Allbinos, new Nikon binocular reviews (2 Viewers)

[NDhunter]

There are 2 recent reviews from Allbinos on some Nikon binoculars.

The first was for the Aculon 10x50, and this past week the Prostaff
7S, 8x30.

Both have very good reviews, and seem to be well done and place well
in their price ranges, and rankings.

Be sure to look at the rankings to see how they compare to some in
much higher price points.

Jerry

 

[brocknroller]

Thanks for posting that info. I check allbinos periodically, and I had read the 10x50 Aculon review but not the review of the 8x30 PS7. The aspherics in the Aculon do make for very sharp images in the centerfield but they also decenter the sweet spot such that it is to the right and below center on both sides. The feel of the Aculon is nice, ergonomically and the "gripability" (borrowed a BF member's term), and thankfully, with a smooth turning focuser in both directions. If your focus accommodation is good, the Aculon performs better than its low price would suggest.

The trade-off for the narrower FOV in the 8x30 PS7 (which is about the same as than the Monarch 5, Pentax NV, and even the $999 Pentax 8x43 ED) is better edge performance - sharp to 87% out.

Nikon continues to impress me with the consistent quality of its offerings at various price points. Something for everybody, from top to bottomess.

Brock

P.S. I noticed that Arek is now including a graphic of the light spectrum at the bottom of his light curves. I like that, instead of just abstract numbers, you can actually see where the color crests and troughs are.

 

[Robert Wallace]

Have Allbinos stopped reviewing Zeiss products?
I ask this because I am interested in buying some new 10x binoculars and the Nikon EDG 10x42 came out very well, I think marginally better than the Swarovski 10x42. I have tried the EDGs at a birdfair two or three years ago and preferred them to the Zeiss FL 10x42. However I would be interested in comparing review results between the EDG and the Zeiss HT.
I did compare the 10x Zeiss SF and HT at the Rutland Birdfair last year and was not convinced the SF was worth £600+ over the HT.
My 10x40 Dialyts are almost 30 years old and showing their age optically.
Interested whether anyone has experience of comparing the EDG and HT 10x.

 

[Robert Wallace]

Just realised that Zeiss is under their full name of Carl Zeiss. No HT review but tend to agree with Brock regarding Nikon products. I currently use Nikon 8x32 HG as my default birding binocular and am well pleased.

 

[brocknroller]

Arek has fallen behind in his reviews. Pier at binomania has reviewed the 8x42 HT, 8x54 HT, and 8x42 SF.

Here's the 8x42 HT review:

zeiss-8x42-ht-che-la-luce-sia-con-voi/

When I first tried the 8x32 HG, I was blown away by the contrast and color saturation, which were noticeably better than the 501xxx 8x32 SE I had at the time. Even the image through the 8.5x EL made around the same time as the HG seemed dull by comparison. Nikon's coatings were ahead of their time.

But so was its fast focuser, which is all the rage now, but not to my liking. While the 2001 EL's focuser was too slow, the HG's was too fast. The EDG's focuser is a bit on the fast side but not as fast as the HG. I would prefer them a bit slower and with more "stiction." I'm not sure if it's possible, but my ideal focuser would be one that allowed you to "tune it" to your preference, something like a 3-speed bicycle.

Brock

 

[Robert Wallace]

Thank you for the link Brock and may I add that I too am pleased to see you back.
I have to say that my Nikon 8x32 HGs meet all my birding needs and that I have no problem with the focussing.
My first "alpha" bins were the Dialyt 10x40 followed by the Dialyt 7x42 (phase corrected) the Nikon 8x32 were allegedly for my wife but she is very happy with her Nikon 8x20 HGLs.
I have been very happy with both Zeiss and Nikon optics which is why I am considering the Nikon 10x42 EDGs or the Zeiss 10x42HT. Ideally I should find a dealer I can visit to compare both models, not too easy as the Zeiss HT has not proved popular in the UK amongst birders. I should also add that I prefer the EDG to the Swarovski EL Swarovision. I do have a pair of Swaro 8x25 CLs for use on non birding holidays and am eccentric enough to enjoy using the Swaro 30x75 draw tube telescope.

 

[Arek]

Arek has fallen behind in his reviews. Pier at binomania has reviewed the 8x42 HT, 8x54 HT, and 8x42 SF.
Brock

I asked Zeiss for sending me for testing 10x42 models from Terra, Conquest ED, Victory HT and Victory SF series. The answer was that market demand is so high they do not keep up with production and they have no specimens for testing.

 

[brocknroller]

I asked Zeiss for sending me for testing 10x42 models from Terra, Conquest ED, Victory HT and Victory SF series. The answer was that market demand is so high they do not keep up with production and they have no specimens for testing.

All of them!? I find their reply hard to believe. I think they just don't want you reviewing their bins, because they know you are going to be honest in your tests and post "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" in your reviews.

Pier gets his bins from dealers, perhaps you can find a dealer who is willing to loan you Zeiss bins for review. Now that Jan is a Zeiss dealer again, maybe he would be willing to provide test samples. From user reviews on BF, I'm sure some Zeiss models would give Swaro, Nikon and Leica a run for their money.

 

[ceasar]

All of them!? I find their reply hard to believe. I think they just don't want you reviewing their bins, because they know you are going to be honest in your tests and post "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" in your reviews.

Pier gets his bins from dealers, perhaps you can find a dealer who is willing to loan you Zeiss bins for review. Now that Jan is a Zeiss dealer again, maybe he would be willing to provide test samples. From user reviews on BF, I'm sure some Zeiss models would give Swaro, Nikon and Leica a run for their money.

I disagree.

In reality the only way Arek can maintain credible independence is by purchasing the binoculars he tests.

And why should independent dealers turn new binoculars into "Demos" by lending them out for testing? What is in it for them? Will they inform the prospective purchasers that these binoculars are Demos? They don't have to give the reason they are demos but they can't sell them as new. If they do their credibility is also in doubt.

Bob

 

[brocknroller]

I disagree.

In reality the only way Arek can maintain credible independence is by purchasing the binoculars he tests.

And why should independent dealers turn new binoculars into "Demos" by lending them out for testing? What is in it for them? Will they inform the prospective purchasers that these binoculars are Demos? They don't have to give the reason they are demos but they can't sell them as new. If they do their credibility is also in doubt.

Bob

Then you're saying that Frank D., Steve C., Stephen Ingraham, Wayne Mones, and Piergiovanni have no credibility, because they review loaners?

 

[ceasar]

Then you're saying that Frank D., Steve C., Stephen Ingraham, Wayne Mones, and Piergiovanni have no credibility, because they review loaners?

Who are they borrowing them from? Manufacturers? Dealers? Or friends and acquaintances? Stay on context.

 

[Hermann]

All of them!? I find their reply hard to believe. I think they just don't want you reviewing their bins, because they know you are going to be honest in your tests and post "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" in your reviews.

Or because some of the test results are, shall we say, "suspect", like the transmission values for the Docter 8x56 or the Fujinon 7x50, or because the stress on an absence of distortion is - at least! - highly debatable?

Hermann

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Who are they borrowing them from? Manufacturers? Dealers? Or friends and acquaintances? Stay on context.

It is practically impossible for a reviewer to purchase all samples by himself. Whenever I review some of the higher priced models, then I have to ask for samples, demo glasses from a dealer or directly from the manufacturer. In this way, I can be sure that I won't get a lemon, and that the sample performs according to specification. Sure, I won't be able to discover any flaws or irregularities in manufacturing. If any such flaw were obvious in a self-purchased binocular, then I would not be smart to test that sample anyway, but rather return it to get a replacement that works flawless.

I am quite sure that the marketing guys of the big manufacturers are screening previously published reports of their products by the very author who requests their test samples. The one who turns out to be least critical is then likely to get his demos first, I may suppose

Cheers,
Holger

 

[jan van daalen]

I disagree.

In reality the only way Arek can maintain credible independence is by purchasing the binoculars he tests.

And why should independent dealers turn new binoculars into "Demos" by lending them out for testing? What is in it for them? Will they inform the prospective purchasers that these binoculars are Demos? They don't have to give the reason they are demos but they can't sell them as new. If they do their credibility is also in doubt.

Bob

There are a few sides to this story.
First, dealers get to an maximum of 8% of their yearly turnover in free bins from the companies, so these are for free.
Second, (in our case) the customer gets a loaner when he brings his bin in for repair.
We have a "testing program" for what you guys are talking about now and a Rental program and the returning bins are used for all these purposes.

We get almost every week requests for testing bins but the loaner/tester has to prove what his/her extra added value will be.
A lot of them get as far as they like bins and are complete unknown in the optic community. I remember one occasion where the bin ended up for sale on E-bay and another one "got lost" in the mail.

Jan

 

[ceasar]

It is practically impossible for a reviewer to purchase all samples by himself. Whenever I review some of the higher priced models, then I have to ask for samples, demo glasses from a dealer or directly from the manufacturer. In this way, I can be sure that I won't get a lemon, and that the sample performs according to specification. Sure, I won't be able to discover any flaws or irregularities in manufacturing. If any such flaw were obvious in a self-purchased binocular, then I would not be smart to test that sample anyway, but rather return it to get a replacement that works flawless.

I am quite sure that the marketing guys of the big manufacturers are screening previously published reports of their products by the very author who requests their test samples. The one who turns out to be least critical is then likely to get his demos first, I may suppose

Cheers,


Holger,

I understand. Disclosing where and how the binocular was obtained without going into specific details should be stated in all reviews. Such as: "Purchased from a dealer" or "Obtained on loan from a dealer" or "Obtained on loan from manufacturer for the purpose of this review."

Bob

 

[ceasar]

There are a few sides to this story.
First, dealers get to an maximum of 8% of their yearly turnover in free bins from the companies, so these are for free.
Second, (in our case) the customer gets a loaner when he brings his bin in for repair.
We have a "testing program" for what you guys are talking about now and a Rental program and the returning bins are used for all these purposes.

We get almost every week requests for testing bins but the loaner/tester has to prove what his/her extra added value will be.
A lot of them get as far as they like bins and are complete unknown in the optic community. I remember one occasion where the bin ended up for sale on E-bay and another one "got lost" in the mail.

Jan

Jan,

Thanks for clarifying that.

As I noted above to Holger, a simple disclosure statement is all that is necessary by a reviewer.

Dealers, as I understand it, do this by identifying certain binoculars as "Demos." They can be given this designation for a number of reasons and that should be enough. I know from personal experience that it can be almost impossible to tell some Demos from New and Untouched (Usually those are taken to shows where the box has been opened but the contents have not been disturbed.) while others show signs that they have been handled in the store.

Bob

 

[Pileatus]

It is practically impossible for a reviewer to purchase all samples by himself. Whenever I review some of the higher priced models, then I have to ask for samples, demo glasses from a dealer or directly from the manufacturer. In this way, I can be sure that I won't get a lemon, and that the sample performs according to specification. Sure, I won't be able to discover any flaws or irregularities in manufacturing. If any such flaw were obvious in a self-purchased binocular, then I would not be smart to test that sample anyway, but rather return it to get a replacement that works flawless.

I am quite sure that the marketing guys of the big manufacturers are screening previously published reports of their products by the very author who requests their test samples. The one who turns out to be least critical is then likely to get his demos first, I may suppose

Cheers,


Holger,

I understand. Disclosing where and how the binocular was obtained without going into specific details should be stated in all reviews. Such as: "Purchased from a dealer" or "Obtained on loan from a dealer" or "Obtained on loan from manufacturer for the purpose of this review."

Bob

Or, they sent me a bin to review that I get to keep free of charge.

 

[ceasar]

Or, they sent me a bin to review that I get to keep free of charge.

We are free to come to our own conclusions.:h?:

 

[jan van daalen]

It is practically impossible for a reviewer to purchase all samples by himself. Whenever I review some of the higher priced models, then I have to ask for samples, demo glasses from a dealer or directly from the manufacturer. In this way, I can be sure that I won't get a lemon, and that the sample performs according to specification. Sure, I won't be able to discover any flaws or irregularities in manufacturing. If any such flaw were obvious in a self-purchased binocular, then I would not be smart to test that sample anyway, but rather return it to get a replacement that works flawless.

I am quite sure that the marketing guys of the big manufacturers are screening previously published reports of their products by the very author who requests their test samples. The one who turns out to be least critical is then likely to get his demos first, I may suppose

Cheers,


Holger,

I understand. Disclosing where and how the binocular was obtained without going into specific details should be stated in all reviews. Such as: "Purchased from a dealer" or "Obtained on loan from a dealer" or "Obtained on loan from manufacturer for the purpose of this review."

Bob

Gijs, who is a well known optic tester down here, ends all his tests with the remark "with gratitude for the loan of...... from......".

Jan

 

[NDhunter]

I asked Zeiss for sending me for testing 10x42 models from Terra, Conquest ED, Victory HT and Victory SF series. The answer was that market demand is so high they do not keep up with production and they have no specimens for testing.

Arek:

Keep up the good work. I find your reviews well done and I like your
narrative, and I agree with some of the same binoculars
that I own.

One thing I find when reading some reviews is about transmission, where
the findings of a small objective like a 8x32 will have a higher score than its similar model in a larger size like 8x42.

I would think the larger objective would have a higher score. That is
certainly my experience when the light grows dim.

Maybe you can answer how that works.

On another note, maybe some of the mfrs. are afraid, after you performed
the dunk test. I do hope that is not the case.

Thanks, Jerry