Nikon SE 8x32 vs. Zeiss Victory FL 7x42 T* ??? (1 Viewer)

[henry link]

Dennis,

I have other fish to fry so this will be my last effort to convince you of anything on these subjects.

The photos below show the exit pupils and interiors of two binoculars dealing with a difficult lighting situation. Both were tripod mounted and aimed at the same spot in the sky about 30 degrees from an overhead sun. On the left is a Nikon 8x32 SE and on the right a Zeiss 8x56 FL. Which do you think has better baffling and resistance to stray light?

Edit: I should mention that all of the alarming looking reflections within the prisms of the SE are not very important. They raise the level of scattered light inside the binocular a bit, but in use some are masked by the eyepiece fieldstop. Even the ones that aren't masked are much larger than the pupil size of the eye, so they never actually enter the eye. The reflection that matters is the narrow ring around the exit pupil. That can send stray light into the eye under the right conditions and cause veiling glare.

 

[mooreorless]

Hi Henry, Thanks for taking the time to post this. Very interesting pictures. I see why you keep the Zeiss.
Regards,Steve

 

[kristoffer]

very funny that stray light suddenly is the most import optic factor on bf

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,

I have other fish to fry so this will be my last effort to convince you of anything on these subjects.

The photos below show the exit pupils and interiors of two binoculars dealing with a difficult lighting situation. Both were tripod mounted and aimed at the same spot in the sky about 30 degrees from an overhead sun. On the left is a Nikon 8x32 SE and on the right a Zeiss 8x56 FL. Which do you think has better baffling and resistance to stray light?

Edit: I should mention that all of the alarming looking reflections within the prisms of the SE are not very important. They raise the level of scattered light inside the binocular a bit, but in use some are masked by the eyepiece fieldstop. Even the ones that aren't masked are much larger than the pupil size of the eye, so they never actually enter the eye. The reflection that matters is the narrow ring around the exit pupil. That can send stray light into the eye under the right conditions and cause veiling glare.

HenrY
I don't see how glare could be caused by that narrow ring around the exit pupil. It would seem to me it would be a very rare occasion when stray light would enter there. It's almost like it is not showing a full exit pupil on the SE. The ring is also visible on the Zeiss photo.
You must be retired Henry! Where on earth do you get time to do stuff like this? Two binoculars on tripods taking interior photos of their exit pupils. Wow! You definitely are an asset to Bird Forum. Not too many people have time to do stuff like that. Interesting photos though. You obviously like Zeiss. If I attack them I know you will come forward to defend them! Do you have all these pictures on file or did you just do the Nikon SE and Zeiss comparison?

Dennis

 

[Jonathan B.]

Henry
That narrow ring around the exit pupil is way beyond the size of the exit pupil of the eye and could not possibly cause glare because you will never see it! Really these photos prove nothing about the glare resistance of either binocular because what you are looking at in the pictures has no relationship to what the eye is actually seeing. It is a nice study on what a binocular looks like inside but is not relevant to their actual performance.

Dennis

I think the only problem here is that Henry knows what he's talking about, and you don't have a clue. What is the "exit pupil of the eye"? Is that where light leaks back into the brain behind the eyeball?

 

[npos]

The photos below show the exit pupils and interiors of two binoculars dealing with a difficult lighting situation..

That is informative, and thanks. I would like to see an ocular image of the 8x42 FL.

I worshipped at the shrine of the Nikon SE 8x for nine years, but moved on recently to an 8x42 FL model, enjoy its easy and relaxed view, and rarely think about the old Nikon. (Of course, the larger "exit pupil" helps.) The SE makes a good loaner for my birding groups.

NP

 

[jaymoynihan]

for technical data, please see the attachment. ...They are not discontinued.

Thank you for posting that information. I will search around more to find a place in the U.S. that sells them.

 

[[email protected]]

I think the only problem here is that Henry knows what he's talking about, and you don't have a clue. What is the "exit pupil of the eye"? Is that where light leaks back into the brain behind the eyeball?

I was a little vague on my terminology. It really seems to me it would be a rare occasion that glare could be caused by this aberation. I guess it is possible.

Dennis

 

[Jonathan B.]

I was a little vague on my terminology. It really seems to me it would be a rare occasion that glare could be caused by this aberation. I guess it is possible.

Dennis

Hi Dennis

Henry has probably forgotten more about binoculars than I will ever know, and I respect Ed's contributions here and on Cloudy Nights equally as much. I think all sorts of analyses and measurements are done in different contexts, so I believe it is possible for Ed and Henry to say things that appear on the surface to be contradictory, while in reality they would agree on particulars.

Take for example the group of binoculars to which Ed compared the SE. The SE was undoubtedly at the high end of price range for them, and was likely one of the most highly corrected in all regards. In the context of that group, all of Ed's comments about the SE are correct. And some of his comments about the SE may be correct outside of that context.

Now take Henry's comments about the SE, which you construed to be contrary to Ed's. In Henry's case, he is thinking of the SE in the context of everything he has ever handled, and that includes all of the most expensive and highly refined optics ever made. Some were designed for astronomical use and have less field curvature. Others exhibit better suppression of stray light. Still others would exhibit other features that might be better than on an SE.

But the bottom line is that, as Henry said in his last post, the aberrations, or defects, or whatever else we might tend to call them, are inconsequential or imperceptible when looking through the binoculars. You, Ed, Henry, I, and many, many other people (let's not forget John Traynor) consider the SE a masterpiece.

After using mine for nine years, I am still blown away by the view every time I put it up to my eyes. Is it perfect? No. Do I care? No. Will I ever look through a binocular that--to my eyes--offers a better image? I doubt it, but if I do, I will want to buy it.

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Dennis

Henry has probably forgotten more about binoculars than I will ever know, and I respect Ed's contributions here and on Cloudy Nights equally as much. I think all sorts of analyses and measurements are done in different contexts, so I believe it is possible for Ed and Henry to say things that appear on the surface to be contradictory, while in reality they would agree on particulars.

Take for example the group of binoculars to which Ed compared the SE. The SE was undoubtedly at the high end of price range for them, and was likely one of the most highly corrected in all regards. In the context of that group, all of Ed's comments about the SE are correct. And some of his comments about the SE may be correct outside of that context.

Now take Henry's comments about the SE, which you construed to be contrary to Ed's. In Henry's case, he is thinking of the SE in the context of everything he has ever handled, and that includes all of the most expensive and highly refined optics ever made. Some were designed for astronomical use and have less field curvature. Others exhibit better suppression of stray light. Still others would exhibit other features that might be better than on an SE.

But the bottom line is that, as Henry said in his last post, the aberrations, or defects, or whatever else we might tend to call them, are inconsequential or imperceptible when looking through the binoculars. You, Ed, Henry, I, and many, many other people (let's not forget John Traynor) consider the SE a masterpiece.

After using mine for nine years, I am still blown away by the view every time I put it up to my eyes. Is it perfect? No. Do I care? No. Will I ever look through a binocular that--to my eyes--offers a better image? I doubt it, but if I do, I will want to buy it.

Without a doubt the Zeiss FL's are some of the best roof prism binoculars made. What is almost comical about this whole discussion is that we are comparing a $500.00 binocular to a $2000.00 binocular. That alone has to say something for the Nikon SE and the porro-prism design. The thread started with the statement that my Nikon SE is just as sharp as my Zeiss 7x42 FL's. WOW! Think about that. A binocular that is 1/4 of the cost of the Zeiss and a 32mm versus a 42mm could even be compared is amazing! Thats why I defend the Nikon SE's. I feel they are a remarkable bargain for the view they provide. I mean if your not using them on a boat and you don't bird in the rain for way less money you are getting a view comparable to the Zeiss FL and in some respects superior. Really the view with the 3D effect can't be matched by any roof prism.The view is so natural it is amazing.

Dennis

 

[ronh]

NP,
I'm a new 8x42 FL owner and I know what you mean. If you hold your bino up to the sky and hold your head back and look at the eye lens, you will see there are two extra points of light that do not belong. Fortunately, these are far enough outside the exit pupil that if the eye is correctly positioned, this scattered light will not enter the eye, and not be a problem. I am surprised that Henry's 8x56 did not show this effect, because I guessed it was an artifact that came with the unusual Abbe-Koenig prisms.

In use, I find that when looking near the sun, light falling onto the interior of the barrel can be seen around the edge of the view. But, if one looks at the center of the field, the scattered light never "washes" over the view like in other binoculars I have used. So, in a way that doesn't matter much, scattered light in the 8x42 FL might be said to be somewhat bad. In normal use, however, it turns out to be extremely good in this regard.

I am not lucky enough to own an 8x32 SE too, but the output ends of my big monster Fujinon FMT-SXs look just like Henry's photo of the SE. The large exit pupil of the 7x50 keeps the surrounding scattered light pattern out of the eye. The 10x50 and 16x70 suffer from scattered light pretty bad. Bad is relative, but this is a pet peeve for me. I'd guess from Henry's photo of the SE, that I would find the 8x32 SE annoying in that way, with its 4mm exit pupil. Not a nice thing to say, in "church".
Ron

Henry,
I would bet you have a very fine camera, but that is another story. Your photos show us some useful things to look for, visually. Thanks.
Ron

 

[mooreorless]

Thank you for posting that information. I will search around more to find a place in the U.S. that sells them.

Hi Jay, If I remember right Henry L likes the GA model of these Swarovski porro binocular. The eyecups are "better" or more comfortable.
Regards,Steve

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Without a doubt the Zeiss FL's are some of the best roof prism binoculars made. What is almost comical about this whole discussion is that we are comparing a $500.00 binocular to a $2000.00 binocular. That alone has to say something for the Nikon SE and the porro-prism design. The thread started with the statement that my Nikon SE is just as sharp as my Zeiss 7x42 FL's. WOW! Think about that. A binocular that is 1/4 of the cost of the Zeiss and a 32mm versus a 42mm could even be compared is amazing! Thats why I defend the Nikon SE's. I feel they are a remarkable bargain for the view they provide. I mean if your not using them on a boat and you don't bird in the rain for way less money you are getting a view comparable to the Zeiss FL and in some respects superior. Really the view with the 3D effect can't be matched by any roof prism.The view is so natural it is amazing.

It doesn't say much about the porro prism design it says something about the overall attention to good optical design and excellent construction of both bins.

There is nothing that makes porros better (despite your protestations) they're just two optical systems with two different inversion systems. You have to put more effort (and expense) to make a roof of the same quality but the resulting package is easier to waterproof, has better grip ergonomics for most people with less shake, is lighter and is more robust. You could do something similar with porros with internal focusing but they're just not made (for a variety of reasons).

Both Zeiss/Leica roofs and the Nikon SE sold for about the same price initially but now the price of the "top bins" continues to increase but the decade old porros have dropped in price from around $1000 to around $400 (supply and demand in the porros case). That does make the SE a good deal from an optical standpoint but it falls down on the others.

My recent glare testing showed the Nikon SE 8x32 to be rather worse with veiling glare than the Zeiss FL 7x42 and the older Zeiss Victory 8x40 (which is overall a worse bin than the SE if you are just considering view).

I like porros and roofs. I use both. But fore me the view (sharpness/brightness/contrast) is not the only consideration. There are plenty of other considerations. At heart all bins are compromises and its up to the user to pick the compromises that work for them. But your set of compromises are not the ones everyone would agree with.

BTW, I'll be using a Nikon SE 10x42 over the winter in the PNW without any babying. I'm curious how much "over-babying" we do with our not waterproof porros. But I don't plan on dropping them in water. I could do that with my Zeiss roofs.

Oh, and picking a Tasco porro versus a Zeiss FL ... I know which one I'd pick. And it's not just the brand name that's different.

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the link, Dennis. I've read Ed's reviews.

Notice that Ed doesn't actually measure field curvature in those reviews. Anybody, including you, can measure the field curvature of the 8x32 SE quite easily, because the right eyepiece diopter adjustment hash marks are at approximately 1 diopter increments. To measure the field curvature simply place an object at the bottom edge of the field of the right side and carefully focus using only the right eye. Then, still using only the right eye, move the object to the center and carefully refocus using the diopter adjustment ring, not the center focus knob. Now count how many hash marks difference there is between focus at the edge and focus at the center.

I used the word "fine" for the excellent Nikon coatings just to indicate that the coatings are no problem. What limits the 8x32 SE's resistance to stray light is a partly unbaffled objective edge. The photo below shows the exit pupil of an 8x32 SE taken at twilight. The binocular is pointing into dark foliage with skylight coming from above and to the right. The bright crescent of reflection at the lower left edge of the exit pupil comes from the exposed objective cell. That much reflection is not so bad compared to most binoculars, but it's not superior either. The Nikon 8x30 EII has a better baffled objective than the 8x32 SE and consequently shows less veiling glare under the same conditions of stray light.

Actually Ed does measure field curvature in his review. After e-mailing him this was his testing method for field curvature and his results for the Nikon 8x32 SE. I like his methodology because he is actually referring to a resolution chart or double star to see if the binocular is in focus at the different points he is testing to judge the field curvature. He seems to think the Nikon SE tests pretty good and he has tested 70 binoculars! Here is his quote:

"Using a resolution chart, or double stars at night.
Focus on best possible resolution dead center and record.
Move target to positions at various places in the fov, for instance 40% out, 60% out, 80% out from center.
Read resolution again and record. Then refocus at that same position and read resolution again.
The difference between the two readings at each position gives a record of the curvature, since curvature is the ONLY aberration that can be removed by refocusing.

The 8x32 SE has almost no curvature, one of the lowest of over 70 binoculars that I’ve tested. It ranks among the top 5."

edz


Dennis

 

[edz]

Thanks for the link, Dennis. I've read Ed's reviews.

Notice that Ed doesn't actually measure field curvature in those reviews. Anybody, including you, can measure the field curvature of the 8x32 SE quite easily, because the right eyepiece diopter adjustment hash marks are at approximately 1 diopter increments. To measure the field curvature simply place an object at the bottom edge of the field of the right side and carefully focus using only the right eye. Then, still using only the right eye, move the object to the center and carefully refocus using the diopter adjustment ring, not the center focus knob. Now count how many hash marks difference there is between focus at the edge and focus at the center.

Henry, actually I do measure field curvature. I simply don't report it like you do. You report it in diopters. I actually measure it in the amount of aberration that can be removed from the view, in arcseconds. Arcseconds aberration seems a much more useful indicator to me, and that's how I've been reporting this aberration (and others) for many years now. I'll explain further below.

Frankly Henry, the Nikon SE 8x32 has one of the lowest recorded readings of total aberration I've ever seen in any binocular. And the curvature is only a small percentage of the total aberration. Certainly in the top ten of over 70 binoculars, and IIRC, as for curvature, in the top 5.
10/36 = 10 arcseconds curvature at 50% out out of a total 36 arcsec total aberrations
15/50 arcseconds at 70% out
20/60 arcseconds at 90% out.

As I said above, I measure in arcseconds, since everything we see in the view is either measured in arcsec or arcmin. It's the same parameter I've been using to report aberrations in all binoculars and in fact in all telescope eyepieces (I've also tested and written reviews on perhaps 30 to 40 eyepieces) for many years. This allows a user (mostly astronomers that I report too) to judge whether or not there is enough error correction availbale (by refocus) to clearly see that object such as a double star in their target window. Arcseconds correction is a value they can relate too.

An example: Nu Draco, a perfectly even magnitude double star separated by almost exactly 1 arcminute, (60 arcseconds), would not be seen as two stars in the Nikon SE 8x32 at 90% out, as the total binocular aberration is 60 arcseconds and the pair appears blended into one blob. However, with the ability to focus out 20 arcseconds of curvature, you can indeed see Nu Draco at 90% out in the 8x32, since Nu Draco is a 60 arcsec pair of stars, and after focusing out the curvature, there is only 40 arcseconds of residual aberration. That extra 20 arcseconds that can be focused out allows you to see the pair. Not sure anyone would be able to interpret the data with a reference given in diopters.

the only binoculars I seen that even come close or better than the correction of the SE 8x32 are
Nikon SE 12x50
Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50
Celestron Regal 8x42 Roof
Nikon ProStar 7x50
a few others that come pretty close are
Zen Ray Summit 10x42
Leupold WRMesa 10x50
Fujinon FMT-SX 10x70
Nikon Action Extreme 12x50

One of the benefits I have of using this method is, not only can I tell you the position and extent of curvature, but also, I can tell you the extent of the residual aberrations in the view. For instance, the Celestron Regal, a binocular with a field flattener lens has 25 arcsec curvature at 90% out out of 50 arcseconds total aberration. (Note this is significant. Even with a field flattener lens it has more curvature than the SE 8x32). At 90% out, exactly half the error is due to curvature. The other half is due to any combination of coma, astigmatism and spherical aberration, although at only 25 arcsec residual aberration that is very very small error.

FWIW, binoculars with very little curvature (just at the point of maximum 90% out from center) have 20 to 50 arcseconds of curvature. 20 is the lowest I've ever measured (at 90% out). Binoculars with moderate curvature have 50 to 100 arcseconds of curvature. Binoculars with lots of curvature have 100 to 150 arcseconds curvature. 150 is the most curvature I've ever measured.

just another note, although I have no idea if the tic marks on any particular binocular actually do correspond to 1 diopter, I do know that there is often inconsistency between brands. For instance without my eyeglasses on some binoculars my right eye requires an adjustment of 2 tic marks, while 5 tic marks on others. It's not my eye that is causing the difference. Obviously they are not both giving diopters per each tic mark. Furthermore, some binoculars don't have any tic marks at all, just a + or - sign. So I don't rely on the tic marks as a reliable indicator. That's another advantage of actually measuring the degree of arcseconds error in the image, rather than in tic marks. There is no assurance that the tic marks represent diopters, so there is no assurance that any two binoculars can ever be compared. Whereas, measuring arcseconds of error in the image provides the same real measure for any binoculars, and then they can all be compared.

edz

 

[ronh]

Thanks, Ed. I like your method, because it takes the little marks on the eyepieces out of the equation. But it is a lot of work.

I believe my Fujinons' eyepieces are marked in diopters, however, simply because the settings for infinity focus agree well with my eyeglass prescription. They are at least very close.

Having used the 10x42 SE, which seems to share eyepieces and objective focal ratios with the 8x32 and 12x50, and hence should have the same field correction, it is hard for me to believe that there is 3D of curvature there. It is one the very best edge-corrected binos I have ever looked through.

For example, my Fujinon 7x50 measures 2D, Henry's way, and it is nowhere near as sharp at the edge as the SE, to my remarkably unaccomodating eyesight. In fact, this "gift" makes me very talented at evaluating curvature. Almost all of the 7x50's edge blur can be removed by focusing. So, that's my benchmark of what 2D of curvature looks like.
Ron

 

[ronh]

Hi gang, me again.

Dennis said
"WOW! Think about that. A binocular that is 1/4 of the cost of the Zeiss and a 32mm versus a 42mm could even be compared is amazing!"

Au contraire. What is amazing is that, with the FL and its ilk, roofs have at last pulled up even with porros, optically. Granted, this is partly due to the use of ED glass, and the Porro makers could fight back if it was only economically profitable, but I can't see it happening. The Age of Apology is over.
Ron

 

[edz]

Thanks, Ed. I like your method, because it takes the little marks on the eyepieces out of the equation. But it is a lot of work.

I believe my Fujinons' eyepieces are marked in diopters, however, simply because the settings for infinity focus agree well with my eyeglass prescription. They are at least very close.

Having used the 10x42 SE, which seems to share eyepieces and objective focal ratios with the 8x32 and 12x50, and hence should have the same field correction, it is hard for me to believe that there is 3D of curvature there. It is one the very best edge-corrected binos I have ever looked through.

For example, my Fujinon 7x50 measures 2D, Henry's way, and it is nowhere near as sharp at the edge as the SE, to my remarkably unaccomodating eyesight. In fact, this "gift" makes me very talented at evaluating curvature. Almost all of the 7x50's edge blur can be removed by focusing. So, that's my benchmark of what 2D of curvature looks like.
Ron

The Nikon SE 10x42 has the most curvature of the three, the 8x32, the 10x42 and the 12x50. But still it is very well controlled. I probably should have included the 10x42 in my short list above of others that are very close to the 8x32, since it has low overall total aberration, however it has twice the amount of curvature at 70% out and three times as much as the 8x32 at 90%, so I felt it wasn't close enough.
Nikon SE 10x42 15/20 at 50% , 30/45 at 70% , 60/75 at 90%
15/20 = 15 arcsec curvature out of 20 arcsec total aberration. Therefore residiual aberration is a scant 5 arcsec. But note curvature at 90% out is 60 arcseconds as compared to the 8x32 which has only 20 arcsec error due to curvature at 90% out.

Since it was stated above that using the diopter method seems to indicate the 8x32 has 3D of curvature and since I know the 10x42 has three times as much actual curvature error, unless the diopter method produces a result of 9 diopters of curvature error in the 10x42, then it would seem to indicate to me that taking a diopter reading in an unreliable criteria for classifying amount of curvature error in the image. I doubt that anyone could measure 9 diopters in the 10x42. yet the curvature error in arcseconds is unmistakably 60 compared to 20, 3x that of the 8x32. Could it be that the diopter method does not quantifiy the amount of optical error (in arcseconds) removed by each diopter. How many diopters of error would show in binoculars where I've recorded 120 arcseconds of curvature error, 18 diopters? Or is the 3D stated above an inadvertant error?

the Nikon Prostar 7x50 is a binocular that exhibits no residual aberrations at all. All the error that shows can be focused out, meaning it is all curvature.
Nikon Prostar 7x50 22/22 at 50% , 22/22 at 70% , 22/22 at 90%
No other binocular I've ever seen exhibits that quality.

edz

 

[edz]

To measure the field curvature simply place an object at the bottom edge of the field of the right side and carefully focus using only the right eye. Then, still using only the right eye, move the object to the center and carefully refocus using the diopter adjustment ring, not the center focus knob. Now count how many hash marks difference there is between focus at the edge and focus at the center.

Henry, stop and think about this for a second. this does NOT measure curvature.

Curvature is the only aberration that can be focused out. When you placed the object at the field edge and focused, at that point you focused out all the curvature that was present. What you then measured by returning to the center and measuring tic marks to return to best focus is the difference between focused at edge and focused at center, and that is a measurement of "all other" residual aberrations "without" curvature.

To get a reading of the curvature, focus in center, then move to field edge. Then refocus to best focus at field edge. Since only the curvature can be focused out, then the difference in dial turn to refocus at edge to best focus gives the degree of curvature.

edz

 

[henry link]

Too much here for me to read, much less respond to right now. So I'll just hit a few of the high spots starting with Ed's last post.

It doesn't matter at all whether you focus at the edge or the center first. I do it both ways. You're simply following the same curve from different directions. Either way the focus difference between best focus at the edge (midpoint between tangential and sagittal foci) and best focus at the center will have exactly the same value expressed in diopters.

I didn't concoct my own units of measurements for expressing field curvature. I use the industry standard. Ed's personal system neither conforms to that standard nor can I see any way his numbers can be converted to diopters to bring them into conformity.

I don't assume the hash marks on eyepieces are accurate 1D increments. I measure them using a sizable collection of reading glasses ranging from +1.25D to 3D. Like Ron I have virtually no focus accomodation. BTW, Ron, I'll post Fujinon's plot of the astigmatism and field curvature of the 7x50 FMT-SX if you don't already have it.

Finally, I've probably measured the field curvature of the 8x32 SE at least 100 times in the last few years using stars, artificial stars, USAF chart, etc. I did it about 20 more times just now using an artificial star and the USAF chart just to please you guys. As always with visual work there are occasional outlying results of as little as 2D and as much as 4D, but most of the time the measurements cluster right around 3D.

Henry