John M Robinson
Well-known member
I remember our first trip to Costco, years ago, we walked out with a pile of stuff and a $200.00 bill, "we're really saving now"!
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Wow those Nikon 8x32 SE's are Impressive! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
I remember our first trip to Costco, years ago, we walked out with a pile of stuff and a $200.00 bill, "we're really saving now"!
Here's a good test of the Nikon 8x32 SE compared to the Swarovski 8x32 EL. Again the SE "Kicks Butt!" this time a Swarovski EL.I love it when a $500.00 binocular blows a $1500.00 binocular away. I especially like his statement when he says :
"On carefully looking through both glasses, the Nikons did resolve one scale further down the chart than the EL's, which were able to read the separations on the 1 millimetre lines at thirty metres. This merely establishes what is already well known, porroprism binos, all else being equal, will have better resolution than roofprism every time."
Here is the link to the review:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/swarovski_EL8x32.htm
Gotta love those porro prisms.
Dennis
"On carefully looking through both glasses, the Nikons did resolve one scale further down the chart than the EL's, which were able to read the separations on the 1 millimetre lines at thirty metres. This merely establishes what is already well known, porroprism binos, all else being equal, will have better resolution than roofprism every time."
Here is the link to the review:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/swarovski_EL8x32.htm
Gotta love those porro prisms.
Dennis
Last edited:
I have to admit I did pay retail price for my Nikon 8x32 SE's. I bought them from Adorama for $550.00 with free shipping. But I will have to admit it was pretty nice to get an absolutely brand new pair of untouched binoculars with not so much as a fingerprint on the lenses and absolutely perfect optics. Nobody else had turned the focus knob or shortened the strap or something like that. I think of all the used binoculars I have bought only one pair I had trouble with and they were Leica 8x32 BN's.I got them and they looked good on the outside but after viewing with them for awhile I noticed a small speck on the edge of the right objective. I tried to clean the lenses but the speck was on the inside and it didn't move so I think it was a slight defect in the coating. I sent them back and received a full refund but it is true you have to be very careful buying demos. Sometimes they are less than perfect and buying from a private owner you can be stuck with them. I am a perfectionist so even small scratches bother me to some extent on my binoculars so buying used can be slightly risky.
Dennis
Dennis,
B&H sells the SE 8X32 at the official price ($699) they topped out at a few years ago.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=146143&Q=&is=USA&A=details
Pricing on the SE fluctuated when it was officially discontinued...$550 seems to be the going price.
John
henry link
Well-known member
Alas, Dennis, back to your old ways so soon?
The All Seeing Eye doesn't like to be a scold, but I think you must be busily searching the net for myth making collaborators. I read your link. What I saw was a sloppy test that allowed the author to jump to a pre-ordained conclusion about Porros vs roofs.
The All Seeing Eye doesn't like to be a scold, but I think you must be busily searching the net for myth making collaborators. I read your link. What I saw was a sloppy test that allowed the author to jump to a pre-ordained conclusion about Porros vs roofs.
I am still waiting with baited breath for your definitive scientific comparison between the Zeiss 8x32 FL and the Nikon 8x32 SE. I say the Nikon SE is sharper and many other "myth makers" do to. You need to show us we are all wrong.This would be the ultimate test between the "classic" porro-prism versus the "cutting edge" new technology roof-prism. Just the thought of such a scientific comparison overwhelms me with anticipation. That would be the most read thread ever on "Bird Forum"
Dennis
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I have both. I haven't ABed them yet. I haven't used the FL 8x32 extensively yet but I noted that the 8x32 seemed less something ("hazy" but that seems harsh ... I need a new word for this) than the FL 7x42 I was carrying at the same time.
I shall try to do this over the weekend (on Sunday). I'm curious too.
I would not say that it's impossible for a roof to equal the performance of a quality porro. I would say that it appears to not be easy, based on what's available on the market.
When it comes to the 8x32 SEs in question, I've only compared mine against the 8x32 ELs, the 8X32 Ultravid HDs and the 8x32 FLs. In my experience, using the individuals samples I happened to buy, the 8x32 SEs were better than any of them. They were distinctly brighter than either of the first two (the Ultravids also crowded my glasses), and while the FLs were at least as bright they were not quite as sharp. The hand-feel of the SE is also much less fatiguing to me than the barrels of the smaller-format roofs.
Now, these are not quantifiable, scientific results, but they were the product of more than picking them up and looking around a store somewhere. I owned and used all of these bins. I hunted and birded with the FLs more or less exclusively for more than 6 months before I sent them on their way.
Other users might have come to different and equally valid conclusions on the same binoculars. The roofs are waterproof and have ergonomic advantages that other people might value more than I do. If CA sends you screaming out of the room you would likely prefer the FLs to the SEs. In my case, I had to go to a much larger bin to get noticeably better performance in a roof.
When it comes to the 8x32 SEs in question, I've only compared mine against the 8x32 ELs, the 8X32 Ultravid HDs and the 8x32 FLs. In my experience, using the individuals samples I happened to buy, the 8x32 SEs were better than any of them. They were distinctly brighter than either of the first two (the Ultravids also crowded my glasses), and while the FLs were at least as bright they were not quite as sharp. The hand-feel of the SE is also much less fatiguing to me than the barrels of the smaller-format roofs.
Now, these are not quantifiable, scientific results, but they were the product of more than picking them up and looking around a store somewhere. I owned and used all of these bins. I hunted and birded with the FLs more or less exclusively for more than 6 months before I sent them on their way.
Other users might have come to different and equally valid conclusions on the same binoculars. The roofs are waterproof and have ergonomic advantages that other people might value more than I do. If CA sends you screaming out of the room you would likely prefer the FLs to the SEs. In my case, I had to go to a much larger bin to get noticeably better performance in a roof.
Exactly my conclusion! Now if only "The Seeing Eye" would read this we have more fuel for the fire that porro prisms are superior. There sure is alot of "Myth makers" out there!
Dennis
henry link
Well-known member
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I believe that's called a rhetorical question in the trade.
The FL 8x32 should have better AR coatings. "Almost the same as TIR" dielectric coating. Perhaps even more modern EP design (though there should be aspherical lenses in both, I think). Oh and it costs more too. 3x more.
So it should win easily, eh?
Wait, is that one of those "rhetorical questions" too?
The Zeiss will have better CA control but I want to know which one is sharper. Look at contrast,brightness and DOF too.
Dennis
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Then again I haven't used the FL's that much yet. I took FL 8x32 out again today for a brief run in the overcast and it looked very, very nice. On it's own. No comparisons with other bins.
One thing one has to be really careful about is "initial ownership" reviews, ocf course.
I find I can go both ways with this.
I got really down on the Bushnell Elite which I got just after the Hawkes and just before the Promaster. I took them all out together and ABCed them (thwe write up of comments is on the forum). I almost returned it but I decided to hang on to it. But after on and off usage I find it has it's own distinct and very nice features: lightweight, bright, deals with stray light really well.
And of course I can rave and rave about bins. Did I tell you about this new bin I've got ...
The trick is to see which one(s) you use over time and which ones stay as "the keepers" if you have a bin collection. I find I like to "rotate" my bins for this reason. And in some cases picking "the bin for the job". I'm always curious about how faulty my memory of a bin can be: "oh, that one's pretty poor" then you use it again and find that it's perhaps not the top performer but it's not poor at all. Or sometimes other bins you though were rather bullet proof actually have a vulnerability in a particular situation.
FrankD
Well-known member
That is some very wise advice there Kevin. There definitely are some bins I have hung onto for an extended period of time for the exact reasons you mentioned.
I am curious though, with the extensive selection you have at the present time, which one(s) do you find yourself using the most?
I am curious though, with the extensive selection you have at the present time, which one(s) do you find yourself using the most?
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
The Promaster.
It lives in my Pajaro waist bag with a Kauffman guide and a small notebook and pens. It's essentially my to go bag. Easy just to strap it on or pick it up and drop it in the car. The Promaster is good enough 90% of the time.
Though that said perhaps in the last 3 weeks I've perhaps been using my demo Zeiss Victory 8x40 more for birding than the Promaster. A little less sharp but a bit brighter with wider FOV and a bit of the AK prism 3D effect (the objective are a bit further apart than the IPD). It makes for a fun birding bin.
But a bunch of the time I go out with two bins and AB them as I bird. I find this to be a rather good way of doing a compare and contrast between two bins.
The other bin that gets carried around in my daypack is the Pentax WP.
The other problem I note is "too expensive to go out" bins. Like the FLs and (for another reason "too delicate to go out") the SE. This one is rather odd and not rational (my best bins seem to bird least ... at least initially ... go figure). Eventually the "new car" effect wears off and they drop into the rotation.
I have some compacts but have not quite got into the "always with me" routine. That needs a bit of work but is a goal.
As you can see ... it's complicated
Last edited:
Sharpness is probably the easiest to test and might be the most affected by individual variations in binoculars. The other factors are more subjective. Some people (like myself) are not susceptible to CA. DOF is clearly a matter of the binoculars magnification. Lower power has more DOF. Individual variations of DOF within binoculars of the same magnifications are difficult to quantify. Contrast and brightness are like the definition of pornography. As the Supreme Court Justice said: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it!"
Bob
horukuru
Here I Come !
Very good advice Kevin as I'm starting to collect binoculars now hahaha :-O and what is the new bin you got ?
Hehehe :king:
FrankD
Well-known member
Hmm, it seems we are more alike than not. Would it surprise you if I said that I feel like a huge weight is off my shoulders now that I sold the FLs?
....the SE comment surprises me a bit but not necessarily for the reasons you may think. I had a problem with a previous SE and dust getting inside the ocular. Unless I am unaware of something you haven't had that type of problem so your comment caught me a bit offguard. I would be curious if you feel like clarifying that a bit further.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I haven't had a problem with any of my bins.
But I'm pretty aware of the sorts of problems one can get and both water (most likely in PNW at this time of year) or dust (most likely on the East side of the Cascades here in summer) are issues.
Even with the SE I know that with that downside they're fully repairable too. Even if they get dust or water in them Nikon can fix them (at some not huge cost). Perhaps one should consider (old) porros like cars that have a maintenance cost associated with them just as a matter of course. That would be another reason for buying from one of the top four (plus perhaps a couple of others) who actively maintain and refurbish good old bins.
So it's just not rational
OK, next time I go to the Montlake Fill I'll take my SEs with me. Sort of desensitization therapy ("OK, today we'll just bird with them for 10 minutes. See the blue sky?") mixed with cognitive therapy ("Really, the chances of damaging them is very small").
Last edited:
