Yeah, I mean it certainly gives up a little optically to the best of the best, but not much (mostly that it isn't what I'd call true 'flat field' a la the SV/SF) and is so pleasing mechanically and ergonomically, and expansive fields of view are hard to beat.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nikon Monarch HG wins 1st Place in Field and Stream test of 13 new Binoculars. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ceasar
- Start date
Yeah, I mean it certainly gives up a little optically to the best of the best, but not much (mostly that it isn't what I'd call true 'flat field' a la the SV/SF) and is so pleasing mechanically and ergonomically, and expansive fields of view are hard to beat.
The laws of physics including optics, are laws not suggestions.
You can't do certain things without compromising others.
Some people don't want to "give up a little optically" unless you are talking about someone whose eyesight doesn't permit them to see the difference. Then they think the glasses are "the same".
You can't do certain things without compromising others.
Some people don't want to "give up a little optically" unless you are talking about someone whose eyesight doesn't permit them to see the difference. Then they think the glasses are "the same".
marinemaster
Well-known member
Are these $649 yet ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
You and I both have the Canon 10X42 L IS which is great because that gives us a common reference point. You extend the eye cups out one position when viewing without glasses whereas I extend them two positions out when viewing without eye glasses. This means I need a longer eye cup length than you.
Now for the Nikon Monarch HG 8X42. I have the eye cups fully extended and it works just right for me in getting the full FOV. However full extension for you is not enough. That is just the opposite of out experences with the Canon. I am not sure why you got the those results from the Nikon.
Since you were not able to get a comfortable eye placement, that may explain your impression that the view was not as relaxed (which you mentioned in another post). You also mentioned that you had to hold the binocular away from your face .5mm so that indicates to me the binocular was not braced as well as a normal hold. I can see where that would result in a less than satisfying view. I can also see how using it under those conditions gave the impression of a lack of apparent sharpness because the hold is not as steady. My impression was just the opposite where the center view looks just as sharp as other binoculars that I have.
I do not know if Nikon was trying to copy the Zeiss SF, but it looks like they were taking features from the Monarch 7 42mm and the Nikon EDG with the goal of coming up with something inbetween. I think they did a good job in that.
The HG's inability to meet your expectations makes sense considering how Nikon promoted edge sharpness when in reality it is not all the way to the edge. Fortunately for me, I had read several reviews commenting that although it has a large center view, it was not sharp all the way to the edge. To bad you did not know that going into the purchase and instead had expectations established by Nikon that were not to be. I think Leica did the same with over the top marketing with the Noctivid intro.
I am wondering if you just had a bad unit as your results were contrary in several areas to mine and some of the other members. Nikon is one of the best in my experience at putting out consistent quality but even they can mess up. Hopefully you will get a chance to try another one sometime and then judge to see if it is any better. Sorry to hear it did not work out for you because it sure has a lot of great features.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Maybe the Nikon press release announcing the introduction of the Monarch HG will help clarify Nikon's intended meaning of periphery.
"While achieving a wide field of view, the Field Flattener Lens System assures a sharp and clear view all the way to the lens periphery."
http://www.nikon.com/news/2016/0714_monarch_hg_01.htm
If Nikon did not intend to say it had a flat field all the way to the edge, then they would have been better off not using the phrase "all the way".
At best, they were ambiguous in their statements and that can lead to confusion and unrealistic expectations as was the case for Dennis.
I find the size of the center view to be larger than most and consider it to an excellent binocular.
I don't think my Nikon MHG was defective. No matter how many reviews you read you really have to take them with a grain of salt because what matters is how the binoculars work for your eyes. The reviews can tell you which binoculars might be worth trying but that is about it. I don't think the nervous impression or lack of sharpness I got from the MHG was due to eye placement because I saw the full FOV and it was steady. The MHG will no doubt be a good binocular for a lot of people but it is not for me. The Nikon 8x30 E2 works better for my eyes. It gives me a more relaxed view maybe due to the porro-prism design with no blackouts, a bigger FOV with 3D realism instead of the picture like view of the MHG, it controls CA better than the MHG, it is sharper on-axis and the edges are just as sharp and the sweet spot is just as big as the MHG in my opinion. Plus it is 1/2 the price of the MHG. It just goes to show you you have to try a binocular yourself to determine if it works for you.
Last edited:
Bruce,
Granted, Nikons differing explanations of the "field flattener lens system" can be confusing.
Nikon has a number of ways of describing this "field flattener lens system." Read how they describe it in this "Performance Icon Compatible Chart."
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/sportoptics/binoculars/pdf/Performance_Icons_Compatible_Chart_En.pdf
"Optical system assures sharpness all the way to the periphery with minimized curvature of field."
I would expect that a true flat field would have no curvature of field.
Maybe it comes from problems in translation? I never did expect it to have a perfect flat field when I purchased it but I thought that Nikon had reasons for using a field flattener that would improve the view one saw in the binocular while using it.
Bob
I wonder if the trouble I had with blackouts on the Nikon MHG has something to do with the prisms being too small for the wide FOV as Allbino's says in their review. They say this could have led to the excessive CA on the edge of the FOV and the truncated exit pupils.
"Most of aberration levels are as limited as possible; you can notice some problems only when it comes to chromatic aberration on the very edge of the field and the truncation of exit pupils. It seems the prisms are a tad too small to deal with such a large field of view."
"Most of aberration levels are as limited as possible; you can notice some problems only when it comes to chromatic aberration on the very edge of the field and the truncation of exit pupils. It seems the prisms are a tad too small to deal with such a large field of view."
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
I spent some time comparing my Nikon 8X30 EII (newer black covered) with the Nikon Monarch HG 8X42. For me, the HG has a larger center view. That appears to be consistent with what Allbinos is reporting when reviewing the 8X30 EII with the 10X42 Monarch HG. "Blurring at the edge of the FOV" score is 4/10 for the EII and 6.5/10 for the HG. I was at Cabela's yesterday to check out a Euro on sale and while there I also looked through the 10X42 Monarch HG on display. The center view of my 8X HG is at least as large as what I saw in the 10X HG. Sounds like you had a poor HG or you have a really good EII. Although Allbinos gives less than a stellar score to the EII for a large center, I find it larger than my primary area of vision and so it is not an issue.
The size of the center view of my 10X Tract Toric and it's near twin, the 10X iMagic, is larger to me than the both the HG and EII. They compare closely with the Zeiss 10X42 Conquest HD which gets a "blurring at the edge" score of 6.5/10 from Allbinos.
I also spent some time comparing on axis sharpness between the 8X30 EII and the 8X HG and find them to be equally as sharp in side by side comparisons. There is a noticeable difference in color balance with the EII being much more toward the pink/red. Depending on what you are looking at, that could influence apparent sharpness but actual resolution for my acuity (near 20/15) looked to be the same.
No doubt the EII at under $500 is a great buy considering the quality.
Another factor that comes to mind in eyecup fit is the diameter. A larger diameter eye cup will most likely come into contact with the eyebrow area or cheek sooner than a smaller diameter. This results in the eyepiece lens being further away from pupil when the eye cup length is the same but the diameter is larger. So the distance of the net eye relief when viewing without glasses is governed by both the length of the eye cup and the diameter. The approximate outside diameter of the HG eyecup is 41mm, the EII is approximately 43mm and the Tract Toric is also approximately 43mm. The smaller diameter of the HG eyecup may have contributed to the poor fit for you. I can see where different facial structures can result in different results when it comes to eye cup diameter.
I was out late Monday afternoon at Fountain Hills where they have a large man made pond surrounding a large fountain. There is a small island not to far from the bank with a Palo Verde tree that was serving as a perch for a male Vermilion Fly Catcher in full reddish plumage. I watched him with the HG for about 20 minutes as he would dart off the branch and splash onto the surface of the water to get a bug, then return to the perch and shake off the water. It was a fantastic experience, the best I have had watching a Vermilion Fly Catcher. I am happy to say I never had any issues with a nervous impression, strain, jittery view or any other issues. It was just a great enjoyable and relaxed viewing experience. Like you say, a binocular may not work for one person but is just right for someone else. I do think proper eye placement is a key factor in a relaxed view and I suspect your view quality was hindered because the fit of the HG did not work for you.
Well, I totally disagree that the reviews should be taken "with a grain of salt". Most of the reviews are well thought out and contain a lot of valuable information that it helpful in evaluating a binocular and go beyond just deciding on which binoculars might be worth trying. I suspect if you had paid more attention to the multiple reviews of the HG and had not taken them with a grain of salt, you would have known the view was not sharp edge to edge and you would have avoided that disappointment. To me, saying reviews should be taken with a grain of salt indicates a lack of awareness of the work that went into the write ups and the vast knowledge of many of our members. I hope our reviewers keep on posting. :t:
You are right that ultimately the individual has to determine what works for that person but there still is a lot of knowledge to be gained from the reviews. It is a very rare occurrence that I have been surprised by a binocular after studying comments from the knowledgeable members on this forum.
Every person is different and will like different binoculars. For me the Nikon 8x30 EII's worked better than the Nikon 8x42 MHG's. The deal killer on the MHG's was the blackouts and you can never tell by the reviews if that will happen to you until you try them. I had forgotten how nice the 3D view is on the EII's. It is hard to go back to a flat field binocular after using them. Even with the wide FOV of the MHG the EII makes it look small in comparison. Long live the EII. Old School beats New School to my eyes.
Last edited:
I am thinking to buy a compact binocular. After reading here and there I have found Nikon is the best brand to buy binocular. So, anyone uses here Nikon trailblazer 10x25 binocular? Is it worth to buy? According to this thread, I cannot consider to buying Nikon Monarch HG because I have a low budget. Although, I have found a few cheap compact binoculars for bird watching there, but I want to get some feedback from experienced people.
Last edited:
I would too. I can say that in my own observation there is a range (out to about 700m or so) that I'm pretty sure the binoculars I use will pick up the birds I want to see as well, or nearly as well, as an alpha. Beyond that, however, and especially when conditions are marginal, I feel the better glass/coatings/whatever of the alpha come into their own. The most difficult observation point for me is a high point where you can look over three or four territories held by pairs of city peregrines, but the birds are often at considerable distance. I have quite a lot of time on my 10x40BGAT*P* Dialyt in this situation so have a pretty good point of reference in terms of how far away I can locate targets, how long I can keep them in view before they wink out into the distance and so on, in differing visibility conditions. The one time I've used an alpha from this location (my brother's 8.5x42 ELSVFP) I picked up a bird about 5km away and followed it as it went northeast and then east till it winked out. I think I would have been able to pick up this bird with my normal pair, but I know my normal pair well enough to be sure I wouldn't have been able to follow that bird for as long. At another location we are often able to follow birds ranging over the city and when tracking the same bird side by side with my brother, I have almost always had it blink out from view earlier (this is at distances of 3km or greater). He consistently finds birds flying over the city before I do, which has as much to do with him being a more experienced observer as much as the quality of the binoculars he's using, but once both of us are locked on to a bird in flight, it's a good test of the capability of the optics we're using as both of us wear glasses and should have our vision corrected to very similar levels (when using the scope I do sometimes need to adjust the focus very slightly from where he has to get the image razor sharp). Unfortunately I can't get the rubber eyecups on the Dialyt turned up enough to be comfortable for him to use, so he hasn't been able to use it for prolonged periods to compare against his pair; but based on my own familiarity with them I know they don't have the brightness, contrast, or piercing sharpness that the SVFPs do. Which is as it should be - there must be over 20 years of improvements between the two. When I'm observing by myself I go somewhere it isn't necessary to observe over such distances, or if I think those particular spots are the best places to try, I'll direct my search over the range my binoculars perform best. In short I do believe that alpha class binoculars (I've only used the Zeiss and Leica alpha models at the recent Birdfair but from observing very distant targets they would seem to offer similar performance) do offer better ultimate performance in the field, but only in certain, somewhat particular conditions do they really show their strengths.
So how long did you try the MHGs?
Probably a couple weeks. I noticed the blackouts right away but I figured I could tolerate it but in the end it got tiresome having to hold the binoculars loosely away from my eyes to avoid blackouts. I do not get any blackouts with the EII's so they worked out better for me. I actually like the view through the EII better also. Bigger FOV and sharper on-axis and way less CA especially on the edge. You know it is funny but if you check the reviews on Amazon.com on the EII's and I think there are about 12 of them EVERYONE is a 5 star rating and there is NO criticism of them. Very few binoculars have all 5 star ratings so that should tell you something about the EII's. They work well for a wide spectrum of people.
Last edited:
Egrets Ivadafew
Well-known member
The only thing that puts me off the EII, and this isn't a criticism about what are classically good bins, is the absence of nitrogen. If I were going for, say a week in the Hebrides, and persistent rain were forecast, I wouldn't feel confident about the bins not fogging up just when I want to train them on that elusive Corncrake. Does anyone have any comments about this, or am I being over sensitive.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Chuck ..... As I recall, you have a Nikon Monarch HG 8X42 and had a Tract Toric 8X42. Did you have them at the same time and if so did you do any side by side comparisions?
......and to think that just last Sunday you were taking reviews "with a grain of salt" (post 106).
I am not seeing any difference in CA handling between the EII and Monarch HG. Both look to do an adequate job. The Tract Toric 10X42 seems to show a little less.
A2GG
Beth
I've mentioned in the past here a few times that I take all user reviews with a grain of salt.
I just don't put too much stock in them even if there is a consensus about any specific models.
Reviews don't tell me whether I'll like the bin myself or if it's a good fit for me.
I treat reviews as rough guides (not gospel) and I do enjoy reading them and definitely find them useful (as a purchasing guide).
This shouldn't be offensive to anyone. It doesn't mean I am dismissing experience level and/or the talents of certain reviewers.
It only means I place much more importance on my own eyes and experience trying a new binocular.\
A good example: The current Swaro CL 8x30 had many lukewarm and even poor reviews here on the forum. I liked it quite a bit when I had it.
Last edited:
I agree with this.
Reviews are fun to read, and provide some rough guidance, but they don't take into account the reviewer's eyesight, which is always assumed to be at least "normal". (or at least compensated)
The ones I don't like are the ones which add a factor they call "value". I think that is an absolute crock, especially when it results in a reversal of ranking in a series of reviews.
That's just my pet gripe, and others may think it's fine.
I second that. I agree with Gilmore Girl also. I also like the CL 8x30 quite a bit. Reviews are helpful and they can guide you towards a binocular but you have to try it yourself to see if it works for you. One thing that is helpful about reviews is that they can tell you if there is a problem with the binoculars and if the binoculars have QA problems. So when I take them with a grain of salt I mean my final decision to keep a binocular is based on if it works with my eyes. For example, on the Cabella's Euro HD 8x32 that is on sale right now for 1/2 price I would still not buy them because they had two 1 star and two 3 star reviews where people had QA problems with them and they felt the optics were not that great. You NEVER see a 1 or even 3 star review on a Nikon 8x30 EII or Swarovski. The Nikon 8x30 EII has 12 5 star reviews on Amazon.com and I ever one was praising it. That should tell you something. Also, why is Cabella's selling the Euro at 1/2 price? It could be they are coming out with a new model or it could be they don't sell well and they want to move some. You never see them selling a Swarovski for 1/2 price. I wonder why?
Last edited:
The Monarch MHG definitely has more CA at the edge than the Nikon 8x30 EII. Allbinos rated the MHG @6.1 and the EII @ 7.5 and I could definitely see more CA with the MHG than the EII. In fact I saw a little CA on-axis in the MHG and none in the EII and I don't like CA. That is one weak point to me in the MHG.Chuck ..... As I recall, you have a Nikon Monarch HG 8X42 and had a Tract Toric 8X42. Did you have them at the same time and if so did you do any side by side comparisions?
......and to think that just last Sunday you were taking reviews "with a grain of salt" (post 106).
I am not seeing any difference in CA handling between the EII and Monarch HG. Both look to do an adequate job. The Tract Toric 10X42 seems to show a little less.
Last edited:
