Are you still liking the 10x42 SLC's?Guess it depends on how you define "optics reviewer."
I review optics for my own use, only. I'm sure that eventually I could have spotted some differences, but not during the 5 minutes I had both pairs in my hands. The views I saw were virtually identical. Enough that I could not have done a blind test and told you which was which simply from the view alone.
I examine binoculars for their value to me in the field. You know, watching birds and other wildlife... not as an optical engineer. I'm not interested in design, coatings or price until and unless they have an effect on how well I can see my subject. I'm not interested in how many elements a binocular has, which or how many coatings, etc. - like most bird watchers and wildlife watchers.
After seeing the Monarch 7 10x30 side by side with the Swaro CL, I would not spend the extra $ to get the CL - the Monarchs are that good.
And I own a pair of 10x42 SLC's.
-
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.
Nikon Monarch 7 new 8x30 and 10x30 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fkrow
- Start date
perterra
Well-known member
I was looking for that myself.
The M7 does have the big bright FOV but eye placement is tricky to avoid glare. I still feel it doesn't handle glare that well but perhaps it is average for a 30mm aperture.
justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Elmer took the words out of my mouth:
I compared mine directly side by side with some new 10x42 EL's and my SLC's were noticeably brighter.
Aside from a sticky focus wheel which I hope will improve with use, I cannot find a single thing not to like about my SLC's. To me, they are the pinnacle of the 10x42 format.
However, if we're talking true mid-size binocs, the M7 10x30 and Swaro CL 10x30's are both as good as I've ever seen.
Were you hand holding both of these binoculars or were they on a tripod? I would find a 16x70 binocular hard to hold steady enough to get a sharp view from it. I would, at the least, need to have my elbows braced on a flat surface to get a decently sharp view from it.
Bob
Last edited:
I would think a 16x70 would bring out a lot of detail also if held steady. But Swarovski's are known for excellent contrast so that is what probably brought out that extra detail.
Sitting in a car with glasses and/or elbows braced against seat backs and/or window frames.
When I was looking at the buildings in downtown Hartford, they were rested on a partially raised window.
Elmer Fudd
Well-known member
Bob, that was my immediate impression when I compared them side by side with a to me comfortable view concerning the eye distance of both tubes of each pair of binos. Later on I did the same as you: comparing the technical specs. And was quite astonished about these informations.
To the 8x42 SLC: the more I think it over the more I tend to taking some farewell pics of my Zeiss 7x42 and selling them via the electronic bay to get a pair of those 8x42 SLCs.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Where those words -- Say, have you seen a wabbit wun by here?
The SLC-HD's focuser I tried did improve with use over a two-week period, but my guess is that it's still about the same as it was when I used it, not bad, but a bit harder to turn in one direction. No biggie for a 10x42, might be a niggle for an 8x42 for close-in birding.
Swarovski should make a Nikon engineer an offer he can't refuse and fly him to Absam to design a smooth turning focuser (in both directions) for their bins.
Let me just write this down... "sticky focus wheel" ...#426. Don't mind me, I'm just keeping track of all the mentions of wonky Swaro focusers on BF again. This time, I'm bookmarking them and copying the references to a flash drive in case my computer crashes like my old one did. When I get to 1,000, I'm going to send all the comments to Nadja Swarovski, along with a request for a signed photo of her in a bikini. 8-P
You keep me thinking about those 10x30 M7s. My eyes like 10x but my hands don't.
justanosepicker
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
Just picked up an M7 8x30 today for £199 new. Tis a steal for the price IMO. They are very sharp, my old M7 8x42 were not.
Way too early to say, but no bothersome glare issues yet, seems a bit better than Zen ED2 so far in that respect.
Strangely tho, when testing in the shop ages back I saw it straight away very badly. Wonder if these are a later version? It does actually say M7 11 on the focuser, do they all say that?
Anyway, glare or not, there is nothing much else on the market in the UK as far as Im aware that is this compact and this good optically for such a low price.
Way too early to say, but no bothersome glare issues yet, seems a bit better than Zen ED2 so far in that respect.
Strangely tho, when testing in the shop ages back I saw it straight away very badly. Wonder if these are a later version? It does actually say M7 11 on the focuser, do they all say that?
Anyway, glare or not, there is nothing much else on the market in the UK as far as Im aware that is this compact and this good optically for such a low price.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Here is a prior post with some discussion of the focus cap cover with a photo of mine.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3152909&postcount=20
As far as seeing glare in the shop model, maybe your eyes were dilated more in the darker store and they picked up the reflections from the edges of the exit pupil.
brocknroller
porromaniac
That wasn't much of a discussion...no conclusions one way or the other.
I don't recall the sample I tried having M7 II on the front focuser cover, and it handled flare fine. I wish it were that simple, the "II"s have the problem fixed, then you just have to make sure you get a "II." But apparently that's not the case.
I detest veiling glare. If I got a sample that had that issue, I'd sent it back to the store for another sample, and keep doing that until I got a good'un.
<B>
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Thus the word "some".
I have doubts that Nikon has made any production changes. There are posts from members from near the beginning of production that reported no problems, yet then we have reports from members with recent production saying they had a problem. As I recall, you evaluated the M7 8X30 owned by PhilR that was an early production unit and you did not see the issue. It may be a perfect storm scenario where there are multiple factors, such as pupil dilation and sun location, all coming into play at the same time.
Mine has experienced only one washout in a very difficult lighting situation. Using one hand as a shield over the top of the objectives took care of the problem and the view was quite good considering the lighting. I suspect other binoculars would also have had a hard time under the same conditions. I have tried numerous times to recreate the washout but have been unable to do so. There may be a glare issue on occasion, but it is to infrequent for my usage to be an issue.
Bird Fair is coming up soon so maybe some of members across the pond can beat up on some of the genuine Nikon reps and find out what is going on. However based on what I read in the past, it is unlikely the Nikon reps know or are willing to say. Maybe Dennis can find out from his super secret inside Nikon contact!
I compared a current model Nikon 8x30 M7 to my other binoculars for veiling glare and it was the worst of the lot. My other binoculars are more expensive binoculars though except for maybe the EII. I have the Swarovski 8x32 SV, the Nikon 8x30 EII and the Leica Trinovid 8x32 BA all of which produced less glare than the M7. In my opinion my other three binoculars outperformed the M7 optically also but they should because they are all more expensive. I returned my M7 for that reason. Other people may find the M7 satisfactory for their personal needs. I am just reporting what I saw.
Last edited:
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
Looking toward the low evening sun this evening certainly provoked some glare, a sort of milky haze just on the bottom part of the view. No worse than I'd expect on cheaper bins though. It didn't seem as bad as the glare I saw in the pair I tried in the shop though and the conditions were much more conducive to glare this evening.
So all in all, considering the sharpness, brightness , very compact size and low price definitely a thumbs up for these.
So all in all, considering the sharpness, brightness , very compact size and low price definitely a thumbs up for these.
"No worse than I'd expect on cheaper bins though." Exactly that is how I feel about the M7's. For a cheaper binocular they handle glare ok but I wouldn't put up with it in a more expensive binocular. For the $329.00 that you can get them for at Tristate Camera they are an ok low end binocular. If you are on a very limited budget and you need a small waterproof binocular they will probably work. It is just I am used to a lot better optics and to me they disappoint.
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
Apart from the average glare control they punch above their weight in all other departments though.They are far better than the bigger M7's from my experience, sharper with a larger sweet spot. Im used to alpha optics myself and these are really not tooo far behind. Their size and weight is a real godsend when you are carrying camera gear and a scope for example.
True they are pretty good glass for $300 but for a few extra oz. I would just as soon carry my SV 8x32 Swarovision's. And if you are constrained by budget and you don't need waterproof for $380.00 the Nikon 8x30 EII's in my opinion punch above the M7's with a bigger FOV.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
I don't know about alphas optics, but they certainly do "punch above their weight" (then again, at 15 oz., it's not that hard to do
). From memory, I would say that the 8x30 M7 was "sharper" than the 8x42 Terra ED. I'd rather confirm that comparing them side by side, but due to the fast focuser on the Terra, I'm always "hunting" for the best sharpness, so that might be part of it. With the M7, the sharp image easily snapped into view. The M7 also has more color contrast than the Terra.
I think Bruce is correct about multiple factors that lead one person to report veiling glare and another not report it. There is something going on with the binoculars that make them susceptible, but then it depends on the lighting conditions and perhaps the user's facial features and eye positioning.
As I recall, Nikon did admit that there was a defect to one of the early adopters who send his sample back and had it repaired (same serial #). I can't recall, however, if he said his originally had unpainted rings in the objective tubes, which was the prevailing theory after Frank D. posted his pix. But I don't think it's totally subjective. Too many reports of the same issue.
Brock
