-
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.
New Allbinos Review of Monarch HG 10x42 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ceasar
- Start date
Interesting review. Max transmission is a little lower than expected given some of the other options in that price range, but aside from that and poor work on CA, it seems these are a great option. I wonder if the (relatively) large amount of CA is a result of the super-wide field? It seems that this review differs from a lot of the opinions in the various threads on this binocular stating that the field isn't particularly flat.
Jremmons @ post #3.
The Allbinos review mentions "A bit too high CA at the very edge of the FOV" as one of the cons at the end of the review. (My underline emphasis.)
I wonder if this "(relatively) large amount of CA is a result of the super-wide field?" which you noted. That might be what Henry Link was discussing with Binastro in post 25 of Chuck's review of the Monarch HG 8x42.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=340317
Quote: "Usually if the worst blur is at the edge from lateral CA that's a good thing in a binocular."
Bob
The Allbinos review mentions "A bit too high CA at the very edge of the FOV" as one of the cons at the end of the review. (My underline emphasis.)
I wonder if this "(relatively) large amount of CA is a result of the super-wide field?" which you noted. That might be what Henry Link was discussing with Binastro in post 25 of Chuck's review of the Monarch HG 8x42.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=340317
Quote: "Usually if the worst blur is at the edge from lateral CA that's a good thing in a binocular."
Bob
Last edited:
Yes, that was kind of my thought as well. Most binoculars I've handled seem to have CA on the very edge.
The overall transmission was 88.3+/- 1.5% similar to the EDG 10x42 at 88.5%. Similar to the Trinovid BN from 2 generations ago though.
The-Wanderer
Well-known member
I wonder how the Vanguard Endeavor IV fares if and when Allbinos publishes its test.
Yep, certainly not a bad figure, but similar to what you'd get with a $500 Vortex Viper HD.
Also, I'd never look at the "total" score. Look at the individual categories and see what matters most to you.
Allbinos measured the HG field of view as 6.91 degrees and the EDG as 6.46
They state HG "Blur occurs in a distance of 84.5% ± 4% from the field of view centre." and all the way to the edge for the EDG.
So, the actual sweet spot appears large and only slightly less than the EDG ?
They state HG "Blur occurs in a distance of 84.5% ± 4% from the field of view centre." and all the way to the edge for the EDG.
So, the actual sweet spot appears large and only slightly less than the EDG ?
Just what I would stress except to add, "and look up 'How do we test binoculars?' in the Articles section." Rankings on total seem to exist mostly for the sake of ranking: they themselves ignore these in describing their preferences within the configurations.
henry link
Well-known member
This is a good example of why these and other Allbino's scores shouldn't be taken seriously. Try comparing the test result of the 10x42 Monarch HG to the 10x42 Zeiss HT. If we accept the Allbino's figures as accurate and calculate the diameter of the "blur" free FOVs we find that the Monarch HG has a larger diameter blur free area (5.84º vs 5.62º) and yet the HT gets a higher score (8/10 vs 6.5/10), which apparently is its reward for having a narrower FOV.
Last edited:
Curiously, Nikon does not consider the EDG binoculars to have "wide Fields."
Nikon states in the specs for the binoculars on its website that the 10x42 EDG has a FOV of 6.5º or 341'@1000 yards--normal for a 10x42. It considers the new HGs to have "wide fields" and Nikon's specs for the The Monarch HG 10x42 states it has a FOV of 6.9º or 362'@1000 yards--wide for a 10x42.
Both of these series also have "Flat Fields."
See this PDF link from Nikon:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/sportoptics/binoculars/pdf/Performance_Icons_Compatible_Chart_En.pdf
The only explanation for this difference in the edges of the views AFAICS is that Nikon has designed different eye pieces for these 2 different series of binoculars.
Last edited:
Not a bad figure at all IMO. Some of my favorite binoculars I have in tests show 86-90% transmission figures. Also just saying "90%" isn't the whole picture either. If you're looking for truly life-like images the graph needs to also be FLAT.
I alway look at the individual categories too. Some of the things allbinos scores mean nothing to me. Mostly I look at the items I can't come up with such as light transmission and the graph.
Some things he DOESN'T score or doesn't place the same emphasis on which ARE important to me...such as eye relief and size/weight.
Nevertheless...very thankful for the amount of time and the trouble is takes to give us a very nice report!
crinklystarfish
Well-known member
Having used and written about the 10x42 for a few weeks now, in my view, performance in-the-field really is extraordinarily good, arguably even better than the raw data suggests.
It's real strength is that it has no stand-out weakness: unlike many of the alphas I've owned... and sold.
The Allbinos' reviewer looks forward to a range expansion, so do I. Unlikely as it may be, I'd personally really love to see a 12x50.
It's real strength is that it has no stand-out weakness: unlike many of the alphas I've owned... and sold.
The Allbinos' reviewer looks forward to a range expansion, so do I. Unlikely as it may be, I'd personally really love to see a 12x50.
Last edited:
The Nikon SE 10x42 porro got 10/10 for a 5.89 degree blur free FOV, which is in the margin of error of being actually worse than the HG !
Last edited:
