tenex
reality-based
They can, but the variation is quite small (typically around f/4) and being afocal instruments, the focal ratio of the objective is unrelated to depth of field.
Last edited:
-
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.
Nikon se 10x42 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Harber8
- Start date
hopster
Well-known member
OK, yes I think I had heard this before somewhere, most likely on one of the threads on this site about comparing 7x and 8x optics.
hopster
Well-known member
I am still considering getting a quality 7x42 (either a secondhand UVHD+ or a new EDG from Japan) to see if I like the extra DOF for my closer range/'in the woods' glass. I recognise the wisdom of what others have said that it should give an easier 3D view with less focusing. The problem is if I like it I'll have to sell the 8x Noctivid to pay for it as I can't justify both - which I don't want to do! Trying not to get tempted but there's only one way to find out. If I get the second hand UVHD+ then at least I'll have 14 days to return it so perhaps that's the wisest option.
Hermann
Well-known member
Not really. The science is clear (and has been clear for a long, long time). A modern summary: Merlitz, Holger (2023): The Binocular Handbook. Function, Performance and Evaluation of Binoculars. Springer: Cham, p. 36-39.
Wishful thinking, self-deception, field-curvature. Happens even to "very knowledgable reviewers" - even though such reviewers should really know that the magnification and the accomodation range determine the DOF of a binocular. And, to a lesser extent, the exit pupil.
It's your own perceived reality.
The SEs are nice ...
This thread made me get my 10x42s out once again.Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
There are a lot of reasons to like a 7x binocular. Greater DOF, less focusing, a steadier image. "Easier 3D view" .... Not sure about that one, unless you get a porro.
Don't sell the Noctivid.
If I were you I'd get a decent, but cheap 6-7x binocular. Say a Nikon Action Extreme 7x35, quite a nice binocular. Or an APM 6.5x32 that is optically better than the Nikon. Try out using lower magnifications. And both are cheap enough to leave them in the car.
Hermann
Last edited:
Having tried my 10x42 side by side with the NL etc at the last Birdfair, I wish I could agree with you there, but alas, fine binocular though it is, today's top alphas leave it behind in FOV and I thought they were slightly ahead in perceived sharpness too. Colour rendition is also more vivid - this I definitely did notice even though it doesn't feature much in my birding. The SE is still a very good binocular but does not really (IMO anyway) give the latest alphas a "run for their money" - nor should one expect it to.
Interesting thoughts on the 8x32 (have not tried that, and fortunately have little desire to as 10x better suits most of my birding). I found the opposite for the Habicht, the 10x40 impressing me more than the 8x30 (though the latter was very good). I'd agree with the chap who commented that the Habicht eyepiece shows its qualities better at 10x than 8x - not the case with 8x and 10x versions of the same model, I know.
I think the advice to get a cheap but optically good 7x has a lot to recommend it. The lower the magnification the easier a binocular tends to be to make (unlike eg 12x50). The Nikon Action 7x35 is ugly and blocky, but really quite remarkably good (and has long eye relief too). If you don't need to use glasses/spectacles an old 7x35 extra wide angle can be a lot of fun (although not as common on this side of the Atlantic).
PS. I don't doubt depth of field in binoculars is supposed to be dictated by magnification alone, but am not totally surprised either that individuals may perceive it differently. In the case of binoculars depth of field perception depends on one's eye accommodation and I wonder whether some binoculars (particularly larger exit pupil) may have an easier view that might allow the eye to utilize its full range of accommodation?
Last edited:
I recently added a 12x50SE, also from CN, and it's growing on me. The two things I didn't expect: the light weight. Only 31 ounces for a 50mm, that is greatly appreciated, it makes it possible for me to wear them comfortably on a neck strap.
Also, grasping the barrels down by the lenses yields a stable view. I think it's easier to hold the wide porro barrels steady vs. a narrower roof. So I got these for astronomy but I've been using them for birds for these two reasons.
Also, grasping the barrels down by the lenses yields a stable view. I think it's easier to hold the wide porro barrels steady vs. a narrower roof. So I got these for astronomy but I've been using them for birds for these two reasons.
