Monarch 5 (1 Viewer)

Phase Coating on Nikon Roof Prisms

mikefreiberg said:

Bob,

After a bit of thought and re-reading the post I was thinking the PROSTAFF 7 binocular is a better comparison to the Vortex Crossfire II. The price is only $20 more and includes FMC lenses and PC prisms. Just throwing a thought out there. The 8x42 PROSTAFF 5 is $159. Take care.

All the best,
Mike

Click to expand...

Too All:

It looks like Mike has managed to get Nikon's website straightened out on which Roof Prism binoculars Nikon makes have Phase Coating and which ones do not.

To keep it short the only Roof Prism binoculars that Nikon makes that do not state that they have Phase Coatings are the PROSTAFF 5 series. They are also Nikon's least expensive Roof Prism binoculars. All the other series state that they have Phase Coatings. Look for it in the TECH SPECS.

For illustration:

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/7574/MONARCH-3-8x42-Realtree-APG.html
(Has PC)

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/7570/PROSTAFF-5-8x42.html
(Does not have PC)

You can find this information in the Tech Specs with each binocular. If they have phase coatings it will say they do.

Here is thanks to Mike for getting this information glitch on Nikon's website cleared up!:t::t:

Bob

Glad Mike was able to help out.

I do find it interesting that there still are new roofs being offered without it.

Mike: I find this all a little confusing, as I received this answer directly from Nikon Corporation in answer to my question about phase coatings and the Prostaff 5 10X50:

"Thank you for contacting Nikon.

The Prostaff 5 10x50 Binocular do feature Phase Correction Coated Prisms.

Please feel free to contact Nikon with any further questions or concerns.

Nikon Services


Thanks for using Nikon products!

Nikon Inc. (USA) Service & Support
http://support.nikonusa.com"

mikefreiberg said:

Samandag,

The constructive remarks are always welcomed and noted. Thanks so much. Enjoy the M5s.

Brock,
No phase coatings on the new P5. Also, the lenses are fully coated not fully multi-coated.

Best,
Mike

Click to expand...

Paul-150,

The 7543's are Green 10x42 and No Longer Available in most stores (Older model).
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/842500-REG/Nikon_7543_Monarch_5_10x42_Binocular.html

The 7577's are Black 10x42 (Newer model)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Monarch+5+10x42&N=4291315846+4083534123

:t:

paul2013 said:

Mike: I find this all a little confusing, as I received this answer directly from Nikon Corporation in answer to my question about phase coatings and the Prostaff 5 10X50:

"Thank you for contacting Nikon.

The Prostaff 5 10x50 Binocular do feature Phase Correction Coated Prisms.

Please feel free to contact Nikon with any further questions or concerns.

Nikon Services


Thanks for using Nikon products!

Nikon Inc. (USA) Service & Support
http://support.nikonusa.com"

Click to expand...

Paul,

You are the original poster on this thread and in your Thread #1 above you were writing about the Monarch 5. The Monarch 5 is a different binocular than the PROSTAFF 5. Monarch 5 binoculars do have phase coatings.

These different Nikon designations can be confusing. You can find me getting confused on this thread and it being pointed out to me in thread 13 above. Is it possible that either you or the Nikon representative got confused during your correspondence?

It is now clear from information on the Nikon Website that PROSTAFF binoculars do not have phase coatings.

The Technical Specifications (Tech Specs) for the new PROSTAFF 5 10x50 binoculars (product 7572) on Nikon's new 2013 website do not state that it has phase coatings. None of the PROSTAFF 5 binoculars have them.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/7572/PROSTAFF-5-10x50.html

Bob

.....but the Prostaff 7 do.

FrankD said:

.....but the Prostaff 7 do.

Click to expand...

Yes.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/7537/PROSTAFF-7-8x42.html

Hi Bob: I was not the OP (different Paul). The question I asked Nikon was specifically about the new Prostaff 5 10x50 (I had to select that exact model from a pulldown menu on Nikon's support page, plus I specified it in the text of my question). It's hard to believe the Nikon tech who answered me was confused, as they went out of their way to spell out the model name:

>>Thank you for contacting Nikon.

The Prostaff 5 10x50 Binocular do feature Phase Correction Coated Prisms.<<

They could, of course, be mistaken. Maybe Mike can clear this up once and for all?

ceasar said:

Paul,

You are the original poster on this thread and in your Thread #1 above you were writing about the Monarch 5. The Monarch 5 is a different binocular than the PROSTAFF 5. Monarch 5 binoculars do have phase coatings.

These different Nikon designations can be confusing. You can find me getting confused on this thread and it being pointed out to me in thread 13 above. Is it possible that either you or the Nikon representative got confused during your correspondence?

It is now clear from information on the Nikon Website that PROSTAFF binoculars do not have phase coatings.

The Technical Specifications (Tech Specs) for the new PROSTAFF 5 10x50 binoculars (product 7572) on Nikon's new 2013 website do not state that it has phase coatings. None of the PROSTAFF 5 binoculars have them.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/7572/PROSTAFF-5-10x50.html

Bob

Click to expand...

paul2013 said:

Hi Bob: I was not the OP (different Paul). The question I asked Nikon was specifically about the new Prostaff 5 10x50 (I had to select that exact model from a pulldown menu on Nikon's support page, plus I specified it in the text of my question). It's hard to believe the Nikon tech who answered me was confused, as they went out of their way to spell out the model name:

>>Thank you for contacting Nikon.

The Prostaff 5 10x50 Binocular do feature Phase Correction Coated Prisms.<<

They could, of course, be mistaken. Maybe Mike can clear this up once and for all?

Click to expand...

Sorry about that mistake Paul.

I do know that in the last 2 weeks or so the Tech Specs on the 2013 Nikon binoculars were changed to include information about Phase Coatings being on the binoculars that have it. Previous to that it was hit or miss on whether any binocular had that information. So I'm not surprised if a technician gave you different information.

Bob

I've thought more about why Nikon would not add phase coatings to the P5s, and only make the lenses "fully coated," particularly since they are offered in larger formats, which the P7s are not, and I've returned to my original position on the matter. It can't cost a heck of a lot to upgrade because even Olympus includes p-coatings and FMC in its $59 8x25 WPII:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892177-REG/Olympus_v501011eu000_8X25_Wp_II_Binoculars.html

Of course, it's not really a mystery. I had a stinging encounter recently with a soulless number cruncher from the Planet Quicken and it's all about the margins. Anything else "does not compute."

I'm a big fan of Nikon sport optics and cameras, but I disagree with the company's decision to make the P5. I would have torn up the number crunchers' spread sheets and instead tried to sell management on the idea that Nikon's reputation as a leader in sport optics was more important than padding the margins, and that these entry level buyers if given a good product could become lifetime Nikon customers, so we'd better make a good first impression. I would have expanded the P7 line with larger format bins.

I think if most people could see the difference between phase coated prisms and non-phase coated and between "fully coated" and FMC, they would gladly pay the extra $50-$60 or maybe not even to upgrade to the P7.

Here's the 8x42 Prostaff 7 at Amazon for $159, the same price that Adorama's selling the lesser quality 8x42 Prostaff 5. Which would you buy?

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-8x42-Prostaff-Binocular-Black/dp/B004KVGOC8

UPDATE: The price just went down to $149! And it's also sold by Adorama!

http://www.adorama.com/NK842PS5.html

My two cents: Don't leave out pertinent information about coatings or give wrong information on your Website or through your reps (not Mike, I'm referring to the rep Paul talked to).

Even if these were unintentional mistakes, it was not a good way to launch a new product. Instead, educate consumers about optics so they can make informed choices and give them good products, from top to bottom. In the long run, that philosophy will get you farther with consumers than a quick(en) profit.

<B>

brocknroller said:

I've thought more about why Nikon would not add phase coatings to the P5s, and only make the lenses "fully coated," particularly since they are offered in larger formats, which the P7s are not, and I've returned to my original position on the matter.

It can't cost a heck of a lot to upgrade because even Olympus includes p-coatings and FMC in its $59 8x25 WPII:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892177-REG/Olympus_v501011eu000_8X25_Wp_II_Binoculars.html

Of course, it's not really a mystery. I had a stinging encounter recently with a soulless number cruncher from the Planet Quicken and it's all about the margins. Anything else "does not compute."

I'm a big fan of Nikon sport optics and cameras, but I disagree with the company's decision to make the P5. I would have torn up the number crunchers' spread sheets and instead tried to sell management on the idea that Nikon's reputation as a leader in sport optics was more important than padding the margins, and that these entry level buyers if given a good product could become lifetime Nikon customers, so we'd better make a good first impression. I would have expanded the P7 line with larger format bins.

I think if most people knew the difference between phase coated prisms and non-phase coated and between "fully coated" and FMC, would pay the extra $50 or maybe not even to upgrade to the P7.

Here's the 8x42 Prostaff 7 at Amazon for $159, the same price that Adorama's selling the lesser quality 8x42 Prostaff 5. Which would you buy?

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-8x42-Prostaff-Binocular-Black/dp/B004KVGOC8

http://www.adorama.com/NK842PS5.html

My two cents: Don't leave out pertinent information about coatings or by giving false information, both of which happened with the P5 line. Even if it was unintentional mistake, it was not a good way to launch a new product. Instead, educate consumers about optics so they can make informed choices and give them good products, from top to bottom. In the long run, that philosophy will get you farther than a quick(en) profit.

<B>

Click to expand...

I agree with you about educating, but I suspect it's built with the big box stores as the target and not an educated consumer. Their way of competing with Bushnell I guess.

Todays business world where everything is a cost center looks poorly on anything more than rudimentary training for employees, when the whole world revolves around quarterly profits and not long term, it's the price we pay

perterra said:

I agree with you about educating, but I suspect it's built with the big box stores as the target and not an educated consumer. Their way of competing with Bushnell I guess.

Todays business world where everything is a cost center looks poorly on anything more than rudimentary training for employees, when the whole world revolves around quarterly profits and not long term, it's the price we pay

Click to expand...

What you said it true, but this wasn't always the Japanese business model, which had been geared toward sustainability and long-term strategic planning and growth, as part of traditional Japanese culture. This is why W. Edwards Deming's quality control management was adopted by Japan but rejected in the U.S.

What you described above is the American business model, which I call "Take the Money and Run."

We watched in horror how this "quicken" philosophy trashed the U.S. financial market in 2008, and by extension, the global markets. Adopting the American business model is also what led to Toyota's problems a few years ago as quality control became sacrificed for quick volume growth. The automaker wanted to be the GM of the world, and it did overtake GM in sales, but that victory came at a price, as an auto company best known for its quality and reliability slipped up, with an unprecedented number of safety recalls.

Also, faced with tough competition from other companies manufacturing in China, Nikon probably felt it had to produce a product that was priced competitively at the big box stores since such a large portion of the product market today is cheap, mass produced Chinese goods. Even Zeiss has gotten into the act with the Terra ED.

To me, the discussion of the economics behind binoculars is very much on topic, but not all would agree. So I'll just leave it at that before I "ruffle" some "feathers" and the thread gets moved.

<B>

brocknroller said:

What you said it true, but this wasn't always the Japanese business model, which had been geared toward sustainability and long-term strategic planning and growth, as part of traditional Japanese culture. This is why W. Edwards Deming's quality control management was adopted by Japan but rejected in the U.S.

What you described above is the American business model, which I call "Take the Money and Run."

We watched in horror how this "quicken" philosophy trashed the U.S. financial market in 2008, and by extension, the global markets. Adopting the American business model is also what led to Toyota's problems a few years ago as quality control became sacrificed for quick volume growth. The automaker wanted to be the GM of the world, and it did overtake GM in sales, but that victory came at a price, as an auto company best known for its quality and reliability slipped up, with an unprecedented number of safety recalls.

Also, faced with tough competition from other companies manufacturing in China, Nikon probably felt it had to produce a product that was priced competitively at the big box stores since such a large portion of the product market today is cheap, mass produced Chinese goods. Even Zeiss has gotten into the act with the Terra ED.

To me, the discussion of the economics behind binoculars is very much on topic, but not all would agree. So I'll just leave it at that before I "ruffle" some "feathers" and the thread gets moved.

<B>

Click to expand...

I do wonder why the PS7 is selling within a few bucks of the PS5, that has to be a result of distributor over stocking, or the PS7 not selling as well as the PS5 and them trying to free up inventory dollars.

perterra said:

I do wonder why the PS7 is selling within a few bucks of the PS5, that has to be a result of distributor over stocking, or the PS7 not selling as well as the PS5 and them trying to free up inventory dollars.

