Nikon Monarch 7 8 x 30 Review (3 Viewers)

[Hermann]

My biggest downer with light control on the 10x M7 is in low light conditions where veiling glare can make viewing problematic. If you imagine a grey winter day when looking at a dull and uniform subject, for example a leafless hedgerow or row of conifers, the M7 can throw up a crescent of 'fug' that I previously described as like a smokescreen. Quickly changing to either my 10x Swaro CL-P or my 8x32 Trinovid (which I had with me to help to evaluate the M7) saw normal service resumed and the 'wall' of vegetation clearly visible with no veiling glare.

Nice description of the problems caused by veiling glare. I also think it's most obvious on grey days, but it's always there, even on bright days. It just not quite so obvious - unless you have a direct comparison with a pair of binoculars like one of the Leicas that are pretty good in that that respect. And yes, I think it can make a real difference.

All up, as before, the M7 10x30 is undeniably super value for money and if it wasn't for the veiling glare I would happily use one as my day-to-day bin.

I only know the 8x30, and I agree. The veiling glare is a killer, as far as I'm concerned.

Hermann

 

[james holdsworth]

Looking for glare with a mid-day sun isn't the best way to invoke it - try it with an early morning or evening sun, when the light is strong but more scattered. Then you should find bags of glare if the bin. is so inclined.

I find even my cheapest bins. deal with glare from a high sun quite well, with almost nothing showing right up to the blinding point but [these] can be woeful with more scattered light.

 

[wsj]

Call me a skeptic but I still wonder if there's really some of these with glare problems and some without. I suspect it's just different users.

Has anyone yet seen a good sample beside a bad one? Also, I seem to recall that somebody sent theirs to Nikon for a repair, but again nobody knows what Nikon did to "fix" them.

I just wonder if this "fixed" version might fall under the heading of "urban myth."

It would be nice to know for sure.

Mark

Mark,

I can't say I've seen a good one BESIDE a bad one but I did order a pair through Amazon back on April 2, nobody locally having a pair to actually look through, and they ended up having the incomplete internal coating or blackening as described in several earlier posts. Serial number on mine is 0001871.

I actually had no idea what the problem was until reading the various posts about the issue and the fix, but I had them for a day and compared them with my Nikon Monarch 5 10x42 & Prostaff 9x25 reverse porros, and a Leupold Acadia 8x42 and just wasn't happy with the image but am not bino-astute enough to know why (hence this forum).

I got a return authorization from Amazon with a May 5th expiration date and then contacted Nikon, who had me send them for inspection/repair, which I did. I figured if I wasn't happy with them when they came back I would probably still have time to send them back through Amazon.

I got them back on May 1 and they were completely satisfactory. The formerly bright internal surfaces are now fully blackened and the image, particularly the color/contrast, seemed very sharp. All the work and return shipping was covered under warranty. Oddly, the repair order said nothing about blackening the internal surfaces, only that they'd cleaned, repaired impact damage, and corrected focus. Whatever they did, it worked; but I can attest that there were shiny, uncoated portions in both barrels before I sent them to Nikon and that there are no shiny bits now.

Long and short, at least as far as my experience, is that mine had the problem, Nikon fixed it, and I am now very satisfied with them when compared to the other binos we own. And I got to spend a very happy couple of hours comparing them side by side with my mother-in-law's brand spanking new Leica Ultravid 8x42's watching birds at Wilson Bay, an embayment near Cape Vincent NY, this past Saturday. I had hers on a harness and mine in hand, so going from one to the other watching the same bird was possible. Birds were from 30 feet at her feeder to about 6 tenths of a mile (a wild turkey hen on the hill on the other side of the bay) and everywhere in between. Good as the Ultravids? Of course not, but the experience left me thinking the M 7's are a pretty good binocular for the $300 price tag, and completely usable for birding.

-Scott

 

[Kammerdiner]

Mark,

I can't say I've seen a good one BESIDE a bad one but I did order a pair through Amazon back on April 2, nobody locally having a pair to actually look through, and they ended up having the incomplete internal coating or blackening as described in several earlier posts. Serial number on mine is 0001871.

I actually had no idea what the problem was until reading the various posts about the issue and the fix, but I had them for a day and compared them with my Nikon Monarch 5 10x42 & Prostaff 9x25 reverse porros, and a Leupold Acadia 8x42 and just wasn't happy with the image but am not bino-astute enough to know why (hence this forum).

I got a return authorization from Amazon with a May 5th expiration date and then contacted Nikon, who had me send them for inspection/repair, which I did. I figured if I wasn't happy with them when they came back I would probably still have time to send them back through Amazon.

I got them back on May 1 and they were completely satisfactory. The formerly bright internal surfaces are now fully blackened and the image, particularly the color/contrast, seemed very sharp. All the work and return shipping was covered under warranty. Oddly, the repair order said nothing about blackening the internal surfaces, only that they'd cleaned, repaired impact damage, and corrected focus. Whatever they did, it worked; but I can attest that there were shiny, uncoated portions in both barrels before I sent them to Nikon and that there are no shiny bits now.

Long and short, at least as far as my experience, is that mine had the problem, Nikon fixed it, and I am now very satisfied with them when compared to the other binos we own. And I got to spend a very happy couple of hours comparing them side by side with my mother-in-law's brand spanking new Leica Ultravid 8x42's watching birds at Wilson Bay, an embayment near Cape Vincent NY, this past Saturday. I had hers on a harness and mine in hand, so going from one to the other watching the same bird was possible. Birds were from 30 feet at her feeder to about 6 tenths of a mile (a wild turkey hen on the hill on the other side of the bay) and everywhere in between. Good as the Ultravids? Of course not, but the experience left me thinking the M 7's are a pretty good binocular for the $300 price tag, and completely usable for birding.

-Scott

Scott,

Thanks for that! It sounds like a real issue with a real solution. Good news for all of us who have been waffling on these. Was the serial number the same when it came back? Just wondering if Nikon repairs or replaces them. Yours is the second report about repairing them.

Anyway, thanks,
Mark

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

I loved the view through the M7s. If I get them, I'll just make a little hood for the front.

 

[wsj]

Scott,

Was the serial number the same when it came back? Just wondering if Nikon repairs or replaces them. Yours is the second report about repairing them.

Mark

Yes, same serial number. So, at least based on a sample size of 2, it seems like Nikon's repairing them.

-Scott

 

[henry link]

I saw a display pair of 10x30 M7's at a Bass Pro shop yesterday (nothing but 10x binoculars there). I looked at a dark area of the ceiling near a bright lighting fixture, which induced very severe veiling glare in the FOV opposite the light source. A 10x43 Zeiss HT had no problem with the same test. In fairness that would be at least partly due to the larger exit pupil of the Zeiss.

Unfortunately I didn't go to the store equipped with a magnifier to examine the internals, but what I could see looked a lot like the Allbino's photo of the 8x30 M7 exit pupil. Looking into the front I didn't see any bright rings, but then painting an unbaffled internal surface with flat black paint provides only a limited benefit at the obtuse reflecting angles that shoot glare back toward the eyepiece.

 

[marinemaster]

I got mine and while they are great, smooth focus, sharp, wide fov, the eye relief just not enough. Outside of that no complains.

 

[John Cantelo]

As I commented elsewhere, I got a pair of these bins last week at the UK Bird Fair. They were intended as a pair I could take when larger bins would be inconvenient (on hikes, when travelling, etc.) For diplomatic reasons though, they were 'officially' for my non-birding wife. I had a field trial of them today and found no problems. I didn't detect any glare although I suspect the conditions I was birding in weren't such that this would be a noticable problem. I wasn't able to compare them directly with other bins at the Bird Fair (except Prostaffs which were distinctly less impressive), but they did not seem to be as good optically as Kite Lynx 8x32 (£200 more expensive). The new Vanguard Endeavor II 8x32 (also c£280) at the same price point were perhaps a little better optically (but not available for a month). What did strike me, and I don't think this has been stressed enough, is how good they are ergonomically (especially for those with small hands). Light, nicely 'grippable' with fingers naturally curling round the tubes. People with large hands might find them less convenient, but I found them ideal (once I made sure my 'pinkies' didn't dangle across the objectives). My petite wife found them ideal and they would make superb 'first binoculars' for children and teenagers. As far as I was concerned there were only two drawbacks - first I hate Nikon's inability to supply a proper case with its own strap and second my wife now likes 'em so much I can't get 'em off her!

 

[PhilR.]

Mr. Cantelo,

Your impressions mirror mine almost exactly. Although I don't have much real use for ours, I keep them because I enjoy their handling so much. Moreso than any other 30-32mm roof that we own. If Nikon made them with a view that was as sharp as our Conquest HD, I would ditch the Zeiss in a heartbeat. Congrats on a very nice little bino......

 

[John Cantelo]

Mr. Cantelo,

Your impressions mirror mine almost exactly. Although I don't have much real use for ours, I keep them because I enjoy their handling so much. Moreso than any other 30-32mm roof that we own. If Nikon made them with a view that was as sharp as our Conquest HD, I would ditch the Zeiss in a heartbeat. Congrats on a very nice little bino......

If I'd been getting a pair of 8x32 bins just for myself (which naturally would have justified the greater expense!) then I would proabaly have gone with Zeiss too, but they just weren't suitable ergonomically for my wife's small hands. I think people here tend to underate the importance of good ergonomics since their focus (!) is firmly on the subtleties of optical performance. If the Kites, as noted above, are available in the USA do have a good look - they're certainly better than the Monarchs. Friends tell me that they match Zeiss for sharpness (except at the edges of the huge FOV - 151m vs 140m for the Zeiss),