Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Does anyone have information as to 'if' and 'when' the SE class might be updated? Since the LXs got an overhaul in the past year or so, will the SEs get the same consideration?
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I contacted Nikon about 2 years ago trying to find out about this.
Included in my communication to Nikon was great praise for the Superior E series, and one or two suggestions of mine, intended as constructive criticism.
I got the impression from the tone of the reply that my suggestions and comments were not particularly well received, and was informed any future research , development , improvements and marketing would NOT be related to the SE porro prism models.
There also seemed a reluctance to disclose any technical information about the stabilisation models and their uncanny similarity to those identical twins badged as "Fujinon".
Based upon the few opportunities I've had to try out top of the range Nikon binoculars, until that time I'd been seriously considering buying a either a 8 x 32 or 10 x 42 SE
but it's funny how little experiences such as mine can put one off parting with hard-earned cash , the profit of which eventually goes to such a company.
Regards , Kenny.
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
cota_scope
sage
Reged: 05/16/04
Posts: 356
Loc: sioux city ia
|
|
kenny if they only made a 10x50SE i would jump on it in a second. john
Edited by cota_scope (01/20/05 04:11 PM)
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
My friend at the Backyard Bird Center told me his Nikon contacts said the company has no current plans to update the SE.
I have a sneaking suspicion a principal reason they updated the LX was they thought it was underpriced compared with the competition from Swarovski, Zeiss, and Leica and wanted to justify a price increase.
The biggest change in the new LX 42mm models is that the weight is significantly reduced, around 6 ounces I think. It feels like even more. The biggest objection I heard from birders about the older LX line was that they were too heavy to lug around in the field all day.
Of course, a couple of participants on this forum have gone on at some length about the LX exhibiting too much CA. I've found, to my amusement, that most birders don't know what CA is and have extraordinary trouble seeing it when you try to show them.
My birdstore friend likes to joke that an advantage of the new LX series is you can safely lick the lenses now -- lead-free glass. 
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< I have a sneaking suspicion a principal reason they updated the LX was they thought it was underpriced compared with the competition from Swarovski, Zeiss, and Leica and wanted to justify a price increase.>
It would seem some people have forgotten that when Nikon first introduced the original model called variously "Venturer" "LX" or "High Grade" it was priced so high that hardly anyone bought it.
It was the first 42mm binocular I was aware of that came with a RRP of over £1000 UK.
Only when that price was considerably slashed by around 20% did it become anything like the "popular" choice we associate it with today.
A great binocular though ,for sure.
Regards , Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Kenny,
I queried Nikon about the same thing, in particular if they had plans to make an 8X42 SE w/ WP/FPing. I received the same answer YOU (and Santa) gave me, namely, Nikon already makes a premium WP/FP 8X42, the XL Venturer/HG (are they still calling it "HG" in Europe?). The XL, followed by a subscript "L" on the "lites" was a nutty moniker, IMO, because how many dealers are going to write it that way on their Website?
I was outside today with the 8X32 SE. The temps were a lot milder than the nipple nipping 10* (wind chill -5*) on Monday. The bright but overcast skies gave a pleasant even lighting to the snow covered landscape. Saw some nice detail under snowbirds' wings (white jagged markings) while they munched on berries in my backyard, and I watched a couple small woodpeckers storing the sunflower seeds I put in the feeder (they stuff them between cracks in the bark).
The views through the SEs are quite stunning and still impress me even after two years of frequent use. At dusk (if it's not too cold), I switch over to my Celestron 10X50 EDs. Although a 10X50 SE like John suggested would be awesome, I've compared the Celestron 10X50 ED to the 10X42 SE and for birding, and I prefer the ED because of its better color saturation. I like the 10X42 better for stargazing due to its "superior" ergonomics, which make them easier to hold steady, and the degree wider FOV is better for both hobbies.
So if I were designing a new 10X50 SE, I'd add ED glass (not Flourite, I want to be able to afford them!). ED glass doesn't eliminate all false color, but its better color saturation would give the rather flat colors of the SE more ZING, particularly for birding. Add WP/FP, keep the long ER and rubber eyecups please (I know they're "dated" but if the twist-up cups were the same oversized width as the rubber cups, they'd never fit my face -- or maybe they can have interchangeable eyecups like the Pinnacles to please everybody), and let's give them a 6* FOV like the 10X42s (we might need to add an extra field flattner lens like the Fujinon FMT-SX series), and let's give them a CF of 13 ft. Of course, we'd also have to keep the weight down, or it might end up like the original XL Venturers (which came with the Warning: See your chiropractor if you use these binoculars for extended periods), so let's add aspherical lenses too. What you're left with is a Celestron ED/Nikon SE/Leupold Pinnacle/Fuji FMT-SX/Pentax SP hybrid.
Mabye that's exactly what we bino aficionados are looking for -- a collaborative venture among binoculars makers. DC/Marvel Comics have teamed up for joint ventures, companies cross promote each other in TV ads, perhaps its time for a joint binocular venture. Think of the possibliites of combining the best features of each model. It's mind boggling (and the result would probably cost way beyond my budget)!
Kenny, since you are "seriously considering buying a either a 8 x 32 or 10 x 42 SE", let me ask you the question you asked me when I was interested in buying a 7X42 Zeiss. Wouldn't an 8X32 SE be redundant? 
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< Kenny, since you are "seriously considering buying a either a 8 x 32 or 10 x 42 SE", let me ask you the question you asked me when I was interested in buying a 7X42 Zeiss. Wouldn't an 8X32 SE be redundant? >
Brock,
To clarify , I wrote that I HAD been interested in buying one or other of the Nikon SEs.
What I REALLY meant was that I was interested in buying a 10 x 42 SE.
I still feel I could derive much pleasure from a REALLY good 10x binocular , which the Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E is.
Regards , Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Quote:
I still feel I could derive much pleasure from a REALLY good 10x binocular , which the Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E is.
You will! Sharp wide field, nice hand feel, lightweight. The nicest handheld astro binoculars i've ever used or owned.
-Florian
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
It would seem some people have forgotten that when Nikon first introduced the original model called variously "Venturer" "LX" or "High Grade" it was priced so high that hardly anyone bought it.
It was the first 42mm binocular I was aware of that came with a RRP of over £1000 UK.
Kenny:
I can't honestly say I've had any experience with the price of binoculars in the UK, so I didn't actually have to forget anything. 
What I can say is that Nikon's 42 SE and LX lines have been selling in the $800 to $900 range (USA currency). At the same time, Swarovski 10x42 ELs sell for about $1595 US -- something like twice the price. I've tested these instruments side by side and will state flat out that compared with the Swarovski, Nikon's LX binoculars were under-priced at $900. In fact, even at $1295 they're a bargain compared with the Swaros.
Furthermore, when you consider the LX advantages over the SE, ergonomics, water proofing, twist-up eyecups, and one of the best (if not the best) focusing mechanisms available, pricing the LX at $100 more than the SE wasn't sensible from a marketing perspective.
While several participants on this forum have argued that the SE binoculars are optically superior to the LX binoculars, my experience with the instruments doesn't bear that out. I own and use both LX and SE binoculars. The optical differences between them, if any, are extremely subtle -- unnoticeable in normal day and night time observing.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
cota_scope
sage
Reged: 05/16/04
Posts: 356
Loc: sioux city ia
|
|
are the lx series roof prism and the se series are porro prism.i would think the porro prism type would be a bit brighter.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Fiske,
I was very surprised to learn that in the USA right now, Swarovski ELs 8.5 x 42 is almost TWICE the price of Nikon LX HG 8 x 42.
Here in the UK , the Swarovski is only £20 more.
THAT is a very considerable difference in situations for the potential purchaser , and I'm struggling to find the justification , if there is any :-)
Regards , Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
are the lx series roof prism and the se series are porro prism.i would think the porro prism type would be a bit brighter.
A lot of what you hear about porro prisms being brighter than roof prisms is based on experience with middle grade roofs. Undoubtedly, it's more difficult to make a top notch roof prism. However, if you're willing to pay the bucks -- and we're talking upwards of $1000 US -- that distinction breaks down.
When you think about it, one of the reasons the Nikon SE stands out is that it is one of the ONLY high-end porro-prism binoculars in the 8x -- 12x range. All the rest are roof-prism instruments. If manufacturers weren't capable of making roof prisms that meet or exceed porro performance at the top end of the scale, would there be so few high-end porro binoculars?
I've compared the SE and LX lines thoroughly, probably as thoroughly as anyone on this forum, and my personal conviction is that there is little if any difference in optical performance between the two lines.
My strong preference for the LX series is based on ergonomics and non-optical features like focusing, eye-cups, etc. Some may feel that the $500 price difference between the 10x42 SE and the 10x42 LX isn't justified by features which don't essentially affect the view in the eyepiece. But I feel the difference every time I pick the instrument up, focus it, whatever. And it's worth that much to me.
Despite the fact that I think it is a fine instrument, I'll never own a 10x42 SE. If I decide to purchase a 10x binocular, it'll be the 10x42 LX.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
Fiske,
I was very surprised to learn that in the USA right now, Swarovski ELs 8.5 x 42 is almost TWICE the price of Nikon LX HG 8 x 42.
Kenny:
It WAS that much for the older style LX, which you could get from a decent dealer or reputable Internet company for about $895 US. The redesigned LX street price is around $1295. Also, the price I quoted was for the 10x42 EL. I'm not sure about the 8.5x42 EL, though I think it's right up there.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
Henry Link
sage
Reged: 03/31/04
Posts: 316
Loc: Greensboro, NC
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
are the lx series roof prism and the se series are porro prism.i would think the porro prism type would be a bit brighter.
A lot of what you hear about porro prisms being brighter than roof prisms is based on experience with middle grade roofs. Undoubtedly, it's more difficult to make a top notch roof prism. However, if you're willing to pay the bucks -- and we're talking upwards of $1000 US -- that distinction breaks down.
Fiske,
You clearly have more experience with the 8X42 LX than I do, but I have compared it several times to the 8X32 SE, Swarovski 8.5X42 and Zeiss 8X42 FL and have consistently found it to have the lowest light transmission of the four. Comparing brightness is certainly very subjective, but each time I have seen a fairly large difference in brightness between it and the 8X32 SE in daylight conditions were it's larger exit pupil isn't a factor . The only roof prism binocular I have seen so far that is roughly equal in brightness to the 8X32 SE in daylight is the Zeiss 8X42 FL, which uses Abbe-Koenig roof prisms instead of Schmidt-Pechans.
The Abbe-Koenig prism probably should be regarded as a completely different type of prism, rather than being lumped together with the Schmidt-Pechan as generic "roof prisms". AK's and SP's are really as different from each other as either is from Porro. For those who don't already know about AK prisms, they have only 3 reflections (compared to 5 in SP), don't require that any surface be mirror coated (as in SP) and have a shorter light path through glass than either Porro or SP. Zeiss claims that AK's have approximately 7% higher transmission than a silver coated SP like the one in the Nikon LX. They should have light transmission equal to a porro or slightly better . Unfortunately only a few binoculars use Abbe-Koenig prisms, all of them Zeiss (the 42mm FL's, the 40mm and larger Victories, and the 7X42 and 8X56 Classics). AFAIK every other roof prism binocular currently available regardless of cost uses Schmidt-Pechans and even the recent ones that use dielectric mirror coatings like the EL's and Ultravids appear to me to have visibly lower light transmission than the brightest porros and the FL's.
Henry
Edited by Henry Link (01/21/05 10:37 PM)
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Just to clarify,
Here in the UK -- right now in January 2005 , the NEW LIGHTER Nikon Venturer LX HG 8 x 42 is about the same price as a Swarovski 8.5 x 42 EL.
Slightly more expensive at this moment in time , here in the UK , are the Leica Ultravid and Zeiss FL roofs , both of which are most definitely in the same class , if not slowly gaining reputations for being ,if anything , slightly superior.
There are other PORRO prism binoculars still around , apart from Nikon SE , which cost only about half the price of these top of the range roofs.
One of these is the Swarovski Habicht 10 x 40 ,which has the advantage over the Nikon SE of being waterproof.
There is something about the Nikon SE which makes it provide an EXCEPTIONALLY BRIGHT image in daylight , almost to the point of defying logic and / or optical theory.
For Nikon to create a 10 x 50 version of the 10 x 42 SE would require much more than just larger objectives.
So many factors contribute to the unique features of any given model , and if for example the 42mm objectives were simply replaced by those from a 12 x 50 SE unit , other aspects such as prism sizes , vignetting , field of view and eye -relief would be affected , and all in all , I'm not sure the end result would necessarily represent any improvement.
In the case of the existing SE ,the 4 to 4.2mm exit pupil and 60 degree AFOV seem to be factors contributing greatly to the design success.
As I first suggested long ago, what might have been more desireable than a 10 x 50 SE would have been a 15 x 60 version.
Regards , Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Henry:
You've certainly done your research on prism types.
I haven't tested the 8.5x42 Swaro or the 8x42 Zeiss FL. I have tested the 8x32 SE against the 8x42 LX on the night sky and it was no contest -- the 8x42 LX easily outperformed the smaller instrument.
One thing I have noticed about daylight brightness comparisons is that larger apparent FOVs make a binocular seem brighter. I believe the 8x32 SE has a larger AFOV than the 8x42 LX, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the same is true of both the Zeiss and Swaro models.
The Zeiss is known for having a huge true field, something like 8.6 degrees isn't it. From what I've heard, it's also not as sharp off-axis as the LX though sharper on axis. Off-axis performance isn't nearly as critical for daytime observing as it is for astronomy.
At any rate, it's not too hard to believe that the primary reason the 8x32 SE appears brighter has more to do with AFOV than with the prism type, though that might also be a factor. As you point out, the Swaro appears brighter than the LX and uses the same prism type.
And while a larger exit pupil is not necessarily an advantage in daylight, it is a decided advantage at night, easily outweighing other factors as my night sky comparisons suggest.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
Here in the UK -- right now in January 2005 , the NEW LIGHTER Nikon Venturer LX HG 8 x 42 is about the same price as a Swarovski 8.5 x 42 EL.
Slightly more expensive at this moment in time , here in the UK , are the Leica Ultravid and Zeiss FL roofs , both of which are most definitely in the same class , if not slowly gaining reputations for being ,if anything , slightly superior.
Kenny:
The strength of the Euro is probably a factor in these price variations.
It also occurs to me that Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski instruments being manufactured by EU companies might also play a role in a preference for them among EU nations.
I checked in with my birdstore friend the other day after his return from a major birding convention in Atlanta. He has been thinking about adding Zeiss to his binocular line and wanted to look at Zeiss instruments and talk with their reps. Unfortunately, Zeiss wasn't at the convention! This surprised the heck out of my friend and suggests that Zeiss isn't overly concerned about their marketing effort in the USA.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
lighttrap
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
Quote:
I checked in with my birdstore friend the other day after his return from a major birding convention in Atlanta. He has been thinking about adding Zeiss to his binocular line and wanted to look at Zeiss instruments and talk with their reps. Unfortunately, Zeiss wasn't at the convention! This surprised the heck out of my friend and suggests that Zeiss isn't overly concerned about their marketing effort in the USA.
I've had a very similar conversation with the proprietor of one of the area's largest birding optics stores. She was torn between carrying Zeiss and Swarovski. Swarovski actively courted her business, and even sent her to Austria after she'd been selling them for a couple years. Locally, Swarovski, Leica and Nikon dominate birding and hunting stores. And of course, the deal between Eagle Optics and Wild Birds Unlimited means that most of the local chain stores only carry Eagle Optics and perhaps a few Nikons. It's pretty tough to find a store that really stocks enough different brands and models to really do very much by way of an in-store comparison. There's a hunting store nearby that does indeed stock a huge selection of small to medium binoculars, but if you spend more than about a minute with a set and haven't pulled out wallet to buy it, the staff gets a bit abrupt. I guess they have all the business they need. 
--------------------
18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
lighttrap
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
Getting back to the concept of a 10x50 SE, I doubt you'd see any improvement in brightness over the existing 10x42 SE. It's my understanding that the reason Nikon never offered the SE series in more standard sizes like 8x42, 10x50 & 12x60, is that the whole point was to create a binocular series that was as bright or brighter as the best porro prism examples of those sizes, only make the whole series smaller and lighter. Thus, they came up with a 8x32, 10x42, and 12x50 that are basically unrivaled even by nominally larger sizes of the same magnification.
I'm with Kenny, I do wish they'd come out with a 15x60 SE, and while they're at it, make the whole line waterproof. But, in all honesty, if the 15x60 came out at around $1000, where it would most assuredly have to be, (minimum), I wouldn't buy one. I suspect that's why we'll never really see much improvement or expansion of the SE lineup. Nikon knows the market is extremely small, and dwindling. In almost all the circles and publications I'm aware of that deal with small binoculars, the buzz is all around roof prism instruments.
--------------------
18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Fiske,
For a long time , like yourself , I thought that "apparant brightness" had much to do with "apparant" ,if not"actual" field of view.
It is not a theory which ever gains much support or respect , but it seems to me that the larger the area of sky being "drawn in" through the objective lenses of a binocular , the "brighter" the image will appear.
So when a chance to compare my 10 x 50 Swift with 70 degree AFOV against a Nikon 10 x 42 with 60 degree AFOV came up , I was quietly confident that the Swift would appear to provide the brighter image of the two.
How WRONG I was !
In direct comparison ,the image through the Swift was quite dull, muddy and with a dirty yellow tint.
Through the Swift ,optimum resolution ends and distortions commence from around 50% out from centre.
Through the Nikon SE , these good and bad things end and start at around 85% from centre.
A huge difference in class , and one not really reflected in any other reports , reviews and comparisons I've read by reviewers more professional than I am.
Regards , Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Quote:
< Brock, ...What I REALLY meant was that I was interested in buying a 10 x 42 SE. I still feel I could derive much pleasure from a REALLY good 10x binocular , which the Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E is. >
Kenny,
I figured you meant the 10X42s, but couldn't resist the "t-i-t-for-tat". :-) Actually, if my pupils could open to 6mm, having both the 7X42 Zeiss and 8X32 SE wouldn't be redundant (though rather extravagant), because as bright as the SEs are during the day (bright as most 42mm bins), the exit pupil would be less adequate for dusk and dawn birding, when I switch to my 10X50s.
While the 10X42 SE has the best rep in the SE line, probably due to its versatility, after comparing my 8X32s with a friend's 10X42s, I found that I prefer the 8X32 for its lighter weight and wider FOV.
NB: I have rubber dew guards on the short barrels, without which my pinkies would stick in the air like a tea-totaling English gentleman. :-)
Re: the need to totally redesign the SE for a 10X50 model, you may be correct (not to my ridiculously ideal specs, but just to add a 10X50 bin to the SE line). The 8X32 and 10X42 share the same housing. Steve Ingraham ( formerly known as the "Prince of BVD" :-) said that Nikon chose not to offer a 8X42 SE because it would have to completely redesign the housing, he never explained why, but he knows optics, and hobnobs with industry insiders, so it's probably true. So stepping down 2X from the 12X50 SE would probably require a housing redesign as well. Perhpas one of our CN optics experts can comment on that.
If the SEs are too pricey in Europe, you might try a Pentax 10X43 DCF SP. They sell for just over $400 in the US, and are lighter, WP/FP (I would think that would come in handy in England), and focus twice as close as the SEs. I have read a number reviews that rate them as "exceptionally sharp" and sharp to the edge, but I never saw a head to head comparison with the SE.
Cheers, Brock
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
A little off-topic, but are the 12x50 SEs equivalent in optical quality to the smaller versions? (minus the FOV, of course).
Charles
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Charles,
Living in the UK , the 12 x 50 Nikon SE remains little more than a mythical model to me.
But -- and it's a BIG BUT -- when people as knowledgeable and experienced with binoculars as Mike Swaim , Ed Zarenski , Fiske and John Finnan ( to name but four) all agree that the 12 x 50 is an outstanding binocular , I think we can all safely assume that model is indeed every bit the "optical equivalent" of the smaller versions of this outstanding glass.
Brock,
The SEs are not particularly pricey in the UK.
Last time I checked , the 8 x 32 was just over £400 with the 10 x 42 a little over £450.
These prices are roughly HALF of the average price NEW for the top of the range roof prism binoculars from any of the "big four" here in the UK at this point in time.
The Pentax 10 x 43 DCF SP , which I believe to be overall THE best Pentax binocular ever made , is in a similar price bracket to the Nikon SE 10 x 42 , so probably represents outstanding value for money in any terms,
Regards , Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Kenny:
I wouldn't say you were wrong that AFOV is a factor in determining apparent brightness -- it's just not the only factor.
If there were such a thing as 10x42 SE binoculars that had an AFOV of 50 degrees which you could compare with the 60 degree AFOV of the existing model, you would undoubtedly find yourself prefering the 60 degree model and sensing that it was somehow "brighter". It's the through-a-cardboard-tube thing.
The quality of the optics is also a critical factor.
Premier binoculars cost a lot of money for a reason. They're expensive to make. It's not like the difference between a $200 binocular and a $1000 binocular is $800 profit for the manufacturer. I sometimes get the impression people imagine that when they learn the price of a top quality instrument.
One amusing characteristic among amateur astronomers, at least the ones I know, is for observers to wax rhapsodic about $7,000 6-inch Astrophysics refractors and then express amazement that someone would spend $1000 on a pair of binoculars. After all, they're not telescopes! 
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
lighttrap
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
Quote:
One amusing characteristic among amateur astronomers, at least the ones I know, is for observers to wax rhapsodic about $7,000 6-inch Astrophysics refractors and then express amazement that someone would spend $1000 on a pair of binoculars. After all, they're not telescopes!
That is something I commented on the other day. It simply amazes me that folks who will gladly plunk down hundreds of dollars on a Nagler eyepiece, think that they should be able to obtain a high quality binocular, consisting of two refractors for under a hundred bucks. A quality binocular is inherently much more complex and involved than any eyepiece or any refractor. It's more like twin spotting scopes, with 2 objectives, 2 eyepieces and 2 prisms, and all have to be working in perfect harmony. Frankly, I'm amazed at the quality of binocular available in the $150-$500 range, given how expensive decent spotting scopes are.
--------------------
18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Quote:
A quality binocular is inherently much more complex and involved than any eyepiece or any refractor.
I was thinking about this the other day. My Tele Vue 76 refractor (without eyepiece) and my Leica 10x32 Ultravid binoculars are roughly the same price. Compared to the binoculars the telescope is a very simple instrament. People make their own refractors at home sometime. I've never heard of anyone making a handheld binocular in their home shop.
-Florian
| | |
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