Hermann
Well-known member
Well, when I look at the complete package I feel the SE can still compete with the top roofs. Sure, the coatings aren't as good as what's available today, even if you have a late 10x42 (serial number 505xxx). But what you get is a highly competent binocular with relatively low weight and better depth resolution than a typical roof.
With the Habicht things are different: The 10x40 is IMO quite clearly better than the 8x30, and not just because it's much better when viewing against the light. With the SE I think the 8x32 is better than the 10x42 - not much, but a bit. And the 10x42 is IMO better than the 12x50 even though some people may not agree.
I don't think so.
Hermann
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
I also feel I can hold porros better than roofs, especially if the barrels are long enough. This is an interesting aspect that would warrant some further discussion.
Hermann
I have to agree, Hermann, but in my experience (which admittedly is quite limited in terms of porros), I'm not convinced it's as simple as porros vs roofs. 10x35 EII's I can hold rock steady, yet 10x42 Habicht's are crazy nervous and far less composed than higher magnification roofs. x32 NL's I find shaky, yet 10x32 EL's are rock steady, and I'd place the 10x35 EII's and 10x32 EL's level, in terms of my ability to hold them steady.
It's an interesting topic, worthy of its own thread and would probably generate some interesting musings, ponderings and helpful advice.
It's certainly interesting, but there's probably enough individual variation between users that (as with so many things optics related) what works for one may not for another. For instance I've always thought roofs handled better than porros unless the latter were small (eg. 8x30). The further my hands are apart, the less stable I feel they are - if you want to hold a cricket bat or tennis racket really steadily you do it with two hands close together, don't you? I hold roofs in such a way that my thumbs cross underneath the barrels and this makes for a very stable hold. I can definitely hold my 10x40 Dialyt more steadily than the 10x42 Nikon SE (although with familiarity have learned to hold the latter more steadily but the Dialyt roof is steadier, and points much better). More modern roofs eg. the Monarch HG, Meostar etc seem even steadier - no doubt some ergonomic input has gone into shaping and balancing them - and the ones with rearward balance like the SF (especially) and NL are the most effortless yet. But that's my take on things - I don't for a moment doubt others feel very differently.
Large x50 porros like the Docter are particularly unfriendly, and even though with practice they have become much less awkward, I'm always reminded of the late Troubadour saying that holding a porro felt like shaking hands with an alien. I can get along with them (just as well, because I use a couple of these quite regularly!), and think having the eyecups direct to my face provides an extra element of stability, but I don't love their handling, or their weight for that matter. I use them because their performance outweighs (excuse the pun) their disadvantages, but I'd much rather bird with something the size/weight/shape of an 8x32 FL, or a Zeiss West 8x30B (which is almost too small and short - I have to be a little careful my fifth finger doesn't drop in front of the objectives).
PS. Bents - you're welcome to try any of my porros if you're down my way - bring your SRBC if you can!
Large x50 porros like the Docter are particularly unfriendly, and even though with practice they have become much less awkward, I'm always reminded of the late Troubadour saying that holding a porro felt like shaking hands with an alien. I can get along with them (just as well, because I use a couple of these quite regularly!), and think having the eyecups direct to my face provides an extra element of stability, but I don't love their handling, or their weight for that matter. I use them because their performance outweighs (excuse the pun) their disadvantages, but I'd much rather bird with something the size/weight/shape of an 8x32 FL, or a Zeiss West 8x30B (which is almost too small and short - I have to be a little careful my fifth finger doesn't drop in front of the objectives).
PS. Bents - you're welcome to try any of my porros if you're down my way - bring your SRBC if you can!
Hermann
Well-known member
Funny eh? In general, when I've compared 8x and 10x of the same model, higher mag seems to be more demanding - so am not totally surprised you found the 8x32 SE better than the 10x42. But the Habicht 8x30 and 10x40 share the same eyepiece, and we both think the latter is better; I wonder why that's so.
What's your opinion of the 8x30 vs 10x50 Zeiss Jena porros? I owned an 8x30 Jenoptem some years ago but was never able to compare it to a 10x50. With the Zeiss West porros I think the 10x50 is maybe better than my 8x30 non-B, but mainly in brightness or at least perceived brightness.
