• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Nikon WX anyone? (1 Viewer)

CharleyBird

Well-known member
Yup, it appears both magnifications are still available brand-spanking-new; together the two currently cost almost exactly £12k.

Has Nikon ever revealed how many were made?
(If there is only one of each magnification remaining worldwide for sale, then they made... the perfect amount o:D )
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Yup, it appears both magnifications are still available brand-spanking-new; together the two currently cost almost exactly £12k.

Has Nikon ever revealed how many were made?
(If there is only one of each magnification remaining worldwide for sale, then they made... the perfect amount o:D )

1000 of each if my memory is correct, somewhere on the original WX thread.
 
Last edited:

edwincjones

Well-known member
Resurrecting an old yet rather interesting thread to re-read...

What suddenly puzzled me is that both WX are x50.
If the 7x is a 50, why is the 10x not a x56 or 63 or 70?
Or why is the 7x not a x42?

Given the supposedly limitless resources & design possibilities, why do you think both magnifications were produced in a x50 shell?

These continue to appeal to me, knowing that I could have the best 50mm binoculars ever made, and probably still the best in my lifetime;
but I have little practical use for them.
The weight requires a tripod, but if I get the tripod out why not get bigger optics. Even if I could afford, I have almost as good optics for 1/4 to 1/2 the price. Only in my daydreams if I were starting over and had the money, these will fill the 40-70mm size and then I could get a 32mm for hikes and a scope for more magnification-dreams. 8-P
Hopefully there will be a followup later with the quality with more options and not a one time deal.

edj
 

Sebzwo

Well-known member
I have to admit this kind of binoculars makes me dream about owning one. I even decided -in theory- to go for the 10x50. (A bit like dreaming about winning the lottery|:D|)
Many other binoculars, even prestige brands and fancy designs, just feel like standard and stock and don't fascinate like these. I like this true wow factor Nikon achieved with the WX. I prefer this "eternal" quality approach over new bins every other year or two. You pay 2K plus and end up with plastic eyepieces...Skip three generations and better get a single long lasting WX instead. It think you will have more fun.
 
Last edited:

Foss

Well-known member
IDK why Nikon wouldn't keep making WXs. Zeiss' pricey 20x60-S has been around forever and probably never sold in huge numbers.
 

Omid

Well-known member
United States
IDK why Nikon wouldn't keep making WXs. Zeiss' pricey 20x60-S has been around forever and probably never sold in huge numbers.

Because it would be ill-advised for a practically bankrupt optical company to waste its resources on producing a useless piece of conceptual art. The stabilized Zeiss 20X60 is an ingenious invention packaged inside a useful optical instrument.

-Omid
 
Last edited:

Sebzwo

Well-known member
AFAIK Zeiss even pretty much modified those delicate parts inside to some more robust built.
Uses: Onboard ISS is one I know of.
The 20x60 is another bincoluar to dream about for sure.
 
Last edited:

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
What are the uses for the Zeiss 20x60? Do fishing vessels use them?

Hunting / stalking game and astronomy amongst others. Commercial fishing vessels?, perhaps.

Described as a Porro system but with the IS mechanics and protective housing looks like a roof prism binocular.
 

Tringa45

Well-known member
Europe
Because it would be ill-advised for a practically bankrupt optical company to waste its resources on producing a useless piece of conceptual art. The stabilized Zeiss 20X60 is an ingenious invention packaged inside a useful optical instrument.

-Omid

Omid,

Have you actually looked through either of these binoculars? If so, it would be interesting to hear why you consider the Zeiss "useful" and the WX "useless."
Conceptual art is not a term I would have applied to a binocular and IMO no art is useless.
Distinguishing between useful and useless art is an unpleasant reminder of the Nazi concept of "Entartete Kunst."

John
 

CharleyBird

Well-known member
Omid,

Have you actually looked through either of these binoculars? If so, it would be interesting to hear why you consider the Zeiss "useful" and the WX "useless."
Conceptual art is not a term I would have applied to a binocular and IMO no art is useless.
Distinguishing between useful and useless art is an unpleasant reminder of the Nazi concept of "Entartete Kunst."

John

Agreed.

It's actually quite easy to call any binocular useless for such & such, and give a valid reason.
Even the NL ... but I wouldn't want to see someone's head explode;)
 

Omid

Well-known member
United States
Omid,

Have you actually looked through either of these binoculars? If so, it would be interesting to hear why you consider the Zeiss "useful" and the WX "useless."
Conceptual art is not a term I would have applied to a binocular and IMO no art is useless.
John

Hi John,

No, I have not looked through these. But I will make a correction to my statement: a product which is designed by a committee using automatic computer optimization is not a work of art. It should be simply called an "object".

To call something a work of art, there is an implication that some amount of creativity or imagination has been involved. There is no innovation involved in the design of the WX binoculars. It comprises a known eyepiece design, a known prism design and a known objective design. The committee just chose a different set of compromises to feed the optical design software. In patent terminology, such a design is called "obvious".

-Omid
 
Last edited:

wllmspd

Well-known member
There’s a lot to like with the WX, there’s a lot to hate. If you have to have a perfect wife field 10x then they are it. Low power wide field is still an area that others could fill and stabilisation seems to be growing in popularity. The WX do give a very nice window on the world.

Peter
 

Patudo

Well-known member
Still if you ask me Nikon should have done some maritime version of the WX. Sort of a waterproof and armored "U-Boat"-glass. (8x60?) There would have been a market for sure.

I'm not so sure, personally... who would this market be? Submarine captains now have much more advanced systems to detect the enemy than binoculars, and who else would buy them? The fact that Zeiss no longer manufactures the 7x50B Marine suggests that even that legendary (and much less expensive than an 8x60) binocular can no longer pay its way - and in all honesty I can see why shipping companies and mariners, being both practical and frugal people, would prefer a good 7x50 from Japan that is less expensive and still does the job well. So that leaves collectors and, maybe, well heeled astronomers, and how many of those are there?

What are the uses for the Zeiss 20x60? Do fishing vessels use them?

I'd hazard a guess most of those that are actually used (there must be quite a few owned by collectors that are doomed to sleep eternally in their boxes) must be pointed up at the stars. It's hard to imagine most hunters lugging one of these in the field along with all their other kit, or risking the apparently quite delicate gyrostabilizer. Commercial fishing skippers will most likely be using a combination of bird radar and other stabilized marine binoculars eg. Fujinon (not the one denco has been extolling, the proper one) or FV although in some areas like the Maldives no doubt a lot of fish are found by the good old 7x50 in the hands of skilled spotters.

There’s a lot to like with the WX, there’s a lot to hate. If you have to have a perfect wife field 10x then they are it.

Peter

One of those is far more expensive than the WX mate... :king:
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
There’s a lot to like with the WX, there’s a lot to hate. If you have to have a perfect wife field 10x then they are it. Low power wide field is still an area that others could fill and stabilisation seems to be growing in popularity. The WX do give a very nice window on the world.

Peter

Peter:

Are you married, and how are you doing with this one ?

I have not tried the WX, but I would like to someday. ;)

Jerry
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top