Nikon PROSTAFF 7S 8×42

The Prostaff line can be considered the "advanced" entry-level line of Nikon Sport Optics, and over the years it has gradually been enriched with instruments, refinements, and (as with the Monarch series) numbers and acronyms. The latest evolution presented is the 7S version, in the 8x30 and 10x30 formats and the similar 42 mm, which will replace the previous 7 series. For this review, I chose the 8x42 because it is the shared opinion of many experts, even from abroad, that it is the most standard format, good for all observing situations. But as you will read, this review went a bit further and also gave rise to some personal reflections of a general nature that I will be pleased to share with you.

The Nikon Prostaff 7s differ from their predecessors essentially in three features: a) marked improvement in optical performance 2) lightness 3) design and material of the external coating.

These are roof prism binoculars with central focus, nitrogen-filled and waterproof. They feature multi-click retractable eyecups with a maximum eye relief of 20 mm. They come with a strap and a handy black Cordura case, and a tripod mount is included.

The Nikon Prostaff 7S 8×42 is a real featherweight, weighing just 650 g, with a sinuous and very pleasant line. The new coating is knurled on the sides of the tubes, and when held, the sensation is a sort of almost sticky grip with a sort of suction effect that keeps the grip firm even in humid and wet conditions, confirming the naturalistic vocation that led Nikon to redesign this series.

The optics are not ED lenses but have a multilayer treatment on all surfaces (fully multi-coated), unlike previous or lower models (Prostaff 5) and the prisms benefit from mirror coating and phase correction.

Even with a low angular field of 6.8°, Sharpness and incisiveness are very good in midfield and tend to degrade towards the edges from 2/3 onwards; on some more difficult subjects, such as observing masses of foliage, the impression is that it could start even earlier, while with general observation one notices almost nothing.

The overall visual impact is very relaxed, with clean and bright images even though they lack the typical transparency and definition of the ED lenses of the Monarch7 (the “razor-sharp” and “diamond-like” images of the EDGs are unattainable) and that immersion in the scene typical of wide-angle fields.

Considering the instrument's caliber, chromatic aberration is surprisingly low, and the focusing mechanism is on par with higher-end models; two features that will delight novice birdwatchers looking to save money. Speaking of focusing, the minimum distance is estimated at around five meters; at closer distances, the binoculars still focus, but the annoying "figure-eight" effect begins, resulting in the image circle doubling. This effect, however, is always pleasantly sharp and clean.

I'd say we can stop here.

The conclusion is that a “superior” entry level instrument that in design is very close to the higher level mid-range classes, with a price not yet defined, but which should be placed at just over 250 euros.

Some personal reflections.

Trying this tool and trying to imagine what I could write, I couldn't help but ask myself some questions and make some reflections (which I also discussed with some recognized national experts and enthusiasts in the sector, discovering that we had all had more or less the same impressions - or suspicions? - in a completely autonomous and independent way).

This is why I am happy to write to you, also to provide evaluation elements that I hope will be useful for those approaching the world of observational optics.

The ranges and quality/price ratios.

It's common to notice how, within a brand, there are many ranges with numbers, acronyms, etc., which are simply the evolutionary expression of the brand, but which often give buyers the impression of excessive fragmentation of the lines, making it difficult to navigate, even for brand aficionados (like me). Often, the differences are not so well-known or not so tangible (see the number of layers of anti-reflective coatings, for example, which denotes an additional or missing acronym or number, with a corresponding difference in price). Therefore, it's sometimes difficult, especially for the novice, to decide what to buy and whether it's worth spending more or less; but in some cases, even the most experienced can find it difficult to decide, especially when the optical performance of the latest model is close to that of an older model from a more expensive series, starting with the top-of-the-line model, of course.

However, there must be a reason, and if there are so many lines, probably only a marketing manager who has a clear understanding of the global market segmentation could answer with full knowledge of the facts.

Regardless, the consumer is the one who spends in that particular context, and if he finds himself in difficulty, we must acknowledge it.

The glass and the anti-reflective treatment.

When I look inside a World War II Sard 6x42, I'm amazed by its optical excellence and think about the lack of anti-reflective coatings available back then. When I look inside a mid-priced pair of binoculars today, I'm equally amazed. The impression is that the quality of the glass may still be paramount, but a modern anti-reflective coating can mask and improve the performance of lower-quality glass much better than it once did. What would our Prostaff /S be like without these coatings? And what about a Sard lens treated with ten layers of the most modern and secret coating? Perhaps the Sard doesn't need it?

Speaking of glass: how has the manufacturing process for mid-range lenses changed today? Perhaps I can afford to do less time-consuming and precise work since modern anti-reflective coatings can correct (or mask?) residual imperfections?

Still.

Today's world, which thrives on fleeting impulses and superficial emotions, is receptive to the words "eco-friendly" glass, free of lead. Fortunately, current ED glass technology offers us fluorite jewels that would make even the most ardent enthusiast pale, but the question is: might the ones containing lead have been better?

Happy meditations and see you next time!

Piero Pignatta

Piero Pignatta: A pure visualist of the deep sky, with occasional digressions into mountain panoramas and birdlife. He observes only with binoculars, an instrument that has been a true revelation for him; he's obsessed with Miyauchi binoculars, and it's best to compromise on them rather than contradict him, lest his cosmic-existential equilibrium be seriously upset. His legend is the now unobtainable, sold out, and incredibly expensive 25x141, which could move him profusely just hearing its name. I don't rule out the possibility that he keeps a photo of them in his wallet.