Some impressions - MHG and M7 8x30 vs Conquest and SF 8x42 (1 Viewer)

Why these 4? Because the M7, Conquest and SF are the 8x that I have the most experience with, and the MHG 8x30 is a recent addition that so far I'm liking. I'm a birder not an optical engineer so I won't try to make critical technical evaluations. Coming at this purely from a field use for birding perspective, I feel that glare and off-axis chromatic aberration are issues that don't actually affect me most of the time, unless they're fantastically bad. Off-axis sharpness I think is also not so critical, though it sure looks nice. All of these opinions are just based on my copies of each bin.

That said, now having had the MHG 8x30 for about a month, I do like it quite a bit. In direct comparison with my M7 8x30, and using the two Zeiss for reference at times, here are my thoughts and observations:

- Available eye relief for me with glasses is just a couple mm more with the MHG than the M7, but it's a critical jump. With the M7 I have to press them into my glasses (and thus my glasses into my face) pretty hard to get a full field of view. The MHG is a much, much easier view for me.
- The MHG is a touch brighter at dusk, seems to slightly out-resolve on axis (improvised windowsill mount reading the most distant signs possible), and is a bit sharper all around (though definitely not sharp to the edge). With the M7 I am unable to refocus the edge of field into perfect sharpness, the MHG can be made almost perfectly sharp at the edge by refocusing.
- Contrast of the MHG is strong and honestly, lovely. If anything it has a slightly warm cast. I prefer it to the M7 on this count, and greatly prefer it to the Conquest.
- Regarding glare and CA: I wouldn't take the M7 to look at shorebirds at dusk (or any other time of day) nor would I use it for raptor counting or seawatching, so I've honestly almost never seen the glare that people ding it for regularly. Nor would I take the MHG in those situations either, so I had seen zero glare yet with it. I had noticed a touch of chromatic aberration in both at times under harsh circumstances. I did a bit more direct comparison, particularly at dusk trying to look into shadows with a setting sun behind and just after dusk trying to look into shadows very close to strong street lights. When pushed, the M7 has far worse glare issues than the MHG, and the MHG is still far worse than the Conquest or SF which have almost none in the situations I was evaluating. Chromatic aberration in the MHG was a small bit better than the M7 but I definitely see it in both when looking for it (not on axis but not too far off axis in the most extreme cases). The Conquest performs a good bit better and the SF is handily the best.
- Hinge tension and focuser tension are a bit tighter in the MHG. I like the stiffer hinge and am ambivalent about the focuser difference. Both are perfectly smooth with no slack or other problem. The SF has the best focuser of the lot and the Conquest the worst, though I do like the focus speed of the Conquest.
- The M7, MHG, and SF all have massive fields of view. The Conquest is really lacking in comparison.
- The MHG and SF have by far the more inviting, comfortable view. The M7 would be comparable in comfort I imagine if the eye relief worked better for my glasses, though the color and saturation wouldn't be as inviting and sharpness is still a bit behind. The Conquest lags behind here on saturation and again the smaller FOV is really apparent in this lineup.
- Ergonomically I am getting on very well with the MHG. I like the armoring much better than the spongy M7 armoring but otherwise they are ergonomically pretty similar. I do worry about losing the rubber rings that cap the objective ends of the tubes (I took off the objective covers and installed the supplied simple rings). They are not terribly tightly on and I've seen MHG 8x42's in the field with the objective rubber rings missing. From a comfort, balance, grip perspective I get on with the MHG and SF both very well, the M7 just fine, and the Conquest comes in a bit behind feeling a little heavy.

It's not surprising that the SF 8x42 outperforms the MHG 8x30, captain obvious reporting here. However just from a visceral "pick it up and look through it" perspective, the MHG quite resembles the SF with its nice contrast, plenty good enough optical qualities, and large FOV. For my desired use - the smallest possible bin that handles well and performs about as well as a full sized bin, for general purpose birding - it so far ticks all the boxes. It's a clear step up in almost every way from the M7. Certainly, it could be sharper off axis, it could show a bit less glare and CA when pressed, and it probably isn't as sharp as the Conquest or SF on axis. However none of those things have any regular or substantial effect on my use. Importantly, the MHG clears a hurdle that the M7 doesn't for me: while I would appreciate better optics, I don't need them and they won't honestly help in the field. I won't take it shorebirding or hawk watching, but it wouldn't be a disaster by any means if you did.

I'm still curious to see the new Swaro 8x30 CL-B at some point, and I am prepared for it to be optically superior to the MHG. However, given a smaller field of view and particularly a worse close focus distance, it is less appealing to me. Given the current options in the market, I think the MHG is all that I can ask for and makes me happy. Perhaps an 8x32 SF will be mind blowing but thus far I hadn't been able to bring myself to buy an EL 8x32 or FL 8x32, and I'm glad I held out until the MHG came along.

Comparing my 8x30 MHG to my 8x42 Conquest (I've also looked through friends' 8x42 MHGs several times now in addition to my 8x30), the Conquest is definitely the optically better binocular. But I don't like it was well. I find the MHG more comfortable physically and optically, the color and FOV more pleasing, and really like the ergonomics. If it were my only binocular on a $1000 budget, I would make a careful comparison of the 8x42 MHG and the 8x42 Conquest. Now that I have a couple pairs of bins, I find myself very rarely using the Conquest. In the Conquest's defense, though, I logged over 1000 full days using it in the tropics and have beat the snot out of it many times over, swum rivers with it, crawled through mud and underbrush hundreds of times, bushwhacked and macheted with it hanging in the middle of everything countless times, and generally treated it as a tool not an heirloom. The focuser is a tiny bit grainier than it used to be, the armor has a high gloss patina, the blue square rubbed off a long time ago, and the ocular cover was long ago torn to shreds. However the lenses, body, and functioning are basically like new. It's a very durable piece of gear! The two friends I have who have put similar mileage on EDG's (and one to an MHG) have all had problems with lost rubber on the eye cups and ends of the objective tubes, and problems with rubber armor peeling. I don't think I'm going to log that much use with the MHGs but I do hope they hold up.

Anyways for anyone out there curious about these bins I hope the above is of some use... and cheers!

Thanks Pbjosh, so much useful information there! Cheers.

Pbjosh - many thanks for your very detailed and helpful review. As someone who owns an M7 8x30 (and likes it) and also a Conquest HD 8x42 (also like), but is "seriously considering" the MHG 8x30, your review is perfectly suited to my situation - and very well timed. I'm even more keen to try out a pair now.

I kind of feel the same way about my Conquest HD 8x42 - in many respects it's a great binocular, but I find it hard to love it. It "works" very well for its purpose, but somehow, it feels more like an appliance or a tool, rather than something I love to pick up and use.

Thanks for this utterly interesting comparison. I had a Conquest HD 8x42 and sold it, found it to be too heavy and bulky (and had slight problems with kidneybeaning/blackouts), so I've been on the lookout for a smaller device with good performances (obviously being spoiled by the great view of the HD doesn't make things easy or cheap). I recently tried the new CL 8x30 together with some of the "usual suspects" (Kowa Genesis 8x33, Kite Lynx 8x30 and Conquest 8x32)... but the store didn't have the MHG 8x30, which was the one I really wanted to try.

I loved the way the CL felt in my hands, and the view was really easy (having read about the "optic box" I could have been biased, but you could crush your eyes against the eyepieces and don't get any kidney bean/blackout), but I found that the view wasn't as crisp or sharp as the Genesis or the HD. It is weird, since the CL looked "brighter" or more clear, but at the expense of a less contrasty image. To my eyes, on a shadowy patch in a dusky Madrid, the Kowa had the nicest on-axis image, closely followed by the HD, but the HD's sweet spot was noticeably greater. Both displayed a punchier view than the CL.

I was a bit disappointed by the Kite Lynx (I had great expectations after reading here and there), but, again to my eyes, it was the lesser performer. The Conquest 8x32 felt a bit better (i.e. lighter, nimbler) that its 8x42 brother, but a bit clunky nevertheless. The Genesis felt right, if a bit too tall, the feeling was nice and compact and when you squeezed the barrels you couldn't help noticing how well put together it was (I have the same feeling about my partner's Kowa 8x32 XD Prominar). The Kite (probably not unlike the MHG in terms of size and proportions) felt light and nimble, and probably the CL had the best handling of them all... but I was a bit concerned about its size, since it felt more like a 8x32 than a 8x30 (after all, if you took the 8x30 road one of the things you might be looking for is compactness, or the feeling thereof). So I really missed having been able to test the MHG 8x30, so your comparison with the HD and M7 (a relative of the Kite Lynx) is extremely helpful.

An idea: given the price of a brand new MHG 8x30 (around 1000 €) maybe it would be worth considering a used Victory FL T* 8x32 costing about the same. It weights a bit more, but it's rather compact too and seems like it optically outperforms the MHG 8x30, or does it?

Pbjosh,


"The two friends I have who have put similar mileage on EDG's (and one to an MHG) have all had problems with lost rubber on the eye cups and ends of the objective tubes, and problems with rubber armor peeling".

That is similar to my hunting friends who had mechanical problems with the HT and SF in both 8 and 10X42 with the diopter getting shredded off and with damage to the eyecups and focus wheel.

Andy W.

Good write up pbjosh,
I'm about a week into ownership of 8x30 MHGs and much of what you wrote rings true for me as well. I'll be doing a review/comparo myself soon.

Cheers

I look forward to your thoughts Kevin. I continue to really enjoy the MHG and use it a lot. I’ve settled into three bins I use to the exclusion of all others and am selling a few pairs at the moment. I use my SF 8x42 for tropical forest or for any “serious” inside the canopy birding. I use my SV 10x42 for any “serious” open country birding. But I use the MHG 8x30 for all my local patch birding, anytime I’m carrying a scope, any casual birding, and anytime there is much of a hike involved.

If I could have only one 8x it would be a hard choice between the SF 8x42, the SV 8x32, and the FL 8x32. But given the fortune of having two pair, I wouldn’t change the combo I have.

Have you compared the MHG to the victory pocket?

I have both the 8x30 MHG and 8x25 Victory pocket. They're both great and have their place.

mpeace said:

I have both the 8x30 MHG and 8x25 Victory pocket. They're both great and have their place.

Click to expand...

When will you use one over the other? They do seem quite similar on paper.

aCuria said:

When will you use one over the other? They do seem quite similar on paper.

Click to expand...

It's basically down to size. The 8x25 Victory Pocket is nice and compact and fits into a little Nikon Sportstar 8x25 case I have that goes on my belt discretely. This is particular handy when travelling or out and about with others doing non-birdwatching things, but still wanting a binocular handy in case the opportunity arises.

The 8x30 HG is just that bit bigger that for me I use an over the shoulder bag to carry them. So I'll take them when I know I'm going to be doing some bird watching. In terms of the view the only reason I'd choose them over the pocket's is because of the wider field of view that I prefer. They're no sharper and I even think the pocket's may be a little sharper in the center when it comes to fine detail. The MHG's are plenty sharp enough though and the wide field of view makes it easy finding your subject and lets you take in the whole scene a bit better.

I'm happy using either and when using one don't feel like I'm missing the other. It's a definite luxury having both for the reasons above. I'll try and do a detailed users comparison at some point with a couple of photos of them side by side.