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 Thursday 26th October 2017, 02:13   #76
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 10,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
Here is a binocular company called alphaoptics.

http://www.alphaopticsinc.com/binoculars.html
Can they be trusted?

Alpha is selling you Omegas!

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 02:32   #77
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Can they be trusted?

Alpha is selling you Omegas!

Bob
I wonder if they are any good? They look like interesting porro's and they come in 7x30 and 8x30. It looks like they target military usage. Check out the thermal imaging binoculars.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 09:17   #78
Patudo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
I tried a Nikon Monarch MHG 8x42. Overall it is a nice binocular for under $1000.00. The total package is very nice.
I agree with a lot of your impressions denco. I had a look through the 8x42 at Birdfair and there was a lot to like about it. The overall impression of build quality is good - better in my opinion than Opticron's version of the Tract - and the overall size/weight fit handled well in my hands. Optical performance also seemed very solid - I was aware it had a large field of view (although did not quite realize it was as large as it is). I'd say it's very competitive with the Conquest HD. My impression was that the Conquest HD was a little brighter/more contrasty (I know we're not supposed to perceive small differences in brightness but that's how it seemed to me, maybe my eyes were fooled by some Zeiss sleight of hand) and maybe just a tiny bit sharper, but in between looking through the Conquest HD and the Monarch I had been looking through the best binoculars in terms of image I was to see that day (8x56 SLC, 10x50SV, 8x54 and 10x54 HT) so my eyes might well have been a bit jaded by then. If I was intent on purchasing either of those I would make sure to test both again to be sure of what I saw through them. No issues personally with eye relief and the sweet spot was large, no doubt because of the field flattener. I didn't think to test for absolute sharpness all the way to the edge, being content with the large sweet spot for observation, but I'd have been surprised if a 145m field of view could be made sharp edge to edge. I wish I had compared it to other offerings in this price range eg. from Kowa, Kite, Leica Trinovid, etc.
Patudo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 16:25   #79
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patudo View Post
I agree with a lot of your impressions denco. I had a look through the 8x42 at Birdfair and there was a lot to like about it. The overall impression of build quality is good - better in my opinion than Opticron's version of the Tract - and the overall size/weight fit handled well in my hands. Optical performance also seemed very solid - I was aware it had a large field of view (although did not quite realize it was as large as it is). I'd say it's very competitive with the Conquest HD. My impression was that the Conquest HD was a little brighter/more contrasty (I know we're not supposed to perceive small differences in brightness but that's how it seemed to me, maybe my eyes were fooled by some Zeiss sleight of hand) and maybe just a tiny bit sharper, but in between looking through the Conquest HD and the Monarch I had been looking through the best binoculars in terms of image I was to see that day (8x56 SLC, 10x50SV, 8x54 and 10x54 HT) so my eyes might well have been a bit jaded by then. If I was intent on purchasing either of those I would make sure to test both again to be sure of what I saw through them. No issues personally with eye relief and the sweet spot was large, no doubt because of the field flattener. I didn't think to test for absolute sharpness all the way to the edge, being content with the large sweet spot for observation, but I'd have been surprised if a 145m field of view could be made sharp edge to edge. I wish I had compared it to other offerings in this price range eg. from Kowa, Kite, Leica Trinovid, etc.
The Zeiss SF 8x42 is about the only binocular that has a 444 foot flat FOV with edge to edge sharpness. But you will pay for it. It is on another level above the Nikon MHG. I agree with you on the Conquest HD. I also feel it is brighter and more contrasty and a little sharper than the MHG. The MHG didn't seem to me as sharp on-axis as some other binoculars I have tried maybe because of the big FOV. If your content with a smaller FOV I would go with the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42 or perhaps the Conquest HD 8x32 for a little bigger FOV over the Nikon MHG

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Thursday 26th October 2017 at 17:42.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 20:34   #80
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,168
Dennis ...... Nice summary of the Nikon Monarch HG 8X42. I have had mine now for a couple of months and am quite happy with it. I agree with most of what you observed with just a few exceptions.

What makes this binocular stand out among other models in the same class are the exceptional wide FOV and the light weight and handling for a 42mm. You also made note of those features. I suspect it did remind you to some degree of your prior Swaro EL SV 8X32. You have mentioned previously of your desire for the smaller lighter size of a 32mm as compared to a 42mm. The HG is a lot closer to those attributes of your old 32mm than other 42mm models.

Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
........
.....But as Chill 4x4 said they are no Zeiss SF or Swarovski SV when it comes to a flat field and sharp edges. I am surprised Nikon advertises them as having sharp edges because in my opinion they do not. So it takes away from any WOW factor. There is quite a bit of fall off in sharpness at the edges unlike the SV, SF or Canon 10x42 IS-L which are tack sharp to the edge.....
You and Chuck are right about the HG not being sharp to the edge. Some other members have observed the same. I do not understand why Nikon says the following:

"Nikon’s Field Flattener Lens System - Works in conjunction with MONARCH HG’s extraordinarily wide field of view* —8.3° and 6.9° respectively in the 8x42 and 10x42 models—to provide a sharp, clear view to the lens periphery."

My guess is Nikon wanted a larger center view than that of the Monarch 7 but did not want to infringe on the flat view of the EDG so they held back to some degree in the HG. It is a very nice compromise.

There is noticeable fall of in sharpness closer to the edge compared to a flat field model such as the Zeiss SF, Nikon EDG or Canon 10X42 L IS, but not compared to a classic design, such as a Tract Toric or Zeiss Conquest, that does not use lens flatteners. Realistically, the HG should be classified with and compared to classic designs rather than flat field models even though Nikon promotes the HG as a flat field binocular.

When compared to classic models, the 8X42 HG has a very large center view. I compared it to an 8X42 Swaro SLC WB HD and they are very close with the HG maybe being ever so slightly larger. That says a lot considering the SLC is known for having a large center.

I would not say that the lack of a flat field takes away from the WOW factor as that can be a matter of personal preference. There are posts from members who do not like the flat views, saying they look unnatural. I personally like the view from a full flat field model but I am also impressed with the views from many of the classic models. I think the HG can give an impressive view, especially when considering the exceptional wide FOV.


Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
............
............ Comparing sharpness to my Canon's 10x42 IS-L's the Canon's seemed quite a bit sharper on-axis and especially at the edges. .....
There is resolution and apparent sharpness. I did not do a controlled resolution test so I do not know how that works out. I did compare to some other 8X units and the HG resolved just as well for me. The HG resolves to at least my corrected visual acuity which per a recent eye exam is "almost 20/15".

The perceived sharpness can be quite subjective. Your comparison was with an 8X vs. a 10X which complicates things even more. On the face of things, the 10X will show more detail than the 8X. That then leaves the difficult task of trying to equate the two. I found the apparent sharpness of the HG to be very good but just not quite at the level of a Zeiss SF. I did compare it to a Nikon EDG 8X32 and after careful comparison, it is just a little bit easier to pick out the fine detail with the EDG. I also compared the HG to the SLC and again, I think I was a little bit quicker picking out fine detail with the SLC.

It really needs to be compared to other binoculars in the same class. I do not have a Tract Toric 8X42 but I do have a Toric 10X42 and so I did compare the two. The power difference makes it a difficult comparison but I concentrated mainly on contrast differences and thought the HG was ever so slightly better in showing those contrasts differences. Color balance and the color of what is being viewed can influence the perception so the result can be variable. The Toric looks to have a slightly warmer color balance than the HG so that may play a part in my results. They are close enough so I think the apparent sharpness of the HG is as good as other contenders in this class.


Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
......
.......The thing that was a deal killer for me was that the eye relief was longer than the eye cups for my eye socket depth. I seem to do best with about 15mm of eye relief. The 17mm on the MHG's made the eye relief too long and I had to hold the binoculars almost a little ways about .5mm from the eye cups to avoid blackouts and I can not tolerate that. I want to put the binoculars firmly into the eyes and not have any blackouts. ......
The absolute eye relief is not the main concern when viewing without eye glasses. The real number of interest is what I think of as the "net eye relief". It is the amount of eye relief after adjusting for the length of the extended eye cup. For example, using relative numbers of 15mm for eye relief and 9mm for the length of the extended eye cup, the net eye relief would be 6mm. In another example, if the eye relief is specified as 17mm and the extended eye cup is 12mm, then the net eye relief is 5mm.

Dennis, even though you generally have had more success with a 15mm total eye relief model, in the above example, the 17mm model may work better for you because it has less net eye relief.

What counts is how long the eye cup is in relation the the total eye relief. I have a problem with several models where the eye cup is to short for the eye relief when viewing without glasses. It seems each manufacturer has their own idea what the ideal number should be.

Unlike your experience, I did not find the eye cup to be to short for the eye relief in the HG. I am not sure why you had this problem and I did not as the HG worked out better for me in this regard than many other models out there. I am curious what eye cup setting you use for the Canon 10X42 L IS. That is the only binocular I have where I have to retract the eye in one position from full extension in order to get the full FOV. Do you use it with the eye cups fully extended or do you retract it one stop or more stops?

Just a couple of things come to mind that could be a cause of the results you had. Are you sure you had the eye cups of the HG fully extended? There are four positions. Full retraction, two intermediate stops, and fully extended. A second possibility is the IPD setting was off somewhat. Your experience is not what I would have expected with the HG but I am at a loss to explain it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
......
......If you are used to an SF of SV these are going to disappoint. They are not up to that level. .....
Having a Zeiss SF 8X42, I think it is the finest binocular I have ever used. Even so, the Nikon HG is not a disappointment. Actually, it is quite impressive. The SF is better optically but the HG is still very good and the differences are not huge. There are times that I go for the HG when looking for the smaller size and lighter weight and I am not giving up a lot optically. The FOV of the HG is larger than most, the view is bright with a nice contrast and center view is also larger than most. Given a choice between the two, I would easily choose the SF but I would not be disappointed with the HG.



What would be interesting to hear is how you think the Nikon Monarch 8X42 HG compares to your Tract Toric 8X42. Unless you can find a resolution to the eye cup length issue you experienced, the HG would not be a contender for you, but assuming they were the same in that regard, how do they compare?

I have compared the 8X42 HG to my Tract Toric 10X42. Based on what I have read, I am assuming the 8X42 and 10X42 Toric are very similar other than magnification and apparent FOV. Based on what I have experienced and making mental adjustments for the differences in the specs between the two Torics, I would go with the HG due to the large FOV, the smaller size and lighter weight and what I think would be ever so better contrast.
__________________
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 : Thursday 26th October 2017 at 22:00. Reason: A few fixes
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 21:57   #81
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Bruce. I did compare the Nikon MHG 8x42 to my Tract Toric 8x42 for sharpness and although they are two really different binoculars I did observe that the Tract was sharper on-axis. Even though the Tract has a smaller FOV the clarity and resolution in that FOV was sharper and more transparent and if you will more "REAL". In fact the Tract was about as sharp on edge as the MHG which surprised me. For some reason to my eyes the MHG did not seem exceptionally sharp. I think it has something to do with the difficulty correcting such a big FOV. The MHG seems to me like Nikon was trying to copy an SF but didn't quite make it. It is kind of like a budget SF. The problem with the MHG was the eyecups are not long enough for the eye relief for MY eye sockets. I have to hold the binocular about .5mm from my eyes to avoid black outs even with the eye cups fully extended. I did have them fully extended. I must have shallow eye sockets. I use the Canon 10x42 IS-L at the first click from fully closed so that tells you my eye sockets are shallower than yours. I think my problem with the MHG is expectations. Since I am used to the sharp edges of an SV or SF I was expecting that from the MHG and when it didn't deliver i was disappointed. I shouldn't expect a $1K binocular to equal a $2K binocular. The MHG just didn't WOW me like an SF, SV or Canon 10x42 IS-L. It is not so much the big flat FOV that WOWS me as it is the sharp edges. For me there is something about having a big 65 degree AFOV that is sharp all the way across. That is a WOW!

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Thursday 26th October 2017 at 22:56.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 22:53   #82
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 10,738
A definition of "periphery" is needed to avoid confusion about whether the Field Flattener in the Monarch HG binoculars delivers a flat field to the edge of the view or even if it was intended to do so.

I don't think that it was Nikon's intention to give these binoculars a flat field to the edge of the view or they would have said that.

I sought the Google definition of the word periphery to help resolve any confusion.

Definition of periphery:

pe·riph·er·y
pəˈrif(ə)rē/
noun
noun: periphery; plural noun: peripheries

the outer limits or edge of an area or object.
"new buildings on the periphery of the hospital site"
synonyms: edge, outer edge, margin, fringe, boundary, border, perimeter, rim, verge, borderline; More
outskirts, outer limits/reaches, bounds;
literarybourn, marge
"rambling estates on the periphery of the city"


As you can see from the definition periphery does not mean "edge" (which is a synonym) exactly. It is a word that can mean something less precise than an edge and it can include a volume of space like "rambling estates on the periphery of the city."

After using my Monarch HG 8x42 for several months I have concluded that Nikon uses the word that way to explain how the 'Field Flattener' works; "in order to provide a sharp, clear view to the lens periphery." In my opinion they have succeeded in doing this.

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Thursday 26th October 2017 at 23:14.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 23:11   #83
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
I didn't really think the Nikon MHG had sharper edges or a bigger sweetspot than the majority of the binoculars I have used. With side by side comparison to the Tract Toric 8x42 the Tract's FOV is definitely smaller but I would say it's sweet spot and edge sharpness is as good as the MHG in proportion to it's FOV. I guess I just expected a bigger sweet spot and sharper edges from the MHG than was there. I was expecting an SF for $1K which is not going to happen.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th October 2017, 02:06   #84
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
I was expecting an SF for $1K which is not going to happen.
Say it isn't so!

MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh no!
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom
Nixterdemus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th October 2017, 13:08   #85
chill6x6
Registered User
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
I didn't really think the Nikon MHG had sharper edges or a bigger sweetspot than the majority of the binoculars I have used. With side by side comparison to the Tract Toric 8x42 the Tract's FOV is definitely smaller but I would say it's sweet spot and edge sharpness is as good as the MHG in proportion to it's FOV. I guess I just expected a bigger sweet spot and sharper edges from the MHG than was there. I was expecting an SF for $1K which is not going to happen.
Dennis...
Is that your Tract Torics on eBay?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tract-Toric...8AAOSwmkpZ6UyK
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 27th October 2017, 15:00   #86
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
Dennis...
Is that your Tract Torics on eBay?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tract-Toric...8AAOSwmkpZ6UyK
....... and what did you replace it with? (A Ziess SF 8X42?)
__________________
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 Friday 27th October 2017, 17:10   #87
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,489
Yo Dennis,

No judgment here from me. Lord knows I've gone through bins myself and I'm not happy about that. I used to replace them like every 2 years it seemed. Finally, I won't be doing that with my 7x42 ... it's a keeper and my primary bino.

Just genuinely curious what you will be replacing your 8x42 Toric with. Will you just stick with your 9x for now?
I think a new Swaro Field Pro SV 8.5x42 could be a great compromise between the 8x and 9x you currently have. Or, an SF 8x42 would be an excellent choice.

I wonder if after looking through the Nikon HG you may have missed a wide FOV (?)

p.s. Your Ad states "10x42" in the item details page, but looks like you're selling 8x42.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 27th October 2017, 17:10   #88
maico
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
Dennis...
Is that your Tract Torics on eBay?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tract-Toric...8AAOSwmkpZ6UyK
Looking through Dennis's feedback he has sold a fair few tasty binoculars over the years including Swarovski 8.5x42 and Canon 10x42 IS L !
maico is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th October 2017, 17:48   #89
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
I have been using my Canon 10x42 IS-L most of the time because it honestly let's me see more detail than anything I have ever used even though it is heavy. I like to have a lighter 8x when I hike or walk a long distance. I tried the Nikon 8x42 MHG and I was seduced by the big FOV but after using it awhile I realized the eye relief was too long for the eye cups and my shallower eye sockets so I had to hold the binocular away from my eyes to avoid blackouts. It also didn't seem like it was overly sharp on axis either and the view seemed almost "nervous" to me. It is hard to describe but it didn't seem like a relaxed view. I didn't feel it had sharper edges or a bigger sweet spot than any binocular I have had either so I returned it. So now I am hooked on the big FOV and I didn't really want to spend $2K on a Zeiss SF 8x42 at this point so I figured I would try a Nikon 8x30 E2 again. It had everything I wanted. A huge 8.8 degree FOV(462Feet) and it was light and compact and I like the porro 3D view and it was only $430.00 on Amazon.com from a Japanese seller. You know what. I like it better than the MHG. It has the easy porro view and it is brighter than the MHG and the sweet spot is only slightly smaller than the MHG and the edges are as good. It has the porro 3D view and it is lighter than the MHG plus it is sharper on-axis than the MHG and most importantly I don't get any blackouts and I don't need waterproof. So I just have two binoculars now but I have tried the Zeiss SF 8x42 and I like it so If I see a good deal on one I may pick one up. No more Swarovski's I don't like their focusers unless on the new 8x30 CL they get their focuser sorted out I would try one . I might try the new Canon's (10x32,12x32 or 14x32)also and if Canon comes out with a MKII 10x42 IS-L that would definitely be on my hit list.

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Friday 27th October 2017 at 17:53.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th October 2017, 17:51   #90
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
I have been using my Canon 10x42 IS-L most of the time because it honestly let's me see more detail than anything I have ever used even though it is heavy. I like to have a lighter 8x when I hike or walk a long distance. I tried the Nikon 8x42 MHG and I was seduced by the big FOV but after using it awhile I realized the eye relief was too long for the eye cups and my shallower eye sockets so I had to hold the binocular away from my eyes to avoid blackouts. It also didn't seem like it was overly sharp on axis either and the view seemed almost "nervous" to me. It is hard to describe but it didn't seem like a relaxed view. I didn't feel it had sharper edges or a bigger sweet spot than any binocular I have had either so I returned it. So now I am hooked on the big FOV and I didn't really want to spend $2K on a Zeiss SF 8x42 at this point so I figured I would try a Nikon 8x30 E2 again. It had everything I wanted. A huge 8.8 degree FOV(462Feet) and it was light and compact and I like the porro 3D view and it was only $430.00 on Amazon.com from a Japanese seller. You know what. I like it better than the MHG. It has the easy porro view and it is brighter than the MHG and the sweet spot is only slightly smaller than the MHG and the edges are as good. It has the porro 3D view and it is lighter than the MHG plus it is sharper on-axis than the MHG and most importantly I don't get any blackouts. So I just have two binoculars now but I have tried the Zeiss SF 8x42 and I like it so If I see a good deal on one I may pick one up. No more Swarovski's I don't like their focusers unless on the new 8x30 CL they get their focuser sorted out I would try one . I might try the new Canon's (10x32,12x32 or 14x32)also and if Canon comes out with a MKII 10x42 IS-L that would definitely be on my hit list.
Sounds like sensible choices.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 27th October 2017, 19:39   #91
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
Just lol...
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 17:26   #92
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 930
The Monarch HG is fantastic to say the least. If I weren't in the market for a new rifle, I'd probably be running off with one as soon as I found a fair deal. As Chuck mentioned before, the combination of light weight, massive field of view, smooth focusing action, and extra comfortable eye relief and associated ease of view is hard to beat as an entire package. The Leupold BX4 I've been using is very nice, but I do miss the expanded FoV of some binoculars I've owned and tried, and eye placement is an issue for whatever reason.

I find it very hard to justify to myself any binos over $1000 - and I've owned several from the SLC HD to the SV to the FL and Ultravid. In direct comparisons I cannot manufacture enough of a difference to justify the $500-1500 difference.
jremmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 17:52   #93
Maljunulo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by jremmons View Post
I find it very hard to justify to myself any binos over $1000 - and I've owned several from the SLC HD to the SV to the FL and Ultravid. In direct comparisons I cannot manufacture enough of a difference to justify the $500-1500 difference.
So you have owned "better" binoculars, but you have dumped them in favor of lower-priced brands?
__________________
All behavior offends someone.
Maljunulo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 18:20   #94
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maljunulo View Post
So you have owned "better" binoculars, but you have dumped them in favor of lower-priced brands?
Not to make this a thread about that but yes, that is the case. List of binos I've owned include:
8x32 Swarovksi Swarovision
10x42 Swarovski EL
8x32 Zeiss Victory FL
7x42 Zeiss Victory FL
7x42 Leica Ultravid HD+
8x42 Swarovski SLC HD (personal favorite of all these)
8x44 Steiner Wildlife XP
... others I'm sure I'm forgetting

I've used them all for between 2 months and 3 years before dumping them, and have compared them with many of the other options. I've also owned several of the $1000 pretenders (Kowa Genesis, Vortex Razor, etc.). They are all great, as they should be given their price, and in particular the price gaps between the $1000 and true alphas is absurd given the extremely limited performance increase you get for anywhere from $700 to nearly $2000 differences in price. As someone with multiple hobbies, student loans, a mortgage, etc., I can't see owning those options unless I got an absurdly good deal - and I use my binos on almost a daily basis for both job related duties and hobby interests. As I mentioned before, it is hard for me to even manufacture a visible difference (e.g. "I can see that extra bit of sharpness" or "the image really pops" or "5 more minutes of light gathering ability!").
jremmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 18:34   #95
Racuuna
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: sweden
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
I have been using my Canon 10x42 IS-L most of the time because it honestly let's me see more detail than anything I have ever used even though it is heavy. I like to have a lighter 8x when I hike or walk a long distance. I tried the Nikon 8x42 MHG and I was seduced by the big FOV but after using it awhile I realized the eye relief was too long for the eye cups and my shallower eye sockets so I had to hold the binocular away from my eyes to avoid blackouts. It also didn't seem like it was overly sharp on axis either and the view seemed almost "nervous" to me. It is hard to describe but it didn't seem like a relaxed view. I didn't feel it had sharper edges or a bigger sweet spot than any binocular I have had either so I returned it. So now I am hooked on the big FOV and I didn't really want to spend $2K on a Zeiss SF 8x42 at this point so I figured I would try a Nikon 8x30 E2 again. It had everything I wanted. A huge 8.8 degree FOV(462Feet) and it was light and compact and I like the porro 3D view and it was only $430.00 on Amazon.com from a Japanese seller. You know what. I like it better than the MHG. It has the easy porro view and it is brighter than the MHG and the sweet spot is only slightly smaller than the MHG and the edges are as good. It has the porro 3D view and it is lighter than the MHG plus it is sharper on-axis than the MHG and most importantly I don't get any blackouts and I don't need waterproof. So I just have two binoculars now but I have tried the Zeiss SF 8x42 and I like it so If I see a good deal on one I may pick one up. No more Swarovski's I don't like their focusers unless on the new 8x30 CL they get their focuser sorted out I would try one . I might try the new Canon's (10x32,12x32 or 14x32)also and if Canon comes out with a MKII 10x42 IS-L that would definitely be on my hit list.
What happened to your "alpha killer" Maven b2?
Racuuna is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 18:38   #96
Maljunulo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racuuna View Post
What happened to your "alpha killer" Maven b2?
Last week, last month or last year?
__________________
All behavior offends someone.
Maljunulo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 21:14   #97
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by jremmons View Post
The Monarch HG is fantastic to say the least. If I weren't in the market for a new rifle, I'd probably be running off with one as soon as I found a fair deal. As Chuck mentioned before, the combination of light weight, massive field of view, smooth focusing action, and extra comfortable eye relief and associated ease of view is hard to beat as an entire package. The Leupold BX4 I've been using is very nice, but I do miss the expanded FoV of some binoculars I've owned and tried, and eye placement is an issue for whatever reason.

I find it very hard to justify to myself any binos over $1000 - and I've owned several from the SLC HD to the SV to the FL and Ultravid. In direct comparisons I cannot manufacture enough of a difference to justify the $500-1500 difference.
That Nikon HG sounds awfully nice. I'm in the same camp with you though. The sub, and near $1000 stuff is fantastic nowadays.
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 21:18   #98
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by jremmons View Post
I've used them all for between 2 months and 3 years before dumping them, and have compared them with many of the other options. I've also owned several of the $1000 pretenders (Kowa Genesis, Vortex Razor, etc.). They are all great, as they should be given their price, and in particular the price gaps between the $1000 and true alphas is absurd given the extremely limited performance increase you get for anywhere from $700 to nearly $2000 differences in price. As someone with multiple hobbies, student loans, a mortgage, etc., I can't see owning those options unless I got an absurdly good deal - and I use my binos on almost a daily basis for both job related duties and hobby interests. As I mentioned before, it is hard for me to even manufacture a visible difference (e.g. "I can see that extra bit of sharpness" or "the image really pops" or "5 more minutes of light gathering ability!").
Agree again, and my arsenal includes:
Swaro SV 10x50
Swaro SLCwb 8x30
Gold Ring HD
Meopta Meostar HD
Mojave Pro Guide HD
Tract Toric UHD

And used to have:
SLC HD
Zeiss Classic
Cabelas Euro HD
Swaro SV 8x32 and 10x42
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 21:50   #99
Maljunulo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgraider View Post
Agree again, and my arsenal includes:
Swaro SV 10x50
Swaro SLCwb 8x30
Gold Ring HD
Meopta Meostar HD
Mojave Pro Guide HD
Tract Toric UHD

And used to have:
SLC HD
Zeiss Classic
Cabelas Euro HD
Swaro SV 8x32 and 10x42
Why don't you just keep and use the first two and dump the rest?

What am I missing?
__________________
All behavior offends someone.
Maljunulo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 22:32   #100
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,054
Best reason I can give you is that I like them. Still think the Toric is stupid good.
jgraider is offline  
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
Monarch HG rated #1 by Field and Stream. ceasar Nikon 22 Sunday 15th October 2017 13:37
Best place to buy Nikon Monarch 5 8x42? PABirder77 Nikon 1 Thursday 12th January 2017 02:05
8X42 Nikon Monarch's have to be the best binoculars under $200.00 denco@comcast.n Nikon 22 Thursday 5th November 2009 00:54

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.25545812 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:53.