Nikon 10x42 HG: not satisfied (1 Viewer)

[Chhayanat]

I stay in Africa. I got a pair of Nikon 10x42 LX (HG)roof prism glasses (older model) from the USA. They have the so-called “no fault warranty” but my impression is that they are used and refurbished. Optics are unmarked and the exterior is as new. I wear glasses and have mild astigmatism which is corrected. There is no organic problem with my eyes.

2. I found the Nikons them below my expectations for the following reasons:

i) A Pentax 8x42 WP (older model) is equally bright (which I can accept owing to the magnification-objective ratio) but the glasses are less bright and have inferior resolution than even comparable glasses: there was a direct comparison with a Swarovski EL 10x42; no Leicas are available here.

ii) Nikons have mild “rolling eye distortion”. I did not expect this in a HG roof prism glasses.

iii) Strictly subjective impression is that horizontals are sharper than verticals: say in trees with splayed branches and hanging seed pods. Consequently, my impression is that I do not see enough detail in birds which mostly perch semi-vertically.

iv) When watching birds with black heads (crows, common bulbuls) at approx. 15 metres, the black eye and head seem to merge. Eye can be seen only when direct light falls on the bird.

v) Watching objects with the sun behind them shows mild flaring. I cannot see the much-dreaded chromatic aberration.

vi) Overall I find I am just short of “being there” when I look at a bird. I would have ascribed it to unfamiliarity with the Nikon view but the comparison with a Swarovski of equal specs compelled me to write this.

3. I look forward to advice from forum members on the following lines:

i) Is there something wrong with the binoculars? If so, what?

ii) What should I ask Nikon USA to look out for specifically when I send these for servicing? Just sending them to Nikon may well result in their saying that they measured the binoculars and found them “up to spec”.

 

[Pileatus]

I stay in Africa. I got a pair of Nikon 10x42 LX (HG)roof prism glasses (older model) from the USA. They have the so-called “no fault warranty” but my impression is that they are used and refurbished. Optics are unmarked and the exterior is as new. I wear glasses and have mild astigmatism which is corrected. There is no organic problem with my eyes.

2. I found the Nikons them below my expectations for the following reasons:

i) A Pentax 8x42 WP (older model) is equally bright (which I can accept owing to the magnification-objective ratio) but the glasses are less bright and have inferior resolution than even comparable glasses: there was a direct comparison with a Swarovski EL 10x42; no Leicas are available here.

ii) Nikons have mild “rolling eye distortion”. I did not expect this in a HG roof prism glasses.

iii) Strictly subjective impression is that horizontals are sharper than verticals: say in trees with splayed branches and hanging seed pods. Consequently, my impression is that I do not see enough detail in birds which mostly perch semi-vertically.

iv) When watching birds with black heads (crows, common bulbuls) at approx. 15 metres, the black eye and head seem to merge. Eye can be seen only when direct light falls on the bird.

v) Watching objects with the sun behind them shows mild flaring. I cannot see the much-dreaded chromatic aberration.

vi) Overall I find I am just short of “being there” when I look at a bird. I would have ascribed it to unfamiliarity with the Nikon view but the comparison with a Swarovski of equal specs compelled me to write this.

3. I look forward to advice from forum members on the following lines:

i) Is there something wrong with the binoculars? If so, what?

ii) What should I ask Nikon USA to look out for specifically when I send these for servicing? Just sending them to Nikon may well result in their saying that they measured the binoculars and found them “up to spec”.

1. Where did you buy the binocular?
2. Have you looked into each lens with a flashlight? If it's been used, there may be a problem inside.
3. Did you check collimation?

Assuming both lenses are clean and the bin is properly collimated, the only thing left is to carefully check your diopter and IPD settings. An error in either can seriously degrade the final image.

Good luck!

John

PS
I see you've had this problem since July and that they are used.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=375162&postcount=29

 

[Chhayanat]

I am studying the flashlight methodology from this website and will revert after carrying out the tests. Thanks
Chhayanat

1. Where did you buy the binocular?
2. Have you looked into each lens with a flashlight? If it's been used, there may be a problem inside.
3. Did you check collimation?

Assuming both lenses are clean and the bin is properly collimated, the only thing left is to carefully check your diopter and IPD settings. An error in either can seriously degrade the final image.

