Nikon Monarch HG (2 Viewers)

[email protected] said:

The EDG is so good in that area I can't see why the new Monarch HG wouldn't be.

Click to expand...

We can rest assured that the Nikon engineers know how to avoid straylight, because they have already shown they do.

But keep in mind that the MHG probably are an entirely different optical construction compared to the EDG. The bigger AFOV could easily complicate things and force them to a compromise.

I really hope I'm wrong (I mean, REALLY!), but I don't expect them to have the straylight handling of the EDG series.
If they don't, it will not be the dealbreaker for most people (only the nitpicks will have objections) because the engineers would know how to limit the problem.
After all, this is the second tier product with still very impressive specs. You may not expect to get the best from the EDG and the SF at half their price.
Again, I really hope I'm wrong.


//L

I'm not sure there is a real big difference in the optical construction of the MHG and the EDG. The real FOVs of the MHGs are in the neighborhood of about 1/2 a degree larger than the real FOVs of the EDGs. And Allbinos shows that the Apparent FOVs of the EDGs are slightly more than what Nikon states for the MHGs. (60.7º & 64.5º for the 8x/10x EDGS and 60.3º & 62.2º for the 8x/10x HMGs.)

Eye relief for the EDG is 1.5mm and 1.0mm longer for the 8x and 10x than it is on the MHG versions. This could be the result of the tweaking of the eyepieces to handle the wider FOVs on the MHGs

Both versions have long eye relief; 17mm or longer.

Bob

ceasar said:

I'm not sure there is a real big difference in the optical construction of the MHG and the EDG. The real FOVs of the MHGs are in the neighborhood of about 1/2 a degree larger than the real FOVs of the EDGs. And Allbinos shows that the Apparent FOVs of the EDGs are slightly more than what Nikon states for the MHGs. (60.7º & 64.5º for the 8x/10x EDGS and 60.3º & 62.2º for the 8x/10x HMGs.)

Eye relief for the EDG is 1.5mm and 1.0mm longer for the 8x and 10x than it is on the MHG versions. This could be the result of the tweaking of the eyepieces to handle the wider FOVs on the MHGs

Both versions have long eye relief; 17mm or longer.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob, you've mixed apples and oranges here , and come up with an altogether different kettle of fish ! :eek!: :-O

Nikon is using the ISO convention for AFov, while Allbino's is just using the bog stock TFov × mag, though they do use measured values for that.

The ISO values work out waaaaaaaay wider ...... :cat:

Notwithstanding that, the optical design is probably similar, although the glass spec on the MHG would be much less, especially at the objective end of town ...... I'm still expecting that those prone to it, will unfortunately see more CA in these bins than in the EDG'S ........ :hippy: :bounce:


Chosun :gh:

Chosun,

The information on the EDGs I got from Allbinos. The information on the MHGs I got from Nikon's introduction of them.

This is why I pay no attention to terms like AFOV. Real FOV at either 1000meters or 1000yards is, in my opinion, the only practical way to measure it. Anything else leads us directly to the Rabbit Hole.

Bob

The Rabbit Hole can be easily avoided by simply measuring the AFOV, but neither Nikon nor Allbinos does that. It's not hard, anyone can do it. There are a couple of accurate home hobbyist methods.

henry link said:

The Rabbit Hole can be easily avoided by simply measuring the AFOV, but neither Nikon nor Allbinos does that. It's not hard, anyone can do it. There are a couple of accurate home hobbyist methods.

Click to expand...

Good point Henry, and I wonder why all the speculation about a binocular
that has not entered the market place.

Allbinos does measure the FOV compared to the makers specs.

That is good enough for me, and Nikon represents this accurately.

Jerry

ceasar said:

Chosun,

The information on the EDGs I got from Allbinos. The information on the MHGs I got from Nikon's introduction of them.

This is why I pay no attention to terms like AFOV. Real FOV at either 1000meters or 1000yards is, in my opinion, the only practical way to measure it. Anything else leads us directly to the Rabbit Hole.

Bob

Click to expand...

henry link said:

The Rabbit Hole can be easily avoided by simply measuring the AFOV, but neither Nikon nor Allbinos does that. It's not hard, anyone can do it. There are a couple of accurate home hobbyist methods.

Click to expand...

Bob, There is no issue in paying attention to terms like AFov especially when it is an actual value that accounts for the distortion profile. Beyond that just make sure it's an apples to apples comparison and she'll be, well .... apples ! , and Bob's your uncle ! :-O

'Real' 'AFov' as listed by Allbinos is the product of the measured Magnification × 'measured' RFov. Allbino's measures this real field of view at somewhere from 6-15m (and either scales, or calculates using a narrow angle approximation from there) according to their test protocols, but obviously 1000m would give the least margin of error due to measurement.

Regardless of that, your post#82 is still a bowl of fruit salad ! :eat: since based on your mixed convention AFov's you have the EDG and the MHG *rs* about (compared to the real world experience - or what it will be, the accuracy of Nikon's mail notwithstanding It is very important to use the same AFov conventions and compare apples with apples. The ISO convention gives lower numerical values, but has 'much' wider real fields of view than that would indicate.

The MHG will have 'much' wider RFov's than the EDG ........ as you yourself said, (somewhat in contradiction to your conclusions you posted from the AFov's).


Henry, according to the Allbino's test protocols, they get the measured Magnification power by the ratio of the measured objective diameter divided by the measured exit pupil diameter. As mentioned, they measure the Real Field of View at a distance of somewhere between 6m and 15m. Allbino's doesn't explicitly specify, but I would think? they would apply the small angle approximation to the measured distance to get the angle they quote. They then multiply these two 'measured' values to get the AFov figure they quote. Obviously this is not 'entirely' 'perfect'. :cat:

Could you please elaborate for us on the "couple of accurate home hobbyist methods" you mentioned? Thanks. :t:

PS. Don't be so 'down' on the 'Rabbit Hole', fable has it, that it can lead to 'Wonderful' things! 3


Chosun :gh:

Isn't the AFOV the actual angle the view makes with the eye? In simplistic terms, easily calculated from the eye relief and the functional width of the eyepiece lens. Gets around that messy distortions, and tells us how much of our field of view is used. Of course measuring those with total accuracy isn't easy for us clumsy amateurs, but a few seconds with a ruler and the specification listing for ER often does surptisingly well and can be easier to get right than the tripod and tape measure method on occasions.

Just a thought.

David

Chosun Juan said:

Bob, There is no issue in paying attention to terms like AFov especially when it is an actual value that accounts for the distortion profile. Beyond that just make sure it's an apples to apples comparison and she'll be, well .... apples ! , and Bob's your uncle ! :-O

'Real' 'AFov' as listed by Allbinos is the product of the measured Magnification × 'measured' RFov. Allbino's measures this real field of view at somewhere from 6-15m (and either scales, or calculates using a narrow angle approximation from there) according to their test protocols, but obviously 1000m would give the least margin of error due to measurement.

Regardless of that, your post#82 is still a bowl of fruit salad ! :eat: since based on your mixed convention AFov's you have the EDG and the MHG *rs* about (compared to the real world experience - or what it will be, the accuracy of Nikon's mail notwithstanding It is very important to use the same AFov conventions and compare apples with apples. The ISO convention gives lower numerical values, but has 'much' wider real fields of view than that would indicate.

The MHG will have 'much' wider RFov's than the EDG ........ as you yourself said, (somewhat in contradiction to your conclusions you posted from the AFov's).


Henry, according to the Allbino's test protocols, they get the measured Magnification power by the ratio of the measured objective diameter divided by the measured exit pupil diameter. As mentioned, they measure the Real Field of View at a distance of somewhere between 6m and 15m. Allbino's doesn't explicitly specify, but I would think? they would apply the small angle approximation to the measured distance to get the angle they quote. They then multiply these two 'measured' values to get the AFov figure they quote. Obviously this is not 'entirely' 'perfect'. :cat:

Could you please elaborate for us on the "couple of accurate home hobbyist methods" you mentioned? Thanks. :t:

PS. Don't be so 'down' on the 'Rabbit Hole', fable has it, that it can lead to 'Wonderful' things! 3


Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Hi Chosun,

There are a couple of problems with Allbino's protocols in this area. Looks like you have read their article "How do we test binoculars?". I highly recommend it. Here, for instance, is the way they "measure" real magnification:

"REAL MAGINIFCATION (3 points) - The another manufacturers truthfulness test. We took pictures of open caliper which was put against pupil and checked is it the same as original parameters. We were able to measure exit pupil exact to 0.1mm. As far as we knew an actual lens diameter we gained the magnification exact to typical 0.2-0.3x measure error."

As you see they don't actually measure it. Instead they measure the exit pupil diameter with a caliper placed "against pupil". I don't know what "against pupil" means, but it sounds like they are placing the caliper against the back of the eyepiece. Since the exit pupil is a virtual image floating in the air at the eye relief distance behind the eyepiece an accurate measurement of it requires placing the caliper at precisely that spot in open space. But, even if they measure the exit pupil correctly they still don't know the true magnification because they haven't measured the true clear aperture of the objective lens. Notice that they measure the "actual lens diameter" from the front, so any aperture reduction from internal stops, like undersized prisms or baffles, is not accounted for. Finally, even if they got the magnification right with their method it would only represent magnification for a small area in the center of the field and would be quite useless for arriving at an accurate AFOV.

The precise numbers they use in this and several other performance categories create an impression of accurate measurements that falls apart when you examine the details of their protocols.

Here's a link to Glenn LeDrew's method for measuring AFOV.

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/294115-apparent-fov-a-quick-way-to-measure/#entry3745655

I use that one and also an easier one that involves sighting through the objective end of a binocular mounted on a tripod head with a panning scale. I simply place a tiny distant target at 3:00 on the edge of the eyepiece fieldstop, with the panning scale set to zero degrees. I swing the target to the other side of the field stop and read the change in degrees on the panning scale.

Hi David,

Your method can certainly work if the eye relief from the back surface of the eyelens is very accurately measured. I think I am too clumsy to measure it accurately enough for this purpose. The great advantage in Glenn's method is the large size of the triangle projected from the eyepiece. Small measurement errors are not too important.

Henry

Stars are usually 8 light years distance or more and their positions are known accurately. The bright ones are listed annually in the BAA Handbook, but they hardly move even in 100 years.
Their separations can also be measured on free sky programmes but to lesser accuracy.

There is also the problem of accurate eye placement as repeated measures might vary a little.
Without eyeglasses results are fairly easy. With glasses more of a problem.

Sometimes the edge stars are so bad one has to guess when they are at the field edge.

Nikon, Zeiss and Leica usually have accurate specs but not always. I presume Swarovski also.

Measuring at closer distance of several metres, say, is problematic.

Hi The-Wanderer,
Eye relief is unknown to me as I never measure it.
This has been a problem, as I gave my cousin a binocular and he couldn't use it as he wears glasses.
If I remember I wear my distance glasses to check, but I don't need glasses.

But field size, correct aperture and magnification of the majors are usually correct in their own literature.
Unfortunately different web sites are often wrong, sometimes very wrong.
The 10x40 Nikon Action VII is quoted by Allbinos as 10.9x from memory. I don't know if correct but my one seems a bit more than 10x and has little eye relief. The 10x42 Aculon is better.

The advertising hype of some of the lower price optics claims is almost fiction.

P.S.
Post vanished. But still answered.

Chosun Juan said:

Bob, you've mixed apples and oranges here , and come up with an altogether different kettle of fish ! :eek!: :-O

Nikon is using the ISO convention for AFov, while Allbino's is just using the bog stock TFov × mag, though they do use measured values for that.

The ISO values work out waaaaaaaay wider ...... :cat:

Click to expand...

:t: I'm surprised to find that the thread goes astray into technical discussions about AFOV rather than acknowledge that there is a substantial difference between the EDG and the MHG concerning the FOV.
8x42 8.3 degress vs. 7.7
10x42 6.9 degrees vs. 6.5

Regardless of the method used to measure AFOV, the MHG must have a wider AFOV than the EDG if the magnification numbers are on spot for both.
I still suspect the straylight handling might be a weak point of the MHG compared to the EDG, which not necessarily means the MHG performs poorly.

Again, I'm thrilled by the description and the specifications. Even if this is the second tier in Nikon's line, it might fit some people better than the EDG, just like some (and not few) prefer the SLC-HD above the Swarovision.

//L

looksharp65 said:

:t: I'm surprised to find that the thread goes astray into technical discussions about AFOV rather than acknowledge that there is a substantial difference between the EDG and the MHG concerning the FOV.
8x42 8.3 degress vs. 7.7
10x42 6.9 degrees vs. 6.5

Regardless of the method used to measure AFOV, the MHG must have a wider AFOV than the EDG if the magnification numbers are on spot for both.
I still suspect the straylight handling might be a weak point of the MHG compared to the EDG, which not necessarily means the MHG performs poorly.

Again, I'm thrilled by the description and the specifications. Even if this is the second tier in Nikon's line, it might fit some people better than the EDG, just like some (and not few) prefer the SLC-HD above the Swarovision.

//L

Click to expand...

Even if the stray light handling of the new Nikon MHG was between the Swarovski SV and the Nikon EDG in performance I would buy one.The light weight for a 42mm and big FOV(435 feet) and high transmission are attractive.

looksharp65 said:

:t: I'm surprised to find that the thread goes astray into technical discussions about AFOV rather than acknowledge that there is a substantial difference between the EDG and the MHG concerning the FOV.
8x42 8.3 degress vs. 7.7
10x42 6.9 degrees vs. 6.5

Regardless of the method used to measure AFOV, the MHG must have a wider AFOV than the EDG if the magnification numbers are on spot for both.
I still suspect the straylight handling might be a weak point of the MHG compared to the EDG, which not necessarily means the MHG performs poorly.

Again, I'm thrilled by the description and the specifications. Even if this is the second tier in Nikon's line, it might fit some people better than the EDG, just like some (and not few) prefer the SLC-HD above the Swarovision.

//L

Click to expand...

To summarize the changes:

The Monarch 7 also has real FOVs of 8º for the 8x42 and 6.7º for the 10x42. These figures are right in between the EDGs 7.7º and 6.5º and the new MHGs 8.3º and 6.9º. Eye relief is longest on the EDG, next on the MHG and shortest on the Monarch 7. All 3 versions of them would be considered to have long eye relief. Curiously the MHG has longer ER than the Monarch 7 even with its wider FOVs. We have yet to see how the eye cups will work out on the MHG.

All the small changes on the MHG seem to have been done on the eye pieces and the diopter has been located on the right eye piece which should save money. The big cost factor of the MHG looks to be the new lightweight magnesium frame with its "special" covering.

The Monarch 7s sell for just under $500.00 and the EDGs for over $2000.00.

If Nikon can sell the MHG profitably at the prices the Conquest and Trinovid sell for it is well worth looking into because of its very wide FOV along with a Flat Field as its the big selling point.

Bob

[email protected] said:

Even if the stray light handling of the new Nikon MHG was between the Swarovski SV and the Nikon EDG in performance I would buy one.The light weight for a 42mm and big FOV(435 feet) and high transmission are attractive.

Click to expand...

ceasar said:

If Nikon can sell the MHG profitably at the prices the Conquest and Trinovid sell for it is well worth looking into because of its very wide FOV along with a Flat Field as its the big selling point.

Click to expand...

Totally agreed. Can't wait to see the first reviews. There are certainly few things I need less than another binocular, and I don't wish to let go of any piece of my current collection. How to rationalise a purchase when it's only about owning the latest and greatest is beyond my imagination.

//L

My professional opinion about new models binoculars Nikon series HG is the following. Before you make your kind thoughts known to me, I should like to offer you some explanation of my opinion about series HG. Nikon likes to excite the market by new products, so that not to wait for a long. This series is the next step to turn the market. It will be a success or failure, 50/50. Super wide angle eyepieces on the roof binoculars is offered only in Zeiss SF form factor 10x42 with flat field, so I think that the eyepieces of the new series will have of 6-9 lenses and series HG will darker than top series EDG. The flat field will be missed or it will be, the sweet spot will be maximum 70-80%. I don't exclude that they can use diffractive optical elements and Nikon Super Integrated Coating or Nano Crystal Coat but they don't declare it now. I think transmission will be about 90% 8x42 and 88% 10x42. I would recommend to use X-rays to enlighten both models so that to know the optical design of this series for 100%.

alexbino said:

My professional opinion about new models binoculars Nikon series HG is the following. Before you make your kind thoughts known to me, I should like to offer you some explanation of my opinion about series HG. Nikon likes to excite the market by new products, so that not to wait for a long. This series is the next step to turn the market. It will be a success or failure, 50/50. Super wide angle eyepieces on the roof binoculars is offered only in Zeiss SF form factor 10x42 with flat field, so I think that the eyepieces of the new series will have of 6-9 lenses and series HG will darker than top series EDG. The flat field will be missed or it will be, the sweet spot will be maximum 70-80%. I don't exclude that they can use diffractive optical elements and Nikon Super Integrated Coating or Nano Crystal Coat but they don't declare it now. I think transmission will be about 90% 8x42 and 88% 10x42. I would recommend to use X-rays to enlighten both models so that to know the optical design of this series for 100%.

Click to expand...

A lot of thinking in those theories. How much is fact? This doesn't really expand our knowledge of what we already know. I THINK I will wait till the binoculars are introduced for an opinion on them.

Yummy!!! .....if they keep the build and optical quality of the HG, but add the wider field of the M7, truer color, and better ergos.

I've never seen a premier for sale retail in the state in all my years.... majority of people haven't heard of or seen them ... so dropping the premier name shouldn't be a loss.

Fingers crossed,

CG

The Premiers were the old LXLs. The designation was changed after the EDGs were introduced.

There are only 2 left now.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/...s/all-binoculars/index.page#!/tag:Gbc:Premier

The discontinued SEs were also designated as Premier. You can find them in Nikon's Archived binoculars.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/nikon-products/binoculars/all-binoculars/index.page#archived

Bob

A better look at the new Monarch HG

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/sport-optics/binoculars/monarch/monarch-hg-8x42

Scroll down.