• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 (1 Viewer)

Just looked at half Moon in not great conditions.
The 8x32 HD I found much easier to use one handed, the 8x42 HG was unbalanced for me.
Ghosting not bad with either from half Moon, but bad from nearby security lights, but very brief look.

Moon itself O.K. in both, but found 8x32 much easier to focus one handed. It is more compact.

Perseid meteors tonight, tomorrow and next few nights if clear.

P.S.
Forgot to mention that the case for the 8x32 HD is thicker material and seems better and more protective than the case for the 8x42 HG. The latter has a rubbery inside probably waterproof, but could encourage damp in long term storage, although both binoculars are waterproof.
 
Last edited:
Tried 8x42 HG with 4 different glasses, reading, computer, T.V., and older distance glasses.
With eyecup fully in I can see whole field with all four, although I have to careful with eye placement with some.

Strange effects as I don't use glasses with binoculars.
All the frames are different.
With at least two of the glasses I think I saw increased magnification, maybe 9x but with reduced brightness.
All glasses are multicoated simple plastic but maybe not totally clean.
But the full real field is seen, which seems to imply a big increase in AFOV.
I didn't try further as I felt a bit queasy swapping 4 glasses and no glasses, 5 different views. My eyes trying to rapidly adapt to 5 different views.

Perhaps Lars, Sweden can explain what I was seeing.

In bright sunshine the view without glasses is good, if I don't go looking for imperfections.
 
It is unfortunate that your review is the first one for the new Nikon HG.

I can see some things lacking, for most all on here that simply want to know how
it performs terrestrially.

Thanks for posting.

Jerry
 
Jerry,
Terrestrially, with this sample the problem is some false colour, which I can see when compared to the Conquest HD 8x32.
The ghosting would be seen terrestrially in situations where the Sun is near the field at certain light levels.
I don't know whether every sample shows this or how different eyes see it.
I point out that I can see detail that others may not find to be a problem, because of limited accommodation.
But some others may also have this property with their eyes.

These two problems are the only ones I find to be of concern.

Why don't you buy a sample Jerry and test it, instead of saying how unfortunate it is that I was first to have a go.
At least I had a go.
I have tested many hundred binoculars, possibly a thousand and do use them terrestrially.
What I don't know is how the 8x42 HG is for birdwatchers, because they have special needs. I clearly point this out.

Many here are critical of all sorts of minor or not so minor points in their tests, which are more negative than ones I have seen here.

This binocular is not perfect, none are. I have criticisms of binoculars costing upwards of $5,000 even though the binoculars are unbelievably good overall.
 
Binastro said:
Why don't you buy a sample Jerry and test it, instead of saying how unfortunate it is that I was first to have a go.
At least I had a go.
Click to expand...
Fair point - except I suspect Jerry didn't want it do come out sounding like that (I certainly hope he didn't).

I thank you for your review - even if it doesn't address all the points I would like addressed it seemed very well-thought-out, especially as regards the actual characteristics of the binoculars you checked, but also about how your particular expertise and interests might differ from the mythical "average Birdforum reader" (who of course doesn't exist). I don't think you can do much better than that and I don't think Jerry was criticising you for what you've done here.

I'm guessing Jerry's comment was more a lament that terrestrial reviewers of these bins are more thin on the ground (pun intended) than he would prefer.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
I was not trying to offend with that post, so I am sorry if it was taken that way.

I was just looking from the birder side, with a possible comparison to other binoculars
in that class.

I suppose more reviews will be forthcoming.

Jerry
 
Accepted.

I also hope that there will be more reviews soon, maybe by experienced birdwatchers.

Just tried Minolta 8x40 Standard MK in very late sunshine. Both sun and shadow on white pillars and building. Beautiful day here.
The Minolta clearly has a wider and to me full field. The view is dimmer than 8x42 HG. There was a little CA from HG, none from Minolta.
The Minolta is clearly not sharp away from centre, but looking centrally one doesn't notice it.
It is surprising how useable the old Minolta is.

I wonder if all HGs show some false colour or whether most show less.
Maybe some won't even notice it even on this sample, but I have learnt from this forum how sensitive some people are or they just don't like any false colour.
 
