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 any Nikon Action Series review information?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Try the Excelcis user reviews. The Nikon Egret 8x40 porros are cheap, rugged, and amazingly good optics for the price (wide field, good depth of field, good contrast, brightness and centre field sharpness) but with a lot of distortion away from the field centre, and not much eye relief. Ugly too.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Hello,
I'm looking for anyone that may have a Nikon action 16x50 or 12x50. I read all the reviews, but want someone who has them now give me a review. These are a new product that nikon has come out with. Maybe someone has the Waterproof/fogproof Action EX?
Ray A.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I cannot believe that no one has any opinions on these!
Rya A.
|
Tom L
Reged: 01/07/04
Posts: 29817
Loc: Sunny Oregon
|
|
Well Ray, I own the 8x40s. I like them.
--------------------
Tom 
Tele Vue 102mm f/8.6 on an EzTouch
Vixen 80mm f/5 A80SSWT on a grab-n-go mount
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12601
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
What outstanding information is in this thread that it garners a 5 star rating!!!!
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I'm sorry that I cannot shed any further light on the product in question Ray.
Ed ,how does this "star" rating business work anyway ?
Kenny.
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
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: 1517
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Ray,
i made some comments on the nikon action 10X50 on the another thread with a similar title awhile back. i looked at the bin at Wal-Mart and compared it to 10X50 Leupold WindRivers, which they also had. i found the body on the nikon to be less comfortable to hold and not as well balanced as the Leupold. the ER is better on the Leupold and it seemed a little sharper in centerfield resolution and brighter. i liked the rubber eyecups on the nikon better, fit my face more comfortably. the leupold has the newer type hard pop-up eyecups. the 18mm ER on the leupold was not sufficient to see the entire FOV with my glasses, i'm guessing the useable ER was more like 15mm, so really no advantage there for me. the nikon had a slightly wider FOV, but i didn't have time to compare the edges. the nikons showed a bit more false color than the leupolds.
the leupolds SHOULD be better, they were more than TWICE the price of the nikons, however, they didn't offer twice the performance, but were only marginally better. the nikon action is a good buy esp with the rebates (not sure if that's still going). despite the low price, it's certainly no toy and should work well for stargazing.
also take a look at the minolta activa 10X50, more expensive than the nikon, but "weatherproof" and fogproof, and it also employs aspherical lenses for lower distortion like the nikons.
--------------------
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."
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12601
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
See Rating a Thread in the Off Topic. edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Thank you guys,
Ray A.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
According to a Nikon representative, the new Action EX series does NOT use Aspherical elements. I wonder how good the image is at this price point without using Aspherical lenses.
Does anybody have any ideas about how the Action EX series compare with the Action series?
|
Craig Simmons
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/10/03
Posts: 1502
Loc: Falls Church, VA
|
|
I have a pair of Nikon 10x50 Action IVs. I like them so much I bought a pair for my brother-in-law. Very sharp optics.
Craig Simmons
Falls Church, VA
--------------------
Craig Simmons
Oberwerk 8x56, 20x90
Nikon Action IV 10x50
Barska 15x70
Galileo 20x60
Stellarvue 15x63, 20x85
Orion XT10 pre-Classic
Antares 10
Stellarvue AT1010
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Surely the time is upon us to apply to the administrator for special permission to upgrade this most riveting thread to a 6 star rating ? :-( :-)
Regards --Kenny.
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
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
|
Charlie Fisher
member
Reged: 06/28/03
Posts: 38
Loc: Tampa, FL USA
|
|
OK, I'll talk. I have the Nikon Action 10X50 binocular, not sure what roman numeral. I use it frequently, nearly daily. I like it for hand held astronomy. It is not as suitable for birding. It is also good for fireworks shows and general sports. My binocular is about two years old and has a 'made in Japan' sticker on it, for what that is worth. At 6.5 degrees it has a generous enough field of view.
At the current price point (you can get them for about $100) they are useful for the general purposes I mentioned above. The Nikons are very solid $100 porros. There are a lot of solid $100 porros around. You won't go wrong with the Nikons understanding that that is what they are.
They are useful to me for spotting targets before hunting with my 8in Dob. They are useful to me when I just want to spot M41 (or the Hyades, or the Alpha Per O-B association, or M42, or M44, or M37, or M45, or M31, or any such bright Messier) without the trouble of setting up a scope.
They are not so useful for wildlife. Why? They aren't waterproof, they close focus only to 20-25 feet, and they have an ancient, big-old-porro ergonomic feel. Still, they are not overly heavy.
And truthfully I like them very much. They are sharp, they are cheap, and if my kids dropped them on the back porch I wouldn't gasp.
And the ultimate test... what bins do I actually use, day after day, the most (for astro)?
My Nikon Action 10X50s.
Own: Fujinon 16X70 FMT-SX, Swift 8.5X44ED, Eagle Optics Triumph 8X25, Olympus 8X21 DCP I, Simmons 8X21 roof (ick) and of course the oft used Nikon Action 10X50.
I guess I really need an 8X32 roof to truly round that collection out. 
Charlie
|
Erik D
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 2573
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
Charlie,
Let me guess. Your 8X32 roof must be: Waterproof, fogproof, phase coated, close focus to under 8 ft with 18mm or longer eye relief, 7.5 deg FOV and wt of 20 oz or less.
I'd be very interested to know which 8X32 models are among you top choices.
Erik D
|
lighttrap
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
Well, Kenny,
This probably won't be worthy of more than one star, but to add something to this thread, I'll spill what I know based on my experiences with numerous models in this line.
In about 1988 or possibly as late as '89, I got my first "real" wildlife binoculars. They were the original camoflage colored, rubber armored Nikon "Naturalists" in 7x35. At the time, they were Nikon's bigger, less expensive, armored, alternative to the famous Nikon 7x35E and they retailed for something very close to $95 or so late '80's US dollars. Adjusted for inflation, they were probably comparable to binoculars 2x that price in current funds.
The original "Naturalists" were quite large for the aperature. In fact, they were bigger than a lot of current 42mm binos. I liked their bright, wide FOV, but even then, wished for more magnification. Edge performance was decent for terrestrial use out to maybe the last 20% of the FOV. They served me well for several years, until they were eventually stolen from my vehicle.
In 1998 Nikon brought out the "Action" series. In that Action series was a complete redo of the "Naturalist". The new binocular was maybe 25% smaller in exterior dimension. That was good. What was bad, is that the aspherical lenses seemed to me to be a very, very poor substitute for whatever was in the originals. Keep in mind that I never did get to do a side-by-side comparison, and am relying largely on memory. Sometime, around about that time, Nikon switched countries of origin for the whole Action line.
The Action line had several configurations not previously available. In 1999 they added the thoroughly miserable zoom binoculars to the Action line. In 2001, Nikon spun their binocular and telescope line off into a separate company. Unsubstantiated rumors indicated more changes in parts sourcing and country of origin/assembly.
Somewhere in there, I became aware of the 8x40 Egrets. I'm not sure when they actually fit into the timeline. My first experience with them was so positive that I immediately aquired a set and began recommending them, to birders and sports enthusiasts on a budget. Since then, I've seen literally dozens of examples of the Egrets and have seen so much variation in QC that I no longer recommend them as heartily. Ditto for the 10x50s and 12x50s.
There have been so many revisions and versions of the various binoculars in the Action series that I find it virtually impossible to be sure which exact version anybody is talking about. What's the difference between a II and a V? I haven't, yet, found anybody that could really break the whole series down into a coherent model revision flowchart.
Over the years, the street price for the Action series has remained quite compelling. But, because there are so many varieties, and because I've verified so many QC problems; ranging from extreme sperical abberation, to chromatic abberation, to severe edge of field distortion starting at 40-50%; because of all those variables, I no longer feel comfortable recommending them.
At this point, I've owned (2)7x35s, (2)8x40 "Egrets" & (1)10x50 in the Action series. Additionally, I've looked through literally dozens more in stores and in the field. The bottom line is that it's quite possible to get a good binocular in this series with careful handpicking, but the chances of getting a good set by random mailorder is significantly stacked against the purchaser.
Those are just my opinions and recollections,
Mike Swaim
--------------------
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: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thanks Mike,
I really enjoyed reading that for a variety of reasons.
Quite apart from your post providing invaluable information for anyone considering purchase of such a model , what it also does is highlight a number of points which have fascinated me for some time.
One is this matter of companies using a "name" that may have represented certain qualities and reputation for ONE model at ONE point in time , and continuing to use THAT name on a product which the marketing people at the company quite may be quite aware is inferior to the original product , just hoping to "cash-in" on the reputation previously gained.
I think that is a poor state of affairs.
Of course this kind of thing goes on with practically every line of commodity known to mankind , but at least in the cases of motor vehicles , domestic appliances and most other things , full technical specifications and modifications, chronological lists of production and discontinuation dates and precise places of manufacture can usually be obtained with a little effort and determination.
For some reason there seems to be a lack of such data available in many cases within the binocular industry.
I am in "in touch" with several people who have spent almost a lifetime attempting to gather and accumulate information on binoculars of bygone years , and also with optical repair specialists who give me the impression that they could write very interesting books on the "secrets" of ,and often less than satisfactory technical back -up and parts availability for , certain models, if only doing so did not run against the unwritten rules of professional ethics and etiquette.
How I wish I could get inside their collective banks of knowledge !
Another interesting point you make is the continuing mystery surrounding the actual factory and country of origin
of many binoculars.
I think it most unethical a state of affairs that exists between manufacturer and consumer when the consumer is not only "not informed of" , but in some cases cannot even find out via any "normal" or reasonable means just where the product he or she is buying is actually made or by whom.
Even when country of origin is known , it is a whole new ballgame trying to figure which model was made where and how many are "duplicate" or " crossover" models , or basic models that have mainly cosmetic alterations applied to them for no other reason than to "hide the truth".
To keep a log of such things requires the patience of a true saint.
The current results of one example of such a person getting at least somewhere with such a project after about two years of concerted effort can be viewed at the following web site:
http://home.europa.com/~telscope/JpnSurvy.xls
Bear in mind you will need a programme to download the information.
The final point which grabbed my attention was your reference to the matter of trying to recall a binocular's performance from memory.
Even the celebrated ( but rapidly becoming outdated ) Todd Gross binocular review pages get a very low recommendation from certain internet "advisary services" simply because he was honest enough to admit to having quoted certain impressions from memory ,which I find totally forgiveable providing he point is highlighted as Todd did.
The eefctive "suggested downgrading " of Todd's site as a result may seem a minor point perhaps in the opinions of some people ( including Todd himself , who I alerted the situation to 3 tears ago and to which he shrugged the matter off in typical modest and good humoured fashion )but to my mind little short of outrageous given the often biased and plain misleading "review" information available on other internet sites ( which I am refusing to mention by name if only because I have not the time at this moment to re -check them all for accuracy of comment )
Anyway , the bottom line Mike is thanks for your post -- there always seems to be SOMETHING in your posts that interests me, and it has long been a special pleasure of mine to read them.
Regards -- Kenny.
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
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
|
Charlie Fisher
member
Reged: 06/28/03
Posts: 38
Loc: Tampa, FL USA
|
|
Quote:
Charlie,
Let me guess. Your 8X32 roof must be: Waterproof, fogproof, phase coated, close focus to under 8 ft with 18mm or longer eye relief, 7.5 deg FOV and wt of 20 oz or less.
I'd be very interested to know which 8X32 models are among you top choices.
Erik D
Yes, that's them exactly! And they should be cheap to boot. Is that too much to ask?
Seriously, I haven't really had the opportunity to look through any 8X32s and really begin an assessment. I am probably just pining for my Swift 8.5X44's, which have unfortunately had an extended visit to their Boston repair department. They have been out of commission since mid-January owing to some bad luck and a series of miscues at Swift (but they have sure been nice about it, I'll say that, so there are no hard feelings here at all). Anyway that means I have been birding for a month with the Eagle Optics 8X25 Triumph, and while I am very glad I had it as a substitute binocular, I am beginning to think 'wouldn't it have been a lot nicer to have spent this month with some really good 8X32 roofs as my backup birding glass instead...'
Hopefully when the Swifts come back my desire to consume will be tempered. I am pretty sure that good 8X32 roofs would cost more than the Swifts.
Hmmm... If I can talk my wife into getting a binocular for canoeing and birding together, maybe I can talk her into letting me get her 8X32 roofs!
If I do end up going in that direction, I would certainly like to look through the EO Ranger Platinum, just in case it's good enough. It is sure a lot cheaper than the rest for its apparent quality and features.
After that, I guess it's straight downhill (financially) to Nikon Venturers and Swarovski ELs. I am not sure I even want to think about it! There is a Swarovski store at the mall just two miles away...
Charlie
|
|
11 registered and 14 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1136
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
