New Allbinos Review of Monarch HG 10x42 (1 Viewer)

Robert Wallace · Mar 3, 2017

SuperDuty said:
My 10X42 SF has a wide field and is as CA free as the FL, if not more so.

Fair enough but the Zeiss SFs are over twice as much money to buy compared to the Nikon.

On a personal note I haven't used my Zeiss 10x Dialyts very often since I bought the 7x42 phase corrected Dialyts about 18 years ago.
My default binocular for birding are now the Swarovski 8x32s and are likely to remain so.
I am now into my 70s and the Nikon seems to have decent enough optics and importantly to me a compact size and light weight compared to most of its rivals. Which is why I am seriously considering buying a pair.
At the Rutland Birdfair I thought the Leica Noctovids the best binoculars I've looked through (highly subjective)but too heavy and the Zeiss SF too large. I described the Nikons in a previous post as sub alpha probably because I looked through them fairly soon after the Leicas and it was not a side by side comparison.
I shall now look for an opportunity to re-assess the Nikons.

Vespobuteo · Mar 3, 2017

I have tried the Nikon MHG 10x42, I didn't see much of the FOV with glasses though...
the eye relief value of 17mm must be seriously exaggerated by Nikon and
perhaps the extreme AFOV (69°) adds to that. For me these bins are useless, almost..

maico · Mar 3, 2017

ceasar said:
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.

I noticed in the EDG catalogue that one of the scope eyepieces had a glass aspheric element. A much more expensive lens than the common hybrid aspheric found in many consumer grade camera lenses, which is a conventional glass spherical lens with a bonded plastic outer radius.

ceasar · Mar 3, 2017

maico said:
I noticed in the EDG catalogue that one of the scope eyepieces had a glass aspheric element. A much more expensive lens than the common hybrid aspheric found in many consumer grade camera lenses, which is a conventional glass spherical lens with a bonded plastic outer radius.

I didn't notice that so I checked the above Catalog (see page 8) for more info.

It is in the FEP-20-60 Zoom eyepiece. It "provides a flat image even at the periphery at both-low and high-magnification settings." When used on the 85 Field Scope series.

adhoc · Mar 3, 2017

Vespobuteo said:
I have tried the Nikon MHG 10x42, I didn't see much of the FOV with glasses though...
the eye relief value of 17mm must be seriously exaggerated by Nikon and
perhaps the extreme AFOV (69°) adds to that. For me these bins are useless, almost..

Vespobuteo, what are (some of) the binoculars that work very well/well for you with glasses? Thanks.

The-Wanderer · Mar 3, 2017

Vespobuteo,

Chill6x6 commented about eye relief on Nikon Monarch Hg 7x42 on Home > Forums > Photography, Digiscoping, Art & Equipment > Binoculars > Nikon > Several days birding with Monarch HG 8X42. , thread 31 I think.

I can not make sense of the varying perceptions of eye relief.

Troubador · Mar 3, 2017

The-Wanderer said:
I can not make sense of the varyig perceptions of eye relief.

Thats because the variety of facial shapes, head contours and dimensions, spectacles designs is so enormous that peoples' experiences can be very different.

This is why no eyecup design / optical eye relief dimension, will ever suit everybody and this is why the whole question probably drives the bins manufacturers crazy.

Lee

Vespobuteo · Mar 3, 2017

adhoc said:
Vespobuteo, what are (some of) the binoculars that work very well/well for you with glasses? Thanks.

A few,
Leica Noctivid 10x42 and 8x42
Zeiss SF 8x42 and 10x42
Swaro SV 8.5x42, 10x50
Zeiss FL 7x42
Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42

The Nikon MHG 8x42 I haven't tried yet, but 8x is usually better than 10x

The-Wanderer · Mar 3, 2017

Lee,

I am inclined to Typo's opinion:

"It seems different companies tend to either use the true eye relief, the distance fron the lens to the exit pupil, and others the available eye relief, the distance from the rim of the eyecup to the exit pupil, as Pete describes. A minority seem to just make it up. Available eye relief, is obviously more useful for spectacle wearers and I wish more would adopt it."

but I am not sure about "minority".

And some are, apparently, inconsistent.

