I second your opinion. Perfect summation of the SV compared to the SE. Each one has it's own strongpoints but it is hard to say one is better than the other. Any of the SE's are the best bang for the buck still in the binocular world. Especially when you pick one up on Amart or Ebay for $500.00.
-
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.
Regarding Nikon Se (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Odradek
- Start date
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
Pretty much the case, i use all 3 SE's. differences i have noticed, for me:
The 8x has the best control of CA. but assuming the formula are the same across the 3 models, this would make sense, given the lower mag/smaller aperture usually means, less CA. That said, the control of CA in the 10x is easily the best i have seen in a 10x42mm non-"ED" binocular.
The 10x "feel" to the eye/ease of eye pacement is the better than the 8x (for me), and the best of the 3 models.
the 8x focuses closer than the 10x.
Re the 8x, assuming you do not experience the dreaded blackout effect, yes they are as good as you hear/read.
Downside:
Not waterproof
As with other porros, cold temps (for me, +10 F and down from there) the focusing motion slows.
Tantien
Well-known member
I didn't know there three! LOL
And if it gets to +10 F, sorry I ain't birding outside (spoiled Californian that I am). Get me inside looking out! :-O
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
The 12x50 se, perhaps the best astronomy binocular in thee 50mm class. :t:
brocknroller
porromaniac
angelo225544
Well-known member
The 8x32 is my favorite of the SE's. But I must agree with Brock, the 8x30 E II is better still due to it's wider view. Better than both, in my opinion, is the discontinued Swift Audubon 804 HR/5 FMC. The Swift is fully equal optically to the SE, while offering a wider AFOV, slightly greater magnification and the additional brightness and ease of view afforded by its larger exit pupil and less blackout-prone eyepieces. Hard to find, but worth the effort!
What about eye relief for spectacle wearers in the Swift 804? Is it adequate for spectacle wearers to see the whole or most of the field of view?
I don't wear glasses but I have tried mine while wearing large aviator type sunglasses and the view is not as wide. I've also tried it wearing thin reading glasses with a 1.25 diopter and got the same result. I did not find it comfortable to use while wearing glasses. The eye relief is about 10mm as I recall. Perhaps 12mm. Aside from that it's view is superlative! Even with it's short ER I don't get blackouts which I can get with my 3 SEs if I don't use the MOLCET technique. Pupil placement is not as critical.
The one thing I don't like about it is the ergonomics. I have a wide IPD; 68-69mm. The 804 becomes wider in your hands as your IPD gets wider and you need long fingers to work the focus wheel. I have big, wide hands with normal length fingers and I wear 2XL gloves but I find it easier to slide my right hand slightly under the binocular and use my thumb to work the focus wheel rather than use my index or middle fingers on top which are stretched to their limits.
Bob
Many thanks. I should have been clearer. What I meant to ask is whether the eye relief is the same in the 804 and the subsequent 804R, sold in Europe as the HR5 (according to the painstaking research published on BF), or is there a minor improvement in the latter? My reading of your reply indicates there was no change in the actual eye relief when the FOV came down from 445 feet to 430 feet in the 804R.
Chhayanat
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
The Audubon 804 HR/5 MC and FMC both have 14mm ER. Not sure if all of it is useable for eyeglass wearers. Bob might be thinking of the earlier, heavier, bigger Audubon.
I agree about the view through the 804 H/R FMC Audubon, although one of the two units I owned had way too much pincushion and field curvature. Odd that two samples of the same model were so different.
The MC 804 H/R I still have has lower pincushion and much less field curvature. In fact, I use it for stargazing because the sweet spot is so huge and the stars are the "tightest" I've seen in any bin. In good seeing, even brighter stars are round balls rather than spiked. I even saw Sirius as a round ball through this 804, which I've never seen in any other bin! It always spikes. Granted, it must have been good seeing that night, but I was quite surprised to see Sirius when it was not acting as a "sparkler".
One area where the SE is the "Superior E" is flare control. The EII shows flaring in the direction of the sun, but it can be mitigated by adding Bushwacker covers.
<B>
I agree about the view through the 804 H/R FMC Audubon, although one of the two units I owned had way too much pincushion and field curvature. Odd that two samples of the same model were so different.
The MC 804 H/R I still have has lower pincushion and much less field curvature. In fact, I use it for stargazing because the sweet spot is so huge and the stars are the "tightest" I've seen in any bin. In good seeing, even brighter stars are round balls rather than spiked. I even saw Sirius as a round ball through this 804, which I've never seen in any other bin! It always spikes. Granted, it must have been good seeing that night, but I was quite surprised to see Sirius when it was not acting as a "sparkler".
One area where the SE is the "Superior E" is flare control. The EII shows flaring in the direction of the sun, but it can be mitigated by adding Bushwacker covers.
<B>
I have an Audubon HR/5 FMC; SN# 9911xx. I just measured the distance from the edge of the glass on the oculars to the end of the eye cups as best I could. I used a small stainless steel ruler. The longest distance I could get was barely 12mm.
Bob
Many thanks for measuring the eye relief (ER) in your Audubon glasses. The measurement corresponds to what Stephen Ingraham was able to get for the subsequent 820 Audubon in Better View Desired. This is of the order of what the Carl Zeiss Jena Jenoptem 10x50W had. That binocular also had a wide FOV and exceptional centre field resolution.
The exceptional history of the 804 Audubon written for BF by Edward M. Huff and Renze de Vries estimates the ER of the 804 (445 ft at 1000 yds) as 12-13mm and places that of the 804R or HR5 (430 ft at 1000 yds) at 14mm.
Given the above, the Nikon SE is despite its narrower FOV remains the outstanding porro binocular of the day, the price hike, notwithstanding.
Best wishes,
Chhayanat
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
How's the contrast on the 804? I hear a lot of superlatives for some of the older porro's, but in my experience most are pretty dull looking, due to weak contrast - despite being very sharp and bright.
brocknroller
porromaniac
I wouldn't dare put a ruler on those old coatings, so I'll take your word for it. The listed ER is 14mm. Lens recession typically varies from 2-3 mm. Some bins such as Fuji can have a lot more lens recession.
But that's closer to spec than what Swift listed for the 820 model, which they originally said had 18mm ER, and advertised as being "good for eyeglass wearers." Between the lens recession and the hard twist-up eyecups which sat on top of the EP housing, the useable ER for eyeglass wearers was only 11mm. Now they list the ER as 16mm, and it has new eyecups, so I don't know, but I bet the useable ER is 2-5mm less depending on how thick the twist-ups are.
For eyeglass wearers it's not the list spec, but what the useable ER you end up with once you've taken away the lens recession and the space used up by the twist-up eyecups.
I wanted to ask Pier if his girl could see the entire FOV with the new CL compacts. Her glasses are pretty thick and he eyes are set back a distance from the glasses.
When I wore glasses (before presbyopia countered my myopia), I had a pair of polycarbonate lens glasses that sat right against my forehead. With my Simian brow and recessed eyes, the 17mm ER of the SE was still not enough to see the entire FOV (but close). I found that I needed 20mm, which few bins since even if they have a listed ER of 20mm, you still lose 2-3mm on lens recession (so your glasses don't hit the EPs) and maybe 2mm for the twist-ups. The full sized Nikon HGs allowed me to see the entire FOV with glasses. One of the few bins with long enough ER for me when I wore glasses.
<B>
angelo225544
Well-known member
There is another point I would like to add to this discussion. 10 years ago, the fact that the 8x32 Nikon SE equalled the optics of the 8x32 Leica Trinovid BN, for half the price, put the SE on the map. The Trinovid was smaller, had better eyecups, was fully waterproof (an inherent advantage of roofs), and was built to last several lifetimes, but the Nikon WAS significantly less expensive. For the same money, as they now are on the secondary market, the Nikon looks overpriced.
Are you sure about the Leica Trinovids putting the SEs on the map?
I believe the SEs made their appearance in 1995 before the Trinovids showed up in 2000. Then in 2004 or so the Ultravids appeared and it was at that time, some people would argue, that Leica's optics started to become competitive with the SEs.
Bob
Brock,
I have a narrow ruler, about 3/8" wide. I put it against the edge of the ocular where it meets the eye cup and measured it from there. It gets me in the neighborhood but that is all.
Bob
angelo225544
Well-known member
Hi, Bob. Yes, I'm sure. The Leica Trinovid BA (not to be confused with the inferior Leitz BA which preceeded it) first appeared in 1990. It was the first phase coated roof prism binocular Leica ever made, and it's performance and build quality were unsurpassed at the time, and remains impressive even today. The 8x32 in particular is a gem, as Stephen Ingraham famously pointed out in his BetterViewDesired website. It was he who suggested the relatively inexpensive Nikon SE was virtually the equal of the much more expensive Trinovid, at least optically, but certainly not with respect to ergonomics or ruggedness. To suggest it was not until the Ultravid that Leica was able to equal the performance of the Nikon SE is simply incorrect. The Trinovid BA fully equalled the SE optically, and even surpassed the SE as a complete waterproof, fogproof, submersible instrument in a much smaller package, and with far superior eyecups and no image blackout issues. This is all well documented by reliable sources, and was confirmed by my many hours of testing and comparing them over the 5 year period I owned both. They are both very special binoculars, but in my opinion, the Leica Trinovid BA/BN are currently undervalued on a price/performance basis when compared to the SE.
Last edited:
Yes. This thread is missing 2 of my postings which I made about 1100AM yesterday.
I believe it is also missing a post by Pinewood on this subject.
One was addressed to you about the SE and how I handled blackouts in mine.
The other was a response to Anglelo225544's response to me in his thread #38. I also posted that one around 11AM yesterday. It was about Better View Desired and how it influenced me in my purchase of an 8 x 30 EII and later in buying my SEs. It had ratings of the the Nikon 8 x 32 SE in 1998 where they were rated above the Leica 8 x 32. I also commented on an article by Bill Cook which he wrote around that time in Sky and Telescope magazine about the 10 x 42 SE giving it an outstanding review.
That aside, I'm pleased that you are experiencing no blackouts in your SE. I'm sure you will be very happy with yours:t:
Good Birding!
Bob
Last edited: