I'm definitely returning the P7 l, with its very soft focusing wheel. I'm not in love with the M5 for $256 with its poor FOV and and poor close up distance, so almost certainly returning. My plan (for the next 5 minutes, at least) is to keep the $120 Celestron DX ED, in spite of the not so great eye pieces (which in all fairness do stay up when in use), and then upgrade to the M7 if I feel that I am serious enough and need the extra quality to spend that much. Maybe in a birthday or two? And, then, I found a half price Diamondback HD 10 x 42 for $140 (after sale and coupon applied). The thought of having a good and perfectly adequate 8 x 42 plus a very nice 10 x 42 to pull out those extra details both for the same price as the M5 put some additional perspective into the decision. Still awaiting binos to test in the hand, but this has helped me work through eliminating the M5. Thank you and happy new year!
-
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 Prostaff P7 8x42 vs Nikon Monarch M5 8x42 vs Vortex Diamondback HD 8x42 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Devil in the Detail
- Start date
Devil in the Detail
Active member
The problem is ( albeit a nice problem ) we have too many choices in this day and age. I like the M5’s for the discounted UK price, I certainly wouldn’t pay more than £25O for them with such a restrictive FOV. The P7 I have are bright and sharp up until about 75% of the view, the M5’s up until around 90%.
I’ve read good things about the Frontier ED X bit can’t find anything on the HD X.
Joe Glencoe
Member
I’ve just bought a pair of M5 8x42 as a first set for general birdwatching. You mention the poor FOV - is it “bad” poor, or just not as good as some others? I can’t really justify the extra outlay for M7’s (£429 vs £250) and am hoping the M5 will do me just fine as a solid first pair - it’s not like I’ve got anything to compare them to!!
Devil in the Detail
Active member
It’s useable Joe, it all depends on where you’re using them. In woodland/stargazing a wider FOV is more preferable but out in the open it’s not as much of a big deal in my humble opinion.
The M5 FOV is 112m, which is some 19m less than say the Vortex Diamondback 8x42, a wider FOV also makes it easier to track smaller birds.
Better edge to edge clarity is more important for me, it’s no good having a wide FOV if only 70% of it is sharp.
Joe Glencoe
Member
Ok cheers. Probably not anything for me to worry about at this stage.
Redneckbmxer24
Well-known member
I can't speak to the others but I can to the Diamondback HD and I'd cross it off your list. I have the 10x42's while they do have decent glass for the $$ it still sucks compared to binos costing a little bit more. My Leupold BX4's absolutely blow them out of the water and I paid $300 for one pair and $500 for the other.
I would look for something made in Japan for a little more $$.
I would look for something made in Japan for a little more $$.
Devil in the Detail
Active member
Here in the UK Leupold’s in general are hard to find, the BX-4 retails at £700, the BX-2 around £250. Very little in the way of reviews for the BX-2 HD model, have you managed to get your hands on a pair?
Well, my winner is...the Monarch M5! I kept coming back to it. I tried the Vortex Diamondback HD, but the body and focus wheel were just too stiff to move comfortably. I couldn't get a clear view with the Opticron without getting tunnel vision. The Celestron DX ED felt like it was going to fall apart any minute, although the optics were pretty decent. The P7 was nice, but the M5 came out ahead. M7 was very nice, but I couldn't justify the extra $200 over the M5 (which was $258). The Cornell Bin Review article was very helpful and, also, contained a link to an extremely helpful article on how to test drive binoculars. I put the M5 through its paces, and was able to easily focus at distance and then close and at distance again, get a clean single image that was good to the edges, etc. Also, the close range distance was far shorter than advertised, which is a great advantage closer to 6 feet than the advertised 8 feet). Comparing the M5 with its comparatively narrow FOV vs the M7 with its massive FOV led me to conclude that the M5 was certainly adequate.
So, how are you doing?!
Devil in the Detail
Active member
I’m getting there slowly. I’ve still got the M5 and sent the rest back, the most disappointing were the Diamondback 10x42 the stiffness in the hinge made it difficult to adjust, whilst the overall brightness and sharpness are a notch or two down on the M5 …… Granted ones 10x the other an 8x.
I’ve now ordered the P7 in a 10x42 as I do like the extra magnification power these provide, and hopefully the wide FOV on the P7 will resolve the claustrophobic effect on the M5 counterpart, which I also considered but 98m would be stretching it ( or not 🙂 ) for woodland viewing.
If the P7 don’t work out I’ll be keeping the M5, the overall sharpness and brightness to almost the entire edge of the field is a massive plus for me.
Devil in the Detail
Active member
Well after a few weeks of testing one against the other I’m still no nearer.😕
I’ve now got the Vortex Diamondback HD 8x42 along with the Nikon P7 8x42, I did have the Zeiss Terra ED 8x25 just to see if the saving in weight compromised viewing. Optically these were superb, super sharp with excellent edge to edge clarity and as bright as the 8x42 in bright conditions, brightness levels fell off dramatically when it became gloomier ( the norm in the UK ) so that and along with the difficulty getting the my eyes to line up with the small exit pupils meant they too had to go back. Which now brings me to the final two, perhaps.
There’s no difference in sharpness in either of these two, the Vortex are a smidge brighter than the Nikon and offer slightly more immersive viewing in my opinion. The Nikon’s have the advantage of being some 30g lighter and a much more manageable hinge, the Vortex one puts up a fight when trying to adjust but then that could be a good thing I guess.
I really wanted to keep the Monarch M5 with the added benefit of ED glass, that’s something I’ve noticed with the P7 and Diamondbacks when I’ve gone looking for it, plus the overall sharpness edge to edge is better on the M5, but that FOV is off putting at only 112m but then would it be really that noticeable out in the field.
I’ve now got the Vortex Diamondback HD 8x42 along with the Nikon P7 8x42, I did have the Zeiss Terra ED 8x25 just to see if the saving in weight compromised viewing. Optically these were superb, super sharp with excellent edge to edge clarity and as bright as the 8x42 in bright conditions, brightness levels fell off dramatically when it became gloomier ( the norm in the UK ) so that and along with the difficulty getting the my eyes to line up with the small exit pupils meant they too had to go back. Which now brings me to the final two, perhaps.
There’s no difference in sharpness in either of these two, the Vortex are a smidge brighter than the Nikon and offer slightly more immersive viewing in my opinion. The Nikon’s have the advantage of being some 30g lighter and a much more manageable hinge, the Vortex one puts up a fight when trying to adjust but then that could be a good thing I guess.
I really wanted to keep the Monarch M5 with the added benefit of ED glass, that’s something I’ve noticed with the P7 and Diamondbacks when I’ve gone looking for it, plus the overall sharpness edge to edge is better on the M5, but that FOV is off putting at only 112m but then would it be really that noticeable out in the field.
Hi. Now, true confession time. I had a phone conversation with Kevin of Oberwerk and an epiphany. (There are several reports about Kevin and his helpful advice on our forum, so I decided that I would call). First, if you want Oberwerk for birding, go for the Sport ED. Plus, Oberwerk calculate eye relief differently, so the Oberwerk ER of 12 "usable" is equivalent to 16 for everyone else. Second, the epiphany is that I ended up going with a 10x42. I have a 7x35 Nikon Action Extreme. Kevin advised that the 8x wouldn't give me much more than the 7x. In addition, I was disappointed with the lack of bird detail I could make out with the 8x. I ended up comparing the 10x42 Vortex Diamondback HD, the Oberwerk, and....the Nikon Monarch M7. (The FOV for the M7 10x42 is greater than the FOV for the M5 8x42!) I took the M7 and my son snapped up the (too stiff for me) Diamondback for his birthday and he loves it! The Oberwerk was very nice, but too stiff for me to use. I do recommend it as an option for those who can handle a stiffer focus wheel. The M7 had the best usability for me and I was able to use the focus wheel and bend/adjust the body with ease. ER worked for me. FOV. Clarity. So that is how I went from a $120 on sale 8x42 Celestron DX ED to a $436 on sale 10x42 Nikon Monarch M7. Thank goodness for end-of-year salary cost of living adjustments!
Devil in the Detail
Active member
The M7 would’ve been my choice but my budget was £2-300, and was determined to keep within it.
I’ve finally made my decision and I’m keeping the Diamondbacks, I did think about the M5 but that pesky FOV would just bug me so discarded that model.
One thing of note is just how many good binoculars are out there that fall into the lower price brackets. I could’ve easily have bumped up my budget and looked at Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski but feel that I wouldn’t be able to justify the outlay in my predicament of only being able to venture out when my pain levels are at their lowest.
The Diamondbacks are amazing for the price point and if someone had told me twenty plus years ago that you’d be able to get this level of clarity and sharpness at such a low price point, I’d have thought they were completely bonkers.🙂
Congratulations! As my grandmother would have said, "I wish you well to use it!" I, too, was impressed will the quality of all these binoculars. Remarkably, they are considered "entry level". My adult son -- anybody want to hire someone just graduated with a Master's in computers, with a focus on machine learning and artificial intelligence, from an Ivy League university with an excellent grade point average? -- absolutely loves his Diamondbacks. They feel very good in the hand and my son commented on the useful thumb divots. And, of course, he loved the crisp image. I had trouble with the stiffness of the body and focus wheel, but he was fine. So good choices all round!
Devil in the Detail
Active member
Love the plug for your son, and why not he’s worked damn hard to get where he is no doubt.👍
The quality of optics these days is quite frankly amazing, no doubt with the manufacturing process being moved to China for companies producing low to mid tier bins has meant us the consumer benefiting….I’d still prefer if they were manufactured in Europe, the US etc, etc.
I looked for anything -- anything -- that wasn't manufactured in China, but soon realized that this wasn't going to be happening for "entry-level" bins that would work for me. However, if I ever move up the bin range, I'm sure that I'll find something that will work. For now, I can't believe I'd go for a such an expensive pair...says the person who started bin selection with $120 on sale pair and ended up with a $436 on sale pair 😁
Devil in the Detail
Active member
So much for being decisive and keeping the Diamondbacks.
I’ve just purchased the Nikon Monarch M5 from an eBay seller BNIB with a 15% off discount code for £212. An amazing price as the discounted offers from retailers here in the UK for £249.99 finished on Monday.
I still feel there’s nothing much between the M5 and Diamondbacks, the ED glass did a great job of eliminating chromatic aberration when I looked through them the other week, but then the Vortex I had showed only a little colour fringing in extreme conditions.
The sacrifice in the FOV is some 8m so it’s not a big deal, the weight is 30g heavier…. I’ll probably buy an harness for them to alleviate the weight issue for me.
Congratulations! I love the M5 8x42. FOV not great, but certainly acceptable. I only went up to the M7 model because I realized I needed the 10x42; it was only at that point that the more limited FOV for the M5 became enough of a deal breaker for me to cough up the extra $200. Actually, if I hadn't had the extra financial flexibility, I would have gone with the M5 10x42 and just dealt with the limited FOV. I really feel like I'm having a First World Problems Moment right now!
Redneckbmxer24
Well-known member
I compared BX1’s and BX2’s in 8x42 and 10x42 outside of a store last year. Surprisingly the BX1’s had a better image than the BX2’s which I didn’t expect. I’d say the DB HD’s are maybe a little better overall the the BX1’s and 2’s but they’re pretty close. The DB’s have better eye cups and ergos too.
In you’re price range the DB HD’s would be pretty hard to beat. I have since given away mine though.
Devil in the Detail
Active member
The M5 10x FOV is only 98m so I can see why you coughed up the extra dough. I won’t be here when they arrive on Friday as I’ll be in hospital for my third knee revision so I’ll have to wait a few weeks before I get my hands on them sadly.
All best wishes for a successful surgery and a speedy recovery.