Chosun Juan · Mar 4, 2017

I don't agree with that - I think the most beneficial figure for spectacle wearers is one indisputable mandatory ISO physical measurement. Of course then you also need dimensions and photos of the eye cups to be useful as an indicator when making a 'remote' purchase, such as a physical sight unseen Internet order for those without better options. The individual quickly learns what sort of impact various eye cup designs have on the users current or potential spectacles and script.

Just going from memory, so could be a bit dodgy, but I seem to recall there being an International Standard for measuring Eye Relief which is defined as the coaxial distance from the exterior of the ocular lens to the exit pupil. This is how it should be. It is the only valid means for comparison. This of course assumes that companies are getting even the basics like having the correct figures on websites/specs etc! :cat:

As has been said, there are so many other variables with an individual (prescription, glasses design, facial characteristics, ipd, symmetries, offsets etc), the bin's optical design parameters, ocular dimensions, eye cup design, and the myriad permutations of how this all marries up together, that I believe any attempts to provide an effective eye relief figure would be too inconsistent and erroneous.

Chosun :gh:

Troubador · Mar 4, 2017

The-Wanderer said:
Lee,

I am inclined to Typo's opinion:

"It seems different companies tend to either use the true eye relief, the distance fron the lens to the exit pupil, and others the available eye relief, the distance from the rim of the eyecup to the exit pupil, as Pete describes. A minority seem to just make it up. Available eye relief, is obviously more useful for spectacle wearers and I wish more would adopt it."

but I am not sure about "minority".

And some are, apparently, inconsistent.

That is only part of the story. You were expressing puzzlement at the different experiences people have and I was pointing out all of the variables involved. It is not a simple issue with a simple remedy.

Lee

Troubador · Mar 4, 2017

Chosun Juan said:
I don't agree with that - I think the most beneficial figure for spectacle wearers is one indisputable mandatory ISO physical measurement. Of course then you also need dimensions and photos of the eye cups to be useful as an indicator when making a 'remote' purchase, such as a physical sight unseen Internet order for those without better options. The individual quickly learns what sort of impact various eye cup designs have on the users current or potential spectacles and script.

Just going from memory, so could be a bit dodgy, but I seem to recall there being an International Standard for measuring Eye Relief which is defined as the coaxial distance from the exterior of the ocular lens to the exit pupil. This is how it should be. It is the only valid means for comparison. This of course assumes that companies are getting even the basics like having the correct figures on websites/specs etc! :cat:

As has been said, there are so many other variables with an individual (prescription, glasses design, facial characteristics, ipd, symmetries, offsets etc), the bin's optical design parameters, ocular dimensions, eye cup design, and the myriad permutations of how this all marries up together, that I believe any attempts to provide an effective eye relief figure would be too inconsistent and erroneous.

Chosun :gh:

Exactly. :t:

Lee

typo · Mar 4, 2017

Chosun Juan said:
I don't agree with that - I think the most beneficial figure for spectacle wearers is one indisputable mandatory ISO physical measurement. Of course then you also need dimensions and photos of the eye cups to be useful as an indicator when making a 'remote' purchase, such as a physical sight unseen Internet order for those without better options. The individual quickly learns what sort of impact various eye cup designs have on the users current or potential spectacles and script.

.........
Chosun :gh:

CJ,

You are correct. The ISO specified value is from the lens surface to the exit pupil with a tolerance of +5mm to -0.5mm. Sounds a bit vague to me, but might explain how Zeiss can list 16mm for obviously quite different ERs.

For those who find the ISO value more useful, here's an interesting example. The ER on Opticron's new doubler is 33mm. I'll even throw in a photo to help. :-O

David

wdc · Mar 4, 2017

typo said:
CJ,

For those who find the ISO value more useful, here's an interesting example. The ER on Opticron's new doubler is 33mm. I'll even throw in a photo to help. :-O

David

What sounds like 'generous' eye relief seems to be 'necessary' eye relief!

Chosun Juan · Mar 6, 2017

typo said:
CJ,

You are correct. The ISO specified value is from the lens surface to the exit pupil with a tolerance of +5mm to -0.5mm. Sounds a bit vague to me, but might explain how Zeiss can list 16mm for obviously quite different ERs.

For those who find the ISO value more useful, here's an interesting example. The ER on Opticron's new doubler is 33mm. I'll even throw in a photo to help. :-O

David

Hi David,

I wonder why the Standard has such a high tolerance on the '+' side? It seems to make the figure a bit imprecise. A +5mm tolerance on a 15mm ER is a 33% margin of error. While the standard correctly is conservative with a '-' side tolerance of 0.5mm, surely that is also an appropriate tolerance for both sides of the actual measurement figure?

I would think that such a high tolerance on the '+' side would have an effect on the characteristics (distortion, field curvature, lateral CA, edge 'softness', etc) of the field observed by an individual, 'ease of view' , and 'eyeroamaboutability'! :cat:

It makes an actual viewing and comparison between different bins (where possible) still a highly valuable method for determining suitability for an individual. This to me highlights the usefulness to consumers of full representation at things like widely geographically distributed Birdfair's, and travelling roadshows, etc. :t:

Chosun :gh:

typo · Mar 6, 2017

Chosun Juan said:
Hi David,

I wonder why the Standard has such a high tolerance on the '+' side? It seems to make the figure a bit imprecise. A +5mm tolerance on a 15mm ER is a 33% margin of error. While the standard correctly is conservative with a '-' side tolerance of 0.5mm, surely that is also an appropriate tolerance for both sides of the actual measurement figure?

I would think that such a high tolerance on the '+' side would have an effect on the characteristics (distortion, field curvature, lateral CA, edge 'softness', etc) of the field observed by an individual, 'ease of view' , and 'eyeroamaboutability'! :cat:

It makes an actual viewing and comparison between different bins (where possible) still a highly valuable method for determining suitability for an individual. This to me highlights the usefulness to consumers of full representation at things like widely geographically distributed Birdfair's, and travelling roadshows, etc. :t:

Chosun :gh:

CJ,

I just checked the actual distance between the rim of the eyecup at the setting I normally use with my glasses and the ER convergence point for my three most used binoculars. They were between 11 and 12mm. They vary quite a bit in eyecup shape and diameter but the answer comes out about the same. 10mm is about my lowest limit and more than 14mm I need to twist out the eyecups. The information I would like from the companies is whether there is over 10mm ER available. For others with different frame designs and/or prescriptions that figure might be 15mm or more. If available ER was accurately listed we would all very quickly learn what works for us. Listing a true ER of 15mm for three different binoculars is useless to me if one is just right, another needs the eyecup twisted out one click and the last is totally unusable.

Without glasses, I suspect the distance between the fully extended eyecup and the convergence point would be equally useful. That simply means the range of available ER is probably the best starting point. Obviously, other information like eyecup diameter would be helpful in understanding how a particular model would work for you. All three of those binoculars I own give me blackouts at full eyecup extention without glasses, but how would you know if they would for you?

Those three binoculars had 14.5, 15.5, 17.5mm ER available at their lowest eye cup setting, and had roughly 4, 3, and 2.5mm between the level of the rim and the centre of the lens. That should make the real ER values 18.5, 18.5mm and 19mm respectively. The company websites show them as 20, 19.5 and 19mm. There will be a margin of error on my measurements but it rather looks like two ERs might be slightly overestimated, but interestingly, and the one with the least listed actually had most available. It's the one I lend to visitors who wear thick rimmed, strong prescription glasses.

Obviously I have no idea of the discussions that went on in the ISO meetings. I can't think of any optical reason for a need to have such a wide range in the specification. I believe many of the major companies are represented and no doubt looking after their own interests and most likely would want to ensure they didn't need to rewrite their brochures.

In theory at least, that +5 to -0.5mm range should limit exageration, but in practice it would also allow those who wish to list available ER instead of true ER to be compliant. We just have little idea who they are. At the moment it's a total lottery for those who need a bit more ER.

As for going round Birdfair trying different models. I sometimes make a mental note that the available ER on a particlar model is generous and might need the eyecups twisted out a click or more, but you would need to know both my and your own available ER requirements to make much use of that. You know mine now. Maybe by next BirdFair you will know yours as well. Unfortunately I've changed my glasses so don't rely on my previous comments, and what happens if I change them again? Wouldn't life be easier if they just told us the available ER range?

