• 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)

Bang on sir, that's what I'm seeing, and with reference to the models I have recently used the M7 shows its 'failings' worst in the low light condition described and the CL-C shows it's 'failings' worst in the near-sun condition described.

The CL-P simply does not demonstrate these issues, not to a debilitating point anyway.
I wonder what the CL-P has that the other two don't?
 
I would call this veiling glare, and see it in some optics in low light or overcast conditions. Looking below or above the horizon seems to trigger it. Looking up at conifers, against a dull sky, seems a good test for this. After getting my hands on a binocular that handles this effect perfectly [the HT], I am now very aware of how frequently it occurs and how frequently it occurs in some very expensive binoculars.

Throwing out a guess, this veiling glare might be due to scattering of light within the binocular, with this scatter falling on a lens surface and illuminating the surface with stray light.
So do you think it is a design weakness of the binocular. Internal baffling or not enough blackening.
 
The best way I’ve found to understand these glare problems is to use a magnifier to examine the interior of the binocular through the eyepiece end when the glare is happening. A 10X loupe or a 25mm telescope or microscope ocular works well for this purpose. Not so easy to do in the field, I know, but it’s not hard to set up the same conditions in a more controlled way.

The cause is always visible as some non-image forming light reflecting from an interior surface near the objective’s light cone, so that it appears near the edge of the exit pupil. It will likely originate in one of three spots: the objective cell, the focusing lens cell or the edge of the first prism aperture. There may be other interior reflections further away from the exit pupil, but those are usually harmless, ether masked by the eyepiece fieldstop when the eye is properly positioned or so far from the exit pupil that they fall harmlessly in the iris of the eye rather than entering the pupil.

The photos below show two examples of veiling glare reflections from a rather poorly baffled objective cell. This particular binocular shows “smokescreen” type veiling glare in low light and a complete obliteration of the image at near sun angles. The left image illustrates the low light problem. The binocular is pointed into a dark area and the only illumination is an overcast sky. The sky is not absolutely bright, but it’s bright compared to the dark area being viewed, so it causes a crescent of reflection from the lower part of the objective cell, which looks like a mist or “smokescreen” covering the lower half of the dark field when viewed normally through the binocular. The right photo shows the same binocular pointing close to a small bright light simulating the sun at a close angle. The bright spot of reflection comes from the very same lens cell, but it’s much brighter and all but completely obliterates the image in normal viewing.

A complication I’ve noticed in binoculars with internal focusing lenses is that the focusing lens position has unpredictable effects. Sometimes the focusing lens itself is the problem. If the focuser is negative, its lens cell may only come into view at long focusing distances as it moves forward and clears the first prism aperture. At close distances it may move out of view behind the prism aperture. If the focuser is positive just the opposite happens. Sometimes the problem is the objective lens cell and the focusing lens acts an effective baffle when it moves forward, but allows the objective reflection to be uncovered when it moves backward.

I’m afraid this is one of those cases where just looking around at things in the field doesn’t help much with understanding cause and effect.
So it is just all these little internal reflections inside the binocular causing this "smokescreen effect". Is it a design flaw in the binocular and could it be corrected with more baffling and blackening. The CL-P is better baffled than say the CL-C.
 
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

Bob,

When you get to do your comparison, let us know which Swaro CL (8x30 or 8x25) do you think looks "sharper" to your eyes? And how much less sharp are they both than the 8x30 EII? Thanks.

Brock
 
a few pictures

Hello all,

Finally had time to take a few pictures of the new 30mm M7, along with a Swarovski CL-P, a Swarovski Habicht 8x30 GA, a Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, and a Meopta 6.5x32 for size comparison.
 

Attachments

  • nikonm7b.jpg
    nikonm7b.jpg
    122 KB · Views: 490
  • nikonm7.jpg
    nikonm7.jpg
    127 KB · Views: 644
a few pictures

Hello all,

In case anyone is interested:

I finally had time to take a few pictures of the new M7, along with a few other binos* for size comparison. Also posted in the M7 thread in the Nikon sub-forum.

