• 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 7 versus Vortex Viper HD (1 Viewer)

Welcome to the Birdforum.
You have a good question, on 2 very good optics, and both new to the market.

I have wanted to try these, but have not found them yet in the store.
I am thinking they are very close in optics as would be the reports.

You are in a large market area, so try them for yourself. I would not trust
anyone else in that decision. Your eyes are what is important.

Jerry
 
Welcome to the Birdforum.
You are in a large market area, so try them for yourself. I would not trust
anyone else in that decision. Your eyes are what is important.

Jerry

Good point, thanks! I have been able to look through the Viper HD, but that retailer did not have the Monarchs in stock. I do plan to go to Cabelas to look through both. I just posted this up in case there is more to one of these than meets the eye, like known issues...
 
I managed to try them both the same day but not side by side.

I guess I had high expectations for the Monarch 7. I've never been a fan of the MkII/III and it's true the FOV, high CA and glare issues have all improved significantly and I found it much more rewarding to use as a consequence. However the outer field softness I found distracting and surprising at that price. It's something you need to figure out for yourself how it works for you. I much preferred the Viper HD.

David
 
Check the back forums for one of my postings about the old Nikon Monarchs from a few years ago VS a new Vortex Viper. At this point in time I would love to have an expensive set of Nikons with 45mm lenses. The monarchs are good, but their 42 mm lenses don't catch the light like the Vortex 50mms. The Vortex cost 700 bucks, over twice the price of The monarchs, they have a lousy field of view, they weigh a holy ton, and I prefer them over the monarchs by a landslide. The images are amazing.
I bet you have a tough choice !!!!
 
I managed to try them both the same day but not side by side.

I guess I had high expectations for the Monarch 7. I've never been a fan of the MkII/III and it's true the FOV, high CA and glare issues have all improved significantly and I found it much more rewarding to use as a consequence. However the outer field softness I found distracting and surprising at that price. It's something you need to figure out for yourself how it works for you. I much preferred the Viper HD.

David

Took the father-in-law to cabela's today for comparison shopping of binocs in the 500$ range including Viper HD 8x42, Talon HD 8x42, and Monarch 7 8x42. He's looking to upgrade early generation eagle optics rangers and we both preferred the Monarch 7 overall.

We compared the four samples, incuding his old rangers, both inside and outside this morning. I'd feel comfortable taking either the Talon or Monarch 7 on a high-stakes birding trip as a back-up to my Zeiss FL 7x42. The Viper's field of view was narrow to the point of distraction for me although otherwise they were fine- even impressive but I can't get past the soda straw field.

I agree wholeheartedly that you should look for yourself as the only opinion that matters in the end... well you get the idea.

Good birding,
Clint
 
Clint,

Glad you enjoyed the M7. I'm sure Nikon would have checked user opinion and determined the majority would like the design so my reaction may not be typical. I'm not someone that obsesses about flat sharp edges, but at least on the pair I tried too much of the view was fuzzy for my liking. Somewhere round 50% if I recall correctly. It wasn't field curvature as it didn't focus out. The Viper had more usable FOV.

By the way, the AFOV on the Zeiss 7x42 is almost the same as the Viper. I rather like that one too. ;)

Have fun.

David
 
Last edited:
The Vortex cost 700 bucks, over twice the price of The monarchs, they have a lousy field of view, they weigh a holy ton, and I prefer them over the monarchs by a landslide. The images are amazing.

That says a lot right there. I might add that I have some Diamondbacks right now, and I cannot tell any difference between them and the standard Monarchs (minus the size and weight of course).
 
I have had the chance to use the Monarch 7 for over a month now. The contrast that is gained in lower light is something I haven't seen matched in this price point. I was able to see minor plumage details of basic plumage Olive Warblers last month in dark Arizona pine-oak forests. The few I have tested out had minimal edge distortion. I was shocked to see 50% in a comment.

Most of all, for me, the balance is excellent. Weight could also play a factor, but I haven't put mine down in nearly 5-6 weeks and I have all of our binoculars at my disposal. I wish you well in your choice and am here to help if I can.

Good Birding!

All the best,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist
 
I purchased both of these in 8x at Cabelas and took them home for a week for a try out. They are very similar in many ways. I ended up returning the Vipers since the M7s were less $$$$ and had a wider field of view. Just got back from hunting elk in CO and was impressed with my them.
 
Mike,

If you found my 50% comment shocking have a look at the reviews from Eitans link. He might have preferred the Monarch but have a look at the individual reviews. The reviewer judged only 43% of the view of the Monarch7 sharp or about 27.5* AFOV. The Viper HD on the other hand he found 87% of the view sharp which would be about 46*AFOV (on the 8x). That's a 67% greater radius or about 3 fold greater area in sharp focus on the Viper HD. I know which I'd prefer.

David
 
Mike,

If you found my 50% comment shocking have a look at the reviews from Eitans link. He might have preferred the Monarch but have a look at the individual reviews. The reviewer judged only 43% of the view of the Monarch7 sharp or about 27.5* AFOV. The Viper HD on the other hand he found 87% of the view sharp which would be about 46*AFOV (on the 8x). That's a 67% greater radius or about 3 fold greater area in sharp focus on the Viper HD. I know which I'd prefer.

David

David
The way I read the review, comparisons would be 71% for the M7 and 87% on the ViperHD. On the Viper they don't mention where the slight softening occurs - only the significant blurring.
 
It's true they don't discriminate between mild and severe softening on the Viper. As I recall they were close percentages. I'd have put them just over 90% on a personal ranking. I figured I lost the ability to discriminate between similar LBJs at 50% with the M7. 43% soft focus I wouldn't argue with. I just found the M7 very odd with a broad band of soft focus. The review description sounds about right to me. I just draw a different conclusion.

David
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Nikon, and other full-range manufacturers, may be finding themselves in the curious position of having to "handicap" their lower cost binoculars to avoid competing with their higher priced models.

Whatever Nikon did with the new Monarch (and I'll reserve judgment until I see it. I got a feeling it's a little better than the extant reviews suggest)--whatever Nikon did I suspect was done intentionally. At this point in time, with Nikon's wherewithal, Chinese factories, and a nice $500 price tag, there's no reason they couldn't have delivered something essentially alpha--not flat field maybe, but otherwise alpha. I suspect they chose not to, in order to keep the high-priced stuff in the running.

I could be wrong, but I begin to suspect...

Mark
 
While my gut indistinct suggests deliberate, I've had a word on the grapevine that QC, even in the alpha brands totally ignore actual visual reality and are merely designed to deliver merely useless average photometrics.

David
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Nikon, and other full-range manufacturers, may be finding themselves in the curious position of having to "handicap" their lower cost binoculars to avoid competing with their higher priced models.

Whatever Nikon did with the new Monarch (and I'll reserve judgment until I see it. I got a feeling it's a little better than the extant reviews suggest)--whatever Nikon did I suspect was done intentionally. At this point in time, with Nikon's wherewithal, Chinese factories, and a nice $500 price tag, there's no reason they couldn't have delivered something essentially alpha--not flat field maybe, but otherwise alpha. I suspect they chose not to, in order to keep the high-priced stuff in the running.

I could be wrong, but I begin to suspect...

Mark

They kept all their former Alphas (the LX Ls) except the 10 x 32 which all had flat fields (along with the SEs). Then they renamed them "Premier" and raised their prices. If they were going to upgrade their Monarch line without getting too costly and making it their 3rd line alpha they had to stop somewhere after they added the dielectric prisms and made the views wider.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top