Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

NIKON introduces new Monarch HG 8x30 and 10x30 Binoculars

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Thursday 12th July 2018, 15:52   #26
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick-on View Post
No it can't.

Nick
Gee!

If you have a neck why can't you use it to improve the limited specifications of your binocular?

Bob
ceasar is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 12th July 2018, 15:59   #27
Nick-on
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: deepest darkest Herefordshire
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Gee!

If you have a neck why can't you use it to improve the limited specifications of your binocular?

Bob
Why stop at 7.7, how about 6 or 4. why just by turning your neck your smartie tubes will have 180 FOV. A wider FOV is better than a narrower FOV in nearly every instance. Just because you like a particular binocular doesn't change things.

Gee.

Nick

Last edited by Troubador : Wednesday 18th July 2018 at 08:25.
Nick-on is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th July 2018, 21:11   #28
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,491
Bob is right here. The fov difference is insignificant. Lee make the point about a 19% increase in viewing area, but that too is, as a practical matter...insignificant. That is my opinion. What is factored out in fov discussions is that while we can change magnifications, fov width, coatings and other things, we are stuck with our narrow focus human vision. Give that same human vision a 19% larger area, you simply are adding a larger area for our narrow vision, central focused vision at that, to contend with. This, again in my opinion, causes observers to rely more on the fov of the binocular and far too little on our own eyes, which are what should be getting ti most use in a birding situation. There is certainly some advantage to adding peripheral vision,m but those who seem to feel they can dart their eyes to the edge are simply exposing various aberrations that are caused by off axis viewing that were never intended to be tin the center field in the first place. Plus that edge darting seems a splendid way to create eye strain. It is very hard to actually look at the edge of the fov.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 12th July 2018, 22:12   #29
nmason
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 177
Isn't a wider FOV a potentially significant advantage for spotting birds while scanning through binoculars, making it easier to pick up movement in branches, or to spot a distant hawk in the sky overhead? Often I seem to notice movement peripherally, but then of course I reposition the binoculars so the bird is in the center.

Neill
nmason is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th July 2018, 23:16   #30
[email protected]
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Bob is right here. The fov difference is insignificant. Lee make the point about a 19% increase in viewing area, but that too is, as a practical matter...insignificant. That is my opinion. What is factored out in fov discussions is that while we can change magnifications, fov width, coatings and other things, we are stuck with our narrow focus human vision. Give that same human vision a 19% larger area, you simply are adding a larger area for our narrow vision, central focused vision at that, to contend with. This, again in my opinion, causes observers to rely more on the fov of the binocular and far too little on our own eyes, which are what should be getting ti most use in a birding situation. There is certainly some advantage to adding peripheral vision,m but those who seem to feel they can dart their eyes to the edge are simply exposing various aberrations that are caused by off axis viewing that were never intended to be tin the center field in the first place. Plus that edge darting seems a splendid way to create eye strain. It is very hard to actually look at the edge of the fov.
As Lee and nmason said the bigger FOV helps you spot movement and potential birds when scanning. A bigger FOV is always advantageous especially when there are no aberrations at the edge as in the Swarovski SV. Even if it is not a flat field binocular you can usually detect movement at the edge which tells you you snagged something so you can move the object to the center. I can easily see the edges of my SV's with out hardly any eye darting. I can also easily see the difference between a binocular with a 400 foot FOV compared to one with a 420 foot FOV and one with a 440 foot FOV. If a bigger FOV is not desired why even have binoculars? We would all be using spotting scopes and twisting our necks around. Heck, they have way more magnification than a binocular. Why do some birders prefer a 7x binocular over 10x? One of the big reasons is it has a bigger FOV.

Last edited by Troubador : Wednesday 18th July 2018 at 08:26.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th July 2018, 00:38   #31
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,194
When you are out birding in the thick stuff and the birds are close...I can absolutely tell a difference between binocular "A" with 399 ft FOV and binocular "B" with 420 ft FOV. I have proven this to myself time and time again. It's easier to spot a bird quicker....no doubt about it. That's very important because birds usually don't say still! NOW...less FOV doesn't make a binoculars necessarily a unworthy binocular and I can certainly make a binocular with lower FOV numbers WORK...but given the choice...I'll take the one with more FOV and can probably tell the difference in the field.
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th July 2018, 00:40   #32
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
https://www.nikon.com/news/2018/0628_monarch_hg_01.htm

They have FOVs of 435'@1000yds and 362'@1000yds respectively and ERs of 16.2mm and 15.2mm respectively. They weigh 15.9 ounces.

Nikon is now listing them on its USA Binocular website:

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/n...-hg/index.page

Their price is about the same as the 42mm Monarch HGs.

Bob
BTW Bob....

I WANT one of the 8X32!
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th July 2018, 01:16   #33
cycleguy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: mile high, colorado
Posts: 906
I'm with the side that appreciates a wider field of view and the more usable the FOV the more better.

If I follow the thinking of a smaller field of view with a monopod neck that swivels in all directions as equivalent, then I should be content with any size FOV even down to 1' at 1000 yards???.... I can tell you for me this is not the case.

My .02,

CG
cycleguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th July 2018, 02:35   #34
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,169
A wider FOV also contributes to a greater sense of space, and usually a more relaxed view in my experience, less squinty.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th July 2018, 03:39   #35
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
BTW Bob....

I WANT one of the 8X32!
Chuck,

They are both 8x30.

One is the new Nikon Monarch 8x30 HG, the other is the Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 B which I own. I use it almost every day and I like very much!

I also have a Nikon 8x42 HG which has the same 8.3 FOV as the new 8x30 HG. Except for size they look very much alike. The oculars on the 8x30, of course, are shorter and smaller than the ones on the 8x42 but they still have to produce the same 8.3 FOV as the ones on the 8x42.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/n...-hg/index.page

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Friday 13th July 2018 at 03:47.
ceasar is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th July 2018, 04:19   #36
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycleguy View Post
I'm with the side that appreciates a wider field of view and the more usable the FOV the more better.

If I follow the thinking of a smaller field of view with a monopod neck that swivels in all directions as equivalent, then I should be content with any size FOV even down to 1' at 1000 yards???.... I can tell you for me this is not the case.

My .02,

CG
Not really. The Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 B and new Nikon Monarch 8x30 HG have FOVs that are close to each other but the Nikon FOV is wider. All you really want to do is move the Swarovski slightly by "pivoting" your neck to create a similar FOV as the Nikons. It isn't complicated. You probably do it unconsciously with any binocular when following a bird flitting through the branches of a tree. That is what I meant when I commented that the Nikons "38 more feet FOV at 1000 yards was insignificant in normal use" when compared with the Swarovski. See Post #12 above.

It is absurd to think that uncontrolled neck swiveling will make a binocular with a narrow FOV competitive with one with a very wide FOV.

Last edited by ceasar : Friday 13th July 2018 at 04:21.
ceasar is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th July 2018, 08:31   #37
dalat
.
 
dalat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,454
Funny discussion this. A FOV of 145m/1000m is almost best in class for a 8x roof binocular, while 132m/1000m is pretty average. If this matters to you, up to you to decide. I certainly appreciate a good FOV.
dalat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th July 2018, 10:00   #38
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Stanford and Uppsala
Posts: 649
Quote:
I certainly appreciate a good FOV.
Who doesn't? Maybe only someone who can "pivot his neck unconsciously". I think we are running out of topics.....
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th July 2018, 12:30   #39
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,004
With the "shortish" eye relief the complete FOV might be difficult to enjoy, at least if wearing glasses.
Eye cup rim seem to be rather high as well, stealing some of the ER. The 42mm HG was not optimal with glasses either and to me it looks like the eye pieces are similar in the 30mm version.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th July 2018, 12:37   #40
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Chuck,

They are both 8x30.

One is the new Nikon Monarch 8x30 HG, the other is the Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 B which I own. I use it almost every day and I like very much!

I also have a Nikon 8x42 HG which has the same 8.3 FOV as the new 8x30 HG. Except for size they look very much alike. The oculars on the 8x30, of course, are shorter and smaller than the ones on the 8x42 but they still have to produce the same 8.3 FOV as the ones on the 8x42.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/n...-hg/index.page

Bob
Hey Bob,

I knew what I was THINKING but it didn't get to my fingers!

I want one of the Monarch HG 8X30s! Well I would like one of the new CL 8X30s TOO but will prob just get the Nikon... Of course I don't NEED either!
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th July 2018, 12:39   #41
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
With the "shortish" eye relief the complete FOV might be difficult to enjoy, at least if wearing glasses.
Eye cup rim seem to be rather high as well, stealing some of the ER. The 42mm HG was not optimal with glasses either and to me it looks like the eye pieces are similar in the 30mm version.
Yeah, the eye relief of the 8X30 DOES look to be cutting it close for me..
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th July 2018, 12:40   #42
MandoBear
Registered User
 
MandoBear's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Hereford UK
Posts: 46
If I'm watching a bird in flight (and most of the birds round here do fly), I'll take a wider FoV any day (all other things being equal). The view is just more involving and natural - and I find acquiring and following a fast-flying bird so much easier with a wider FoV.
MandoBear is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th July 2018, 14:43   #43
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalat View Post
Funny discussion this. A FOV of 145m/1000m is almost best in class for a 8x roof binocular, while 132m/1000m is pretty average. If this matters to you, up to you to decide. I certainly appreciate a good FOV.


Yeah, the 8.3 Monarch 8x42 HG at 145m/1000m has almost the same FOV as the 8.4 148m/1000 FOV of the Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF which costs about $2000.00 more.

Which one would you rather have?

132mm/1000m is about what the old Zeiss Victory 8x42 FL and Nikon 8x42 EDG and Swarovski 8.5x42 Swarovision all have. Nobody complained about them having small FOVs. They all are, and were, top of the line binoculars.

Last edited by ceasar : Friday 13th July 2018 at 14:46.
ceasar is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th July 2018, 15:09   #44
dalat
.
 
dalat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Yeah, the 8.3 Monarch 8x42 HG at 145m/1000m has almost the same FOV as the 8.4 148m/1000 FOV of the Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF which costs about $2000.00 more.

Which one would you rather have?
The Zeiss FOV is awesome. But its too bulky for me. And too expensive. If the new HG 8x30 turns out to be good optically, I will seriously consider.

Really not sure what you're up to here? Of course FOV is important. Just as CA control, edge sharpness, weight, color, price, eye relief etc. What is more important to you, you have to decide. But please let me decide myself if the difference of 145 to 132 matters to me or not.
dalat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th July 2018, 15:18   #45
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,256
Fov

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Yeah, the 8.3 Monarch 8x42 HG at 145m/1000m has almost the same FOV as the 8.4 148m/1000 FOV of the Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF which costs about $2000.00 more.

Which one would you rather have?

132mm/1000m is about what the old Zeiss Victory 8x42 FL and Nikon 8x42 EDG and Swarovski 8.5x42 Swarovision all have. Nobody complained about them having small FOVs. They all are, and were, top of the line binoculars.


All three of those are great glass, and are used by other outdoor enthusiasts (besides birders) who appreciate a well built glass, that are constructed to the highest standard and are not fragile. The Nikon HG is a tough glass also and built better than the one costing over 2 grand more.

Andy W.
dries1 is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th July 2018, 16:53   #46
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,209
Based on the HG 10x/8x full size binos, I don't have any reservations about build quality or optics. They are impressive. With the smaller 8x32 class glass, it's always an ER issue that will make or break the deal for me. I don't know how many great binos don't work for me because of this.
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th July 2018, 18:21   #47
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalat View Post
The Zeiss FOV is awesome. But its too bulky for me. And too expensive. If the new HG 8x30 turns out to be good optically, I will seriously consider.

Really not sure what you're up to here? Of course FOV is important. Just as CA control, edge sharpness, weight, color, price, eye relief etc. What is more important to you, you have to decide. But please let me decide myself if the difference of 145 to 132 matters to me or not.
I'm not up to anything. I'm just moving along the discussion.

Bob
ceasar is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th July 2018, 18:41   #48
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgraider View Post
Based on the HG 10x/8x full size binos, I don't have any reservations about build quality or optics. They are impressive. With the smaller 8x32 class glass, it's always an ER issue that will make or break the deal for me. I don't know how many great binos don't work for me because of this.

ER has always been a problem for me also with 30/32 mm binoculars. It becomes a bigger problem when they have wide field oculars on them.

I find that even the design of the eye cups can make a difference. I don't like eye cups that have rounded off tops. Straight flat tops make them easier for me to brace up against my eye brows.

Swarovski seems to have eliminated some eye placement problems with its curious "optical box" design of the oculars in their new CL Companion 8/10x30B. I am able to use those binoculars braced up against my eye brows or with the eye pieces back around my eye balls which I could not do with any previous binocular.
ceasar is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 14th July 2018, 03:54   #49
cycleguy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: mile high, colorado
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Not really. The Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 B and new Nikon Monarch 8x30 HG have FOVs that are close to each other but the Nikon FOV is wider. All you really want to do is move the Swarovski slightly by "pivoting" your neck to create a similar FOV as the Nikons. It isn't complicated. You probably do it unconsciously with any binocular when following a bird flitting through the branches of a tree. That is what I meant when I commented that the Nikons "38 more feet FOV at 1000 yards was insignificant in normal use" when compared with the Swarovski. See Post #12 above.

It is absurd to think that uncontrolled neck swiveling will make a binocular with a narrow FOV competitive with one with a very wide FOV.
Bob,

Yes it is; as are many things BirdForum!

Hey, I'm just trying to fit in here!!

CG
cycleguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 14th July 2018, 15:40   #50
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,256
I have a Leica UV 8X42 HD and although it has a bit less FOV than the HG Nikon 8X42, I don't have any problem missing something afield. We are not talking large differences between the CL and the HG 8X30 with respect to field of view at all, minuscule IMHO.

Andy W.
dries1 is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monarch HG 8x30 and 10x30 In Focus Nikon 1 Friday 29th June 2018 15:16
Nikon Monarch 7 new 8x30 and 10x30 fkrow Nikon 201 Wednesday 7th October 2015 15:48
Nikon Monarch 7 10X30 Tvc15_2000 Nikon 3 Sunday 8th December 2013 23:03
Nikon Introduces New MONARCH X Binoculars Armandas_N. Nikon 3 Friday 27th February 2009 05:42

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.17328405 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:21.