• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Revisiting a Classic Nikon Porro (1 Viewer)

henry link

Well-known member
My first really good binocular was a 7x35 Nikon Action Porro purchased in 1985 for about $80. Unfortunately, my pair is long gone, but I recommended this binocular to many friends at the time. Recently I found that one of them still has hers and, very happily, it’s in nearly mint condition (even the rubber eyecups look new). She clearly hasn’t used it very much and has even managed to hang on to the objective and eyepiece caps. The exterior glass surfaces hardly even needed cleaning and the innards were pristine. Naturally I jumped at the opportunity to test such a rare artifact from my personal binocular history.

The Action series were Nikon’s cheapest full sized binoculars in 1985, but I quickly discovered that it was nearly impossible to find anything optically better. I tried to replace mine with a Zeiss 7x42 B/GAT and then a Leitz 8x40 Trinovid. Since neither was phase corrected they were obviously less sharp and lower contrast than the cheap Nikon. In the end I wound up with a collection of Porros, including Nikon E’s, CZJ 8x50 Nobilem Super and Octarems and various Swarovski Habichts and SLs. All of those were better than the roof prism binoculars of the time, but none was really optically superior to the Nikon Action overall.

The secret to the excellence of the original Action Series is simple. All of the cost-cutting was in the mechanicals. For instance, the objective barrels and eyepiece housings are plastic. Metal was used only when essential, like for the prism housings and the eyepiece bridge (which is not at all wobbly). In contrast, the optics were mostly uncompromised for the time and, in some ways, superior to the more expensive contemporary E series. Collimation is done the proper and expensive way, using double eccentric objective rings. Prisms are slotted and well secured using wide leaf springs (see first photo on the left). The only refinement missing from the prism arrangements is a light shield. Eyepieces appear to be high quality 4 element, 3 group Konigs.

In the middle photo you can see how much larger the 7x35 Action is compared to the 7x35 E. That’s mainly because its objective focal length is about 140mm vs 126mm for the E. That gives the Action a little theoretical advantage at controlling axial aberrations and helps lower the eyepiece off-axis aberrations. In a star test the axial aberrations of the action look quite well corrected for a binocular, in fact better than many current alphas. Off-axis aberrations are good enough; a similar mix of astigmatism and field curvature to the 8x30 E with a similar rate of deterioration.

Axial resolution is outstanding. Using the USAF 1951 chart at 56x I measured 3.5 arc seconds in the better right barrel and about 4 arc seconds in the left (which has a little coma). The right barrel works out to 122.5/D, about as good as binoculars get.

Longitudinal chromatic aberration is “normal” for an f/4 achromat, but lateral color (the color fringing you really see in binoculars) is better corrected than any current alpha roof prism binocular I’ve tried. This is typical of binoculars with simple cemented doublet objectives, which virtually never have as much lateral color as binoculars with complex air-spaced objectives and internal focusers.

The AR coatings appear to be ordinarily single layer MgF, identical to the pre multi-coated E series (see photo below of the reflections returning from an 8x30 E and 7x35 Action). Both show a slightly yellow color cast. Later E’s were much improved by full multi-coating, but unfortunately the original Action optics never got more than partial multi-coating in the otherwise identical Gold Sentinel Series.

Besides coatings, the one other significant compromise in the Action optics is the fairly short eye relief of the wide field models. For the 7x35 I measured 12mm from the rim of the folded eyecup, 15mm from the glass of the eye lens. I imagine most of the surviving Actions will have ruined or missing rubber eyecups. Unfortunately the eyecup size appears to be unique. E series eyecups can be stretched to fit, but they’re too long for the short eye relief of the Actions.

So, there you are. For once, something from the past I remembered as really excellent, actually was and is. The original Actions might have been a little too good for their place in Nikon’s pecking order. It seems that every later version has been a step down in optical quality. Even now, twenty five years after their time, the originals with modern coatings would be outstandingly good binoculars.

Henry Link
 

Attachments

  • DSC_2362.JPG
    DSC_2362.JPG
    52.8 KB · Views: 720
  • DSC_2365.JPG
    DSC_2365.JPG
    53.1 KB · Views: 1,167
  • DSC_2363.JPG
    DSC_2363.JPG
    54.7 KB · Views: 698
Last edited:
My first really good binocular was a 7x35 Nikon Action Porro purchased in 1985 for about $80. Unfortunately, my pair is long gone, but I recommended this binocular to many friends at the time. Recently I found that one of them still has hers and, very happily, it’s in nearly mint condition......Naturally I jumped at the opportunity to test such a rare artifact from my personal binocular history.....
The original Actions might have been a little too good for their place in Nikon’s pecking order. It seems that every later version has been a step down in optical quality. Even now, twenty five years after their time, the originals with modern coatings would be outstandingly good binoculars.
Henry Link
It was a delight to read this review. Though this may not actually happen, it ought to serve as a reading catechism for binocular designers everywhere, and even more so their advertising and marketing departments. The lesson is that excellence can be achieved without spending a great deal of money, and something is not necessarily excellent even though a great deal of money might have been spent on it. If "every later version has been a step down in optical quality," then the lesson has not been learnt by the designers, the advertisers and the marketers or, rather, it has been swept aside for other objectives.
Chhayanat
 
Can we still get this binocular from the used market Henry ?

Yes, you can.

I read this thread earlier today via my cell phone but I hate typing replies on it as it takes forever.

Henry,

Thank you for posting this. It confirms my experiences with this model. As some of you may know I picked up this original Action 7x35 Wide Field model a few weeks ago on Ebay and have been quite enamored with it since. So enamored that I found a 7x35 Gold Sentinel to purchase via Ebay as well. As Henry stated the two models are practically identical minus the Golden Ring around the objective barrels and a slightly different texture to the armoring. I will see if I can take some pics and post them.

These truly are an excellent binocular.
 
Yes, very nice herstory lesson. As a porromanic, it was assuring to read that a cheap, old porro matches a $2K roof in resolution and beats it in terms of aberration control.

Now if I said that (which I have), I'd be tarred and feathered and run out of Dodge. But when Henry and his impeccable measuring stick say it, I doubt if even the snobbiest birder would mount a challenge.

I'm glad I held on to my '80s 7x35 Action WF. Like Dennis used to say before he started the "Are Porro's Dead" [sic] thread:

"The view through a good porro is hard to beat." - Dennis, April 4, 2009

With the 8x32 Sightron II, he might add "a cheap roof can be almost as good as an alpha, and I'm not just yanking your diopter". :)

Brock
 
Here you go...rubber eyecups (in excellent condition by the way Henry) removed from each model so I can see the full field of view.
 

Attachments

  • 019.JPG
    019.JPG
    357.7 KB · Views: 810
Yes, very nice herstory lesson. As a porromanic, it was assuring to read that a cheap, old porro matches a $2K roof in resolution and beats it in terms of aberration control.

Now if I said that (which I have), I'd be tarred and feathered and run out of Dodge. But when Henry and his impeccable measuring stick say it, I doubt if even the snobbiest birder would mount a challenge.

I'm glad I held on to my '80s 7x35 Action WF. Like Dennis used to say before he started the "Are Porro's Dead" [sic] thread:

"The view through a good porro is hard to beat." - Dennis, April 4, 2009

With the 8x32 Sightron II, he might add "a cheap roof can be almost as good as an alpha, and I'm not just yanking your diopter". :)

Brock

Brock:

So you were right all along about those great Nikon porros. ;) Its about
time they get their due.

There's one right now on the auction site, and it is going well. No doubt
some here are watching.

Oscar
 
Yes, very nice herstory lesson. As a porromanic, it was assuring to read that a cheap, old porro matches a $2K roof in resolution and beats it in terms of aberration control.

Now if I said that (which I have), I'd be tarred and feathered and run out of Dodge. But when Henry and his impeccable measuring stick say it, I doubt if even the snobbiest birder would mount a challenge.

I'm glad I held on to my '80s 7x35 Action WF. Like Dennis used to say before he started the "Are Porro's Dead" [sic] thread:

"The view through a good porro is hard to beat." - Dennis, April 4, 2009

With the 8x32 Sightron II, he might add "a cheap roof can be almost as good as an alpha, and I'm not just yanking your diopter". :)

Brock

Brock
I am glad you are so enamored with my threads and posts that you use my now infamous quotes in so many of your threads. I had the 7x35 Nikon Action also back in the eighties and I remember it as having excellent optics on-axis but I don't remember the edges being that sharp compared to more modern binoculars. Does that agree with what you see through yours Frank and Brock?
 
Dennis,

Your memory is correct. The edges of the field of view are not sharp like the SE, Swarovision or EDG.

That is the simple answer to your question.

The part that I am having a hard time with, in general, is that it seems there is an underlying assumption, in your posts and that of others, that any given binocular is not the best out there if the edges are not sharp. Is this not correct?

So, one aspect of optical performance determines whether or not a binocular is a high performer?

Help me out here with this line of thinking.
 
Dennis,

Your memory is correct. The edges of the field of view are not sharp like the SE, Swarovision or EDG.

That is the simple answer to your question.

The part that I am having a hard time with, in general, is that it seems there is an underlying assumption, in your posts and that of others, that any given binocular is not the best out there if the edges are not sharp. Is this not correct?

So, one aspect of optical performance determines whether or not a binocular is a high performer?

Help me out here with this line of thinking.


I would have to say with the newer alphas getting so good optically on-axis the off-axis optical performance seems to be the one defining characteristic that seperates them. When a manufacturer comes out with a new binocular they usually design it with field flatteners so it performs well at the edge. That is not to say these older porros were poor performers because there edges were not as sharp as the modern alphas. Alot of them like this Nikon 7x35 porro are a delight to look through and there big wide FOV makes a sharp edge unnecessary for viewing enjoyment because you really have to move your eyes around to even see the edge. I must say that after experiencing birding with a binoculars such as the Swarovision or EDG which are sharp across the whole FOV it takes your viewing and birding to another dimension and I feel that's why the manufacturers are designing the new binoculars in this way. I really still enjoy the excellent old porro's that are still around like this one though.
 
Thank you for the clarification Dennis. I think you did a nice job of explaining your viewpoint on the subject.
 
Henry (or Frank)

How does the Nikon Naturalist fit into this scheme? I see the Naturalist in several number variations. Some even say Nikon Action Nauralist. The Naturalist looks a fair bit smaller and has an 8.6* fov.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top