Jump to content


Photo

"New" Nikon 8x30 EII's

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
24 replies to this topic

#1 Wes James

Wes James

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5504
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2006

Posted 26 March 2009 - 12:42 PM

Just received a pair of Nikon 8x30 EII's I got off eBay. I have been following with great interest the concurrent thread on 8x vs. 10x bino's, (#9 Nikon 8x32 Premier SE). The 8x bino's of Nikon's premium line have been quite the favorites of birders in the under-$1000 class, and having just taken up digiscoping, have gotten my attention. I've spent quite a bit of time poring over these, and started the thread "Favorite Birding Binoculars" to see what ideas and thoughts I could gather. Thanks to all those who replied- it was quite educational for me!
Anyway, having a pair of Nikon 12x50 SE's already, I've learned that I really don't favor the shape of the SE's quite as much as the traditional shape. And, this weekend, a nice-looking pair of EII's turned up on eBay, so I got them. They arrived today, of course I brought them back to work with me from the post office at lunch. I keep a pair of Swift Audubon 8.5x44 Model 804's that used to belong to Brock in my desk at work, thought it'd make for an interesting comparison.
I spent about 10 minutes with them, out in back of the control tower, looking at various things on and around the airfield, A/B'ing them... Really difficult to see much difference between the two. Which is not a bad thing! The Swift's are wonderful bino's. The Nikon's might have just a touch wider FOV, but the two views really look so very close I think you'd have difficulty identifying which was which in a blind test. Which is not to say I'm not happy with them- I am! It'll just take some time with them to see which ones I prefer in the long haul. I think it'll boil down to which one is more comfortable in the hands. These are much shorter than the Swift's- obviously- but weigh probably within an ounce or two of each other. They are very close in weight- so we shall see! I'll simply have to spend some time to see which I prefer the shape/handling of.
Nighttime I'm sure the Swifts would prevail due to the larger aperture- but that's not what these Nikon's are all about. They're for carrying around out in the woods, and at that, I'm sure they're going to be a wonderful asset.

#2 Rich V.

Rich V.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4118
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

Posted 26 March 2009 - 01:16 PM

Congrats, Wes, I hope you enjoy the little E2s!

Having been into the E line of Nikons for 25+ years, I consider my 8x30E2s to be my favorite daytime binocular. When the cancellation of the E2 series was announced I decided I had better get a pair of 10x35s as well and I have no regrets.

You may like the feel of these stubby little bins a bit better if they are fitted with the Bushwacker BinoOptic size 5 objective covers. The covers extend the objectives enough to get a more normal grip on the bins. EO has them in stock. Bushwackers at EO

Enjoy,

Rich V

#3 Wes James

Wes James

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5504
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2006

Posted 26 March 2009 - 01:28 PM

Thanks, Rich- and thanks for the tip on the Bushwhackers. Brock also recommended them to me- so there must be something to them! Guess I'll have to spring for a pair- though I will admit to being pleased with the fit of the objective covers- normally a pet peeve of mine!
Wes

#4 ngc6475

ngc6475

    Fearless Spectator

  • *****
  • Posts: 5026
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2002

Posted 26 March 2009 - 07:14 PM

Congratulations on the EII, Wes! They're fine binoculars and I think you'll come to like them as so many others have. Have fun with them! ;)

#5 dvb

dvb

    different Syndrome.

  • *****
  • Posts: 6250
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2005

Posted 26 March 2009 - 07:30 PM

Well, if the 8x30 is holding its own against the 8.5x44, I'd say that speaks pretty well of the bino with smaller aperture and lower power.

#6 mercedes_sl1970

mercedes_sl1970

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 560
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2005

Posted 27 March 2009 - 07:04 AM

Well, if the 8x30 is holding its own against the 8.5x44, I'd say that speaks pretty well of the bino with smaller aperture and lower power.


Congrats, Wes. When I read your post I was struck by the same thing about how well they performed against bigger binos. Oh yes, if any of your fine binos need a prolonged holiday in Australia, I'd be mopre than happy to put them up (indefinitely). I could even take them to the beach...