Click to expand...

One thing it probably means is that it doesn't cost that much more to put phase coated prisms in a binocular than it does not to.:smoke:

Bob

ceasar said:

One thing it probably means is that it doesn't cost that much more to put phase coated prisms in a binocular than it does not to.:smoke:

Bob

Click to expand...

I wouldnt think it would cost much more at all. Like Brock said though, margins rule.

I am guessing that the actual cost between the 2 may be very narrow where the suggested retail price gap is larger.

brocknroller said:

What you said it true, but this wasn't always the Japanese business model, which had been geared toward sustainability and long-term strategic planning and growth, as part of traditional Japanese culture. This is why W. Edwards Deming's quality control management was adopted by Japan but rejected in the U.S.

What you described above is the American business model, which I call "Take the Money and Run."

We watched in horror how this "quicken" philosophy trashed the U.S. financial market in 2008, and by extension, the global markets. Adopting the American business model is also what led to Toyota's problems a few years ago as quality control became sacrificed for quick volume growth. The automaker wanted to be the GM of the world, and it did overtake GM in sales, but that victory came at a price, as an auto company best known for its quality and reliability slipped up, with an unprecedented number of safety recalls.

Also, faced with tough competition from other companies manufacturing in China, Nikon probably felt it had to produce a product that was priced competitively at the big box stores since such a large portion of the product market today is cheap, mass produced Chinese goods. Even Zeiss has gotten into the act with the Terra ED.

To me, the discussion of the economics behind binoculars is very much on topic, but not all would agree. So I'll just leave it at that before I "ruffle" some "feathers" and the thread gets moved.

<B>

Click to expand...

You can't talk about the re-introduction of non-phase coated prisms being introduced back into low cost roof prism binoculars without also discussing the economics of low cost roof prism binoculars and what may have to be given up to save money. Price is a big factor with many new buyers of binoculars who come to this forum for advice.

The return of non-phase coated prisms is a deliberate technological step backwards but give Nikon credit for specifying which ones they make that have phase coatings. It makes things easier.

There are very cheap binoculars like Redfields which sell in the $100.00 range that may not have phase coatings but this is the first time that a major binocular company has admitted that they have a line of binoculars that does not have them. Others probably have been making them without advertising it.

It is something that is going to have to be checked each time someone inquires about purchasing low cost roof prism binoculars from now on.

It will probably involve going to each manufacturer's website to determine which lines of binoculars are stated as having Phase Coatings and finding which lines where it is not mentioned.

Bob

ceasar said:

You can't talk about the re-introduction of non-phase coated prisms being introduced back into low cost roof prism binoculars without also discussing the economics of low cost roof prism binoculars and what may have to be given up to save money. Price is a big factor with many new buyers of binoculars who come to this forum for advice.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I wrote earlier as to the justification for selling retro roofs, but taking a closer look at the price difference between the P7 and P5 (or at Adorama, the P7s actually being cheaper), and weighing the fact that other manufacturers such as Olympus and Pentax can make low cost p-coated, multi-coated sports optics in the same price range, even a noob should be able to afford a roof with phase coatings and MC if he only knew that there was a difference. If he came on BF for advice, he will hopefully become more informed and make a better choice within his budget or decide that it might be worth spending that extra 50 bucks to upgrade to p-coatings and MCs.

The return of non-phase coated prisms is a deliberate technological step backwards but give Nikon credit for specifying which ones they make that have phase coatings. It makes things easier.

Click to expand...

Actually, I give us the credit, if I hadn't asked whether or not the P5 was phase coated, and if you hadn't pointed out that Nikon's Website wasn't clear about this, and Paul hadn't posted what a Nikon rep told him was incorrect, Nikon wouldn't be specifying the difference correctly. I doubt if this was done purposely to fool anyone, but it's not an oversight that should have happened on a new release. It makes a company look like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.

There are very cheap binoculars like Redfields which sell in the $100.00 range that may not have phase coatings but this is the first time that a major binocular company has admitted that they have a line of binoculars that does not have them. Others probably have been making them without advertising it.

Click to expand...

True there are some roofs sold without p-coatings and FMCs, but what I was asking is should a major sports optics company such as Nikon being joining Redfield, Simmons and Vivitar in the "Race to the Bottom?"

I guess my reaction (or perhaps overreaction) was similar to another member (James?) who was upset with the news that Zeiss was introducing a bin in the $300-$400 range, because he thought it might tarnish the brand. I didn't think it did, it was just a change in strategy from Zeiss to compete at more price points. As it turned out, the Zeiss Terra ED was very competitive at its price point, particularly when you add the blue label.

Nikon's dipping down to the bottom to give competition to the brands that dwell there and provide "something for everybody" - from a $2K+ alpha, to a $1K+ second tier, to $550-$800 premium EII and SE porros, to a $400 mid-priced ED roof, to $200-$300 entry level roofs in the Monarch series, to below $200 in the Prostaff 7 and 5 series.

The problem I pointed out is that the P7 and P5 are so close in price that unless I was uniformed about prism and lens coatings, I can't see why I wouldn't pay $50 more for the P7 (or $10 less from Adorama). If making roofs more affordable for noobs was the goal, then the price of the P5 should limbo even lower.

It is something that is going to have to be checked each time someone inquires about purchasing low cost roof prism binoculars from now on. It will probably involve going to each manufacturer's website to determine which lines of binoculars are stated as having Phase Coatings and finding which lines where it is not mentioned.

Bob

Click to expand...

Providing the information on the Website is correct. Even then, I can see a noob walking into a store like Dick's and looking at the P5 and P7 side by side and asking the clerk, how come the P5 is $50-$60 less? I'd like to be a fly on the wall when he gave the customer an answer.

The other point to note is that Nikon does have experience in this arena. The Trailblazer wasn't p-coated. If sales of that model were abysmal, they wouldn't be offering another non-p-coated roof and expanding the offerings in the series. I know I'm not helping my case here.

When Walmart gets them in, I'll take a look. If Dick's gets them in, I'll have a chance to compare the P5 to the P7 and M5.

<B>

The one issue that I don't understand, which may have been referenced earlier, is why subtract phase-coatings from the equation at all? It cannot cost much money to phase coat a roof prism binocular. When you factor in the fact that Nikon probably makes tens of thousands of a model at this price point then the cost to them has to be minimal.

Why introduce a non-phase coated roof prism binocular?

Here is a comparison of 4 inexpensive Nikon 8x42 binoculars taken from the Nikon 2013 website which have almost the same exterior structure.

The PS5 says it has a fiberglass reinforced body. The others are rubber covered but their understructure is not stated. They are all 5.1" wide and their lengths go from 5.7" (M5), 6.1" (M3), 6.5" (PS5) and 6.9" (PS7).

Regarding their prisms; this is what the 4 Nikon low cost (Under $300.00) 8x42's have.

The Monarch 5; Monarch 3 ATB, Prostaff 7 and Prostaff 5 all have the same 6.3º FOV.

Suggested Retail Prices are respectively: $299.99, $229.99, $219.99 and $159.95.

Their prisms are respectively: (M5-Dielectric), (M3-HR*,Silvercoated, Multi layered) (PS7- Aluminum, HR*, Multi-layer) and (PS5-Unkown) The 1st 3 mentioned are Phase Coated. The PS5 is not phase coated.

*HR means high reflective.

M5 are FMC and have ED glass. M3 are FMC only. PS7 and PS5 are MC.

Note that the PS5 8x42 with only MC coatings and no phase coatings on the prisms costs 50% less ,at this low price point, than an 8x42 with dielectric, phase coated prisms and lenses that are FMC and ED glass.

Bob

FrankD said:

The one issue that I don't understand, which may have been referenced earlier, is why subtract phase-coatings from the equation at all? It cannot cost much money to phase coat a roof prism binocular. When you factor in the fact that Nikon probably makes tens of thousands of a model at this price point then the cost to them has to be minimal.

Why introduce a non-phase coated roof prism binocular?

Click to expand...

Guess you missed my post or you didn't like my answer. Even though it doesn't cost much to add p-coatings, it does cost more, and it also costs more to make FMC lenses than "fully coated". Small though the difference may be, if you add those savings over thousands and thousands of units sold worldwide, Nikon will make a bigger profit with the P5 than with the P7, which sells for $10 less than the P5 at Adorama.

It's not about the retail price as much as it's about the profit margins. That's my guess.

<B>