• 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 wins 1st Place in Field and Stream test of 13 new Binoculars. (2 Viewers)

Bruce. I did compare the Nikon MHG 8x42 to my Tract Toric 8x42 for sharpness and although they are two really different binoculars I did observe that the Tract was sharper on-axis. Even though the Tract has a smaller FOV the clarity and resolution in that FOV was sharper and more transparent and if you will more "REAL". In fact the Tract was about as sharp on edge as the MHG which surprised me. For some reason to my eyes the MHG did not seem exceptionally sharp. I think it has something to do with the difficulty correcting such a big FOV. The MHG seems to me like Nikon was trying to copy an SF but didn't quite make it. It is kind of like a budget SF. The problem with the MHG was the eyecups are not long enough for the eye relief for MY eye sockets. I have to hold the binocular about .5mm from my eyes to avoid black outs even with the eye cups fully extended. I did have them fully extended. I must have shallow eye sockets. I use the Canon 10x42 IS-L at the first click from fully closed so that tells you my eye sockets are shallower than yours. I think my problem with the MHG is expectations. Since I am used to the sharp edges of an SV or SF I was expecting that from the MHG and when it didn't deliver i was disappointed. I shouldn't expect a $1K binocular to equal a $2K binocular. The MHG just didn't WOW me like an SF, SV or Canon 10x42 IS-L. It is not so much the big flat FOV that WOWS me as it is the sharp edges. For me there is something about having a big 65 degree AFOV that is sharp all the way across. That is a WOW!
 
Last edited:
A definition of "periphery" is needed to avoid confusion about whether the Field Flattener in the Monarch HG binoculars delivers a flat field to the edge of the view or even if it was intended to do so.

I don't think that it was Nikon's intention to give these binoculars a flat field to the edge of the view or they would have said that.

I sought the Google definition of the word periphery to help resolve any confusion.

Definition of periphery:

pe·riph·er·y
pəˈrif(ə)rē/
noun
noun: periphery; plural noun: peripheries

the outer limits or edge of an area or object.
"new buildings on the periphery of the hospital site"
synonyms: edge, outer edge, margin, fringe, boundary, border, perimeter, rim, verge, borderline; More
outskirts, outer limits/reaches, bounds;
literarybourn, marge
"rambling estates on the periphery of the city"


As you can see from the definition periphery does not mean "edge" (which is a synonym) exactly. It is a word that can mean something less precise than an edge and it can include a volume of space like "rambling estates on the periphery of the city."

After using my Monarch HG 8x42 for several months I have concluded that Nikon uses the word that way to explain how the 'Field Flattener' works; "in order to provide a sharp, clear view to the lens periphery." In my opinion they have succeeded in doing this.

Bob
 
Last edited:
I didn't really think the Nikon MHG had sharper edges or a bigger sweetspot than the majority of the binoculars I have used. With side by side comparison to the Tract Toric 8x42 the Tract's FOV is definitely smaller but I would say it's sweet spot and edge sharpness is as good as the MHG in proportion to it's FOV. I guess I just expected a bigger sweet spot and sharper edges from the MHG than was there. I was expecting an SF for $1K which is not going to happen.
 
I was expecting an SF for $1K which is not going to happen.

Say it isn't so!

MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh no!
 
I didn't really think the Nikon MHG had sharper edges or a bigger sweetspot than the majority of the binoculars I have used. With side by side comparison to the Tract Toric 8x42 the Tract's FOV is definitely smaller but I would say it's sweet spot and edge sharpness is as good as the MHG in proportion to it's FOV. I guess I just expected a bigger sweet spot and sharper edges from the MHG than was there. I was expecting an SF for $1K which is not going to happen.

Dennis...
Is that your Tract Torics on eBay?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tract-Toric-8x42-HD-Binoculars/332418595411?hash=item4d65b13a53:g:4Q8AAOSwmkpZ6UyK
 
Yo Dennis,

No judgment here from me. Lord knows I've gone through bins myself and I'm not happy about that. I used to replace them like every 2 years it seemed. Finally, I won't be doing that with my 7x42 ... it's a keeper and my primary bino.

Just genuinely curious what you will be replacing your 8x42 Toric with. Will you just stick with your 9x for now?
I think a new Swaro Field Pro SV 8.5x42 could be a great compromise between the 8x and 9x you currently have. Or, an SF 8x42 would be an excellent choice.

I wonder if after looking through the Nikon HG you may have missed a wide FOV (?)

p.s. Your Ad states "10x42" in the item details page, but looks like you're selling 8x42.
 
