Nikon Monarch M7 / Kite Lynx HD x30s - Still Veiling Glare? (1 Viewer)

Hi all,

I'm still in the market for a light, compact, high quality 10x30 roof prism for use as a travel / backup / take-with-me-when-just-pottering-about binocular.

I like the M7 and Kite Lynx but don't currently own either as I couldn't get past the veiling glare that both suffered from when I last tried them about 12 months ago.

The veiling glare to which I refer is eloquently summarised by Mr Link in this post.

Has anyone any idea if Nikon or Kite have sorted this yet, or are we still seeing a smokescreen type fug in certain challenging low-light conditions?

I have tried a Kite Lynx about 5 months ago----it went back to the dealer: the amount of glare in almost any conceivable situation was excessive. Both of them also have a rather small diopter correction range (not stated in the specs): about -/+2 for M7 and probably -/+3 for the Lynx. If you need more they are not for you.

Amazing not all models have gone back to the future on their baffles yet.
Even the Nikon Prostaffs crushed this with hood (setback) and ribs,
the Aculon line was improved a bit, and the whole Vortex line
was swept with deep tunnels in 2013-2014.

What about the Kowa BD or the Vanguard Endeaver ED II ? Prices are adjacent.
I have a thing for Kowa's mechanical design.

Hi
I bought an M711 8x30 in October; whether this is an upgrade on the M7 i don't know, but when i googled it, all the sites offering if/reviewing it were European mainland/non-English language pages.
I followed the glare debate on BF, and have looked inside it (from both ends) and can't see a problem. Also, no problems in the field. I haven't seen the lack of contrast or the 'fug' which is supposed to indicate veiling glare.
The light today is awful, so i may go out and have another look, but i love them.
If anyone knows about this 'M7' 'M711' relationship, i'd like to know about it....
Paddy

Paddy,

I never heard of a M711 binocular. Is it a Nikon? Nikon sells an inexpensive Monarch Prostaff 7S in 8x30 and 10x30 in the USA. They have narrow FOVs.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/PROSTAFF-7S-8x30.html

Bob

OPTIC_NUT said:

Amazing not all models have gone back to the future on their baffles yet.
Even the Nikon Prostaffs crushed this with hood (setback) and ribs,
the Aculon line was improved a bit, and the whole Vortex line
was swept with deep tunnels in 2013-2014.

What about the Kowa BD or the Vanguard Endeaver ED II ? Prices are adjacent.
I have a thing for Kowa's mechanical design.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be averse to giving a Kowa BD a go, can you advise whether they focus clockwise, or counter-clockwise to infinity. All my other bins are clockwise from near to far and I'd like to retain some uniformity if possible.

paddy7 said:

Hi
I bought an M711 8x30 in October; whether this is an upgrade on the M7 i don't know, but when i googled it, all the sites offering if/reviewing it were European mainland/non-English language pages.
I followed the glare debate on BF, and have looked inside it (from both ends) and can't see a problem. Also, no problems in the field. I haven't seen the lack of contrast or the 'fug' which is supposed to indicate veiling glare.
The light today is awful, so i may go out and have another look, but i love them.
If anyone knows about this 'M7' 'M711' relationship, i'd like to know about it....
Paddy

Click to expand...

Have a look at a leafless tall hedgerow or a 'wall' of conifers so the vegetation fills the image completely on a dull day. The veiling glare manifests as crescent shaped 'fug' - usually with an unsullied ring around the periphery of the image. Once you see it, there's no going back.

I suspect that '711' is just a marketing designation in some countries - could be wrong.

If yours can't be provoked into producing veiling glare, can I buy them please?

OPTIC_NUT said:

Amazing not all models have gone back to the future on their baffles yet.

Click to expand...

The poor performer illustrated in the link in post #1 IS a back to the future design at least 40 years old.

It's a 25 year old Swarovski 8x30 Habicht Porro equipped with a flat black grooved baffling cone extending from just in front of the prism shelf to just behind the objective cell and a flat black grooved retaining ring in front of the objective. Look into it from the front and you see what appears to be a beautifully baffled interior. Even looking from the back you don't notice any problem with interior reflections unless strong off-axis light happens to catch the edge of the objective cell at just the right angle. Then the impressive looking baffle cone becomes useless because it's a little too large at the front to completely block the objective cell reflection and no hood of reasonable length in front could prevent the bright spot from forming on the opposite side of the objective cell from a close sun angle. I've learned that nice looking interior baffling in old Porros often fails to completely block reflections from the objective cell and that's where most veiling glare in those binoculars originates.

