• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon Monarch HG wins 1st Place in Field and Stream test of 13 new Binoculars. (1 Viewer)

The only thing that puts me off the EII, and this isn't a criticism about what are classically good bins, is the absence of nitrogen. If I were going for, say a week in the Hebrides, and persistent rain were forecast, I wouldn't feel confident about the bins not fogging up just when I want to train them on that elusive Corncrake. Does anyone have any comments about this, or am I being over sensitive.
Many people use the EII in a wet climate without problems. You just keep them covered or put them in your coat pocket if it rains. They are not as sensitive to rain as some think. I guess if you were birding all the time in the Monteverde Rain Forest in Costa Rica they wouldn't be the ideal binocular but for me in Colorado they work fine.
 
Chuck ..... As I recall, you have a Nikon Monarch HG 8X42 and had a Tract Toric 8X42. Did you have them at the same time and if so did you do any side by side comparisions?




......and to think that just last Sunday you were taking reviews "with a grain of salt" (post 106). ;)

I am not seeing any difference in CA handling between the EII and Monarch HG. Both look to do an adequate job. The Tract Toric 10X42 seems to show a little less.
I did some side by side comparisons with the MHG 8x42 and the Tract Toric 8x42. The MHG definitely has the advantage of a bigger FOV. In fact it "seduced" me into wanting a bigger FOV again but actually I felt the on-axis view of the Tract Toric was sharper and it's sweet spot and edges were very close to the MHG. The Tract Toric to my eyes had a more relaxed view than the MHG and it shows less CA. I feel the Tract would be better for a hunter because of it's full armour covering the whole binocular and the MHG would be better for a birder with it's wider FOV and lighter weight and slightly smaller size if CA doesn't bother you. Since I was hooked on the big FOV I went back to a Nikon 8x30 EII and I liked it better than the MHG.
 
Last edited:
Someday I'd like to hear about birding in the rain with your binocular in your pocket. That sounds like walking in the rain with your bin in your pocket. The Nikon EII and SE bins collect dust internally. They can leak and they can fog. Mine did as the result of a very small amount of cleaning fluid entering the eyepiece thus requiring a trip to the repair shop to address the fungus that developed.
 
Someday I'd like to hear about birding in the rain with your binocular in your pocket. That sounds like walking in the rain with your bin in your pocket. The Nikon EII and SE bins collect dust internally. They can leak and they can fog. Mine did as the result of a very small amount of cleaning fluid entering the eyepiece thus requiring a trip to the repair shop to address the fungus that developed.
That is probably true if you use them in a dusty environment long enough. But in this clean mountain air up here in Colorado we don't have that problem because we are above all the dust and pollution.;) Any binocular I think eventually you are going to have to have them serviced and cleaned. The EII's and SE's do have that weak point of not being waterproof and sealed but they sure do give you a nice view for the money. You can buy almost 6 EII's for the price of a Swarovski. If one get's dirty throw it away and crack open a new pair.
 
Last edited:
I second that. I agree with Gilmore Girl also. I also like the CL 8x30 quite a bit. Reviews are helpful and they can guide you towards a binocular but you have to try it yourself to see if it works for you. One thing that is helpful about reviews is that they can tell you if there is a problem with the binoculars and if the binoculars have QA problems. So when I take them with a grain of salt I mean my final decision to keep a binocular is based on if it works with my eyes. For example, on the Cabella's Euro HD 8x32 that is on sale right now for 1/2 price I would still not buy them because they had two 1 star and two 3 star reviews where people had QA problems with them and they felt the optics were not that great. You NEVER see a 1 or even 3 star review on a Nikon 8x30 EII or Swarovski. The Nikon 8x30 EII has 12 5 star reviews on Amazon.com and I ever one was praising it. That should tell you something. Also, why is Cabella's selling the Euro at 1/2 price? It could be they are coming out with a new model or it could be they don't sell well and they want to move some. You never see them selling a Swarovski for 1/2 price. I wonder why?

No matter how people try to minimize it, the best are still the best.
 
Chuck ..... As I recall, you have a Nikon Monarch HG 8X42 and had a Tract Toric 8X42. Did you have them at the same time and if so did you do any side by side comparisons?