I have been using my Canon 10x42 IS-L most of the time because it honestly let's me see more detail than anything I have ever used even though it is heavy. I like to have a lighter 8x when I hike or walk a long distance. I tried the Nikon 8x42 MHG and I was seduced by the big FOV but after using it awhile I realized the eye relief was too long for the eye cups and my shallower eye sockets so I had to hold the binocular away from my eyes to avoid blackouts. It also didn't seem like it was overly sharp on axis either and the view seemed almost "nervous" to me. It is hard to describe but it didn't seem like a relaxed view. I didn't feel it had sharper edges or a bigger sweet spot than any binocular I have had either so I returned it. So now I am hooked on the big FOV and I didn't really want to spend $2K on a Zeiss SF 8x42 at this point so I figured I would try a Nikon 8x30 E2 again. It had everything I wanted. A huge 8.8 degree FOV(462Feet) and it was light and compact and I like the porro 3D view and it was only $430.00 on Amazon.com from a Japanese seller. You know what. I like it better than the MHG. It has the easy porro view and it is brighter than the MHG and the sweet spot is only slightly smaller than the MHG and the edges are as good. It has the porro 3D view and it is lighter than the MHG plus it is sharper on-axis than the MHG and most importantly I don't get any blackouts and I don't need waterproof. So I just have two binoculars now but I have tried the Zeiss SF 8x42 and I like it so If I see a good deal on one I may pick one up. No more Swarovski's I don't like their focusers unless on the new 8x30 CL they get their focuser sorted out I would try one . I might try the new Canon's (10x32,12x32 or 14x32)also and if Canon comes out with a MKII 10x42 IS-L that would definitely be on my hit list.
 
Last edited:
I have been using my Canon 10x42 IS-L most of the time because it honestly let's me see more detail than anything I have ever used even though it is heavy. I like to have a lighter 8x when I hike or walk a long distance. I tried the Nikon 8x42 MHG and I was seduced by the big FOV but after using it awhile I realized the eye relief was too long for the eye cups and my shallower eye sockets so I had to hold the binocular away from my eyes to avoid blackouts. It also didn't seem like it was overly sharp on axis either and the view seemed almost "nervous" to me. It is hard to describe but it didn't seem like a relaxed view. I didn't feel it had sharper edges or a bigger sweet spot than any binocular I have had either so I returned it. So now I am hooked on the big FOV and I didn't really want to spend $2K on a Zeiss SF 8x42 at this point so I figured I would try a Nikon 8x30 E2 again. It had everything I wanted. A huge 8.8 degree FOV(462Feet) and it was light and compact and I like the porro 3D view and it was only $430.00 on Amazon.com from a Japanese seller. You know what. I like it better than the MHG. It has the easy porro view and it is brighter than the MHG and the sweet spot is only slightly smaller than the MHG and the edges are as good. It has the porro 3D view and it is lighter than the MHG plus it is sharper on-axis than the MHG and most importantly I don't get any blackouts. So I just have two binoculars now but I have tried the Zeiss SF 8x42 and I like it so If I see a good deal on one I may pick one up. No more Swarovski's I don't like their focusers unless on the new 8x30 CL they get their focuser sorted out I would try one . I might try the new Canon's (10x32,12x32 or 14x32)also and if Canon comes out with a MKII 10x42 IS-L that would definitely be on my hit list.

Sounds like sensible choices.
 
The Monarch HG is fantastic to say the least. If I weren't in the market for a new rifle, I'd probably be running off with one as soon as I found a fair deal. As Chuck mentioned before, the combination of light weight, massive field of view, smooth focusing action, and extra comfortable eye relief and associated ease of view is hard to beat as an entire package. The Leupold BX4 I've been using is very nice, but I do miss the expanded FoV of some binoculars I've owned and tried, and eye placement is an issue for whatever reason.

I find it very hard to justify to myself any binos over $1000 - and I've owned several from the SLC HD to the SV to the FL and Ultravid. In direct comparisons I cannot manufacture enough of a difference to justify the $500-1500 difference.
 
I find it very hard to justify to myself any binos over $1000 - and I've owned several from the SLC HD to the SV to the FL and Ultravid. In direct comparisons I cannot manufacture enough of a difference to justify the $500-1500 difference.

So you have owned "better" binoculars, but you have dumped them in favor of lower-priced brands?
 
So you have owned "better" binoculars, but you have dumped them in favor of lower-priced brands?