Good luck!

John

PS
I see you've had this problem since July and that they are used.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=375162&postcount=29

 

[Chhayanat]

I must state that there is no obvious flaw I can pinpoint. It's just that I expected a little more, even from a used or refurbished HG binocular. I did some checks for collimation in the past and found nothing earthshaking. I shall study the flashlight and collimation methodology from this website and will revert after carrying out the tests. Should take a few days. Thanks.
Chhayanat

1. Where did you buy the binocular?
2. Have you looked into each lens with a flashlight? If it's been used, there may be a problem inside.
3. Did you check collimation?

Assuming both lenses are clean and the bin is properly collimated, the only thing left is to carefully check your diopter and IPD settings. An error in either can seriously degrade the final image.

Good luck!

John

PS
I see you've had this problem since July and that they are used.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=375162&postcount=29

 

[Chhayanat]

I must state that there is no obvious flaw I can pinpoint. It's just that I expected a little more, even from a used or refurbished HG binocular. I did some checks for collimation in the past and found nothing earthshaking. I shall study the flashlight and collimation methodology from this website and will revert after carrying out the tests. Should take a few days. Thanks.
Chhayanat

Nikon 10x42 HG older version. Flashlight test showed no significant dust. Collimation test of horizontal and vertical alignment showed no significant difference from Pentax 8x42 WP cited above. Had chance to check against heavy field (safari) use Swarovski 10x42 EL. Impressions: (i) Swarovski has more depth of field (ii) Nikon distinctly brighter and yellower (iii) Swarovski image flatter (iv) Nikon showed rolling ball distortion when scrolling hills at 800 metres distance.

I am 52 with myopia astigmatism bifocals. Another observer aged 18 with myopia and astigmatism said he found Nikon superior to Swarovski! Nevertheless, since I am the user, Nikon will have to do some exercise as I suspect there is a very minor maladjustment somewhere which needs doing.

Option to compare with identical Nikon absent. Request 10x42 HG users to chip in with advice on following: (i) Whether significant pincushion or barrel distortion noticed on scrolling? (ii) Whether slight difficulty in resolving vertical objects noticed beyond 20 metres? (iii) Any problems with flare?
Best wishes
Chhayanat

 

[Buster]

It sounds to me like there might be a problem with your individual binos. I have a pair of 10x42 Nikon Venturer/LX's that I bought brand new from Cameraland 3 or 4 years ago and they're absolutely fantastic glass. The only drawback is the weight, but even it's not unbearable with a good strap or harness system.

Since owning the 10x42 Nikon's, I've also had the priviledge of owning 8x32, 8x42, and 10x42 Leica Trinovids; two pair of Swarovski 10x42 EL's (bought the second pair just to confirm my dissapointment in the first!), 8x30 Swarovski SLC's; Pentax 8x43 and 10x43 DCF SP's, and all I can say is they're all down the road and the Nikon 10x42's remain my go-to glass....

To me, the Leica Trinovids offer at least as good a view as the Nikon's, but I don't like their ergonomics. I was disspointed in the EL's and I can't imagine anyone spending $1800.00 on them! My Nikons are brighter and show better resolution and were less than half the cost. The 8x30 SLC's are a nice package overall, but I couldn't get used to the position of the focus wheel. The Pentax DCF SP's are simply a bargain for what they offer....

 

[Chhayanat]

It sounds to me like there might be a problem with your individual binos. I have a pair of 10x42 Nikon Venturer/LX's that I bought brand new from Cameraland 3 or 4 years ago and they're absolutely fantastic glass... the Nikon 10x42's remain my go-to glass....

I was disspointed in the EL's and I can't imagine anyone spending $1800.00 on them! My Nikons are brighter and show better resolution and were less than half the cost.....

Thanks. I found your comments helpful. Let's await the results of Nikon's exertions on this 10x42 HG.

 

[Chhayanat]

Thanks. I found your comments helpful. Let's await the results of Nikon's exertions on this 10x42 HG.

10x42HG LX returned. Nikon Inc. of Melville NY state that they have done Service Repair Rank CK , Repair SC800229, Adj. Optical Alignment, General Check and Clean.
2. Results as follows:
i. Impression that glasses are subjectively much brighter than earlier.
ii. Flare suppression has improved dramatically.
iii. Sharpness has improved slightly.
iv. Contrast has improved marginally.
v. Pincushion cushion distortion remains as noticeable as before and is still as disturbing while scrolling. This appears to be a design problem though no reader reported this when I asked in a previous post in this thread if this was the case. There is an oblique reference to this in a post by Zuiko from Australia, though in another thread.

3. I also find that my power of accommodation has deteriorated, thus requiring a few seconds of adjusting the focussing wheel on the 10x42hg before nearer objects focus sharply after having studied objects on the horizon. I also seem to find the overall view through a 10x wide-field porro (CZ Jena 10x50 non-multicoated) more comfortable than through a 10x roof of the order of the 10x42hg. This despite the outstanding performance in different aspects of optics that the 10x42hg evidently possesses (sharpness,brightness,eye relief,resolution) and the Jena porro glass clearly does not. Maybe I should have bought those 8x32SEs in New York five years ago.

 

[Pileatus]

10x42HG LX returned. Nikon Inc. of Melville NY state that they have done Service Repair Rank CK , Repair SC800229, Adj. Optical Alignment, General Check and Clean.
2. Results as follows:
i. Impression that glasses are subjectively much brighter than earlier.
ii. Flare suppression has improved dramatically.
iii. Sharpness has improved slightly.
iv. Contrast has improved marginally.
v. Pincushion cushion distortion remains as noticeable as before and is still as disturbing while scrolling. This appears to be a design problem though no reader reported this when I asked in a previous post in this thread if this was the case. There is an oblique reference to this in a post by Zuiko from Australia, though in another thread.

3. I also find that my power of accommodation has deteriorated, thus requiring a few seconds of adjusting the focussing wheel on the 10x42hg before nearer objects focus sharply after having studied objects on the horizon. I also seem to find the overall view through a 10x wide-field porro (CZ Jena 10x50 non-multicoated) more comfortable than through a 10x roof of the order of the 10x42hg. This despite the outstanding performance in different aspects of optics that the 10x42hg evidently possesses (sharpness,brightness,eye relief,resolution) and the Jena porro glass clearly does not. Maybe I should have bought those 8x32SEs in New York five years ago.

I'm still curious if you bought this binocular from a dealer (as new) or from a second party.

Loss of eye accommodation is certainly frustrating and the only suggestion I can offer is to precisely adjust your diopter, avoid staring, blink often, and periodically close your eyes for 5 seconds. Minimal eye accommodation will also highlight any and all optical shortcomings and may be the reason you are bothered by a "rolling" image when scanning. I saw this effect in a binocular my wife uses, but as soon as I stopped analyzing it I stopped noticing it.

Finally, there's nothing like the image from a good porro!

John

 

[Alexis Powell]

10x42HG LX...
v. Pincushion cushion distortion remains as noticeable as before and is still as disturbing while scrolling. This appears to be a design problem though no reader reported this when I asked in a previous post in this thread if this was the case. There is an oblique reference to this in a post by Zuiko from Australia, though in another thread.

I have a Nikon 10x42HG/LX and find it superb in all respects (sharpness, contrast, color, field flatness, lack of astigmatism) except mass (it is heavy!). I especially appreciate the generous eye-relief compared to other 10x offerings, and the good close-focus (8 feet). However, as you say, the rolling effect in this model is VERY noticeable (more so than any other binocular that I can recollect off-hand). I imagine that if I used this bino exclusively, my brain would become accustomed to the effect and so it would no longer be a bother, but as it happens, I use these only occassionally, thus it never escapes my immediate attention.
--AP

 

[scampo]

I must state that there is no obvious flaw I can pinpoint. It's just that I expected a little more, even from a used or refurbished HG binocular. I did some checks for collimation in the past and found nothing earthshaking. I shall study the flashlight and collimation methodology from this website and will revert after carrying out the tests. Should take a few days. Thanks.
Chhayanat

My brother has this binocular; I have the Swaro 8.5x42. The Nikon is the Swaro's equal optically in my view; in fact, I'd say that field of view apart, the Nikon gives a more "3D" image with a naturalness of colour that beats the Swaro which is a touch cold in comparison.

I'd take your bins to a local dealer of some kind or find out another keen naturalist and ask for some advice.

 

[Chhayanat]

I'm still curious if you bought this binocular from a dealer (as new) or from a second party.

