New Nikon Monarch 82ed with 20x-60x & 30x-60x...help me test it for good of all:) (1 Viewer)

yakyakgoose · Jul 13, 2019

I just received a Nikon Monarch 82ED 20x-60x and the 30x-60x wide. I'd like to test it out for my own understanding and to get some more data points out there for everyone.

I'll update this post with the tests as I do them. I havent done this before so feel free to chime in with pointers.

(UPDATE)
Star Test w/ 30x-60x Wide
I took it out and focused on a star and then unfocused it both high and low. Both sides of focus produce a perfect circle with an outside border with several smaller rings insed. Based on a couple articles I read, I do not see any astigmatism or mixed abberations. I didnt understand the examples for spherical abberations so cant comment on those at this time. Disclaimer: Its currently a full moon and I can only see the sky in the moon's direction due to mountains. I also had LASIC a few months ago and still get some "haloing" effect from light sources when its dark, if anything, its better than what im seeing. Im not sure how to interpret these results so any insight would be helpful

choonsarn · Jul 13, 2019

Hello, will you be doing digiscoping? Like to know more about digiscoping with DSA-N1 adapter if you have or other third party brand. Thanks.

yakyakgoose · Jul 13, 2019

choonsarn said:
Hello, will you be doing digiscoping? Like to know more about digiscoping with DSA-N1 adapter if you have or other third party brand. Thanks.

I was actually looking into that. I have a Canon D MK2 that Id like to get hooked up to it. Would I be able to use the DSA -N1 plus a canon adapter?

I will also get an adapter for my phone from the company "Phonescope"

mayoayo · Jul 13, 2019

Hi David....congratulations on the new scope..So far so good,but a single star test can be deceiving ,sometimes results are not so consistent,due to atmospheric conditions or even eye placement .If the eyepiece has some Field curvature,object placement in the FOV is also important..and Sky objects move..!
Try also daytime star testing,trying to Focus on(small) sun reflections(dont miss Henry Link advice on this further on the thread),..those can add info to your tests,and then even making artificial stars, maybe with a LED flash light shinning through a pinhole...All These tests are casual and subjetive to a level,but certain consistency in various results would help at least eliminate serious problems..The Spherical Aberration is much more complicated to ascern at 60 power in an 82mm,because those few first rings(airy disc) are just hard to evaluate ..then ,even if you are rings both sides of focus,is not always so clear that they are identical.My current scope tested well when i first got It,but recent tests on night skies are just vague.
Daytime observation (lately using a fixed 37x)confirms that the view is pretty much free from aberrations and can be considered an excellent scope,the way Focus snaps every time,(positive Focus,no hunting)and just the level of resolution.I have also compared my scope side by side with other scopes (ATX,Kowa 88,Harpia 95 and other units of my own model)many times ,to help me understand its quality and limitations

choonsarn · Jul 13, 2019

yakyakgoose said:
I was actually looking into that. I have a Canon D MK2 that Id like to get hooked up to it. Would I be able to use the DSA -N1 plus a canon adapter?

I will also get an adapter for my phone from the company "Phonescope"

The DSA-N1 is from Nikon, is meant to used with Nikon 1 series interchangeable mirrorless camera.

You can have a look at Novagrade and Digiadapter to pair with your Canon DSLR.

henry link · Jul 13, 2019

yakyakgoose said:
(UPDATE)
Star Test w/ 30x-60x Wide
I took it out and focused on a star and then unfocused it both high and low. Both sides of focus produce a perfect circle with an outside border with several smaller rings insed. Based on a couple articles I read, I do not see any astigmatism or mixed abberations. I didnt understand the examples for spherical abberations so cant comment on those at this time. Disclaimer: Its currently a full moon and I can only see the sky in the moon's direction due to mountains. I also had LASIC a few months ago and still get some "haloing" effect from light sources when its dark, if anything, its better than what im seeing. Im not sure how to interpret these results so any insight would be helpful

First a caution about daylight star-testing. A couple of years ago I was alarmed by one forum member who proposed to use the sun's reflection from a flat window pane. That would produce a large disk of the sun with far too strong a concentration of sunlight, hazardous to the eye. The reflection of the sun should be a tiny glitter point from a small shiny round object like a ball bearing, Christmas tree ornament, etc. at a distance of at least 50 times the focal length of the scope, so for the Monarch at least 25 meters.

The shape of the unfocused diffraction disks is most revealing of defects like astigmatism and pinching at about 2-4 rings from best focus. By the time the star is unfocused to 10 rings or more all scopes tend to show perfect circles. Typically spherical aberration shows as strong well defined outer rings (with a hollow out center in bad cases) on one side of focus contrasting with weak or no rings with a fuzzy bright core on the other side of focus. One thing you don't have to worry about with the Monarch is a defective roof line splitting the diffraction disk since the roof edge is outside the light cone. I assume you're using 60x. 80-100x or more would be better if it were available. I used a 3X booster and a 4mm eyepiece for higher magnifications.

