-
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.
Monarch-HG: any definite info. on improvements? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter adhoc
- Start date
adhoc,
My modest opinion: there wasnˋt much to be improved.
I use both the 8x42 and 10x42 models of the Monarch HG and find them very satisfactory indeed, not very far from EDG performance.
Mine are early models, and I never understood the criticism that you mention. I frequently disagree with allbinosˋ review findings, but I found their positive review of the 10x model fully justified.
fwiw Canip
My modest opinion: there wasnˋt much to be improved.
I use both the 8x42 and 10x42 models of the Monarch HG and find them very satisfactory indeed, not very far from EDG performance.
Mine are early models, and I never understood the criticism that you mention. I frequently disagree with allbinosˋ review findings, but I found their positive review of the 10x model fully justified.
fwiw Canip
Thanks Canip. I did read opinions like yours on this model (in 8x42 and 10x42) from the beginning. Maybe the variation among responses by competent reviewers was due to variable QC at the time? I hope that those who were critical of those aspects I mention have been able to test very recent instruments, and that their opinion has changed. (Right now I am more interested in knowing about the 8x42.) Adhoc.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Last edited:
Conndomat
United States of Europe
The 8x42 had too much CA, already clearly in the middle!
The edge sharpness was also rather moderate for a flat-field and the center-sharpness was not at the highest level.
It could also be due to the sample variation.
Since I had two visually very different Noctivids 8x42 in my hands, of course, I did not exclude that from the HG ...
Andreas
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I thought the sharpness could have been better.
These were new stock late 2017. I didn't notice any immediate issues with CA in the 10x, and it would've been better if the edges were sharper, but that's no biggie. The sharpness should jump out at you though and be clearly Alpha level.
Chosun :gh:
The EDG is much better because it was made to be Nikon's flagship binocular which it was for 10 years from 2008 through 2018 when it was discontinued a couple of months ago. They cost over $2000.00.
The Monarch HG is meant to be the best binocular in Nikon's less expensive Monarch line of binoculars and they cost under $1000.00. They are not as good as the EDGs are. My Nikon 10x32 EDG II is an excellent binocular, remarkably bright and sharp and easy to use for a 10x32 and still in top condition after 6 years of use.
I don't know of any Alpha level binoculars that cost under $1000.00. I had to return my first Monarch HG 8x42 to Nikon because of a wandering diopter. Nikon sent me a new one as a replacement and I am having no problems with it. It is sharp and bright, controls glare well, and has a large "sweet spot."
Bob
Last edited:
^^^^
This!
I've used the 8X42 a lot, as you probably know. I've never gone birding with this binocular and said "I wish I had brought my ______ binocular instead." I HAVE said that with other binoculars even costing much more. I've had zero issues with it as well.
Thanks all.
"I've never gone birding with this binocular and said "I wish I had brought my ______ binocular instead."
What Chuck says there is really all one needs of a binocular for birdwatching.
Chuck, you have been possessing, and reviewing, an array of the best binoculars such as seldom read of in this forum (and not since I began reading in it). Now there is something that can make your reviews and comments on these still more useful to many. From the way you write I think you will not mind this suggestion being made directly and not take it amiss! I have made it several/many times in this forum.
That is that a reviewer tells us about their vision, particularly their visual acuity. But I am afraid I have no idea about how easy it is to determine this in the US: requesting the optician in a regular visit to test it also, or getting a suitable chart and doing it oneself, etc. BTW, 20/20 is not normal or average acuity for a young person with good eyesight, that acuity received that name for historical reasons, and for such a person it is more like 20/15, as I gather. Thank you!
"I've never gone birding with this binocular and said "I wish I had brought my ______ binocular instead."
What Chuck says there is really all one needs of a binocular for birdwatching.
Chuck, you have been possessing, and reviewing, an array of the best binoculars such as seldom read of in this forum (and not since I began reading in it). Now there is something that can make your reviews and comments on these still more useful to many. From the way you write I think you will not mind this suggestion being made directly and not take it amiss! I have made it several/many times in this forum.
That is that a reviewer tells us about their vision, particularly their visual acuity. But I am afraid I have no idea about how easy it is to determine this in the US: requesting the optician in a regular visit to test it also, or getting a suitable chart and doing it oneself, etc. BTW, 20/20 is not normal or average acuity for a young person with good eyesight, that acuity received that name for historical reasons, and for such a person it is more like 20/15, as I gather. Thank you!
wdc
Well-known member
Oh, another good can of worms for the forum... ;-)
What Bill Cook says has some truth: Most people can't tell the difference between a lot of binoculars.
But the corollary is also true:
SOME people clearly CAN tell the difference between a lot of binoculars. And there are some of those folks on this forum.
Suppose this was a high end audio gear forum, and members were socially obligated to post the results of a hearing test. This would then give folks a yardstick by which to judge the merit of someone's opinion. So, here, it has been stated by some that by posting one's visual acuity, the relevance of your experience/opinion of the equipment may be better understood. It has also been stated on this forum that if one's vision is only 20/20 that one couldn't tell the difference between a $25 pair of binoculars and a far more expensive pair.
However, when I read Henry Links' well written posts, and see that he is willing to carry an enormous pair of bins out in the field to get what he's determined to be a very high quality view, I realize that I'm not willing to go that route. Then Tobias Mennie, who runs a respectable 'binocular porn' website, weighs in with some of the most irrationally biased remarks against gear that is well thought of by many on the forum (and regularly disparaged by a few). Opinions such as these make for interesting reading but regardless of those individual's visual acuity, there are other reasonable points of view, and choices for the individual, besides what a few have determined to be the best (or worst)....for them.
When I read Chuck's, Troubador's, and other's reviews, I find the greatest value in how they fit, feel, and perform in the field, as well as how they compare to other binoculars. The binocular is as much a mechanical device as it is an optical one. There are other attributes and factors that go into making an informed decision. Wearing glasses makes a huge difference in what is available for the individual. Throw in IPD specs, and the options get smaller and smaller. I appreciate and value the range of experiences and opinions folks post here, not just from folks that are 20/12 or less.
I dare say that if the supremely visually acute were the only folks on the forum that had anything of value to say, regarding the use and opinions on binoculars, this would be a pretty small group.
-Bill
What Bill Cook says has some truth: Most people can't tell the difference between a lot of binoculars.
But the corollary is also true:
SOME people clearly CAN tell the difference between a lot of binoculars. And there are some of those folks on this forum.
Suppose this was a high end audio gear forum, and members were socially obligated to post the results of a hearing test. This would then give folks a yardstick by which to judge the merit of someone's opinion. So, here, it has been stated by some that by posting one's visual acuity, the relevance of your experience/opinion of the equipment may be better understood. It has also been stated on this forum that if one's vision is only 20/20 that one couldn't tell the difference between a $25 pair of binoculars and a far more expensive pair.
However, when I read Henry Links' well written posts, and see that he is willing to carry an enormous pair of bins out in the field to get what he's determined to be a very high quality view, I realize that I'm not willing to go that route. Then Tobias Mennie, who runs a respectable 'binocular porn' website, weighs in with some of the most irrationally biased remarks against gear that is well thought of by many on the forum (and regularly disparaged by a few). Opinions such as these make for interesting reading but regardless of those individual's visual acuity, there are other reasonable points of view, and choices for the individual, besides what a few have determined to be the best (or worst)....for them.
When I read Chuck's, Troubador's, and other's reviews, I find the greatest value in how they fit, feel, and perform in the field, as well as how they compare to other binoculars. The binocular is as much a mechanical device as it is an optical one. There are other attributes and factors that go into making an informed decision. Wearing glasses makes a huge difference in what is available for the individual. Throw in IPD specs, and the options get smaller and smaller. I appreciate and value the range of experiences and opinions folks post here, not just from folks that are 20/12 or less.
I dare say that if the supremely visually acute were the only folks on the forum that had anything of value to say, regarding the use and opinions on binoculars, this would be a pretty small group.
-Bill
dries1
Member
Bill,
That was clarification, thank you, especially the "binocular porn" part, perhaps I need to visit the site.
Regarding acuity, folks who have viewed through many different models brands of glass, they have the advantage of comparison, but how much time do they spend with the glass. I value Chucks opinion because HE USES the glass, you know, he looks through it in different conditions so I value his opinion.
Andy W.
That was clarification, thank you, especially the "binocular porn" part, perhaps I need to visit the site.
Regarding acuity, folks who have viewed through many different models brands of glass, they have the advantage of comparison, but how much time do they spend with the glass. I value Chucks opinion because HE USES the glass, you know, he looks through it in different conditions so I value his opinion.
Andy W.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hi Bill,
20/20 is the "normal" visual acuity!
The evaluation of binoculars has much to do with experience, I doubt that a person with normal eyesight can not distinguish good binoculars from bad binoculars, visual acuity is not everything!
Crucial for me are comparisons and the joy of looking through binoculars and knowing where to look for aberrations.
Andreas
20/20 is the "normal" visual acuity!
The evaluation of binoculars has much to do with experience, I doubt that a person with normal eyesight can not distinguish good binoculars from bad binoculars, visual acuity is not everything!
Crucial for me are comparisons and the joy of looking through binoculars and knowing where to look for aberrations.
Andreas
dries1
Member
Adhoc,
I mowed the lawn instead of coffee, everything here on the east coast is soaked.
My opinion of the HG 8X42 after having it for a while is that has noticeable pincushion when panning, at least to me, it does handle glare quite well and it is bright enough. It is a light in weight glass, has sufficient eye relief, comes with good accessories, esp the objective covers - well thought out.
I think what attracts many to the model is the smaller than average 8X42 size and weight, easy handling - (my EDG 8X32 is about the same size and weight, just 10mm less in diameter of the tubes) and the FOV.
The distortion near the field stop 85% out could have been better, but it provides an 8.3 degree FOV so there will be sacrifices.
It is a decent mid range glass, it is not an EDG since I also have the 8X42, but as Bob has clarified it is the top of the Monarch line, not meant to be a premier glass from Nikon.
If it were my only 8X42 I would be quite happy.
Hoping some sun and some dark skies here on the east coast will arrive soon
regards,
Andy W.
I mowed the lawn instead of coffee, everything here on the east coast is soaked.
My opinion of the HG 8X42 after having it for a while is that has noticeable pincushion when panning, at least to me, it does handle glare quite well and it is bright enough. It is a light in weight glass, has sufficient eye relief, comes with good accessories, esp the objective covers - well thought out.
I think what attracts many to the model is the smaller than average 8X42 size and weight, easy handling - (my EDG 8X32 is about the same size and weight, just 10mm less in diameter of the tubes) and the FOV.
The distortion near the field stop 85% out could have been better, but it provides an 8.3 degree FOV so there will be sacrifices.
It is a decent mid range glass, it is not an EDG since I also have the 8X42, but as Bob has clarified it is the top of the Monarch line, not meant to be a premier glass from Nikon.
If it were my only 8X42 I would be quite happy.
Hoping some sun and some dark skies here on the east coast will arrive soon
regards,
Andy W.
Thanks Andy.
"If it were my only 8X42 I would be quite happy."
That says it all--but conditional, for others,
on their(/my), compared with your, vision!
The pincushioning, as you probably know, may have
been designed in, to prevent "rolling globe".
Were there problems with
sharpness, or with
color fringing (CA)
when using the binocular for nature or bird watching?
(I had also listed sweet spot but it is not that relevant here.)
That is to say, did you at any time feel,
I wish it were sharper, or
this CA is a bother/gets in the way of observation?
Hope the weather will oblige you soon!
Regards,
Adhoc
"If it were my only 8X42 I would be quite happy."
That says it all--but conditional, for others,
on their(/my), compared with your, vision!
The pincushioning, as you probably know, may have
been designed in, to prevent "rolling globe".
Were there problems with
sharpness, or with
color fringing (CA)
when using the binocular for nature or bird watching?
(I had also listed sweet spot but it is not that relevant here.)
That is to say, did you at any time feel,
I wish it were sharper, or
this CA is a bother/gets in the way of observation?
Hope the weather will oblige you soon!
Regards,
Adhoc
dries1
Member
Adhoc,
Perhaps you should get one, try it, and if you don't like the glass send it back and let us know your subjective opinions, such as color fringing etc.
I have decent vision, I do not wear glasses and IMO the CA is minor. Your mileage may vary.
Additionally I do not go looking for CA in a glass, if I use a glass and CA is substantial and bothersome under variable viewing conditions, I would return a glass. I still have my HG 8X42.
I had a long day outside, I am tired.
Andy W.
It is not an EDG, it is a mid range but a very nice handy glass, with a decent wide field of view.
Perhaps you should get one, try it, and if you don't like the glass send it back and let us know your subjective opinions, such as color fringing etc.
I have decent vision, I do not wear glasses and IMO the CA is minor. Your mileage may vary.
Additionally I do not go looking for CA in a glass, if I use a glass and CA is substantial and bothersome under variable viewing conditions, I would return a glass. I still have my HG 8X42.
I had a long day outside, I am tired.
Andy W.
It is not an EDG, it is a mid range but a very nice handy glass, with a decent wide field of view.
