-
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.
Updated Nikon 10x25S and 12x25S Stabilized binoculars (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter BryanP
- Start date
Hermann
Well-known member
Yes, but ... Binoculars with double hinges are meant to be folded, so the hinges usually aren't very tight. There are also two hinges, making the adjustment even more unstable. So you can change the IPD quite easily, too easily in fact, and with such small exit pupils even small changes are pretty annoying.
There's quite a lot of rain over here, especially from late autumn to early spring. Sometimes persistent rain, sometimes showers. Even if you try to avoid rain you can always be caught out. And it's often unsettled weather that brings in the best birds, especially on migration ... 👍 Even thunderstorms in the summer can produce some good birds. So yes, I quite often bird in the rain.
Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
Nobody knows for sure. Maybe someone can ask Nikon. But I'm not sure there will be a comprehensive reply. Nikon is (and always has been) exceedingly cautious when it comes to such questions. They for sure are when it comes to the weather protection of their cameras.
Hermann
Oldnintheway
Well-known member
Exactly what I'd like to know. It will probably take a few years on the market with reviews before we get the answers.
Neither, but mine haven't fogged up yet, and it is pretty cold in Colorado right now.
The hinges are quite tight on the Nikon. They don't move unless you deliberately move them.
forent
Well-known member
Yesterday I had the opportunity to test the Nikon 10x25 IS and compare it with my Zeiss Victory Pocket 10x25.
My conclusions:
The stabilisation of the Nikon works SENSATIONALLY well. Really fantastic. Optically, however, the Nikon is unfortunately only good mid-range and clearly inferior to the Zeiss in terms of contrast, sharpness and CA. I knew beforehand that the field of view is much smaller. Nevertheless, the optical disadvantages of the Nikon should be more than compensated for by the stabilisation for most users.
But I find many housing elements really annoying: the surface of the centre bridge and the battery compartment cover are made of cheap, thin plastic. The joints of the double hinges are too smooth so the IPD can be changed too easily. The focuser turns too light, somewhat unevenly and "squirmed" on the test specimen. The armouring does not have a good grip and does not extend to the edges of the objectices, leaving the tube ends unprotected. The dioptre adjustment offers 3 dpt at best. The binocular is pretty short, very heavy and somewhat bulky in the hand despite its small size (okay; IS) and hence not comfortable for me to hold. I would be annoyed by these details every single day. That's why I can easily stick with my Zeiss, which I can also hold more steady than any other non-IS 10x binocular, so I don't miss the great stabilisation of the Nikon too much.
I think it‘s a shame that Nikon did not invest another 200 Dollars in higher build quality and slightly better optics. The concept of the binocular is so great and it‘s expensive anyway so why don‘t they do it right in every respect?
My conclusions:
The stabilisation of the Nikon works SENSATIONALLY well. Really fantastic. Optically, however, the Nikon is unfortunately only good mid-range and clearly inferior to the Zeiss in terms of contrast, sharpness and CA. I knew beforehand that the field of view is much smaller. Nevertheless, the optical disadvantages of the Nikon should be more than compensated for by the stabilisation for most users.
But I find many housing elements really annoying: the surface of the centre bridge and the battery compartment cover are made of cheap, thin plastic. The joints of the double hinges are too smooth so the IPD can be changed too easily. The focuser turns too light, somewhat unevenly and "squirmed" on the test specimen. The armouring does not have a good grip and does not extend to the edges of the objectices, leaving the tube ends unprotected. The dioptre adjustment offers 3 dpt at best. The binocular is pretty short, very heavy and somewhat bulky in the hand despite its small size (okay; IS) and hence not comfortable for me to hold. I would be annoyed by these details every single day. That's why I can easily stick with my Zeiss, which I can also hold more steady than any other non-IS 10x binocular, so I don't miss the great stabilisation of the Nikon too much.
I think it‘s a shame that Nikon did not invest another 200 Dollars in higher build quality and slightly better optics. The concept of the binocular is so great and it‘s expensive anyway so why don‘t they do it right in every respect?
Last edited:
forent
Well-known member
First of all: The optical disadvantages of the Nikon that I could see were not my main point at all. Instead I pointed out that the stabiliser should be more important for most users.
Nevertheless: I have described what I have seen in a side-by-side comparison. You are comparing the Nikon at hand with your memory of the Zeiss that you saw maybe months or even years ago.
From books by neuroscientist and Nobel Prize winner John C. Eccles, I have learnt to distrust my memory in general and especially when it comes to nuances. I can highly recommend this to avoid mistakes as a result of overestimating own judgements.
Nevertheless: I have described what I have seen in a side-by-side comparison. You are comparing the Nikon at hand with your memory of the Zeiss that you saw maybe months or even years ago.
From books by neuroscientist and Nobel Prize winner John C. Eccles, I have learnt to distrust my memory in general and especially when it comes to nuances. I can highly recommend this to avoid mistakes as a result of overestimating own judgements.
Last edited:
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
That Victory sounds like a piece of crap, in every imaginable way…I don't agree on the optics, and I have had both Zeiss Victories 8x25 and 10x25. I find the Nikon every bit the equal of the Zeiss being optically much like the Nikon LXL 10x25, plus it has much less distortion and sharper edges than the Zeiss, even though the FOV is slightly smaller. Furthermore, I find the CA of the Nikon is just as good in the center as the Zeiss and better on the edges. Contrast is equally good in the Nikon as the Zeiss, and I see no difference in sharpness. At the low magnification of 10x, it is almost impossible to see a difference in sharpness between two high quality binoculars like the Zeiss and the Nikon.
I believe the transmission is higher in the Nikon because it seems brighter than the Zeiss as well. It is possible you think the Zeiss is sharper because you can see at a higher resolution with the Nikon which is almost 30% greater than the Zeiss because of the IS, and it looks less sharp for that reason. Also, a big problem with the Zeiss is they do not work for somebody that does not wear glasses because the eye cups are too short for the ER, so you have to float the binoculars in front of your face to avoid black-outs or replace the eyecups. I can't use a Zeiss Victory 10x25 for that reason, but I have no such problem with the Nikon.
The Zeiss also exhibit more veiling glare than the Nikon's. The Nikon's being surprisingly good for their small aperture. I don't find the center bridge and battery compartment cheap at all, and if anything they will resist scratches better, and they keep the binocular lighter. The IPD adjustment is smoother than the Zeiss, but I find it does not easily move and stays in position quite well. Maybe your sample is different, but I found the focuser much superior to the Zeiss, being smoother and more consistent in travel, almost like an EDG. Nikon doesn't believe in armoring the whole binocular, as can be seen in the MHG because it saves weight, but rather just armoring it where there are contact points.
The binocular is shorter than the Zeiss, making it more compact, and it has to be heavier than the Zeiss with the IS components, but 15 oz. isn't bad for a 10x25 IS binocular. Even if you think you can hold the Zeiss steady you are losing at least 30% in resolution and seeing detail, so in my opinion some small disadvantages are worth it to have an IS binocular. Try reading distant print or do any test of seeing detail, and you will see the Nikon is hands down superior to the Zeiss. I am using the Nikon as my primary daytime birding binocular instead of my NL 8x32 because I can see way more detail with it, and I am finding I can ID birds much easier and at a much greater distance.
"In this test, the loss of detail from tripod to hand-held was 43%, from tripod to image-stabilized hand-held 8%, and from IS to non-IS hand-held 32%."
Canon 10x42 IS L Tripod vs hand-held vs IS testing
Today I had some time to start my part of the hand-held vs tripod-mounted vs Image-stabilized resolution testing. For the sake of clarity, I decided to start a new thread rather than post this into the existing 8x25 IS thread. David, maybe you could summarize your tests from that thread and post...www.birdforum.net
forent
Well-known member
So you ordered the Zeiss Pocket binoculars, which you have long branded as unbearable "floaters"? A likely story.
Take everything Dennis says with a bushel of salt. The Victory Pocket would have zero fans here if not for its excellence.
tenex
reality-based
I too keep asking this. Clearly Canikon suppose the target audience don't care about such things... which begs the question, who are they?
You can argue the point that the Zeiss 10x25 and other binoculars have better optics and ergonomics than the Nikon 10x25 S and perhaps some do but when it comes down to resolution and how much detail you can see the Nikon wins every time and that is what stabilization is about.
You will ID birds easier and see more detail on the bird with the Nikon than with the Zeiss because you are not shaking, even though you have to make some compromises for those advantages, as you pointed out. If you don't want to, or you feel IS is not that big of an advantage, IS is not for you.
If the manufacturers developed some new, improved binoculars with IS, it would be the biggest improvement to birding binoculars in years. Although not perfect, I think the Nikon 10x25 S is a step in the right direction.
You will ID birds easier and see more detail on the bird with the Nikon than with the Zeiss because you are not shaking, even though you have to make some compromises for those advantages, as you pointed out. If you don't want to, or you feel IS is not that big of an advantage, IS is not for you.
If the manufacturers developed some new, improved binoculars with IS, it would be the biggest improvement to birding binoculars in years. Although not perfect, I think the Nikon 10x25 S is a step in the right direction.
Last edited:
It would be hard to compare the Nikon 10x25 S to the Canon 8x20 because of the different magnifications. I have had both the Canon 8x20 IS and the 10x20 IS, and they are both very good, with the stabilization and optics being a little better than the Canon 10x30 IS II. I compared the Nikon 10x25 S to the Canon 10x30 IS II and even though the Canon had a slightly larger FOV I liked the Nikon better because the Canon view seemed to lack contrast and seemed flat in comparison.
I notice that flatness in a lot of the Canon IS binoculars, especially the Canon 12x36 IS III. and I think it is due to their transmission being below average or lacking contrast. The Nikon 10x25 S compared to the Canon 10x20 IS would be interesting because they have a similar FOV, but I believe the Nikon would be a little better due to superior brightness and contrast. Hard to say definitely without doing a side by side though as you say. The little Canon IS binoculars are surprisingly good.
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
See my post (post #20) in the other thread on the Nikon 10x25. I think the only Canonikon IS binocular clearly aimed at birders and people who use their binoculars "seriously" is the Canon 10x42 IS L.
Hermann
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
That may be partly due to the different colour reproductions of the Canons and the Nikon. All the Nikon binoculars I've handled over the years were just slightly "warm", reddish. The Canons aren't, at least not to my eyes. I perceive them as being much more neutral.
True. The small 8x20 is indeed pretty good. Not sure about the Canon 10x20, I think the exit pupils of that model are too small for comfort. I also believe Canon used a clever trick to avoid them suffering too much in the rain: They put the (focusing) objective lenses back quite a bit. As a side effect that improves their performance against the light. A sort of in-built sunshade.
Hermann
Lots of gaps between posts suggests that there are many I'm not seeing, but I would like to add that the two types of best binoculars one of the most prolific posters here has ever seen are the ones he just acquired, and the ones he's trying to sell you.
It's also simultaneously possible that he'll be trashing the ones he's trying to sell in threads other than the one with the listed-for-sale piece, and defend that as allowing others to make up their own mind what they think. Ironically quite opposite to his posting style when trying to persuade the rest of us that he's the best authority on all things binocularistic.
It's also simultaneously possible that he'll be trashing the ones he's trying to sell in threads other than the one with the listed-for-sale piece, and defend that as allowing others to make up their own mind what they think. Ironically quite opposite to his posting style when trying to persuade the rest of us that he's the best authority on all things binocularistic.
You're correct. Almost all Nikon's have a slight reddish tint and are slightly warm in their color bias. I had the Canon 10x20 IS, and it surprised me how good it was. I thought the EP would be too small for comfort like you, but they are not. Stabilization really helps with ease of eye placement on small EP binoculars. Yes the Canon 8x20 IS and 10x20 IS have some of the most recessed objectives I have ever seen which protects the lenses and helps with glare I am sure.
Hermann
Well-known member
Recessed .... that's the word I was looking for. Just couldn't remember it.
I'm getting old.
Hermann
