Please read if you are about to buy high end bins (4 Viewers)

[oathkeeper]

Hopefully those future archeologists will see it as an accident and not a strange sacrifice. Lots going on in that last sentence.

:clap: I love that one-before-the-last sentence. Talk about subtlties of language!

 

[Ruby]

Hi All,

I had the opportunity to test the Nikon 8*32 SEs today, alongside a pair of Swaro 8.5*42 ELs. Have to say that I would be extremely happy to own either.... but here's my impressions...

Optically I could not split them - both seem equally faithful in terms of colour and trying to resolve details in various dark corners led me to the conclusion that they were just about equally bright and sharp.

Field of view seemed about the same...

Many of my pals have the Swaros, so I am quite used to the feel of them in my hand and they do feel good. The big surprise was that the Nikon's felt equally good (they do look a bit strange and didn't appear to be likely to be comfortable)

Big differences were...

1. Price. Nikons only about 60% of the Swaros
2. Waterproofing. The Nikons aren't and the Swaros are (but not extreme humidity-proof, apparently!!)
3. Focus. To my mind, the Nikons were quicker and more precise to focus.

Anyway.... I bought the Nikons and gave them a bit of a field-test for the next couple of hours - absolutely fantastic!!! £435 well spent!!


Rgds... Ruby

 

[mountain man]

Swaro 8.5 ELs or Leica Trinovid 8x32/42 are still incomparable to any other bins

...wait for it...















...in my opinion.

 

[Edward woodwood]

so, if yer not going anywhere hot and humid, they could be the bins for you.

If you are off somewhere humid, you might be taking a chance as Leif says. Whether the chance is worth it is up to you.......not sure what comeback you'd have if they did fog up or go a bit fungally inside.......?

 

[william j clive]

If you are off somewhere humid, you might be taking a chance as Leif says. Whether the chance is worth it is up to you.......not sure what comeback you'd have if they did fog up or go a bit fungally inside.......?[/QUOTE]




I have both the SE and EL, and always use the EL's if the weather looks dodgy. However, this is probably needless, as you can always stick something as small as 8x32 SE's up your jumper if it rains. I must say that a lot of the pleasure of using SE's comes from a kind of inverse snobbery. I mean, why would anyone who is anyone be using leaky porros in this day and age?

Signing off from deep cover.

Clive ( THE Holy Grail man)

 

[Edward woodwood]

Hi Clive

I might even try and pick up a pair 'cheap' somewhere if i can. I like the look and feel of them a lot. Don't think rain in UK will be a problem at all but the fungus in the tropics could be.

 

[Blincodave]

Tom,

Have you actually tested the SEs? I have owned two of the binos you mention and have tested the Leica 8 x 32s and I know which I prefer....

 

[Leif]

so, if yer not going anywhere hot and humid, they could be the bins for you.

If you are off somewhere humid, you might be taking a chance as Leif says. Whether the chance is worth it is up to you.......not sure what comeback you'd have if they did fog up or go a bit fungally inside.......?

Tim: I said nothing about humidity. All I said was that they are not waterproof, which is not the same thing. I have no idea how well they withstand humidity. I guess it all depends on the quality of the seals.

 

[iporali]

...they are not waterproof, which is not the same thing. I have no idea how well they withstand humidity. I guess it all depends on the quality of the seals.

I think this is really not a problem in practice but it is always nice to speculate... I am inclined to believe that the tropical humidity might well be worse to the non-waterproof, well-sealed porros (like SEs) than the rain or splashes. I would guess that no matter how good the sealing of the eyepiece barrel is, some replacement of the air must occur during focusing, because the internal volume changes cause pressure differences. Eventually the humidity inside the binos is about equal to the humidity of the atmosphere. If these binos are then brought to colder conditions, they may become fogged and the moisture inside tightly sealed chambers may even be sufficient for the fungal growth. In these conditions an occasional drying-treatment could be worthwhile - eg. in a sealed plastic bag with some DRY silica gel (if the colour changes from blue to amber, it has absorbed some water from the binos).

Ilkka

 

[oathkeeper]

... In these conditions an occasional drying-treatment could be worthwhile - eg. in a sealed plastic bag with some DRY silica gel (if the colour changes from blue to amber, it has absorbed some water from the binos).

Ilkka

Now there are sealed, electronically controlled "dry boxes." These boxes don't need any drying agents like silica gel because they have an electronic process (don't know what/how) by which they reduce the humidity inside the box. The box is fitted with a hygrometer that shows the relative humidity % inside the box at any given time. Also, there is a switch with which you can set the humidity level you want maintained inside. The temperature is maintained at room temperature.

Being in a tropical country, I invested in one of these to protect my camera lenses. So far, it seems to be working quite well. Anyone living/going to tropical regions should definitely protect their optics if those optics are not weather-proof.

 

[iporali]

Now there are sealed, electronically controlled "dry boxes." These boxes don't need any drying agents like silica gel because they have an electronic process (don't know what/how) by which they reduce the humidity inside the box. The box is fitted with a hygrometer that shows the relative humidity % inside the box at any given time.

Wow - now I see why you were not that concerned about the lack of waterproofness when selecting the binos

Ilkka

 

[mountain man]

Tom,

Have you actually tested the SEs? I have owned two of the binos you mention and have tested the Leica 8 x 32s and I know which I prefer....

Sure have. I'm one of those annoying people that always say "can I try them?" when I see something new and shiny; and I don't like the SEs at all.

Again, it's personal preference. Swaro EL & Leica Trinovid suit my eyes better than any other bins. Don't really like the Ultravids.

I'm not denying that are up there with the best for optical quality, but they really don't work for me.

 

[Edward woodwood]

I'm using contacts and my HG's are not as 'nice' to use as my 7 x 42 dialyts, which are so easy on the eye.

not tried the SEs with contacts yet though

 

[jebir]

I'm not denying that are up there with the best for optical quality, but they really don't work for me.

Tom, I can understand you.

While the view through my 10x42 SE:s is extremely pleasing qualitywise, I find it sometimes quite difficult to find the perfect position of the eyes as well as the perfect distance between the oculars. This often leads to partial "blackouts" while panning (not so much now when I am more used to them).
I think the problem is common to most bino's with relatively small objective diameters which in-turn gives a small exit pupil.
I guess the problem is that the exit pupil is smaller than the eye's pupil and therefore it becomes difficult to achieve a full field of view? It helps to adjust the ocular distance carefully but it is hard to get fully rid of.

I use to praise the 10x42 SE:s and this is the only disadvantage that I have experienced.

Am I the only one experiencing this?

Cheers, Jens.

 

[Blincodave]

Jens,

Would you call a 42 objective relatively small? Few birders used 50 objectives nowadays. I wonder if your problem is because there is too much eye relief for you and this cannot be adjusted because the eyecups simply fold up or down.

 

[oathkeeper]

Jens,

Would you call a 42 objective relatively small? Few birders used 50 objectives nowadays. I wonder if your problem is because there is too much eye relief for you and this cannot be adjusted because the eyecups simply fold up or down.

Well, the exit pupil is objective divided by magnification. This gives the 10x42 an exit pupil of 4.2mm. This is quite small, although, in daylight conditions, relatively young eyes should have a pupil <= 4mm thus posing no problems. But as a person ages, the pupil dialates creating problems when looking through such small holes.

Just my $0.02...

 

[iporali]

I use to praise the 10x42 SE:s and this is the only disadvantage that I have experienced.

Am I the only one experiencing this?

I agree with Dave about eye-relief...
See http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/reports-epsuggestions3.htm

I definitely experience this too - both with SEs and HGs. The floppy eyecups of SEs make the perfect eye placement even more challenging. My solution to this "problem" was to start viewing with my glasses on. I had earlier used only very "short-eye-relief" binos and learnt to lift the glasses off during viewing - so it took me a while to see the advantages of good eye-relief. No problems any more :t:

Ilkka

 

[jebir]

Jens,

Would you call a 42 objective relatively small? Few birders used 50 objectives nowadays. I wonder if your problem is because there is too much eye relief for you and this cannot be adjusted because the eyecups simply fold up or down.

Dave,

I think 42 mm is relatively small since the magnification has to be considered as well. Maybe the problem is too much eye relief (17 mm) but I doubt it. I have never had any problems with that before and I have never used the eye-cups for the adjustment of lens-to-eye distance. Hard or soft, they have always been screwed or folded all the way down on my bino's (or even thrown away). However, with the 10x42 SE, I have reconsidered using them and they do indeed give a decent guidance but not good enough - this "blackout" phenomena is still there to some extent.

I have now resorted to my old style which means resting the upper part of the folded eye cups onto my eye brows and tilting the head a few degrees forward to adjust the distance. That gives a very stable position with a relaxed view that can be obtained very rapidly.

Cheers, Jens.

 

[AlanFrench]

Well, the exit pupil is objective divided by magnification. This gives the 10x42 an exit pupil of 4.2mm. This is quite small, although, in daylight conditions, relatively young eyes should have a pupil <= 4mm thus posing no problems. But as a person ages, the pupil dialates creating problems when looking through such small holes.

Just my $0.02...

I think you have this backwards.

On a bright sunny day, your pupil is open to 2mm or so, so you are only using part of the aperture in any binocular with an exit pupil larger than 2mm. With 10x42s, you are using less than half the aperture. This does not change as we age.

Under dark conditions, a youngster's pupil opens to 7 or 8mm, but as we age the pupil loses its ability to open that wide, and the maximum opening is perhaps 5mm. Us old folks never use the full aperture of a pair of 7x42 binoculars (although some of us appreciate the wide field enought to ignore this issue).

Clear skies, Alan

 

[mike60]

I believe that i get more definite 'black out' on bright sunlit days with lots of reflected light than in dimmer conditions using my Zeiss 10x40. Does this stack up technically?