The new Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 is very nice! (1 Viewer)

crinklystarfish said:

It's not so much it didn't fit my face as the eyepiece cups only extending a tiny distance from the lenses. The eyepiece cups on the CL-P on the other hand extend way further out. I actually really liked the CL Companion in every other regard and would own it as my main binocular right now were it not for the issues I described. I actually emailed Swarovski asking about the availability of 'extended' eyepieces who - credit to them - responded within the hour stating no such eyepieces were available but that they were aware of the desirability of investigating the eye placement issue (they may just have been being nice to me - or they may have had other feedback). It also still suffered glare/flare notwithstanding the too-close-to-the-instrument 'diamond necklace' effect.

I don't mean to be too harsh on the M7 regarding colour fringing, it is, as I've written elsewhere, very well controlled. I suppose the very generous field of view is part of the reason as there is simply more 'image' to control and in high contrast situations I do sometimes pick up CA towards the periphery. I've seen blue, but also a turquoise on one side, and magenta on others side of the same branch in bare trees against a grey sky. When quickly switching to either Swarovski the worst I could induce was a tiny hint of purple-ish fringe towards the very extremity of periphery. This doesn't detract much for me though with the M7, it's the 'looking-through-a-smokescreen' thing that crops up when looking for birds in densely packed denuded vegetation that has me handing the M7 to my wife and going back to the CL-P to see exactly what's going on in that hedgerow.

Once again, with the personal preference caveat uppermost, when it comes to optical performance in the field in a variety of habitat and lighting situations, the CL-P is - for me - the most reliable for being able to accurately identify wildlife very quickly.

It just works really well (in daylight) all the time: the others don't.

Click to expand...

"This doesn't detract much for me though with the M7, it's the 'looking-through-a-smokescreen' thing that crops up when looking for birds in densely packed denuded vegetation that has me handing the M7 to my wife and going back to the CL-P to see exactly what's going on in that hedgerow."

I am trying to understand this "smokescreen problem". It almost sounds like a contrast or DOF issue. I haven't been able to replicate it but I will look for it. Maybe we don't have enough denuded vegetation in Colorado. Interesting point though.

crinklystarfish said:

I don't mean to be too harsh on the M7 regarding colour fringing, it is, as I've written elsewhere, very well controlled. I suppose the very generous field of view is part of the reason as there is simply more 'image' to control and in high contrast situations I do sometimes pick up CA towards the periphery. I've seen blue, but also a turquoise on one side, and magenta on others side of the same branch in bare trees against a grey sky. When quickly switching to either Swarovski the worst I could induce was a tiny hint of purple-ish fringe towards the very extremity of periphery.

Click to expand...

What you are describing is lateral color. It's always worse toward the periphery of the field in wide field oculars. The Swaro CL solves the problem the easy way, it just doesn't have a wide field.

NDhunter said:

Phil:
That would be nice of you to compare the M7 vs. the CL.

I was looking for a photo comparison to show the difference in size between the CL 8x30 and the CL 8x25.

Jerry

Click to expand...

ceasar said:

Dennis,

This is a casual comparison because I think they are two different animals, so to speak. Soon I intend to get the Nikon M7 8x30 and when I do I'll compare it with the Swarovski 8x30CL and 8x30SLC and the 8x30EII.

I haven't used the 8x30CL much in the last month or six weeks. It's really my wife's binocular. I've had the 8x25 with me most of the time. The weather has been poor for the last 2 or 3 weeks so glare hasn't been evident too often. I'll have to wait to give them a one on one test for glare.

Eye placement is easier with the 8x30 and it's larger eyecups, but I can brace both of them up against my eyebrows. The long ER of the 8x25 helps here.

Both are sharp nearly to the edge of the view. FOV is close enough to be considered the same. In late twilight, looking into the canopy off my deck, the 8x30 is definitely brighter than the 8x25 but not nearly as much brighter as my 7x42 FL is compared to the 8x30. I wouldn't give either of them an "A" for low light performance.

The lenses of the 8x30 stay cleaner. The 8x25 has no lens covers and my fingers are always hitting them it seems. I use the case for my Nikon 10x25 to transport them when they aren't in my shirt pockets or jacket pockets. I wear Filson 2XL Alaskan Guide shirts over sweaters a lot. I have jackets with pockets which will hold the 8x30.

So far so good. I'm pleased with both of them.:t:

Bob

Click to expand...

Today the weather is bright and clear. I was able to compare both binoculars on their resistance to glare, specifically veiling glare from the sun which is not far from the area being explored. In this case the sun was to my right and high.

I was looking ESE with the bright Sun high up further south. There is a hardwood canopy of trees with some Pines about 50 to 100 feet from my deck. About a mile further on there is a mountain ridge above the canopy with the corridor of an Interstate highway running along it's base. There are some nice thermals that come off this highway and I often see Hawks and Turkey Vultures using them. In the morning hours this can be a difficult place to use binoculars without them being afflicted with glare. It is best to stay well away from the area of the sun.

In short, the 8x30 controls this veiling glare better than the 8x25 does. I think this is because the objectives are recessed deeper into the tubes on the 8x30 and there is about 1/4th inch of extra blackening in the tubes which is not in the 8x25.

Bob

"In short, the 8x30 controls this veiling glare better than the 8x25 does. I think this is because the objectives are recessed deeper into the tubes on the 8x30 and there is about 1/4th inch of extra blackening in the tubes which is not in the 8x25."

Those two advantages you stated are probably a large part of the improved performance in the 8x30 with handling glare. I also believe the bigger exit aperture of the 8x30 improves veiling glare because I remember Henry Link explaining why he likes the big Zeiss 8x56 FL for birding and one reason is big exit apertures handle glare better. Maybe he could explain the physics behind this phenomena. I remember when I had my Zeiss 8x56 FL that I could look into situations like you explained with almost no glare. Quite nice. BUT those big FL's are quite heavy also. I think it was because the cone of light is so big the glare goes beyond the field stop of the binocular hence you don't see it. There are a lot of advantages to that extra 5mm of aperture on the 30mm.

ceasar said:

Today the weather is bright and clear. I was able to compare both binoculars on their resistance to glare, specifically veiling glare from the sun which is not far from the area being explored. In this case the sun was to my right to my right and high.

I was looking ESE with the bright Sun high up further south. There is a hardwood canopy of trees with some Pines about 50 to 100 feet from my deck. About a mile further on there is a mountain ridge above the canopy with the corridor of an Interstate highway running along it's base. There are some nice thermals that come off this highway and I often see Hawks and Turkey Vultures using them. In the morning hours this can be a difficult place to use binoculars without them being afflicted with glare. It is best to stay well away from the area of the sun.

In short, the 8x30 controls this veiling glare better than the 8x25 does. I think this is because the objectives are recessed deeper into the tubes on the 8x30 and there is about 1/4th inch of extra blackening in the tubes which is not in the 8x25.

Bob

Click to expand...

I wish I had the Swaro CL-30 to directly compare to my M7 but I am pretty confident that I would still prefer the bigger FOV of the M7 over the CL-30 even though the M7 might have a little more lateral color.

[email protected] said:

"This doesn't detract much for me though with the M7, it's the 'looking-through-a-smokescreen' thing that crops up when looking for birds in densely packed denuded vegetation that has me handing the M7 to my wife and going back to the CL-P to see exactly what's going on in that hedgerow."

I am trying to understand this "smokescreen problem". It almost sounds like a contrast or DOF issue. I haven't been able to replicate it but I will look for it. Maybe we don't have enough denuded vegetation in Colorado. Interesting point though.

Click to expand...

Apologies if my use of technical terms is awry. I'll try to describe the issue a little more thoroughly.

The phenomenon crops up quite a bit but is most distracting when looking at a 'wall' of vegetation in roughly the same plane. At this time of year in England, common sights include recently flailed hawthorn hedgerows, and linear stands of denuded willows running alongside a watercourse. These two are amongst the worst culprits.

Lighting conditions also affect the phenomenon, dull, grey, murky days are the worst.

When viewing the two scenes described the Monarch returns what I would describe as like a translucent greying effect which gives a hazy quality to the detail in the image. When this happens, the periphery of the image is usually slightly clearer. If I put down the M7 and use my CL-P to view exactly the same image clarity is returned and I am able to pick out much more detail. The 'washed out haze' is gone, all detail and colour in the vegetation is faithfully returned. The scene in the attached picture would very probably provoke the effect I'm seeing.

It's not just the M7 either, I've noticed this phenomenon with many binoculars.

I make no claim to being anything of an optics expert, to be honest tables of data and the technical side of things don't really do much for me. All I'm really bothered about is how stuff works in the field.

Apols again if my terminology has led to confusion, just trying to objectively report my own experiences. It may well be that I am just far too demanding and have a funny shaped face.

crinklystarfish said:

...
Lighting conditions also affect the phenomenon, dull, grey, murky days are the worst.

When viewing the two scenes described the Monarch returns what I would describe as like a translucent greying effect which gives a hazy quality to the detail in the image. When this happens, the periphery of the image is usually slightly clearer. If I put down the M7 and use my CL-P to view exactly the same image clarity is returned and I am able to pick out much more detail. The 'washed out haze' is gone, all detail and colour in the vegetation is faithfully returned. The scene in the attached picture would very probably provoke the effect I'm seeing.

It's not just the M7 either, I've noticed this phenomenon with many binoculars.

I make no claim to being anything of an optics expert, to be honest tables of data and the technical side of things don't really do much for me. All I'm really bothered about is how stuff works in the field.

Apols again if my terminology has led to confusion, just trying to objectively report my own experiences. It may well be that I am just far too demanding and have a funny shaped face.

Click to expand...

I think you and Bob may be describing two different kinds of glare. I too have seen the "smokescreen" effect and it does seem worse under cloudy skies while looking at darker objects. What Bob is describing involves a point source (well, the sun anyway). For instance, my 8x32 FL suffers from the "smokescreen" while my 8x32 SV does not. On the other hand, the FL does better close to the sun. The SV has some quirky, bright crescents that pop up sometimes.

I have no idea what causes the difference.

Bob, thanks for the photo--there's a bigger difference than I would have thought. I was leaning toward the Nikon 8x30, now I'm leaning back toward the Swaro 8x25. I'll have to just try both and see which I like better.

Mark

Kammerdiner said:

I think you and Bob may be describing two different kinds of glare. I too have seen the "smokescreen" effect and it does seem worse under cloudy skies while looking at darker objects. What Bob is describing involves a point source (well, the sun anyway). For instance, my 8x32 FL suffers from the "smokescreen" while my 8x32 SV does not. On the other hand, the FL does better close to the sun. The SV has some quirky, bright crescents that pop up sometimes.

I have no idea what causes the difference.

Bob, thanks for the photo--there's a bigger difference than I would have thought. I was leaning toward the Nikon 8x30, now I'm leaning back toward the Swaro 8x25. I'll have to just try both and see which I like better.

Mark

Click to expand...

Yes. I think you are correct. The "smokescreen effect" is probably just a different type of glare that is cropping up under just the right conditions and you are right in that a lot of binoculars have quirky glare problems. I don't think that glare problem would be enough to make me want the Swaro CL-P instead of the M7 though. The 360 foot FOV versus the 435 foot FOV of the Nikon is too much difference for me. I will take the BIG FOV thank you.

I hate to say it but I think I agree with Dennis.

Not having the two binoculars side to side though, admittedly, I would certainly concede being wrong.

FrankD said:

I hate to say it but I think I agree with Dennis.

Not having the two binoculars side to side though, admittedly, I would certainly concede being wrong.

Click to expand...

I would think a wide angle binocular would be more prone to glare. Any theories on that?

I'm not sure this "smokescreen" or "washed out haze" effect in "densely packed denuded vegetation" can be equated with glare; especially if it is more evident on overcast days as shown in the picture Crinklystarfish posted in thread 49. Also see his comments on it in thread 43.

Perhaps it is more associated with the brightness of the binocular in that particular color spectrum and the effect it has on it's contrast? The binoculars he compared were the Swarovski 8x25CL and the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30.

I wonder if the same problem would have occurred if he had compared the Swarovski 8x25CL with a Swarovski 8x30CL? They were made by the same company and they might have the same color balance.

Bob

ceasar said:

I'm not sure this "smokescreen" or "washed out haze" effect in "densely packed denuded vegetation" can be equated with glare; especially if it is more evident on overcast days as shown in the picture Crinklystarfish posted in thread 49. Also see his comments on it in thread 43.

Perhaps it is more associated with the brightness of the binocular in that particular color spectrum and the effect it has on it's contrast? The binoculars he compared were the Swarovski 8x25CL and the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30.

I wonder if the same problem would have occurred if he had compared the Swarovski 8x25CL with a Swarovski 8x30CL? They were made by the same company and they might have the same color balance.

Bob

Click to expand...

Can somebody with those two Swaro's do the same comparison?

ceasar said:

...I wonder if the same problem would have occurred if he had compared the Swarovski 8x25CL with a Swarovski 8x30CL? They were made by the same company and they might have the same color balance.

Bob

Click to expand...

I did indeed briefly 'own' the CL-Pocket and CL-Companion at the same time and no, the 'smokescreen' effect I have tried to describe that afflicted the Monarch did not happen with the CL-Companion. The CL-P and CL-C performed much the same when looking at 'smokescreen-provoking' vegetation, ie it wasn't an issue.

The CL-Companion did however throw up other errant light issues that the CL-Pocket did not. I'll describe those when I get a little more time. Suffice for now to say I sent the CL-C back very quickly because of errant light. I hesitate to give the phenomena I saw names as I don't want to provoke an international incident through a lack of understanding of the nuances of technical terminology.

Please be gentle, I'm slowly learning...

crinklystarfish said:

I did indeed briefly 'own' the CL-Pocket and CL-Companion at the same time and no, the 'smokescreen' effect I have tried to describe that afflicted the Monarch did not happen with the CL-Companion. The CL-P and CL-C performed much the same when looking at 'smokescreen-provoking' vegetation, ie it wasn't an issue.

The CL-Companion did however throw up other errant light issues that the CL-Pocket did not. I'll describe those when I get a little more time. Suffice for now to say I sent the CL-C back very quickly because of errant light. I hesitate to give the phenomena I saw names as I don't want to provoke an international incident through a lack of understanding of the nuances of technical terminology.

Please be gentle, I'm slowly learning...

Click to expand...

" I hesitate to give the phenomena I saw names as I don't want to provoke an international incident through a lack of understanding of the nuances of technical terminology."

Don't worry about it because I don't think anybody here really has a definitive name for your "smokescreen phenomena" anyway. You say you have noticed it on other binoculars. Were they wide angle binoculars like the M7? Henry what do you think this "smokescreen phenomena" is? Got any ideas?

Seen it recently in a current production Zeiss 10x25 monocular (tiny field of view) but I'd be a doing a disservice to other manufacturers if I named names as I can't 100% remember which actual models were afflicted.

I'm conscious this is a M7 based thread but the issue of glare/flare regarding Swaros CL-Pocket and CL-Companion came up earlier. I already described the 'diamond necklace' effect that was so distracting for me when I placed the (short relief) CL-Companion eyecups up to my eyes but that, for me, was only half the story.

Specifically, for a couple of days running, I was birding in bright English winter sunshine with the inevitable low-in-the-sky sun. For ease of explanation imagine the sun's position was at 12 o'clock. I started a sweep of the landscape from about the 9 o'clock position and swept clockwise in the direction of the sun scanning trees and hedgerows as I went.

As I got to somewhere around the 11 o'clock position and beyond I was really struggling to see any detail within the trees as huge swathes of glare greatly reduced the quality of the image.

Immediately switching to the CL-Pocket saw great improvements. There were still hints of errant light but they were not debilitating and I could carry on watching birds.

I repeated this 'experiment' many times to make sure (I really did want to keep the companion over the pocket as there was so much about it I liked) but the pocket consistently returned quality images where the companion had me distracted or simply phased out by errant light.

Getting back to it, I still think the M7 x30 is indeed very nice (especially as we now have a sharp one) and excellent value for money.

The best way I’ve found to understand these glare problems is to use a magnifier to examine the interior of the binocular through the eyepiece end when the glare is happening. A 10X loupe or a 25mm telescope or microscope ocular works well for this purpose. Not so easy to do in the field, I know, but it’s not hard to set up the same conditions in a more controlled way.

The cause is always visible as some non-image forming light reflecting from an interior surface near the objective’s light cone, so that it appears near the edge of the exit pupil. It will likely originate in one of three spots: the objective cell, the focusing lens cell or the edge of the first prism aperture. There may be other interior reflections further away from the exit pupil, but those are usually harmless, ether masked by the eyepiece fieldstop when the eye is properly positioned or so far from the exit pupil that they fall harmlessly in the iris of the eye rather than entering the pupil.

The photos below show two examples of veiling glare reflections from a rather poorly baffled objective cell. This particular binocular shows “smokescreen” type veiling glare in low light and a complete obliteration of the image at near sun angles. The left image illustrates the low light problem. The binocular is pointed into a dark area and the only illumination is an overcast sky. The sky is not absolutely bright, but it’s bright compared to the dark area being viewed, so it causes a crescent of reflection from the lower part of the objective cell, which looks like a mist or “smokescreen” covering the lower half of the dark field when viewed normally through the binocular. The right photo shows the same binocular pointing close to a small bright light simulating the sun at a close angle. The bright spot of reflection comes from the very same lens cell, but it’s much brighter and all but completely obliterates the image in normal viewing.

A complication I’ve noticed in binoculars with internal focusing lenses is that the focusing lens position has unpredictable effects. Sometimes the focusing lens itself is the problem. If the focuser is negative, its lens cell may only come into view at long focusing distances as it moves forward and clears the first prism aperture. At close distances it may move out of view behind the prism aperture. If the focuser is positive just the opposite happens. Sometimes the problem is the objective lens cell and the focusing lens acts an effective baffle when it moves forward, but allows the objective reflection to be uncovered when it moves backward.

I’m afraid this is one of those cases where just looking around at things in the field doesn’t help much with understanding cause and effect.

crinklystarfish said:

Apologies if my use of technical terms is awry. I'll try to describe the issue a little more thoroughly.

The phenomenon crops up quite a bit but is most distracting when looking at a 'wall' of vegetation in roughly the same plane. At this time of year in England, common sights include recently flailed hawthorn hedgerows, and linear stands of denuded willows running alongside a watercourse. These two are amongst the worst culprits.

Lighting conditions also affect the phenomenon, dull, grey, murky days are the worst.

When viewing the two scenes described the Monarch returns what I would describe as like a translucent greying effect which gives a hazy quality to the detail in the image. When this happens, the periphery of the image is usually slightly clearer. If I put down the M7 and use my CL-P to view exactly the same image clarity is returned and I am able to pick out much more detail. The 'washed out haze' is gone, all detail and colour in the vegetation is faithfully returned. The scene in the attached picture would very probably provoke the effect I'm seeing.

It's not just the M7 either, I've noticed this phenomenon with many binoculars.

I make no claim to being anything of an optics expert, to be honest tables of data and the technical side of things don't really do much for me. All I'm really bothered about is how stuff works in the field.

Apols again if my terminology has led to confusion, just trying to objectively report my own experiences. It may well be that I am just far too demanding and have a funny shaped face.

Click to expand...

I would call this veiling glare, and see it in some optics in low light or overcast conditions. Looking below or above the horizon seems to trigger it. Looking up at conifers, against a dull sky, seems a good test for this. After getting my hands on a binocular that handles this effect perfectly [the HT], I am now very aware of how frequently it occurs and how frequently it occurs in some very expensive binoculars.

Throwing out a guess, this veiling glare might be due to scattering of light within the binocular, with this scatter falling on a lens surface and illuminating the surface with stray light.

henry link said:

...The photos below show two examples of veiling glare reflections from a rather poorly baffled objective cell. This particular binocular shows “smokescreen” type veiling glare in low light and a complete obliteration of the image at near sun angles. The left image illustrates the low light problem. The binocular is pointed into a dark area and the only illumination is an overcast sky. The sky is not absolutely bright, but it’s bright compared to the dark area being viewed, so it causes a crescent of reflection from the lower part of the objective cell, which looks like a mist or “smokescreen” covering the lower half of the dark field when viewed normally through the binocular. The right photo shows the same binocular pointing close to a small bright light simulating the sun at a close angle. The bright spot of reflection comes from the very same lens cell, but it’s much brighter and all but completely obliterates the image in normal viewing...

Click to expand...

Bang on sir, that's what I'm seeing, and with reference to the models I have recently used the M7 shows its 'failings' worst in the low light condition described and the CL-C shows it's 'failings' worst in the near-sun condition described.

The CL-P simply does not demonstrate these issues, not to a debilitating point anyway.

crinklystarfish said:

Bang on sir, that's what I'm seeing, and with reference to the models I have recently used the M7 shows its 'failings' worst in the low light condition described and the CL-C shows it's 'failings' worst in the near-sun condition described.

The CL-P simply does not demonstrate these issues, not to a debilitating point anyway.

Click to expand...

That is curious.

When I compared my Swarovski 8x30CL with my 8x25CL under the bright sunny conditions described above the 8x25CL showed more veiling glare. These are both Traveller Tan colored and I noted that there was more blackening on the inside the objective tubes in front of the objective cells on the 8x30. Perhaps the Black Colored CLs would have more blackening in that location because of the color of their exterior coverings?

I don't have a Monarch 7 8 x 30. Yet.:smoke:

Bob

ceasar said:

That is curious.

When I compared my Swarovski 8x30CL with my 8x25CL under the bright sunny conditions described above the 8x25CL showed more veiling glare. These are both Traveller Tan colored and I noted that there was more blackening on the inside the objective tubes in front of the objective cells on the 8x30. Perhaps the Black Colored CLs would have more blackening in that location because of the color of their exterior coverings?

I don't have a Monarch 7 8 x 30. Yet.:smoke:

Bob

Click to expand...

"I don't have a Monarch 7 8 x 30. Yet."

Buy one so we can hear how it compares to your two Swaro's. HaHa.