I'm not SURE I had them at the same time. My reason? I didn't feel like I needed to as I had the Maven B.1, Leica Trinovid HD, and Tract Toric all 8X42s at the same time. Though a fine binocular for the money I felt the Toric though close was slightly behind the other two either optically, fit/finish, or function. So I let the Tract go. The Maven will prob be next, maybe the Trinovid HD as well! I'm THAT convinced of the attributes of the Monarch HG.

So next up I compare those from the two left above with the Monarch HG. I have no problem saying the Monarch HG is every bit as good as the Trinovid HD/Maven B.1 and imo a better overall birding binocular with emphasis on weight, stature, FOV, focus adjustment, and overall design. I have an FL 8X42 too.. I can tell you I'd rather have the Monarch HG than that FL based on optics ALONE. Seriously. I don't expect everyone to come around to my way of thinking and really aren't trying to get that to happen anyway. But I DO know which one I'd take to the woods! ;)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3341.JPG
    IMG_3341.JPG
    54.7 KB · Views: 155
  • DSC_0068.JPG
    DSC_0068.JPG
    58.5 KB · Views: 174
Chuck,

Check the two fov of the HG and the B1. The fov deal may go away. My B1 measures 425. Nice to have another actual measurement.

I agree that the Toric is a touch behind the B1. ;)
 
I'm not SURE I had them at the same time. My reason? I didn't feel like I needed to as I had the Maven B.1, Leica Trinovid HD, and Tract Toric all 8X42s at the same time. Though a fine binocular for the money I felt the Toric though close was slightly behind the other two either optically, fit/finish, or function. So I let the Tract go. The Maven will prob be next, maybe the Trinovid HD as well! I'm THAT convinced of the attributes of the Monarch HG.

So next up I compare those from the two left above with the Monarch HG. I have no problem saying the Monarch HG is every bit as good as the Trinovid HD/Maven B.1 and imo a better overall birding binocular with emphasis on weight, stature, FOV, focus adjustment, and overall design. I have an FL 8X42 too.. I can tell you I'd rather have the Monarch HG than that FL based on optics ALONE. Seriously. I don't expect everyone to come around to my way of thinking and really aren't trying to get that to happen anyway. But I DO know which one I'd take to the woods! ;)

Chuck:

You have tried them all, and I have also tried 3 out of the 4 mentioned.

I also find the Monarch HG does come to the top, with advantages in a very light weight of 24 oz., a wide FOV, and typical Nikon smooth focuser and nice fit and finish. I find the optics of all of these to be very good.

The only one I have not tried is the Maven B1, but at its price point,
and at 30 oz. it is the heaviest one in the mid-range, that does not impress.

Jerry
 
Chuck, are you married? You can't be. No wife would allow their husband to have that MANY binoculars. You are a walking binocular encyclopedia. I agree with you that the Nikon MHG is probably the best birding binocular of those you have shown. Have you ever tried a Nikon 8x30 EII or Nikon 8x32 SE. I just wondered if you ever came over to the dark side and tried a porro. Nice pictures.
 
The only thing that puts me off the EII, and this isn't a criticism about what are classically good bins, is the absence of nitrogen. If I were going for, say a week in the Hebrides, and persistent rain were forecast, I wouldn't feel confident about the bins not fogging up just when I want to train them on that elusive Corncrake. Does anyone have any comments about this, or am I being over sensitive.

I find birding in the rain a thoroughly miserable business; I wear spectacles and contending with wet spectacles, wet lenses and indeed a wet face takes all the enjoyment out of birding. But if it's essential to do so you would need a binocular that is, if not totally waterproof (I recall Troubador saying he had seen 7x42 Dialyts being used in the rain and those are only "splash proof") then more water resistant than the EII seems to be. The most waterproof 8x30 porro is the Habicht, but that has its detractors also.

Incidentally, I'd earnestly recommend having a look through a pair of EIIs before buying. I did so at Birdfair and found I just could not get them to work for me.
 
Thanks for the info Patudo,
Agree with birdwatching in the rain, you have to keep reminding yourself you're enjoying being out in the elements. I was curious about the EII because of the '3D effect' users mention. Apart from that, porros seem to split us into two entrenched camps (a sort of Marmite thing). There's a review where the Habichts are regarded as the greatest binoculars in the history of the universe, and then the reviewer proceeds to explain the homemade improvements you need to make in order to actually look through them!! Think I'll stick with the 2D MHGs.
 
Chuck, are you married? You can't be. No wife would allow their husband to have that MANY binoculars. You are a walking binocular encyclopedia. I agree with you that the Nikon MHG is probably the best birding binocular of those you have shown. Have you ever tried a Nikon 8x30 EII or Nikon 8x32 SE. I just wondered if you ever came over to the dark side and tried a porro. Nice pictures.

I thought it a time or two, does that count?|:D|

Chuck,

Check the two fov of the HG and the B1. The fov deal may go away. My B1 measures 425. Nice to have another actual measurement.

I agree that the Toric is a touch behind the B1. ;)

I'll do that! HAHA... You think I'm gonna be surprised don't you? ;)
 
I'll do that! HAHA... You think I'm gonna be surprised don't you? ;)

Chuck,

I think there is a possibility of that as regards the fov. Every Maven I have checked has been wider than its stated fov. Mostly I'm just curious. ;)

Actually the HG is the only thing Nikon has that holds much interest for me.It looks like it has some serious potential.
 
I was curious about the EII because of the '3D effect' users mention.

That is a property common to porros generally (because the objective lenses are further apart), not just the EII. Most of my own observation is beyond the distance the so-called 3D effect is said to be most apparent (200 yards or less); the main reason I own a couple of old porros is to enjoy their very wide fields of view. They are only single coated, so I use them when it's bright and clear, or forecast to be so. It's not a Marmite thing for me; I enjoy using quality roof prism binoculars too.

The Monarch HGs I looked through at Birdfair seemed to be a very capable all round performer. It seems that segment of the market has a lot of very competitive products - Conquest HD, Meopta, Kowa etc.
 
I've mentioned in the past here a few times that I take all user reviews with a grain of salt.
I just don't put too much stock in them even if there is a consensus about any specific models.
Reviews don't tell me whether I'll like the bin myself or if it's a good fit for me.
I treat reviews as rough guides (not gospel) and I do enjoy reading them and definitely find them useful (as a purchasing guide).
This shouldn't be offensive to anyone. It doesn't mean I am dismissing experience level and/or the talents of certain reviewers.
It only means I place much more importance on my own eyes and experience trying a new binocular.\

A good example: The current Swaro CL 8x30 had many lukewarm and even poor reviews here on the forum. I liked it quite a bit when I had it.

Reviews for the most part contain subjective opinions so it is understood up front that there should be some skepticism and everyone has to reach their own conclusions. The phrase "to take with a grain of salt" to me implies extreme skepticism to the point where the comments may a well be ignored. I have not found that to be case in most of the reviews posted here and I think applying that phase across the board to the reviews posted on this Forum is harsh and shows a dismissive view to many of the reviewers who put in a good deal of effort to generously share what they have learned.

To each their own, but I put a lot of stock into what Henry, Lee, Steve, Frank, Chuck, Kimmo, David and many other knowledgeable members of this Forum have to say in their reviews.


.......
Reviews are helpful and they can guide you towards a binocular but you have to try it yourself to see if it works for you. ....... So when I take them with a grain of salt I mean my final decision to keep a binocular is based on if it works with my eyes.
...........

When I read these types of comments, the thought that comes immediately to mind is that is a restatement of the obvious. Of course everyone has to decide for themselves if a binocular works for them but that does not take away from the value of what is in the review.
 
I'm not SURE I had them at the same time. My reason? I didn't feel like I needed to as I had the Maven B.1, Leica Trinovid HD, and Tract Toric all 8X42s at the same time. Though a fine binocular for the money I felt the Toric though close was slightly behind the other two either optically, fit/finish, or function. So I let the Tract go. The Maven will prob be next, maybe the Trinovid HD as well! I'm THAT convinced of the attributes of the Monarch HG.

So next up I compare those from the two left above with the Monarch HG. I have no problem saying the Monarch HG is every bit as good as the Trinovid HD/Maven B.1 and imo a better overall birding binocular with emphasis on weight, stature, FOV, focus adjustment, and overall design. I have an FL 8X42 too.. I can tell you I'd rather have the Monarch HG than that FL based on optics ALONE. Seriously. I don't expect everyone to come around to my way of thinking and really aren't trying to get that to happen anyway. But I DO know which one I'd take to the woods! ;)

Chuck ..... Thanks for the follow up to my question and your summary of the Monarch HG. I share your opinion that this is a very good birding binocular.

I have had mine a month or so now and finally got a chance yesterday afternoon to take it out to the local riparian for a couple of hours walk around which I like to do as a final test for a new binocular. It passed with flying colors. There was nothing not to like about it and it was are real pleasure to use.

I did do some more comparisons with the EII yesterday after reading the comments from Dennis about CA in the center of the HG. I could not detect any CA in the center. CA first started to show up after about 70% of the travel distance from the center to the edge. The EII was also CA clean in the center but it started to show up about 60 to 65% of the travel distance from the center to the edge. Those are just rough estimates since I did not do any formal measurements. I never experienced any CA incidents with the HG in my use from yesterday afternoon. I doubt either of these models are exceptional in handling CA but both should work for most. Those folks who do have issues with observing CA may want to consider a Zeiss Conquest HD which in my 10X42 looks to handle it a little better.

What would be a difficult call would be choosing between the Monarch HG 8X42 and the Swaro 8X42 SLC WB HD. The SLC looks to have slightly better optics but then the HG has the wider FOV and a slightly smaller profile and lighter weight along with the Nikon focus.
 
A question to those who actually own a Nikon HG:

I tried one a few months ago, and even though I quite liked the optics, I wasn't sure it would stand up to hard use in the field.

What are your thoughts? chuck? Bruce? anyone?

Hermann
 
Reviews for the most part contain subjective opinions so it is understood up front that there should be some skepticism and everyone has to reach their own conclusions. The phrase "to take with a grain of salt" to me implies extreme skepticism to the point where the comments may a well be ignored. I have not found that to be case in most of the reviews posted here and I think applying that phase across the board to the reviews posted on this Forum is harsh and shows a dismissive view to many of the reviewers who put in a good deal of effort to generously share what they have learned.

To each their own, but I put a lot of stock into what Henry, Lee, Steve, Frank, Chuck, Kimmo, David and many other knowledgeable members of this Forum have to say in their reviews.




When I read these types of comments, the thought that comes immediately to mind is that is a restatement of the obvious. Of course everyone has to decide for themselves if a binocular works for them but that does not take away from the value of what is in the review.

your interpretation is a bit overboard. You have a different definition of the phrase. It just means skepticism to me. I've never considered it to mean 'extreme' skepticism.

This attitude in my mind is definitely not dismissive or harsh. That's your interpretation and certainly not my viewpoint.

The second online definition below (in bold) is how I always interpreted the phrase.

Grain of salt - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_of_salt
'Take with a grain of salt' - the meaning and origin of this phrase

"(With) a grain of salt", (or "a pinch of salt") is an idiom of the English language, which means to view something with skepticism or not to interpret something literally.



https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/take-with-a-grain-of-salt.html

To take a statement with 'a grain of salt' or 'a pinch of salt' means to accept it but to maintain a degree of skepticism about its truth.
 
Last edited:
To each their own, but I put a lot of stock into what Henry, Lee, Steve, Frank, Chuck, Kimmo, David and many other knowledgeable members of this Forum have to say in their reviews.




.


Anyone who knows me here knows very well that I have high regard for the regulars who bring a lot of knowledge to the forum and who take the time and effort to do their reviews. I don't like to be told I'm being dismissive or harsh towards people I respect...since that's just not true at all (!). I don't think you know me very well even after tons of posts over the years.
 
Hermann, when you say 'I wasn't sure it would stand up to hard use in the field', do you mean is it robust enough physically, or are you talking about it lacking optically.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top