Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Saturday 8th September 2012, 02:09   #1
atforest
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20
Nikon Monarch 7 versus Vortex Viper HD

Between the Nikon Monarch 7s or the Vortex Viper HD:

1. Which one is the better glass?
2. Which one is the better value?
atforest is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 8th September 2012, 02:17   #2
NDhunter
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 2,290
Welcome to the Birdforum.
You have a good question, on 2 very good optics, and both new to the market.

I have wanted to try these, but have not found them yet in the store.
I am thinking they are very close in optics as would be the reports.

You are in a large market area, so try them for yourself. I would not trust
anyone else in that decision. Your eyes are what is important.

Jerry
NDhunter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 8th September 2012, 02:31   #3
atforest
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhunter View Post
Welcome to the Birdforum.
You are in a large market area, so try them for yourself. I would not trust
anyone else in that decision. Your eyes are what is important.

Jerry
Good point, thanks! I have been able to look through the Viper HD, but that retailer did not have the Monarchs in stock. I do plan to go to Cabelas to look through both. I just posted this up in case there is more to one of these than meets the eye, like known issues...
atforest is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 8th September 2012, 17:21   #4
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 2,190
I managed to try them both the same day but not side by side.

I guess I had high expectations for the Monarch 7. I've never been a fan of the MkII/III and it's true the FOV, high CA and glare issues have all improved significantly and I found it much more rewarding to use as a consequence. However the outer field softness I found distracting and surprising at that price. It's something you need to figure out for yourself how it works for you. I much preferred the Viper HD.

David
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 9th September 2012, 20:56   #5
carjug
Registered User
 
carjug's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bottom of Smoky Mountains, North Carolina
Posts: 245
Blog Entries: 1
Check the back forums for one of my postings about the old Nikon Monarchs from a few years ago VS a new Vortex Viper. At this point in time I would love to have an expensive set of Nikons with 45mm lenses. The monarchs are good, but their 42 mm lenses don't catch the light like the Vortex 50mms. The Vortex cost 700 bucks, over twice the price of The monarchs, they have a lousy field of view, they weigh a holy ton, and I prefer them over the monarchs by a landslide. The images are amazing.
I bet you have a tough choice !!!!
carjug is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 10th September 2012, 01:59   #6
Trogon4323
Registered User
 
Trogon4323's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Eastern Washington
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
I managed to try them both the same day but not side by side.

I guess I had high expectations for the Monarch 7. I've never been a fan of the MkII/III and it's true the FOV, high CA and glare issues have all improved significantly and I found it much more rewarding to use as a consequence. However the outer field softness I found distracting and surprising at that price. It's something you need to figure out for yourself how it works for you. I much preferred the Viper HD.

David
Took the father-in-law to cabela's today for comparison shopping of binocs in the 500$ range including Viper HD 8x42, Talon HD 8x42, and Monarch 7 8x42. He's looking to upgrade early generation eagle optics rangers and we both preferred the Monarch 7 overall.

We compared the four samples, incuding his old rangers, both inside and outside this morning. I'd feel comfortable taking either the Talon or Monarch 7 on a high-stakes birding trip as a back-up to my Zeiss FL 7x42. The Viper's field of view was narrow to the point of distraction for me although otherwise they were fine- even impressive but I can't get past the soda straw field.

I agree wholeheartedly that you should look for yourself as the only opinion that matters in the end... well you get the idea.

Good birding,
Clint
Trogon4323 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 10th September 2012, 07:20   #7
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 2,190
Clint,

Glad you enjoyed the M7. I'm sure Nikon would have checked user opinion and determined the majority would like the design so my reaction may not be typical. I'm not someone that obsesses about flat sharp edges, but at least on the pair I tried too much of the view was fuzzy for my liking. Somewhere round 50% if I recall correctly. It wasn't field curvature as it didn't focus out. The Viper had more usable FOV.

By the way, the AFOV on the Zeiss 7x42 is almost the same as the Viper. I rather like that one too.

Have fun.

David

Last edited by typo : Monday 10th September 2012 at 07:33.
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 11th September 2012, 02:51   #8
atforest
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by carjug View Post
The Vortex cost 700 bucks, over twice the price of The monarchs, they have a lousy field of view, they weigh a holy ton, and I prefer them over the monarchs by a landslide. The images are amazing.
That says a lot right there. I might add that I have some Diamondbacks right now, and I cannot tell any difference between them and the standard Monarchs (minus the size and weight of course).
atforest is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 18th September 2012, 19:07   #9
mikefreiberg
Registered User
 
mikefreiberg's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 248
I have had the chance to use the Monarch 7 for over a month now. The contrast that is gained in lower light is something I haven't seen matched in this price point. I was able to see minor plumage details of basic plumage Olive Warblers last month in dark Arizona pine-oak forests. The few I have tested out had minimal edge distortion. I was shocked to see 50% in a comment.

Most of all, for me, the balance is excellent. Weight could also play a factor, but I haven't put mine down in nearly 5-6 weeks and I have all of our binoculars at my disposal. I wish you well in your choice and am here to help if I can.

Good Birding!

All the best,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist
mikefreiberg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th September 2012, 13:03   #10
huntabsarokee
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NE PA
Posts: 61
I purchased both of these in 8x at Cabelas and took them home for a week for a try out. They are very similar in many ways. I ended up returning the Vipers since the M7s were less $$$$ and had a wider field of view. Just got back from hunting elk in CO and was impressed with my them.
huntabsarokee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th September 2012, 17:26   #11
eitanaltman
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,156
this review of Monarch 7 vs. Viper HD might be helpful:
http://www.opticsreviewer.com/monarc...-elite-ed.html
eitanaltman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th September 2012, 18:43   #12
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 2,190
Mike,

If you found my 50% comment shocking have a look at the reviews from Eitans link. He might have preferred the Monarch but have a look at the individual reviews. The reviewer judged only 43% of the view of the Monarch7 sharp or about 27.5* AFOV. The Viper HD on the other hand he found 87% of the view sharp which would be about 46*AFOV (on the 8x). That's a 67% greater radius or about 3 fold greater area in sharp focus on the Viper HD. I know which I'd prefer.

David
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th September 2012, 22:41   #13
lilcrazy2
Registered User
 
lilcrazy2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Delaware
Posts: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Mike,

If you found my 50% comment shocking have a look at the reviews from Eitans link. He might have preferred the Monarch but have a look at the individual reviews. The reviewer judged only 43% of the view of the Monarch7 sharp or about 27.5* AFOV. The Viper HD on the other hand he found 87% of the view sharp which would be about 46*AFOV (on the 8x). That's a 67% greater radius or about 3 fold greater area in sharp focus on the Viper HD. I know which I'd prefer.

David
David
The way I read the review, comparisons would be 71% for the M7 and 87% on the ViperHD. On the Viper they don't mention where the slight softening occurs - only the significant blurring.
lilcrazy2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th September 2012, 23:00   #14
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 2,190
It's true they don't discriminate between mild and severe softening on the Viper. As I recall they were close percentages. I'd have put them just over 90% on a personal ranking. I figured I lost the ability to discriminate between similar LBJs at 50% with the M7. 43% soft focus I wouldn't argue with. I just found the M7 very odd with a broad band of soft focus. The review description sounds about right to me. I just draw a different conclusion.

David

Last edited by typo : Thursday 20th September 2012 at 07:08.
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th September 2012, 23:39   #15
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,404
I wonder if Nikon, and other full-range manufacturers, may be finding themselves in the curious position of having to "handicap" their lower cost binoculars to avoid competing with their higher priced models.

Whatever Nikon did with the new Monarch (and I'll reserve judgment until I see it. I got a feeling it's a little better than the extant reviews suggest)--whatever Nikon did I suspect was done intentionally. At this point in time, with Nikon's wherewithal, Chinese factories, and a nice $500 price tag, there's no reason they couldn't have delivered something essentially alpha--not flat field maybe, but otherwise alpha. I suspect they chose not to, in order to keep the high-priced stuff in the running.

I could be wrong, but I begin to suspect...

Mark
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2012, 00:01   #16
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 2,190
While my gut indistinct suggests deliberate, I've had a word on the grapevine that QC, even in the alpha brands totally ignore actual visual reality and are merely designed to deliver merely useless average photometrics.

David

Last edited by typo : Thursday 20th September 2012 at 00:03.
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th September 2012, 00:37   #17
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
I wonder if Nikon, and other full-range manufacturers, may be finding themselves in the curious position of having to "handicap" their lower cost binoculars to avoid competing with their higher priced models.

Whatever Nikon did with the new Monarch (and I'll reserve judgment until I see it. I got a feeling it's a little better than the extant reviews suggest)--whatever Nikon did I suspect was done intentionally. At this point in time, with Nikon's wherewithal, Chinese factories, and a nice $500 price tag, there's no reason they couldn't have delivered something essentially alpha--not flat field maybe, but otherwise alpha. I suspect they chose not to, in order to keep the high-priced stuff in the running.

I could be wrong, but I begin to suspect...

Mark
They kept all their former Alphas (the LX Ls) except the 10 x 32 which all had flat fields (along with the SEs). Then they renamed them "Premier" and raised their prices. If they were going to upgrade their Monarch line without getting too costly and making it their 3rd line alpha they had to stop somewhere after they added the dielectric prisms and made the views wider.

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Thursday 20th September 2012 at 00:39.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2010
Click here to Support BirdForum
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vortex Viper 65 HD vs Nikon Fieldscope III 60 non-ED? Lawlu Spotting Scopes & tripod/heads 4 Thursday 21st June 2012 13:02
Nikon Monarch Compared to Vortex Viper carjug Others 4 Tuesday 14th February 2012 11:39
hawke frontier ed versus nikon monarch harold9649 Others 14 Tuesday 13th January 2009 09:49
Nikon Monarch ATB 8x42 vs Vortex Viper 8x42 vs Leupold Golden Ring 8x42 vs others cnybirder Binoculars 18 Tuesday 18th March 2008 15:18
Nikon Monarchs Vs vortex viper geordie121 Binoculars 4 Wednesday 24th October 2007 13:21

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Search the net with ask.com
Help support BirdForum
Ask.com and get

Page generated in 0.17678308 seconds with 26 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:27.