*Swarovski 8x30 GA and CL Pocket, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, and Meopta Meopro 6.5x32
 

Attachments

  • nikonm7b.jpg
    nikonm7b.jpg
    122 KB · Views: 159
  • nikonm7.jpg
    nikonm7.jpg
    127 KB · Views: 372
Hello all,

In case anyone is interested:

I finally had time to take a few pictures of the new M7, along with a few other binos* for size comparison. Also posted in the M7 thread in the Nikon sub-forum.

*Swarovski 8x30 GA and CL Pocket, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, and Meopta Meopro 6.5x32
Nice pictures. The CL-P is definitely quite a bit smaller than the M7 isn't it. It is hard to beat a line em up comparison like that to really see the sizes.
 
Hello all,

Finally had time to take a few pictures of the new 30mm M7, along with a Swarovski CL-P, a Swarovski Habicht 8x30 GA, a Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, and a Meopta 6.5x32 for size comparison.
Nice pictures. The CL-P is definitely quite a bit smaller than the M7 isn't it. It is hard to beat a line em up comparison like that to really see the sizes. Do you think the Conquest HD is better than the M7 optically?
 
Last edited:
Nice pictures. The CL-P is definitely quite a bit smaller than the M7 isn't it. It is hard to beat a line em up comparison like that to really see the sizes. Do you think the Conquest HD is better than the M7 optically?

Thanks.

The CL-P is certainly smaller than the M7, and although not to a huge extent by any means, the difference when hanging from the neck is noticeable. Also very noticeable when they are in their cases. I could see hanging the Swarovski case from my belt, but I would not want to do that with the Nikon.

I do think the Conquest HD is better than the M7, but not as much as their normal retail prices would suggest. Or to put it another way -- because of it's price, I'm not surprised at how well the Zeiss works. But I am a bit amazed at how well the M7 performs when you consider it's cost. No one should feel that they are at a disadvantage, if all they could afford is the M7.....
 
Thanks for the pics Phil. A side by side pic definitely does wonders for making visual comparisons between models. The Swaro definitely is more "compact" as it should be considering the 5 mm difference in objective size but it is also seriously streamlined in design. There aren't any bumps, ridges, etc.... Even the eyecups are unobtrusive.

Still, the Nikon definitely looks small for a 30 mm-class optic. I am seriously considering picking one up if everyone thinks they are worth the price considering their performance. I would like to do a Nikon/Sightron comparison thread.
 
Hello all,

In case anyone is interested:

I finally had time to take a few pictures of the new M7, along with a few other binos* for size comparison. Also posted in the M7 thread in the Nikon sub-forum.

*Swarovski 8x30 GA and CL Pocket, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, and Meopta Meopro 6.5x32
The Swaro CL-P sure looks nice. I think I would like to try one. I am impressed by it's streamlined shape and nice ergo's. I am not so sure about the 3mm EA though. HaHa!
 
Thanks.

The CL-P is certainly smaller than the M7, and although not to a huge extent by any means, the difference when hanging from the neck is noticeable. Also very noticeable when they are in their cases. I could see hanging the Swarovski case from my belt, but I would not want to do that with the Nikon.

I do think the Conquest HD is better than the M7, but not as much as their normal retail prices would suggest. Or to put it another way -- because of it's price, I'm not surprised at how well the Zeiss works. But I am a bit amazed at how well the M7 performs when you consider it's cost. No one should feel that they are at a disadvantage, if all they could afford is the M7.....
I agree about the Nikon M7. But I must admit Swarovski did a nice job on that CL-P. It sure looks slick and streamlined. That is a hard choice between those two. Do you want more aperture or a more compact size. HaHa! Tough. That Swaro is a beauty! Almost a piece of art and you don't have to pay inflated retail prices for it either. There is usually a couple places that has them for less than $700.00. I agree about the Conquest's HD also. They are impossible to beat for the money. Zeiss is making a strong comeback into the binocular market and they do know how to make good optics. They have doing it for a hundred years.
 
Last edited:
Hello all,

Finally had time to take a few pictures of the new 30mm M7, along with a Swarovski CL-P, a Swarovski Habicht 8x30 GA, a Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, and a Meopta 6.5x32 for size comparison.

Awesome pic Phil! :t:

CG

I handled the 8x25 briefly a week back. It was nice. If i was a pocket user i'd likely buy one.
 
I hate to say it but I think I agree with Dennis.

Not having the two binoculars side to side though, admittedly, I would certainly concede being wrong. ;)

True, you really never know how a bin is going to feel until you get it into your hands and up to your eyes, and on occasion I have been surprised about the handling of some closed bridge roofs, but if you're an experienced user, as you are, you have a pretty good idea about how different these two bins are going to be ergonomically.

I've liked the idea of owning a pocket bin more than I have my actual experience with them. Admittedly, the ones I've tried didn't have top notch optics, though he one I did actually buy, the Nikon Venturer II, has good optics, but it's a reverse porro not a roof. I did get an idea about the smaller FOV and the handling of a double hinge compact from trying them in stores, and the lack of dampening due to the ultra-lite weight.

Not everybody's thumbs fit so neatly under the bridge of a compact like Alexis' (I'm still amazed at the pix of him holding a Leica 8x20), or whose eye sockets fit the smaller eyecups of a compact comfortably and w/out image blackouts.

Even though the CL-P is large for a compact, it's still a double bridge configuration with flat bridge on top whereas the 30mm M7 is on "open hinge" (or "open bridge" as Nikon's describing it) design, which leaves room for your fingers to wrap around the barrels. So ergonomically, the ,7 and CL-P are apples to oranges.

I like compacts for concerts and sporting events, but for birding, I prefer a midsized or full sized bin. But like you, I will reserve final judgement until after I've tried the CL-P since the sharp edges and relatively compact size and light but not feather weight might be worth the trade-off for the inherent shortcomings of compacts.

<B>
 
Hey everyone. Many great thoughts here. I am expecting my M7 30s within the next 1.5 weeks. I can't wait to test these out in the field. I take many of these comments back to Nikon. We appreciate the constructive remarks as well as praises. Happy Holidays!

Best,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon
 
Hey everyone. Many great thoughts here. I am expecting my M7 30s within the next 1.5 weeks. I can't wait to test these out in the field. I take many of these comments back to Nikon. We appreciate the constructive remarks as well as praises. Happy Holidays!

Best,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon
I tried the Swarovski CL-P's 8x25 over at Cabella's tonite and they are VERY nice. I am impressed. What an improvement over the 8x20"s. The bigger eyecups, longer ER and bigger objectives make a big difference. The quality and design is superb. They are the first compact binoculars I have seen that might make it as full time birding binocular.
 
I tried the Swarovski CL-P's 8x25 over at Cabella's tonite and they are VERY nice. I am impressed. What an improvement over the 8x20"s. The bigger eyecups, longer ER and bigger objectives make a big difference. The quality and design is superb. They are the first compact binoculars I have seen that might make it as full time birding binocular.
I bought the Swarovski 8x25 CL-P's and compared them to my Nikon 8x30 M7's and the Swaro's are much better at controlling veiling glare and glare. They seem to cut right through the glare and you see the bird better in tough sunny conditions. The Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 seems to have some problems controlling glare and create a "smokescreen effect". I really like the ergos on them also and the ER is just perfect for the eyecups. These are some very sweet compact binoculars. I also decided the optics on my Swarovision 8x32 is better than the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD and I like the Swaro's ergos much better so why have two 32mm's. I sold the Conquest and returned the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30. I now have only the Swarovision 8x32 and the Swarovski 8x25 CL-P. A nice matching green pair. Back to Swaro's. I still haven't found anything that will beat the Swarovision all around.
 
Last edited:
The Swaro CL-P sure looks nice. I think I would like to try one. I am impressed by it's streamlined shape and nice ergo's. I am not so sure about the 3mm EA though. HaHa!
I bought the Swarovski 8x25 CL-P's and compared them to my Nikon 8x30 M7's and the Swaro's are much better at controlling veiling glare and glare. They seem to cut right through the glare and you see the bird better in tough sunny conditions. The Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 seems to have some problems controlling glare and create a "smokescreen effect". I really like the ergos on them also and the ER is just perfect for the eyecups. These are some very sweet compact binoculars. I also decided the optics on my Swarovision 8x32 is better than the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD and I like the Swaro's ergos much better so why have two 32mm's. I sold the Conquest and returned the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30. I now have only the Swarovision 8x32 and the Swarovski 8x25 CL-P. A nice matching green pair. Back to Swaro's. I still haven't found anything that will beat the Swarovision all around.
 
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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top