Loss of eye accommodation is certainly frustrating and the only suggestion I can offer is to precisely adjust your diopter, avoid staring, blink often, and periodically close your eyes for 5 seconds. Minimal eye accommodation will also highlight any and all optical shortcomings and may be the reason you are bothered by a "rolling" image when scanning. I saw this effect in a binocular my wife uses, but as soon as I stopped analyzing it I stopped noticing it.

Finally, there's nothing like the image from a good porro!

John

Bought second hand from an individual seller in the United States. Unfortunately, I was - and am - in Africa and did not get a chance to look at it myself before buying it. I would have tried to check the glasses out, otherwise. Can only regret not buying the 8x32se from Adorama in 2001: the difference between it and the Pentax 8x42 WP was apparent even in the shop. The other regret was not buying the CZ Jena Octarem or Nobilem Super when they first appeared in the mid-1980s in Hongkong.I bought the 10x40 Notarem and the multicoated 10x50 Jenoptem.

Thank you for the advice about compensating for loss of accommodation.
Chhayanat

 

[Pileatus]

Bought second hand from an individual seller in the United States. Unfortunately, I was - and am - in Africa and did not get a chance to look at it myself before buying it. I would have tried to check the glasses out, otherwise. Can only regret not buying the 8x32se from Adorama in 2001: the difference between it and the Pentax 8x42 WP was apparent even in the shop. The other regret was not buying the CZ Jena Octarem or Nobilem Super when they first appeared in the mid-1980s in Hongkong.I bought the 10x40 Notarem and the multicoated 10x50 Jenoptem.

Thank you for the advice about compensating for loss of accommodation.
Chhayanat

Chhayanat,

Count your blessings that Nikon fixed it for you. Yesterday, I spoke with a birder using a Leica scope with foggy internals. Leica told him the charge to clean it would be $600 (USD)!

It sounds like Nikon refurbished your binocular and I think you'll really appreciate it after a few months of use. If not, you can always sell it and buy an SE!

Enjoy.

John

 

[Swissboy]

.. Yesterday, I spoke with a birder using a Leica scope with foggy internals. Leica told him the charge to clean it would be $600 (USD)!
John

That sure is no good policy. Is it not a warranty case? I had thought Leica only "tried" to put off customers in Europe.

 

[kabsetz]

Chhayanat,

If you have a good specimen of the 10x50 Jenoptem, it will be inferior to the Nikon HG in terms of brightness and eye-relief, but not in sharpness. When it comes to centerfield resolution, the Jenoptem can easily be just as good as the best modern 42mm roofs. Also, if the eye-relief is not too short for you, the eyepieces are pretty easy on the eye and feel natural to use. For me, the eye-relief is so short, however, that my eyelashes grease up the eyelenses pretty fast. They are also not very bright (especially for their size), not at all water-, fog- or dustproof, and the edges of the very wide field are very soft indeed. Overall, though, a nice example of what good binoculars used to be like 30 years ago.

Kimmo

 

[Pileatus]

Chhayanat,

If you have a good specimen of the 10x50 Jenoptem, it will be inferior to the Nikon HG in terms of brightness and eye-relief, but not in sharpness. When it comes to centerfield resolution, the Jenoptem can easily be just as good as the best modern 42mm roofs. Also, if the eye-relief is not too short for you, the eyepieces are pretty easy on the eye and feel natural to use. For me, the eye-relief is so short, however, that my eyelashes grease up the eyelenses pretty fast. They are also not very bright (especially for their size), not at all water-, fog- or dustproof, and the edges of the very wide field are very soft indeed. Overall, though, a nice example of what good binoculars used to be like 30 years ago.

Kimmo

A few weeks ago I cleaned the filthy eyepieces on a very old Bausch and Lomb porro. I failed to note the model, but it was as sharp in the centerfield as my SE. The eye relief wasn't bad either!

John

 

[henry link]

Yes, center of the field sharpness indisguishable from high quality modern binoculars was accomplished long ago in porros. The image quality of the oldest binocular I own, an uncoated Leitz 8x30 Binuxit from about 1930 is very dim and low contrast, but just as sharp as an excellent modern binocular in the center of the field. I wouldn't be surprised to see that in even the earliest nineteenth century Zeiss porros.