Swarovski 8x30 CL B vs Nikon Monarch M7 8x30 - suggestion (1 Viewer)

[avidopticguy]

Hello,

I find binoculars super handy and I want a compact ~16oz set with a small foot print alpha(ish) to add to my current line up for travel/hiking.

I have narrowed my choices down to Swarovski 8x30 CL B vs Nikon Monarch M7 8x30. I find anything less than 8x30 is too fiddly to use comfortably and any alpha(ish) 8x32 to be similar in size and weight to the HG 8x42. I already have Zeiss Victory SF 8x42 (27.5 oz), Nikon HG 8x42 (23.5 oz).

I have not been able to try either the 8x30 CL or the 8x30 M7 in person as there are none avaliable locally.

I was able to try a Swarovski 10x30 CL B against my HG 8x42 in person. The ergonomics and finish I was satisfied with. However, IMO the optics of the HG 8x42 were far superior to the Cl B 10x30 especially in low light, less CA, better center sharpness and FOV (8.3 vs 6.6). I am aware that this was an unfair comparison due to limitations of 10x30 physics.

I have read all the reviews and comparisons of the 8x30 CL bs and Monarch M7 8x30. Most accounts state that the M7s beat the Cls optically: less CA, better center sharpness bigger FOV (8.3 vs 7.6). Not to mention that the M7 is about 1/2 the price. The CL b have been reported to have better edge to edge sharpness, however the FOV is larger with the M7.

I did consider the HG 8x30 and possibly waiting for the Monarch M7+ 8x30s. However, the HG didn't seem to offer than much more in optical performance at 2x the cost and for secondary pair of travel/hike binoculars I am willing to forgo Mg2+ body and Made in Japan bragging rights. Regarding the Monarch M7+ 8x30 with field flattener, maybe just a slight upgrade to justify a significant upgrade price (in uk 500pounds would be $600 USD for M7+. Reg M7 currently $475 usd). If the field flattener is anything like the HG line (my experience with HG 8x42) it is pretty much non-existent and kind of a joke. Nonetheless, I don't really need field flattener and lack thereof does not bother me.

Any input would be appreciated esp if you have experience with the mentioned binoculars.

Thanks in advance

 

[A2GG]

I wouldn’t make any concrete conclusions based on 8x42 vs 10x30 comparison.

Over a year ago I briefly compared my 8x30 HG to the CL-b 8x30. I felt the CL-b had a slightly more impressive image, but that is of course just my opinion.
However the HG was more comfortable to look through wearing my glasses. I don’t think the CL’s usable ER was as much as the HG and the narrower fov was noticeable. I just felt the view through the Nikon was more comfortable and relaxed for me. I didn’t check for things like CA as I didn’t have enough time. I looked through the CL outside of a store at a nature preserve.

 

[avidopticguy]

I agree regarding the difficulty of drawing conclusions with a comparison between the 8x42 and 10x30.

Thanks for posting your experience between the two. I may need to find a way to try them out (very difficult) first hand.

Nikon seems to more often than not deliver comfortable views with great ergonomics that doesn't fatigue the user. It often becomes the better overall binocular even with slightly lesser optics. Almost always the price is also much lower.

 

[dorubird]

Even if they have a very similar image as you rightly said, sharing some qualities or sharing some weaknesses (like chromatic aberrations and the decrease of the resolution on the edges), however in my opinion the HG 8x30 it is better opticaly and mechanicaly than Monarch 7 8x30:
better central resolution
better luminosity (higher light transmission)
slightly lower distortion,
bigger eye relief and more comfortable eyepieces
better construction and finishes
and last but not least a little more resistant to glare (but HG also has some glare problems)

HG 8x30 have more in common with CL 8x30 performance

 

[lmans66]

I have had both; the Swaro and the Monarch HG (don't get the regular non HG)..... In terms of image, I thought the HG was better. Part of the CL image I might have experienced is a poorly designed diopter which makes it extremely difficult to hone in on. I think once you could hone in on the correct diopter on the Swaro, it will put forth an image equal to the HG if not better.

Overall, I thought the HG was just a bit too small..... felt like a toy to me. While the CL isn't that much bigger, if at that....it feels larger, thus it was easier to hold. I really loved the eye-pieces on the CL... Really nice.

Which one did I end up buying? The HG. Then after a few times birding, my experiences with it were non-impactful,so I decided to sell it. I didn't purchase the CL for I wasn't convinced. A few months went by and I found the Leica 7x35 Retrovid and feel it is the best somewhat compact binocular on the market. It is not waterproof but who cares as I don't bird in the rain and if I did, I have other bins.

There you go....my experiences and process with the HG, CL and Retrovid. jim

 

[avidopticguy]

Thanks for the input. The reason i "skipped " the HG model as a choice was because th CLs price is so pretty close to it. As other accounts said that it was similar optically to the m7. This was also my experience with the m7 8x42 and hg 8x42.

Again thanks for all the responses, thisnkg to think over.... I may just need to order both and try for myself.

 

[lmans66]

Thanks for the input. The reason i "skipped " the HG model as a choice was because th CLs price is so pretty close to it. As other accounts said that it was similar optically to the m7. This was also my experience with the m7 8x42 and hg 8x42.

Again thanks for all the responses, thisnkg to think over.... I may just need to order both and try for myself.

If that is your approach, then I would clearly and 'no bones about it' go with the CL. Yes on the outside, the non HG looks good but wait, ....what are you NOT seeing? In optics, there is a reason for different price-points, even though some might not allow themselves to see. If you are taking a $1300 Cl and comparing it to the non HG Monarch, well...again, ....what are you no seeing? Quality....quality....quality. Quality of optics, quality of durability, quality of coatings etc etc. Taking one out of the box and comparing them isn't going to afford you the opportunity to see what goes on 'inside' the binocular. Never fall into that trap of thinking that something sooooooo much cheaper is going to afford you over any period of time, let alone on an individual basis. The Monarch non HG is just a good, so so binocular. If you are going that approach, get the Opticron Traveler, or the Opticron Verano, or the Maven or the GPO as all of them are in that same price point and most likely are better all around in my thinking as I have had them all in my hands and compared side by side....

 

[dorubird]

It is very good that you will compare them personally (M HG vs CL). Optically they are in the same class. You are going to decide personally based on your direct experience with this binos. What I noticed is that Monarch HG 8x30 is generally underestimated on forums precisely because his cheaper brother. Monarch 7 8x30 is so good, being immediately below the quality of M HG. Thus M HG is one of the most underrated binoculars on the market. The fact that M HG costs almost as much as a Swarovski CL has a good reason, the optical and mechanical quality being in the same class as CL b, but we pay little bit more for better Swaro warranty policy. Tell us about your experience with them! Thanks!

 

[pbjosh]

I have both the M7 8x30 and the MHG 8x30. My copy of the M7 is now probably 5+ years old, so there might be slight updates to coatings along the way, but the basics won't have changed. The MHG is clearly superior in my view: better color, better contrast, less CA, sharper, less glare. I do think the CL-B and the MHG are quite on par quality wise, and both are a good step up from the M7 (as one would hope for the price of course!). I personally prefer the MHG for it's ergonomics, field of view, and colors, but the Swaro might be a little sharper and more crystalline, and is certainly sharper out to the edge. I would also recommend comparing personally, they are at a similar level but deliver different views/experiences, and preferences are of course personal!

 

[avidopticguy]

Thanks for all the responses. This reaffirms my suspicion and I really don't want to regret not taking my SF 8x42

I think that I am probably going to at least compare the CL B and the M7 side by side. And now with all the input I am probably going to go with the CL B. I have quickly become used to my Victory SF 8x42 glass and resolution. Whenever I use my monarch HG 8x42 I find myself focus hunting at times just to realize that there is a limitation to the raw sharpness compared to my SF (and my Monarch 5 8x42 rarely ever see any use, if I pick them up out of curiosity I immediately put them back down after 20-30 seconds, they now sit in the glove box).

I think I will regret leaving the SF behind with the M7 and less so or not at all if I have the CL b as I have become acustom the the view my SF provides.

 

[Viraj]

I have Monarch 7 8x30 and NL 8x42. My eyes can’t see a big difference between them. However, recently I took some photographs through both to estimate the magnification of them. Looking at photos I realized how sharp and clear the picture through NL compared to the M7. The photo from M7 had noticeable amount of CA and it was not sharp as NL. However, still I don’t miss NL when I use M7. I think the experience of optics can be very subjective to person to person.

 

[avidopticguy]

Agreed.

I have ordered both the M7 8x30 and CL b 8x30 to compare first hand. Based on the above comments sounds like I may end up with the CL Bs.

Will report my findings one I have compared them. I am pretty sure it will read like any other comparison of this sort........... M7 excellent for the price............donesn't give up much at 1/2 the cost............. but the CL B is noticeably/sligltly better.................. just depends on individual preference and if it is worth........... blah blah blah blah.................

It would be exciting if I can report differently: M7 waaaayyyyy better than CLs on all accounts!!!! at 1/2 cost no brainer......!!!!!!.... We will see - fingers crossed!!

 

[dorubird]

The MHG 8x30 would have had a real chance to please you more than the CL 8x30. The CL is clearly better than the M7 8x30, but who knows, M7 may surprise you with his larger field, colours and ergonomics

 

[Elkhornsun]

I have the Monarch 7 8x30 and the Swarovski 10x30 CL Pocket Mountain binos. The Monarch binos I keep in my truck so I always have them with me. The Monarch binos are a tiny bit lighter but the Pocket Mountain are two thirds the size of the Monarch binos when folded and they easily fit in the outer pocket meant for water bottles on my backpacks. The Pocket Mountain easily fits into a jacket pocket - any jacket, and that adds a good deal of convenience. The carry case has a belt loop and the case is small enough that I actually use it on my belt. The more compact size is why I use the Pocket Mountain ones more than any others that I own.

I bought the 8x30 CL but ended up giving them to my wife and buying the 10x30 version for their better low light performance.