Moderately priced 8x30-32 compact. (3 Viewers)

[BruceH]

................. I tied the Terra ED's and the M7 yesterday briefly and decided that the M7's were the preferred of the two. ................

Bill

Bill ....... I assume it was the new Terra ED 8X32 that you tried, but I just want to confirm this since it was not explicitly stated.

If it was the new Terra 8X32, what store is now stocking them? I would like to check it out if it is being carried by a chain store that is also in my area.


As far as the Mohave 8X32 vs the Nikon Monarch 7 8X30, I have the Nikon and looked at the Mohave. Both samples of the Mohave units had very poor focus mechanisms. There have been a comment or so posted on this by others. However some say the focus is fine. Point is, be sure to get one where you can try it out first or easily return it. The focus was such a turn-off that I did not spend much time evaluating the optics, but I do not recall any negatives.

The big selling points of the Monarch to me are the light weight along with the small size and the nice large field of view. Sharpness compares with my other binoculars for hand holding and it has good brightness, contrast and color rendition.

There are a few things to be aware of on the Nikon. Eye placement can be a bit touchy. I suspect this is due in part to the small exit pupil of an 8X30. Also because of the small size, the eye cups are smaller than a full size model which may hinder quick eye placement. Also, when viewing without glasses, the eyecups do not extend as much as I think they should for the eye relief ..... unusual for a Nikon.

A second thing to keep in mind is that it does have somewhat of a quick focus compared to other models. However focus rotation is clockwise from close focus to infinity and that seems to be preferred by many. Rotation from close focus to infinity is about 350 degrees.

A third point on the Monarch to be aware of is that some of the first posts have reported glare issues. So far, I have not noticed it being a problem. Mine was purchased last September (2014) so maybe Nikon made a modification.

The Nikon does have some quirks, some of which are to be expected in a model of that size. Overall, the small size, light weight, large field of view and great optics over shadow the negatives and it is a binocular I would not want to let go.

 

[brocknroller]

Ok, i think i have narrowed it down to Nikon 8x30 M7's or Leupold Mojave 8x32s. I tied the Terra ED's and the M7 yesterday briefly and decided that the M7's were the preferred of the two. The Terra had noticeable CA issues center field when looking at a crow on a tree 200 feet away against a bright white/grey cloudy sky. Plus looking threw the Nikon's were more relaxed and had a wider apparent field of view (nice and immersive.... I'm a sucker for that). Size was also an issue as these will be light traveling binos and there feel, size and weight of the M7s is very appealing. So, what i want to know is ... eye relief for glasses on the Mojave's? On the M7's i can see 95% of the full field, maybe a little more. It's almost there and I'm getting a new pair of glasses this week that might bring it to just barely 100%. How do the Mojave's compare eye relief wise? I cant find any in town to try..

Bill

Bill,

The store rep was pretty nice letting you tie the Terra ED and M 7 together, hope you used a slip knot. I don't use spill cheque either. You lose a lot of funny malapropisms if you do.

John's review was very positive and had me thinking about the 32mm Terra, because I tried the 8x42 model and liked the image and wide sweet spot, but I did not like the ultra fast focuser, which, according to John, the 32mm model doesn't have. However, I didn't realize that John was "chromatic aberration color blind". Now that I've read your comments on CA, that's a horse of a different color (green, brown and red).

I thought the M7 did a good job of correcting CA in the centerfield. Given its wide FOV, 95% is still nearly 7.9* FOV, almost 8*, more than most midsized 8x bins at this price point deliver. If you get a pair of polycarbonate lens glasses with a wire frame you can push back to your eyebrows, you will probably see the full field, however, the polycarbonate might introduce some CA.

 

[Newbflat]

Bill ....... I assume it was the new Terra ED 8X32 that you tried, but I just want to confirm this since it was not explicitly stated.

If it was the new Terra 8X32, what store is now stocking them? I would like to check it out if it is being carried by a chain store that is also in my area.


As far as the Mohave 8X32 vs the Nikon Monarch 7 8X30, I have the Nikon and looked at the Mohave. Both samples of the Mohave units had very poor focus mechanisms. There have been a comment or so posted on this by others. However some say the focus is fine. Point is, be sure to get one where you can try it out first or easily return it. The focus was such a turn-off that I did not spend much time evaluating the optics, but I do not recall any negatives.

The big selling points of the Monarch to me are the light weight along with the small size and the nice large field of view. Sharpness compares with my other binoculars for hand holding and it has good brightness, contrast and color rendition.

There are a few things to be aware of on the Nikon. Eye placement can be a bit touchy. I suspect this is due in part to the small exit pupil of an 8X30. Also because of the small size, the eye cups are smaller than a full size model which may hinder quick eye placement. Also, when viewing without glasses, the eye cups do not extend as much as I think they should for the eye relief ..... unusual for a Nikon.

A second thing to keep in mind is that it does have somewhat of a quick focus compared to other models. However focus rotation is clockwise from close focus to infinity and that seems to be preferred by many. Rotation from close focus to infinity is about 350 degrees.

A third point on the Monarch to be aware of is that some of the first posts have reported glare issues. So far, I have not noticed it being a problem. Mine was purchased last September (2014) so maybe Nikon made a modification.

The Nikon does have some quirks, some of which are to be expected in a model of that size. Overall, the small size, light weight, large field of view and great optics over shadow the negatives and it is a binocular I would not want to let go.

Thanks for the reply. I looked threw all the binos mentioned including the Terra ED 8x32's at "The Nature Shop" (Audubon society store) in Seattle.

I wear glasses 100% of the time (not while sleeping;') so i only ever have the eye cups all the way down. I didn't notice eye placement issues in the M7's and maybe that's because i have been using my Nikon LXL 10x25's for a while again. I had my pair of ZR 8x42 Primes stolen so I'm back to using my LXL's... everything has a bigger exit pupil than those. I don't mind quick focusing just as long as there is no mush in the wheel when making very fine adjustments. I actually really like fast focusing in 7X's with there depth of field. It makes close brushy birding a treat. But i don't like it in 10x's, as the DOF is so shallow and close birding becomes a pain. One thing i like about my little LX 10x25's is the tiny focusing wheel is very accurate with zero slop so its tiny depth of field is easy to hit accurately.

I might buy a pair of the M7's from REI and that way if i have issues with them on my long trip in terms of veiled glare, sharpness or whatever i can just hand them back after being in the field for 2+months and try something else. I'm not that picky... if they are sharp (don't have to be the sharpest), reasonably bright and the glare doesn't get in my way.... the over all package (for travel) works for me for $380 or so .

Bill

 

[Newbflat]

Bill,

The store rep was pretty nice letting you tie the Terra ED and M 7 together, hope you used a slip knot. I don't use spill cheque either. You lose a lot of funny malapropisms if you do.

John's review was very positive and had me thinking about the 32mm Terra, because I tried the 8x42 model and liked the image and wide sweet spot, but I did not like the ultra fast focuser, which, according to John, the 32mm model doesn't have. However, I didn't realize that John was "chromatic aberration color blind". Now that I've read your comments on CA, that's a horse of a different color (green, brown and red).

I thought the M7 did a good job of correcting CA in the centerfield. Given its wide FOV, 95% is still nearly 7.9* FOV, almost 8*, more than most midsized 8x bins at this price point deliver. If you get a pair of polycarbonate lens glasses with a wire frame you can push back to your eyebrows, you will probably see the full field, however, the polycarbonate might introduce some CA.

Ha!.. my problem isn't spell check, those words are spelt correctly. Its with proof reading.

I don't want to give the Terra ED's a bad rap. I only had them in my hands a few minuets and it was hardly enough time to pass any real judgment on them. The takeaway should not be that the Terra's have too much CA and what i said should not be considered a review. I had 10-15 min and 4 pairs of binos to look threw. In reality its not even enough time to adjust the diopters in each pair correctly.

Bill

 

[Red_Shoulder]

Have you looked at any of the Nikon travelites? 8x25 but liking my older ones. Thought I'd mention it.

 

[Newbflat]

Have you looked at any of the Nikon travelites? 8x25 but liking my older ones. Thought I'd mention it.

I have looked at the Travelites and was in the presence of a pair of EX's for a few years. Nice for the money but they are no better than my LX's in terms of field of view and apparent view is worse. Plus there really only a tiny bit smaller than the M7's.. and there is a HUGE difference in viewing pleasure with the M7's and i suspect Mojaves as well. These 'new' compact binos are really a boon to travelers. There nearly the size of true compacts but with the view of full sized binos. There is really not that much difference in weight (LX's are 10.5oz) and size between my LX 10x25's and the M7's (M7's only 4mm taller) for me to use the LX's traveling any more. The M7's are only a little heaver, a little bigger and a LOT nicer to use and look threw.

BUT!.... who will be using them on our trip?.. my Girlfriend. She can't use the LX's hardly at all. Too fiddly, cant find the target with the narrow FOV and 10X, the double hinges and tiny exit pupil mess her up as well. :C

Bill

 

[Newbflat]

So.... to add to the saga. I went to REI to order a pair of Nikon 8x30 M7's and low and behold, sitting right there were a pair of Leupold Mojave 8x32's. To make a long story short, i walked out the door with 20% off and an applied credit for $125 total. I also order a pair of Nikon M7's arriving in a week with the understanding that i would take the winner and return the other.. they said fine.

Home now with the Mojaves and my first impression is that they are bigger and heaver than the Nikon's. I suppose that's because they are (brilliant!), but i can't help but remember my feeling when i first grabbed the 8x30 M7's.. Wow, these are really small and light! I don't have that feeling with the Mojave's. I can see the full field of view with my glasses in the Mojave's, just, but i didn't get that immersive feeling i did with the Nikon's. This however could well just be wishful thinking or bad memory on my part. I only had a few minutes with the M7's and was comparing them to some binos with a narrower FOV. Focusing has zero backlash (nice!) but is a touch sticky (not rough), but i suspect this might change with a bit of time.

The only thing i have to compare them to at the moment is my girlfriends pair of Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2's.. While not apples and apples, its an interesting comparison nun the less. As you might expect, the ZR's are brighter by a good bit. They definitely bring out the the details in the shadows better and give a bit brighter view to everything. The ZR's are a bit warmer in hue and noticeably sharper center field. The sweet spot seems to be a bit smaller in the ZR's bit its hard to tell as i can't see the full field. The Mojave have a bit more CA than the RZ's center field but not to a distracting degree. The Mojave's have a nice flat field but no rolling ball and I'm a bit sensitive too it.. unlike my long gone ZR Primes. Compared to the ZR's they seem damn near flat field. That said, the ZR's have a better 3-D view and i think part of that is field curvature. Everything in the Mojave's looks flat, stacked and 2-D. In the ZR's there is more separation/depth and movement when you move around a little. Maybe too much if you move around a lot.

So on points so far the ZR 7x36 ED2's win and i must say did so without splitting hairs but not by huge amount. I consider the flat vs. curved field a personal preference thing so i will leave it. But! and a huge But!... the ZR's fall flat on there face when i look in the direction of a low angled sun. There is just no comparison. The Mojave's are MUCH better at dealing with glare, its not even close.

To the west of my back porch there is an apartment complex about 150 feet away. It has a deeply recessed stairwell with two lights in it shining on the stairs. Its very dark and you can only see a little detail with the naked eye.
For the following example conditions are bad.. the sun is about 10 degrees to the side and the same above. So I'm looking very close to the sun into a dark recces. With the Mojaves i can see deep into the recess and its near black for the most part. I can make out wood details/grain and see the siding seams. The lights in the stairwell have detail and i can see the element in the bulb and spider webs on the lamp. If there was a bird in there i could see color detail and patterns. With the ZR's its a total gray out, just one big grey veil. I can hardly see the lights let alone spider webs.. I just can't stress just how different it is, the view is useless with near zero contrast or detail. There was some glare in the Mojaves but I'm not sure what to call it. Its more like reflections or bright crescents all around the edge but it was extremely eye placement dependent and did not include any veil of gray. It was annoying but didn't really effect the over all contrast of the image... well, maybe a little. But nothing, nothing like the near completely useless view in the ZR's. Yes this was an extreme test, but the ZR's started to show glare/veil at something like 45 or more degrees from the sun. Nothing in the Mojaves at the same angle.

So.. if i was birding in the shade or in cloudy understory conditions only, the ZR might be my choice as its brighter, sharper and has a deeper field of view. I didn't mention it above but its also significantly more relaxed view for my eyes as well. But!.. and a big one...the glare when heading close to the sun just gets atrocious in comparison.

If i had to choose between the two i think i would go with the Mojave's. The ZR's are better at most things but only by a little. Definitely there but NOTHING like the difference when viewing close to the sun..... its a fair trade.


This all makes me a bit worried about the Nikon M7's and there veiled glare reputation. We shall see how they do with the glare torture test... I really want them to pass as the size, weight and field of view are very appealing for traveling.

Anyways.. I have drunk too much wine.

Bill

 

[FrankD]

Nice write-up Bill. Having owned both I enjoyed reading the comparison. I also greatly look forward to reading your comments comparing the M7 and Mojave. I compared the two last spring and did a write-up on the experience. In my opinion each was a keeper but they are certainly two different ways to represent a quality, affordable 8x30-something.

 

[joe101]

Nikon EII 8x30. By far my favourite pair of binoculars. Most comfortable view. Even beats the alphas that I have and used.

 

[Newbflat]

So the Nikon 8x30 Monarch 7's showed up early and and I took them all for a spin this afternoon, here are a few initial impressions. For the record the M7's are #0006954. This review might evolve over the next few days so I reserve the right to totally change my mind at a moments notice..

First, the M7's are a bit bigger than I remembered. Not by much but there not quite at tiny at my memory/ hopes wanted. So in reality there is no obvious winner here. The M7's are a bit smaller and lighter but not enough to really be much of a factor in my decision. So its down to nothing but performance.

The M7's are sharper than my pair of Mojave's . Not by much but it's there. I'm not sure but I might be having an issue with the diopter adjustment in the Mojave's . I just can't seem to get my right eye as sharp as I would like. More to come on this as I keep messing with it. The ZR 7x36 ED2's are still sharpest of the three center field. Not buy a huge amount but the clear winner.

Tree branches against a bright gray/white sky shows the M7's as having less CA center field than the Mojave's but I can still see just a touch in the M7's. I think the Mojave's are a little better controlled across the full view but the M7's are better in the center. Nether have enough to really bother me when I'm not being anal and looking for it. Wouldn't want any more though.

Focusing. I'm not really liking the focus on the Mojave's after using them for a few days. At first I liked the zero lash and still do but in the field focusing is too slow and vague (2 turns lock to lock). It's also a little hard to turn and jurky. Kind of like the tightness adjustment is a touch too tight. Trying to follow fast moving birds was hard to do. Focusing is slow and I had to focus back and forth about 1/3 of a turn to try and zero in on what's sharpest...too much searching. The Nikons are much quicker focusing (1.2 turns LtoL) and with far less searching. Maybe three times faster acquisition on a stationary target if out of focus at first, maybe even faster on a moving target....at least for me. Following an Anna's hummer 20 feet away flying all around and back and forth threw a small tree was WAY easier with the M7's. I would also like to thank the hummer for spending a generous amount of time flying about the same tree for me to have a good look threw all three binoculars on hand! The Nikon beats the other two for quick focusing/ fast bird following but the ZR's are close with there greater depth of field.

Field curvature is fine. What I mean buy that is I didn't really notice anything one way or another panning around. Yes I can see it if I look for it but as some people are not really bothered by CA unless it's really bad, I'm not really bothered by field curvature. The the ZR 7x36's don't bother me at all so that should say something. But my ZR primes did a little with the flat field. Both the Mojave's and the M7's seem close to each other but then again I'm not the one to ask.

Glare... Well for me this was a surprise. With the same torture test as a few days ago the winner was the M7's ... Sort of. I haven't experienced any veiled glare, at least what I think of as veiled glare in the M7's. I do see glare/ reflections in the form of bright crescents on the bottom and lower sides projecting into the view to different degrees, but they are very eye placement dependent. It is definitely more annoying than in the Mojave's but I did find it in the Mojave's as well. In the Nikons it was there even when the sun was at 90° to the lenses or more... Not on in the Mojave's. I had to get more like 45° towards the sun before it showed. Oddly I found more of what I think of as veiled glare in the Mojave's than the Nikons. Just to be clear, I consider 'veiled glare' to be like a haze or a light greying/ washing out of contrast across the full field. Not reflections in the corners that while bright have sharp edges and come and go with eye placement ( not sure what those are are called). The Nikons did significantly better during all stages of the torture test than the Mojave's in terms of contrast, sharpness and noticeable veil. The blacks were blacker and the image brighter ( could see more) than the Mojave's. In comparison the Mojave's had a light veil and the contrast was suffering. But!.. There is less internal reflection and It was easer to place my eyes in a way that minimized reflected crescents around the edges and bottom of the field. The M7's were more difficult to minimize the reflections (or whatever there called) and they never went away fully. But the image over all was clearer, darker/ more contrast and had quite a bit more color saturation. So, M7's had more reflections but a better over all view, with the Mojave's having less reflections but less contrast and a light veil. The ZR's were near useless in this torture test. Also my over all impression is that compared to the M7's the Mojave's have more contrast when viewing in the shade and without any bright light facing the objectives, but the closer I moved towards the sun a slow veil began to wash out the contrast. The M7's didn't have quite the same contrast in the shade and are a touch brighter over all and as you move towards the sun they maintained there contrast while the Mojave's began to loose it in a developing veil.......that said, these are initial impressions. I need a few days to sort it all out and see I'm my observations are consistent.

Of the three the ZR's are the most relaxed to look threw hands down. Very easy on my eyes. Next is the Nikons but only by a little over the Mojave's. The Mojave's stress my eyes a bit. Kind of that feeling that the diopter is just a touch out of adjustment. I keep adjusting it to no avail. Or almost like the view is pinched (for lack of a better term) or I'm a tiny bit cross eyed when looking threw them. I'm talking very subtle here. I have no issue with the Nikons in this department. Both the M7's and Mojave's present a very 2-D image compared to the ZR's and the ZR's present bushes and plants with nice depth making the view more natural and relaxed.

I went out late and put them threw the 'what can I see in the dark' routine. When trying to pull in those last few photons the Mojave's just squeaked out a win here. Oddly they seem a bit darker in brighter light. I suspect it's the better contrast that does it.

I'm not entirely convinced that the pair of Mojave's i have are at the top of there game. Even though I can't find anything obviously wrong, something doesn't seem right, at least from other reviews I have read. I will take them into REI and compare them to the other pair if there still there in a day or so.

At this point I don't think I will keep the Mojave's. Mostly it's the focusing, for me it's just too slow and vague. Even though there is more glare/ flare/ reflections around the edge in the M7's there was little to no veil compared to the Mojave's... These two things alone are enough to make the Nikons the choice for me.

Unless something changes in the next few days !?!.... That's what I'm going with.

Bill

 

[Newbflat]

Two last observations... I took back the Mojave's and compared my pair to another in the store. They were about the same. I couldn't get the diopter to focal as sharp as i would have liked and my eyes were a touch stressed looking threw both pairs. Also, i assume because i bought another pair of binos, my pair of Zen-Ray 8x42 Primes showed up. I hadn't seen them in a year and assumed they were stolen. I checked them against the Nikon 8x30 Monarch 7's and find the M7's just as sharp and have better glare control than my ZR Primes. The primes are a touch better in this department than the Mojave's but only a touch. .... that is kind of annoying. The ZR's are brighter but i prefer looking threw the M'7s over all. While the M7's are eye placement sensitive and that can cause some flair around the edge of the view, i get no veiled glare and find that they do quite well into really bad lighting. Both the Prime and Mojave had veiled glare well off what i would consider torture test angles while the M7's had very little at all.
Maybe something has changed with the Nikon's as i was expecting much worse going by previous reviews. People should definitely give the M7's another look..

Bill

 

[cnick6]

Maybe something has changed with the Nikon's as i was expecting much worse going by previous reviews. People should definitely give the M7's another look..

Bill, I think Nikon *finally* addressed their manufacturing defects with these binoculars. I happened to try a pair of M7s earlier this year and they were also much improved from what I remember.

I still believe the design of the M7 is poor compared to previous Monarch models. The original ATB and M5 seem fine, IMHO.

For the price though, I think there are better values out there if you're willing to do a little research. Nikon seems to have placed their products in just about every sporting goods store, so they're more readily available.

BTW, here's my review of the 10x30 (with pictures) in case you haven't seen it:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1JB3QMURVG0VU

PS. Another 8x32 value bincoular is the Vortex Diamondback. It's a pretty good deal at $189

http://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Diamondback-8x32-Binocular-D-3208/dp/B007AJZF4U

 

[Tom Bombadil]

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1JB3QMURVG0VU

PS. Another 8x32 value bincoular is the Vortex Diamondback. It's a pretty good deal at $189

http://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Diamondback-8x32-Binocular-D-3208/dp/B007AJZF4U

I had the opportunity to briefly compare the Vortex Diamondback 8x32 vs the Sightron SII Blue Sky 8x32 and I liked the Sightron better. The SII had a little less glare, a little less CA, a little better (deeper) FOV. The Vortex is a decent binocular with a great warranty and worth its price, IMO, but I would take the Sightron over it. Which, in fact, I did!

 

[ceasar]

The 8x32 Diamondback has very short eye relief-much shorter than the Sightrons.

Bob