Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

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 Tuesday 25th July 2017, 22:15   #1
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 10,740
Nikon Monarch HGs in Cabelas Fall Catalog

The Nikon Monarch HGs have appeared in Cabelas Fall Mail Order Catalog.

Prices are $979.99 for the 8x42 and $999.99 for the 10x42.

There is also a listing for the new Leupold Tioga HD binoculars which are priced from $269.99 to $379.99 but the sizes for them are not given.

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th July 2017, 23:47   #2
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,181
Thanks Bob!

After reading your post, I checked Cabela's online and they are now listed there.

08X42 http://www.cabelas.com/product/NIKON...2Bmonarch%2Bhg

10X42 http://www.cabelas.com/product/NIKON...2Bmonarch%2Bhg

I did an inventory check and my store shows a limited supply of the 10X42 in stock, so I will have to check it out. As expected, there was no 8X42. 10X is much more popular out here.

One customer posted two reviews. The second was a follow up to document a problem with a shifting diopter adjustment. It happened on the original purchase which was exchanged for a replacement and then the same problem happened on the second unit. He then traded the second unit for a Zeiss Conquest which has been trouble free.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 29th July 2017, 01:27   #3
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,181
I made it to the Glendale, AZ Cabela's store the other night and looked at the new Nikon HG 10X42 that they had in stock. I am mainly interested in the 8X42 but I thought it would be worth while to get an idea of the build and optics of this new model. I am glad I checked it out because I liked it.

It does have a lighter feel compared to others in this class and it had a nice feel in the hands feeling slightly thinner.

Mechanics all seemed good. The hinge tightness was tighter than what I have seen in the EDG and that is good. The focus was very good but just not quite as ball bearing smooth as an EDG. However it is better than most other models being sold. The diopter adjustment is on the right side and twists like most. It is not overly tight but it should hold the set position. The ring slides up and down to lock or unlock but it is loose and I doubt it will hold the lock position. That should not be an issue since there is enough friction to keep the ring from easily turning.

I liked the optics. The evaluation was brief and under store lights and the binoculars were not braced so I was just trying to get a general idea of how they performed. I did not come across anything objectionable and was pleased with what I saw. As mentioned by others, the view was not sharp clear to the edge, but it did have a nice large center view. The view was nice and bright with good contrast.

I did compare it with a Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD and concluded the Nikon is a good challenger. I own a 10X42 HD so that my give me a bias, but if I had to make a decision between the two right then, I lean toward the Zeiss. The Zeiss feels bigger and somewhat heavier so that may be good or bad, depending on what someone likes. Both the sales rep and I thought the apparent brightness was ever so slightly greater on the Conquest.

Ergonomics will probably be a major factor in deciding between the two and that comes down to personal preferences. From what I could tell with my brief comparison, the optics are close enough so that factors such as weight, balance, eye placement, etc. will carry more weight in the selection.

One other consideration is which company to go with and I think Zeiss Sports Optics is the easy winner in that category. They have a great warranty, support the birding community, and have direct optics support. Nikon has changed their warranty multiple times over the last few years, scaled down their optics representation significantly and seem to put their retail emphasis on photography.

After saying the above, I would go for the Nikon HG in the 8X42 to best meet my personal preferences. Two reasons are the lighter weight which I like in the 8X power range and the wide FOV. Overall I liked the HG model line and if I come across an 8X42 at the right time and at the right price, I will likely give it try.

Some other binoculars in this same class to consider are the new Leica Trinovid, the Maven B1 line, Tract Toric, GPO HD, and several more. There are a lot of good choices out there. The Nikon HG along with the Zeiss Conquest HD should be on the list for anyone interested in a sub alpha model.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 29th July 2017, 03:29   #4
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 3,474
Bruce, I have high hopes for the Nikon MHG 10x42 in particular, so was waiting on your opinion eagerly, considering your other bins. I'm finding your comments of the MHG firmly being in the sub-Alpha consideration group, and in comparison to the Conquest HD a bit of a let down ....

Despite specs of the HD which show it is within cooee of the Alphas, I find it to be a total 'meh' for me - nowhere near the Wow of a Zeiss HT, or Swarovski SV (particularly the 10x50). It just doesn't do a thing for me. I even much prefer the view of the Zen-Ray ED3 in comparison.

Knowing that you own the Zeiss SF 10x42, and are quite happy with it, I was hoping that you would say that the MHG visibly smokes the HD, and is more comparable with the SF.

Still, due to its design parameters (and somehow sensible pricing for once in Oz), it's still a big contender for me, and I should get to do some extensive A/B'ing in a few months time. Will let everyone know what I see then .....


Chosun
Chosun Juan is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 29th July 2017, 08:14   #5
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,335
I had a quick look at the HG when it was launched at BirdFair last summer. Some nice plusses, weight, FoV, and ergonomics, but for me, in a direct comparison to the EDG, it didn't come close. I've realised in the past that samples rushed out for a launch event may not represent the regular production standard so didn't put to much weight on it.

In the last month or two I've had a couple more chances to briefly compare it to other models, but perhaps not the ones some might wish. Bruce has covered the ergonomic side well so I won't go into the details of that again. Just summarise it by saying the ergonomics would suite me very well indeed. However the HG is not on my wish list. Yes the FoV is nice, if not particularly flat, but I wouldn't consider that a problem. It's what's going on in the centre that rather disappointed me. That's not to say it's bad, just didn't meet my expectations.

The regular price of the HG is 780. From Nikon, I was hoping it would be biting at the heals of the 1000 models smaller players. The Kowa Genesis and Kite Bonelli 2.0 were just sharper. Their colour, contrast and micro detail were obviously better. Although I didn't get out the line chart I suspect the HG was behind on effective resolution too. I then checked them against a couple of cheaper, Japanese made Opticrons. That was a lot closer, possibly the DBA VHD the nearest, but it struck me that in such company, the HG wasn't looking or feeling very Japanese at all. Something to ponder on.

David

Last edited by typo : Saturday 29th July 2017 at 08:21.
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 29th July 2017, 08:43   #6
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 3,474
Unhappy

'Gulp'! Thanks David (I think!? :), though that doesn't sound very encouraging at all - I had hoped they'd be punching well above their price - not struggling to justify it.

In an ideal world I had hoped they'd be just light weight, larger Fov, better valued EDG's, which would then provide the impetus and the market space to push a new generation (III) of EDG's to the top of the Alpha pack, and into the performance stratosphere (their price is already there! :)

It looks like in typical dinosauric consumer product behemoth fashion, they are 'protecting' the existing product line up by carefully segmenting and knobbling the performance of the various levels to suit. The whole lot then evolves on a geological timescale ..... fantastic if they have the majority of the market cornered - not so good when they are inconsequential bit players (especially at the top end of town).



Chosun
Chosun Juan is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 30th July 2017, 04:40   #7
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,181
CJ ...... Don't give up on the Nikon HG yet. My comments are based on just the first pass. It was basically a pass/fail evaluation. I concluded it passed and it can continue on to the next round. It was not an in depth evaluation so maybe there is hope that the HG will perform much better than the Zeiss Conquest in your tests.

It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from a brief store evaluation, but I did not see anything that put the HG in the Zeiss SF category. However I like the Conquest HD and I am not sure why we differ so much on that model. Although the HG will most likely not be up to SF levels, I think it can be very nice if it compares well to the Conquest. Maybe what ever it is about the Conquest that does not work for you is missing from the HG and it will be a good performer for you. Hopefully you will get to see one soon and let us know what you think.

Just out of curiosity, are Nikon binoculars popular and easy to come across in stores in Australia?
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 31st July 2017, 02:06   #8
chill6x6
Registered User
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 834
It's a BIRDING binocular...

Optically it's not perfect nor is it the BEST. But take it out in the field and USE it...it's a pretty dang good birding binocular.

Is there an 8X42 that has more FOV other than a approx $2400 SF? I don't think so.

Probably the smoothest focus this side of an EDG...

Weight of 24.4 ounces WITH objective covers in place...I don't think that can be beaten.

Eye cups are very good....plenty of eye relief.

Very nice color rendition. Nice bright, clear image.

Seemingly very well made..

Compares very favorably with other binoculars in its price point(i.e. Maven B.1, Leica Trinovid HD, etc.

IMO it's about as close as one can get to having it ALL at this price. One just hast to determine what ALL is for them.

So with the Monarch HG one gets very nice optics, low weight, smaller stature, excellent focus, objective covers that say on, head of the class FOV, nice eye cups....less than $900....

It's prob THE 8X42 birding binocular I'd recommend for less than $900-$1000. I just can't come up with one has so many high points/nice features for that price...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC00070.JPG
Views:	97
Size:	74.9 KB
ID:	634605  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_0052.jpg
Views:	105
Size:	62.4 KB
ID:	634606  
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 31st July 2017, 06:40   #9
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,335
Chuck,

The way I use binoculars, they are simply a tool to view birds clearly at greater distance. I could see birds more clearly at greater distance with the Kowa and the Kite than I could with the Monarch HG. You may well see things differently, but that's the nature of things.

David

Last edited by typo : Monday 31st July 2017 at 06:54.
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 31st July 2017, 17:46   #10
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 3,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
CJ ...... Don't give up on the Nikon HG yet. My comments to me)re based on just the first pass. It was basically a pass/fail evaluation. I concluded it passed and it can continue on to the next round. It was not an in depth evaluation so maybe there is hope that the HG will perform much better than the Zeiss Conquest in your tests.

It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from a brief store evaluation, but I did not see anything that put the HG in the Zeiss SF category. However I like the Conquest HD and I am not sure why we differ so much on that model. Although the HG will most likely not be up to SF levels, I think it can be very nice if it compares well to the Conquest. Maybe what ever it is about the Conquest that does not work for you is missing from the HG and it will be a good performer for you. Hopefully you will get to see one soon and let us know what you think.

Just out of curiosity, are Nikon binoculars popular and easy to come across in stores in Australia?
Bruce, I will give it a tryout in 10x mainly because of the large Fov, packaging (thanks for the pictures Chuck! - awesome! :) and light weight, though I doubt the small size single bridge ergos will thrill me - but I'm ready for that comprise - I just hope that I can hold it steady ...

David has a pretty consistent and reliable eye for sharpness, so his opinion carries a fair bit of weight with me - unfortunately that would line up with the marketing segmentation and protection I described. I would guess that they're just designed and constructed to the more lax end of the resolution standard (ie. the new lower ISO limits). I probably won't get a chance to see for myself until the November Bird Fair.

One of the things going on with me and the Conquest HD might be a less than harmonious marriage between the viewing box and my glasses/ ER /alignment requirements. It happens, that's the way it is. Though the confined (to me) Fov, and warm colour cast which I find gives the distinct impression of a muddy view to me, and just generally yukky ergos feeling for me don't help either.

Unless the MHG smokes the HD it's going to be in a bit of trouble for me ....

I don't really have a dedicated binocular shop nearby - there's Camera House which stock most photography bodies and a fair few lenses, and a few low end bins - Nikon Prostaffs or something might be among them, along with Bushnell Trophys and $500 AUD 8x36 Legends !!! They have the smaller Canon IS III's, but nothing else worth looking through .....

Australian Retail until very recently has been in an alternate universe, but that's slowly changing (the recent Nikon 100 year anniversary sale even had D500's etc cheaper than Stateside). Hopefully there'll be some Bird Fair specials ...... the MHG's sound like decent $700 bins .....


Chosun
Chosun Juan is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 31st July 2017, 21:53   #11
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,506
I would like to give my impressions of the new Nikon Monarch HG 10x42. I have had mine a couple
of weeks now, and so have had some time to get acquainted.

I agree with much of what Bruce has said above, the HG is a nicely finished binocular and for Monarch
users, this one has a much harder armor than the softer on the others. I have grown to like this and it
will not suffer from scuffing. I like the thinner armor, and I think it helps in reducing the weight compared
to some others, specs. are 25 oz. from Nikon, and I have not weighed this one. This makes it the lightest
of the newer mid-range binoculars out there.

One feature that is new to this model, is the tethered eyecups are part of the lower barrels, as they snap
into a secure groove. They can be removed for those that do like to use objective covers, and replaced
with a provided rubber bumper, and this allows a lot of clearance to protect the objective lens, at least 1/2
inch, a nice idea.

Moving on to the eyecups, they are made of metal, and have 4 positions, without glasses, I am searching
for the best spot, either full out or one down. They have a nice locking secure feel.
The focuser is smooth in typical Nikon fashion, and I like the handling with the bridge quite high which lets you
wrap 2 full fingers on the barrels. The strap provided must be the longest one I have ever found, too long for
me, so I have replaced it with another one.

Moving on to optics, I like to compare binoculars, and I have had the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 for almost 4 years
now, and I have said several times on the site, how much I like it.
Both of these binoculars compare very well, and I will give the Zeiss a small advantage in brightness, but
the HG has a wider sweet spot, and for a 10x42 a very wide FOV of 6.9*, compared to the Nikon EDG which
is a more typical 6.5*. I give the HG higher marks, for a wider sweet spot, and the sharpness and color seems
very good and neutral. I have checked for CA, and the HG and Conquest are similar with none in the center
but you can pick up some as you move more to the edges.

So my overall rating is high for this model, and it should be on anyone's list looking for a new midrange.

I have found that a wider FOV is nice, I have the Zeiss SF 10x42 and it has a wide 6.8* FOV, similar
to the HG.

I will say, the HG is not in the highest class, but is close as many midrange models are.

Jerry
NDhunter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 1st August 2017, 00:32   #12
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,181
Jerry ...... Nice review and summation!

I do not use objective covers so the objective replacement rings sounds good not only for the extra protection but with all the depth, they may also serve as a mini lens hood.

That class sure is a competitive field. All the choices are good for us consumers, unless one is indecisive.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 1st August 2017, 00:47   #13
chill6x6
Registered User
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 834
Hi Jerry...
Nice comments about the MHG... I agree with them. I find that mine has few faults.
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 1st August 2017, 00:53   #14
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Chuck,

The way I use binoculars, they are simply a tool to view birds clearly at greater distance. I could see birds more clearly at greater distance with the Kowa and the Kite than I could with the Monarch HG. You may well see things differently, but that's the nature of things.

David
David:

Not sure your reason for dissing the Nikon Monarch HG. I can tell you
have not spent much time with the model.

Those of us on here that own and use the binocular, give it great marks.

Tell us more.

Jerry
NDhunter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 1st August 2017, 00:59   #15
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,181
CJ ..... I am glad to hear have not given up on the new Nikon HG.

David does have a reliable eye for sharpness and he also has excellent vision, better than mine. I am better than 20/20 but not 20/15. So what works for me may not pass the test for David. So long as the binocular can resolve beyond my visual ability, I am good to go but that will not be the case for all. Depending on your vision, the HG may be fine even though others may be able to take advantage of something sharper. I seem to recall that you mentioned your vision numbers in the past, but I do not remember what they are. If they are like mine, then the Nikon will most likely give you a sharp view.

You mentioned that the Conquest HD left an impression of a warm color cast. That caught my interest as mine seems to have a very slight yellow green cast. I am not sure why the difference. Sample variation or maybe you were picking up some reflected light from something warm in color nearby. Hopefully you will get a chance t try one again and check to see if you still get the same results. Nikon has a reputation of being on the warm side so it may look even warmer to you.

Here are links to the Allbino transmission graphs. The Zeiss has a little bit higher transmission and the Nikon skews more toward the warm side. That may explain the comments from some of us that the apparent brightness appears to be slightly greater with the Zess.

Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD
http://www.allbinos.com/upload2/1637...s_conquest.jpg

Nikon HG 10X42
http://www.allbinos.com/upload2/1751...isja_nikon.jpg
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)

Last edited by BruceH : Tuesday 1st August 2017 at 01:06.
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 1st August 2017, 02:27   #16
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 3,474
Arrow

Bruce, my vision is also probably worse than David's - my glasses correct for short sight, and a tiny bit of astigmatism coming along in the right eye.

Perceived Colour variations (and hence apparent brightness too) among all our individual visions here on BF seem to show even greater differences (and not all of them accountable by the age related Monet-style red shift). I find the Conquest HD to be a reddish brown view, almost as I imagine life on Mars to be! Looking at the transmission graphs you linked, perhaps the MHG will seem even worse to me!?

I worked in the TV industry for quite a while, and execs got a big input into the final say in colour reproduction balance, so perhaps I am highly tuned to that .... my 'white balance' is easily distorted. Perhaps the Zeiss coatings have been updated along the way? I will have to wait until Bird Fair to see how the MHG affects my sensibilities ....
Click image for larger version

Name:	20170801_110350.jpg
Views:	36
Size:	120.1 KB
ID:	634732


Chosun
Chosun Juan is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 1st August 2017, 02:39   #17
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,506
Chosun:

I am wondering, are you considering a new binocular purchase, or are you just a side chair
wannabe ?

This is important. As there is much more beyond the Zenray.

Jerry
NDhunter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 1st August 2017, 04:22   #18
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 3,474
Jerry, what I am really looking for is a carbon fibre 9x50 SVFHTFLEWAPB !!

Absent that, I see viable options as 8.5x42SV, or 10X50SV (would probably have one of those if they were lighter, and had a quicker larger focusing wheel), or one of the lightweight 10x42's (MHG, Minox APO), or even the rather longer SF, though those give up something in low light ability - I easily exceed a 4mm exit pupil even in normal daytime viewing in shadows, under canopies etc. So that's one compromise already.

The lightweight compact 10x42's tick a lot of other boxes though, so we shall see .... The MHG is definitely in consideration, even on the business coin ...... I will reserve judgement until I can do appropriate comparisons with my own eyes .....

I know things like the Conquest HD's, Kowa Genesis XP's, Maven ABK's, etc have their fans, but heavy bins, and/or CCW focusers are not what I am looking for, and I really don't like the Conquest HD!

In the meantime the 8x43 ED3's also tick lots and lots of boxes - they certainly raised an eyebrow with the Swarovski head honchos! You should try one .....

You have given your MHG a pretty good rap. I know you have had the 10x42 SF, and 8.5x42 SV for a long time - how do you find your 10x42MHG in comparison to them? Specifically in the areas of:-
1. Resolution/ Sharpness
2. Microcontrast
3. CA handling
4. Brightness
5. Colour cast
6. Vividness of colour at the extremes of the spectrum (ie. the purples/blues, and reds)?

Thanks!


Chosun
Chosun Juan is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 1st August 2017, 10:53   #19
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,335
Jerry,

As Bruce and CJ have pointed our differences in eyesight might be just one reason why opinions will differ. Visual acuity is possibly the most important parameter, but colour, contrast and CA discrimination, to name a few, will all be in the mix.

When I fist joined the forum I'd never tried a high end binocular and was quite ignorant of the technicalities, and when I started posting that one binocular appeared sharper or had higher resolution than another various indignant owners would claim I was wrong. I've tried over a 1000 binoculars since and learned a lot more about eyesight as well as binoculars, and done quite a bit of resolution testing. Turns out I was right. My eyesight is not as good as it was back then, and certainly not as good as it was when I was 20, but if the light is right, and that's important these days, I can still pick out the best resolving binocular in seconds. Many times I've invited to others to check them out and most can't, but a significant minority can. More youngsters than oldies as you might expect.

I've looked through several scientific studies on visulal acuity. At least for the 20 to 60 year old range the average is about 20/15 with the youngsters doing better than oldies. My eyesight vaies a bit but is generally 20/12 for individual eyes with my current glasses. That's relatively common in twenty year olds but rare in the over sixties. Just as I can't resolve the level of detail those with better eyesight mine can, someone with 20/15 or 20/20 can't match what I see. I. (Of course effective resolution and other technical measurements take variations in eyesight out of the equation.)

As I said, I thought there was much to like about the MHG, but I would want sharper at that price (and have found it for less). I presume there must be an acuity threshold beyond which the sharpness/resolution difference becomes undetectable but I don't have a fix on what that might be for the MHG or if it might possibly relate to you. I'm glad you like the MHG but it wold be very rash to assert that because you do everyone else should as well.

David

Last edited by typo : Tuesday 1st August 2017 at 13:05. Reason: Corrected age
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 1st August 2017, 18:07   #20
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 231
If everyone knew and accepted what is said there about visual acuity there will be a lot less argument in this forum.

There are also people like Chuck who present what they see as what they see, and this is so useful for the rest of us.

"...MHG...I would want sharper at that price (and have found it for less)..." David, can you quickly, offhand from memory list those models? I am at best 20/15 but I often lend my binoculars to others mostly younger. Conversely what are the very pricey models which under-perform in this respect? Thank you.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 2nd August 2017, 10:12   #21
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,335
Adhoc,

I started a reply but it was getting rather lengthy and inappropriate for this thread. I'll think about posting it elsewhere.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 2nd August 2017, 23:52   #22
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Jerry,

As Bruce and CJ have pointed our differences in eyesight might be just one reason why opinions will differ. Visual acuity is possibly the most important parameter, but colour, contrast and CA discrimination, to name a few, will all be in the mix.

When I fist joined the forum I'd never tried a high end binocular and was quite ignorant of the technicalities, and when I started posting that one binocular appeared sharper or had higher resolution than another various indignant owners would claim I was wrong. I've tried over a 1000 binoculars since and learned a lot more about eyesight as well as binoculars, and done quite a bit of resolution testing. Turns out I was right. My eyesight is not as good as it was back then, and certainly not as good as it was when I was 20, but if the light is right, and that's important these days, I can still pick out the best resolving binocular in seconds. Many times I've invited to others to check them out and most can't, but a significant minority can. More youngsters than oldies as you might expect.

I've looked through several scientific studies on visulal acuity. At least for the 20 to 60 year old range the average is about 20/15 with the youngsters doing better than oldies. My eyesight vaies a bit but is generally 20/12 for individual eyes with my current glasses. That's relatively common in twenty year olds but rare in the over sixties. Just as I can't resolve the level of detail those with better eyesight mine can, someone with 20/15 or 20/20 can't match what I see. I. (Of course effective resolution and other technical measurements take variations in eyesight out of the equation.)

As I said, I thought there was much to like about the MHG, but I would want sharper at that price (and have found it for less). I presume there must be an acuity threshold beyond which the sharpness/resolution difference becomes undetectable but I don't have a fix on what that might be for the MHG or if it might possibly relate to you. I'm glad you like the MHG but it wold be very rash to assert that because you do everyone else should as well.

David
David:

I suppose there are attributes that are most important in a binocular.
Your thing seems to be sharpness, and that is important.

As has been posted earlier, many things are also important, including
ergos, quality of build, focuser, quality of fov and others. They all have
a score in ranking a binocular. See Allbinos for some of what they use.

I think it is rash of you, to think others may like a binocular that they
have owned and used for a time and have actually used the optic. It seems you
have had just a short trial.

That seems short sited. I am looking forward to your posts about "sharpness"
and many call that resolution. You can tell us about your testing methods,
side by side tests, and arc second scores.

If you have tried many binoculars, you should have the skills.

Jerry

Last edited by NDhunter : Thursday 3rd August 2017 at 00:42.
NDhunter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 3rd August 2017, 07:56   #23
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,335
Jerry,

How many days or weeks do you spend in the optometrist's chair deciding which lens is sharpest? ;-)

Just want to point out a little morsel of information that might put things in perspective. The ISO resolution standard that all the major players work by is 240/D. I'll skip the maths, but if that level or resolution was uniform acoss the objective it would translate effectivelyas 20/16 acuity cut off. Fortunately most come out a bit better than that, but not every sample, or every model.

I've resolution tested about 30 binoculars that I either own, or have had for at least a couple of weeks to review. The stopped down values (20mm for an 8x) range from an amazing 5.8" to the pretty miserable 14.5". That approximates to 20/7.7 and 20/19. That will give you a pretty good idea if a binocular will look soft for your eyesight. Even that $25 roof have sufficient resolution for those with 20/20 vision but differences in microcontrast or sharpness with better binoculars might still be evident. You will have to take my word for it that I can see such differences in resolution, but it was easier a couple of years ago when my acuity was 20/11or 20/9 with two eyes... on a good day!


To keep things simple, rather than use arcsecond or VA values I'll just use a 'Typo score' of 1 to 10 for the rest of this post and roughly cover the arcsecond equivalent of equivalent of 20/20 to 20/8, so even 1 will be quite acceptable for some. These are visual estimates in most cases are based on comparison with my own binoculars and others available when the light is close to optimal for visual acuity. I don't rate resolution in poor light. If go to Birdfair or a retailer I'll normally take my ZenRay Prime 10x42 or Vanguard EDII 8x42 for reference. I would score those as an 8 and 8.5 respectively though I need a tripod for the decimal points. These were very good for the money when I got them, but the market is improving all the time and I would certainly look for better with newer, more expensive models (if I had the money). What follows are some memorable comparisons.

UK launch day for the Zeiss Terra.
Terra
S1: 3
S2: 6
S3: 5
S4: 9
Conquest HD
S1: 8
S1: 7
S3: 7
S4: 8
HT 8X42:
S1: 9
S2: 9+
S3: 8+
HT 8x54: 5

About 4 or 5 years ago on the Swarovski stand. I think there have been at least 4 versions of the ELSV 8.5x42, and this was when the second, and to my mind the worst version was around.
CL
S1: 3
S2: 3
S3: 3
S4: 4
ELSV 8x32
S1: 9
S2: 9
ELSV 8.5x42
S1: 7
S2: 7
SLC
S1: 9
S2: 8

Vortex Razor HD
8x42: 8
10x42: 8
10x50: 9+

Meopta Meostar
8x42: 8
10x42HD: 9
12x42HD: 10

Kowa Genesis 8.544: 10
KITE Bonelli 2.0: 10
Nikon EDG: 9+
Nikon Monarch HG: 7
Opticron DBA VHD: 7

The following is acompilations from different occations
Leica
UV: 8
UV: plus 9
Noctivid: 10
Trinovid HD: 8
Trinovid: 6

I think this illustrates that not only is there variation between models there is variation between samples. That is particularly evident at lower price points as the Terra samples show. I've seen samples of amongst the cheaper models from Vortex, Kowa, Opticron, Kowa, Minox, Celestron, Hawke and Nikon that would score 8 or occasionally 9, but that wouldn't represent the model as a whole. The Fujinon KF 8x32W, a Sightron clone I reviewed, scored a 10 (confirmed by testing) but I would be very surprised if that was representative of the model. I now have measured results of '10' for the Meostar HD12x50 and Kite Bonelli 2.0 as well.

I've now tried 4 samples of the Monarch HD on three separate occasion and I'd score them all a 7 for apparent resolution. I've said twice already I like the ergonomics and other characteristics, so I find that a disappointment. It's no surprise to me, as I have explained that others might judge it differently

Now Jerry, over to you. What's your acuity, and what are your resolution scores for those models? Obviously we need them backed up by resolution testing, "you should have the skills". In arcseconds please, I can take it.

David

Last edited by typo : Thursday 3rd August 2017 at 08:26. Reason: Clarification
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 3rd August 2017, 12:47   #24
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,774
Very interesting test results.
Perhaps the industry needs a tighter standard, as a good fraction of the population has better than 20/20 vision.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 3rd August 2017, 21:48   #25
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
Very interesting test results.
Perhaps the industry needs a tighter standard, as a good fraction of the population has better than 20/20 vision.
A new ISO document was published last year with no significant change to the resolution standard which was very disappointing. However I do see one or two encouraging signs. I know at least one of the Japanese OEMs has been offering a higher resolution standard as an option for many years which might explain a couple of my best results. I also know Zeiss have been away aware of our concerns for a while now and hear that their German representatatives at least have been claiming they have adopted new improved QC standards. Lets hope that bodes well for the future and that others follow suit.

David

Last edited by typo : Thursday 3rd August 2017 at 21:56.
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
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
nikon aculon 7x50 vs nikon monarch 5 8x42 astronomy Jake21 Nikon 2 Saturday 8th August 2015 16:30
Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 or Monarch 5 8x42 frootz Nikon 17 Monday 9th December 2013 16:21
Nikon ED50 or Bino Nikon Monarch 10x42? TobiasK Nikon 9 Thursday 21st October 2010 22:27
Cabelas Optics Catalog-new additions FrankD Binoculars 2 Monday 16th August 2010 02:43
Audubon Equinox vs. Nikon Monarch - Comments on Monarch? Jacamar Nikon 21 Thursday 18th May 2006 20:02

{googleads}
£100 Cashback on Opticron DBA VHD Binoculars. Click to find out more.

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.26338196 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:04.