The SE, EII, and LX Revisted
I compared, at length, a 504xxx to a 550xxx Nikon SE 8X32. Here are the boring results.
1. CA is identical in both instruments. I am very sensitive to CA and I found several targets that were perfect test objects.
2. Eyepiece coatings appeared identical.
3. Objective coatings were different, but not much. The 504xxx was bluish, the 550xxx a bit greenish. If that's too technical for you let's try something else. I could see absolutely no difference in color rendition and I looked for it in all variations of light and shadow. For the record, I looked through the eyepieces, not the objectives!
4. The 550xxx appeared brighter by a smidgen. Sorry, I get technical when I should stop and remember my audience. Brighter by a smidgen means there may have been more light getting through the 550xxx, but who knows or cares. It was so close I'd never call a winner.
If you need consolation, the 550xxx could replace my well-used 504xxx and I wouldn't know it. They are, for all intents and purposes, clones.
John
zzzzzzzzzzzzz... Oh, excuse me, I must have dozed off for a minute. I get that way with highly technical reports.
Thanks, John, for those comparisons. This is good news, indeed. Nikon apparently did such a great job of compensating for the loss of lead in the 550 that only a forensic artist could tell the difference!
As far as the coatings on Steve's 505 SE, if I hold the objectives under my ceiling light, I can see five reflections from the objectives of the 505xxx SE.
A. 8x32 SE
1. Top layer: The first two layers are violet and the third is spring green.
2. Middle layer: This is a tiny reflection, which appears to be violet.
3. Bottom layer: Medium aquamarine.
B. 501 8x30 EII
In my 501xxx 8x30 EII's objectives, I also see five reflections:
1. Top layer: The first two layers are hot pink and the third spring green.
2. Middle layer: This is a tiny reflection, which appears to be hot pink.
3. Bottom layer: Aquamarine.
(colors though the EII appear a smidgen "warmer" than the SE)
NOTE: My first sample 8x EII that Steve has now, and which I think has a higher serial #, has different colored reflections than my sample. Steve also has my old 12x50 SE (which has an exceptional close focus - 15"-16.5', depending on your eyes/glasses).
The reflections in the 8x32 LX's objectives are more complex and a bit harder to see, and I have to hold the bin farther away from my face to get the lamp reflections focused. (3 on top, 1 in the middle, and 2 on bottom).
C. 201xxx 8x32 LX
1. Top layers: The first is emerald green, the second is hot pink, the third is medium aquamarine.
2. Middle layer: Tiny reflection is hot pink.
3. Lower layers: Two reflections, the first is medium aquamarine, the deepest layer being aquamarine.
(the color palette through the LX looks similar to the 505 SE, but the color depth and contrast are a smidgen better)
See RGB chart for color comparisons:
http://www.tayloredmktg.com/rgb/#PI
Close Focus Ability.
I measured the close focus of all three bins last night and was surprised that two were closer than I previously thought (I used a line-of-sight object to focus on so there would be no added inches from angled measurements).
The measurements are rounded off to the nearest foot or half foot:
1. 505 SE: 9.5 ft.
2. 501 EII: 6.5 ft.
3. 201 LX: 5.5 ft.
Note: Even though manufacturers list close focus numbers, YMMV. With the SE, LX, and EII, I have found that all the samples I've tested focus closer than the listed values.
The LX roof can handle close focusing better than the porros, because you don't have to cross your eyes so you don't see overlapping barrel shadows.
With the SE, I have to readjust the IPD at close focus.
Chromatic Aberration (least to greatest):
1. 505 SE
2. 501 EII (a smidgen more)
3. 201 LX
Resolution (greatest to least):
1. 505 SE
1. 501 EII (a virtual tie)
2. 201 LX
Contrast (in order of greatest to least):
1. 201 LX
2. 505 SE
2. 501 EII (tie - note that because of the EII's larger FOV, contrast can drop while observing birds against a bright sky, but pulling away from the EPs a little, brings back the contrast).
Color Depth (greatest to least):
1. 201 LX
2. 505 SE
2. 501 EII
Eye relief (greatest to least):
1. SE
2. LX
3. EII
I haven't performed precise measurements, but unlike many, if not most, manufacturers, the listed ER seems to be accurate or at least close to spec in all three.
Eyeglass wearers will not likely see the entire fov with the EII, but it has plenty of fov to spare.
The LX's 16mm ER might not be enough for all eyeglass wearers.
I could see almost the entire FOV of the SE with my thin, polycarbonate glasses, which I can push back to my eyebrows.
DOF: ? Haven't checked the current SE sample, but the SE and EII have greater DOF than the LX, though the LX gives the perception of having less DOF than it actually has, because of the faster focuser and more compressed roof view.
Edge Performance (greatest to least):
Lateral
1. SE (by a smidgen)
2. LX
3. EII
Vertical
1. SE
2. LX
3. EII
Image Scale (largest to smallest)
1. LX
2. SE (Note: The 505 has a larger image than the 501 SE)
3. EII
Water Sealing (best to least):
1. LX
2. SE
3. EII
Robustness of Build (best to least):
1. LX
2. SE
3. EII
Focusers. The SE and EII have the same EP-end focus wheels. They turn slowly and get stiff in cold weather, but "snap to focus" easily once you get there.
The LX has a fast focuser (1/2 turn from cf to infinity). I've had it out in 90*F to 0*F weather, and it always turns smoothly.
Some people find the LX's focuser too fast, but if you get a good sample (took me two tries), with a focuser that has enough tension to focus precisely so you don't overshoot your target, you might find that you really enjoy it.
The LX's focuser is also much larger than the SE and EII's so you can use one finger or two fingers to focus, and the position of the focuser falls in the right place for my hands. I had to reach up for the focusers on the full sized LX models.
To keep my arms in an "elbows down" position with the SE and EII, I have to turn the focuser wheel from the bottom. It works, but you only have a limited range of motion from below.
I sometimes miss birds with the SE and EII, because by the time I turn the thin, sluggish wheel, they have taken off. With the LX, I get to them quickly. However, it does take a "learning curve" to use even a good sample LX focuser if you are not used to fast focusing roofs.
Ergonomics. Too subjective to measure by any means. I have large hands so my preference is for the SE, but my modifications of the EII's barrels (using a combination of Bushwackers and dewshields) make it as comfortable and steady to hold as the SE now.
The LX is a bit small for my large hands (XL sized in gloves) and takes more effort to hold steady. If it had wide, flat thumb grooves like the EDG, it would be easier for me to hold.
I have read others say the opposite, that the SE was too big for their hands and that the LX fit them perfectly. To each his own.
As you can tell from all the ties and close numbers between the SE and EII, these two bins are practically brothers.
Smoothness of Panning. All three bins display acceptable smoothness while panning, with the SE appearing the most natural. The EII shows a bit of pincushion and the LX a bit of "rolling ball effect," but neither is significant enough to be distracting to me like the full sized LX/LX Ls, which have no pincushion to counteract the "rolling ball effect".
Armoring.
1. SE. Except for bare metal between the barrels, the SE is covered in a smooth, textured "protein skin" that provides a comfortable and secure grip. The barrels are also covered in armoring.
2. EII. The EII is not fully armored, but has soft rubber pads that cover most of the top and side of each barrel. The armoring can bubble or even peel off after long exposure to the sun or to high humidity. The stubby barrels are bare metal.
3. LX. The LX is fully armored. The armor is similar to the SE's, but harder and darker colored. The armor on top of the bin is smooth with no texture whereas on the rest of the body, it is textured and provides a good grip. Unlike the LX L's softer rubber armoring, it does not scuff easily.
Summary. The choice between the two porros comes down to if you see the infamous SE blackouts (and how well you are able to control them - see Steve's MOLET technique on the other SE thread), or if you are a fan(atic) of sharp edges or the largest FOV, or if you can hold the EII's stubby body steady.
For deep-set eyes like mine, the EII's eyecups are more comfortable, because of they are shorter (they have the same diameter as the SE, in fact, you can interchange them).
The LX's eyecups are the most comfortable for me because they are adjustable, but I need to set them almost as low as the EII's ER to see the entire FOV (~14mm). Users with flatter facial features tell me they are able to see the entire FOV with the LX's eyecups fully extended.
Even though all three bins share that famous "Nikon view," being a midsized roof prism bin, the LX is a different beast altogether.
It focuses much faster than either Nikon porro, gives a more compressed view (i.e., less 3-D effect), and has a noticeably larger image scale than the other two bins. Birds look about 10x-sized at close range. Its robust build makes it nearly indestructible and safe to use in the any kind of weather.
The SE, EII, and LX are all very fine bins, each in their own right, and I enjoyed owning all three.
My advice as always is "try before you buy" if possible to see if you experience the blackouts with the SE, can comfortably hold the stubby EII, and to make sure that you get a good sample LX, with a focuser that is not too fassssst (i.e., the focuser has enough tension to focus precisely w/out overshooting your target).
If you made it through this long post w/out nodding out, give yourself a BF No Prize!
Brock
