|
ngc6475
Fearless Spectator
Reged: 03/02/02
Posts: 5024
Loc: 38°21'N 120°55'W
|
|
Patric recently asked what I thought of these two binoculars, pro and con, and I realized I hadn't directly compared them head to head. I took them both out today and I did a quick, informal comparison.
The 10x42LX I have is not the newer, lighter version and weighs about six ounces more than the current model's trim 27.8 ounces. Otherwise, it is said to be optically identical, and the mechanical components are the same, as well.
The LX and the SE each represent the top of Nikon's lines of roof and porro prism binoculars. Not surprisingly, they both exhibit excellent fit and finish. The LX, however, possesses features that are not present in its SE sibling, such as twist up eye cups and a locking diopter ring. Although the SE's diopter seems to remain where it is set and requires infrequent adjustment, its rubber eye cups are decidedly inferior to the twist up eye cups of the LX. Both have firm center hinges that remain in adjustment during strenuous use through the day. The focuser of the LX moves smoothly and quickly, requiring only 3/4 of a turn of the focuser wheel to move from extreme close focus to extreme far focus. The SE's focuser is firmer and requires 1.2 turns of the focuser wheel to move from close to far focus. Furthermore, the SE's focuser can become rather stiff during very cold weather while the LX's action remains smooth, even in cold weather conditions. The LX is also waterproof and nitrogen purged, while the SE is claimed to be "water resistant". For my purposes in the relatively dry climate in which I live, both are more than adequately protected from the elements, but your conditions may present different demands.
Both felt comfortable in the hands, despite the differing design characteristics of each, but the focuser wheel is placed in a more comfortable position in the LX. Both are well balanced, although the LX is slightly weighted toward the front.
Optically, it gets more interesting. The SE and LX both have perfect multicoatings that are deep green in color and evenly applied. Both have a fov of 6* (314 ft. at 1000 yds.), and the fov is very sharp across the field for both until the last 20%. Close focus of the LX is 9.8 ft, according the manufacturer, and the SE is a much longer 16.4 ft. In the field I checked both, and found these numbers to be reasonably accurate. There is a relatively large difference in the close focus values of the LX and SE, and for viewing butterflies or birds in brush or shrubbery, the ability of the LX to get "closer" is very welcome. On axis sharpness was very good for both, and after repeatedly switching back and forth among the two, I decided the contest was too close to call. I probably should pick up a chart and quantify the resolution of these binoculars, but for now they are equally fine, in my extremely humble opinion. With respect to contrast and color fidelity, the LX was clearly superior with views of the landscape appearing more deeply colored and with stronger contrast that brought out a bit more detail. The LX also shows a distinct fringe of false color on high contrast objects. In contrast, the matter of CA is almost nonexistent with the SE. The SE seemed to have a greater depth of field, as well. I also noticed there were a few reflections in the eyepiece with the LX when facing into the sun that I didn't see in the SE, but it wasn't distracting. When panning across the the landscape, the field seemed just a bit flatter with the SE over the LX, too. Blackout is a problem with the SE with its 17.4mm eye relief, a problem that I think could be mitigated to some extent by proper twist up eye cups instead of its rubber cups. The LX's ER of 19mm is adequate even for eyeglass wearers.
Altogether, both are fine binoculars and I enjoy them both, but the overall edge goes to the LX for its features and optical quality. The significant difference in price may account for some of the disparities between them, but I think twist up eye cups would represent a major improvement in the SE. I would recommend both as being very good binoculars and among the best of their respective classes.
Edit: I switched the ER figures and have corrected the error. Thanks Steve!
--------------------
Walter
"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls."
-George Carlin
Edited by ngc6475 (05/15/06 11:05 PM)
|
edwincjones
Close Enough
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 7980
|
|
Thank you,
A very good review.
edj
--------------------
|
Steve Napier
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/10/04
Posts: 1559
|
|
Hi Walter,
I know a lot of people will be very pleased with this comparison.Im on the lookout for a 10x binocular myself.
I think the eyecup question is very important especialy if this is going to be a binocular used very often as it would be for me.
I think the extra comfort of the LX L twist up cups will sway it for a lot of people.
Then again, the SE is outstanding value and if the eye cups arent a major concern this will be the one to go for.
There are so many trade off"s when it comes to choosing aren"t there.
Walter,do you know if the rubber eye cups can be taken off and replaced with more sturdy ones?
Thankyou,
Steve.
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Walter, Thanks for that comparative review, I was curious how these two binoculars compared. I read a couple comments about the 10x42 LX NOT being as sharp as the 8x42 LX, which seems odd since the 10x should outresolve 8x. However, my 8x32 LX was not as sharp as the 8x42 LX, so apparently all LXs are not created equal!
IMO, the 8x42 LX has an excessive amount of pincushion distortion for a top of the line roof. It was noticeable to the point of distraction at close range and while panning, but not noticeable for long distance birding or for stargazing.
The effect was similar to the barrel distortion in the Minolta 7x35 Activa. The image seems to scroll over a ball (the inside of the ball in the case of the LX). Steve Moore also noticed this on the LX, though he adjusted to it after a few days.
What surprised me is that the 8x32 LX, which has a wider FOV (7.8* vs. 7*) did not show this level of distortion. The views have a slight pincushion, noticeable while panning, but not distracting while birding in close like the larger model.
How does the 10x42 LX compare to the 8x42 LX at close to medium range (10-40 ft) with regard to pincushioning ?
Thanks, Brock
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Quote:
...I think the extra comfort of the LX L twist up cups will sway it for a lot of people. Then again, the SE is outstanding value and if the eye cups arent a major concern this will be the one to go for.
Thankyou,
Steve.
Steve,
The LX eyepieces are narrower than the SE's. The SE eyecups are sturdy, but due to their wide width, the only other eyecup I tried that fits the SE is the E2's eyecups, but the ER is too short for the SE.
For me, the SE eyecups aren't as comfortble because of their size. They dig into my eye sockets, but if you have flat facial features, this may not be a problem for you.
While I liked the LX eyecups better, they showed wear more easily and they can become loose over time. The SE eyecups can become flared from folding them down, making the oversized eyecups even wider. But the advantage is that you can simply replace the SE eyecups w/out sending them in for servicing.
If Nikon decided to add twist-ups to the SEs, it would need to redesign the eyepieces (given the number of complaints about blackouts, a complete overhaul would be a good idea). The new EPs would need to narrower. Otherwise, the twist-up eyecups would be VERY wide, too wide for my eyes and probably many others.
This is what happened to the Audubon. The 804 version has comfortable fold-down eyecups of medium width, but the newer 820 model has oversized twist-up eyecups with hard edges. I didn't find them comfortable and could not get my eyes close enough to the EPs to see the entire FOV except with the cups twisted completely down (and then the bridge of my nose bumped into the protruding front endcap).
Besides eye comfort, there is also hand fit to consider. People with big hands like msyelf can find the narrow profile of roofs more challenging to hold steady than same power porros. However, the heavy weight of the 8x42 LX counteracted this problem.
The 42mm LX is wider than most roofs, but I found that 32 mm model had better ergonomics for my hands, with its steeper contours and high palm rests.
If you are a 10x birder, you might try the 10x32 LX, which is much lighter. The new version (LXL) is an ounce lighter, has click-stop eyecups, but has the same optics and body style, not worth the steep price hike, IMO.
If the 10x32 LX is similar to the 8x32 model, it won't be as sharp on axis or to the edge as the 10x42 LX, but the advantages are the compact design, lighter weight, better ergonomics, and a slightly wider FOV.
Better yet, if you don't absolutely need a WP/FP binocular, the 10x35 E2 is almost as sharp as the 10x42 SE, a lot cheaper, and has a wider FOV with at least as good edge performance.
The disadvantage of the smaller roofs and porros is slightly dimmer images due to the smaller objectives and exit pupils.
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
Swedpat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/18/05
Posts: 1144
Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia
|
|
Walter,
Many thanks for your review and detailed description of your impression of these binoculars.
What I understand the LX would be my choice before the SE.
Did you ever notice the light ray (star-filter effect) across light sources with the LX against strong light sources, which is common for roof binoculars? This effect CAN at such circumstances be a drawback. This effect I could notice when I once tried the Nikon HG 8x20.
Regards, Patric
--------------------
*2,3x40 Constellation View Wide-Bino
*Leupold Katmai 6x32
*Nikon Sporter I 8x36
*Swarovski SLCNew 7x42B
*Bresser (Lidl) 10x50
*Oberwerk 11x70
*Stellarvue SV50 spottingscope
*Meade 5000 26mm Plössl, Vixen LV 10/5mm
Psalm 19:2
|
ngc6475
Fearless Spectator
Reged: 03/02/02
Posts: 5024
Loc: 38°21'N 120°55'W
|
|
Thank you all for your comments.
Steve, I don't know of any after-market replacement eye cups, unfortunately, but I once read of a modification that included installing a collar that stiffened the rubber eyecup and then cutting it back to a more desireable height. It wasn't an elegant solution, but the author of the mod thought it was very effective. I'm still on the fence on that one, but it's clear many otherwise happy SE owners would like to see a better eyecup arrangement.
Brock, I noticed a bit of pincushion distortion on the LX, but I haven't compared it to the 8x model yet. I will try it later this week and report back.
Patric, I haven't tested for that partcular effect and I will attempt to check for this, also.
Before anyone goes away thinking the SE is an inferior binocular, I should say I bought this one after Steve Moore graciously loaned me his to test drive. After using it for a few weeks I found it to be a particularly fine binocular and it has become one of my favorites; it is among my most used, in fact. Overall, it is the best porro prism binocular I have tried, and it is an excellent glass for terrestrial as well as astronomical viewing, but the LX still has an edge over it in many respects; I would expect that to be the case considering the wide gap in relative costs. For the record, however, I believe a few small improvements (e.g. the eye cups) would go far in making it a more friendly binocular.
Again, thanks for your remarks and I will return with more info later this week!
--------------------
Walter
"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls."
-George Carlin
|
Steve Napier
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/10/04
Posts: 1559
|
|
Thanks Walter and Brocknroller.
The pluses and minuses of the SE and LX L ranges make for fascinating comparisons.
At the end of the day I suppose you can"t go wrong with either.
Steve.
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Before I bought new eyecups for my 8x32 SE, I turned the SE's eyecups upside down and used a strip of two-sided adhesive foam to keep them put. This arrangement allowed me to see the entire FOV w/out blackouts. The bottom edges aren't beveled so it's not as comfortable, but for me, it works. See attached photos.
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
Steve Napier
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/10/04
Posts: 1559
|
|
Thats an ingenious idea Brocknroller,two pairs of eye cups for the price of one.
Its a good job Kenny Jones is away at the moment as we would have no end of posts about the merits of turning various binocular attatchments upside down,Inside out etc etc.
Steve.
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
In this photo, you can see the whole binocular w/ the inverted cups. *
ARTHUR: The inner ring on the inverted cups helps cut down on side reflections, but you can't roll the cups down in this position, so it only benefits non-eyeglass wearers.
* all photos courtesy of Steve "Have Digital Camera, Will Travel" Moore
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
mooreorless
Just worried
Reged: 07/05/05
Posts: 2248
Loc: Cornpropst Mills,Huntingdon,Pa
|
|
Quote:
Walter, Thanks for that comparative review, I was curious how these two binoculars compared. I read a couple comments about the 10x42 LX NOT being as sharp as the 8x42 LX, which seems odd since the 10x should outresolve 8x. However, my 8x32 LX was not as sharp as the 8x42 LX, so apparently all LXs are not created equal!
IMO, the 8x42 LX has an excessive amount of pincushion distortion for a top of the line roof. It was noticeable to the point of distraction at close range and while panning, but not noticeable for long distance birding or for stargazing.
The effect was similar to the barrel distortion in the Minolta 7x35 Activa. The image seems to scroll over a ball (the inside of the ball in the case of the LX). Steve Moore also noticed this on the LX, though he adjusted to it after a few days.
What surprised me is that the 8x32 LX, which has a wider FOV (7.8* vs. 7*) did not show this level of distortion. The views have a slight pincushion, noticeable while panning, but not distracting while birding in close like the larger model.
How does the 10x42 LX compare to the 8x42 LX at close to medium range (10-40 ft) with regard to pincushioning ?
Thanks, Brock
Brock,I really didn't notice the pincushioning after the first day I used Walter's very excellent Nikon 8x42 LX. I took a very long walk[3 hours] and the weight didn't seem to bother me at all,don't know about all day long.I will say when I first pulled the 8LX out of the package it really felt heavy.I also found with this 8LX even with weight forward this binocular was for me, very well balanced hand holding.While I had the 8LX I used it some for Astro and compared the CA on the Moon against my 10SE and the 8LX did show more CA than the 10SE,but was a joy to use.I really liked the eyecups and the great focuser.Using my Edmunds 1951 test target and a 2 1/2 power "riflescope" as an aux.I came up with 3.7 and 3.5 Sec.[Dawes][and different lighting conditions]for the Nikon 8LX the best I ever got for the 10SE and Walter's 12SE was 3.7 Sec.with Aux. scope. I think with a lot of the same model binoculars with one being an eight and one a ten if you taped over the info. most people would pick the 8 as being better.
BTW Walter that is a very fine review of the 10LX and 10SE,Steve :-]
--------------------
Regards,Steve M
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Steve,
The EO strap certainly made the 8x42 LX feel a lot lighter around my neck. I recommended the strap to Walter since it worked well with my 8x32 LX, which was 9 oz. lighter, but a bit porky for its size.
However, due to the compactness of roofs, I feel their weight on my fingers, hands, and arms more than I do with porros of comparable weight. For example, my 10x50 porro weighs the same as the 8x32 LX, but the porro is nearly twice as long and 2" wider so the weight is distributed over a wider area, whicb makes it feel lighter.
Also, I have large hands, so I need to hold the weight of roofs with my fingers and the sides of my palms. I'm "palming" the roofs from above and the side rather than supporting it from underneath like I do with porros. With smaller hands, the weight distribution is different.
Your objective measurement of the 8x42 LX's resolution confirms my subjective experience of the 8x42 LX exceptionally sharp views, which revealed the level of feather detail that I have only seen with the Swift Audubon, which Steve Ingraham measured as 3.5 SOA.
The difference btwn 3.5 vs 3.7 SOA is hard to distinguish in the field, but the fact that an 8X bin can resolve as much detail as a 10x top porro at the same distance shows how well made the LX optics are and why birders and reviewers have praised this bin despite its hefty weight.
Despite its bright and sharp images, I never completely adjusted to the pincushioning. I was always aware of looking through a binocular while watching birds since the image appeared to "roll" when I moved the bin.
In fact, the distortion is so noticeable to me that I'm surprised I have never read any reviewer mention it. Even more puzzling is the BVD review of the 8x42 LX L in which Wayne Mones says he was barely aware that he was using the binoculars because they worked so effortlessly. Makes me wonder if Nikon corrected the distortion, or like reviewers of the LX version, Mones simply doesn't notice it.
The 8x42 LX has exceptionally sharp optics, excellent mechanics, and the best focuser I've tried, but for me, the distracting pincushioning is a "fatal flaw".
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
ngc6475
Fearless Spectator
Reged: 03/02/02
Posts: 5024
Loc: 38°21'N 120°55'W
|
|
I am shipping the 10x42LX to Steve Moore so he can test its resolution. Perhaps he will post his results in a couple of weeks and his impressions of it vs. his 10x42SE, as well. I will be looking forward to Steve's expert opinions, and perhaps Brock will visit Steve for a peek, too. I will make a quick check of its pincushion and star-filter effects before I send it, however. It will be interesting to read Steve's thoughts on the binocular's optics and Brock's impression of how it fits into his famously big hands!
--------------------
Walter
"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls."
-George Carlin
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
WA1TER,
KEYB0ARD 0N THE FRITZ, HENCE THE CAPS AND A1PHA-NUMERIC PR0SE
THE 42MM 1X IS 0NE 0F THE WIDEST R00FS MADE AT 5,5" AND DUE T0 ITS FATTIER GERTH, I CAN GET M0RE PA1M UNDERNEATH THAN THE 8X32 1X BUT THE 10X42 SE PORROS FITS MY BIG MITTS BETTERRRRRRRRRRRRRR
STEVE TOOK A PHOTO OF MY HANDS AROUND THE 8X32 1X TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA AND WHAT I'M TAKING ABOUT
WITH A SMA11ER F0V, I W0U1D EXPECT THE 10X42 1X TO NEED 1ESS PINCUSHIONING TO SHARPEN THE EDGES, BUT WE'11 SEE
THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A TEST DRIVEAAAA
BROCK
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
KennyJ
The British Flash
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 20139
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
BROCCH ,
I GRAOITTLY LUK FORRAD 2 FYNALLIE SEE THIESE GRATE BIGG MITTS OF THYNE ,
KENI
--------------------
Milton Wilcox R.I.P
|
KennyJ
The British Flash
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 20139
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Walter ,
Thanks for such an interesting two - way comparison .
I have a question for ANYONE who has used EITHER of these fine models .
Have YOU ever had the impression that a 6 degree TFOV is just ever so slightly RESTRICTED for a 10x binocular ?
Regards , Kenny
--------------------
Milton Wilcox R.I.P
|
Mark9473
Postmaster
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 6459
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
Quote:
BROCCH ,
I GRAOITTLY LUK FORRAD 2 FYNALLIE SEE THIESE GRATE BIGG MITTS OF THYNE ,
KENI
 
--------------------
Mark
Leica 8x20; Nikon 7x35; Vixen 8x42; Orion 15x63; Docter 15x60
WO Megrez II 80 FD / APM 107mm f/6.5 / Mewlon 210 on DM-6 + Berlebach Planet
|
ngc6475
Fearless Spectator
Reged: 03/02/02
Posts: 5024
Loc: 38°21'N 120°55'W
|
|
Quote:
Walter ,
Thanks for such an interesting two - way comparison .
I have a question for ANYONE who has used EITHER of these fine models .
Have YOU ever had the impression that a 6 degree TFOV is just ever so slightly RESTRICTED for a 10x binocular ?
Regards , Kenny
Yes!
--------------------
Walter
"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls."
-George Carlin
|
mooreorless
Just worried
Reged: 07/05/05
Posts: 2248
Loc: Cornpropst Mills,Huntingdon,Pa
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Walter ,
Thanks for such an interesting two - way comparison .
I have a question for ANYONE who has used EITHER of these fine models .
Have YOU ever had the impression that a 6 degree TFOV is just ever so slightly RESTRICTED for a 10x binocular ?
Regards , Kenny
Yes!
Walter,The wide view through the 8EII kind of spoils a person for the rest.:-)
Kind Regards,Steve
--------------------
Regards,Steve M
|
|
0 registered and 15 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: MMICKELS, okiestarman56
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 5034
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 