Zen-Ray 8x43 ED3 vs. Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 vs. Nikon Prostaff 7 8x42 (1 Viewer)

Recently I compared three 8x binoculars. The Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 ($479.00), Nikon Prostaff 7 8x42 ($189.00) and the Zen-Ray 8x43 ED3 ($419.00). These are my un-scientific observations of the three. I just used them in birding situations and let my eyes/hands do the talking.

Ergonomics: They were all comfortable to hold while glassing but I had my favorites. While the Zen-Ray was the heaviest it was, for me, the most comfortable in hand. Just well balanced and I like the texture (or lack there of) of the rubber. The Prostaff 7 was my second choice ergonomically. I liked the long barrels of the Prostaff because, like the Zen, there was plenty of room to wrap my fingers for a comfortable grip. Third was the Monarch 7. It is, of course, a standard closed bridge affair with rather short barrels. For my hands it was the least comfortable. Another thing about the Monarch 7 was that it felt almost like a toy. Very “plasticky” and somehow insubstantial. This is a very personal response and I don't mean to imply that they are not well made. I'm sure they are. I just thought they felt different then any other bin I've handled.

Some mechanical observations: The Monarch 7 had the smoothest focuser closely followed by the Prostaff 7. The Zen-Ray's focus knob was harder to turn then the other two but there was no play in it. The center hinge was comfortably tight in the Zen-Ray and the Prostaff 7. The Monarch 7's hinge moved too easily for my liking. The IPD could be knocked out of alignment during use. The eyecups on all three bins functioned as you would expect with solid stops at the various height settings. As for eye relief the Prostaff 7 was the winner with 19.5 mm. Probably about 18 mm usable I would guess. The Monarch 7 @ 17.1mm and the Zen-Ray @16.8 mm were in a dead heat for second. The full field was usable with glasses in both cases. However, the design of the Monarch 7 eyecups always reminded me that I was looking through two tubes while the view through the Zen-Ray was more of a “walk in” experience.

Optics: The Zen-Ray @ 426 ft. and the Monarch 7 @ 419ft. showed the widest fields of view. The Prostaff 7 @ only 330 ft. was obviously narrower. To my eye the Zen-Ray had the widest sweetspot (perhaps 80% of the FOV) and the best edge performance. The Monarch 7 had a smaller sweetspot (65-70%) and I felt the edge performance was poor and somewhat distracting. While the Prostaff 7's FOV is much narrower, the sweetspot is proportionately large with gentle fall off at the edge. Brightness was very close between the Zen-Ray and the Monarch 7, too close to call. The Prostaff was somewhat less bright but still quite usable. The dialectric prism coatings of the Zen and Monarch were obviously superior to the aluminum coatings of the Prostaff.
Most surprising to me was the sharpness of the view. The Zen-Ray was clearly sharper and more contrasty than either Nikon. Even more surprising was that the Prostaff 7 was sharper than the Monarch 7 in the center of the view. I was using Mimosa blossoms at 35 ft. as a target. These blossoms are a beautiful shade of pink and are very “feathery”. With the Zen's the blossoms feathery spikes were razor sharp and seemed to shimmer in the sun with a 3D quality that was almost porro like. Absolutely beautiful! The Prostaff 7 showed the same blossoms with very nearly the same sharpness but with somewhat less contrast. It also showed a 3D effect but not as dramatic as the Zen's. The Zen-Ray's also showed good depth of focus and again the Prostaff 7's were good in this regard but lagged behind the Zen's. The Monarch 7 was a different story. Achieving fine focus was difficult because of the lack of focus depth. I constantly had to move the focus knob back and forth ever so slightly to get to the ideal focus. Once achieved, that focus, while acceptable, was not as good as the other two bins. The feathery spikes were not as well defined or contrasty. The view just seemed kind of flat and uninspiring.

Conclusion: I know that this is only a sample of one of each bin. Perhaps I got a sub par Monarch 7 and a cherry Prostaff 7. It seemed obvious to my eyes that The Zen-Ray was the pick of the lot and the Prostaff 7 was the best bang for the buck. The Monarch 7 was a disappointment. I'm keeping the Zen-Ray and the Prostaff 7 and returning the Monarch 7.

Tom

"The Monarch 7 was a different story. Achieving fine focus was difficult because of the lack of focus depth. I constantly had to move the focus knob back and forth ever so slightly to get to the ideal focus. Once achieved, that focus, while acceptable, was not as good as the other two bins. The feathery spikes were not as well defined or contrasty. The view just seemed kind of flat and uninspiring."

I would say you had a bad sample, hunting for focus is not a good thing. What I have read so far of the Monarch 7 doesn't seem to get very good reviews. This is the binocular that costs about $470 right?

I would say you had a bad sample, hunting for focus is not a good thing. What I have read so far of the Monarch 7 doesn't seem to get very good reviews. This is the binocular that costs about $470 right?[/QUOTE]

Right Steve,
$479.00 to be exact. I really wanted to like the Monarch 7. My main birding bin is a 7x42 Nikon EDG II. I wanted the Monarch 7 to fit between the EDG and the Prostaff and to be the bin my wife used on the odd occasion when she put down her camera. It seemed ideal; light weight, ED glass, dialectric prism coatings and Nikon's great focus mechanism all for $479.
Well, it didn't work out that way. The Monarch 7 I had was not much of an improvement over the Prostaff 7 especially now that the Prostaff is being discounted @ $139.00. Overall, I was very impressed with the Prostaff's performance and the Zen-Ray's just keep on amazing me. These are just damn good bins! My birding buddy uses a pair of 8.5x42 Swaro EL's. He tried the Zens the other day and was quite surprised. It took him ten minutes of going back and forth between the two before he said he felt he could see some subtle differences that put the Swaro ahead of the Zen. However, he really had to work hard to find them and said if he was going to replace the Swaro's at some point the Zen's would be at the top of his list. A real testimony to the quality built into the Zen-Ray.

Tom

Nikon built the Monarch 7 with new prisms with dielectric coatings and new objectives with ED glass and new, more costly eyepieces to give it a wider field of view. Those are the differences between a Monarch 7, 8 x 42 and a Prostaff 7, 8 x 42 which has none of the three.

Yet there seems to be a difference in the focusing. Does the focusing feel different? Is it faster or slower? Looser or tighter? Is there play in the focus wheel? Was the diopter set properly? These factors can affect sharp focusing and are often caused by QC problems.

Both binoculars are 8x so they both should have the same Depth of Field at the same distance if they are both tested on the same objects under the same lighting conditions and the sizes of your own pupils remain the same.

Bob

It looks like Monarch 7 has a shorter focal length than Prostaff and ZEN. From camera's analogy, that may explain the shallow depth of field. I have found that my 10x43 ZEN ED has wider depth of field my 10x ZRS.

At one time in the past I believed that the focal length of the binocular could make a difference. Apparently it does not as almost all binoculars are f4 or so close to it that the differences are insignificant. I spent a lot of time with different binoculars of the same power trying to see a difference in their DOF at different distances and came to the conclusion that there was no difference.

What I did find out was that the speed of the focusing ring and the less it had to be turned to go from close up to infinity resulted in an impression that the DOF was different. Slow focusing binoculars can be tweaked much easier to obtain perfect focus than fast focusing ones can. This was always problematic with Nikon's LX L series which were extremely fast. Nikon slowed it down a bit when it brought out the EDG. I don't know if there is a difference between the focusing speeds of the Monarch 7 and the Promaster 7 as I have not tried either one.

The difference in depth of field in binoculars of the same power, if any, also has been discussed on this forum at length in the past. Henry spent some time in writing about it but I believe he has now given up. I'm not going to pursue it either or look up the pertinent posts but they are there if one is interested.

Bob

ceasar said:

Nikon built the Monarch 7 with new prisms with dielectric coatings and new objectives with ED glass and new, more costly eyepieces to give it a wider field of view. Those are the differences between a Monarch 7, 8 x 42 and a Prostaff 7, 8 x 42 which has none of the three.

Yet there seems to be a difference in the focusing. Does the focusing feel different? Is it faster or slower? Looser or tighter? Is there play in the focus wheel? Was the diopter set properly? These factors can affect sharp focusing and are often caused by QC problems.

Both binoculars are 8x so they both should have the same Depth of Field at the same distance if they are both tested on the same objects under the same lighting conditions and the sizes of your own pupils remain the same.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob,
I was well aware of the improvements Nikon made in the Monarch 7, that's why I was so eager to get one. However, aside from the wider FOV and the improved brightness the Monarch 7 did not, in my opinion, live up to the hype. Sometimes a binocular winds up being greater than the sum of it's features. The Prostaff 7 seems to fall in that category. Another recent example that comes to mind is the Sightron Blue Sky 8x32. On the other hand, the Monarch 7 has a wealth of features that should put it in the same league as the Zen-Ray ED3 but that simply was not the case. I say this with the caveat that this is what I see through my spectacled 68 yr. old eyes and understanding that in each case I was dealing with a sample of one.
As to the focusing issue, the Monarch7 had a slightly smoother, easier to turn focus knob than did the Prostaff 7. I thought both felt comfortable and had the typical almost effortless Nikon focus. Both focus mechanisms were on the fast side with the Monarch7 being slightly faster. No play in either focus wheel. I worked with the diopter trying to improve the Monarch 7 but the zero setting worked best for me on both Nikons.
The depth of field issue is a case of my ignorance showing. I'm confusing DOF with what I and others call the 3D or porro effect. It (3D) is quite obvious to me in the Zen-Rays and to a lesser extent in the Prostaff 7. It gives one the impression that you have simply moved 8x's closer but are still viewing with your unaided eyes. Everything is seen in relief, a separation of the focused object from the foreground and background. The opposite effect is what I might call the telephoto lens effect. The subject is closer but the view is essentially compressed or flat. That is the view I found in the Monarch 7.
I will again demonstrate my ignorance of the physics of optics by venturing the opinion that the length of the binoculars barrels has a direct effect on this 3D view. The longer barreled bins show more of the 3D effect than do those with shorter barrels. At least that's been my experience with the Swaro EL's, Zen-Ray ED3's, Prostaff 7 and the Nikon EDG I 8x32 which had longer barrels then most other top of the line 8x32's.

Tom

brownpelican1 said:

Bob,
I was well aware of the improvements Nikon made in the Monarch 7, that's why I was so eager to get one. However, aside from the wider FOV and the improved brightness the Monarch 7 did not, in my opinion, live up to the hype. Sometimes a binocular winds up being greater than the sum of it's features. The Prostaff 7 seems to fall in that category. Another recent example that comes to mind is the Sightron Blue Sky 8x32. On the other hand, the Monarch 7 has a wealth of features that should put it in the same league as the Zen-Ray ED3 but that simply was not the case. I say this with the caveat that this is what I see through my spectacled 68 yr. old eyes and understanding that in each case I was dealing with a sample of one.
As to the focusing issue, the Monarch7 had a slightly smoother, easier to turn focus knob than did the Prostaff 7. I thought both felt comfortable and had the typical almost effortless Nikon focus. Both focus mechanisms were on the fast side with the Monarch7 being slightly faster. No play in either focus wheel. I worked with the diopter trying to improve the Monarch 7 but the zero setting worked best for me on both Nikons.
The depth of field issue is a case of my ignorance showing. I'm confusing DOF with what I and others call the 3D or porro effect. It (3D) is quite obvious to me in the Zen-Rays and to a lesser extent in the Prostaff 7. It gives one the impression that you have simply moved 8x's closer but are still viewing with your unaided eyes. Everything is seen in relief, a separation of the focused object from the foreground and background. The opposite effect is what I might call the telephoto lens effect. The subject is closer but the view is essentially compressed or flat. That is the view I found in the Monarch 7.
I will again demonstrate my ignorance of the physics of optics by venturing the opinion that the length of the binoculars barrels has a direct effect on this 3D view. The longer barreled bins show more of the 3D effect than do those with shorter barrels. At least that's been my experience with the Swaro EL's, Zen-Ray ED3's, Prostaff 7 and the Nikon EDG I 8x32 which had longer barrels then most other top of the line 8x32's.

Tom

Click to expand...

Tom,
Just a note here to indicate that my response to NW Birder crossed with your post and is above it. Some things I discussed may apply your post here. I did not address the 3D issue. In fact, I never even thought of it!

And I agree with you that binoculars can be more (and even less) than the sums of their parts and that they are also subject to individual idiosyncracies.

Bob

Tom:

Nice review, and I find it interesting. I have only had experience with the Nikon
Prostaff 7, in both the 8x42 and the 10x42, and have posted about those on an
earlier Nikon thread.

I have not tried the others, but am wanting to try the new Monarch 7, when I
can find them in a store.

Your review of the Prostaff is inline with my experience with the Prostaff 7, I also
find these a very good value, real good optics, and I do recommend them.

