Henry, that is exactly what I first thought should give the impression of flatness. However, you list 5 models which highly correct both "field curvature" and "astigmatism": Swaro SV, Nikon ProStar, Astroluxe, LX-L, EDG. Now I am one of those who sees flat-looking fields and finds them a bit unnatural. I have used the SV, Astroluxe and LX-L. I have thought that the two Nikons, unlike the SV, are not highly corrected for a.m.d. and rectilinear distortion. But they too seem to me to show a flat and unnatural view, the Astroluxe even across its small FOV. Of course I know this may vary a lot with the user....I suppose a distortion profile with zero pincushion and high a.m.d. must be what is somtimes found "unnatural"...
Henry, that is exactly what I first thought should give the impression of flatness. However, you list 5 models which highly correct both "field curvature" and "astigmatism": Swaro SV, Nikon ProStar, Astroluxe, LX-L, EDG. Now I am one of those who sees flat-looking fields and finds them a bit unnatural. I have used the SV, Astroluxe and LX-L. I have thought that the two Nikons, unlike the SV, are not highly corrected for a.m.d. and rectilinear distortion. But they too seem to me to show a flat and unnatural view, the Astroluxe even across its small FOV. Of course I know this may vary a lot with the user.
Refreshing straight talk about using a premium binocular to watch birds, from someone fortunate to compare it with other such binoculars. I was waiting for that CA report from you!
Great comments, as always. It's a pleasure reading thorough in the field, hands-on comparative reviews. I compare a lot of high and mid-tier binoculars, but can rarely have so many on hand at once (typically 2-3, at most). As you have access to 6+ top tier options, I tend to lend a fair bit of weight to your musings.
Of your many quality 8x, which would you grab before the HG?
Thanks Chuck for sharing more comparative reports, and field experience, plus birding! Good to know the Maven and the new Nikon can stand up to the others on many issues.
Bill
After some prodding....I got off my tail and did a few test concerning CA this am. This is a little bit late in coming but work, tax return, vacation(), birding, etc has taken it's toll!
First....the CA test. I quickly picked up six binoculars. Three of the conventional FOV best high end 8X42s I have then the Monarch HG along with the Leica Trinovid HD and Maven all 8X42s. I do a test with a black pattern on white poster board. It literally eats binoculars alive. Should have taken a picture.
In the first group I rank from 1st to 3rd, left to right: picture at the bottom.
Zeiss FL, Nikon EDG, Swarovski SLC. The FL and EDG are a little bit ahead of the SLC in this regard. The FL does the best all across the FOV. The EDG only slightly less so. I find this parameter lower down the list of importance for me. Rarely is the best binocular in controlling CA my favorite birding binocular. That IS that it's all about, RIGHT?
NEXT up are direct competitors. Picture is first to third from right to LEFT! No idea why I lined them up like that! The Maven B.1 8X42 is the better binocular when CA is concerned followed closely by the Monarch HG then the Leica HD. I felt the Maven was best every time I picked it up.
I've done quite a bit of birding lately....the majority with the Monarch HG. The more I use it, the more I like it. I've directly compared the Monarch HG with the Maven B.1, Leica Trinovid, Trinovid HD, SV 8.5, Monarch 7, and Zeiss FL...all 8X42s except the SV. From the above list I'd prob put the Monarch HG as the number two binocular. As recently as Sunday I carried the FL 8X42 along with the HG. Conditions were not that good. Cloudy with little to no sunlight. Birds in top of the trees with a gray, cloudy background. Terrible conditions for color and contrast. In practically every instance I thought the HG topped the FL. I couldn't believe it either...
I used the Monarch HG all over Curacao and while birding in Labadee, Haiti as well. It's really a first class birding binocular. I am particularly impressed with it's focus adjustment and the clarity of images. Low weight and small stature pay dividends when sticking in a pack or while hanging around ones neck.
I have been the testing the nikon 10x42 Hg several times in different light situations and I have to change my opinion on them
In the past , I was fond of their brightness , and great FOV , and this remains a great pro
On the other hand , just asking myself whether it is a great birding glass , I would definitely say no, because the more I look trough them , the more they appear to be quite nervous in image
So for a quick bird spot , just fine , for long birding sessions , you just feel they don't give the same ease of looking
What could be the reason for this?
Hi,
Has anyone had the chance to compare the Monarch HD to the Nikon SE porro prism binoculars? Nikon is offering a trade-in and I am not sure whether to repair the SEs (collimation problems) or go for the Monarchs. I'd be grateful for any feedback that you could provide.
Thanks,
Avron
Thanks, Caesar. But, yes, I did mean Nikon Monarch HG. Does that change things?
Lee: how in the world did you know about the Chimay Bleu?!
A
Yes Avron,
It does change things. You will be getting a brand new binocular which sells for nearly $1000.00 absent the trade in value of your SE. You will also be getting Nikons warranty on it.
You will have to make the decision on your own, I'm afraid.
I have all three SEs and I recently got a Monarch HG which I am very impressed with. I'm not sure I would trade any of the SEs even up for it though, but we are not likely to see the SEs again.
You have to decide whether or not to repair yours so your situation is different. Under those circumstances I probably would decide to get the Monarch HG.
Did you have the opportunity to try a Monarch HG yet?
Bob
Thanks, Bob. I have not had the opportunity to try the Monarch HG. But I am somewhat worried by, for example, Arran's change of heart. Perhaps I should not be, given your impressions of the MHG.
One more question: the reason that I am concerned about the SEs is that, after my wife indicated that she was having difficulty with them, I tried a simple star test. With my 10x42 ELs I was able to resolve a star into a single point. With the SEs, I could not do the same: the same star divided into two points. Is that sufficient indication that the binoculars are out of collimation?
Once again, I am grateful for the help.
A