Dave:
Did you notice, this is US dollars, not CA looney.
The US dollar is the best exchange rate.
Jerry
I did notice, but I must have had a brain fart. $ 700 US + shipping.
This is starting to sound too cheap.
Dave
Dave:
Did you notice, this is US dollars, not CA looney.
The US dollar is the best exchange rate.
Jerry
James:
Now why are you down on this new model, it is not even out yet ?
Do you own any Nikon optics or cameras, they seem to know a lot
about both ?
Tell us more.
Jerry
James:
Now why are you down on this new model, it is not even out yet ?
Do you own any Nikon optics or cameras, they seem to know a lot
about both ?
Tell us more.
Jerry
Ciao ! Piero - welcome to the forum :t:hi folks, thanks for having accepted me in your forum. I try to answer sintetically all your questions and doubts above. Please, sorry for my English.
1) eyecup are NOT removable, bur really I don't know if you can apply the EDG eyecup with the lateral wing; I try and I'll tell you; at best of my knowledge it's only possible interchange objective cover with rubber ring as a protection if you don't like hanging covers.
2) I've not notice any truncaated prisms nor ghosting/flares.
3) no problems with glasses (I've tried with Rayban sunglasses) even if the eyerelief it's little bit less than EDG (less than 1 mm respected EDG)
4) I confirm that optical performances are very near to EDG (but EDG has still something more); anyway in 2-3 weeks you'll can read a brief report on principal differences.
In my personal opinion Nikon had tried to cover the gap-price between monarch 7 and EDG but has worked too well! (the old HG will be discontinued)
An interesting comment as I'm thinking (in a very vague way - no intent as yet) about 10x bins - and both the Conquest HD and the Nikon HG are in the mix (as are a bunch of other bins including a Nikon EII 10x35). I'm aware you've been using the 8x rather than 10x HG, but it's all grist for the mill. I'd even thought about the Canon 10x42 so your comments there were helpful as well.For birdwatchers the Nikon will do well, but personally I think the Conquest HD is better.
I did notice, but I must have had a brain fart. $ 700 US + shipping.
This is starting to sound too cheap.
Dave
Nice comments. It is probably hard to beat the Zeiss Conquest HD at that price point. I agree with your comments on the Canon 10x42 IS-L. I had a couple of them and it has probably the best optics of any binocular out there and in discerning detail with the IS turned on there is nothing that will touch it. I couldn't tolerate the weight and size though and I bought the Swarovski 10x50 SV after comparing them for a long time. Handheld, I thought the SV was just a LITTLE bit better than the Canon on the edges but in things like flare control and ghosting the Canon was better. Of course the SV has much better ergonomics than the Canon and is also a very good astro binocular if mounted on a tripod. I know what you mean about your telescopes being better optically. There is no binocular made that will touch a fine APO telescope like a Televue or Astro-Physics because they have such a huge focal length advantage. Astronomy was my hobby for a long time and I had many big telescopes including 10 inch reflectors. If you think the Conquest HD is better than the MHG I trust your opinion. I know I had one and really only the very top alpha's could beat them by a very small margin.I have plenty of Nikon cameras and lenses.
Many of the Nikon compacts are bad compared with equivalent Canon compacts.
However the Nikon P610 is truly excellent.
The Nikon 300mm f/4.5 was ridiculously bad.
Old Nikon lenses attract dust like a fly trap.
Some Nikon cameras and lenses are very good, but generally Zeiss are better.
I also have Zeiss lenses and cameras.
Some Nikon binoculars are good, especially lower priced ones are excellent value for money, with consistently good quality control.
Nikon have marketing down to a fine art.
CSI is a glorified, in your face, non stop Nikon advert.
And why not, they must pay big bucks for it.
In my opinion the Conquest HD is better than the Nikon Monarch HG.
Although I only have the 10x42 HD and 8x32 HD.
In my opinion the Canon 10x42 is a class above the Nikon Monarch HG.
Less CA centrally and off axis.
Flatter field.
Less ghosting, in fact maybe none?
Similar AFOVs.
The Nikon Monarch HG is however, maybe 10% brighter or a bit less than the Canon 10x42.
This morning a smallish crow at 118m. Small amount CA Nikon centrally, none Canon 10x42.
Quite a lot of CA off axis Nikon, little Canon 10x42.
Much better off axis resolution Canon.
Canon without stabilizer.
Unfortunately the Canon is very heavy, and the Nikon Monarch is very light.
For most people this will be the deciding factor.
However, Nikon Monarch HG excellent central resolution.
For birdwatchers the Nikon will do well, but personally I think the Conquest HD is better.
But birdwatchers have to give their own verdict as I am an astronomer and the telescopes I use are frankly better than any binocular, although they are quite different.
Horses for courses.
Without trying them he claimed that if these Nikons were brighter and sharper than the Leica Trinovid HD then the Leica must have been faulty! That's enough for me to dismiss anything further he says!
I would say the Zeiss Conquest HD is very close to alpha level. If the Nikon MHG is close to the Conquest HD it should be a pretty good binocular.So will this be Conquest HD level, or has Nikon really lowered the price of admission on Alpha, or very close to Alpha optical quality ? As usual, the only way to know is to try for yourself when they're available.
Buy a pair and write a review for us unfortunate americans that can't get them yet.I recently tried the Monarch HD (8&10) against my Hawke Frontier ed ll and Hawke Sapphire...the Nikons were better by quite a margin,,sharp and contrasty and great FOV,,bit of edge softening on the 8x but less than both Hawkes,,though I still think the Sapphire's were great considering the price...
Tried the Conquest 8x32 at Ace optics Bath,,wasn't to taken by them tbh,,you know when you try out new optics,,some leave you stunned,,had that impression with these new Monarch's and the Swaro latest 8x32 but not the Conquests...
The Monarch's compact dimensions yet superb view are seriously tempting me right now...
I would say the Zeiss Conquest HD is very close to alpha level. If the Nikon MHG is close to the Conquest HD it should be a pretty good binocular.
I'm glad because I ordered a Tract Toric 8x42 based on your review. If it is better than a Conquest HD it is a very good binocular indeed. It would be a better buy than the new Nikon MHG for sure then. I like the looks of it and the specifications. I wrote why I decided to try it on you thread. Using a binocular in Africa for ten days is really the way to test them. Under tough conditions like that it really show a binoculars weak points. Are you a guide in Africa?The Tract Toric is better than the Conquest HD, I can attest to that. We had them side by side in Africa for 9 days, every day, and it is noticeable.
"You are correct, James has lots to say about optics he has never laidYou are correct, James has lots to say about optics he has never laid
eyes on.
He has a tattoo on both cheeks, and it looks something like this.
Jerry