Hi.Hello! So I currently own a pair of Celestron Nature DX 8x42. I'm looking to upgrade. I've been looking at the Nikon Prostaff P7 8x42. The Nikon p7 seems to be pretty good, but do any of you have any other recommendations?
"A Kamakura porro is always a good choice. My Kamakura made "Bresser Condor" 8x30 is one of the sharpest binos I ever looked through. Comparable to the Komz 7x30 BPO without the flat field, however."A Kamakura-porro is always a good choice.
My Kamakura-made "Bresser Condor" 8x30 is one of the sharpest binos I ever looked through. Comparable to the Komz 7x30 BPO without the flat field however.
Considering the original question -- I doubt the Nikon P7 will be much of an improvement over the Celestron Nature DX. The P7 is a horrible piece of plastic junk. On mine the diopter became loose after using them maybe 5 times. It's really completely made of plastic (apart from the lenses). In theory the optics themselves are okay (not great but not bad either) -- but what good is there in that when the bino itself lasts 2 weeks?
I would never again buy anything below a Monarch HG when it comes to Nikon binos. All the low price Nikons aren't worth it, no Aculon, Action EX, Prostaff, etc. They all get outperformed by something as simple as an Opticron Adventurer T WP porro. The cheap Nikon porros like Aculon and Action EX have mediocre coatings and the color rendition of a porro from the 70's without the build quality or sharpness that a good 70's Japanese porro might offer.
I had a pair a few years ago. I think the ER is a little more than the 10 mm as stated because they worked for me. The older WA porros usually don't have a lot of ER. Like the E2, they are not waterproof. They are without a doubt excellent porros for the money. At $250 to $300 probably the best porro you can get. I was trying a slug of older WA porros. It is surprising how sharp some are on-axis, as Binocollector says above, although they soften on the edges like an E2. They are not as bright as the Habicht's because of the older coatings but on-axis they are as sharp.Go for the swift Dennis, and when you get them let me know what pretty good is with 10mm ER.
The Kestrels keep their alignment, as well as, any porro including the SE and E2. The SLC would be better for you if you like a flatter field and sharper edges, like I do, although the SLC does not equal the EL or NL in these areas. That is why I prefer Swarovski's in general. I am suggesting the Kestrel for a good binocular at a price point of $250. It is much better than all the other options like a cheap MIC roof or porro like the APM 6x30. These old porros like the Kestrel have huge FOV's, but they are not flat field and sharp to the edge like a Swarovski, but they do have excellent on-axis sharpness. You have to pay a lot more money for a corrected view because of the complex eyepieces used. I have an NL 8x32 and I don't have any need for a Kestrel. If you want better than a 10 degree corrected flat field with sharp edges, you have to pay $5K for the WX.That is his subjective opinion, (good for him) I am sure the SLC 10X42 would be a much better glass for my eyes.
My opinion is my military porros and I have a few, are solid. These swifts can go out of alignment much easier. They are a nice glass to have in a collection, but for daily use I would pass.
Go for it dennis it is only $299, or maybe offer him $250.00.