I actually had that same impression handling the Zeiss SF!!! It would be fine for birding in the city which is what I do - but I wonder well it would stand up to really difficult field conditions, and situations where it might get knocked around. Maybe it's just because the SF feels so lightweight for its size?
-
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
I actually had that same impression handling the Zeiss SF!!! It would be fine for birding in the city which is what I do - but I wonder well it would stand up to really difficult field conditions, and situations where it might get knocked around. Maybe it's just because the SF feels so lightweight for its size?
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Gilmore Girl ...... I know you have a high regard for many of the members. Your intentions are not in question, it is just that your choice of wording comes across as overboard to me. You have always been up front in expressing your opinions on what other folks say and all I have done is express my opinion on my interpretation of that phrase. To say you just do not put much stock into what people say in their reviews comes across as dismissive to me even if that is not the point you want to make. As Bill says, Just a thought.
Last edited:
wdc
Well-known member
As the discussion enters the realm of semantic hairsplitting, and it being Friday somewhere in the world, this qualifies as an amiable beer drinking topic. Any dogs to be found in this 'fight' are sound asleep on the barroom floor...
If folks on here are rendering opinions of binoculars they've actually tried, as well as comparing them 'directly' with ones that they have at hand, then that is a credible opinion that I place value on, and is one of the reasons I come here. However, I have learned through my own experience, as I'm certain many others here have as well, that regardless of the praise or criticism of a piece of equipment, it doesn't necessarily apply to one's own use of the same device. It either fits, or it doesn't, or lies somewhere in between. And one might prefer 'A' over 'B' as a result, no matter how well it suits another individual.
Cheers,
Bill
If folks on here are rendering opinions of binoculars they've actually tried, as well as comparing them 'directly' with ones that they have at hand, then that is a credible opinion that I place value on, and is one of the reasons I come here. However, I have learned through my own experience, as I'm certain many others here have as well, that regardless of the praise or criticism of a piece of equipment, it doesn't necessarily apply to one's own use of the same device. It either fits, or it doesn't, or lies somewhere in between. And one might prefer 'A' over 'B' as a result, no matter how well it suits another individual.
Cheers,
Bill
I think a review which ranks a "lesser" binocular higher than a "better" binocular by inserting such an arbitrary, nebulous, and subjective thing as "value" is misleading, and ingenuous at best.
The addition of so-called value neither enhances the performance of the lesser, nor degrades the performance of the better. It just muddies the waters, and leads people to believe that one is as good as the other.
I'm not sure what they are pandering to, but I don't care for it.
Do people here honestly believe that when spending twice as much you really don't get better materials, workmanship and quality control?
The addition of so-called value neither enhances the performance of the lesser, nor degrades the performance of the better. It just muddies the waters, and leads people to believe that one is as good as the other.
I'm not sure what they are pandering to, but I don't care for it.
Do people here honestly believe that when spending twice as much you really don't get better materials, workmanship and quality control?
Last edited:
wdc
Well-known member
----------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean 'bang for the buck?' or something more elusive?
I think there is a general consensus, based on experienced binocular users on this forum, that one can spend 2-3x as much on a binocular and only get a small percentage of improvement in certain areas of performance. I don't disagree with what your claiming as much as I am puzzled by your irritation when people consider a binocular to be a good 'value' when it delivers 90+ percent of an 'Alpha' for a lot less money.
Hermann
Well-known member
I'm not referring to diminishing returns or incremental improvement. I'm objecting to the attempt to quantify such a subjective term and then to incorporate it into an overall "score" which just strikes me as total hand-waving nonsense.
I think it is misleading at best, and deceptive at worst.
Last edited:
A2GG
Beth
My choice of wording was just fine.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
I think it should hold up just fine for anyone who takes reasonably good care of their equipment. It does not seem any stronger or weaker than most of the stuff out there.
The mechanics work well. I do not find any play or flex in the hinge. The diopter adjustment is firm with a solid lock. The eye cups are solid with positives click positions. It should not have the diopter issues of the EDG since the diopter is a different design on the right barrel rather than integrated in the focus knob. I have not seen anything to indicate potential focus issues.
The biggest weak point looks to be the armoring which is on the thin side. Also the binocular is not covered 100% in armor but the uncovered areas are out of the way. I suspect this is intentional to keep the weight and diameter of the tubes down. I believe it is the lightest and least bulky 42mm I have used. The compactness brings a trade-off of less armor. It should hold up to normal bumps and such but a drop on a rock could leave some damage.
The Monarch HG has a unique way of mounting the objective caps where a rubber ring fits around the objective tubes. The bare metal ends of the objective tubes are exposed when the covers are removed. Nikon provides two rubber rings to place over and cover the bare metal ends when the objective covers are not used. This is cosmetically nicer and the rubber rings provide some protection. They are not that heavy and there is little extension past the objective ends so I can see that being an area of possible damage if dropped.
In the same class is the Zeiss Conquest HD. It has noticeably thicker and more extensive armor and the armor extending past the objectives is stiffer and extends out more. It should hold up better in a drop.
The Nikon does not have removable eye cups so it would most likely have to go back to Nikon if an eye cup is damaged. The Conquest HD eye cups screw out and can be owner replaced.
Although the Nikon looks like it should hold up fine for normal use, the Zeiss Conquest HD looks like it would fair better in rough use.
One thing to keep in mind is Nikon has had a history of armor issues. There are many posts of armor bubbling on the grey EII models and the EDG I and even some of the EDG II units. It is to soon to tell if Nikon got that right on the HG.
I expect it to hold up just fine so long I do not have a significant accident with it. So far, I have never dropped one (knock on wood!). If something bad does happen, then I will get a chance to test out the Nikon No Fault Policy!
Last edited:
Wnen I was comparing the Nikon 8x42 MHG to my Tract Toric HD 8x42 I was wondering the same thing, The Tract has thicker armour and it extends fully around the binocular but the MHG has thin armour and it does not cover the binocular between the barrels obviously to keep it lighter. There is no doubt in my mind that the Tract is a more ruggedly built binocular and would take more abuse than the MHG. For normal birding the MHG should be just fine but if I was tramping through the jungle or hunting I would feel better with the Tract Toric.
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.
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.
Attachments
Egrets Ivadafew
Well-known member
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.
mooreorless
Well-known member
I take that Wikipedia definition of grain of salt with a grain of salt.
Sorry GG could not help myself.:-O Thanks to all that post on here telling us their thoughts and actually taking the time to do all this!!
Last edited:
A2GG
Beth
Egrets Ivadafew
Well-known member
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'.
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)
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.
wdc
Well-known member
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
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
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/articles/reviews/kowa-genesis-xd-10x33-binoculars-review/