In the Nikon line, these do offer a better optics choice than any of the Action
or Action Extreme Porros, and I have experience with several of them.

Jerry

brownpelican1 said:

...Conclusion: I know that this is only a sample of one of each bin. Perhaps I got a sub par Monarch 7 and a cherry Prostaff 7. It seemed obvious to my eyes that The Zen-Ray was the pick of the lot and the Prostaff 7 was the best bang for the buck. The Monarch 7 was a disappointment. I'm keeping the Zen-Ray and the Prostaff 7 and returning the Monarch 7.

Tom

Click to expand...

Hi Tom, I posted on here a few weeks ago about my first trip to Cabela's - see the link below - and I too was a little underwhelmed by the new Nikon Monarch 7.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=234571

I was greatly impressed by the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD for a few hundred dollars less than the Monarch 7, and also by the Euro HD. All were 8x42 except for the latter which only comes in 10x42 and the Swarovski CL which is 8x30.

On my next trip to Cabela's I intend to compare the aforementioned Bushnell Legend Ultra HD with the newer Elite ED. Considering that the former can be found online for a little over $200 if one can find a decent sample like the one that I checked out, it's an amazing bargain for the quality of view it delivers!

brownpelican1 said:

Optics: The Zen-Ray @ 426 ft. and the Monarch 7 @ 419ft. showed the widest fields of view. The Prostaff 7 @ only 330 ft. was obviously narrower. To my eye the Zen-Ray had the widest sweetspot (perhaps 80% of the FOV) and the best edge performance. The Monarch 7 had a smaller sweetspot (65-70%) and I felt the edge performance was poor and somewhat distracting. While the Prostaff 7's FOV is much narrower, the sweetspot is proportionately large with gentle fall off at the edge. Brightness was very close between the Zen-Ray and the Monarch 7, too close to call. The Prostaff was somewhat less bright but still quite usable. The dialectric prism coatings of the Zen and Monarch were obviously superior to the aluminum coatings of the Prostaff.
Most surprising to me was the sharpness of the view. The Zen-Ray was clearly sharper and more contrasty than either Nikon. Even more surprising was that the Prostaff 7 was sharper than the Monarch 7 in the center of the view. I was using Mimosa blossoms at 35 ft. as a target. These blossoms are a beautiful shade of pink and are very “feathery”. With the Zen's the blossoms feathery spikes were razor sharp and seemed to shimmer in the sun with a 3D quality that was almost porro like. Absolutely beautiful! The Prostaff 7 showed the same blossoms with very nearly the same sharpness but with somewhat less contrast. It also showed a 3D effect but not as dramatic as the Zen's. The Zen-Ray's also showed good depth of focus and again the Prostaff 7's were good in this regard but lagged behind the Zen's. The Monarch 7 was a different story. Achieving fine focus was difficult because of the lack of focus depth. I constantly had to move the focus knob back and forth ever so slightly to get to the ideal focus. Once achieved, that focus, while acceptable, was not as good as the other two bins. The feathery spikes were not as well defined or contrasty. The view just seemed kind of flat and uninspiring.

Conclusion: I know that this is only a sample of one of each bin. Perhaps I got a sub par Monarch 7 and a cherry Prostaff 7. It seemed obvious to my eyes that The Zen-Ray was the pick of the lot and the Prostaff 7 was the best bang for the buck. The Monarch 7 was a disappointment. I'm keeping the Zen-Ray and the Prostaff 7 and returning the Monarch 7.

Tom

Click to expand...

Does Monarch 7 have the same body length as Monarch 3 or ATB? Maybe they share the same optics design with dielectric upgrade and loosening up the field stop to increase FOV. Maybe it can explain why the sweet spot of Monarch 7 is smaller. I have a Monarch 8x ATB. The sweet spot is about 75-80%. The FOV is 55 degree though.

NWBirder said:

Does Monarch 7 have the same body length as Monarch 3 or ATB? Maybe they share the same optics design with dielectric upgrade and loosening up the field stop to increase FOV. Maybe it can explain why the sweet spot of Monarch 7 is smaller. I have a Monarch 8x ATB. The sweet spot is about 75-80%. The FOV is 55 degree though.

Click to expand...

NWB,

Here are the dimensions from the EO website:
M3 - 6.1 x 5.1
M5 - 5.7 x 5.1
M7 - 5.5 x 5.1

Tom