-
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.
Leupold Rouge and New Monarch from shot Show (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter oleaf
- Start date
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
From
http://www.gunblast.com/SHOT_Show_2009.htm
Just photos no other info.
I presume that Leupold exteral focus green ring porro is a Rogue brand too (on the left objective tube I see R-O-G. I think.
Is that Monarch really an open bridge? There seems to be something in the center ...
http://www.gunblast.com/SHOT_Show_2009.htm
Just photos no other info.
I presume that Leupold exteral focus green ring porro is a Rogue brand too (on the left objective tube I see R-O-G. I think.
Is that Monarch really an open bridge? There seems to be something in the center ...
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Looks like it's called the Monarch X
Curiously REI has a listing for Monarch X 10.5x45 ... unavailable. Are they old or new?
http://www.rei.com/product/784632
Monarch X binocular
Curiously REI has a listing for Monarch X 10.5x45 ... unavailable. Are they old or new?
http://www.rei.com/product/784632
Monarch X binocular
Frank,
The Nikon looks a little strange at first.. but that long central shaft
might actually give a good purchase when one-handing. And you still have the
full "open bridge" grip. While looking pieced together this might be a very
versatile option. I'd put a little knurl on that shaft or a tight rubber sleeve.
I really like the look of these... they're different.
Cheers
The Nikon looks a little strange at first.. but that long central shaft
might actually give a good purchase when one-handing. And you still have the
full "open bridge" grip. While looking pieced together this might be a very
versatile option. I'd put a little knurl on that shaft or a tight rubber sleeve.
I really like the look of these... they're different.
Cheers
Last edited:
The 10.5X looks promising
Dielectric prisms! If they're priced close to the current Monarchs these could be winners. I noticed that the objective covers are actually attached to the bins, without a rubber band around the barrels. The fact that the field of views are the same in the 8.5X and 10.5X is just plain weird though. Maybe it is a mistake. The AFOV for the 10.5X should be 66 deg instead of 60 unless the ISO specs they are talking about have changed the formula.
Dielectric prisms! If they're priced close to the current Monarchs these could be winners. I noticed that the objective covers are actually attached to the bins, without a rubber band around the barrels. The fact that the field of views are the same in the 8.5X and 10.5X is just plain weird though. Maybe it is a mistake. The AFOV for the 10.5X should be 66 deg instead of 60 unless the ISO specs they are talking about have changed the formula.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Interesting catch, Tero.
The "Flip-down objective lens cap" is an interesting oddity. Shade of Brunton though perhaps better implemented.
I though the FOVs were a mistake at the start but I don't think so but I suspect they actually are the same.
The ISO method gives the correct results ... the older method is an approximation (that works for small FOVs). See the couple of threads where this has already been thrashed out at length
6.3 degrees = 0.109955743 radians
Accurate (ISO) AFOV is 2 * arctan( mag * tan (FOV/2))
i.e
FOV = 6.3 degrees = 0.109955743 radians
AFOV(8.5) = 2 * arctan(8.5 * tan(0.109955743 / 2)) = 50.1388164 degrees
AFOV(10.5) = 2 * arctan(10.5 * tan(0.109955743 / 2)) = 60.0429364 degrees
So they;re right on the money. So why do the two have the same FOV? Eyepiece design?
The 8.5 and 10.5 are interesting examples of more magnification creep. The 8.5x is OK but 10.5.
The pseudo open bridge seems more like a marketing gimmick: I'd like that sort of thing to be functional. Perhaps it reduces the weight? Apparently not
8.5x is 720 grams = 25.3972526 ounces
10.5x is 730 grams = 25.7499922 ounces
I posted on another thread (about the Premier reintroduction, whatever that means!) that Koshkin (from Optics talk) had a look through them and wasn't impressed.
One wonders about the price? More than the current Monarchs as they're still in the line up: $400 maybe?
The "Flip-down objective lens cap" is an interesting oddity. Shade of Brunton though perhaps better implemented.
I though the FOVs were a mistake at the start but I don't think so but I suspect they actually are the same.
The ISO method gives the correct results ... the older method is an approximation (that works for small FOVs). See the couple of threads where this has already been thrashed out at length
6.3 degrees = 0.109955743 radians
Accurate (ISO) AFOV is 2 * arctan( mag * tan (FOV/2))
i.e
FOV = 6.3 degrees = 0.109955743 radians
AFOV(8.5) = 2 * arctan(8.5 * tan(0.109955743 / 2)) = 50.1388164 degrees
AFOV(10.5) = 2 * arctan(10.5 * tan(0.109955743 / 2)) = 60.0429364 degrees
So they;re right on the money. So why do the two have the same FOV? Eyepiece design?
The 8.5 and 10.5 are interesting examples of more magnification creep. The 8.5x is OK but 10.5.
The pseudo open bridge seems more like a marketing gimmick: I'd like that sort of thing to be functional. Perhaps it reduces the weight? Apparently not
8.5x is 720 grams = 25.3972526 ounces
10.5x is 730 grams = 25.7499922 ounces
I posted on another thread (about the Premier reintroduction, whatever that means!) that Koshkin (from Optics talk) had a look through them and wasn't impressed.
One wonders about the price? More than the current Monarchs as they're still in the line up: $400 maybe?
henry link
Well-known member
The same FOV in these two binoculars is not so strange. It's what you would expect if the eyepieces have different focal lengths but use the same size fieldstop.
falcondude
Well-known member
The Nikon Monarch X is similar to those huge 20x90 Porro binoculars with a rod in the center
http://www.bigbinoculars.com/2090.htm
http://www.bigbinoculars.com/2090.htm
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
But that rod is functional in a "giant bin". It keeps the objective tubes in collimation with the rest of the bin (so they don't sag). But on a smaller bin this seems silly.
One point to make though is these are 45mm bins. They're quite big objectives so even with the 8.5x and 10.5x you get > 5mm and > 4mm exit pupils respectively. So their weight is not bad for that size.
falcondude
Well-known member
Yes, it does look odd in the small frame of Monarch. Well, those designers/marketing folks got paid well to come up with this. They must know what they are doing.
FrankD
Well-known member
Hmm, I don't know what to say. Dielectric prisms in a $300-$400 binocular would definitely be a step up. Between that and the introduction of ED glass in this price range I think we are starting to see a filtering down of the upgraded features. The big difference here is the speed with which it is occurring. It almost seems as if someone held up the restriction bar and said "Have add it with all the high end features in the low-priced glass"...all of a sudden.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
That'll never be the case, Steve.
Vapor depositing a metal mirror (usually a few different layers to attach it to the mirror and protect that back surface of the metal) but all the metal goes on in one go is a lot easier than depositing multiple layers (more than an AR coating) of varying thickness of multiple (three or more) different metal oxides (which need to be sputtered rather than evaporated).
The trick is reducing the cost and keeping the quality high as small mistakes have large effects in the image (missing or enhancing a band of color).
I think all of these reasons are why we don't see them in the Chinese EDs. Yet.
Does anyone know of a Chinese made roof prism with a dielectric coating? I presume these Monarch are to be made in China ... is the mirror coating applied to the roof prism done in China too? Or do they import that part from Japan?
Last edited:
