-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nikon Monarch 7 new 8x30 and 10x30 (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter fkrow
- Start date
I ordered the Nikon Monarch 7's 8x30 from B&H today and I get them Tuesday so I will let you all know how they are. They finally came in. I think Adorama has them also. The light weight(15 oz.) and small size are the attraction. They are almost a compact. I don't expect them to optically compare with my Swarovision's 8x32 or my Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32.
Is the AFOV calculated according to the formula everyone uses or is it calculated using the Nikon-only-let's-shoot-ourselves-in-the-foot-and-confuse-everyone-while-we-are-at-it one?
--
Jan
marinemaster
Well-known member
Let us know how you like them, I am interested in the eye relief mostly.
) In fact Nikon seems to be one of the few (only one?) companies behaving accurate here by using the official ISO standard for AFOV calculation.Steve
Howard220
Well-known member
One accurate way to know the true field of an eyepiece is to measure it -- and that could be by putting the binoculars on a tripod and tracking a star, that is situated on the celestial equator (such as a star in Orion's belt) and just east of due south from where you are, from one side of the field to the other. Over an 8 degree field that could take a little while.
A problem with using the simple AFOV / magnification is that you can't be sure of the cited specifications of any given optic, so the figures you input could be off to start with. The above star-drift method only tells you the true field; it tells you nothing else. Apparent field, well, the bigger the better.
A problem with using the simple AFOV / magnification is that you can't be sure of the cited specifications of any given optic, so the figures you input could be off to start with. The above star-drift method only tells you the true field; it tells you nothing else. Apparent field, well, the bigger the better.
justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Just to throw my .02 in here...
The other day, I had the chance to view the Nikon 7 10x30's and the Swaro Companion CL 10x30's at the same time, under real-world conditions. I could see no difference between them. They were both amazing little binoculars, and are virtually the same size.
I have a pair of 10x30 Monarch 7's in my sights now.
The other day, I had the chance to view the Nikon 7 10x30's and the Swaro Companion CL 10x30's at the same time, under real-world conditions. I could see no difference between them. They were both amazing little binoculars, and are virtually the same size.
I have a pair of 10x30 Monarch 7's in my sights now.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Congratulations! You just wrote the skimpiest comparative review of all time! :t:
How about 50 cents worth? Besides being the virtually the same size, how else do the two bins compare? Inquiring minds need to know. o
<B>
Last edited:
In defense of the Swarovski CL I had the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30's and the Swarovski 8x30 CL's at the same time and compared them closely. The Swarovski's handled glare much better than the Monarch 7 and the contrast was much better. The Nikon M7 had glare that would flood the entire FOV ,whereas, the Swarovski did not. The 8x could be a little different but IMO the the Swarovski is definitely worth the difference in price. You get what you pay for.
Congratulations! You just wrote the skimpiest comparative review of all time! :t:
How about 50 cents worth? Besides being the virtually the same size, how else do the two bins compare? Inquiring minds need to know. o
<B>
May I inquire how one will get 50 cents worth if there isn't a dimes worth of difference between them?:smoke:
Bob
I would easily pay a dime to be rid of the glare in the Nikon 8x30 M7's. In fact I would pay $400 to get the Swarovski CL's and be rid of that terrible all encompassing glare the M7's have. The M7's are "Glare Monsters" as far as I am concerned. Many people have noticed it because this is a real problem with these binoculars. I personally wouldn't recommend them to anybody. I returned my pair in two days. Glad to be rid of them. Wheeeew!
Last edited:
Dennis,
That sounds familiar. You don't like the M7 because it has glare.
Have you mentioned this before? If not it bears repeating!
How about doing so a few dozen times more until you get your message across.
3
3Bob
It is just incredible to me that other people don't see or are not bothered by the glare in the M7's. Then people say they are optically as good as the Swarovski 8x30 CL which I find highly misleading to somebody looking to buy some small binoculars because they are not. You are not going to get the same quality binocular for $400 as you are for $800. That is common sense. I just hope most people remember most of the time you get what you pay for. Use your head. People say the Nikon 8x30 M7 is equal to the Swarovski CL 8x30 because they can't afford the Swarovski or they don't want to spend the difference in money so they rationalize it in their mind that the M7 is as good when in reality it is not. But it is not fair for somebody using that comparison to buy binoculars.Dennis,
That sounds familiar. You don't like the M7 because it has glare.
Have you mentioned this before? If not it bears repeating!
How about doing so a few dozen times more until you get your message across.
3
Bob
Last edited:
I think that is a confusing argument Dennis. Everybody knows, all things being equal, that a $400.00 binocular won't be as good as an $800.00 binocular. But here things can't be equal because one binocular is built in China where wages and costs are lower and the other one is built in Austria which has high wages and higher production costs.
Are you saying that just because people disagree with you about the amount of glare (if any) they see in the 8x30 M7 and then decide that they don't want to spend more money by purchasing the more expensive Swarovski 8x30 CL instead that it isn't fair for them to buy binoculars?
Lots of people have disagreed with your comments about glare in the M7 Nikons and stated that they have had no problems with it.
Bob
The wages are higher in Austria than China. BUT don't you think you are going to get a better built binocular if it is put together by highly trained opticians that Swarovski uses instead of Chinese factory line assemblers that might not even know what a binocular is and in a factory that might make knock-off North Face jackets in the same facility? Don't you think Swarovski would have a more involved and more stringent QA program. Don't you think Swarovski uses a higher grade of components including a better grade of optical glass and applies a better and more quality optical coating to that glass. All this stuff costs more money but the end result is a better higher quality binocular. I have had a LOT of Chinese binoculars. You no what. I don't have them NO more.They are all gone. History. Dust in the wind. Why? Chinese binoculars although some ARE satisfactory quality they are a definite rung down the quality ladder from an Austrian, German or Japanese binocular. It is all in what you want but in my eyes the Nikon M7 should not even be compared to the Swarovski 8x30 CL. These binoculars are in a totally different class.
Last edited:
Dennis,
That is what I meant when I said "all things being equal." They are not equal.
Never the less the people who don't see the flare that you see in the M7 also see no reason to spend more money on a Swarovski CL not to see it there either so they buy the M7. I have no problem with that and I don't see why you should.
I am still trying to figure out what you meant when you said "It is incredible to me that other people don't see or are not bothered by the glare in the M7's. What is incredible is that you seem to think that the glare problem is in all of the M7s in spite of all the testimony to the contrary by other people who have used them.
And seriously; you don't really think people should not be comparing binoculars that are made in China with those made in Europe, do you? What would we do here in the binocular forum if that were the case and some one inquired about how a European or Japanese binocular compared with a Chinese made one?
Bob
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
First, the Swaro 8X30 CL sells for $1,000, not $800 and the Nikon M7 8X30 sells for $380. (Per B & H Photo, rounded to the nearest $10)
Do you really get what you pay for in the Swaro CL 8X30?
Here is what you said recently in rejecting the Zeiss Terra......
The 375 foot FOV would be the deal killer for me. Too narrow. Can't take the tunnel vision when I amused to 420 feet or above anymore. ...........
So you reject the Zeiss Terra 8X42 normally selling for $340 (currently $290 on promotion) but then say you get what you pay for in a $1,000 binocular with a slightly smaller field of view at 372 ft. Also keep in mind that a 30 mm class binocular usually has a larger FOV than a 40mm class. Are you really getting what you pay for in a $1,000 8X binocular that only offers a 372 FOV?
By the way, the $380 M7 8X30 has a spectacular 435 ft FOV.
As far as the glare in the Monarch 7 8X30, I have not found it to be any worse than other binoculars in this price range. I believe the posts where some people say they see glare in limited conditions, but it is not a "Glare Monster". On the other hand, I have always seen noticeable vieling glare from the store lights every time I have handled a CL. Not good for a $1,000 binocular. Seems the "Glare Monster" label is more appropriate for the CL than the M7!
Every time I looked at the CL, I felt it was overpriced for what it has to offer.
Last edited:
