• 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.

Cant decide between Nikon Monarch 5 8x or 10x (1 Viewer)

I need help deciding which will best meet my needs. I hike and trout fish a lot, so I would like a nice pair of binoculars for wildlife viewing while in the woods. If possible, I'd also like a pair that I can take out in the ocean when deep sea fishing 1-2xper year. Other primary uses will be golf viewing at the Master's Golf Tournament every year, college football games and major league baseball games. So, I'm looking for more all purpos binoculars. I want to atay in the $300-$400 range, and most reviews I've read said the Nikon Monarch 5 series is the best bang for your buck. Given my uses, primarily sporting events and hiking, would I be best served by the 8x 42 or the 10x 42? Thank you in advance for any advice you can provide.
 
Either power is suitable for the outdoor stuff you want to do, but 10x is waaay to much for the sports viewing. Therefore, 8x would be my suggestion. 8x is easier to hold steady, has a wider FOV, and usually brighter. Sometimes cheaper too, although at this price level, the difference shouldn't make a difference.

Personally, I would get the 10x for the outdoor stuff, and either a 6x Leupold Yosemite or a 6.5x Vortex Raptor for the sports viewing. The Yosemite/Raptor will be a much better choice for your sports viewing than either of the two magnifications you mention.
 
Hello Mayberry...........you may want to consider 8X32 or 8X30. I hike almost every day and find 8X32 with a neoprene neck strap quite comfortable weighing in at 20 oz. or less. Looks like you're on the right track with the Monarch.......and welcome to BF.
 
Thank you for your replies. Of course, I now have to further complicate my decision. Is the Monarch 7 worth the price difference over the Monarch 5 in an 8 x 42? I think for multi purpose use, the 8x is the best bet for my first pair. I sometimes don't have the steadiest of hands...I have a slight tremor, since a concussion a few years ago. Is the 7 worth $160 more than the 5, or will I not notice a difference for my use?
 
The field of view (FOV) at a thousand yards for the Monarch 7 8X42 is 420 ft and the Monarch 5 8X42 is 330 ft. 330 ft for an 8X compared to what is available today is an anemic number Since you want to view sporting events, then a wider FOV is better. I would easily spend the extra money for the wider FOV.

One thing to keep in mind is that some posters reported that they thought the Monarch 7 center view (the area before sharpness starts to fall off) was smaller than what they expected for a binocular in that class. That may have been more of an issue with the early production so check it out first or be sure or buy from a vendor that allows returns.

I saw a Monarch 5 8X42 right when they came out at a birding festival. The quality of the view was very good, but the small FOV was noticeable to me. It gave the impression of viewing through a tube. This is totally personal preference, but because of the type of viewing I do, I doubt if I would be happy with one over the long term because of the narrow FOV.

The good and the bad news is there are a lot of excellent choices in the price range you are looking. The good new is all the choices, the bad news is that it can be difficult to decide!

I agree that an 8X is good choice for a versatile binocular.
 
Thanks. Assuming I decide to head the Monarch 7 route, what other 8 x 42 in comparable price would you say would be better? Any specific suggestions?
 
Thanks. Assuming I decide to head the Monarch 7 route, what other 8 x 42 in comparable price would you say would be better? Any specific suggestions?

Although not necessarily better, the Zen-Ray ED3 and Vanguard Endeavor EDII would be worth your time to investigate. I will say that a $320 demo ED3 from CameralandNY will be a better buy than the M7 that will often run between $450 and $499. The ED3 weighs more than the M7,but will also provide a slightly sharper and brighter view. I've not used the EDII as of yet, but they have gotten extremely good reviews. These might well be the overall best 8x42 under $500.

You might also look at the Vortex Viper too. I'm not a big fan of them, but many like them. The Krueger Caldera can often be found under $400, and would also be worthy of investigation. The Caldera handles nicely, and is a few ounces lighter in weight than the ED3. I still like the M7 a bit more, but a $360 Caldera might be a slightly better buy than a $480 M7.
 
Here are some that come to mind ....

Zen-Ray 8X43 ED3 $420 426 ft FOV:
http://www.zen-ray.com/shop/binoculars/zened3-8x43.html

This model has been reported to be replaced with the ED4 in a few months.

The Zeiss Terra 8X42 $340 375 ft FOV
http://www.zeiss.com/sports-optics/en_us/nature/binoculars/terra-ed-binoculars.html#models

Vanguard Endeavor ED I $240 368 ft FOV
http://www.vanguardworld.com/index.php/en/os/products/hunting-outdoor/detail-2-10-149-701.html

I have all three and like them all. The Zen-Ray is the best optically, but the other two are also very good. The Zeiss is probably the best over package for the money. The Vanguard is the best plain value. The wide FOV of the Zen-Ray is noticeable. The Vanguard 368 ft FOV is the absolute minimum for me in an 8X. Both the Zeiss and Vanguard have a fast focus for some and the Vanguard focus rotation is counter clockwise from close to infinity while it is the opposite for the Zen-Ray and Zeiss.

It is possible you can find better pricing by searching the web. Camera Land sells Zen-Ray demos at a nice reduction. They also will sometimes have the Zeiss Terra in a demo. Also check for rebates and discount codes.

There are more so hopefully others will post them.

Edit: Phil beat me to the Submit button while I was writing my post. Looks like we are in agreement for the most part. The Vanguard ED II has some good reviews. The reason I went with the EDI is the ED II is still relatively new and the price is still on the high side for a binocular with a smaller FOV and not having di-electric prism coatings. It has better glass than the ED I so that does justify some of the additional cost. I have yet to see one so I can not compare.
 
Last edited:
Just realized something that made the decision really easy. I am a member at REI. My annual dividend amount is $400. I also get 20% off any one item I choose. They don't sell the other brands you mentioned, so this cleared up my dilemma. I got the Nikon Monarch 7 8x42's for $68, including shipping and tax. Can't beat that, so I jumped on it. I hope I like them a lot. They seem to be quality binoculars. Thank you all for your time and suggestions. It is greatly appreciated.
 
Just realized something that made the decision really easy. I am a member at REI. My annual dividend amount is $400. I also get 20% off any one item I choose. They don't sell the other brands you mentioned, so this cleared up my dilemma. I got the Nikon Monarch 7 8x42's for $68, including shipping and tax. Can't beat that, so I jumped on it. I hope I like them a lot. They seem to be quality binoculars. Thank you all for your time and suggestions. It is greatly appreciated.


WOW! That is a "WIN" all day long! You will never regret paying for the extra field-of-view.

Also WOW...your REI annual dividend was $400??? :eek!: Mine was like $20! What do you do for a living-guide trekkers in Nepal??? o:D

Also FYI I spend a bit of time on your area...my wife is from Commerce and has family all around Athens.
 
David, I have the REI Visa credit card that gives me back 15% dividend on all REI purchases (instead of tye standard 10%), and 1% everywhere else. I'm a financial advisor and planner by trade. I love my job, but trekking through the wilderness would be a welcome relief some days.
Athens is a great town. My wife and I both went to school at UGA, and after graduating and working in Atlanta for a while, all we wanted to do was come back to Athens. Where in NC are you? I was born in Winston-Salem and my family is from Mt Airy.
 
I will be taking the binoculars to the Masters golf tournament next weekend. Would it be beneficial to buy some sort of monopod or hiking stick to mount them to? If so, do I need a specific adapter from Nikon or are those things pretty universal?
 
I will be taking the binoculars to the Masters golf tournament next weekend. Would it be beneficial to buy some sort of monopod or hiking stick to mount them to? If so, do I need a specific adapter from Nikon or are those things pretty universal?

Interesting application...
the main complaint in tournament attendees seems to be just getting a
line of site to the golfers at all, given the crowd you're in and the low
target (the tee)..

So...in addition to a nice 8x30, as mentioned, you might want an
Uzi Periscope, believe it or not:
http://www.amazon.com/UZI-UZI-PERIS...28281070&sr=8-8&keywords=binoculars+periscope

All the rage with the tournament crowd.
Could be the difference between seeing and not seeing.

If I were spending in that range I'd pick up a pair of the classic Nikon 8x30 E's.
Pretty compact, a great 460ft field width for sports, great 3D,
and it has a number of extreme fanatics.
 
Last edited:
I got my Monarch 7's today and I am impressed. Optics are great, FOV is wide and not tunnel-like at all. They can be used with glasses and sunglasses with ease, colors are sharp and they just feel solid and like they'll last a long time. Very happy with my purchase. I'm also glad I got the 8x over the 10x. I don't have the steadiest of hands and I think I'd have too mich blur and shaking with the 10x. I chased squirrels and birds through trees around my yard today and had no problem keeping up with them. I think the limited FOV in the 10x would have left me frustrated and unsatisfied.

Thank you all for your advice and input. I really wish I could have tried some of the other suggestions given, but you can't beat the deal I got on these and I love them. They're going to be great at the Master's this weekend.
 
Last edited:
I got my Monarch 7's today and I am impressed. Optics are great, FOV is wide and not tunnel-like at all. They can be used with glasses and sunglasses with ease, colors are sharp and they just feel solid and like they'll last a long time. Very happy with my purchase. I'm also glad I got the 8x over the 10x. I don't have the steadiest of hands and I think I'd have too mich blur and shaking with the 10x. I chased squirrels and birds through trees around my yard today and had no problem keeping up with them. I think the limited FOV in the 10x would have left me frustrated and unsatisfied.

Thank you all for your advice and input. I really wish I could have tried some of the other suggestions given, but you can't beat the deal I got on these and I love them. They're going to be great at the Master's this weekend.

Andy of Mayberry,

Yes, you made the right choice with the 8x for birding, though you may miss having the extra magnification at the Masters, golf balls are tiny. But if you shake with 10x, that would negate the advantage. A Canon 12x36 IS would do nicely for the tournament. You could read the name "Titleist" on the balls.

Sunny skies and 87* in Augusta today, depending on where you are in relation to the sun, you should be able to give the M7 a good test for veiling glare, a problem on samples with unpainted parts in the objective housings, not an issue with good samples.

Say, "Hello!" to Opie and Barney for me. I still watch them on TV Land.

Goober
 
Brocknroller,
What do you mean by "veiling glare"? I have read where there were a few early quality control issues with glare off unpainted parts. Is that glare all the time, when the sun is near your FOV where you are looking, or when the sun is behind you and the glare is out of the gaps between your eyes and the eyepieces? Just teying to know what to look for so I can make it happen on purpose, if I have a faulty pair.
 
Last edited:
Brocknroller,
What do you mean by "veiling glare"? I have read where there were a few early quality control issues with glare off unpainted parts. Is that glare all the time, when the sun is near your FOV where you are looking, or when the sun is behind you and the glare is out of the gaps between your eyes and the eyepieces? Just teying to know what to look for so I can make it happen on purpose, if I have a faulty pair.

As someone who has recently bought the M7 8x30, I also went through the same thought process even though I was able to try a demo out for two days before purchase (see thread on M7 eye relief). I eventually concluded that it was somewhat pointless to do any testing for the reason that there were simply too many variables e.g. other peoples subjective views under generally described circumstances, their levels of expectations of a binocular especially a relative low cost model (in my case £210), whether or not other posters wore glasses (often unspecified), even if they wore glasses (as I do) what about the adequacy of their prescription for their current lenses and the quality of the lenses themselves etc etc. Finally what would represent a reasonable benchmark at this price point in any event.

My solution – a check through the objective lens (in the store with a bright torch brought along for the purpose), it seemed very well finished to my eye and with no ‘bright’ parts, a general inspection overall and quick view out on the street – admittedly very scenic looking up at the mountains above Innsbruck – and then simply relying on use in the field to see if they are fit for purpose – in my case to supplement my main binoculars and for casual go anywhere any time use whilst travelling or a late stroll around my local patch.

All I can say is that I have used them constantly over the past two weeks to check them out, this in varied weather conditions and in a variety of settings e.g. woodland, high moorland, farmland and coastal (all within 30 minutes of where I live in Northumberland) and they have proved excellent and beyond expectation given the bargain price. Whilst there are occasional glare issues (no more than I experience with my ‘serious’ bins) the small size and lightness of the M7 makes it very easy to shade the objective lens with one hand, and still hold them steady and focus with the other or simply to adjust eye positioning, again easy to do even with glasses. This has only been necessary on very few occasions when looking almost directly towards the sun low on the horizon. I have not experienced any noticeable loss of contrast due to so called veiling, but then again I have not gone out specifically looking for it – resonant of the comments elsewhere of not going looking for CA on purpose.

I find that they are now my preferred binocular for woodland as the wider fov and agility in use due to their ultra light weight means I miss fewer warblers and the like. My record of goldcrest sightings has suddenly gone up, I am sure more to do with the new binoculars than a coincidence of a sudden influx. They really are a delight to use and as mentioned before, for me at least, a bargain at the price point and emphatically fit for my purpose. I can only conclude that the earlier problems have been fixed. For the record the serial number of mine is 0006663.

Barrie
 
Brocknroller,
What do you mean by "veiling glare"? I have read where there were a few early quality control issues with glare off unpainted parts. Is that glare all the time, when the sun is near your FOV where you are looking, or when the sun is behind you and the glare is out of the gaps between your eyes and the eyepieces? Just teying to know what to look for so I can make it happen on purpose, if I have a faulty pair.

One thing I should have added - I found that carefully setting the IPD right was what might be described as a 'critical success factor' - it made all the difference, as others have mentioned elsewhere

Barrie
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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