep me away. Ymmv!
I have added a 2mm o-ring and it fits, just. I had to squeeze/press quite hard to tighten the eyecups. I don't know if the thread really likes it and I also think the 2mm o-ring is nearly 1.5mm now. But yes, it fits and can lengthen the eyecup a bit further.
Ignatius
Inactive member
Just so I get this right: you put an o-ring over the outside of the eyecup to increase its outer diameter in order to better align the centre of the exit pupil with your own pupil? That would mean the oem ocular covers no longer fit, right?
Ah, no, I obviously worded that badly. I unscrew and remove the eyecup, place an o-ring over the thread and screw the eyecup back on, thus increasing eye relief by the width of the o-ring.
Ignatius
Inactive member
Ahhh ... sorry for being obtuse. I thought it was about lining pupil and exit pupil up, not about eye relief. Gotcha now though.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
The discussion is about the most wow factor of 8x32’s. As far as the 42 variants, under good lighting conditions there’s barely a difference.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
They’re so good you need to have two of them. It’s getting harder and harder to find nice clean ones that haven't seen a lot of use.
Attachments
Isthatascratch?
Well-known member
Inspired by ‘not coming out of the closet’ I dug out my 8x30 Habicht. Christmas detritus had blocked where it was stored and now it is free! I do understand your point of view as it is a gentle cupping of the face and not a big ol’ slap, and an SF 8x32 is shouting ‘look at me..look at me (or look through me) aren’t I amazing and new and great…love me (but in a more conservative German way). The Swarovski is more ‘I am old fashioned quality and not a show off…I don’t need reassurance!’
I haven’t tried an NL as I have one bloody Fieldpro binocular and the fixings are like large annoying acne spots!!! Also, I am not sure I really need both any more so I am thinking of embracing the 8x30W only as other binoculars I have are more unique, idiosyncratic and, dare I say, less sterile than Mr (dinner is 6pm prompt) Mr Zeiss.!
Then again I’ll probably miss an early dinner!
I’m not at all sure I follow all that, but whatever you decide is what you should do.
Hermann
Well-known member
Yes, indeed. And the fact that the SE is still among the best binoculars out there just shows how good relatively "simple", straightforward porros can be. No need for complex objective lenses, no need for ED glass, no need for complex focusers, no need for phase-coatings, no need for dielectric coatings.
I sometimes wonder if the trend started by Leitz and Zeiss in the 1960s didn't lead in a totally wrong direction.
Hermann
Perfect! Fully agree. Sometimes simple is best and in the case of porros versus roofs it rings true every time.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Herman,
I owned an SE but I favoured the top roof prism binoculars of the last twenty years. Optically, just as much can be accomplished with a Porro than with a roof, and at lower cost. Nevertheless, the greater robustness, the compactness, and waterproofing can be very valuable, although I think that the closer focussing of roof binoculars may be over valued.
For the optical firms, the increased profit for each unit may have been an overriding concern.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur
Hello Arthur
Tell a Swarovski Habicht that it is not as robust, compact and waterproof as a modern roof, and it will laugh in your face! The point Herman made is more can be accomplished with a porro at a lower cost than a roof because a porro is intrinsically a simpler and more efficient design. As Herman said there is no need for complex objective lenses, no need for ED glass, no need for complex focusers, no need for phase-coatings, and no need for dielectric coatings.
A porro has higher transmission, a better stereoscopic view, and a more transparent image because of a simpler light path and total internal reflection. Porro's haven't changed that much outside of coatings in 100 years since the first Habicht was made because they don't need to. My 30-year-old Swarovski Habicht 7x42 GA killed my brand new Leica UVHD+ 7x42 outside of FOV, and I returned the Leica the next day.
Hermann
Well-known member
Hello Arthur
Actually, I still believe a modern porro (with modern glass types, modern eyepieces and modern coatings) would probably be better than a roof. Tolerances don't have to be quite as strict, no prism spikes, no phase-coatings and no dielectric coatings means there are fewer things that can go wrong. I've been using the APM 6.5x32 quite lot over the past few months, and while a Chinese made porro that costs ~220€ obviously can't compete with the mechanical quality of a >2000€ roof, it's optically quite close to the alphas. If you get a good one. That's what you can do with a simple porro.
Greater robustness and waterproofing of roofs - well, I'm not sure about this. Military binoculars like the Hensoldt Fero-D series are porros, and they don't have any problems with robustness. Waterproofing - the Zeiss West Porros of yesteryear had rubber seals ("Gummistulpendichtung") to effectively seal the moving eyepieces against the body. They were at least splashproof, and the seals didn't make the focusing too stiff, like in the Habicht. (Some information about the seals and a drawing can be found in König/Köhler ³1959: 193-194.)
Compactness, right, you've got a point there. However, there's also the Perger prism that allows much slimmer porros. Unfortunately Leica, the least innovative of the big manufacturers, bought the patents. And only used the Perger prism in some rangefinder binoculars.
Yes, I think so.
Hermann
I think the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W is the most wow binocular I have ever looked through. I still remember looking through one for the first time, and I was amazed that such a tiny little 30mm binocular could produce such bright, sharp clear transparent images. None of the alpha binoculars even with their huge FOV wowed me like that tiny Habicht. It wasn't so much about the size of the FOV as it was the quality of the view.
Last edited:
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Hermann,
Certainly, anything optical, other than close focussing, that could be accomplished in a roof binocular, can be ached in a Porro.. All could be accomplished without phase coating and dielectric mirrors. I have been informed that internal focussing on roof glasses may actually increase chromatic aberration, as opposed to the usual Porro focussing.
Should Zeiss, or another maker, make a Porro like their SF 8x32, let me know. I have both a 7x50BGAT and a 15x60BGAT, Porro binoculars, which were beautifully made by Zeiss, about two decades ago.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur
The 10x42 SE is my regular birding binocular and I know it's the thing here to wax lyrical about what one owns, but IMO some of the praise that comes for it is slightly over-romanticised due to its status as the last great porro. It's unquestionably a fine binocular and I like it very much, but the latest top alphas are certainly - to my eye anyway - superior, particularly in colour rendition and from what I've seen (and admittedly there may be differences in sample variation etc - but I recall Kimmo testing his Canon 10x42 against the SE and finding the former sharper) sharpness or at least perceived sharpness. That's not counting areas of real practical birding advantage such as FOV, weatherproofing, handling/ergonomics. I've said before and still think Nikon deliberately handicapped the SE by making sure its field of view was inferior to the HG and later EDG series, and furnishing that long (almost over-long) eye relief design (which is also flat field, so not exactly as simple as an Erfle, either...) with rubber eyecups almost seems like an in-joke.
The price paid for that level of excellence, of course, is cost, and I've sometimes joked to friends that the SE is my "austerity alpha". It does that very well indeed, but much though I enjoy my SE, I'd exchange it for any of NL, SF, EL and probably FL (would need to compare the two side by side closely, though) too.
I think most porros that consumer birders and others buy (with honourable exceptions such as the Habicht and Fujinon) are indeed not as robust as roofs. My SE is well made, but I won't use it in the tropics (which is why it's not here with me now), nor anywhere it's liable to encounter heavy rain, and I'm always conscious that the focus action pumps air in and out of the binocular that over time will result in haze that needs cleaning, to the point I try to focus as little as possible (which, fortunately, I can get away with in my birding). That said, I don't believe military levels of robustness are necessary for the great majority of civilian users (otherwise we'd see more folks toting Hensoldts). But waterproofing, IMO, is necessary for a binocular to be commercially successful. Most users given a choice between buying a binocular claimed to be waterproof and one labelled as only "splashproof" will go for the former.
Leica probably secured the Perger design to prevent it from being used by a competitor. It's not the only porro design out there - maybe more could have (and could still be done) with the Porro II design - but the only place likely to press forward with that kind of innovation (the PRC) is already producing very good roof binoculars.
PS. for what it's worth, when I use 8x32/8x30 (generally preferring 8x42), most times I want the "old porro experience" - straight to your eyes and a 150m field of view. So you could say that's what wows me. As for more modern binoculars, I think the 8x32 FL is very good, very sharp and clean image with well rendered colours and a wide FOV. It's a great example of the modern birding 8x32. But I haven't compared it closely with eg. the 8x32 Swarovision or the newer SF. Pinewood, who did, shelled out for the SF.
The price paid for that level of excellence, of course, is cost, and I've sometimes joked to friends that the SE is my "austerity alpha". It does that very well indeed, but much though I enjoy my SE, I'd exchange it for any of NL, SF, EL and probably FL (would need to compare the two side by side closely, though) too.
I think most porros that consumer birders and others buy (with honourable exceptions such as the Habicht and Fujinon) are indeed not as robust as roofs. My SE is well made, but I won't use it in the tropics (which is why it's not here with me now), nor anywhere it's liable to encounter heavy rain, and I'm always conscious that the focus action pumps air in and out of the binocular that over time will result in haze that needs cleaning, to the point I try to focus as little as possible (which, fortunately, I can get away with in my birding). That said, I don't believe military levels of robustness are necessary for the great majority of civilian users (otherwise we'd see more folks toting Hensoldts). But waterproofing, IMO, is necessary for a binocular to be commercially successful. Most users given a choice between buying a binocular claimed to be waterproof and one labelled as only "splashproof" will go for the former.
Leica probably secured the Perger design to prevent it from being used by a competitor. It's not the only porro design out there - maybe more could have (and could still be done) with the Porro II design - but the only place likely to press forward with that kind of innovation (the PRC) is already producing very good roof binoculars.
PS. for what it's worth, when I use 8x32/8x30 (generally preferring 8x42), most times I want the "old porro experience" - straight to your eyes and a 150m field of view. So you could say that's what wows me. As for more modern binoculars, I think the 8x32 FL is very good, very sharp and clean image with well rendered colours and a wide FOV. It's a great example of the modern birding 8x32. But I haven't compared it closely with eg. the 8x32 Swarovision or the newer SF. Pinewood, who did, shelled out for the SF.
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
Agreed. Two (possible) reasons for that: The coatings of the SEs, and the eyepiece design. I think they're both not state of the art anymore. Nikon improved the coatings of the SE at some stage. I've got an early 10x42 SE and a late 8x32 SE, and the differences are visible (contrast, brightness, colour reproduction). But after some 20 years of continuous development I'd expect today's coatings to be better. The eyepiece design - that was one of the first binoculars with a reasonably flat field, modern eyepieces are better. No surprise, really.
Well, to come back to the old Zeiss West porros for a moment: I've seen quite a lot of those; they were still reasonably common when I got into birding. And I can't recall seeing one that had dust or dirt inside, not even after years and years of use. I also don't recall seeing a pair that had fogged up. Those "Gummistulpendichtungen" obviously worked quite nicely. On the question of robustness: This would get into too much detail, but the main problem with (most) porros is the way the prisms are fixed. They are fairly easily knocked out of alignment. That's easily rectified in the design AFAIK. The old Zeiss porros were also pretty tough BTW.
The advantage of the Perger prism is that any binoculars with Perger prisms would be quite slim and reasonably compact. Binoculars with a Porro II design not so much. Maybe Leica actually thought about using the Perger in some conventional binoculars as well but didn't get round to it. As usual, one might say.
Hermann
Last edited:
Similar threads