David

Chosun Juan · Mar 6, 2017

typo said:
CJ,

I just checked the actual distance between the rim of the eyecup at the setting I normally use with my glasses and the ER convergence point for my three most used binoculars. They were between 11 and 12mm. They vary quite a bit in eyecup shape and diameter but the answer comes out about the same. 10mm is about my lowest limit and more than 14mm I need to twist out the eyecups. The information I would like from the companies is whether there is over 10mm ER available. For others with different frame designs and/or prescriptions that figure might be 15mm or more. If available ER was accurately listed we would all very quickly learn what works for us. Listing a true ER of 15mm for three different binoculars is useless to me if one is just right, another needs the eyecup twisted out one click and the last is totally unusable.

Without glasses, I suspect the distance between the fully extended eyecup and the convergence point would be equally useful. That simply means the range of available ER is probably the best starting point. Obviously, other information like eyecup diameter would be helpful in understanding how a particular model would work for you. All three of those binoculars I own give me blackouts at full eyecup extention without glasses, but how would you know if they would for you?

Those three binoculars had 14.5, 15.5, 17.5mm ER available at their lowest eye cup setting, and had roughly 4, 3, and 2.5mm between the level of the rim and the centre of the lens. That should make the real ER values 18.5, 18.5mm and 19mm respectively. The company websites show them as 20, 19.5 and 19mm. There will be a margin of error on my measurements but it rather looks like two ERs might be slightly overestimated, but interestingly, and the one with the least listed actually had most available. It's the one I lend to visitors who wear thick rimmed, strong prescription glasses.

Obviously I have no idea of the discussions that went on in the ISO meetings. I can't think of any optical reason for a need to have such a wide range in the specification. I believe many of the major companies are represented and no doubt looking after their own interests and most likely would want to ensure they didn't need to rewrite their brochures.

In theory at least, that +5 to -0.5mm range should limit exageration, but in practice it would also allow those who wish to list available ER instead of true ER to be compliant. We just have little idea who they are. At the moment it's a total lottery for those who need a bit more ER.

As for going round Birdfair trying different models. I sometimes make a mental note that the available ER on a particlar model is generous and might need the eyecups twisted out a click or more, but you would need to know both my and your own available ER requirements to make much use of that. You know mine now. Maybe by next BirdFair you will know yours as well. Unfortunately I've changed my glasses so don't rely on my previous comments, and what happens if I change them again? Wouldn't life be easier if they just told us the available ER range?

David

David,

I know what you're saying, I just think that allowing the marketers to get away with listing "available ER" would be more wishy washy than just sticking to a precise uniformly measured ISO standard (with tighter +/- 0.5mm tolerance). Let's face it, with all the recent marketing mumbo jumbo and flat out bunkum surrounding the introduction of the Zeiss SF, and Leica NV, they hardly have a stellar record. I have the feeling that give them an inch and they'd take a mile .... (hahaha, I just remembered I had an overly PC Marketing Manager once who tried to tell me about 'going the extra kilometre' ... After I'd stopped laughing, I had to explain to him that even in this metric country, we would still be going the extra 'mile'

:-O

There's too much wiggle room for variation in the available ER depending on what bespectacled cranioform template is used. We will all need different available (or effective) ER depending on all of those facial characteristics, spectacle script and design, ocular and eye cup dimensions and design, that we've mentioned, and the interplay between them all. Granted we are only talking about several mm, but such a system would be open to abuse from less scrupulous sellers.

Even if a standardized facial/glasses template was used industry wide, people at the extremes of the distribution curve may find little correlation with that for them.

Anyway, I just think having 50 million (or thereabouts!

different ER figures put forward from the marketers is less than desireable. I am coming at this from the point of view of a full time spectacles wearer, but I imagine non-spectacle wearers would be just as interested in an eye cup extension range.

I also think that a heck of a lot of the 'ease of view' (or not) that we all experience (and endlessly discuss!

is tied closely to ER, physical fit, our own facial/spectacle characteristics, the bins design (such as the increased randpupille of the SV's for example), and the myriad way this all combines together. It could also go some way to accounting for differences in CA and edge performance etc seen in the same bin by different users.

Chosun :gh:

typo · Mar 6, 2017

Chosun,

I've got two wine containers here, one has a volume of 24.5l and the other 19.5l. Is that useful information when they both contain 12 bottles or 9l of wine? (Actually the contents is long gone.B

) Likewise ER is a gross measurement and available ER is the nett measurement. The current ISO regulation seems to allow either to be used without specifying which. Seems ridiculous to me and may explain some of the problems you mention. There is no more inherent wriggle room with available ER than there is with the full ER. I'd still argue the nett ER is the more useful mesurement for punters like us.

David

Troubador · Mar 6, 2017

typo said:
Chosun,

I've got two wine containers here, one has a volume of 24.5l and the other 19.5l. Is that useful information when they both contain 12 bottles or 9l of wine? (Actually the contents is long gone.B ) Likewise ER is a gross measurement and available ER is the nett measurement. The current ISO regulation seems to allow either to be used without specifying which. Seems ridiculous to me and may explain some of the problems you mention. There is no more inherent wriggle room with available ER than there is with the full ER. I'd still argue the nett ER is the more useful mesurement for punters like us.

David

David
Bring the next wine container to Bird Fair and lets discuss wine packaging over a mug of wine or several. Afterwards we can contact St John's Ambulance for all kinds of relief and ISO can just go and relieve itself :eek!: :-O

Lee

Chosun Juan · Mar 7, 2017

typo said:
Chosun,

I've got two wine containers here, one has a volume of 24.5l and the other 19.5l. Is that useful information when they both contain 12 bottles or 9l of wine? (Actually the contents is long gone.B ) Likewise ER is a gross measurement and available ER is the nett measurement. The current ISO regulation seems to allow either to be used without specifying which. Seems ridiculous to me and may explain some of the problems you mention. There is no more inherent wriggle room with available ER than there is with the full ER. I'd still argue the nett ER is the more useful mesurement for punters like us.

David

David,

I had a bad experience with wine when I was 15, so yes I would find that information useful - steer clear of the contents! :-O

I agree, the current Standard as specified has too great a tolerance. If(?) this was done to allow some sellers to save minor costs by maintaining their current print/spec material, then the ensuing apples to oranges comparison confusions are too high a cost to pay. Tightening this to +/-0.5mm would be a once off relatively painless hit to the marketing budget. Then everyone industry wide is comparing the same apples to apples total ER measurement.

What I was getting at (and in a basic form what you are getting at for your case too

is that a simple ISO measurement of total ER as currently defined, but to a greater tolerance of +/-0.5mm leaves the least amount of wiggle room (chance for unscrupulous, or less than precise sellers to fudge the numbers).

Of course, as per your case, you could make a measurement of the bin's available ER (ie coaxially from the rim of the eye cup to the perpendicular plane of the convergence point) to the same tolerance. :cat:

BUT, this will not always bear good correlation to a particular user's available ER requirements, due to all of those facial characteristics and spectacle script, curvatures, and offsets etc that we have mentioned. There would be several mm of potential discrepancy depending on just where on the bell curve an individual sits and how wide the ocular diameter is, and how this all marries up. You would end up saying I need 14mm 'available bin ER' with Bin A, 15mm with Bin B, 14.5mm with Bin C, 16mm with Bin D, etc, etc. I just think it is less precise for the consumer.

The ISO total ER measurement is also a fundamental physical property of the bin's design, useful for all sorts of rudimentary ER/Fov/Weight, etc back of the envelope calculations when comparing different bin designs. I'd hate to see that precise figure get lost in reams of marketing spin - scurrilous or otherwise! :eek!: , Chinglish, superceded Print material, and Website errors ..... :-C

I have some interest in the 10x MHG, we will have to see how sorted they manage to get it optically, and how I find the ER, CA - it could be a while before I can get my hands on one. I hope all of this doesn't drive you to drink! B

Chosun :gh:

New Allbinos Review of Monarch HG 10x42 (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Moderator

Given to Fly

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread