Nikon: I am very confused! (1 Viewer)

So what are the key differences between:

Monarch Mk 3
Monarch 3
ProStaff 7

I know the new Monarch 3 will replace the the Monarch Mk 3 but can't understand how the new ProStaff 7 fits-in. I also know that Nikon are in a transition phase where product lines are being aesthetically aligned. But some things still don't make sense.

For instance comparing official specs between Monarch Mk 3 (MM3) and ProStaff 7 (PS7) here's all the differences I can find (8x42 models):

- MM3 - dielectric coated
prism, 8.2ft close focussing, 19.5mm eye relief, 5.7 x 5 inches size, 21.5oz weight, $299.95 estimated selling price.

- PS7 - aluminium coated prism, 13.1ft close focussing, 19.3mm eye relief, 6.9 x 5.1 inches size, weight not mentioned but probably higher, estimated selling price not mentioned but perhaps slightly cheaper.

I didn't include the Monarch 3 as it's not on Nikon's official sites and I didn't want to rely on 2nd hand info - either that or I am going blind! However the only differences I have heard are that apparently it features silver-coated prisms. Also apparently it featured a polycarbonate body - as opposed to the MM3 which I believe has a magnesium alloy body. Who knows what the PS7 is made of. The very misty plot thickens!

It's really unclear as to how the Monarch 3 and PS7 will co-exist in terms of differing comsumer needs. Clarification is needed so consumers don't feel slightly peeved especially over the next few months.

Nikon, throw me a bone! I am based in the UK and very recently purchased the MM3 and if either of the other two are better for my specific needs, I can return my current bins to Amazon but not for very long.

Some of my most pressing questions:

- dielectric / silver / aluminium: which prism coatings are better?

- given the PS7 is no doubt bigger and probably heavier than the Monarch 3 (it's certainly bigger than the soon to be outgoing MM3), was this a design compromise in order to achieve a 'better' image of some sort?

Or is the PS7 simply a slightly poorer man's Monarch?

If the resident Nikon rep could detail the spec differences between the three models mentioned, and the thinking behind launching the Monarch 3 alongside the PS7, I would be really grateful.

Ps - I have just seen this thread which talks about some image differences but it doesn't answer all the above questions:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=202792

Many thanks,

Atma Singh

Atma,

Just something about mirror coatings.

In theory, dielectric mirrors can produce the highest reflectivity levels across the visible spectrum. However, achieving this is expensive and I would not assume all 'dielectric' models achieve this. Aluminium coatings naturally have a slight blue bias and silver a slight red one, however new 'enhanced' formulas have improved performance, and in some cases approach dielectric levels. So the mirror material may not be a good predictor of final performance, particularly in cheaper models.

In practice the quality of the anti reflective coatings and control of internal reflections and light scatter may be more important than the mirror material in final colour balance and contrast levels.

Some would argue that a neutral transmission spectrum is the 'ideal'. Personally I find a reddish (warm) balance is helpful for bright conditions and blue, early or late in the day. I'm more of a fair weather birder and prefer a warm balance but it's very much an individual choice. Sites like www.allbinos.com record transmission spectra for some pairs, but note that there is quite a bit of discussion on the forum about the accuracy of their measurement.

Sorry if this is of little help. The best advice is to try a lot of pairs if you can and figure out what works for you and the conditions.

Good luck,

David

...and a little more info...the Nikon Monarch Mk 3 was the first introduced out of the three you listed. It was the initial upgrade to the Monarch (Mk II) that has been so popular over the last 6 years or so. The Mk3 was upgraded to dielectric coatings and is typically referred to as the Monarch ATB. I don't believe anything else changed about that design.

So then we have the ProStaff 7. My take on that is basically Nikon upgraded their "low end" offering by adding phasecoating to a lower priced roof (though I think they still have the Trailblazer ATB in the lineup). I am guessing this was done to compete with some of their competitors' offerings...thinking Leupold Acadia, Bushnell Excursion EX, Eagle Optics...etc... Their aluminum prism coating and longer size are the only two major issues where I see them different from the Monarchs.

The Monarch 3 is an interesting model. I think their styling is what primarily separates them from the Monarch ATB...plus the silver prism coating. There will be a slight difference in terms of overall optical performance because of this (higher light transmission with the dielectric coated model) but other variables play just as an important part in the final image. Sometimes I even prefer the color rendition provided by silver coated prism models in comparison to the dielectric ones. It is a personal choice.

For what it is worth if I was looking at these three bins, and I could only go by specs alone, I would probably try the Monarch 3 first because of the styling and silver coated prisms...plus the price is certainly attractive.

The ProStaff 7 definitely looks interesting. Because of its longer length I would expect it to have more aberrations corrected in comparison to either of the Monarch models...assuming all else is equal.

Just my two cents.

Frank, I'll take those 2 cents and put them toward a "3". - Agree with your assessments and have made similar comments myself on other Nikon threads.

Looking through the EDG, I found that you can "have your cake and eat it too". Although the EDG has dielectric coatings, the color balance still tilts to the warm side. Comparing the EDG to the HG, the reds and yellows look similar and still "pop". The blues are different.

Given trickle down binonomics, we might see this combination of dielectrics and warm bias in the Monarch 5.

But rather than keep making a variations on a theme, I'd like to see an improvement in the FOV in the "5". A 7* FOV like the HGL/Premier and also better edges (w/out adding field flatteners).

These upgrades might increase the price by $200, but would still be within reach of most birders and deliver what the Monarch X never did. Dropping the "X" would help fund the upgraded "5".

Keep the Monarch ATB for hunters. They want more compact bins and a wider FOV isn't as important as it is for birders.

If the "5's" price is too dear, there is still the Prostaff 9 for birders on a budget.

I don't see the point in making the Trailblazers w/out phase coatings in this day and age. Either upgrade them with p-coatings or dump the line. Budget minded birders/hunters will be better off with the Action series.

Brock

FrankD said:

...and a little more info...the Nikon Monarch Mk 3 was the first introduced out of the three you listed. It was the initial upgrade to the Monarch (Mk II) that has been so popular over the last 6 years or so. The Mk3 was upgraded to dielectric coatings and is typically referred to as the Monarch ATB. I don't believe anything else changed about that design.

So then we have the ProStaff 7. My take on that is basically Nikon upgraded their "low end" offering by adding phasecoating to a lower priced roof (though I think they still have the Trailblazer ATB in the lineup). I am guessing this was done to compete with some of their competitors' offerings...thinking Leupold Acadia, Bushnell Excursion EX, Eagle Optics...etc... Their aluminum prism coating and longer size are the only two major issues where I see them different from the Monarchs.

The Monarch 3 is an interesting model. I think their styling is what primarily separates them from the Monarch ATB...plus the silver prism coating. There will be a slight difference in terms of overall optical performance because of this (higher light transmission with the dielectric coated model) but other variables play just as an important part in the final image. Sometimes I even prefer the color rendition provided by silver coated prism models in comparison to the dielectric ones. It is a personal choice.

For what it is worth if I was looking at these three bins, and I could only go by specs alone, I would probably try the Monarch 3 first because of the styling and silver coated prisms...plus the price is certainly attractive.

The ProStaff 7 definitely looks interesting. Because of its longer length I would expect it to have more aberrations corrected in comparison to either of the Monarch models...assuming all else is equal.

Just my two cents.

Click to expand...

Frank:

I just wanted to post a picture comparing the Prostaff 7 and the Nikon EDG,
both in 10x42. The 7 is a full 7" tall, but with a polycarbonate body is light
at 24 oz. and handles well.
I am also wondering about the length, and how that affects the optical
design. I've had this one for several days, and was wondering about the
aluminum prism coatings, but I am pleased with the brightness tested
in low light. I do like the view with a nice sweet spot and a gradual falloff to the edges, which is not distracting at all. The FOV is 6 deg. on the 7, which is the same as the SE and the Premiere 10x42's. The reg. Monarch ATB DE, is 5.5, the new Monarch III is 5.7 and the EDG is at 6.5 degrees, just to offer up some other Nikon stats, all 10x42.
I have noticed the 7, does not handle stray or front light situations as well
as some others, but this would be expected.

It would be fun to make a comparison with the other Monarchs, and maybe
someone could do that. In store comparisons are not very useful, with
the bright artificial lighting, but do offer a nice way to check out the handling.

Jerry

Thanks David, Frank, Brock and Jerry. I too am hoping someone will very soon test the Mk3 against the 3.

The stray light issue with the 7 rules them out for me. That's the sort of thing that could get annoying. Even with the Mk3 I currently own the stray light that sometimes causes issues every now and then is annoying so I imagine more of the same would really annoy me.

I am hoping the 3 will feature even more sharpness and contrast, sharper edges, a slightly tighter focussing knob, eyecups that don't twist down un-intentionally and a rainguard that sits a little more snug on the eye-cups. The lens caps on my Mk3 are fine btw. These improvements would lead me to return my Mk3 to Amazon and buy the 3. However the major thing for me is the green and purple fringing. Maybe I'm expecting too much or maybe I have a poor sample...

One concern I have is that apparently the 3 has a polycarbonate body compared to the Mk3's magnesium alloy. I understand this would make it even lighter but what about strength and rigidity?

Personally I am not fussed about a lighter load - Mk3 is plenty light already and making it even lighter may lead to less stability.

I do like the 3's new shape. I think my hands would sit better on it and increase stability, compared to the Mk3.

UPDATE: Me being a binocular novice (these are my first pair) I should have done a little more reading re: chromatic aberration. Saw Brock mentioning 'centering' bins to reduce fringing - I took it that meant adjusting the positions of the exit pupils. Looking at a black lamp-post just now against a greyish sky has helped me. Pushing them in ever so slightly more has helped considerably. Many thanks!

Nikon Sport Optics Europe has a page where you can check out features by product line. All have specs.
http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/category_pages/sport_optics/category_sport_optics_binoculars.page?sParamValueLbl=Sport%20Optics&sParam1ValueLbl=Binoculars&ParamValue=Sport%20Optics&Subnav1Param=Binoculars&Subnav2Param=0&Subnav3Param=0&RunQuery=0&ID=0

Thanks Jay. Seen that page already; Monarch 3 not on there yet.