This sounds rather like you're implying the SE has better depth of field?
The Nikon Action EX 7x35 is excellent optically, but just like the Habicht or any waterproof porro the focuser is god awful tight. I agree that the SE is very good for its vintage, but it doesn't compete with the newer roofs in contrast because coatings have advanced so much since it was made. I sold my new Nikon 8x30 E2 because even though it had a huge FOV, and it was fairly bright, it didn't have the pop and contrast of my Nikon HG 8x42. Probably the only porro that really competes with newer alpha roofs in contrast and brightness is the Habicht because its coatings have been updated by Swarovski to the latest and greatest.
I think Herman is referring to the better stereopsis that a porro has because of the wider objective spacing in relation to the oculars. DOF is determined by magnification, visual accommodation and diameter of the effective exit pupil.Funny eh? In general, when I've compared 8x and 10x of the same model, higher mag seems to be more demanding - so am not totally surprised you found the 8x32 SE better than the 10x42. But the Habicht 8x30 and 10x40 share the same eyepiece, and we both think the latter is better; I wonder why that's so.
What's your opinion of the 8x30 vs 10x50 Zeiss Jena porros? I owned an 8x30 Jenoptem some years ago but was never able to compare it to a 10x50. With the Zeiss West porros I think the 10x50 is maybe better than my 8x30 non-B, but mainly in brightness or at least perceived brightness.
This sounds rather like you're implying the SE has better depth of field?
Hermann
Well-known member
No idea actually. BTW, optically the 7x42 is even better except for its small FOV.
Zeiss Jena: I find the 10x50 Jenoptem/Dekarem better than the 8x30 Jenoptem/Deltrintem. I find the eyepieces of the 10x50 nicer in use, and the 10x50 has got less veiling glare. They are both sharp though.
The Zeiss West porros: The one I like best ist the 8x50B, it has got IMO the best coatings and is a very nice binocular all around. 10x50 vs. 8x30 (non-B, Erfle eyepieces): I find them quite similar, but the 10x50 is quite something with its large FOV. It also has no CA I can see, Zeiss called their objectives "semi-apochromatic" for a reason. But the only one I occasionally use nowadays is the 8x50B. I really like that pair.
Stereopsis. Dennis got that right. I used "better depth resolution" with a reason ...This sounds rather like you're implying the SE has better depth of field?
It's the term Holger uses in his book to describe stereopsis.Hermann
I ain't read Holger's book. I didn't figures I was gona ta learn anything that I don't already knows.No idea actually. BTW, optically the 7x42 is even better except for its small FOV.
Zeiss Jena: I find the 10x50 Jenoptem/Dekarem better than the 8x30 Jenoptem/Deltrintem. I find the eyepieces of the 10x50 nicer in use, and the 10x50 has got less veiling glare. They are both sharp though.
The Zeiss West porros: The one I like best ist the 8x50B, it has got IMO the best coatings and is a very nice binocular all around. 10x50 vs. 8x30 (non-B, Erfle eyepieces): I find them quite similar, but the 10x50 is quite something with its large FOV. It also has no CA I can see, Zeiss called their objectives "semi-apochromatic" for a reason. But the only one I occasionally use nowadays is the 8x50B. I really like that pair.
Stereopsis. Dennis got that right. I used "better depth resolution" with a reason ...
Hermann
Last edited:
normjackson
Well-known member
Think Hermann already guessed you don't read books. How about making an offer on something like this? Make sure you get one to match your type...well past its sell-by date.I ain't read Holger's book. I didn't figures I was gona ta learn anything that I don't already knows.
It's true about the steadiness of binoculars - how can you possibly predict it? It's different for everyone. I have theorized (always dangerous) that the 12x50 SE wide barrel spacing increases the angular momentum (torque?) necessary to move them, so my shaking hands have less effect?? Similar to a catamaran being more stable than a traditional monohull sailboat
*10x40, of course.
Yes, we must make this happen. Which format of SRBC, 10x42?