I agree with mayoayo that ease of focus snap in steady air at 60x is a good casual test. If you can access a USAF 1951 Resolution Test Pattern you should hope for resolving power close to 1.4 arcseconds (which may require more than 60x to see). A reference scope of known high quality is very useful for comparison and to evaluate the limits imposed by the test conditions.

Since you have both zoom eyepieces I would be interested to hear about off-axis aberrations, particularly how the two zooms compare for lateral color in the area of 4-10º of apparent field from the center.

Henry

Binastro · Jul 13, 2019

Hi Henry,
I tried PM, no luck.

Monarch focal length 1.5 feet?

But Christmas tree ornaments are large, so maybe 75 metres.

Regards.
B.

mayoayo · Jul 13, 2019

henry link said:
First a caution about daylight star-testing. A couple of years ago I was alarmed by one forum member who proposed to use the sun's reflection from a flat window pane. That would produce a large disk of the sun with far too strong a concentration of sunlight, hazardous to the eye. The reflection of the sun should be a tiny glitter point from a small shiny round object like a ball bearing, Christmas tree ornament, etc. at a distance of at least 50 times the focal length of the scope, so for the Monarch at least 75 meters.

Henry

Thanks Henry..this is very important to remember

henry link · Jul 13, 2019

Thanks Binastro,

I meant 25 meters. I'll correct the distance on the original post.

The Monarch focal length is about 505mm, 1.66 feet

Henry

yakyakgoose · Jul 13, 2019

Quick update, my biggest issue right now is some immediate and poweful eyestrain from the wide eyepiece. I had a bit of a headache so hoping thats the issue but ill try again tomorrow. If that stays consisent I will probably have to return it. Ive never looked through an optic that wide either so we'll see.

Pileatus · Jul 13, 2019

Test Chart

Binastro · Jul 13, 2019

Post 10.

In bright light, possibly migraine aura?

B.

yakyakgoose · Jul 13, 2019

Binastro said:
Post 10.

In bright light, possibly migraine aura?

B.

You may have nailed it, I had a migraine kick in all afternoon. Probably was just starting.

yakyakgoose · Jul 13, 2019

Pileatus said:
Test Chart

Thanks, Ill get this printed out, whats the standard distance to test?

henry link · Jul 14, 2019

There is no standard distance. There's a formula for converting the line pairs per mm resolved on the target at the distance you choose into seconds of arc.

I'm sorry to have suggested something which requires spending money on a proper target. The problems with home printed targets is first that they must be sized very accurately so that the bars and spaces of Group 0/element 1 are each exactly 1mm wide, which probably won't happen if you just download and copy and second the printing quality must be good enough to use the target at a reasonably short distance. I just printed out the chart in the link on my printer and found it printed a little too small and the print quality wouldn't allow accurate measurements below about Group -2/Element 4 at best. To measure 1.4" using Group -2/element 4 requires placing the target at a measured distance of 1900 feet from the telescope, just not very practical.

Henry

mooreorless · Jul 14, 2019

Henry I have a Edmund Optics Pocket USAF Test Pattern card that is only $6 that is very good, not sure if these are still that good or not. I have to look at it again to see how far it is good to. I guess if someone was interested they could have someone from EO check out the one they would send. And well the distance could be longer to test if need be.Supposed to be good to Minimum Group 0 Element 1 and Max Group 3 element 6 mine comes very close to that.

yakyakgoose · Jul 15, 2019

Wow, you arent kidding Henry. I looked up those test charts and they are pretty pricey.

As far as the eyestrain, Binastro nailed it. No migraine today and no eyestrain. I will say the eye relief is less than I would want especially at 60x on the 30x-60x. There is a noticable difference between the 20x-60x and the 30x-60x.

jring · Jul 15, 2019

yakyakgoose said:
(UPDATE)
Star Test w/ 30x-60x Wide
I took it out and focused on a star and then unfocused it both high and low. Both sides of focus produce a perfect circle with an outside with several smaller rings insed. Based on a couple articles I read, I do not see any astigmatism or mixed abberations. I didnt understand the examples for spherical abberations so cant comment on those at this time. Disclaimer: Its currently a full moon and I can only see the sky in the moon's direction due to mountains. I also had LASIC a few months ago and still get some "haloing" effect from light sources when its dark, if anything, its better than what im seeing. Im not sure how to interpret these results so any insight would be helpful

Hi,

congratulations to your new scope!

Regarding the star test - perfect circles are good - so we can rule out astigmatism, coma and some higher order variants of those...

Spherical aberration and zones will show themselves with different round and concentric diffraction patterns inside and outside of focus (by the same amount).
They all tend to bring more energy away from the center which will result in blurry stars even at "best" focus in bad cases...

Joachim

yakyakgoose · Jul 15, 2019

Jring, Thanks for that, Ill take another look tonight.

Since I wont be getting my hands on an "official" resolution chart I figured I could do a comparison with a low tech print out one as long as the scopes were being tested under the same conditions.

I printed out an USAF resolution chart, grabbed my Nikon scope & 30x/60x eyepiece and headed down to Cabelas where they had an ATX 85 and 95 in stock.

I set up the chart about 40-50 yards across the store in a more dimly lit area and put the ATX 95mm and Nikon Monarch 82ed on tripods. This test was pretty easy, the 95mm was brighter and had better resolution than the 82ed, hands down. I wasnt really surprised by this with the larger objective.

I then swapped out the 95mm with the ATX 85mm for a more apples to apples test. This was interesting, I prob spent an hour looking back and forth through these two scopes at the resolution chart and I landed on they seemed to be exactly the same to me. If one did happen to look better than the other it was usually because it was the first one I had looked through after resting my eyes. The winner would swap the next time I rested and started with the other scope. I also asked 2 employees and 1 customer to take a look for their opinions and 2 people said they couldnt tell the difference while 1 said he thought the swaro was fractionally better.

As far as image I think they are tied, however, I still think the Swaro is the better overall scope. All testing was done at 60x.

The Swaro has
1. Lighter weight
2. Wider field of view
3. Better eye relief
4. I liked the feel of the focus better, seemed a bit easier to "tune" the focus
5. The eyepiece cover stays on better (This is a pet peeve of mine)

The price difference between these is around 2k. Personally, the list of items above doesnt warrant buying the 85mm over the 82ed. It also doesnt seem that surprising that we are seeing similar performance at lower price points now. The ATX has been around close to a decade...technology becomes cheaper with time and other companies will be able to undercut you on price. If Swaro doesnt find a way to increase optic tech beyond the ATX series I imagine we will see several other companies catch up to them and at lower price points.

Personally, I probably should have never looked through ATX 95mm because I am now considering returning the Nikon and getting that. I wouldn't do it for the 85mm though.

Pileatus · Jul 15, 2019

yakyakgoose said:
Jring, Thanks for that, Ill take another look tonight.

Since I wont be getting my hands on an "official" resolution chart I figured I could do a comparison with a low tech print out one as long as the scopes were being tested under the same conditions.

I printed out an USAF resolution chart, grabbed my Nikon scope & 30x/60x eyepiece and headed down to Cabelas where they had an ATX 85 and 95 in stock.

I set up the chart about 40-50 yards across the store in a more dimly lit area and put the ATX 95mm and Nikon Monarch 82ed on tripods. This test was pretty easy, the 95mm was brighter and had better resolution than the 82ed, hands down. I wasnt really surprised by this with the larger objective.

I then swapped out the 95mm with the ATX 85mm for a more apples to apples test. This was interesting, I prob spent an hour looking back and forth through these two scopes at the resolution chart and I landed on they seemed to be exactly the same to me. If one did happen to look better than the other it was usually because it was the first one I had looked through after resting my eyes. The winner would swap the next time I rested and started with the other scope. I also asked 2 employees and 1 customer to take a look for their opinions and 2 people said they couldnt tell the difference while 1 said he thought the swaro was fractionally better.

As far as image I think they are tied, however, I still think the Swaro is the better overall scope. All testing was done at 60x.

The Swaro has
1. Lighter weight
2. Wider field of view
3. Better eye relief
4. I liked the feel of the focus better, seemed a bit easier to "tune" the focus
5. The eyepiece cover stays on better (This is a pet peeve of mine)

The price difference between these is around 2k. Personally, the list of items above doesnt warrant buying the 85mm over the 82ed. It also doesnt seem that surprising that we are seeing similar performance at lower price points now. The ATX has been around close to a decade...technology becomes cheaper with time and other companies will be able to undercut you on price. If Swaro doesnt find a way to increase optic tech beyond the ATX series I imagine we will see several other companies catch up to them and at lower price points.

Personally, I probably should have never looked through ATX 95mm because I am now considering returning the Nikon and getting that. I wouldn't do it for the 85mm though.

The ATX 95 goes to 70X magnification. How did you know you were at 60X for the comparison to your Monarch ED82?

New Nikon Monarch 82ed with 20x-60x & 30x-60x...help me test it for good of all:) (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread