Wow those Nikon 8x32 SE's are Impressive! (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
All of the major optics houses know this. As you are probably aware, all of the best quality spotting scopes on the market today (from Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Kowa, etc.) are porro prism designs.
Dennis


Sorry! But that was a quote from another forum and I was using his explanation on the superiority of the porro-prism design. I forgot about that statement about all the major spotting scopes being porro prism designs! The person who posted that realized his error also and corrected it in a later post. Good correction though!

Dennis

 

[henry link]

Dennis,

Could you please use quotation marks and give a proper attribution when you quote other writers? The usual practice is to provide a link so we can read the quote in context.

Henry

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,

Could you please use quotation marks and give a proper attribution when you quote other writers? The usual practice is to provide a link so we can read the quote in context.

Henry

Yes. I meant to use quote marks on that quotation but in my haste I forgot them. But you are right a link would allow the readers of the thread to follow the train of thought of the author of the quote and how the thread evolved. Good point!
Henry. What is your opinion on the advantages of the porro prism design in binoculars versus a roof prism. Do you feel with the advances in roofs that they are now the optical equal of porro's or will porro's always retain some advantages such as the 3D image and roof's will have other strong points such as their close focus ability? I realize this is taking the thread in perhaps another direction but I value your opinions on matters such as these.

Dennis

 

[FrankD]

Kevin,

I was actually directing it more towards Dennis but your response is much appreciated. Those new bins of yours sound very interesting. Isn't it funny how some of the "non-mainstream" models really surprise us?

Dennis,

A good idea to always keep a waterproof model handy. Hmm, an 8x32 SE and a 7x42 Leica...that sounds familiar.

 

[Kevin Conville]

Kimmo is right, of course.

There is so much confusion because all sorts of incompetent people distribute all sorts of nonsense via the internet which gets perpetuated by (a) taking internet nonsense seriously in the first place, and (b) by quoting and reiterating it.

Tom

Ain't the internet great? Of course, we're mostly immune to it here in the US.

Hey, have you heard we elected a Muslim terrorist to be the President?

 

[henry link]

...Henry. What is your opinion on the advantages of the porro prism design in binoculars versus a roof prism. Do you feel with the advances in roofs that they are now the optical equal of porro's or will porro's always retain some advantages such as the 3D image and roof's will have other strong points such as their close focus ability?...

Dennis

Dennis,

I think when expensive roof prism bins don't perform as well the Nikon SE the problem can't be blamed on the prism types. A phase corrected AK prism is fully equal to a Porro and while the best Schmidt-Pechan prisms still have slightly lower light transmission than AK or Porro (Zeiss claims about a 2% difference between SP and AK in the FL binoculars) there are other more important differences in the optical designs. I would rate objective and eyepiece design, coatings quality and assembly defects as much more important to the final image than prism type.

I think your preference for the SE over the LX-L is not because of prisms but because the LX-L design isn't as successful in other areas. Its light transmission is not impressive compared to more recent roof designs and IMO sharpness is compromised by lateral chromatic aberration. The SE benefits from some shrewd design choices. The design is simple where simple works perfectly well and that accounts, in part, for the excellent light transmission. It has a conventional doublet objective that works fine at 32mm and 8x. There is nothing special about the prism. The only complex or unusual optical feature is an eyepiece design that corrects astigmatism. Put all that together well and you have an excellent binocular that isn't too expensive.

FWIW, I don't think the wide spacing of objectives in most Porros is an advantage, especially for birding. It gives an enhanced 3D effect but degrades the image quality at close distances where the eyes are forced to toe in and look far off axis to place an object in both fields.

Henry

 

[Kevin Purcell]

That said Henry I seem to see in multiple roofs (for lack of a better word) a very slight "haze" that just isn't there in the porros I use including the SE.

This includes a range of roofs from $200 up to the Zeiss Victory 8x40 (but not tested the FLs, yet) and Chinese bins that beat the Victory on many parameters (including sharpness).

I leave open that this effect is eliminated in the current "top 4" bins as I've not tried them but most of the roofs that most people use seem to have this.

This really does seem to be related to the roof prisms after all that's the only significantly different optical element in these bins.

 

[henry link]

That said Henry I seem to see in multiple roofs (for lack of a better word) a very slight "haze" that just isn't there in the porros I use including the SE.

...This really does seem to be related to the roof prisms after all that's the only significantly different optical element in these bins.

Always hard to tease out cause and effect from an optical black box like a binocular. It's easy to assume that some difference we happen to know about must be the cause of an effect we happen to notice. Besides prisms, I can think of at least one other "significantly different optical element" that distinguishes most Porros from roofs. There is a simple cemented doublet objective in the SE and most other Porros vs a 3-5 element objective with wide air spaces and one moving group in most current roofs. The extra complexity in the roof objectives has nothing to do with the prisms. It's just for internal focusing.

The only roofs I have around are 8x42 and 8x56 Zeiss FLs with AK prisms. The contrast, light transmission, and sharpness (in the field center) of those compares favorably to the best Porros. If anything they look cleaner and more transparent, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that mid and low priced roofs are not that good. I suspect that in many of those phase correction is not complete, roof edges are not that well made and mirror coatings are not the best.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Always hard to tease out cause and effect from an optical black box like a binocular. It's easy to assume that some difference we happen to know about must be the cause of an effect we happen to notice. Besides prisms, I can think of at least one other "significantly different optical element" that distinguishes most Porros from roofs. There is a simple cemented doublet objective in the SE and most other Porros vs a 3-5 element objective with wide air spaces and one moving group in most current roofs. The extra complexity in the roof objectives has nothing to do with the prisms. It's just for internal focusing.

Yet the "haze" effect is not seen in my Leupold Cascade internally focused porro?

Doing this piece wise is not quite fair (on you) but I have quite a few bins here of both types across a range of prices (and as you can see that includes an internally focused porro too).

It could be something else but when I partition the group on this characteristic it's all porros on one side and roofs on the other. It doesn't change by price (e.g. the Cascade beats much more expensive roofs with more recent coatings).

So far I haven't found an exception. It could be something else but the Occam's razor solution right now is "it's something in the roof".

Black box testing is a problem but this is the result I get from observing a lot of black boxes.

 

[FrankD]

I have to say that I am salivating right now thinking of the group of bins Kevin has for comparison. Based on your comments earlier in the thread I look forward to seeing where you put those FLs in the mix. I have a feeling they are going to end up on the porro side of the group.

I also find it interesting that you mentioned the Cascade porros specifically for their performance (the transparency of the image in particular). I think these are a vastly underappreciated model because of their internal focus design and the quality of their image.

 

[[email protected]]

Always hard to tease out cause and effect from an optical black box like a binocular. It's easy to assume that some difference we happen to know about must be the cause of an effect we happen to notice. Besides prisms, I can think of at least one other "significantly different optical element" that distinguishes most Porros from roofs. There is a simple cemented doublet objective in the SE and most other Porros vs a 3-5 element objective with wide air spaces and one moving group in most current roofs. The extra complexity in the roof objectives has nothing to do with the prisms. It's just for internal focusing.

The only roofs I have around are 8x42 and 8x56 Zeiss FLs with AK prisms. The contrast, light transmission, and sharpness (in the field center) of those compares favorably to the best Porros. If anything they look cleaner and more transparent, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that mid and low priced roofs are not that good. I suspect that in many of those phase correction is not complete, roof edges are not that well made and mirror coatings are not the best.

I have a friend who has a Zeiss 8x42 FL so we were trading binoculars the other day and comparing views outside and inside the house with my new Nikon 8x32 SE's. It is funny but we both agreed my Nikon 8x32 SE was sharper and brighter than his Zeiss FL. We set some fine print up at about 25 feet away and it was EASY to tell the Nikon was sharper. The print was much easier to read. I threw my Leica 7x42 BN's into the mix and they did not compare to the Nikon either. It's like the Zeiss and Leica were not quite in focus even though they were! It's like the Nikon just took the sharpness level up another notch above the roofs. I agree with Kevin in that it seems like the roofs have a "haze" compared to the porro. I can not believe the difference. I was depressed when going from the Nikon SE back to the murky world of the "roofs"! I am so glad I tried porro's! I have seen the light and it is clear, sharp, and transparent. You can quote all the optical theory you want. My eyes are perfect at 20/20 vision and the Nikon 8x32 SE has the best view of any binocular I have yet seen including the top roofs. I am selling the Leica 7x42 BN's, keeping the Nikon LX L 8x32 and the Canon 12x36 IS II. I LOVE that Nikon SE!

Dennis

 

[Matt_RTH]

I hope Nikon is watching this thread as other manufacturers apparently do. I've been wanting a 7x42 "conceptually" as I'm in love with 5+ mm exit pupils due to some recent evening and dawn birding I've done recently. But I'm intrigued that the little 8x32 SE could be as bright as the 7x42. I would love to see for me self.

To be fair, it would take pretty horrid conditions to really judge brightness between binocs. I had to wait until almost sunset to test brightness of my 7x50 compared to some 8x32 roofs but my eyes still dilate and contract quite a bit. Again, lot of fluid variables but I do believe that we mere mortals can find the general answer.

 

[[email protected]]

It is easy to judge brightness. I looked at the small print on a book in a shadowed bookcase about twenty feet away. Try to read the print. Easy and sharp with the Nikon SE. With the roof's I kept focusing back and forth because I couldn't believe I was at focus because there was this "haze". To my eyes the top roofs are not equal to the top porros optically. I would really like to try the Nikon EDG's in this test.

Dennis

 

[Matt_RTH]

If you compared a 7x42 to an 8x32, the 7x print would be at a more acute angle. My 7x bins are all noticeably smaller in magnification and small print would be a huge factor in ability to read. I use a military test target with calibrated text sizes , ever smaller. My brightness testing, which is limited, has been with already dimly lit material and judging shades of gray. However, I do agree that text is harder to read when dark, but in your case I see two variables at work rather than the one, less'n I'm mistaken.

 

[ceasar]

My Nikon 8 x 32 SE is "brighter" to my eyes under gloomy conditions than my 7 x 42 Trinovid is. But the exit pupil of the latter is 1/3 bigger, and that makes it more "user friendly" during the same conditions.
Bob

 

[[email protected]]

I know that but it is not the size of the print but rather that the print is not as sharp which causes you not to be able to read it. The print should be big enough to read if it was sharp. My Nikon 8x32 LX L'sand my friends Zeiss 8x42 FL's are the same way and they are 8X. The three roofs just don't focus as sharp. There is a haze. Another thing is looking around the room at objects it is amazing how much more three dimensional and just" beautiful "objects like colored vases are with the Nikon SE 8x32. They are so much more enjoyable to look at and realistic in their appearance! My point is you can say roof's are the equal of porro's but to my EYES they are NOT! I love the VIEW through that Nikon 8x32 SE!
It is amazing that an 8x32 porro appears brighter than a 7x42 roof. The porro MUST be transmitting more light or making the objects you are looking brighter!

Dennis

 

[henry link]

Well, Dennis, I think you've fallen hard for a new pair of binoculars...again. At the risk of being a killjoy I'm going to suggest that you slow down, be more careful and don't jump to conclusions. I know there's no reasoning with a man in the full throes of infatuation, but let me pose just one question. Other than Porro prisms rule and roof prisms suck can you imagine any other reasons at all that might explain your experiences with these binoculars?

Even though I'm a Porro guy from way back I think I'll leave the Porro lovefest to others now. I feel like I've been the unwitting accomplice to the birth of yet another internet optics myth.

 

[Fireform]

The more I read Henry's posts, the more I respect his opinions. I can't say that about everyone on the web . From the examples I've seen, the SE view narrowly bests any 8x32 roof on the market (except the Swaro 8x32 EL which I simply haven't tried). The jazziest dielectric coated S-P prisms seem to transmit about as much light as the Nikon SE porros; the only 8x roofs I've seen that are definitely brighter are the larger, AK prism Zeiss FLs (and with 42mm objectives and their big price tags, they bloody ought to be brighter). I also have the impression that the convoluted light path through the S-P prisms degrades the fine resolution of the image ever so slightly more than a good porro.

As a card-carrying member of the porro insurgency, I say go easy on the fellow. Falling in love is never rational.

 

[Alexis Powell]

Well, Dennis, I think you've fallen hard for a new pair of binoculars...again. At the risk of being a killjoy I'm going to suggest that you slow down, be more careful and don't jump to conclusions...

Do what you will Dennis (and, based on your record here on Birdforum, I know you don't need my encouragement to do so--with any luck you've already sold the 7x42 for $300 more than you paid for it), but in agreeing w/Henry I'll just add that you might want to consider packing away your formerly beloved 7x42 Trinovids for a few months while you use your 8x32 SE, then get them out to try as if new pair. You might experience another round of optical euphoria with the fresh "new" view--I know I enjoy owning and using several binos for this reason. Similarly, I've convinced myself more than once that I definitely didn't like something about the view through certain of my binos (especially my Zeiss 8x32 FL), only to discover later that they my favorites under a different set of conditions or state of mind. Some binos are always better than some others, but when comparing such elite optics as these, the differences are more like personality traits.

--AP

 

[[email protected]]

Well, Dennis, I think you've fallen hard for a new pair of binoculars...again. At the risk of being a killjoy I'm going to suggest that you slow down, be more careful and don't jump to conclusions. I know there's no reasoning with a man in the full throws of infatuation, but let me pose just one question. Other than Porro prisms rule and roof prisms suck can you imagine any other reasons at all that might explain your experiences with these binoculars?

Even though I'm a Porro guy from way back I think I'll leave the Porro lovefest to others now. I feel like I've been the unwitting accomplice to the birth of yet another internet optics myth.

No other reason than the view is the best I have seen yet through any binoculars I have tried. I am thrilled that this level of optical quality can be had for so little money compared to the top roofs. My eyes are not lying and I am not jumping to any conclusions about the optical quality of these binoculars. In my opinion these are the best binoculars I have ever seen optically and certainly the best value for your money.

Dennis