The 10x42 SE is my regular birding binocular and I know it's the thing here to wax lyrical about what one owns, but IMO some of the praise that comes for it is slightly over-romanticised due to its status as the last great porro. It's unquestionably a fine binocular and I like it very much, but the latest top alphas are certainly - to my eye anyway - superior, particularly in colour rendition and from what I've seen (and admittedly there may be differences in sample variation etc - but I recall Kimmo testing his Canon 10x42 against the SE and finding the former sharper) sharpness or at least perceived sharpness. That's not counting areas of real practical birding advantage such as FOV, weatherproofing, handling/ergonomics. I've said before and still think Nikon deliberately handicapped the SE by making sure its field of view was inferior to the HG and later EDG series, and furnishing that long (almost over-long) eye relief design (which is also flat field, so not exactly as simple as an Erfle, either...) with rubber eyecups almost seems like an in-joke.
The price paid for that level of excellence, of course, is cost, and I've sometimes joked to friends that the SE is my "austerity alpha". It does that very well indeed, but much though I enjoy my SE, I'd exchange it for any of NL, SF, EL and probably FL (would need to compare the two side by side closely, though) too.
I think most porros that consumer birders and others buy (with honourable exceptions such as the Habicht and Fujinon) are indeed not as robust as roofs. My SE is well made, but I won't use it in the tropics (which is why it's not here with me now), nor anywhere it's liable to encounter heavy rain, and I'm always conscious that the focus action pumps air in and out of the binocular that over time will result in haze that needs cleaning, to the point I try to focus as little as possible (which, fortunately, I can get away with in my birding). That said, I don't believe military levels of robustness are necessary for the great majority of civilian users (otherwise we'd see more folks toting Hensoldts). But waterproofing, IMO, is necessary for a binocular to be commercially successful. Most users given a choice between buying a binocular claimed to be waterproof and one labelled as only "splashproof" will go for the former.
Leica probably secured the Perger design to prevent it from being used by a competitor. It's not the only porro design out there - maybe more could have (and could still be done) with the Porro II design - but the only place likely to press forward with that kind of innovation (the PRC) is already producing very good roof binoculars.
PS. for what it's worth, when I use 8x32/8x30 (generally preferring 8x42), most times I want the "old porro experience" - straight to your eyes and a 150m field of view. So you could say that's what wows me. As for more modern binoculars, I think the 8x32 FL is very good, very sharp and clean image with well rendered colours and a wide FOV. It's a great example of the modern birding 8x32. But I haven't compared it closely with eg. the 8x32 Swarovision or the newer SF. Pinewood, who did, shelled out for the SF.