• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon Monarch 7 new 8x30 and 10x30 (1 Viewer)

Thanks David will try to test a pair , I have them on my shortlist along with Opticron Countryman BGA HD 8x32 .
At the moment it looks as though it will be one or the other.
Harold
The Opticron Countryman BGA HD 8x32 isn't that great. Don't waste your time. I sent mine back quickly.
 
I don't get the excitement for the Monarch 7 8x30's.

Let me try to help. It's because:
- they have a few m more FOV than the SV 8x32
- they are 150 g lighter than the SV 8x32
- they are 2 cm shorter than the SV 8x32
- they are 1800 $ less expensive than the SV 8x32
- the only BF member who looked through it so far found it good (see typo's post #5)

They won't be as good optically as the Nikon Monarch 7 8x42's

Again, from what our only BF reviewer so far said (birdfair thread), they are better.
 
I don't get the excitement for the Monarch 7 8x30's. They won't be as good optically as the Nikon Monarch 7 8x42's and the 42's are not that great. I thought they were at first until I started comparing them to the Nikon SE, EII and especially the Swarovski SV 8x32. They are not that sharp on-axis. They are not worth the $400 to $500 that they are asking. There are better values out there.

Prediction: you will soon own a pair. We look forward to your comments.
 
I don't get the excitement for the Monarch 7 8x30's. They won't be as good optically as the Nikon Monarch 7 8x42's and the 42's are not that great. I thought they were at first until I started comparing them to the Nikon SE, EII and especially the Swarovski SV 8x32. They are not that sharp on-axis. They are not worth the $400 to $500 that they are asking. There are better values out there.

Too funny, comparing a $375 Nikon 8x30 Monarch 7 and the $475 8x42 with a $2,160 Swarovski SV 8x32.

I have the Nikon 8x30E poro and the 10x42 Monarch 7.
Yes the 8x30E poro has a flat field to the edges and is sharp.
The Monarch 7 is brighter and can resolve details much better (in the center) than the 8x30E poro. On a bright sunny day I can clearly see insects flying above water at 200 meters,,, they are not visible with the 8x30 E. The color and contrast are far better in the new Monarch 7.

Comparing 8x30's I cannot justify the additional $300 for flat field that I do not use and certainly cannot justify $2160 for the SV Swaro.

Regards,
FK
 
Prediction: you will soon own a pair. We look forward to your comments.

Agreed on this one. In the hand is always better than on paper. The 8x36 MONARCH did extremely well, but I expected the enhanced coatings and glass to make these models a real winner.

All the best,

Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist
 
That squares with my knowledge of Nikon Imaging and Nikon Instruments divisions. Having subcontractors supply parts is a far cry from giving up design control or oversight.



I cannot agree with the above statements.

My career was with an international corporation one division of which is in Tokyo. It was owned 10% by Hitachi now Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. They do not subcontract the entire design development to a company outside of Nikon. Components are manufactured to Nikon design and standards. Nikon has strict quality control standards or the components are rejected. I doubt that the ED optical elements are not from Nikon along with the special multi coating, these are very guarded processes and not shared outside to subcontractors. It is well known many of the Nikon cameras and lens are manuf. outside of Japan,,, these are in Nikon owned and operated facilities for final assembly and inspection for quality control. Many of the components are subcontracted to other companies.

If one subcontractor decides not to manufacture a Nikon assembly,, many other sources would be located for the work. Nikon dropped some of their Fieldscope products to introduce new updated models.

The concept that Nikon would co-design and develop a product to compete in their own market is just not possible in a large corporation. A senior manager of a Nikon division would not consider a partnership with a competing company, he would be fired for even proposing it to corporate.

Kamakura has been a subcontractor of optical elements for many Japanese companies for many years. Just because they make components for both Kite and Nikon does not imply a partnership. When I subcontracted to outside vendors,, my designs an parts were not available or visible to any other companies also using the same vendor.

Regards,
FK
 
Last edited:
Too funny, comparing a $375 Nikon 8x30 Monarch 7 and the $475 8x42 with a $2,160 Swarovski SV 8x32.

I have the Nikon 8x30E poro and the 10x42 Monarch 7.
Yes the 8x30E poro has a flat field to the edges and is sharp.
The Monarch 7 is brighter and can resolve details much better (in the center) than the 8x30E poro. On a bright sunny day I can clearly see insects flying above water at 200 meters,,, they are not visible with the 8x30 E. The color and contrast are far better in the new Monarch 7.

Comparing 8x30's I cannot justify the additional $300 for flat field that I do not use and certainly cannot justify $2160 for the SV Swaro.

Regards,
FK
That is very interesting and I agree with you. The Nikon 8x30 E is not the sharpest binocular on-axis. Detail could be partly due to the 10x but color and contrast better has to be coatings and ED glass. I have to have a pair of these. Off to Adorama. I like the weight and size.
 
They are not in stock yet! I put my name on the waiting list. Look for a big review. I will call it "Grandpa porro versus Grandson roof" The Nikon 8x30 EII porro versus the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 roof. It will be sensational!
 
Last edited:
Just puzzled.......Who at Nikon decided on a x30 size and why ? Why not say upgrade EII to ED glass as is also 30mm in size and also why the M7 x30 are not more compact ? Last question, was x32mm size even considered ?
 
Last edited:
Just puzzled.......Who at Nikon decided on a x30 size and why ? Why not say upgrade EII to ED glass as is also 30mm in size and also why the M7 x30 are not more compact ? Last question was x32mm size even considered ?

You have a good idea, but it seems that will not happen. The EII and
the SE do not need ED glass, in my opinion, as they perform as well as many of the top roofs. So the new Monarch is the new mid range, that can accomplish that. It is interesting that Nikon has the EDG in the upper
range, $2000. and then just the older mid models, Premier, and the
SE's and EII's are still available. And now the newest introduction of
the Monarch 7. China made with all the tricks, ED glass, di-electric
prism coatings. The $500.00 class is very competitive, so this is a
good place to place a design effort.

Roofs are where it is at, and to go along with the Monarch 7, 42's,
a good move to bring out the 30's. It looks like the effort was to
bring out a nice small compact binocular. And so the 8x30 should be
a good choice. If you want bigger, and better light gathering
go big, 42mm.

Jerry
 
Just puzzled.......Who at Nikon decided on a x30 size and why ? Why not say upgrade EII to ED glass as is also 30mm in size and also why the M7 x30 are not more compact ? Last question, was x32mm size even considered ?[/QUOTE

This is the first time that Nikon ever made a moderately priced 30/32mm roof prism. Previous to that the smallest inexpensive roof prism they made was the 8/10 x 36 Monarch ATB. The Nikon Premier 8 x 32 and the new 8 and 10 x 32 EDGs are very expensive.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/7513/Monarch-8x36-ATB.html

Now Nikon has entered the 30/32mm market with new, lightweight, wide field, small 8/10 x 30 Monarch 7's.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/7579/MONARCH-7-8x30.html

It sets them off from the rest of the competition in that field. I think it is a great idea on their part! Let's see how they work out.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Just puzzled.......Who at Nikon decided on a x30 size and why ? Why not say upgrade EII to ED glass as is also 30mm in size and also why the M7 x30 are not more compact ? Last question, was x32mm size even considered ?

I'm sensitive to CA, and I do see it in the EII. In fact, someone recently asked me what bin I would recommend for under $500, and my first recommendation would have bin the 8x30 EII, but it's not sold in the U.S., and he said he was sensitive to CA, and in high contrast situations, particularly in the winter with bare tree limbs, the CA is noticeable. The 8x SE is better in that regard, but not CA free. The 12x50 SE could definitely use ED glass.

But given the popularity of roofs, the fact that Nikon doesn't even sell the EII in the U.S., and that SEs are only available through special order tells me that an SE or EII with ED glass is as much of a pipe dream as a WP/FP SE or EII. It's just not in the economics.

IMO, roofs in general show more CA than comparable quality/sized porros. Something to do with the internal focuser perhaps. Lots of complaints about CA after internal focus was introduced in roofs, so now everybody's jumping on the ED glass wagon (optical) train to compensate.

I think 8x/10x30 M7 was a good choice. Sounds like they are looking to compete against the 8x30 Swaro CL but with a wider FOV and ED glass and at half the price. Small, lightweight, compact, and sharp optics. I think Nikon designed these for Annabeth. ;)

Brock
 
I have a nagging hunch Nikon might have goofed on this one: too much FOV with sloppy fuzzy edges, and not enough eye relief for many.

Just a hunch. We'll soon find out.

Incidentally, I think the new Nikon also puts to rest the idea that eye relief is directly related to eyepiece width. The eyepieces on these are HUGE, the eye relief is not. Something else going on, although what I don't know, probably just FOV. The Adorama website has some good photos, including one that shows the oculars.

The 8x32 SE has plenty of CA: it's just sharp as a tack and bright as all get out. It's also a little hard to get it to show itself, but when it does, man you WILL know it!

Except for ceasar who is blessed in the CA department because he isn't bothered by it.

Mark
 
too much FOV with sloppy fuzzy edges, and not enough eye relief for many.

Even if it would be so, the large FOV being achieved only by sacrificing on eye relief, that would be an welcome addition I think.

There are already plenty of binoculars around with sufficient eye relief but mediocre FOV. Do we really need more of the same? Wouldn't it be good to have more choice? More binoculars that are different from each other, that are strong at certain features and good for some people, rather than all of the same average characteristics?
 
Even if it would be so, the large FOV being achieved only by sacrificing on eye relief, that would be an welcome addition I think.

There are already plenty of binoculars around with sufficient eye relief but mediocre FOV. Do we really need more of the same? Wouldn't it be good to have more choice? More binoculars that are different from each other, that are strong at certain features and good for some people, rather than all of the same average characteristics?

Yes, choice is good. But if my hunch proves correct, then I won't be choosing the Nikon. I guess I've been spoiled by the 8x32 SV which has a big wide field with sharp edges, along with superb eye relief. I'd like the Nikon mainly for its size and weight--so I hope my hunch is wrong!

Mark
 
The Monarch 7 8x42 still seems to have a QC problem/s, as reviews of its optical quality still vary widely. E.g. <this> was posted two days ago. Hope that's not so in the 8x30, seemingly v. attractive, from the outset so the potential of Nikon's design is realised.
 
Last edited:
I have a nagging hunch Nikon might have goofed on this one: too much FOV with sloppy fuzzy edges, and not enough eye relief for many.

Just a hunch. We'll soon find out.

Incidentally, I think the new Nikon also puts to rest the idea that eye relief is directly related to eyepiece width. The eyepieces on these are HUGE, the eye relief is not. Something else going on, although what I don't know, probably just FOV. The Adorama website has some good photos, including one that shows the oculars.

The 8x32 SE has plenty of CA: it's just sharp as a tack and bright as all get out. It's also a little hard to get it to show itself, but when it does, man you WILL know it!

Except for ceasar who is blessed in the CA department because he isn't bothered by it.

Mark

Mark,

The 15mm ER of the 8 x 30 is the same as the ER on the Swarovski 8 x 30 CL and on the 15.8mm ER on the 10 x 30 it is almost 2mm longer than the 14mm ER on the Swarovski 10 x 30.

If their eye cups are bigger, so much the better. I brace the eye cups on my brow ridge just under my eyebrows. We will see because I have used my wife's 8 x 30 CL quite a bit.

BTW, I stopped trying to get CA to "show itself" long ago. I think that is a good policy. But Elk Cub probably knows more about that what with the eye and brain working together and all that stuff.

Bob

PS: Have you seen one of these new Nikons? Where did you get the information that the "eyepieces" are huge? The "eye cups," from the pictures of them, do look larger than the ones on the Swarovski CLs.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top