John Cantelo
Well-known member
The configurations that interest me are the 10x42s and, perhaps more so, the 10x50s. If the latter remain pleasant ergonomically then would they be a good alternative to 'higher quality' optics but with only a 42mm OG?
-
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.
Kite Optics Lynx HD+ (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Boris Flaccus
- Start date
Yes, it looks a bit similar, but isn‘t identical, and it has no locking mechanism like on the Monarch HG.
MandoBear
Well-known member
When manufacturers make claims like...
“this instrument goes beyond the limits of any other binocular”
and...
"8x30 and 10x30 models are some of the smallest and lightest binoculars ever made"
I know that their marketing teams have been given a little too much sugar in their coffee - particularly when my Nikon Monarch 8x30s weigh a quoted 435g compared to 690g quoted for the Kite Lynx HD+ 8x30. In fact, it seems that they haven't even read their own specs for the Lynx HD, which weighs 461g.
“this instrument goes beyond the limits of any other binocular”
and...
"8x30 and 10x30 models are some of the smallest and lightest binoculars ever made"
I know that their marketing teams have been given a little too much sugar in their coffee - particularly when my Nikon Monarch 8x30s weigh a quoted 435g compared to 690g quoted for the Kite Lynx HD+ 8x30. In fact, it seems that they haven't even read their own specs for the Lynx HD, which weighs 461g.
Last edited:
Kite Lynx HD+ 8x42: Update of Review
This is a brief update on my review (post # 16) after testing the HD+ for stray-light performance.
Findings are generally positive, suppression of stray-light in the Lynx is quite good. Panning around a very bright light source, keeping it just outside the field of view, causes only few reflections. Veiling glare does not become an issue even with direct sunlight on the front lenses. Directly observing a bright LED light in the dark produces no noticeable ghost images, but distinct spikes (reflections on the roof edge of the prisms), slightly more pronounced than e.g. in the Zeiss Conquest HD or the Monarch HG, but observation does not get significantly hindered.
Even my favorite test, standing at the bank of a river and observing in the direction of a low (20%) standing sun and over the glittery water surface, did not cause major reflections that severely affected the image.
This confirms the overall positive impression I got of the new Lynx HD+.
fwiw Canip
This is a brief update on my review (post # 16) after testing the HD+ for stray-light performance.
Findings are generally positive, suppression of stray-light in the Lynx is quite good. Panning around a very bright light source, keeping it just outside the field of view, causes only few reflections. Veiling glare does not become an issue even with direct sunlight on the front lenses. Directly observing a bright LED light in the dark produces no noticeable ghost images, but distinct spikes (reflections on the roof edge of the prisms), slightly more pronounced than e.g. in the Zeiss Conquest HD or the Monarch HG, but observation does not get significantly hindered.
Even my favorite test, standing at the bank of a river and observing in the direction of a low (20%) standing sun and over the glittery water surface, did not cause major reflections that severely affected the image.
This confirms the overall positive impression I got of the new Lynx HD+.
fwiw Canip
BryanP
Little known member
https://www.kiteoptics.com/en/nature/dealers/canada/
Andy,
According to this link there are no dealers in the United States but it does show 6 Canadian dealers so there's that.
Of the 6 I've only ever had dealings with Markarian Optics in Vancouver. They don't seem to reply to email or the contact form on their own website so one would have to call them.
Cheers,
Bryan
Andy,
According to this link there are no dealers in the United States but it does show 6 Canadian dealers so there's that.
Of the 6 I've only ever had dealings with Markarian Optics in Vancouver. They don't seem to reply to email or the contact form on their own website so one would have to call them.
Cheers,
Bryan
BryanP
Little known member
Andy
No worries, I was a wee bit curious myself. I am enjoying the weather and ocean but here in Nova Scotia and not Costa Rica as my location suggests. I won't be back in Costa Rica till November but I promise to change the location in my settings before then ;-)
Canip, thank you for your brief look at the 8x42 HD+. I have no experience or knowledge of Kite so It really helps with assessing the whole HD+ range. Colour me curious at this point.
Does it seems to folks here that Kite is positioning the 8x30 HD+ to go after the Nikon HG 8x30? The price on the website for the new Kite 8x30 is 575 Euros which seems to be designed to undercut the HG 8x30 but is more expensive than the M7 8x30. Certainly there are some interesting 8x30 choices these days so its nice to see the new Kites thrown into the mix.
Cheers,
Bryan
No worries, I was a wee bit curious myself. I am enjoying the weather and ocean but here in Nova Scotia and not Costa Rica as my location suggests. I won't be back in Costa Rica till November but I promise to change the location in my settings before then ;-)
Canip, thank you for your brief look at the 8x42 HD+. I have no experience or knowledge of Kite so It really helps with assessing the whole HD+ range. Colour me curious at this point.
Does it seems to folks here that Kite is positioning the 8x30 HD+ to go after the Nikon HG 8x30? The price on the website for the new Kite 8x30 is 575 Euros which seems to be designed to undercut the HG 8x30 but is more expensive than the M7 8x30. Certainly there are some interesting 8x30 choices these days so its nice to see the new Kites thrown into the mix.
Cheers,
Bryan
The reins of the company are now in the hands of the next generation of de Putters I understand and they have had a bit of a rethink about Kite's business model. They have surprised many by diversifying into the hunting market and have done some sort of deal with Browning. I imagine that includes some plan to establish a market in the US, but I'm guessing. In the UK at least, the distribution for the birding market is handled totally independantly.
David
David
Kite HD+ is very similar to Monarch 7 in terms of sharpness, aberrations, slightly better. Both similarly shows flares from side light sources.
Monarch HG is much sharper and has less aberrations than Kite HD or M7. Kite HD+ has better housing than M7.
MHG is even sharper than Swarovski CL companion B.
Last edited:
Some interesting thoughts.
Sharpness is an ambiguous term and clearly means different things to different people, but at least in terms of effective resolution, I've found both the MHG 8x42 and 8x30 disappointing. When I last compared the 8x30 it was quite clearly beaten on the level of resolvable detail by the M7, CL and original Lynx. I would agree that the MHG is an worthwhile improvement over the M7 by other measures though. I hope to see the Lynx HD+ next week.
David
These are 10x30. Sharpness for me is more detail. When I look at the distant complex pattern, I can resolve much more details with MHG. With Swaro CL B I can resolve better than M7/Kite and less than MHG. Clear winner here is MHG. Swaro CL B has lowest CA of all four I compare here, MHG has similar but smaller CA than M7/Kite, but CA is weak point of MHG at this price range.
Rally hard to spot any difference between M7 and Kite HD+. On paper HD+ has wider FOV, but in reality hard to nottice that.
Reflections on AR coatings when looking inside suggests identical optical design M7. From looking at these AR coatings reflections MHG has different lenses arrangement, and Swaro CL B also have different.
When I try Kite HD+ i expected more, but I strugled with focusing adjustment and felt lack of sharpnes, so I decided to compare with some other models. I will do some more tests, but I expected more from less reputable brand and higher price tag when compared to Monarch 7. Sure, housing of M7 is not the best, but this sticky rubber does not affect image details.
Rally hard to spot any difference between M7 and Kite HD+. On paper HD+ has wider FOV, but in reality hard to nottice that.
Reflections on AR coatings when looking inside suggests identical optical design M7. From looking at these AR coatings reflections MHG has different lenses arrangement, and Swaro CL B also have different.
When I try Kite HD+ i expected more, but I strugled with focusing adjustment and felt lack of sharpnes, so I decided to compare with some other models. I will do some more tests, but I expected more from less reputable brand and higher price tag when compared to Monarch 7. Sure, housing of M7 is not the best, but this sticky rubber does not affect image details.
Thanks for the extra detail.
From what I've been told though the M7 and original Lynx HD shared a common optical design, they did not share a single component. I found the colour and contrast profile were significantly of the Kite was significanlt more to my taste than Nikon. Obviously I don't know how the HD plus compares yet.
"Complex patterns" are normally processed by brain at lower spatial frequencies than either the visual resolution limit of the eye or the effective resolution of the binocular. Obviously I can't judge exactly what you saw, but it is distinctly possible that I was referring to a level of detail 5 to 10 times smaller than you were. Nikon could have tuned the MTF curves to favour you comparisons rather than mine, but with different light, different targets and different eyes it's impossible to know for sure how to explain our different opinions. Hopefully I might know more about the HD plus at least next week.
David
From what I've been told though the M7 and original Lynx HD shared a common optical design, they did not share a single component. I found the colour and contrast profile were significantly of the Kite was significanlt more to my taste than Nikon. Obviously I don't know how the HD plus compares yet.
"Complex patterns" are normally processed by brain at lower spatial frequencies than either the visual resolution limit of the eye or the effective resolution of the binocular. Obviously I can't judge exactly what you saw, but it is distinctly possible that I was referring to a level of detail 5 to 10 times smaller than you were. Nikon could have tuned the MTF curves to favour you comparisons rather than mine, but with different light, different targets and different eyes it's impossible to know for sure how to explain our different opinions. Hopefully I might know more about the HD plus at least next week.
David
Andy,
I believe it was EM Grainger working for Eastman Kodak Iat established that maximum visual sensitivity to contrast typically occurs at a spatial frequency of 10 arcminutes, and equated this with perceived image quality, whereas visual acuity limit is most often in the 1 to 2 arcminute range. That is 5 to 10 times difference in the level of detail. An optical system with contrast tuned to around 10 arcminutes will appear to be sharper when viewing complex targets, but this may be at the expense of effective resolution. The MHGs appeared to me to have poorer detail definition in the 1 to 2 arcminute range than the other models I mentioned.
David
I believe it was EM Grainger working for Eastman Kodak Iat established that maximum visual sensitivity to contrast typically occurs at a spatial frequency of 10 arcminutes, and equated this with perceived image quality, whereas visual acuity limit is most often in the 1 to 2 arcminute range. That is 5 to 10 times difference in the level of detail. An optical system with contrast tuned to around 10 arcminutes will appear to be sharper when viewing complex targets, but this may be at the expense of effective resolution. The MHGs appeared to me to have poorer detail definition in the 1 to 2 arcminute range than the other models I mentioned.
David
Last edited:
I was trying to change my impression with few hours comparison of the four 10x30 I have temporarly. My untrained binocularly eyes are not as sensitive as your lab equipment or your trained eyes for sure, but as typical user with excessive attention to detail I could not find difference betwen M7 and Kite HD+ that I could elaborate on... maybe something, I just gave up, and focused on trying judge if Swaro CL B or MHG is better for my needs.
Now I can tell that sometimes I like more first one, and sometimes the second one. In some contrasty scenarios CA are much worse in Swaro CL B edges than in MHG, regarding sharpnes, CL's edges are always much sharper.
I can now revise my opinion about center sharpness, CL B can be sharper than MHG, but my eyes are not perfect (slight acomodation fluctuations), and adjustment knob in CL B is not perfect also, but I liked watching the stars more with the MHG.
Last edited:
PPV,
My background is science but I no longer have any access to laboratory equipment. I do some simple back yard tests but mostly, like you, I just rely on my eyes.
Individuals do vary in their anatomy, physiology and particularly psychology and 'see' things quite differently. While binoculars can vary between samples and batches and some models evolve over time, the biggest variable is the user. There are usually multiple differences between different binocular models but they can be quite subtle, and will be more obvious or important to some than to others. It can take time to understand our own strengths and weeknesses. Of course the variability of ambient light also serves to confuse the issue.
David
My background is science but I no longer have any access to laboratory equipment. I do some simple back yard tests but mostly, like you, I just rely on my eyes.
Individuals do vary in their anatomy, physiology and particularly psychology and 'see' things quite differently. While binoculars can vary between samples and batches and some models evolve over time, the biggest variable is the user. There are usually multiple differences between different binocular models but they can be quite subtle, and will be more obvious or important to some than to others. It can take time to understand our own strengths and weeknesses. Of course the variability of ambient light also serves to confuse the issue.
David
Last edited:
yes, indors or in sunny day I had trouble to nottice coloration, but I quickly notticed that difference in cloudy day (when everything has a bluish tint), Swaro CL B is very neutral, while MHG produced image with slight yellow tint. I am also very aware that eyes adopts to the environment, or every of the two eyes can produce different colors.
For what it's worth I spent some time with the Lynx HD+ range last Saturday at Birdfair. To be honest I'm not sure what to make of them. From the feel of the armour and the mechanical elements I suspect parts of the binocular and possibly the assembly are from quite a different factory than the original Lynx. As for the optics, I'm undecided. By all the usual parameters they are a range of fine binoculars, yet they didn't grab my attention in the way I was expecting, but I couldn't pinpoint exactly why in the limited time I had with them. They just lacked a bit of sparkle.
I've mentioned in previous posts in this thread that In repeated comparisons, the x30 and x42 Nikon MHGs have disappointed me at the finest level of detail. I last tried them at two different retailers earlier this year and saw nothing to change my view. Interestingly the samples on the Nikon stand were clearly better than I've previously seen, at least matching the M7s on sharpness and not too far off the EDG. Looks like they have tweaked something recently. Lets hope they weren't just specials for the show.!
David
I've mentioned in previous posts in this thread that In repeated comparisons, the x30 and x42 Nikon MHGs have disappointed me at the finest level of detail. I last tried them at two different retailers earlier this year and saw nothing to change my view. Interestingly the samples on the Nikon stand were clearly better than I've previously seen, at least matching the M7s on sharpness and not too far off the EDG. Looks like they have tweaked something recently. Lets hope they weren't just specials for the show.!
David
WriterCJ
Well-known member
Agree wholeheartedly. I've had a review sample of the 8x42s for a couple of weeks and while initial impressions were good, after using them in the field in various conditions I've been decidedly underwhelmed.
The original Kite HD is a great little binocular where everything seems to "click" (for me at least). I use a pair of the 8x30s regularly when I don't want to carry my big Swaros, and I'm never left wishing I had a better pair of bins with me.
I was expecting great things from the new model, which on paper looks superb, but in the field, the image just kept leaving me disappointed.