Not to make this a thread about that but yes, that is the case. List of binos I've owned include:
8x32 Swarovksi Swarovision
10x42 Swarovski EL
8x32 Zeiss Victory FL
7x42 Zeiss Victory FL
7x42 Leica Ultravid HD+
8x42 Swarovski SLC HD (personal favorite of all these)
8x44 Steiner Wildlife XP
... others I'm sure I'm forgetting

I've used them all for between 2 months and 3 years before dumping them, and have compared them with many of the other options. I've also owned several of the $1000 pretenders (Kowa Genesis, Vortex Razor, etc.). They are all great, as they should be given their price, and in particular the price gaps between the $1000 and true alphas is absurd given the extremely limited performance increase you get for anywhere from $700 to nearly $2000 differences in price. As someone with multiple hobbies, student loans, a mortgage, etc., I can't see owning those options unless I got an absurdly good deal - and I use my binos on almost a daily basis for both job related duties and hobby interests. As I mentioned before, it is hard for me to even manufacture a visible difference (e.g. "I can see that extra bit of sharpness" or "the image really pops" or "5 more minutes of light gathering ability!").
 
I have been using my Canon 10x42 IS-L most of the time because it honestly let's me see more detail than anything I have ever used even though it is heavy. I like to have a lighter 8x when I hike or walk a long distance. I tried the Nikon 8x42 MHG and I was seduced by the big FOV but after using it awhile I realized the eye relief was too long for the eye cups and my shallower eye sockets so I had to hold the binocular away from my eyes to avoid blackouts. It also didn't seem like it was overly sharp on axis either and the view seemed almost "nervous" to me. It is hard to describe but it didn't seem like a relaxed view. I didn't feel it had sharper edges or a bigger sweet spot than any binocular I have had either so I returned it. So now I am hooked on the big FOV and I didn't really want to spend $2K on a Zeiss SF 8x42 at this point so I figured I would try a Nikon 8x30 E2 again. It had everything I wanted. A huge 8.8 degree FOV(462Feet) and it was light and compact and I like the porro 3D view and it was only $430.00 on Amazon.com from a Japanese seller. You know what. I like it better than the MHG. It has the easy porro view and it is brighter than the MHG and the sweet spot is only slightly smaller than the MHG and the edges are as good. It has the porro 3D view and it is lighter than the MHG plus it is sharper on-axis than the MHG and most importantly I don't get any blackouts and I don't need waterproof. So I just have two binoculars now but I have tried the Zeiss SF 8x42 and I like it so If I see a good deal on one I may pick one up. No more Swarovski's I don't like their focusers unless on the new 8x30 CL they get their focuser sorted out I would try one . I might try the new Canon's (10x32,12x32 or 14x32)also and if Canon comes out with a MKII 10x42 IS-L that would definitely be on my hit list.

What happened to your "alpha killer" Maven b2?
 
The Monarch HG is fantastic to say the least. If I weren't in the market for a new rifle, I'd probably be running off with one as soon as I found a fair deal. As Chuck mentioned before, the combination of light weight, massive field of view, smooth focusing action, and extra comfortable eye relief and associated ease of view is hard to beat as an entire package. The Leupold BX4 I've been using is very nice, but I do miss the expanded FoV of some binoculars I've owned and tried, and eye placement is an issue for whatever reason.

I find it very hard to justify to myself any binos over $1000 - and I've owned several from the SLC HD to the SV to the FL and Ultravid. In direct comparisons I cannot manufacture enough of a difference to justify the $500-1500 difference.

That Nikon HG sounds awfully nice. I'm in the same camp with you though. The sub, and near $1000 stuff is fantastic nowadays.
 
I've used them all for between 2 months and 3 years before dumping them, and have compared them with many of the other options. I've also owned several of the $1000 pretenders (Kowa Genesis, Vortex Razor, etc.). They are all great, as they should be given their price, and in particular the price gaps between the $1000 and true alphas is absurd given the extremely limited performance increase you get for anywhere from $700 to nearly $2000 differences in price. As someone with multiple hobbies, student loans, a mortgage, etc., I can't see owning those options unless I got an absurdly good deal - and I use my binos on almost a daily basis for both job related duties and hobby interests. As I mentioned before, it is hard for me to even manufacture a visible difference (e.g. "I can see that extra bit of sharpness" or "the image really pops" or "5 more minutes of light gathering ability!").

Agree again, and my arsenal includes:
Swaro SV 10x50
Swaro SLCwb 8x30
Gold Ring HD
Meopta Meostar HD
Mojave Pro Guide HD
Tract Toric UHD

And used to have:
SLC HD
Zeiss Classic
Cabelas Euro HD
Swaro SV 8x32 and 10x42
 
Agree again, and my arsenal includes:
Swaro SV 10x50
Swaro SLCwb 8x30
Gold Ring HD
Meopta Meostar HD
Mojave Pro Guide HD
Tract Toric UHD

And used to have:
SLC HD
Zeiss Classic
Cabelas Euro HD
Swaro SV 8x32 and 10x42

Why don't you just keep and use the first two and dump the rest?

What am I missing?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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