Andrew

#7 BobinKy

BobinKy

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3089
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007

Posted 27 March 2009 - 07:47 AM

Here is a thread from the archives about my own stumbling upon a Nikon EII on the bottom shelf of a camera store: Nikon EII 8x30--Should I buy?--and my further stumbling at not purchasing.

Wes, congratulations on your purchase. I envy your collecting expertise. Smart buy!

#8 EdZ

EdZ

    Professor EdZ

  • *****
  • Posts: 18820
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2002

Posted 27 March 2009 - 09:13 AM

Well, if the 8x30 is holding its own against the 8.5x44, I'd say that speaks pretty well of the bino with smaller aperture and lower power.


Congrats, Wes. When I read your post I was struck by the same thing about how well they performed against bigger binos. Oh yes, if any of your fine binos need a prolonged holiday in Australia, I'd be mopre than happy to put them up (indefinitely). I could even take them to the beach...

Andrew


Comparing an 8x30 to an 8.5x44 in daylight is essentially like comparing maybe an 8x24 to an 8.5x25. For all practical purposes they are nearly identical in aperture in daylight.

Where they may show some very distinct differences in performance would be at dusk or dawn or under thick cover, when your eye pupils have a chance of opening greater than 4mm.

edz

#9 Wes James

Wes James

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5504
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2006

Posted 27 March 2009 - 09:15 AM

Hi, Bob-
Wow... your link sent me off reading several different threads and resources/reviews. Makes me glad I got these, even if I did pay a premium price for them. Looking forward to spending more time with them. It's like I told my son several years ago- when he was hesitant to spend a very large sum of money on a premium acoustic guitar- that quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten. I told him that if he got it, he'd be enjoying it long after he forgot the pain of the purchase price.
Several years later, he told me- "You know Dad- you were really right about what you said... (Boy, music to a dad's ears!) I've forgotten how painful that guitar was to buy, its long ago paid for- but I sure do enjoy owning it every time I pick it up. Some of the best advice you ever gave me."
Well, I hope that wasn't the best advice I ever gave him- to buy expensive guitars! :grin:
Wes

#10 Pinewood

Pinewood

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1176
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2004

Posted 27 March 2009 - 09:17 AM

Wes,

The EII 8x30 is a great binocular: wide FOV, large sweet spot, brilliant image, great resolution and high contrast. My only problem is that I am clumsy and I feared that it was too delicate.
I once brought in an EII and an 8x32 Leica BN to work, which were examined by a co-worker. She immediately preferred the EII. I guess that is just a natural.

Happy observing,
Arthur Pinewood

#11 DJB

DJB

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1742
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2005

Posted 28 March 2009 - 01:59 AM

Hi Edz,

You make a good point there. The delta on the exit pupil is around 3-5mm.

But your point is in describing daytime conditions of observing. I doubt that I would notice any REAL difference, nor would many others for that matter.

Best regards,
Dave.

#12 Wes James

Wes James

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5504
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2006

Posted 28 March 2009 - 07:33 AM

Comparing an 8x30 to an 8.5x44 in daylight is essentially like comparing maybe an 8x24 to an 8.5x25. For all practical purposes they are nearly identical in aperture in daylight.

Where they may show some very distinct differences in performance would be at dusk or dawn or under thick cover, when your eye pupils have a chance of opening greater than 4mm.



Edz- I agree.... DVB/Andrew- my point in comparing them was not to point out that- even though smaller, they could hang with the Swifts which were larger, it was merely to compare the optical quality and view with another binocular known for good optics and accurate color reproduction. These two bino's are both ones that have shown favor in the birdwatching world, and as such, I felt made a good choice to compare. Besides... I had them both handy at work that afternoon! :grin:
I agree, the size difference would make itself more pronounced at dusk or dark. The Swifts are nice at night... I would probably not break out the Nikons after dusk.
Wes

#13 dvb

dvb

    different Syndrome.

  • *****
  • Posts: 6250
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2005

Posted 28 March 2009 - 10:35 AM

I picked up my 8x30 a few years ago and have almost never used them - but I'll hang onto them - I'd probably miss them if I sold them. Just part of the irrational attraction of binoculars!

#14 brocknroller

brocknroller

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2003

Posted 28 March 2009 - 11:40 AM

Wes,

Already PM'd you, but I will add a public Congratulations! on the purchase of your mini-me Audubons.

I need to point out that Edz missed an error in your data set, which I will correct with the true values. Processing....

The correct weight of the 8x30 EII is 20.282528121 ounces (or 575 grams) vs. 29 oz. for the 804 Audubon, a difference you will probably feel around your neck after an hour in the field especially that last .282528121 ounces. :-)

"These are much shorter than the Swift's- obviously- but weigh probably within an ounce or two of each other. They are very close in weight- so we shall see! I'll simply have to spend some time to see which I prefer the shape/handling of."

A beef I have with the EII is their tilted "hang". Not so bad without the Bushwackers (an essential accessory, given the EII's lack of rubber armoring around the objective housings), but with the Buswacker's on, the hard plastic edge of the objective covers will Beyoncé against your chest as you walk along nature trails. So you better bulk up those pecks or wear Kevlar body armor. (It doesn't really hurt, it's just annoying.)

As far as the 8x32 SE vs. 8x30 EII, well, to each his own.

But my personal impressions have been this:

As Ingraham pointed out in his review, the EII has more "distortion" across the field. He wasn't specific about WHICH "distortion," but the most obvious difference is the greater amount of "rolling ball" while panning.

The edges aren't as sharp as the SE, but for an 8.8* FOV, I was quite surprised at how good the edges were, and the fall off at the edges is gradual, not distracting. So I give Nikon high marks for creating a wide field bin without the typical distracting fuzzy edges.

Build wise, the SE wins hands down (or thumbs up, whichever grip you prefer). The SE can take a lickin' and keep on tickin' whereas the EII can be knocked out of collimation more easily, is not sealed as well, and is not buffered for bumps and dents by rubber armoring like the SE.

Unlike you, I find the SE more comfortable to hold. The chamfer Nikon made to front of the prism housing on the EII makes it more "SE-like" than the original "E" in that it allows you to bring your elbows down somewhat for better stability and comfort.

The rubber armor padding on each housing is a step up from the "E"s pebbly vinyl covering, but you have to be careful not to expose the EII to strong sunlight (e.g., laying it down on a table for long periods on a sunny day during the summer) or expose it to high humidity.

Either condition will result in "bubbling" of the rubber pads, which will eventually peel off. Once off, you can re-cement the pads onto the housings, but if they don't fall off, the bubbles are there to stay (you can move them around, but not "iron" them out).

If you wear eyeglasses, you will probably not be able to see the entire FOV (only one person I know can see the entire FOV with only 13.5mm ER). But with such a wide FOV, that may not be a big deal.

As mentioned on the #9 Dream thread, I found the EII's images to be "snappier" and "brighter" (apparent brightness) than the SE's (or at least in the older model I have, not sure if Nikon updated the coatings/glass on later SE production runs).

The colors in the EII are not quite as "true blue" as the SE, and show a slightly warm tone - reds are a bit orangey, blues a bit purplish - but that skewing of the color palette is less noticeable than on the LX L.

Though I've never actually measured the difference (if there is one), the EII gives the impression of having greater DOF than the SE, which might be attributable to its greater "ease of view".

Unlike the SE, I don't experience the dreaded blackouts with the EII (except if I dart my eyes to the horizontal edges).

No "data" on the comparative level of CA. Both have noticeably less than my LX, so except in extreme contrast situations, I rarely notice it. IOW, no problemo.

All the kvetches above are moot points (except the build quality, which does require more careful handling), and are trade-offs well worth the sharp, contrasty, color saturated, spacewalk "3-Dish" views that few other bins (if any) provide.

May you enjoy many years of delightful observing with your EIIs, and be sure to leave room for them in your sarcophagus so that you can use them in the After Life to look for the mythical Phoenix and ivory-billed woodpecker. :-)

#15 Wes James

Wes James

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5504
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2006

Posted 28 March 2009 - 12:42 PM

Brock-
I'm surprised the weight difference was that much... didn't feel like it. Guess my fingers/arms were worn out from the past weekend pushing glass! And I did notice/do agree with you about the lousy place to attach a strap! What were they thinkin'???
One question- do the addition of the Bushwhackers prevent them from fitting into their case?? They're already a snug fit...

and be sure to leave room for them in your sarcophagus so that you can use them in the After Life to look for the mythical Phoenix and ivory-billed woodpecker. :-)



*Laughing* Brock- all I kin say is I'ma gonna' have to have a big one.... lesse'.... My EII's.. my 22x60 TAK's... 20x110's... Audubon's... all the other ones I couldn't bear to part with. Then there's my Schiefspiegler.... and my 80mm refractors... Thank goodness my son will relieve me of the worry about how much more room to allow for the guitars! :-0

Wes

#16 Rich V.

Rich V.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4118
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

Posted 28 March 2009 - 12:53 PM

Hi, Brock, all good points you've made.

A beef I have with the EII is their tilted "hang". Not so bad without the Bushwackers (an essential accessory, given the EII's lack of rubber armoring around the objective housings), but with the Buswacker's on, the hard plastic edge of the objective covers will Beyoncé against your chest as you walk along nature trails.


The 8x30's short objective barrels do cause a tilted hang that the Bushwackers mostly cancel out. The Bushwackers make the 8s hang about like the longer objective does for the 10s. I have no problem with the edges of the Bushwackers digging into my chest, however. Personal anatomy differences and strap length, I suppose.

As Ingraham pointed out in his review, the EII has more "distortion" across the field. He wasn't specific about WHICH "distortion," but the most obvious difference is the greater amount of "rolling ball" while panning.


Funny, to me, the "rolling ball" effect in either E2 is minimal. My Pentax PCF and DCF bins as well as my little Nikon Diplomats have much more of the effect to me. I feel no fishbowl effect when panning with the E2s. How much this effect comes into play seems to be highly individual.

The edges aren't as sharp as the SE, but for an 8.8* FOV, I was quite surprised at how good the edges were, and the fall off at the edges is gradual, not distracting. So I give Nikon high marks for creating a wide field bin without the typical distracting fuzzy edges.


Yes, the AFOV is wide enough that the field curvature at the edges is not really noticeable in normal daytime use. Viewing the ususal daytime objects my eye isn't really looking at the edges; the extra FOV just creates a more natural "nothing in the way" view.

Though I've never actually measured the difference (if there is one), the EII gives the impression of having greater DOF than the SE, which might be attributable to its greater "ease of view".


I think this is a matter of the greater "apparent depth of field" due to the greater field curvature of the E2s. The effect can be quite striking when viewing ground feeding birds.

Unlike the SE, I don't experience the dreaded blackouts with the EII (except if I dart my eyes to the horizontal edges).


Even my 7x35 E has a bit of the SE style blackout problem that doesn't happen with either E2. This is one of the high points of the E2s for me; I can just lift the bins to my eyes and the target magically reveals itself without any sense of optics interfering.

No "data" on the comparative level of CA. Both have noticeably less than my LX, so except in extreme contrast situations, I rarely notice it. IOW, no problemo.


The 8x E2 has very little CA; the 10x just the slightest bit under the ususal "offending" circumstances. Probably just due to the higher magnification. One of the nicetys of the E2s.

Aside from having to be a bit more careful when handling, which I generally am anyway, I will treasure my E2s and hopefully they will provide the decades of service the 7x35E has given me.

Sadly, after getting both E2s, the woefully narrow comparative AFOV of the E has relegated them to spending much more time in the bino cabinet.

Rich V

#17 ngc6475

ngc6475

    Fearless Spectator

  • *****
  • Posts: 5026
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2002

Posted 28 March 2009 - 05:37 PM

I just reviewed a search for posts regarding this binocular at a birding site and the 8x30 EII is remarkably popular among birders. The SE is similarly popular, but many birders are quite passionate about their little EII. It has quite a following.

#18 brocknroller

brocknroller

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2003

Posted 28 March 2009 - 05:52 PM

[quote name="Wes James"]Brock-
...One question- do the addition of the Bushwhackers prevent them from fitting into their case?? They're already a snug fit... [/quote]

Yes, there's ample room for the Bushwackers. Despite looking HUGE compared to those stubby EII barrels, the covers only add about 5/8" to the length of the bins.

The covers also add width to the barrels, but unless you max out the IPD, they will fit fine.

With my 8xSE, I have to make the IPD narrower to fit it in the case, because of the long dew shields.

Also, a word of advice about the Bushwackers. I would keep them on all the time (except when cleaning the objectives), because if you take them on and off frequently, they will eventually become loose, and you'll have to wrap thick rubber bands around them.

I hastened this process by switching them back and forth between my SE and EII, and the SE's take a size larger (#6) so they got a bit stretched.

There's not much barrel for the Bushwackers to hold on to, so they need to fit snugly.

Another word of caution: After years of use, the Bushwacher caps can loosen and pop open unexpectedly. This happened to mine as I was putting the bins back in the case and I broke off the cap on one side.

When they start popping open by themselves, this is a warning sign that it's time for them to be replaced. Given my double use of the covers, YMMV.

[quote] and be sure to leave room for them in your sarcophagus so that you can use them in the After Life to look for the mythical Phoenix and ivory-billed woodpecker. :-)
[/quote]

*Laughing* Brock- all I kin say is I'ma gonna' have to have a big one.... lesse'.... My EII's.. my 22x60 TAK's... 20x110's... Audubon's... all the other ones I couldn't bear to part with. Then there's my Schiefspiegler.... and my 80mm refractors... Thank goodness my son will relieve me of the worry about how much more room to allow for the guitars! :-0

Wes [/quote]

With your Pharaoh's treasure of fine glass, you will need more than an oversized sarcophagus, you're going to need your own pyramid! :-)

#19 brocknroller

brocknroller

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2003

Posted 28 March 2009 - 06:32 PM

[quote name="Rich V."]Hi, Brock, all good points you've made.
A beef I have with the EII is their tilted "hang". Not so bad without the Bushwackers (an essential accessory, [quote] The 8x30's short objective barrels do cause a tilted hang that the Bushwackers mostly cancel out. The Bushwackers make the 8s hang about like the longer objective does for the 10s. I have no problem with the edges of the Bushwackers digging into my chest, however. Personal anatomy differences and strap length, I suppose.[/quote]

Rich,

Yes, it does depend on your anatomy (I'm 6'4") and how long you make the straps. I like to Hang 'em High (like Clint) so I can get them to my eyes quickly when that rare exotic bird comes along (I'm still waiting :-).

So they sit just below my chest, which adds to the inward tilt. If I let them hang on my belly, they would tilt the other way. :-)

The Bushwackers do help with the tilt problem.

Before I bought the Bushwackers, my solution was to fasten the straps to the centerpost instead of the strap lugs. This will make them hang flat. However, you have to tape the straps to the post, otherwise when you tilt the bins up to look at a bird in a tree, the straps fall back and come to rest on your face. Mencken was right about that one. :-)

[quote] Funny, to me, the "rolling ball" effect in either E2 is minimal. My Pentax PCF and DCF bins as well as my little Nikon Diplomats have much more of the effect to me. I feel no fishbowl effect when panning with the E2s. How much this effect comes into play seems to be highly individual. [/quote]

Yes, I AM sensitive to the "rolling ball" effect, and I was utterly amazed that no reviewer of the full sized LX or LXL ever mentioned the extreme "rolling ball" effect in these bins.

Then I learned from Steve M. that some people (apparently, in this case, MOST people) quickly adjust to it.

Though I did feel redeemed that my eyes weren't playing tricks on me when Henry Link actually measured the rolling ball on the LX and found it was excessive, that is, more than what spherical lenses alone would produce; IOW, Nikon added barrel distortion to the LX. Why they would do this to a birding bin is unfathomable.

Leica, I'm told by some reviewers, adds too much pincushion, while Nikon added NO pincushion to the LX, and it appears from Henry's review of the 7x42 EDG, that they employed the same EP design as the LX. Ugh.

You WOULD think that birding optics designers would realize by now that to get the most natural view, you DO need to add pincushion, but not too much, and not too little, but just the right baby bear portion.

The fact that the designers at top bin manufacturers haven't learned this universal truth is confounding. Perhaps "Goldilocks & The Three Bears" was never translated into Deutsch or Japanese. :-)

[quote] Aside from having to be a bit more careful when handling, which I generally am anyway, I will treasure my E2s and hopefully they will provide the decades of service the 7x35E has given me.

Sadly, after getting both E2s, the woefully narrow comparative AFOV of the E has relegated them to spending much more time in the bino cabinet.

Rich V [/quote]

Yes, I had a pair of 7x35 Es and came to the same conclusion so I took them off the shelf and sold them, figuring they are better off with someone who can live with the narrow AFOV than as a museum piece.

But it sounds like in your case, they hold sentimental value, which is a good reason to hold on to them.

Also, I saw a pair in like new condition for sale recently on ebay for $499. So they may also be a good investment due to their appreciated value.

#20 edwincjones

edwincjones

    Close Enough

  • *****
  • Posts: 8697
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004

Posted 29 March 2009 - 08:52 AM

Brock,

Thanks for the detailed comparsion between the E11s and SEs.

edj

#21 dvb

dvb

    different Syndrome.

  • *****
  • Posts: 6250
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2005

Posted 29 March 2009 - 02:28 PM

Thanks for the tip about the Bushwackers.

I'd also like to find better covers for the oculars, instead of the generic "One-size-fits-nothing" the Nikon supplies for these, the Sporters, etc.

#22 brocknroller

brocknroller

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2003

Posted 29 March 2009 - 11:14 PM

Thanks for the tip about the Bushwackers.

I'd also like to find better covers for the oculars, instead of the generic "One-size-fits-nothing" the Nikon supplies for these, the Sporters, etc.


You're welcome. Eagle Optics sells a rainguard that fits more snugly than the Vienna Fingers cookie cutter included with the SE and EII.

I surmised the reason Nikon makes these oversized covers is to accommodate a wide range of IPDs from beady-eyed lemurs to wide-eyed owls.

The rainguard that came with my SE had open grooves on both sides (the EII's only open on one side) so it always fell off.

Then I bought the EO rainguard for it, but that's now on my 8x50 Octarem, because its case is tight and the SE rainguard wouldn't fit inside.

So now the oblong cookie cutter is back on the SE, but I finally taped one side shut so it doesn't fall off!

#23 brocknroller

brocknroller

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2003

Posted 24 June 2009 - 01:58 AM

Hi, Brock, all good points you've made...
[snip]... As Ingraham pointed out in his review, the EII has more "distortion" across the field. He wasn't specific about WHICH "distortion," but the most obvious difference is the greater amount of "rolling ball" while panning.

Funny, to me, the "rolling ball" effect in either E2 is minimal. My Pentax PCF and DCF bins as well as my little Nikon Diplomats have much more of the effect to me. I feel no fishbowl effect when panning with the E2s. How much this effect comes into play seems to be highly individual.

Rich V


We Klingons are a stubborn but honorable people, and when we make mistakes (though it is rare), we admit them freely.

The "distortion" I see with the 8x30 EII is not "rolling ball" but real distortion (without quotes) - pincushion. Just a bit too much for my likes.

But it's only bothersome to me in an open field. In my backyard, which is heavily wooded, it's hardly noticeable.

I had the EII out yesterday and noticed how straight lines bowed steeply inward at the edges while looking at a telephone pole.

Also, here is another 8x30 EII owner who mentions the pincushion distortion (next to last post):

EII pincushion

Though it's more like looking at the inside surface of a half globe rather than "standing on top of a globe," as he puts it (i.e., a concave rather than convex surface).

However, the effect is very similar to "rolling ball" in that the image appears to "scroll" over a curved surface. So I can see why he made that incorrect analogy and why I confused the two myself.

Well, at least there is one human who agrees with me. :-)

Now that I put extensions on the barrels of the EII (making them as long as the 10x35 EII), the handling is great, which had been my other issue with the EII.

Interestingly, I can get rid of the pincushion distraction by putting my longer SE eyecups on the EII.

The SE eyecups on the EII block the edges since they set my eyes farther back so I can't see the edges, which is where the distortion is most noticeable.

With the SE eyecups on the EII, the view is very SE-like, though the SE still rules in terms of least distortions across the field and at the edges.

The SE and EII eyecups are interchangeable, in fact, my 804 Audubon eyecups fit INSIDE the EII eyecups, and when this cup within a cup set-up is mounted on the SE, it solves my "nose relief" issue with the SE eyecups, because the outer part of they eyecup is "tapered" narrower.

So my SE eyecups problem will be solved when I get a hold of an extra pair of each type of eyecup (804 Audubon and EII).

If only the SE had the brighter and more color saturated coatings of the EII, I'd prefer it to the EII, regardless of its smaller FOV.

#24 Rich V.

Rich V.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4118
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

Posted 24 June 2009 - 10:59 AM

Brock, IMO I'd gladly accept the introduction of a little pincushion to create the "circle condition" Holger Merlitz writes about in his distortion article.

Distortion and globe effect in binoculars

I find panning with the E2s very comfortable compared to some of my other binoculars with less "distortion". Sure, I can see a bit of the pincushion distortion at the very edge when looking at telephone poles but it beats the heck out of the "rolling ball" effect of binoculars still designed with the undistorted "tangent condition". I don't watch telephone poles much so for me, the view is easy and the tiny amount of pincushion is far preferable to me.

I think you have been blessed with a higher awareness of these distortions than many, be that good or bad! :crazy:

I'd hate to have to block the edge of the FOV with the longer eyecups just so the pincushion wouldn't intrude so much. That wide FOV is what is so endearing about the E2s. I'm thankful to be less bothered about these things than you apparently are!! :)

Rich V

#25 brocknroller

brocknroller

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2003

Posted 24 June 2009 - 02:53 PM

Brock, IMO I'd gladly accept the introduction of a little pincushion to create the "circle condition" Holger Merlitz writes about in his distortion article.

Distortion and globe effect in binoculars

I find panning with the E2s very comfortable compared to some of my other binoculars with less "distortion". Sure, I can see a bit of the pincushion distortion at the very edge when looking at telephone poles but it beats the heck out of the "rolling ball" effect of binoculars still designed with the undistorted "tangent condition". I don't watch telephone poles much so for me, the view is easy and the tiny amount of pincushion is far preferable to me.

I think you have been blessed with a higher awareness of these distortions than many, be that good or bad! :crazy:

I'd hate to have to block the edge of the FOV with the longer eyecups just so the pincushion wouldn't intrude so much. That wide FOV is what is so endearing about the E2s. I'm thankful to be less bothered about these things than you apparently are!! :)

Rich V


Rich,

I agree that some pincushion is better than none at all. I'm not sure why the EII has more than the SE. Could be the larger FOV required it? Or that it's simply more noticeable because the field is wider?

I will have to do some pole watching with the SE and EII to compare the degree of bending near the edge.

Yes, I do seem to be more sensitive to optical distortions than humans, even than most Klingons.

I attribute this to spending time in the Delphic Expanse, which is ripe with spatial anomalies, aboard Chancellor Gorkon's ship, the ||IKC Qo'noS Wa', without the benefit of protective Trellium-D in the hull.

Some crew members who were unfortunate enough to be in the areas of greatest distortion had their eyes turned inside out. Others probably had their lenses altered in a less severe manner.

Pole watching is a common Klingon activity. It is used to train our eyes to counteract spatial distortions so we can fire our weapons more accurately while in The Expanse.

Have you tried an 8x32 SE? When I compare the SE and EII side by side, the lower pincushion distortion in the SE is apparent even without looking at a pole.

The true test of your tolerance to "rolling ball" would be to pan slowly while looking through an 8x42 or a 10x42 LX/LX L, which are designed with an undistorted "tangent condition" (Henry Link suspects there may even be barrel distortion added!).

I'm for pincushion, but a delicate balance needs to be struck between rolling ball and pincushion to make a smooth panning experience.

Apparently, for the designers of the EII, the panning was smooth to them.

If they saw the "roll under" like I do, then perhaps it was a design compromise they had to live with due to the extra wide FOV. ???

In any case, when I'm in deep woods, they work fine, and when I'm in an open field, I will put on the SE eyecups.

My only unresolved issue with my Nikons at this point is the handling of the 8x32 LX. Big hands, small bins, no thumb rests.

I've tried "fat suits", barrel extensions, sticking various objects in the space btwn the barrels, and 1001 different grips, but none of those things made them as comfortable and steady to hold as my porros.

My last attempt at "porrozing" the ergonomics will be to buy Silly Putty and put some under each barrel where my thumbs rest and make my own thumb indents.

If that fails, then I will sell my car and buy an 8x32 EDG.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics