[翻译练习]有关NIKON E2/SE/E 8X30/32的对比评测（全文已译完）[非常感谢郑斑竹和方

柴捆

昨晚,在minilux的帖子里我说了大话,说今天会翻译完全文的.当时觉得翻译几千字的E文不会太难.可是当我真正开始翻的时候,我发现我犯了一个错误,这真是很难!!!我花了晚上和午休的时间才勉强完成前半段,现在贴出来,大家先凑合着看看.这是我第一次翻译这类的文章,有很多地方不是特别明白,希望大家斧正!!同时感谢minilux提供的素材.

有关NIKON E2/SE/E 8X30/32的对比评测
引自权威观鸟论坛BIRDFORUM，作者为henry link，原链接为http://www.birdforum.net/archive/index.php/t-38202
I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I know only a few other obsessed optogeeks will wade through all this, so for you healthy ones here’s the short version: As others have already said, the Nikon 8x30 EII is an excellent binocular. Buy it while you can.

首先,我对全文的长度表示抱歉,我知道只有少数发烧镜友才有耐心读完.所以为了您的健康,我为您准备了如下结论:正如大家以前讨论的结果一样,EII是一只极好的镜子!您要是买的起,那就上一个吧!

Mechanical Quality- Something that I was surprised to see is that the EII and the SE share most if not all of the same eyepiece and focuser parts. The eyepiece housings and bridges are exactly the same, and all the exterior parts of the focusers look identical. It was probably simply cheaper for Nikon to go with already existing SE parts than to produce new ones, which has a very happy result for the EII’s mechnical quality. I can testify that the focuser and eyepiece bridge on the SE are very durable. I have used a pair for almost 8 years and they work exactly as they did the first day. There is no wobble at all in the bridge and no play in the focuser. The diopter adjustment ring is identical on the EII and SE and while it doesn’t lock it has enough friction so that it reliably stays in place once it is set. The eyepiece parts on the 8x30 E are completely different and not quite as good. The diopter adjustment ring wanders about easily and the eyepiece bridge tends to rock a bit. It appears to me that the basic mechanical parts of the E were passed down largely unchanged from the earliest Nippon Kogaku models of the 50’s.

机械品质--令我吃惊的是EII和SE使用了几乎相同的目镜组和调焦部分,如果不能说是完全相同的话.目镜组的基座和连接梁就是完全相同的,而且所有调焦部分的外部部件看起来也一模一样的.这也许为尼康提供了一个降低SE成本的途径:使用已有的部件,而不必为SE专门设计.同时这也提升了EII的机械品质.我可以证明SE的目镜组和目镜连接梁是极为耐用的.我的那只SE已经用了有8年了,但是它们的表现还是和第一次一样的完美.目镜连接梁丝没有毫旷动,调焦也是一样顺畅.屈光调节在EII和SE上也是一样的.屈光调节有足够的阻尼,所以虽然没有锁定装置,但是只要是设定好了就不会漂移的.老款E8x30目镜组就完全不一样了,而且设计上也没这个好.E的屈光调节环容易漂移,目镜连接梁也有轻微的晃动.我觉得E的机械部分基本上就是毫无变动的继承自50年代日本光学(Nippon Kogaku)的老产品.

At the other end of the binocular the EII appears to use the very same eccentric objective cell as the one in the old E, so this particular part has probably remained unchanged for at least 50 years. The binoculars are collimated by rotating these cells and that method is supposed to be superior for maintaining collimation over time. Looking inside, the prism shelf of the EII appears to be a different one from either the E or the SE. The SE prism shelf looks reassuringly heavy duty, but I can’t say whether it is actually any more shock resistant than the other two. The SE also has a nicely baffled objective tube which is not present in the other two. I can’t see why the moving parts on the EII won’t be just as durable as those on the SE, since they appear to be the very same ones. However, the rubber armouring and perhaps the difference in the prism shelves should make the SE more shock resistant. I think the SE could also be a bit more water resistant since the back of its prism housing has a seamless rubber covering and the eyepiece tubes and prism housings are all one piece rather than the tubes being screwed into the housings.

不过在镜子的另一端,EII看起来是用了和E一样的物镜组,所以这个反常的物镜组没准也是有超过50年历史而没有被改动过的. 望远镜的光轴是通过旋转物镜组调整的,这种方法被认为是保持镜子光轴长期平行的好方法.EII的棱镜架看起来和E或者SE都不一样.SE的棱镜架最为粗壮,但是我不能肯定这就一定会使得SE抗震效果优于其它两个.SE还有一个非常不错的消光桶,而其他两只镜子就没有这么一说了.让我不太明白的是,虽然看起来就是一样的,可是EII的活动部件就是不如SE那么耐用.也许包胶和棱镜架的区别是使SE更抗震的原因吧.我觉得SE应该会更防水一点,因为整个镜肩是被完全包胶密封的,而且棱镜室和目镜组内管是一体的,这要比目镜组内管是用螺丝装配在棱镜室的上好很多.

Optics- The EII uses a cemented doublet objective with what appears to be the same or very close to the same focal length as the old E objective. It wouldn’t make much sense to produce a new objective only slightly different from the old one, so I suspect they are probably the same. I’ve measured the focal length of the E objective at around 110mm (about f/3.7) which makes it quite fast even by binocular standards. The SE also uses a cemented doublet, but with a focal length that looks to be about 130mm (f/4). These exact numbers may be a bit off, but I’m certain the focal length is much shorter in the E/EII compared to the SE. This unusually short focal length has some advantages and some disadvantages. Physically it allows the binoculars to be smaller and lighter. Optically it results in a smaller scale image forming at the focal plane of the objective. This smaller image allows these binoculars to have very wide fields without the need for large prisms and eyepieces. Because the EII has adopted the larger eyepiece housings of the SE it can have eyepiece optics with larger lenses and a wider diameter fieldstop than the E, so it’s field can be even wider. The optical trade offs compared to the SE are reduced eye relief from the shorter focal length eyepiece needed to produce the same magnification and higher levels of chromatic and spherical aberrations from the lower focal ratio objective (which may or may not actually be visible at 8X). Off-axis eyepiece performance should also be a bit worse because of the steeper light cone.

光学--EII用了双胶合物镜看起来和E有相同或非常接近的焦长.对于新的设计而言,和老产品只稍为有一点差别那是没有意义的.所以我猜他们也许就是一样的设计.我量了一下E的焦长，大概有110mm(大约是f/3.7)，对于双筒望远镜标准来说已经是一个很紧凑的设计了。 SE用的也是双胶合物镜，但是焦长大概有130mm (f/4)。这些数字也许会有一些测量误差的，但是我确信与SE比起来E和EII之间的焦长差会更小。这种不寻常的短焦距设计是有利有弊的。这当然可以使镜子做得更小更轻。光学上，这短焦距设计使镜子在焦平面上的成像更小。这种小的成像本身就会使镜子有更大的视场，从而不必为此设计更大的棱镜和目镜组。因为EII采用了SE的大目镜室所以EII比E有更大的目镜组和更大直径的fieldstop，这使得EII比E有更大的视场。SE物镜焦距较长，E和E II为了紧凑而使用较短的焦距，但是就要有所牺牲。因为相同倍数需要用更短焦距的目镜，所以出瞳距离短了。而且短焦距物镜的球差和色差也会更严重类似的原因，目镜的离轴像差（边缘像质）也会有所下降。

I removed an eyepiece from each binocular to see what I could discover about their design differences. I have dissassembled the eyepiece of the E before so I know it is has 5 elements/3groups in a 2-2-1 arrangement. Looking at reflections of a light bulb returning from the elements I saw what I expected; 6 coated glass to air surfaces and two cementings. I was not keen to take apart the SE and EII eyepieces so I just tried to analyse the reflections I saw in them. The EII showed a somewhat diffrerent pattern from the E, indicating a changed design with what appears to be 8 coated surfaces and two cementings; so I think it has one extra element compared to the E. The SE was harder to read. I’m not sure, but I think it probably has 6 elements in 4 groups like the EII (but not the same design). I measured the field stop diameters as closely as my household measuring tools allow. The E fieldstop is about 15.8-16mm and the fieldstops of the EII and the SE are identical at about 17-17.2mm. These measurements tend to confirm that the focal length of the EII objective is about 110mm and the SE about 130mm The most interesting thing I discovered is that the eyepiece optics sets of the SE and EII are interchangable. You can simply drop the optics set from an SE into the eyepiece housing of an EII and vice versa. This opens up the possibility of some very interesting SE/EII hybrids. For instance, SE eyepieces placed into the eyepiece housings of a10x35 EII would produce the optical equivalent of an 8.5x35 SE. I think that could be an extremely nice birding binocular.

我从每只镜子上卸下了一只目镜来比较它们设计上的差异。我曾经拆开过E的目镜组，发现它是5片3组的，2-2-1排列。对着灯泡观察产生的鬼影，我发现和我所猜想的一样：6个朝空气的面镀膜了，另两个是胶合的。我没有拆开SE和EII的目镜组，所以我只是通过它们各自产生的鬼影尝试着分析一下。EII看起来和E不同，它有8个面镀膜，两个胶合。所以我认为EII要比E多出一片。SE的鬼影就比较难看到了。我不能肯定，虽然设计上并不相同，但是我估计它也许和EII一样是6片4组的。我尽可能精确的使用家用工具来量他们fieldstops的直径。E的fieldstop大概有15.8-16mm，而EII和SE几乎都在17-17.2mm。这样的测量也许能证明EII焦长就是110mm左右，而SE的焦长大概就是130mm。最让人觉得有趣的是我发现EII和SE的目镜组可以互换！！！你可以直接就把SE的目镜组装在EII上，反过来也行。这就可能产生一些EII和SE的非常有趣的结合。比如把SE的目镜组装在一个10x35的EII上，这就等于得到了一只8.5x35的SE。我想这没准会成为一支顶级的观鸟镜啊！

(Addendum: I played around with the hybrid idea today and found that it isn''''''''t workable. The EII eyepiece will drop into the SE focusing tube, but the cylinder that contains the eyepiece optics is actually about 1mm smaller in diameter than the SE cylinder so the fit is not tight enough for stable collimation. The larger SE eyepiece cylinder will not drop into the EII. I also noticed that there is a significant difference in the the workings of the eyepiece focusing tubes inside. The SE eyepiece cylinder fits snugly within its tube so that the cylinder and the tube slide against each other with a large area of contact. The EII eyepiece cylinder is smaller than its tube. At the end of the tube there is a thin ring inside which matches the diameter of the eyepiece cylinder and that is the only point of contact. I suppose a thin ring is perfectly OK just for keeping the eyepiece optics centered, but I would have to guess that the SE construction is more expensive. I should have looked at all this more closely when I wrote the original review.)

（后记：虽然我提出了换目镜组合的设想，可惜这个想法却无法实施。EII的目镜组是可以装进SE的调焦管的，不过EII的目镜组的直径比SE的要小1mm，所以无法紧密的贴合，因此光轴也就不稳定。而更大的SE目镜组是根本装不进EII的。我还注意到SE和EII的调焦管在做工上是有显著区别的。SE的目镜组和调焦管配合得极好，在整个调焦行程中都可以做到紧密配合。而SE的目镜组就比调焦管小一点。在调焦管的尽头有一个细圈和目镜组配合，这个接触面就是EII的目镜组和调焦管唯一的接触面。我想这个细圈因该可以有效地保证目镜组处于调焦管的正中了，不过我想SE的那种配合方式成本应该更高一些。 ）

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-10-10 21:16:24编辑过]

柴捆

The E type was one of the few binoculars lines I know of that was originally coated with a single layer of MgF and then after about 1992 multi-coated. I have examples of both, which allows a clear demonstration of just how much brighter multi-coated bins are. The multi-coated version of the E, the EII and the SE all appear to use exactly the same type of multi-coating, which returns reflections which are mostly dark green or blue with occational magenta reflections from some angles. Color transmission looks identical in all three, very neutral with just a tiny bit of red. My impression is that there is very little difference in light transmission between the EII and the SE. Both appear to use the same coatings and have the same number of glass to air surfaces, however occasionally I fdid feel the EII was a tiny bit less bright. Both are very bright and contrasty in daylight, only approximately equaled in my experience by some other very high transmission porros and the Zeiss FL’s.
就我所知，E是为数不多的使用过两种镀膜的镜子，在92年以前使用MgF单层镀膜，之后就是多层镀膜（multi-coated）版了。我对比过这两种，多层镀膜对单层镀膜在亮度上是完胜。多层镀膜的E和EII还有SE看起来使用了完全相同的镀膜，镀膜的反光看起来主要是深绿色或蓝色，在某些角度偶尔也能看到洋红色。三者的色差看起来也是一样的，非常自然，极轻微的偏品。我感觉在EII和SE亮度上只有那么一丁点差别。它们都使用了相同镀膜，有同等数量的镜片，偶尔我才会感觉到EII在亮度上稍微差点。白天的时候它们都很亮而且对比度也很高，感觉上跟我试过的高端保罗镜还有Zeiss FL差不多。
Measurements- I used my old “Sky & Telescope” resolution chart to measure actual resolution. I boosted the magnification by placing a Fujinon 8x30 FMT-SX behind the eyepiece of the binocular being measured which boosted the magnification to 64X. Both the SE and the EII had measured resolution of around 4” in both barrels. This is an excellent figure, not that far from diffraction limited. The SE might have been a tiny bit better (3.9 vs 4.1”?), but it was essentially too close to call. The old E produced a more “interesting” result. I should mention that the particular specimen of 8x30 E I am using in this test is a 20 year old MgF coated version that has spent most of the last 10 years sitting on a shelf. I don’t think I have ever measured it’s resolution or star tested it. I knew it wouldn’t have the brightness or contrast of a multi-coated example but it ought to perform just as well otherwise. I have a newer multi-coated 8x30 E, but unfortunately it has been transformed into a 9x35 by exchanging objectives with a 7x35 E. Anyway, the left barrel of the old 8x30 measured pretty well at about 4.5”, nothing alarming. But the right barrel was terrible. Resolution was between 6” and 7" and the magnified image looked much worse than the left barrel, very soft and gauzy.
分辨率测试－我试用了我老的Sky & Telescope分辨率卡来测试三个镜子的实际分辨率。在测试时我在每只镜子的目镜后架上我的Fujinon 8x30 FMT-SX来放大成像，使整个系统的放大倍数达到了64倍。SE和EII每侧镜筒的分辨率大约都是4”。这是一个极不错的数字，还没有到衍射的极限。SE也许能稍微好一点(3.9 ”vs 4.1”)，不过这一点不值一提。E的结果就比较奇怪了。 我必须要说的是我这只E是一只超过二十年的单层镀膜版本，而且最近十年几乎都是放在架子上落灰的。我想我应该还没有对它进行过分辨率测试和星点测试。我知道它肯定不会比多层镀膜的亮，对比度也会差点，不过它也应该还是不错的。我还有一个更新一点的多层镀膜版E，但是我把这个的物镜桶和另一个7x35 E的交换了，现在它是9x35的。ok,回到正题。这个老E的左筒分辨率很不错，大约是4.5”，当然比起SE和EII来不算什么。不过它的右筒就有点问题了，分辨率在6”到7"，在Fujinon里的成像就比左筒差多了，成像偏软而且边缘模糊。
Next I star testing the binoculars with an artificial star (reflection of the sun from a small glass ball at 100’). I used the same set-up to boost magnification. The left side of the old E looked OK, but the right side was a mess. Here was the explanation for its poor resolution. The star point resembled a long teardrop. Switching from one side off focus to the other caused the long axis of the teardrop to shift 90 degrees, indicatiing astigmatism. The EII on the other hand showed mostly nice circular diffraction patterns with only a little decentering of the Airy disc within the pattern in the right barrel and a minor flat spot at 7 o''''''''clock in the left barrel and 5 o''''''''clock in the right (the edge of a prism slightly impinging on the light cone?). There was as usual in binoculars lots of longitudinal CA, but also clearly visible diffraction rings on both sides of focus. One side had a bright outer ring, yellow tinged with orange, The other side had the bright pink central spot I see in almost every binocular with weak rings between it and a diffuse lime green outer ring. Altogether enough chromatic and spherical aberration to cause me to return an f/8 refractor as defective, but by f/3.7 binocular standards- excellent. It’s a pretty good sign to see a bulls eye of diffraction rings on even one side of focus in a binocular. The SE looked about as good, without the flat spots, but with a little pinching in the right barrel.

星点测试－ 我对准一个人早星体(reflection of the sun from a small glass ball at 100’反射阳光的一个玻璃球，在100’的位置)进行了星点测试。我用了和分辨率测试一样的办法来测。E和上次一样：左筒还好，右筒就一团糟了。下面给出详细描述：星点在右筒里的成像变成了长泪滴状。这个泪滴在焦外像中是变化着旋转了90度，这显示了成像散光。EII就比较好了，大体上是一个圆斑只有一点decentering of the Airy disc 在右筒。and a minor flat spot at 7 o''''''''clock in the left barrel and 5 o''''''''clock in the right (the edge of a prism slightly impinging on the light cone?).下面的看起来就不明白了，主要是说镜子的焦外成像色散的。

柴捆

This experience is a good example of how star testing and resolution testing with a booster can reveal binocular problems that may not be all that visible in ordinary use. That’s why I always do this in a store before I actually buy a binocular now. When I look thruogh the right side of this 8x30 E in sunlight (without boosting the magnification) the image doesn’t look that bad, perhaps it’s a little softer than the left side. I expect low magnification to be forgiving when it comes to aberrations, but I thought the relatively good looking image might also be due to only the central area of the exit pupil being utilized in sunlight, so I fitted the objective with a 20mm stop down mask and star tested again. Quite a bit, but not all of the astigmatism was gone. Out of curiousity I tried the left side of the EII with the stop down. Beautiful! There was still some CA, but no flat spot , better symmetry between the diffraction patterns on each side of focus and a very clean in-focus Airy disc surrounded by a crisp evenly illuminated diffraction ring, essentially the performance of an excellent f/5.5 achromat . No wonder the image in this bin looks so good in sunlight.
这种使用级联放大对镜子进行星点测试和分辨率测试是一个非常不错的经验，它能看出平常使用时可能无法发现的问题。这就是我在买镜子前总是要在店里测试一下的原因。当我在阳光下用E的右筒观察（没有级联放大）时，成像并没有感觉的那么差，可能只稍微比右筒软一点。我期望小的放大倍数在色差上可以被原谅，不过我认为这种相对较好的成像应该归功于出瞳区域中只有中间一部分被瞳孔利用的缘故。所以我在物镜上装了一个孔径20的光栅，再次进行了试验。大部分，但不是所有的散光被消除了。出于好奇，我还对左筒也进行了同样的测试。很完美！虽然还是有点CA 但是已经没有flat spot了。better symmetry between the diffraction patterns on each side of focus and a very clean in-focus Airy disc surrounded by a crisp evenly illuminated diffraction ring, essentially the performance of an excellent f/5.5 achromat .不必惊讶，现在的成像和阳光下的一样好。
I think at least in part owing to these excellent results I’ve found the subjective “sharpness” in the center of the field of the EII to be abouit as good as I have seen in any binocular and better than any roof I have tried other than the 8X42 FL. This particular specimen looks a tiny bit sharper and a tiny bit higher contrast than my particular 8x32 SE. Both the EII and the SE look a bit sharper than the E in the center. I’ve used various configurations of the E over the years and I have found them all to be slightly soft compared to the very sharpest binoculars; not bad but just not quite as good as the very best; perhaps comparable to the sharpness I see in most high quality roof prism bins. I don’t mean that they have less actual resolution. Virtually all good binoculars have more detail in the image than you can see, but some seem have a “tack’ sharp look and some don’t. For those who are especially sensitive to chromatic aberration I don’t think the EII presents any special problems. To my eye it looks quite similar to the SE in the center, with about the same amount of lateral CA resulting from the inevitable pupil decentering that happens when hand holding. There may be a little more lateral CA at 20-30 degrees off axis, but not much.
我认为得到这种极好的结果部分原因是：我已经了解到在EII视场中部的锐度在保罗镜中已经是数一数二的了，而且比除了Zeiss FL以外的屋脊镜都要好。这个独特的EII样本在锐度和对比度上比参测的8x32 SE还要稍微的好一点。EII和SE的锐度都比E成像中心的要好。多年来我用过各种配置的E,我发觉在成像上它们都比风格锐利的镜子软，这不是说它们不好，而是它们还没有达到顶级的水准。不过，在锐度上也许它们可以和顶级的屋脊镜媲美。我并不是说它们在实际分辨率上会丢分。实际上，好的镜子所能提供的分辨率远大于你眼睛所能分辨的。但是有的镜子会让你有分辨率高的感觉，而有些则不行。对那些天生就对色差敏感的人来说，我认为EII没什么问题。在我看来EII视场中心的色差和SE是一样的，有相同数量的lateral CA（resulting from the inevitable pupil decentering that happens when hand holding.这句不会！）也许在离轴20到30度的地方lateral CA会稍微多一点点，但不会多太多的。
I tried to get some idea of off axis sharpness by placing a measuring tape about 40’ from the binoculars and perpendicular to the line of sight. At that distance 60” on the tape spanned the full 60 degree apparent field of the 8x32 SE, so each inch on the tape would correspond to 1 degree of apparent field for any 8X binocular. I focused at 30” and using one eye tried to judge how far I could move my eye along the tape and still see something close to the best center sharpness, maybe 90%. This is of course pretty subjective. My focus accomodation varies so I don’t always get exactly the same result with the same binocular on different days, but I ‘ve found that the rankings tend to stay the same. On this particular day I found I could see something close to the best center sharpness across 34 degrees through the SE, 28 degrees through the EII and 24 degrees through the “good” side of the E. I also tried a Zeiss 8x42 FL to see how it compared. It was a close match to the EII at about 28 degrees. As for the very edge of the field, as always the SE was best, but the EII was surprisingly good considering the 70 degree field width. It was a little better than the E at the edge of its 66.4 degree field and only a little worse than the Zeiss FL at the edge of its 62 degree field. I suppose the changes in the eyepiece design must account for the improvement in the EII’s off-axis performance compared to the E. Using the artificial star I could see that much of the off axis deterioration in the EII (and the FL and E) is caused by astigmatism, so the viewer’s focus accommodation can’t correct it very much. Almost all the off axis deterioration in the SE is field curvature, so the edge can be refocused to almost equal the sharpness of the center, and those with really wide focus accomodation will see even better off axis sharpness than I can see with it. There is surprisingly little pincushion distortion in the EII considering the field width. There is actually a little less than the Zeiss 8x42 FL and considerably less than the 8x30 E, which must be another benefit of the new eyepiece. The 8x32 SE has almost no distortion, just a touch of pincushion.
我尝试着对离轴锐度进行观测，我在离镜子40’（40英尺？）的地方垂直的放置了一个测试条。在这个距离上，测试条上的60”（60寸）长度正好占据了镜子的60度视场，这样测试带上的每一寸长度都对应了8倍镜子的每一度视场。我把视场中心对准30”（30寸？）的位置,然后使用一只眼睛来观察最远能保持中心成象效果位置的刻度，大概在视场的90％之内都不错。当让这种测试是主观性非常大的。我眼睛的适应能力是在不断变化的，所以在不同的时候对同一只镜子的判断结果也是会有差异的，但是对镜子的等级判断却是相同的。比如今天我就觉得SE的中心成象效果能保持到大约34度，EII可以保持28度，E的左筒大约24度。我又找来一只Zeiss 8x42 FL作参照，FL的表现和EII很像，大概在28度左右。边缘成像还是SE第一，但是有70度表观视场的EII的表现就令人吃惊了。它比有66.4度表观视场的E要好一点，只比62度视场的Zeiss 8x42 FL稍差。我想EII离轴表现比E好的原因大概归功于重新设计的目镜组吧。使用上次那个人造星点，我发现EII离轴表现恶化的原因大部分在于散光（ FL和E也是如此），所以观测者的眼睛适应力是无法完全消除这一点的。几乎所有的SE离轴恶化的表现都是视场边缘弯曲，因此可以对边缘再对焦，使边缘成像达到几乎与中心成像一样好，所以那些天生就有更强眼睛适应力的人因该会得出SE离轴效果更好的结论。让人惊讶的是EII在整个视场范围内几乎没有pincushion变形。这几乎和FL一样，比E要好一点。也许这又是一个新目镜组带来的好处吧。SE也是几乎没有pincushion变形的。

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-10-9 21:44:28编辑过]

weiwei29

感谢辛勤劳动，这些对于拥有E2和SE的同好，非常有价值。我看了原文许多不懂，谢谢

Fritz

cemented doublet 双胶合（透镜）

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-10-6 21:15:56编辑过]

柴捆

For my eyes close focus is 6.5' for the EII, 8' for the SE and a lengthy 17' for the E. 17' seems quite long for a birding binocular today, but 20 years ago it wasn't that unusual.
对于我的眼睛而言，EII的最近对焦距离是6.5'（6.5英尺？），SE是8'（8英尺？），E就稍微长点有17'（17英尺？）。17'（17英尺？）按照现在观鸟镜的标准是长了一点，不过在20年前这还是可以接受的。
The eye relief of the E and the EII measured about 16mm from the center of the eyelens and 14mm from the rim of the folded down eyecup. The SE measured 21mm from the eyelens and 19mm from the eyecup. Like Kimmo’s friend I found that I could see virtually the entire 70 degree field of the EII while wearing reading glasses . Nikon’s eye relief figures seem to be conservative and are apparently measured from the eyecup. Beware that some manufacturer’s like Swarovski appear to take their measurements from the glass so that 2-3mm need to be subtracted from their specs compared to measurements from the eyecup.
从目镜组最后一片的中央来算，E和EII的出瞳距离大约是16mm。要是从翻折下来的眼罩边缘来算就只有14mm了。SE的这两个数据是21mm和19mm。和Kimmo的朋友一样，我发现到我戴上老花镜之后，我完全可以看清整个70度的视场。尼康在出瞳距离的计算上看起来很保守，是从眼罩边开始起算的。值得一提的是，某些镜厂（比如施华洛施奇）的出瞳数据算法是从目镜组最后一片的中央来算的。这样你就需要减去2-3mm才能得到眼罩边开始起算的出瞳距离。
Overall I found the optics of the EII to be right up there with the very best. I think it’s a worthwhile optical and mechanical improvement over the E; essentially the equal of the SE in every aspect except off-axis sharpness and eye relief. Of course there are those, like Arthur, who will actually prefer its shorter eye relief and wider field, so perhaps it really should be considered an equally good alternative to the SE rather than a lesser sibling. There is something particularly gratifying to see a simple and elegant design like this easily matching or bettering binoculars of much higher cost and complexity.
大体上我觉得EII的光学水平是可以媲美顶级产品的。我认为对E进行光学和机械方面的改进也是值得的，E的光学表现和SE相比除了离轴锐度和出瞳距离外，其它方面还是可圈可点的。当然有些朋友，比如Arthur吧，就非常欣赏这种短出瞳距离和广角的镜子，所以这也许能算得上是一个SE的等量齐观的后备选择，而不是同一目录下档次稍低的产品。对于这种简洁优雅并且可轻易达到那些设计复杂且昂贵镜子表现水准的设计我是特别欣赏的。
Globilization is probably the main reason this binocular is so inexpensive. Mine has “AM” in the spot where “Japan” appears on the SE and E. I confess I don’t know what AM stands for (Malaysia?), but if the EII were made alongside the SE in the same Japanese factory I expect it would cost almost as much to produce. Even at its bargain basement price Nikon has evidently been unable to find a large enough market to keep it in production, which is a shame.

全球化也许是这个镜子价格不贵的主要原因。我手里EII的标记是"AM"，而E和SE的标记却是"japan".坦率的说我并不知道"AM"是什么意思（可能是马来西亚？）。但是如果EII和SE一样是在日本的工厂里生产的话，我估计EII的价格和SE就相差不多了。可是即便在这样的价格下尼康也明显的不能找到足够大的市场来保持EII的生产，这话听上去就让人沮丧！
全文完！

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-10-10 21:11:19编辑过]

柴捆

fieldstop是什么东西啊??
还有这一段:
The optical trade offs compared to the SE are reduced eye relief from the shorter focal length eyepiece needed to produce the same magnification and higher levels of chromatic and spherical aberrations from the lower focal ratio objective (which may or may not actually be visible at 8X). Off-axis eyepiece performance should also be a bit worse because of the steeper light cone.)

wfs55

感谢柴捆兄的辛勤付出！
分辨率测试－我试用了我老的Sky & Telescope分辨率卡来测试三个镜子的实际分辨率。在测试时我在每只镜子的目镜后架上我的Fujinon 8x30 FMT-SX来放大成像，使整个系统的放大倍数达到了64倍。
级联放大使得测试结果更精确可靠，值得借鉴！

edifer

为人民服务，辛苦辛苦！先表以敬意。
北旅的英文高手很多啊！看来玩镜子还能提高英文水平，不错！

逝者如斯

由衷感谢

funder

以下是引用[I]柴捆[/I]在2005-10-6 21:54:02的发言:fieldstop是什么东西啊??
还有这一段:
The optical trade offs compared to the SE are reduced eye relief from the shorter focal length eyepiece needed to produce the same magnification and higher levels of chromatic and spherical aberrations from the lower focal ratio objective (which may or may not actually be visible at 8X). Off-axis eyepiece performance should also be a bit worse because of the steeper light cone}我们看望远镜视场有个清晰的边界，这个边界就是由一个放在物镜焦平面（也是目镜焦平面）的一个圈产生的，这个用来限制视场大小的东西就是Field Stop，物镜焦距固定下来以后，Field Stop的大小就决定了视场的大小。
下面这段是说，SE物镜焦距较长，E和E II为了紧凑而使用较短的焦距，但是就要有所牺牲。因为相同倍数需要用更短焦距的目镜，所以出瞳距离短了。而且短焦距物镜的球差和色差也会更严重（译文里面有一段的“色差”应为“偏色”）。类似的原因，目镜的离轴像差（边缘像质）也会有所下降。

silaisi11

感谢各位老师！长见识！[em05]

wfs55

[B]以下是引用[I]funder[/I]在2005-10-7 0:46:05的发言：[/B][BR])
我们看望远镜视场有个清晰的边界，这个边界就是由一个放在物镜焦平面（也是目镜焦平面）的一个圈产生的，这个用来限制视场大小的东西就是Field Stop，物镜焦距固定下来以后，Field Stop的大小就决定了视场的大小。
下面这段是说，SE物镜焦距较长，E和E II为了紧凑而使用较短的焦距，但是就要有所牺牲。因为相同倍数需要用更短焦距的目镜，所以出瞳距离短了。而且短焦距物镜的球差和色差也会更严重（译文里面有一段的“色差”应为“偏色”）。类似的原因，目镜的离轴像差（边缘像质）也会有所下降。

好好拜读。没有扎实的光学知识，很难翻好，翻顺这段文章。

minilux

非常感谢柴捆兄的辛勤付出[em17][em17][em17]
以我的见解，对上面的一段稍作修正，以免引起误解，不妥之处还请批评指正。

I can’t see why the moving parts on the EII won’t be just as durable as those on the SE, since they appear to be the very same ones. However, the rubber armouring and perhaps the difference in the prism shelves should make the SE more shock resistant.让我不太明白的是,虽然看起来就是一样的,可是EII的活动部件就是不如SE那么耐用.也许包胶和棱镜架的区别是使SE更抗震的原因吧.

我看不出有什么原因使E2上活动部件的耐用程度与SE上的有所不同，因为它们看上去几乎都是一样的。然而，包胶的采用以及棱镜架的区别应该会使SE的抗震性能更好些。
希望柴捆兄再接再厉[em17][em17][em17][em17]

ljj

郁闷，刚想清楚什么意思，一看funder已经翻出来了 [em03][em03][em03]

[B]以下是引用[I]funder[/I]在2005-10-7 0:46:05的发言：[/B][BR])
我们看望远镜视场有个清晰的边界，这个边界就是由一个放在物镜焦平面（也是目镜焦平面）的一个圈产生的，这个用来限制视场大小的东西就是Field Stop，物镜焦距固定下来以后，Field Stop的大小就决定了视场的大小。
下面这段是说，SE物镜焦距较长，E和E II为了紧凑而使用较短的焦距，但是就要有所牺牲。因为相同倍数需要用更短焦距的目镜，所以出瞳距离短了。而且短焦距物镜的球差和色差也会更严重（译文里面有一段的“色差”应为“偏色”）。类似的原因，目镜的离轴像差（边缘像质）也会有所下降。

hxp108139

我代表“北旅”广大“文盲”镜友（包括刘总司令）由衷的感谢各位E文高手。（不知我有没有资格代表[em04])
[em27][em27][em27]

wfs55

[B]以下是引用[I]hxp108139[/I]在2005-10-7 14:46:20的发言：[/B][BR]我代表“北旅”广大“文盲”镜友（包括刘总司令）由衷的感谢各位E文高手。（不知我有没有资格代表[em04])
[em27][em27][em27]

我想应该可以！

hxp108139

谢谢王会长的信任。[em01][em01][em01]

gzxlt

多谢多谢。楼主辛苦了。[em23][em23][em23][em23]
我知道我的E2了。

柴捆

非常感谢各位参与!!!
尤其感谢郑斑竹的技术支持!!!
[em10][em10][em10][em10]