Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 03:26   #151
chill6x6
Registered User
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Chuck,

I think there is a possibility of that as regards the fov. Every Maven I have checked has been wider than its stated fov. Mostly I'm just curious.

Actually the HG is the only thing Nikon has that holds much interest for me.It looks like it has some serious potential.
Ok Steve, here's what I did this AM before I went to work......
There is a barn 116 yards from my front porch(picture at bottom!). I use it all the time exactly for this reason, to COMPARE FOV from binocular to binocular. I kind of put the left of the FOV even with the left of the building and see how far down the barn the right FOV includes. The barn has bolts/screws to hold the tin on. So I count from right to left what bolt is at the right edge of the FOV while looking thru the binocular.. I do this while sitting and resting binocular on my porch rail. What the value IS I have no I idea. BUT it is easy to compare binoculars and be able to say binocular B has a greater FOV than binocular A. Only two 8X binoculars I have have been able to swallow the whole building...8X42 SF and the 8X42 Monarch HG will do that. So I tried the Maven B.1 8X42....it will cover MOST of the barn and I can tell it's actually two bolts from the right. Thinking quickly I picked up the EDG II which I have measured at 397ft(specs say 403 ft which is probably correct and I'm a little off. Small errors make a big difference here). The EDG II lines up almost exactly where the B.1 does. I went back and forth a few times. Same conclusion which is....I'm going to say my B.1 and my EDG II are pretty equivalent where FOV is concerned...so that would be about 400ft @ 1000 yds more or less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
A question to those who actually own a Nikon HG:

I tried one a few months ago, and even though I quite liked the optics, I wasn't sure it would stand up to hard use in the field.

What are your thoughts? chuck? Bruce? anyone?

Hermann
I'm looking at it right now. Sure it doesn't have the armoring of an FL or a Meopta B.1....but I'd have to say it's surely as robust and in the same league as an HT, SF, Maven B.1, UV HD +, et al. Anything I do with a binocular I'd sure carry it without hesitation.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_0154.JPG
Views:	42
Size:	53.9 KB
ID:	645243  
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 05:20   #152
Egrets Ivadafew
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 128
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
Anything I do with a binocular I'd sure carry it without hesitation.
My previous bins (Kowa 8.5x44) seemed to be built along the lines of a Centurion Tank. The MHG though far lighter feel no less robust. Worst case scenario (a drop onto rocky ground) and the magnesium alloy + rubber I reckon would do their job. Landing glass first? No amount of armouring will protect them, or any other bins. In fact, physics would seem to suggest the heavier the bins, the greater the impact.
Egrets Ivadafew is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 08:16   #153
mooreorless
Registered User
 
mooreorless's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntingdon,Pa.
Posts: 3,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilmore Girl View Post
your interpretation is a bit overboard. You have a different definition of the phrase. It just means skepticism to me. I've never considered it to mean 'extreme' skepticism.

This attitude in my mind is definitely not dismissive or harsh. That's your interpretation and certainly not my viewpoint.

The second online definition below (in bold) is how I always interpreted the phrase.

Grain of salt - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_of_salt
'Take with a grain of salt' - the meaning and origin of this phrase

"(With) a grain of salt", (or "a pinch of salt") is an idiom of the English language, which means to view something with skepticism or not to interpret something literally.



https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/...n-of-salt.html

To take a statement with 'a grain of salt' or 'a pinch of salt' means to accept it but to maintain a degree of skepticism about its truth.
I take that Wikipedia definition of grain of salt with a grain of salt. Sorry GG could not help myself. Thanks to all that post on here telling us their thoughts and actually taking the time to do all this!!

Last edited by mooreorless : Saturday 4th November 2017 at 08:19.
mooreorless is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 10:18   #154
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooreorless View Post
Thanks to all that post on here telling us their thoughts and actually taking the time to do all this!!
You're welcome
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 12:38   #155
Egrets Ivadafew
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 128
Blog Entries: 2
Posted all over the place on Birdforum time and again is Rule One, namely 'Before buying a pair of binocular, go and try them for yourself.' However, just by performing this very necessary act, are we not taking any glowing reviews of said binoculars 'with a pinch of salt'.
Egrets Ivadafew is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 13:12   #156
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maljunulo View Post

Do people here honestly believe that when spending twice as much you really don't get better materials, workmanship and quality control?
Having owned the best of the best, the best of the "value" options, and some good low tier options, I really struggle to believe this sometimes.

For instance, the Swarovision 8x32 are often touted as one of the best of the best, but I saw more glare and flare in it than in any other binocular I've tried. The 10x42 EL (pre Swarovision) I owned had a bad focus knob (rough) that I had to send back a couple times. The 8x42 Victory FL had really poor edge performance (though I didn't notice this in the 8x32 or 7x42, at least not that extent). The Ultravid just never looked natural to me and had more Chromatic Aberration than the other top ends and some of the mid-ranges. The 8x42 SLC-HD didn't really have any noticeable flaws but I couldn't justify a $1700 pair of binoculars to myself when some of the middle range worked just as well.

By contrast, the 8.5x44 Kowa Genesis I owned was the best feeling (in-hand) with great mechanics and ease of view, at the cost of weight and lacking in FoV.
jremmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 13:51   #157
Maljunulo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by jremmons View Post
Having owned the best of the best, the best of the "value" options, and some good low tier options, I really struggle to believe this sometimes.

For instance, the Swarovision 8x32 are often touted as one of the best of the best, but I saw more glare and flare in it than in any other binocular I've tried. The 10x42 EL (pre Swarovision) I owned had a bad focus knob (rough) that I had to send back a couple times. The 8x42 Victory FL had really poor edge performance (though I didn't notice this in the 8x32 or 7x42, at least not that extent). The Ultravid just never looked natural to me and had more Chromatic Aberration than the other top ends and some of the mid-ranges. The 8x42 SLC-HD didn't really have any noticeable flaws but I couldn't justify a $1700 pair of binoculars to myself when some of the middle range worked just as well.

By contrast, the 8.5x44 Kowa Genesis I owned was the best feeling (in-hand) with great mechanics and ease of view, at the cost of weight and lacking in FoV.
Well, I certainly will defer to those with more experience with different makers.

It was not my intention to derail he thread, and I was not trolling, but I still think that to say that "B" scores higher than "A" because it costs less is nuts if you are claiming to make an objective assessment of the relative merits of a series of related things.

All I can say in conclusion is that my EL SV (10X42) still blow my mind every time I look through them, so I guess that in the end that is all that is important. (and no, they are not very good when it comes to glare)
__________________
All behavior offends someone.
Maljunulo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 15:42   #158
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maljunulo View Post
Well, I certainly will defer to those with more experience with different makers.

It was not my intention to derail he thread, and I was not trolling, but I still think that to say that "B" scores higher than "A" because it costs less is nuts if you are claiming to make an objective assessment of the relative merits of a series of related things.

All I can say in conclusion is that my EL SV (10X42) still blow my mind every time I look through them, so I guess that in the end that is all that is important. (and no, they are not very good when it comes to glare)
In today's day and age, value is just as important of a factor. If something is 91% transmission vs 92% (likely not visible to the human eye) has sharpness to the edge of 75% vs 70%, and can resolve (to the naked eye) the same amount of detail, it is tough to consider spending >200% the price for those 1-5% minute increases, especially when most people are living borderline poverty level.

The Swarovision 8x32 and SLC-HD I owned certainly had great views but so do the Leupold BX-4, Conquest HD, Meostar HD, Kowa Genesis, etc. that are far cheaper. Until there is a "perfect" binocular, and the closest I've found so far are the HT 8x42, SLC-HD 8x42, and newer Swarovision 8.5x42 (but each still have some flaws), it is difficult for many people to justify that 2-5X price increase.
jremmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 16:45   #159
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maljunulo View Post
I still think that to say that "B" scores higher than "A" because it costs less is nuts if you are claiming to make an objective assessment of the relative merits of a series of related things.
That sort of subjective evaluation rating category has been around for a long time. Many of the popular car magazines I used to read would publish test reports, and include a number like that in the chart as part of the score. For the internet optics reviewers that follow that practice, it is not so hard to subtract that number to see what the scores are without it.

A cost based assessment of a product's worth is not wholly without merit. Consider the 100th anniversary edition of a Nikon 8x30 EII going for $799.
One can buy literally the same binocular, brand new, in a non-anniversary version for $450. Which one is a better value?

Or consider its intended purpose. For a commuter in a dense urban area, a Prius, or a smart car might be a better choice/value than a $250,000 Ferrari. It will get excellent gas mileage, be more reliable, and fit in more parking spots, at a fraction of the cost.

A subjective evaluation, whether provided by the reviewer, or the consumer, can be useful.

Bill
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 16:49   #160
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
A question to those who actually own a Nikon HG:

I tried one a few months ago, and even though I quite liked the optics, I wasn't sure it would stand up to hard use in the field.

What are your thoughts? chuck? Bruce? anyone?

Hermann
There is a thread where the durability issue was addressed by a member who is a professional photographer and does tours of the lion country in Africa. The very nature of his work means a binocular will not lead a sheltered life. Here are a few comments he posted about the Nikon HG durability.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=345964

Post 7 when asked about the build quality, fit, finish and mechanical performance:

Fantastic. I mistreat all my gear as I am mostly focused on getting the picture and not putting myself and clients in any danger. The one slight niggle is that the eye cups on the eye ball end could be a somewhat tighter fit. Focus is smooth and plenty of room to be precise.


Post 7 when asked if confident if it can deal with travel and being knocked about:

Definitely, they will sit out of the case on the open land cruiser car for the whole trip out in the mara.

Post 8:

Hi!
I don't treat my equipment well when working and I have no concerns with the build quality, seems very sturdy and took a few knocks with no problem.


Those comments are several months old so you may want to go to that thread and ask for an update now that it has done a few more tours.

Here is his website. It has some incredible wildlife photos.

https://www.richardcostin.com/

Check out the photos in his Kowa review to get an idea of how the binoculars are treated .......

https://www.richardcostin.com/articl...culars-review/
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 4th November 2017, 20:35   #161
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
Ok Steve, here's what I did this AM before I went to work......
There is a barn 116 yards from my front porch(picture at bottom!). I use it all the time exactly for this reason, to COMPARE FOV from binocular to binocular. I kind of put the left of the FOV even with the left of the building and see how far down the barn the right FOV includes. The barn has bolts/screws to hold the tin on. So I count from right to left what bolt is at the right edge of the FOV while looking thru the binocular.. I do this while sitting and resting binocular on my porch rail. What the value IS I have no I idea. BUT it is easy to compare binoculars and be able to say binocular B has a greater FOV than binocular A. Only two 8X binoculars I have have been able to swallow the whole building...8X42 SF and the 8X42 Monarch HG will do that. So I tried the Maven B.1 8X42....it will cover MOST of the barn and I can tell it's actually two bolts from the right. Thinking quickly I picked up the EDG II which I have measured at 397ft(specs say 403 ft which is probably correct and I'm a little off. Small errors make a big difference here). The EDG II lines up almost exactly where the B.1 does. I went back and forth a few times. Same conclusion which is....I'm going to say my B.1 and my EDG II are pretty equivalent where FOV is concerned...so that would be about 400ft @ 1000 yds more or less.

Thanks Chuck that answered my question, being is the HG wider than the B1. However small errors don't make a really big difference. Just a half inch larger or smaller on the measuring tape at 30' only amounts to maybe 4' fov difference at 1,000 yards. While knowing the difference may well matter to some, in truth nobody will ever detect that small difference in actual field use. That is the typical round it off distance (the half inch increment) I use when checking the fov. That level is easily read at the edge of the tape. What matters most is a steady rest and to be sure the binocular has the edge of the measuring device, either tape or barn, properly placed when we look at how far the field extends across the view. Any target with known measurement gradients at a known distance can be used. I suppose it depends on how each one will define small difference and as to when the small difference becomes significant.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monarch HG rated #1 by Field and Stream. ceasar Nikon 22 Sunday 15th October 2017 13:37
Best place to buy Nikon Monarch 5 8x42? PABirder77 Nikon 1 Thursday 12th January 2017 02:05
8X42 Nikon Monarch's have to be the best binoculars under $200.00 denco@comcast.n Nikon 22 Thursday 5th November 2009 00:54

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.18780994 seconds with 23 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:43.