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

CJ,

Maybe the wine was a bad choice. How about shoes? Will you be campaining for the maunfacturers to display the external length +/- 0.5mm? The internal sizing might not be perfect for everyone but surely it's a better starting point?

I've added three more binoculars to the list so size wise I'm now going from an 9x28 to a 10x56. The diameters for the highest points on the eyecups range from 33 to 42mm. My preferred available ER setting all 6 is still 11 to 12mm with a tollerance of 10 to 14mm. My prescription is fairly weak but I'm sure those with a stronger prescription most would figure out if there is a millimetre or so more leeway with a wider eyecup.

By my estimates the true ER of these are all very similar, between 18.5 and 19.5mm However the lost distance between the eyepiece lens and the lowest eyecup setting ranged from 2.5 to about 6.5mm meaning the available ER ranged from 12 to 17.5mm. With my weak prescription, close fitting, rimless glasses all are fine for me but I know you have mentioned ER issues once or twice in the past (). Which binocular (or measurement) do you imagine would be the best bet for you?

Getting back to the MHG. I've only tried them for short while at the UK launch day. I spent more time with the 8x and I'm pretty sure I twisted out the 8x eycups a fraction but sorry, I don't remember if I did the same for the 10x. The ER is listed at 17.8 and 17.0mm respectively. From other Nikons I've tried I would guess they normally use true ER.

David

typo said:

CJ,

Maybe the wine was a bad choice. How about shoes? Will you be campaining for the maunfacturers to display the external length +/- 0.5mm? The internal sizing might not be perfect for everyone but surely it's a better starting point?

I've added three more binoculars to the list so size wise I'm now going from an 9x28 to a 10x56. The diameters for the highest points on the eyecups range from 33 to 42mm. My preferred available ER setting all 6 is still 11 to 12mm with a tollerance of 10 to 14mm. My prescription is fairly weak but I'm sure those with a stronger prescription most would figure out if there is a millimetre or so more leeway with a wider eyecup.

By my estimates the true ER of these are all very similar, between 18.5 and 19.5mm However the lost distance between the eyepiece lens and the lowest eyecup setting ranged from 2.5 to about 6.5mm meaning the available ER ranged from 12 to 17.5mm. With my weak prescription, close fitting, rimless glasses all are fine for me but I know you have mentioned ER issues once or twice in the past (). Which binocular (or measurement) do you imagine would be the best bet for you?

Getting back to the MHG. I've only tried them for short while at the UK launch day. I spent more time with the 8x and I'm pretty sure I twisted out the 8x eycups a fraction but sorry, I don't remember if I did the same for the 10x. The ER is listed at 17.8 and 17.0mm respectively. From other Nikons I've tried I would guess they normally use true ER.

David

Click to expand...

David,

Hahah :-O Just the standard shoe size will do (although between AUS, US, UK, and European sizes that is not always straightforward! :-O

I honestly think that the Standard ISO specified ER measurement is such an important metric that I would not like to see it lost in fog.

Apart from that you could argue that it's six of one half a dozen of the other between that and (if I understand you correctly), the 'available' ER which would be the total ER minus the eye cup rim depth. The issue I have with that is that then we lose that important total ER metric, and there's still going to be several mm discrepancy based on your glasses script, curvature, offset, facial characteristics (importantly including symmetry) etc, etc, etc. I just don't see any real advantage to it, especially when it's going to be so modified by ocular diameter. It's a bit like quoting the inside length measurement of a shoe as so many cm ..... but what about the width, form profile, and height?? :cat:

So all in all I much prefer the total ER measurement. I would like to see the ISO measurement tolerance tightened to +/-0.5mm and become the universal figure quoted.

My vision is fairly myopic, so the short-sighted script helps somewhat. The best bins I have found for fit for my current glasses are the Swarovski 10x50 SV, and the Zeiss 8x42 HT (also the best views I have seen so far - still a few newies to try like the Leica NV). The SV quotes 20mm ER, and the HT 16mm. It is interesting that I have to back the eye cups out the exact same smidge on both of them (guessing ~1.5-2mm).

I did have the quoted 20mm Zen-Ray Prime HD 10x42 for a while with its huge square profile oculars. I actually measured these to be 19mm (perhaps +/- nearly 1mm) ER (I think you would need a micrometer equipped calibrated railed jig and precise light source and perpendicular screen with sensitive minima measurement to do it really properly). These were just sufficient to see its full Fov with eye cups screwed all the way in, but I found them way too critical for alignment and positioning - possibly among the hardest bins to use that I have tried. Ease of view was like chalk and cheese between it and the aforementioned SV, and HT.

My goto Zen ED3 8x43 have a quoted 16.8mm ER and are barely sufficient (the ED3 has redesigned eye cups to offer absolutely minimal eye cup rim standoff from the ocular lens). The ease of view is not as luxurious as the SV, and HT, though I do prefer them (in many ways! to the 18mm ER Zeiss Conquest HD.

So it seems I need around 16-20mm total ER along with regular type eye cup design, but there are so many esoteric factors involved that it really is a try it and see situation. Something like the generous randpupille design of the SV, but with leading glare control would be awesome.

The 17mm ER of the 10x42 MHG might be marginal (especially given Vespo's comments), but honestly I am more concerned about centre levels of CA (never mind at the edge too), and sharpness, resolution levels. The transmission graph also doesn't bode too well for colour 'pop' at the extremities of the spectrum, and hence neutrality, and overall brightness (having being spoilt by my Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED).

Time will tell whether it is worth ~a grand to me or not .... :cat:

Hopefully it spurs other manufacturers on to make quality 70° AFov 10x bins .... :t:


Chosun :gh:

CJ,

SeemS your minimum requirement for available ER is 14.5mm but you find 16-17mm more comfortable. Unfortunately from my little survey knowing the true ER figure isn't going to help you much. Now, if only they put available ER on the spec sheet.:-O

The ISO is a comittee agreed minimum specification. All of these binoculars are made to a company specific optical specification. Besides the true ER it also has parameters for resolution, collimation, dioptre accuracy, rotational error, magnification differential, transmission, contrast and no doubt many other metrics as well. I'd love to see that info, (as I'm sure would their competitors), but it's primary value is for those in the workshop. In practice this information would be disseminated very selectively. It means we currently have to settle for what some wooly tradition decides they will allow us to know. Length, width, FoV, weight, and some random value for which might or might not be ER. Not even that is specified in the ISO marketing requirement.

You probably guessed already that one of those sets of results was for the ZenRay Prime 10x42. I rechecked the maximum available ER a couple more times just for you. 14.3mm! Of course that is masses of ER for me and results in very easy eye positioning. Might have saved you time and money if they had put that on the spec sheet.

David

typo said:

..... You probably guessed already that one of those sets of results was for the ZenRay Prime 10x42. I rechecked the maximum available ER a couple more times just for you. 14.3mm! Of course that is masses of ER for me and results in very easy eye positioning. Might have saved you time and money if they had put that on the spec sheet.

David

Click to expand...

David, and herein lies the problem of an 'available ER' measurement.

I could see the full Fov well enough, but due to all of those variable factors we have mentioned, alignment seemed super critical. This wasn't due to the 'available ER' being chewed up by overly proud eye cup rims. This was probably due to the really big diameter flat oculars, and my more wrap around style glasses. Some really sophisticated 3D scanning and measurement of my glasses, noggin, and proposed bin could have shown that up (similar to a body scan for buying clothes), but a simple 'available ER' figure had no chance of predicting that .... :cat:

This is why I don't put much stock in this measure - there will still be several mm of discrepancy possible. (for reference I really should start taking photographs in plan view of my glasses abutting various bin's eye cups ..... . I seem to recall Ed posting some neat little diagrams demonstrating something similar to this somewhere in the past ....

I would much prefer a tight +/-0.5mm ISO measurement of total ER.

As I said earlier, this is a very important metric that needs to be preserved.

I see no reason why the 'available ER' figure you desire could not be achieved in concert with that and something like a simple outline blueprint drawing of the eye cup with key dimensions included (rim standoff, rim diameter and profile, and eye cup extension travel) - surely in 2017 this is a very basic and easy thing to provide on a website? (maybe in place of yet another dead animal?! :eek!: :gn:

Things like alignment margins of error, sensitivity to CA, ease of view, and eyeroamaboutability for an individual and a particular bin are always going to be a bit of an esoteric art. An available ER figure just won't cut it. Until we can all 3D Print from our desktops, a home 3D scanner and measuring device, we are left with try it and see .... :t:


Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

.......
I see no reason why the 'available ER' figure you desire could not be achieved in concert with that and something like a simple outline blueprint drawing of the eye cup with key dimensions included (rim standoff, rim diameter and profile, and eye cup extension travel) - surely in 2017 this is a very basic and easy thing to provide on a website?
.......

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

CJ,

I suspect knowing that information will often provide little, or possibly no help at all in predicting whether spectacle frame would be compatible with an eyecup design.

You can see from the attached photo that, not only that I perhaps lack a little imagination when it choice of frames, but how even tiny differences in design can make a difference to binocular usability.

Of those three designs, only one of them causes me a problem when using binoculars, and then with only one model out of those six I've mentioned. The model in question has exactly the same distance between the high points on the eyecup rim as the Prime, but the problematic one has a more acute external radius. It means that the ends of the metal bridge pivot between the eyecup surfaces meaning it's difficult to get the lenses flat against the eyecups. Drives me mad. The dilemma is, I could order that same frame again and it would be fine if the technician set the reading point on the lens a couple of milimeters higher or lower. It wouldn't be a problem if my IPD was 2mm wider or narrower. In fact I could probably get the frame fitting guy to alter the position of the pads a little and it would work fine.

It's the near design that is the problem with the model I own, but I know from going round the stands at BirdFair that the middle one has a couple of incompatibilities too. The far one caused few problems, but it's rare enough with the others not to be an condideration.

The nearer two spectacles actually have identical lenses, but it was the nearest that was intended as my birding specs. The frames were half the price of the others, as I expect you can tell.

Neither true ER nor available ER would be any help in this case.

David

Chosun Juan said:

...surely in 2017 this is a very basic and easy thing to provide on a website? (maybe in place of yet another dead animal?! :eek!: :gn:

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

:t:

I don't think such manufacturers are trying to attract customers that are utterly reliant upon eye relief...

Hope the MHG 10x42 suits you, I personally consider it something of a bar-raiser: but not in a dead-animal kind of way.