• 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.

The new Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 is very nice! (1 Viewer)

Gijs van Ginkel said:
Well Dennis, the world is a little bit bigger than the US and in Europe Nikon seems not to be such an important brand for birders and since Birdforum is not exclusively for Americans, I thought it might be usefull to mention also the similarities and differences between the 30 mm Monarch 7 's and the 30 mm Kite Lynxes. In the US the Nikon aftersales service seems allright, but in Europe it is different, while the Kite service has the same excellent level as the Swarovski aftersales service: important to know for binocular consumers.
Gijs
Click to expand...

I have heard Nikon after sales support is not that great in Europe. In the US they fix anything for $19.95 and Nikon Dominates in our bigger retail outlets like Cabella's and Sportman's Warehouse's. 60% of their inventory is Nikon's and Monarch's are huge sellers especially for hunters.
 
Last edited:
NDhunter said:
Bob:

Good post and I would like you to further explain your take on the 8x30 vs.
8x25 CL. I have asked you for a side by side picture, to see the size difference
in these two. Are you able?

You say the 8x30 is easier and handier, but have stopped there.

I am thinking the 8x30 is better in many ways, and that is optically also,
as a better all around binocular.

We all know the only advantage of the little pockets, and that is
only in size. And I don't need to put them in my purse.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Hi Jerry,

I have an 8x CL Pocket as well as the M7 8x30, so I hope you don't mind if I reply to your post above. The M7 is indeed better in many ways than the CL. If someone wants to buy just one good general purpose bino, the M7 would make an excellent choice, and certainly better than a CL-P as it has a brighter and larger view than the CL-P. And this is without consideration of the considerable price difference.

OTOH, there is more than size as an advantage of little pockets, and another advantage is decreased weight. Although the M7 provides a better overall view, they are bulkier and heavier than the CL-P. I use the CL-P as my primary hiking bino during cloudy days (I use an Ultravid HD 10x25 for sunny days), as I don't mind the weight hanging from my neck for many hours at a time. I can also put them in a belt case if I want, where it is easy to wear. Although the M7 is still small, it nonetheless weighs more than the Swaro, has more bulk dangling on my chest, and it's case is too large to wear on the belt. Yes, the M7 is a better buy than either CL, but it won't be replacing my CL-P any time soon.

I will try to take a picture of these some time this week, if my schedule allows.......
 
PhilR. said:
Hi Jerry,

I have an 8x CL Pocket as well as the M7 8x30, so I hope you don't mind if I reply to your post above. The M7 is indeed better in many ways than the CL. If someone wants to buy just one good general purpose bino, the M7 would make an excellent choice, and certainly better than a CL-P as it has a brighter and larger view than the CL-P. And this is without consideration of the considerable price difference.

OTOH, there is more than size as an advantage of little pockets, and another advantage is decreased weight. Although the M7 provides a better overall view, they are bulkier and heavier than the CL-P. I use the CL-P as my primary hiking bino during cloudy days (I use an Ultravid HD 10x25 for sunny days), as I don't mind the weight hanging from my neck for many hours at a time. I can also put them in a belt case if I want, where it is easy to wear. Although the M7 is still small, it nonetheless weighs more than the Swaro, has more bulk dangling on my chest, and it's case is too large to wear on the belt. Yes, the M7 is a better buy than either CL, but it won't be replacing my CL-P any time soon.

I will try to take a picture of these some time this week, if my schedule allows.......
Click to expand...
A picture would be great with them all in a row. Too bad you don't have a Swaro 8x30 CL to throw in the mix.
 
PhilR. said:
Hi Jerry,

I have an 8x CL Pocket as well as the M7 8x30, so I hope you don't mind if I reply to your post above. The M7 is indeed better in many ways than the CL. If someone wants to buy just one good general purpose bino, the M7 would make an excellent choice, and certainly better than a CL-P as it has a brighter and larger view than the CL-P. And this is without consideration of the considerable price difference.

OTOH, there is more than size as an advantage of little pockets, and another advantage is decreased weight. Although the M7 provides a better overall view, they are bulkier and heavier than the CL-P. I use the CL-P as my primary hiking bino during cloudy days (I use an Ultravid HD 10x25 for sunny days), as I don't mind the weight hanging from my neck for many hours at a time. I can also put them in a belt case if I want, where it is easy to wear. Although the M7 is still small, it nonetheless weighs more than the Swaro, has more bulk dangling on my chest, and it's case is too large to wear on the belt. Yes, the M7 is a better buy than either CL, but it won't be replacing my CL-P any time soon.

I will try to take a picture of these some time this week, if my schedule allows.......
Click to expand...

Phil:
That would be nice of you to compare the M7 vs. the CL.

I was looking for a photo comparison to show the difference in size between the CL 8x30 and the CL 8x25.

Jerry
 
RJM, post 23,
Plastic is the collective name for a large variety of polymers, some very very strong and durable others not strong at all, but I do not have to explain that to you, since you undoubtedly know that. Plastic used in military fighter planes is of a very different quality as plastic used in childrens toys. The same holds for plastics used for making binocular bodies, some manufactures use high quality plastics others do not and the latter make binoculars less expensive. That there is something the matter with the choice of plastic for the Nikon Monarch 8x30 and the Zeiss Conquests is proven by the different posts on this forums, which mention (serious) problems with the plastic eyecupsof these binoculars.
Gijs
 
NDhunter said:
Phil:
That would be nice of you to compare the M7 vs. the CL.

I was looking for a photo comparison to show the difference in size between the CL 8x30 and the CL 8x25.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Here is a photo comparing their sizes. It shows them completely closed.
 

Attachments

  • binocular comparison.jpg
    binocular comparison.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 1,005
Last edited:
Interesting views on the Nikon M7 x30 / Swarovski CL-P x25 and CL Companion x30.

I've lived with each for a while and have some different (optical) impressions.

The CL Companion, for me, was unpleasant in field use. The eyecups when fully twisted out only placed the eyes about 7 or 8mm behind the oculars. When held to the eyes, this eyes-right-up-to-the-lenses scenario resulted in very distracting bright sparkles of light within the instrument around the periphery of the image and also meant that blinking whilst in use made a mess of the lenses with eyelash grease. Moving the eyes a few mm further from the eyepieces cured both problems but meant 'freeholding' the binocular in front of the eyes. The CL Companion was also prone to glare/flare issues and these two 'problems' meant I returned it.

The M7 (actually the second one we obtained as the first just wasn't that sharp) is good, but displays slightly more chromatic aberration than both Swaros and also has some distracting glare/flare issues. This has become apparent the more we've used it (it's actually my wife's). If looking at a 'wall' of vegetation, especially if it is something like a hawthorn hedgerow out of leaf, then there is a very definite 'veiling' issue that gets in the way of getting on with the business of picking out birds. The M7 is also not quite as bright as either Swaro, nor does it preserve colour fidelity quite so well. My wife is happy with it but were it mine, I'd have sent it back because of the veiling.

The CL-P, for all it is 'out-lensed' is, for me, in real in-the-field use the best optical performer. It cuts straight into views that left the other two with glare/flare/veiling issues, returns pin-sharp resolution and accurate colours. Of course it has a smaller field of view and is more compromised well into twilight but when it comes to reliably picking off wildlife in almost any given situation it out-performs the other two.

I am really into the concept of the mini mid-sized 10x30 format but so far haven't been persuaded that there's anything out there that can out-perform the CL-P x25. I might give the Kite Lynx a go.

I don't seek to promote my own views as definitive, not by any means. It is clear that different people have different perceptions and there is clearly variation in quality between purportedly identical instruments. However, I put forward my own in-the-field experiences as honestly held.
 
Crinklystarfish,
Very wise to keep your own experience as the main decisive point of liking a binocular. Test reports are at best a help or an orientation for users (I write many test reports myself, but I consider them only as an introduction/help for persons who are looking for a binocular.
Gijs
 
Gijs van Ginkel said:
Crinklystarfish,
Very wise to keep your own experience as the main decisive point of liking a binocular. Test reports are at best a help or an orientation for users (I write many test reports myself, but I consider them only as an introduction/help for persons who are looking for a binocular.
Gijs
Click to expand...
Very good point!
 
Gijs van Ginkel said:
RJM, post 23,
Plastic is the collective name for a large variety of polymers, some very very strong and durable others not strong at all, but I do not have to explain that to you, since you undoubtedly know that. Plastic used in military fighter planes is of a very different quality as plastic used in childrens toys. The same holds for plastics used for making binocular bodies, some manufactures use high quality plastics others do not and the latter make binoculars less expensive. That there is something the matter with the choice of plastic for the Nikon Monarch 8x30 and the Zeiss Conquests is proven by the different posts on this forums, which mention (serious) problems with the plastic eyecupsof these binoculars.
Gijs
Click to expand...
Very true and interesting. Some polymers are probably more expensive than magnesium for example.
 
crinklystarfish said:
Interesting views on the Nikon M7 x30 / Swarovski CL-P x25 and CL Companion x30.

I've lived with each for a while and have some different (optical) impressions.

The CL Companion, for me, was unpleasant in field use. The eyecups when fully twisted out only placed the eyes about 7 or 8mm behind the oculars. When held to the eyes, this eyes-right-up-to-the-lenses scenario resulted in very distracting bright sparkles of light within the instrument around the periphery of the image and also meant that blinking whilst in use made a mess of the lenses with eyelash grease. Moving the eyes a few mm further from the eyepieces cured both problems but meant 'freeholding' the binocular in front of the eyes. The CL Companion was also prone to glare/flare issues and these two 'problems' meant I returned it.

The M7 (actually the second one we obtained as the first just wasn't that sharp) is good, but displays slightly more chromatic aberration than both Swaros and also has some distracting glare/flare issues. This has become apparent the more we've used it (it's actually my wife's). If looking at a 'wall' of vegetation, especially if it is something like a hawthorn hedgerow out of leaf, then there is a very definite 'veiling' issue that gets in the way of getting on with the business of picking out birds. The M7 is also not quite as bright as either Swaro, nor does it preserve colour fidelity quite so well. My wife is happy with it but were it mine, I'd have sent it back because of the veiling.

The CL-P, for all it is 'out-lensed' is, for me, in real in-the-field use the best optical performer. It cuts straight into views that left the other two with glare/flare/veiling issues, returns pin-sharp resolution and accurate colours. Of course it has a smaller field of view and is more compromised well into twilight but when it comes to reliably picking off wildlife in almost any given situation it out-performs the other two.

I am really into the concept of the mini mid-sized 10x30 format but so far haven't been persuaded that there's anything out there that can out-perform the CL-P x25. I might give the Kite Lynx a go.

I don't seek to promote my own views as definitive, not by any means. It is clear that different people have different perceptions and there is clearly variation in quality between purportedly identical instruments. However, I put forward my own in-the-field experiences as honestly held.
Click to expand...
Just goes to show how personal binoculars are. What works for one person doesn't work at all for another. Your the first person I recall complaining about the CL 8x30 Companion being unpleasant. Most live with it's weaknesses including the smaller FOV because it is so comfortable to use in the field. I understand eye cup and eye relief issues though and if a binocular doesn't fit your face it doesn't fit. There isn't much you can do about it. I am surprised you say the M7 has more CA than the Swaro's since it has the advantage of HD glass which is supposed to suppress that. I think my M7's controls CA pretty well but with almost any binocular you are going to get a little on the edge. I will study that further on my M7's. I haven't noticed excessive veiling with my M7 but I am going to try to replicate the situation where you observed it. I don't have the advantage you have of having the CL-P available to compare to my M7 but I have had the Swaro 8x20 C and I know it is probably the best compact out there and very bright. For you to say it is brighter than the 30mm M7 is pretty surprising considering that their transmission on both is about 89% and the M7 has a 5mm aperture advantage. Is the Swaro CL-P brighter in all situations or just in low light situations? Try them both at twilight and see if you see any difference. Also, how inset are the objectives on the Swaro CL-P? I was thinking that might have something to do with it's lack of glare.
 
Last edited:
The objectives in the 8x30 CL are set deeper into the tubes than the objectives in the 8x25 CL are.

The eyepieces in the 8x25 CL are set deeper into the eyecups than the ones on the 8x30 CL are. The longer ER of the 8x25 CL is readily noticeable.

When we remove the eye cups we find that the oculars on the 8x30 CL are, as expected, about 2 or 3mm wider than the ones in the 8x25 CL but curiously, the exposed portion of the oculars (when they are put back on the binoculars) in the 8x25 CL are the same as the portions exposed in the 8x30 CL, about 17mm each. The 8x25 CL looks like it uses almost the full width of the oculars.

Bob
 
Last edited:
That's interesting. What is your take on the optics between the two? The CL 30 and the CL-P ,as far as, say glare ,brightness and CA control. I would love to have all three together(CL-P,CL 30 and M7) to do a comparo because I think these three binoculars represent an emerging trend in downsizing for birders and I could see a 25mm or 30mm taking over the 32mm sweet spot. In day light these things will do everything a 32mm will and cut 5 to 7 oz. off your weight. How picky is eye placement on the CL-P?A lot pickier than the CL 30 or just moderate?
 
