Monarch 5 (1 Viewer)

[perterra]

Guess you missed my post or you didn't like my answer. Even though it doesn't cost much to add p-coatings, it does cost more, and it also costs more to make FMC lenses than "fully coated". Small though the difference may be, if you add those savings over thousands and thousands of units sold worldwide, Nikon will make a bigger profit with the P5 than with the P7, which sells for $10 less than the P5 at Adorama.

It's not about the retail price as much as it's about the profit margins. That's my guess.

<B>

And 50 cents to a big box retailer may push it above what their target price is.

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

Not sure what I am missing...
when I tried out the Prostaff 7 and Monarch 5 of the same pwr x objective
at REI, the length was very different and the contrast was stronger
on the Monarch 5. That's just my pet parameter speaking, but the design
isn't quite the same. The depth of field was different, too.
I couldn't find anything to beat the Yosemite Bx-1 porro, but then the
Monarch 5 soundly beat it (albeit at about 3x the cost and with a sleeker body).
...for contrast, that is.

 

[ceasar]

Guess you missed my post or you didn't like my answer. Even though it doesn't cost much to add p-coatings, it does cost more, and it also costs more to make FMC lenses than "fully coated". Small though the difference may be, if you add those savings over thousands and thousands of units sold worldwide, Nikon will make a bigger profit with the P5 than with the P7, which sells for $10 less than the P5 at Adorama.

It's not about the retail price as much as it's about the profit margins. That's my guess.

<B>

A Schmidt/Pechan roof prism without phase coatings must be real cheap to make compared to the 3 possible coated versions of a phase coated one.

Bob

 

[ceasar]

Not sure what I am missing...
when I tried out the Prostaff 7 and Monarch 5 of the same pwr x objective
at REI, the length was very different and the contrast was stronger
on the Monarch 5. That's just my pet parameter speaking, but the design
isn't quite the same. The depth of field was different, too.
I couldn't find anything to beat the Yosemite Bx-1 porro, but then the
Monarch 5 soundly beat it (albeit at about 3x the cost and with a sleeker body).
...for contrast, that is.

Why should the DOF be different?

Bob

 

[typo]

Why should the DOF be different?

Bob

Bob,

Thanks for the extra detail on the coatings etc.

I saw no difference in the centre field DOF between the P7 to the M5 and the old MkIII when I compared them, as you would expect. However there was more field curvature in the P7 (though maybe not as much as the Yosemite if I remember rightly) and that can be seen as a better perceived DOF by some, including myself, depending on the light levels and what's being viewed.

Just guessing, but I presume there is a much simpler ocular in the Prostaff than the Monarch series, maybe a Kellner or something. I'd agree the P7 contrast wasn't as good and the colour balance a little different to the new M5 but the three P7 samples I've tried were sharper than the MkIII, M5 or M7 I compared them to. The P7 CA was better than the MkIII but not the M5 or M7 unsurprisingly.

I personally think the P7 is a very good entry level binocular, but I like the US pricing much better than UK's.

David

 

[FrankD]

Here is a comparison of 4 inexpensive Nikon 8x42 binoculars taken from the Nikon 2013 website which have almost the same exterior structure.

The PS5 says it has a fiberglass reinforced body. The others are rubber covered but their understructure is not stated. They are all 5.1" wide and their lengths go from 5.7" (M5), 6.1" (M3), 6.5" (PS5) and 6.9" (PS7).

Regarding their prisms; this is what the 4 Nikon low cost (Under $300.00) 8x42's have.

The Monarch 5; Monarch 3 ATB, Prostaff 7 and Prostaff 5 all have the same 6.3º FOV.

Suggested Retail Prices are respectively: $299.99, $229.99, $219.99 and $159.95.

Their prisms are respectively: (M5-Dielectric), (M3-HR*,Silvercoated, Multi layered) (PS7- Aluminum, HR*, Multi-layer) and (PS5-Unkown) The 1st 3 mentioned are Phase Coated. The PS5 is not phase coated.

*HR means high reflective.

M5 are FMC and have ED glass. M3 are FMC only. PM7 and PM5 are MC.

Note that the 8x42 with only MC coatings and no phase coatings on the prisms costs 50% less ,at this low price point, than an 8x42 with dielectric, phase coated prisms and lenses that are FMC and ED glass.

Bob

Based on your last statement Bob it would appear that all the coatings do add up to a significant amount of the cost.

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

Why should the DOF be different?

Bob

It was an observation, so I can only speculate as to why.
In spotting scopes and in another roof-prism design I have,
it seemed to be related to a central focusing/field lens.

 

[paul2013]

Mike: NOt to beat a dead horse, but the conflicting information about phase coatings on the Prostaff 5 10x50 prompted me to contact Nikon Sport Optics a second time through the website and ask for clarification. Here is what I received:

>>Thank you for contacting Nikon.

All Nikon Binocular feature Phase correction on the Lenses.

Please feel free to contact Nikon with any further questions or concerns.

Nikon Services

Thanks for using Nikon products!

Nikon Inc. (USA) Service & Support
http://support.nikonusa.com<<


There is obviously some confusion about where the PC belongs (lenses vs prisms), but now a second representative from Nikon has assured me that the Prostaff 5 10x50 does have phase coatings. Could you please clear this up?

Thanks,
Paul

Samandag,

The constructive remarks are always welcomed and noted. Thanks so much. Enjoy the M5s.

Brock,
No phase coatings on the new P5. Also, the lenses are fully coated not fully multi-coated.

Best,
Mike

 

[ceasar]

Mike: NOt to beat a dead horse, but the conflicting information about phase coatings on the Prostaff 5 10x50 prompted me to contact Nikon Sport Optics a second time through the website and ask for clarification. Here is what I received:

>>Thank you for contacting Nikon.

All Nikon Binocular feature Phase correction on the Lenses.

Please feel free to contact Nikon with any further questions or concerns.

Nikon Services

Thanks for using Nikon products!

Nikon Inc. (USA) Service & Support
http://support.nikonusa.com<<


There is obviously some confusion about where the PC belongs (lenses vs prisms), but now a second representative from Nikon has assured me that the Prostaff 5 10x50 does have phase coatings. Could you please clear this up?

Thanks,
Paul

Paul

The technicians should check their new USA website which is now dated 2014.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/index.page#c54-CID-1342536894925-tab-1

If they check the Tech Specs of the PS 5 binoculars they will see that none of the PS 5 binoculars are shown to have phase coatings.

The Tech Specs on each roof prism binocular will state if it has Phase Coatings. If it is not so stated in the Tech Specs the binocular does not have them.

The PS 5 binoculars are the only large roof prisms that do not have phase coatings. The compact 8 and 10x25 Trailblazers and the compact Aculon T-51 binoculars do not have them either.

Bob

 

[paul2013]

I'm aware of the website, Bob. The question is, given continuing conflicting information and the fact that the Nikon website failed to mention phase-coating in other models until the last few weeks, is there any relation between the description of the P5s on the website and whether their prisms are actually phase-coated or not.

 

[ceasar]

I'm aware of the website, Bob. The question is, given continuing conflicting information and the fact that the Nikon website failed to mention phase-coating in other models until the last few weeks, is there any relation between the description of the P5s on the website and whether their prisms are actually phase-coated or not.

Paul,

See post #6 in the thread below by Mike Freiberg dated December 16th. Mike is Nikon's Birding Market Specialist. He is responding to a query by Brock. He says that the P5s do not have Phase Coatings.

After he made that statement I checked the Tech Specs of the Roof Prism binoculars on the Nikon website and found that the P5s were the only Roof Prisms that did not include a statement in their Technical Specifications that they had Phase Coatings. (Except, as I noted, for the small TrailBlazers and Aculons.) That is all I can tell you now.

I'm satisfied that the P5s do not have phase coatings. It's possible that, in spite of this, the 10x50 might still be a good binocular otherwise, considering it's cost.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2889337&postcount=6

Also see Brock's comments in post #37 which are pertinent to this.

Bob

 

[paul2013]

Mike has also confirmed that the P5s are not phase coated. That makes me wonder about reports from people here that suggest the P5s are as sharp (or sharper) as the P7. I wonder if Nikon has found another way to reduce roof prism phase shift?

 

[ceasar]

Paul,

Are you sure you aren't thinking about the Monarch 5 instead of the Prostaff 5?

On the other hand, I still have an old, green armored Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BN made around 1990. It was expensive then and I got it for 1/2 price when it was discontinued for the new Leica 7x42 BA and SP prisms after 1992. It has Uppendahl Prisms which are not phase coated but it is still a very useable binocular. I used it for 6 or 7 years and had no complaints. Properly made and if they have big exit pupils they still can be useful. I wouldn't necessarily place the Nikon P5s in this category though.

Bob

 

[paul2013]

Hi Bob: I was thinking about the Prostaffs, as I need at least 18mm ER which seems pretty common in 10x50s but not 10x42s (I don't think there is a Monarch 10x50, is there?). As I was just writing to another BF member, it's not easy to find good 10x binoculars (with the long ER) under $500, although the $300-500 price point is full of nice 7x and 8x binoculars, such as my Leupold Hawthornes (7x42).

Paul,

Are you sure you aren't thinking about the Monarch 5 instead of the Prostaff 5?

On the other hand, I still have an old, green armored Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BN made around 1990. It was expensive then and I got it for 1/2 price when it was discontinued for the new Leica 7x42 BA and SP prisms after 1992. It has Uppendahl Prisms which are not phase coated but it is still a very useable binocular. I used it for 6 or 7 years and had no complaints. Properly made and if they have big exit pupils they still can be useful. I wouldn't necessarily place the Nikon P5s in this category though.

Bob

 

[ceasar]

Hi Bob: I was thinking about the Prostaffs, as I need at least 18mm ER which seems pretty common in 10x50s but not 10x42s (I don't think there is a Monarch 10x50, is there?). As I was just writing to another BF member, it's not easy to find good 10x binoculars (with the long ER) under $500, although the $300-500 price point is full of nice 7x and 8x binoculars, such as my Leupold Hawthornes (7x42).

It seems that the only 50mm Roofs that Nikon has are the P5s. Most of the 10x42s seem to stop at 16mm ER. The Vortex Diamondback 10x50 has phase coatings and 19mm ER and costs around $250.00.

If you can live with 9x Pentax makes a 9x42 with 18mm ER. It costs under $300.00 at Eagle Optics.

Bob