Dr Forinor
Member
A little background to the Topic Title.
I made a spur of the moment purchase a good many years ago and bought a Bushnell Trophy XLT 8x30, this was without having any knowledge on binoculars or know what was good/bad (relatively speaking).
After using them for a while I felt I wanted to upgrade (both to a little more knowledge and being "more hungry for better").
I did a little reading (perhaps not as much as I should have) and then proceeded to go for the Nikon Monarch 7 10x42 (I was debating between this and the M7 8x42).
Now after having used it a little I'm not fully satisfied, for 2 main reasons;
- I find I do get a little shake sometimes - intermittent, depending on how far/fine the subject is
- The clarity/crispness/sharpness is a little disappointing (perhaps I expected too much at this price point)
So now I am thinking of changing, again. I have been reading a lot more this time as I do not want to make another mistake. To help you, help me, my uses with the binoculars are nothing specific. I am not a hunter, so it doesn't matter for a kill. I am not a birder specifically. BUT, I love nature, I don't go out as frequently as I would like to but when I do I like to enjoy it. If that means I spot a bird of prey in the distance then brilliant, if that means I spot some other wildlife in the distance then excellent - I want to take it all in.
When I did use my Bushnell 8x30 to watch some deer, I kept on wishing I could see more of it - ie I was wishing I could have more magnification. Now with these 10x42, although the shake isn't horrible, when I do get a little judder it's annoying - I'm thinking is it better to have no shake at less magnification, or sacrifice the detail?
1. I understand some of it may just be practise and that shake that I experience may go, is that correct? Yes I can use a tripod, but there are many times where that just doesn't happen, might be a spur of the moment "oh look over there" etc etc.
2. If I upgrade to a more expensive binocular, will that be easier to manage the 10x, or will it be just the same?
(Justification for my thoughts here: I use magnification for work - albeit on a smaller scale, and the more expensive instrument is much easier to handle than the less expensive at the same magnification. I am an avid coffee lover, and over at the coffee forums they always say it's easier to get nice coffee from an expensive machine than a cheaper machine even if you do everything the same).
3. Should I sacrifice detail and stick with 8x, given I am only using it for general, and not specialised purposes?
4. I have narrowed down my shortlist to pretty much the Nikon Monarch HG. Reasoning for this is I am trying to keep the costs as low as possible while obtaining something that I will actually enjoy. If it was for specific purposes (ie hunting etc) then I would spend the extra and go for the Swarovski SLC 8x42, but I think for my "general use" I don't need something of that calibre. Am I thinking right, or can someone correct me?
5. Is the jump from the M7 to the MHG significant enough, or do I really need to go to the SLC? My main gripe with the M7 is I find the crispness is lacking. The outer edge is noticeably blurry (enough for me to keep thinking "am I actually in focus").
Sorry for the rambling, I tried to get all of my thoughts down so as to give you all a fuller picture of the little battle in my head - I hope it's all cohesive.
For those of you who don't know the prices in UK, approx;
Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 - £ 800
Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 - £ 850
Swarovski SLC 8x42 - £1250
I made a spur of the moment purchase a good many years ago and bought a Bushnell Trophy XLT 8x30, this was without having any knowledge on binoculars or know what was good/bad (relatively speaking).
After using them for a while I felt I wanted to upgrade (both to a little more knowledge and being "more hungry for better").
I did a little reading (perhaps not as much as I should have) and then proceeded to go for the Nikon Monarch 7 10x42 (I was debating between this and the M7 8x42).
Now after having used it a little I'm not fully satisfied, for 2 main reasons;
- I find I do get a little shake sometimes - intermittent, depending on how far/fine the subject is
- The clarity/crispness/sharpness is a little disappointing (perhaps I expected too much at this price point)
So now I am thinking of changing, again. I have been reading a lot more this time as I do not want to make another mistake. To help you, help me, my uses with the binoculars are nothing specific. I am not a hunter, so it doesn't matter for a kill. I am not a birder specifically. BUT, I love nature, I don't go out as frequently as I would like to but when I do I like to enjoy it. If that means I spot a bird of prey in the distance then brilliant, if that means I spot some other wildlife in the distance then excellent - I want to take it all in.
When I did use my Bushnell 8x30 to watch some deer, I kept on wishing I could see more of it - ie I was wishing I could have more magnification. Now with these 10x42, although the shake isn't horrible, when I do get a little judder it's annoying - I'm thinking is it better to have no shake at less magnification, or sacrifice the detail?
1. I understand some of it may just be practise and that shake that I experience may go, is that correct? Yes I can use a tripod, but there are many times where that just doesn't happen, might be a spur of the moment "oh look over there" etc etc.
2. If I upgrade to a more expensive binocular, will that be easier to manage the 10x, or will it be just the same?
(Justification for my thoughts here: I use magnification for work - albeit on a smaller scale, and the more expensive instrument is much easier to handle than the less expensive at the same magnification. I am an avid coffee lover, and over at the coffee forums they always say it's easier to get nice coffee from an expensive machine than a cheaper machine even if you do everything the same).
3. Should I sacrifice detail and stick with 8x, given I am only using it for general, and not specialised purposes?
4. I have narrowed down my shortlist to pretty much the Nikon Monarch HG. Reasoning for this is I am trying to keep the costs as low as possible while obtaining something that I will actually enjoy. If it was for specific purposes (ie hunting etc) then I would spend the extra and go for the Swarovski SLC 8x42, but I think for my "general use" I don't need something of that calibre. Am I thinking right, or can someone correct me?
5. Is the jump from the M7 to the MHG significant enough, or do I really need to go to the SLC? My main gripe with the M7 is I find the crispness is lacking. The outer edge is noticeably blurry (enough for me to keep thinking "am I actually in focus").
Sorry for the rambling, I tried to get all of my thoughts down so as to give you all a fuller picture of the little battle in my head - I hope it's all cohesive.
For those of you who don't know the prices in UK, approx;
Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 - £ 800
Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 - £ 850
Swarovski SLC 8x42 - £1250