We will learn more about these from those that attend Birdfair.

My experience with all mfrs. is they make and price their optics for fair value, and so that
means these are a new midrange model.

I am looking forward to more reports, as these have many new features, not found on the current
offerings.

Jerry
 
Dave,
I struggle a bit with the 8x42 HG at night, as although my pupils are wider than the exit pupil, the star images are not that great because of my old eyes.
The 10x42 HG would be more suitable, but I haven't had an 8x42 and thought I should try one.
The 8x32 Conquest HD has nice star images, I think mainly because my eyes are stopped down to 4mm.
 
Looked at the Moon last night although not full.
Not a large change in magnification near the field edge with 8x42 HG.
Rather larger change with 8x32 Conquest HD
I am not bothered by 'rolling ball' with either.

The 8x42 HG has better edge performance, but more signs of false colour than 8x32 HD.

This Monarch 8x42 HG is an early production example with a low serial number.
I wonder if later production samples will on average show less false colour.

I don't know if the eyecups unscrew. I did not want to force them.

Still not finalised, but made the field sizes 8.1 deg with 8x32 HD and 8.35 (8.34) deg with 8x42 HG.
 
I tried the Monarch HG today. I thought it was really excellent. I got a chance to compare it to the Leica Trinovid HD. I thought it was much brighter and sharper.
 
Petrus82, post #34. Could you please add briefly: You do mean Trinovid HD, not the current Trinovid? Was the HG 8x or 10x? CA in terrestrial use? Ease of use with glasses? "Rolling globe" (if 8x)? Thank you!

Looking forward to the Binomania report, anytime now going by their post in this forum, and comments from the British Bird Fair, where I hope forum members will have enough time with this model, among the embarrassment of riches this year!
 
james holdsworth said:
If it was ''much'' brighter and sharper, then the Trinovid was faulty.
Click to expand...

Have you tried both against each other? I wasn't all that impressed with the Trinovid HD. It certainly wasn't faulty - that's a few models I've tried. Doesn't seem like a Leica. For me, the non-HD Trinovid was better
 
adhoc said:
Petrus82, post #34. Could you please add briefly: You do mean Trinovid HD, not the current Trinovid? Was the HG 8x or 10x? CA in terrestrial use? Ease of use with glasses? "Rolling globe" (if 8x)? Thank you!

Looking forward to the Binomania report, anytime now going by their post in this forum, and comments from the British Bird Fair, where I hope forum members will have enough time with this model, among the embarrassment of riches this year!
Click to expand...

Both models were 8x. The Leica was the Trinovid HD (I think the non-HD was better).

I only had around 20 minutes to compare. I didn't notice much CA on the Monarch HG. I'm not sensitive to it. I did look for rolling ball but couldn't find it. I didn't think the Monarch HG was sharp to the very edge, I would say 90%. I am very sensitive to eye placement with glasses and the HG seemed very comfortable.

I hope to do an in depth test soon.
 
Correction, sorry, I was confused and thought the previous Trinovid (central diopter) was named Trinovid HD and the current model (right-hand diopter) is named just Trinovid (without "HD"), not vice versa. I asked that question because I thought the comparison was with the previous model which is widely considered better in optical quality.
 
Last edited:
Hi Petrus,
I am pleased that you were able to test the 8x42 Monarch HG, as I was feeling the pressure being the only reviewer.
I am particular interested in comments about CA, and the opinion of people who wear glasses.
It is great that some birdwatchers can give their opinions.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

A
Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 blackouts
Replies
9
Views
813
tenex
tenex
D
Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO Review
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
dries1
dries1
J
Brief review of Meopta Meostar B1+ 8x42. (in comparison with Zeiss Victory SFL 8x40
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
5K
adhoc
A
dorubird
Swarovski Swarovision EL 8x32 vs Nikon Monarch HG 8x30
2 3
Replies
45
Views
5K
Owlbarred
Owlbarred
kimmik
Curio CL 7x21 and Papilio II 6.5x21
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
kimmik
kimmik

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top