Dennis,

This is a casual comparison because I think they are two different animals, so to speak. Soon I intend to get the Nikon M7 8x30 and when I do I'll compare it with the Swarovski 8x30CL and 8x30SLC and the 8x30EII.

I haven't used the 8x30CL much in the last month or six weeks. It's really my wife's binocular. I've had the 8x25 with me most of the time. The weather has been poor for the last 2 or 3 weeks so glare hasn't been evident too often. I'll have to wait to give them a one on one test for glare.

Eye placement is easier with the 8x30 and it's larger eyecups, but I can brace both of them up against my eyebrows. The long ER of the 8x25 helps here.

Both are sharp nearly to the edge of the view. FOV is close enough to be considered the same. In late twilight, looking into the canopy off my deck, the 8x30 is definitely brighter than the 8x25 but not nearly as much brighter as my 7x42 FL is compared to the 8x30. I wouldn't give either of them an "A" for low light performance.

The lenses of the 8x30 stay cleaner. The 8x25 has no lens covers and my fingers are always hitting them it seems. I use the case for my Nikon 10x25 to transport them when they aren't in my shirt pockets or jacket pockets. I wear Filson 2XL Alaskan Guide shirts over sweaters a lot. I have jackets with pockets which will hold the 8x30.

So far so good. I'm pleased with both of them.:t:

Bob
 
Last edited:
"Soon I intend to get the Nikon M7 8x30 and when I do I'll compare it with the Swarovski 8x30CL and 8x30SLC and the 8x30EII"

That would be very interesting. Call it the "Battle of the New emerging aperture 30mm's." Throw the CL-P 8x25 in the mix too though.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
... Your the first person I recall complaining about the CL 8x30 Companion being unpleasant. Most live with it's weaknesses including the smaller FOV because it is so comfortable to use in the field. I understand eye cup and eye relief issues though and if a binocular doesn't fit your face it doesn't fit. There isn't much you can do about it. I am surprised you say the M7 has more CA than the Swaro's since it has the advantage of HD glass which is supposed to suppress that. I think my M7's controls CA pretty well but with almost any binocular you are going to get a little on the edge. I will study that further on my M7's. I haven't noticed excessive veiling with my M7 but I am going to try to replicate the situation where you observed it. I don't have the advantage you have of having the CL-P available to compare to my M7 ...
Click to expand...

It's not so much it didn't fit my face as the eyepiece cups only extending a tiny distance from the lenses. The eyepiece cups on the CL-P on the other hand extend way further out. I actually really liked the CL Companion in every other regard and would own it as my main binocular right now were it not for the issues I described. I actually emailed Swarovski asking about the availability of 'extended' eyepieces who - credit to them - responded within the hour stating no such eyepieces were available but that they were aware of the desirability of investigating the eye placement issue (they may just have been being nice to me - or they may have had other feedback). It also still suffered glare/flare notwithstanding the too-close-to-the-instrument 'diamond necklace' effect.

I don't mean to be too harsh on the M7 regarding colour fringing, it is, as I've written elsewhere, very well controlled. I suppose the very generous field of view is part of the reason as there is simply more 'image' to control and in high contrast situations I do sometimes pick up CA towards the periphery. I've seen blue, but also a turquoise on one side, and magenta on others side of the same branch in bare trees against a grey sky. When quickly switching to either Swarovski the worst I could induce was a tiny hint of purple-ish fringe towards the very extremity of periphery. This doesn't detract much for me though with the M7, it's the 'looking-through-a-smokescreen' thing that crops up when looking for birds in densely packed denuded vegetation that has me handing the M7 to my wife and going back to the CL-P to see exactly what's going on in that hedgerow.

Once again, with the personal preference caveat uppermost, when it comes to optical performance in the field in a variety of habitat and lighting situations, the CL-P is - for me - the most reliable for being able to accurately identify wildlife very quickly.

It just works really well (in daylight) all the time: the others don't.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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.

Similar threads

KaterinBortle9
Nikon Monarch Fieldscope 60ED-A + MEP 30-60W Review
Replies
3
Views
2K
roch
roch
J
Do you consider Resale Value/Opportunities due to Brand Recognition?
Replies
14
Views
704
Patudo
P
J
Full Spec Sheet for Nikon 8X30 Monarch HG
Replies
3
Views
1K
JohnVan
J
P
Upgrade from Nikon 8x30 EII to Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL?
Replies
10
Views
1K
PedroP
P
J
Hello from South Korea!
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
jackjack
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top