"I wouldn't be averse to giving a Kowa BD a go, can you advise whether they focus clockwise, or counter-clockwise to infinity. All my other bins are clockwise from near to far and I'd like to retain some uniformity if possible.

Click to expand...

I suggest you also give some consideration to Pentax DCF 9x32:
it's cheaper than both the Lynx and M7 but has good optics, the glare is well controlled and the ergonomics are very good. They focus CCW and, like you, I did like that as all my other bins focus CW---but believe me I have not even noticed it when I tried them first time--only when you think of it do you realize that they focus CCW. I have kept them and due to them I have become less sensitive to the CW vs CCW question.
Peter

Forgot to mention: the Pentax is slightly heavier than the M7 and the Lynx but only by some 1-1.5oz.

Henry:

I believe you have missed including the "link" that you referred to wrt Post#76. Anyway as far as I recall from the example that I had some 6 months ago, the Habicht does not control glare well. Others have found the same and tried to solve the problem by mounting homemade hoods/sunshades in front of the objectives:
http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/a...vski/swarohabicht8x30w/swarohabicht8x30w.html
Are you suggesting that the same should be done for the Lynx and M7 which are the subject of this thread?

Peter

Sorry, I got my post numbers confused. The link is in post #1 of this thread. My post was #76 in another thread here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2882767&postcount=76

I'm saying that hoods are largely ineffective against objective cell reflections caused by light from close sun angles.

henry link said:

My post was #76 in another thread here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2882767&postcount=76

I'm saying that hoods are largely ineffective against objective cell reflections caused by light from close sun angles.

Click to expand...

I totally agree, hoods are quite effective in reducing the "smokescreen" type of veiling glare of the Habicht 8x30 (or any other binocular that suffers from this design fault) to a negligible amount, but they don't help at all when the sun (or any bright source of light) is at a close angle.

As an aside: Controlling stray light is even in many modern binoculars nowhere near as good as it could (and should be), even though it's probably more important for image quality and usability in the field than an additional 2 or 3% in transmission. Or, indeed, a totally sharp image to the edge.

Hermann

I

totally agree, hoods are quite effective in reducing the "smokescreen" type of veiling glare of the Habicht 8x30 (or any other binocular that suffers from this design fault) to a negligible amount, but they don't help at all when the sun (or any bright source of light) is at a close angle.

Click to expand...

Tobias Menle's experience about mounting hoods on the Habicht seems different, see the link included in my previous post---he reported positive results.

As an aside: Controlling stray light is even in many modern binoculars nowhere near as good as it could (and should be), even though it's probably more important for image quality and usability in the field than an additional 2 or 3% in transmission. Or, indeed, a totally sharp image to the edge.

Click to expand...

I cannot agree more with this. I was really surprised when I got my first SV 8x32 to see how poor the glare control was (which I consider to be the only issue of the SV)----you shouldn't have to use your hands to shade the objectives when you pay more than 2000$ for a set......And to connect this discussion to the topic of this thread: The Lynx is less expensive than the SV, even though not cheap at all, but its glare issues were so serious that IMO they made it almost unusable---at least for those, like myself, with face features that are prone to glare.

Mine are definitely Monarch 7 8x30, but are designated '711'..been out on a day where excessive snowy cloud swapped places with clear blue sky, low sun.
If i looked below the sun (although i doubt i would ever do this unless testing something) there was a little glare down in the lower rh corner. However, if this was due to an an unblackened ring, looking to the right of the sun, above the sun and left of the sun would create something similar, which it didn't.
Looking into leafless hedgerow (whether the sun was behind or to the side or in front) was fine.
The air was what a mate used to call 'dirty' (i.e. a bit misty), but there was no fug that wasn't just an 8 mag version of what was there. I pulled out sparrowhawk, fieldfare, treecreeper, redwing and song thrush in bare branches with no prob.
If out on a 'serious' birding day, i take the Vanguard Endeavor EDII and Swaro scope; i use the Monarch for local bird counts for Birdtrack and opportunist trips, but find myself looking for more and more reasons to take the Monarchs, as they're a very 'likeable' little set.
If you're thinking of getting some, don't buy online; check the forecast and go to a specialist retailer on a day you suspect might cause a problem, if its there, and give them a good road testing. I find it hard to believe a company like Nikon would let an identified problem go on unchecked.
For £250 for what is close to a pocket bin, these are hard to beat. Wide, fairly flat, light, bright enough, with almost no CA ..... i've tried bins 5 times the price that i wouldn't swap for them. Sorry Caesar!

Apologies! It was Crinkly that wanted them! Caesar will have to buy his own.... with the riches of Rome at his disposal, should be no problem.

pesto said:

Tobias Menle's experience about mounting hoods on the Habicht seems different, see the link included in my previous post---he reported positive results.

Click to expand...

Well, these hoods *are* long, aren't they? They may well be effective, but they're rather too long in my opinion, making the whole binocular rather unwieldy. And shorter ones aren't that effective if there's a bright light at close angles, even though they work OK against the smokescreen type of glare.

That's why I didn't get the 8x30 when I had decided to get one of the Habicht porros while they're still available and went for the 7x42 instead, despite its narrow field of view. The Habicht 7x42 doesn't suffer from this kind of glare, so Swarovski got it right when they designed this binocular in 1949 ... In fact, the 7x42 is better in this respect than most other binoculars I know, even the Nikon 8x32 SE that is already pretty good.

Hermann

pesto said:

I

Tobias Menle's experience about mounting hoods on the Habicht seems different, see the link included in my previous post---he reported positive results.

Click to expand...

I agree with Hermann that a 6 cm hood is pretty long for a 11 cm binocular, but if that length is acceptable it will protect against a bright reflection forming on the opposite side of the objective cell for sun angles above about 26º. The bright spot in my photo will still form at angles below 26º.

paddy7 said:

Apologies! It was Crinkly that wanted them! Caesar will have to buy his own.... with the riches of Rome at his disposal, should be no problem.

Click to expand...

I don't want one. I have a perfectly good Swarovski 8x30 Companion which has no problems. I have a Nikon 8x30 EII also.

Bob

ceasar said:

Paddy,

I never heard of a M711 binocular. Is it a Nikon? ............Bob

Click to expand...

crinklystarfish said:

......................
I suspect that '711' is just a marketing designation in some countries - could be wrong.

If yours can't be provoked into producing veiling glare, can I buy them please?

Click to expand...

I purchased a Nikon USA imported Monarch 7 8X30 from B & H Photo of New York about the first week of September, 2014 and the end cap over the focus knob says M711. A picture is attached. The serial number is 00042xx.




In regards to the glare issues reported by some, I was concerned before the purchase. I used it almost daily under varying light conditions on two extended backwoods trips in September and October, and also off and on before and since then.

Try as I might, I only had one bad glare occurrence. That was a near total washout one morning when looking at the direction of the sun just as the sun was starting to break above a mountain ridge line. What surprised me was when I held the palm of my left hand over the top of the objectives almost all of the glare went away and the view was quite clear.

Just to do a comparision, I went back to the truck and grabbed a Nikon EDG-II 10X42. It took a few minutes to return to the same spot and by then the sun was above the ridge and looking at the same scene with M7 8X30, the total washout was now gone. Instead it was the overall type glare that would be expected from any binocular under those lighting conditions. The same glare was also visible with the EDG, but to a lesser extent.

For the most part, I think the M7 I have handles overall glare as well as other non alpha binoculars I have. The one exception I an not sure about is the total washout described above. I am not sure how other models would have performed so one of these days I will try and recreate it.

A view down the objectives of mine look, as best I can tell, like the one evaluated by FrankD.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2962034&postcount=38

In my case so far, I found the glare concerns to be a non issue and the positives of the wide, sharp, bright view exceeding expectations. My only complaint is the somewhat touchy eye placement, but that is to be expected with the less than 4 mm exit pupil and small (and somewhat short) eye cups. I am now use to it and it is not a problem. It is one binocular I would not want to give up.

I did try the M7 10X30 in the store last summer and concluded the 10X30 exit pupil is just to small and I doubt it would be as successful as the 8X30. I suspect glare would be more of an issue and eye placement a problem.

Bob ... As I recall, you were considering the 8X30 a while back. Based on some of your previous posts, I think you would like it. It is small and will fit in your jacket pocket, yet it comes close to having the advantages of a full size binocular.