• 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.

Nikon Monarch 7 8 x 30 Review (1 Viewer)

Call me a skeptic but I still wonder if there's really some of these with glare problems and some without. I suspect it's just different users.

Has anyone yet seen a good sample beside a bad one? Also, I seem to recall that somebody sent theirs to Nikon for a repair, but again nobody knows what Nikon did to "fix" them.

I just wonder if this "fixed" version might fall under the heading of "urban myth."

It would be nice to know for sure.

Mark

Call me confused.......Is it a design issue or is it a bad production batch or is it the individual, etc?

The user may be suspect because some poeple see the problem and some do not. A possible explanation may be that folks who did not notice the glare were viewing in different lighting conditions where the pupils were not as dilated or were not viewing toward a light source.

I am inclined to think it is a design issue after noticing the same halo of light going around the edge of the exit pupil of a Monarch 7 8X42. It was the same as what I noticed on the 10X30 Monarch 7.

I would like to hear a public statement from Nikon.. Is there a problem or is this acceptable performance consistent with the intended design? If it is considered a problem, then is it in the design and will it be corrected or is it a batch problem that has been or will be resolved? What can be done for those units already out in the field?

It would be great if Mike F. would come back on the Forum and address these questions. I will send him a PM asking him to do so after submitting this post.

I do not know if anyone has seen a good unit next to a bad one but BinoBoy did examine the exit pupil of his returned/repaired unit and did not see the illuminated exit pupil edge. A better question may be, has anyone seen a good unit? By this, I mean holding the unit away from the face with the objectives pointed toward a light source and not seeing the edges of the exit pupils lit up.

As far as what Nikon did to fix that unit, BinoBoy stated that "there is no unblackened metal now", which implies there was before. He also said Nikon "didn't say if they blackened the shiny metal parts or replaced them".

I do not think the "fixed version" falls under urban myth because BinoBoy explicitly stated that he could find no problems and the pale colors problem was fixed.

Here is a link to the Fix thread......

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=277482
 
Last edited:
I've been wondering the same thing myself. I seem to remember some posts here where there were no complaints. Allbino's also had a favorable report on them, with no comments about glare or the "Kuo Ming" ring or whatever it is called.

........................................
Bob

Actually, Allbino's review included photos showing the source of the glare. Henry was kind enough to add a post to this very thread that included the photo along with his comments ......

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2955784&postcount=25

On Edit: Allbino's did have a compliant on reflections in their review of the Nikon 8X30 M7 as shown in an internal reflection score of 2.5 out of 5. This compares to a score of 4.4 out of 5 for the Nikon EDG 10X42.
 
Last edited:
RFI due to IOL (information overload!...or simply getting confused soon). Sorry, don't remember from the many reviews and comments I've read (in Bf. and elsewhere), but in the Kite Lynx 8x30 (which is clones with this) is the same problem mentioned?
 
Pompadour .... I recall reading a post recently addressing that question and I recall the poster saying there was some glare with the kite, but not as much. I tried to find the post but could not.

During my search I found this post where Oetzi was seeing some glare in the Kite. Scroll down a little over half way to the section titled "How about glare?". He is comparing to a Nikon EII, not the Monarch 7.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2969078&postcount=17
 
Bruce, thanks. My memory of the comments was that if it was mentioned in the Kite it was less so than in the Nikon. Two posts after the one you link (by Oetzi) Typo /David too reports on glare in the Kite. I hope either or both makes are soon able to fix it, or if this config. becomes v. popular due to these two models, maybe some other company/ies might put out new model/s without the lapse!
 
Actually, Allbino's review included photos showing the source of the glare. Henry was kind enough to add a post to this very thread that included the photo along with his comments ......

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2955784&postcount=25

On Edit: Allbino's did have a compliant on reflections in their review of the Nikon 8X30 M7 as shown in an internal reflection score of 2.5 out of 5. This compares to a score of 4.4 out of 5 for the Nikon EDG 10X42.

Yes Allbinos did give them a low score based on the reflections showing from the objective end but they did not make any comments on glare seen from the oculars. Henry pointed out that reflections seen through the objectives often do not affect the view from the other end but he did suggest that in this case it came from the "thin bright ring near the edge of the exit pupil." Allbinos made no comments about this.

Bob
 
Indeed thanks, Bruce, and everyone. I had forgotten some of those details. I sometimes wonder if Allbinos even gets the binoculars outside, in which case some of these quirkier glare problems might never be seen by them.

The saga continues.
 
Indeed thanks, Bruce, and everyone. I had forgotten some of those details. I sometimes wonder if Allbinos even gets the binoculars outside, in which case some of these quirkier glare problems might never be seen by them.

The saga continues.


I was just about to comment, then saw Mark's note and agree - I'm pretty sure that Allbinos do not properly ''field-test'' their binoculars, my biggest beef with their methodologies.
 
To all,

I have been asked a few questions about the glare issue in the M7. I own a 8x and 10x30 and haven't seen any issues. However, I am currently waiting on a repines from Japan to see what they say. I will report back with what I find. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you have individual questions. Thanks for your patience.

All the best,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon
 
I sometimes wonder if Allbinos even gets the binoculars outside, in which case some of these quirkier glare problems might never be seen by them.

Someone on here posted recently that he " thought he saw a hint of veiling glare whilst pointing his bin at the tv stand " ... go figure ... Gary Larson couldn't make it up

:smoke:
:smoke:
:smoke:
 
To all,

I have been asked a few questions about the glare issue in the M7. I own a 8x and 10x30 and haven't seen any issues. However, I am currently waiting on a repines from Japan to see what they say. I will report back with what I find. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you have individual questions. Thanks for your patience.

All the best,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon

Thanks for looking into it, but to Birdforum participants interested in the problem, I don't advise waiting for an answer. Better to follow up with examination of units following Henry's advice on discovering the sources of internal reflections and to post findings with serial numbers. Nikon never comments on product flaws (except empty vague and effectively dismissive ones from the marketing dept) unless they represent safety issues or until after they have been the subject of considerable consumer discussion and outcry on review sites/magazines, neither of which are possibilities with binoculars.

--AP
 
Bruce, thanks. My memory of the comments was that if it was mentioned in the Kite it was less so than in the Nikon. Two posts after the one you link (by Oetzi) Typo /David too reports on glare in the Kite. I hope either or both makes are soon able to fix it, or if this config. becomes v. popular due to these two models, maybe some other company/ies might put out new model/s without the lapse!

I hope other companies do exactly this. I am a big fan of the 10x30 format and have tried both the Lynx and M7. Low-light veiling glare means neither makes it as my work-a-day binocular, the Kite also had rather too many near-sun flare issues for my taste too. I acknowledge that at the price point, the M7 particularly is still a very good binocular and represents amazing value for money.

I'd pay very good money for a very compact, single hinge, sub 500g x30 roof, with premium build quality and optical performance. The portability, ease of use, and all-round capability of such a thing is what I find attractive. A travel-binocular that just plain gets it done without a fight if you will.
 
Crink, are you able say how either of those two 10x30s compares with any of the best smaller* 10x25s: (in alphab. order) Bushnell Ultra, Hawke Sapphire, Leica Ultravid, Nikon HG/Premier, the recently replaced Swarovski model, or Zeiss Victory? *By smaller is meant: the models much lighter than the new Swaro. "pockets". Thanks.

• Perhaps someone could explain this? Thanks. Wnen the optically best 8x32s currently are compared with those two 8x30s: in a 32 the exit pupil is 7% larger, 14% more light can get in, the "twilight factor" is 3% higher, but the 32s are much bigger in size and weight than proportionial to those advantages, and the 30s have a signifc. wider view; it seems the 32s are optically better only in glare control; the 30s also cost vastly less.
 
Last edited:
I can only speak from experience regarding Ultravids and pre CL-P Swaros.

Cutting to the chase and dealing with the comparison as a holistic thing, I'd say the two 10x30s mentioned do pretty well.

For me it's not so much about claims and data tables; it's about being out there, seeing something, pulling a binocular up to your face and having it simply work.

I don't want to be fighting with having to fine-tune IPD or eye placement, nor fiddle about with awkward controls or have to think about which finger goes where to hold the thing in such a way that it's comfortable and manoeuvrable. Neither do I want to have my view distracted by errant light, excessive distortion, or any number of other issues that end up making the binocular the focus of attention rather than the subject.

What works for / bugs me is a very personal thing but getting to the point; of the binoculars in question, I'd personally go for the order of Ultravid, M7, Kite, Pre CL-P Swaro for the best-to-least-best overall viewing / handling experience in multiple habitat types. I could be persuaded that in favourable light (ie nothing that may induce low-light glare / near sun flare), when trying for flitting warblers, the extra FoV of the Kite and M7 might see them topping the choice list.

If the optical quality of the Ultravid could be reproduced in the Kite's clean chassis (with a locking diopter as the cherry) and a FoV of somewhere north of 115/1000 I'd buy it in a flash.

Hang on, did I just describe a 10x30 Ultravid?

Generally, I don't perceive much advantage in 32mm objectives compared to 30mm, but do perceive significant advantages in the slightly smaller objective size in as much as the overall package can be made usefully smaller and lighter making the 10x30 format a great all-round potentially optically excellent package that can be used with great success in any habitat and carried, unobtrusively, virtually anywhere.
 
I can only speak from experience regarding Ultravids and pre CL-P Swaros.

Cutting to the chase and dealing with the comparison as a holistic thing, I'd say the two 10x30s mentioned do pretty well.

For me it's not so much about claims and data tables; it's about being out there, seeing something, pulling a binocular up to your face and having it simply work.

I don't want to be fighting with having to fine-tune IPD or eye placement, nor fiddle about with awkward controls or have to think about which finger goes where to hold the thing in such a way that it's comfortable and manoeuvrable. Neither do I want to have my view distracted by errant light, excessive distortion, or any number of other issues that end up making the binocular the focus of attention rather than the subject.

What works for / bugs me is a very personal thing but getting to the point; of the binoculars in question, I'd personally go for the order of Ultravid, M7, Kite, Pre CL-P Swaro for the best-to-least-best overall viewing / handling experience in multiple habitat types. I could be persuaded that in favourable light (ie nothing that may induce low-light glare / near sun flare), when trying for flitting warblers, the extra FoV of the Kite and M7 might see them topping the choice list.

If the optical quality of the Ultravid could be reproduced in the Kite's clean chassis (with a locking diopter as the cherry) and a FoV of somewhere north of 115/1000 I'd buy it in a flash.

Hang on, did I just describe a 10x30 Ultravid?

Generally, I don't perceive much advantage in 32mm objectives compared to 30mm, but do perceive significant advantages in the slightly smaller objective size in as much as the overall package can be made usefully smaller and lighter making the 10x30 format a great all-round potentially optically excellent package that can be used with great success in any habitat and carried, unobtrusively, virtually anywhere.

crinkly,

the sample 8x30 M7 i tried didn't have any major flare issues. only when looking up at the tops of trees with the sun at a close angle did i see flaring, and that was limited to the opposite corner of the view. those bare metal parts that others talked about were painted on this sample.

at first the depth of focus on the M7 bothered me, particularly under dim lighting conditions that make focusing difficult to begin with, but under sunny skies, i had no problem with the focuser, which was fast enough but no Quicks Draw.

however, in the 10x30/32 roofs i've tried, the depth of focus has always been very shallow, making them fiddly to deal with, which is something neither of us like, i gather. even in some 8x32 roofs, the depth of focus was shallow.

i must assume that the examples you gave above do not have an issue with shallow depth of focus whereby you can easily overshoot your target since you mentioned you don't like 'fiddly' bins?

i'm particularly interested in your experience with the 10x30 M7. i liked the 8x30 model at lot, but miss having a 10x bin, plus i would tend to use the roofs more in adverse weather and in the winter instead of my SE and EII/ and under those conditions, i'm more likely to be looking long so 10x would be a better choice.

was the depth of focus deep enough in the 10x30 model to avoid having to fiddle with the focuser in order to achieve best focus?

also, how well did it handle CA? The 8x model was good in this regard, but 10x is more demanding.

brock
 
Last edited:
I agree regarding near-sun flare, the 10x M7 handles this quite well, notably better than the Lynx I tried. The M7 worked OK for me when viewing subjects at a near-sun angle, some flare was evident but it didn't interfere to a point where I was distracted.

My biggest downer with light control on the 10x M7 is in low light conditions where veiling glare can make viewing problematic. If you imagine a grey winter day when looking at a dull and uniform subject, for example a leafless hedgerow or row of conifers, the M7 can throw up a crescent of 'fug' that I previously described as like a smokescreen. Quickly changing to either my 10x Swaro CL-P or my 8x32 Trinovid (which I had with me to help to evaluate the M7) saw normal service resumed and the 'wall' of vegetation clearly visible with no veiling glare.

I would describe the depth of view as adequate and constant re-focusing was not something that occupied my mind. DoV is not as good as, for example, my 8x32 Trinovid, but it didn't detract from the usability for me - helping this is the very nice focusing wheel, very smooth and no slack.

Colour fringing was evident when provoked - particularly when off axis looking at dark boughs against grey skies - which often saw a turquoise / magenta separation each side of said boughs. This wasn't debilitating though and in 'normal' viewing wasn't a problem. It had to be specifically looked for (towards the periphery) in tricky situations.

All up, as before, the M7 10x30 is undeniably super value for money and if it wasn't for the veiling glare I would happily use one as my day-to-day bin. As it is, my wife took it on and is happy with it; not that she isn't discerning, it's just that she has a balanced relationship with optics - and tends to break things.
 
... I'd personally go for the order of Ultravid, M7, Kite, Pre CL-P Swaro for the best-to-least-best overall viewing / handling experience in multiple habitat types. ... in favourable light (ie nothing that may induce low-light glare / near sun flare), when trying for flitting warblers, the extra FoV of the Kite and M7 might see them topping the choice list. ...

That order is v. interesting. But in twilight I think this will be different, with the two 8x30s nearly as bright as the best 8x32s, the 10x25s distinctly less.

If the optical quality of the Ultravid could be reproduced in the Kite's clean chassis ... and a FoV of somewhere north of 115/1000 ... Hang on, did I just describe a 10x30 Ultravid?

Not quite - *far* north - there's no reason why the FoV shouldn't go up to the 145 of the Kite and Nikon! Maybe the "alphas" are on their way - seems like a winning config.!
 
I agree regarding near-sun flare, the 10x M7 handles this quite well, notably better than the Lynx I tried. The M7 worked OK for me when viewing subjects at a near-sun angle, some flare was evident but it didn't interfere to a point where I was distracted.

My biggest downer with light control on the 10x M7 is in low light conditions where veiling glare can make viewing problematic. If you imagine a grey winter day when looking at a dull and uniform subject, for example a leafless hedgerow or row of conifers, the M7 can throw up a crescent of 'fug' that I previously described as like a smokescreen. Quickly changing to either my 10x Swaro CL-P or my 8x32 Trinovid (which I had with me to help to evaluate the M7) saw normal service resumed and the 'wall' of vegetation clearly visible with no veiling glare.

I would describe the depth of view as adequate and constant re-focusing was not something that occupied my mind. DoV is not as good as, for example, my 8x32 Trinovid, but it didn't detract from the usability for me - helping this is the very nice focusing wheel, very smooth and no slack.

Colour fringing was evident when provoked - particularly when off axis looking at dark boughs against grey skies - which often saw a turquoise / magenta separation each side of said boughs. This wasn't debilitating though and in 'normal' viewing wasn't a problem. It had to be specifically looked for (towards the periphery) in tricky situations.

All up, as before, the M7 10x30 is undeniably super value for money and if it wasn't for the veiling glare I would happily use one as my day-to-day bin. As it is, my wife took it on and is happy with it; not that she isn't discerning, it's just that she has a balanced relationship with optics - and tends to break things.

Thanks for answering my questions. The light weight of the 10x30 M7 might be an issue for me. I find I need some "heft" to keep the bad vibrations from happening, though ergonomics are just as important. The Nikon 10x35 EII is 2 ounces lighter than the 10x42 SE, but it's also smaller, so the weight/size ratio is more ideal, and I had no problem holding the 10X EII steady. Not sure if that would be true with the 10x30 M7, and I would be using it in the winter when the lighting conditions you mention induce veiling glare are present.

I already tried the 10x42 M5, which, AFAIK, has the same body as the 10x42 M7, and the M5 was hard for me to hold steady. I can't get a good grip on it like I can with the 8x30 model, which has skinnier barrels that allow fingers from both hands to wrap around. With the 10x42, I could only fit fingers from one hand into the "open hinge."

Glad your wife liked the M7. If she breaks it, you're covered by Nikon's No Fault policy.

Brock
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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