Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 versus Leupold Mojave 8x32 (1 Viewer)

If you have been reading along in either the Nikon or Leupold subforums you know that I recently had the opportunity to compare a variety of 8x30-something format roofs down at Cape May a couple of weekends ago. At the time I became extremely enamored with the Monarch 7 because of both its handling and its optical performance. Well, I finally caved a few days ago and ordered one from B and H Photo. It came two days ago and I have been comparing it to the Leupold Mojave 8x32 ever since. SteveC also now has both of these binoculars in his possession. He pm'ed me his initial impressions and they pretty much correlate with my own experiences. I leave it up to him to chime in with those thoughts at some point after this is posted.

One disclaimer before you read further. The specific Nikon unit that I have seems to be suffering from the same lack of internal blackening on a few of the internal components. This can, and does, affect a variety of optical areas but, in my opinion, the worst is contrast. Keep that in mind as you read the rest of this post.

On paper the two binoculars seem quite evenly matched.

Nikon Monarch 7

Magnification 8.0x
Objective Lens Diameter 30 mm
Angle of View 8.3° (actual)
Field-of-View 436.75' @ 1000 yd / 145 m @ 1000 m
Minimum Focus Distance 6.56' / 2 m
Eye Relief 15.1 mm
Interpupillary Adjustment 56 - 72 mm
Weight 15.34 oz / 435 g

Leupold Mojave


Magnification 8.0x
Objective Lens Diameter 32 mm
Angle of View 8.0° (actual)
Field-of-View 420' @ 1000 yd / 140 m @ 1000 m
Minimum Focus Distance 7' / 2.13 cm
Eye Relief 16 mm
Interpupillary Adjustment 58 - 74 mm
Weight 17 oz / 482 g

Initial Impressions only.....

Ergonomics:

To cut to the chase, I like both. I have had the Mojave for a longer period of time and have grown accustomed to how it feels. The only issue with them that I have with them in this area is the strap lug. If it were a half inch closer to the oculars then it would be excellent.

Having said that I will say that I definitely prefer the Monarch 7. Not just how they feel in my hands though but also how they feel up to my eyes. Though I don't find the wider diameter eyecups of the Mojave an issue I do find the Nikon's narrower diameter eyecups and larger oculars more enjoyable. They tend to allow for more of an immersive experience. I also find the texture of the Nikon's rubber armoring more pleasing. It has a bit more of a cushion to it despite the fact that it appears thinner in diameter in comparison to the Leupold. The focusing tension also has more a solid, controllable feel to it.

Optical Performance:

These two binoculars are more alike than not in the grand scheme of things. Considering the similarity in their physical dimensions and their listed specs I believe they would have to be. Both offer generous sweet spots with very good performance overall inside of the sweet spot. Both suffer from off axis performance issues but not to any great degree. So, if I had to break it down based on the various optical attributes it would go something like this....

All characteristics are "apparent" in nature.

Brightness: Tough call. Probably a tie. At times I get the impression the Leupold is brighter but then at other times I can't tell a difference. I need more time to evaluate them to get a true impression.

Contrast: Because of the issue mentioned earlier I would have to give this one to the Leupold. Color saturation is excellent. Blacks are really black and whites are really white. Even when trying to discern differences in color at great distances the Leupold shines. This subsequently leads to an increase in perceived sharpness but I don't want to get to that yet. The Leupold does not appear to have "poor contrast" but rather just isn't up to the level of the Leupold.

Sharpness: Again the nod has to go to the Leupold. As a test for this I started looking at individual trees and rock outcroppings on a mountain ridge about 3/4 of a mile west of my location. With the Leupold I feel like I can look at ever nook and cranny there. Not so much with the Nikon.

Sweet Spot Size: My "impression" is that the Nikon is slightly better than the Leupold...or maybe I should say that the transition from the sweet spot to the edge of the field of view is more gradual in the Nikon. I can sense the more abrupt change in the Leupold though even the Leupold isn't even down to the level of fair in this area. It is actually quite good.

CA control: I would call it a tie here as well. Though the Nikon sports ED glass the Leupold controls CA very well within the sweet spot. If you handed me both and asked me to pick out which one had the ED glass and which one didn't I probably wouldn't be able to tell you. I am going to try to push them in this area as time passes. Maybe then I might see more of a difference between them.

All I can think of for now. I will leave you with some comparison pics.

As I just posted on the other thread, I just got a Nikon M7 8x30 from PhilR yesterday. I'll post some more in a day or two, but my first impression seems I'm like a judge in a title fight where neither contender can seem to knock the other one down. They kind of remind me of the decision between the Theron Wapiti LT and the Sightron Blue Sky. I took the easy way out there. Since I had the Theron, I kept it. I could not then nor can I now say which one is better.

I think the ultimate user preference between these two will be size and ergonomics issues, as that is where the only practical differences seem to reside.

I'm not sure if this is a pre fix model or not, but off hand I don't see the issue of the ring. The Mojave does have better control of inner reflections, but this M7 looks better made than the photos shown in the Allbino's review. This M7 is also a better glass than its 8x42 M7 sibling.

Yeah, Frank and I mostly agree here, but right now If I had to, I'd go Mojave, if for no other reason than to be different ;-). But this is initial impression only.

Awesome review. Looks like the contrast, saturation, and the black level all line up..
I wonder if a few inch felt collar would freshen up the M7's a little.
Love how they both have at least 8 degrees fov. That's enough for me at 8x.

And the veilling glare ? A french astro user also find desaturate colors with the M7 8x30, like some others users here. :C
Frank, what's your opinion ? :smoke:
I don't had the chance to try the M7 yet....

Frank:

Thanks for the photos. I agree that ergos are important with any optics
purchase. This will trump other things when optics are similar.

You mention the size of the Mohave oculars, and they do look over sized for
the smaller size of a 32mm binocular. I can see why the Nikon M7 would be
better in this respect.

It seems Leupold, is reworking the McKinley, over the same issue of a too large ocular with an overbuilt rubber armor design.

I have not tried the new Mohave, but had tried the McKinley with the large ocular
eyecups, and they were too large.

Jerry

Large occulars seem to be one of Leupold's quirks in many of their designs; I've noticed them in the Mojave, McKinley, and Golden Ring models I've owned/own. I've always liked them but as I wear flat, square framed eyeglasses, I don't have to rest them in my eye sockets.

These 8x32 (and the later-to-be redesigned 8x42) Mojave sound very nice, particularly when positively compared to the McKinley and Golden Ring which I consider easily comparable/superior to many of the others in their class.

Justin

Guys, the Mojave does not have large oculars in the sense that the original McKinley did. The ocular lenses are the same 22 mm in diameter. Leupold did use a thicker than needed rubber covering. They are bigger than the M7 for sure, but that inward extension of the rubber ring gives them the effect of looking bigger than they are.

It's not only the size of the eyecups, even though the the diameter looks noticeably larger in the Mojave from Frank's pix, but the fact that the Leupy's eyecups are wide and flat on top whereas the Nikon's are thin and rounded on top. Makes all the difference to someone with deep-set eyes like me.

I had that problem with the Vixen 7x50 Foresta, which has oversized eyecups, but fortunately, I was able to make a fix by taking the original eyecups off and dropping a pair of Swaro SLC eyecups INSIDE the metal frame underneath the rubber eyecups, which reduced the width. Works like a charm.

Like ZDHart wrote in the Pro Bass thread above, "human interaction factors" are just as important as the view when it comes to binoculars. If the bins don't fit your face, your hands, or if you are not comfortable turning the focuser wheel, you're probably not going to want to buy the bin, or if you already bought it, keep it.

This was my experience with the 8x32 LX. I liked the view a lot, but not the ergos and the focuser was too fast for me. I struggled with these issues, but finally gave up, and someone who has no problems with these issues owns them now.

Brock

brocknroller said:

Like ZDHart wrote in the Pro Bass thread above, "human interaction factors" are just as important as the view when it comes to binoculars. If the bins don't fit your face, your hands, or if you are not comfortable turning the focuser wheel, you're probably not going to want to buy the bin, or if you already bought it, keep it.

Brock

Click to expand...

I've posted multiple times that factors other than optics may well decide how much a user may like a binocular. So I agree. I'm just saying ...keep things in perspective. Don't drag out the big ocular/eye complaint/comparison when many eyes won't have a preference. If you like one better that the other use it. One is not better than the other, they are different.

I still feel like I'm judging a prize fight that can have no winner here.

After reading all the posts since my last one I want to offer some clarification. I don't think that the eyecups/oculars on the Mojave 8x32 are anything but average in size. As a point of reference I just measured both the ocular diameter and the eyecup diameter on the Mojave. They are the exact same measurements (23 mm ocular and 40 mm eyecup) as the Leupold Yosemite 8x30s. They just look large in comparison to the Monarch 8x30 because the Monarch 7's oculars are so wide (23 mm) in relation to the eyecup diameter (30 mm). The only real concern would possibly be for folks that have a wide bridge to their nose who don't wear glasses. Since I tend to fall into that category and don't have any concerns either with the Mojave, or the Yosemite for that matter, then I doubt it would be a concern for 99% of the rest of public.

Brock may likely fall into the 1% that has a problem with them. I say that because I owned the pair of Vixen Foresta 7x50s that he mentioned in his post but didn't have a problem getting the proper IPD setting despite its large eyecups.

I hope that clarifies the issue for you folks.

Dadra,

I have not yet encountered the veiling glare issue. The closest I came to it was two nights ago when I was tinkering with them in the house. I was pointing them at the TV screen and actually aimed them at the stand just below the TV. When I did I noticed the faintest hint of veiling glare. However, unless you asked me about it then I would not have thought of mentioning it.

I think to see any 'veiling' (ie, with a perceived gradation to the noise), it would need to
be many times bigger than the very subtle effects you described.

Making the oculars wide helps in manufacturing designs with many elements..
Back in the 70s, some of the more advanced telescope oculars weighed 1-3 pounds!
Leupold's probably the limit in binocs, with Interpupillary plus face anatomy trapping
the diameter. Without the second barrel, you could have the crazy-big oculars
that went with the rich-field telescopes in the 80s (like the Televu apochromats).

We've had March set in with a vengeance here, so I’ve not done much the last few days except evaluate these two binoculars. March is a pain in the backside here and it lasts for 100 days it seems. A typical day will have a mixture of any condition you want, except sunny warm. Within the course of the day we will cycle through brilliant, yet cold and windy sunshine, gloomy gray overcast, rain, sleet, hail and snow. It is unpleasant to be out having to do things in such weather. However these days have some value for evaluating binoculars. One thing about this time of the year is the water bird migration is in full swing, so I have to put in literally no effort to see upwards of six figures, sometimes even seven figures of birds (to the left of the decimal). Today was a day where we had to pump water off of one lease field just north of the Lower Klamath National Wildlife and onto an adjacent field. When we do this it needs several hours of babysitting to be sure we have the pump regulated to stay with the water supply and that all the pipes are going to stay together. I volunteered for the duty and let my brother and nephew tend to other more pressing matters. So I got to sit around watching thousands of birds move about through all of the above described weather conditions. So there was dazzlingly bright for glare and CA, to gray dark and gloomy. Kind of cold but I just had to wait a bit and I’d get a different set of environmental circumstances to frame the views. You name the species of Duck or Goose found here, I saw most of them. Shore birds are beginning to show up, and there are always raptors aplenty. Bald and Golden eagle, Prairie Falcon, Kestrel, Northern Harrier, Rough Leg and Red tail Hawks all passed through the fov today.

A word or two about these two binoculars is probably in order. I have to think these are both normal, functioning within design parameter binoculars. I have to qualify that just a bit with the Monarch. For instance in this thread, http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=277482 the OP was about an uncoated ring Nikon fixed. This uncoated ring was evidently responsible for a substantial loss of contrast. In that same thread, in post #18 dougrz posted some pictures of the internals of his M7 that appeared to show numerous shiny and uncoated interior surfaces. In this thread there are other similar posts. Additionally the review by Allbino’s seems to show similar internal disorder. http://www.birdforum.net/showthreah...ex.php?test=lornetki&test_l=272d.php?t=278630. My quandary lies from the fact that this binocular has a serial number of 0000842. The pictures by dougrz show disorder in serial number 0001812. Evidently Nikon addressed the issue in later production runs. Where later starts in the rank order of serial numbers I have no idea, but the one I have is 900 some number older than doug’s. Now looking at this one, I do not see the bright shiny ring. Nor does this one show the same degree of internal disorder pictured elsewhere. Having concluded it is much better blackened internally than those in the posts, it is not perfect. You can still see hints of the flaws being shown in the other posts. The most noticeable are the reflections shown in the ocular lenses. There is an ever so slight hint of truncated exit pupils, but less so than shown in Allbino’s review. I suspect that this binocular received, in some luck of the draw, random fashion, a better coated parts selection in its assembly as it does not seem to be an older production with whatever fixes Nikon applied. It is bright, sharp and does not show immediate indication that something is amiss.

The Mojave is blackened much better internally that the Monarch, but as likely to be expected of a $350 binocular, it too is not perfect. Like the Monarch its flaws are seen in the reflections in the ocular lenses, but the reflections are smaller, not as bright, and are located further away from the exit pupil in the Mojave than they are in the Monarch.

Looking at the internal arrangements visible inside the binoculars, they are much more similar than they are different. One could easily take them to be the same basic design, despite the Leupold's Japanese connection and the Monarch's Chinese source.

So, the above aside, put the binoculars side by side, then what? I mentioned earlier I felt like a judging two equally competent opponents. While that remains true to a large extent, the Mojave has been winning a few more rounds lately.

Ergonomics:

I have come to the conclusion that the fit and feel of a binocular may well be the most important factor in a user’s ultimate satisfaction. This is also the area of the most difference between these two binoculars. The Monarch is smaller, 17.0 oz. versus 23.0 oz. with strap and caps. The Mojave is about a quarter inch longer. The eye cups have a different fit and feel, I suspect deep set eyes, smaller diameter eyes, or faces needing IPD on the lower end of the scale will gravitate to the Monarch. I like the exterior appearance of the Monarch. I can’t quite warm up to the Klingon style armoring of the Mojave, but I use binoculars to look through, not to look at, so that is surely no deal breaker. The close focus capabilities are a wash between the two, both will come down to the 6 foot range. The Monarch focuses clockwise to infinity, the Mojave focuses counter clockwise. I have zero preference in this regard, but it seems a deal maker/breaker for some. The diopter settings are right eye ring on the Monarch, front center focus, and pull out to adjust on the Mojave. The center focus functions for both eyes with the diopter dial pulled out.

The Monarch has done a better job with the strap lugs, concealing them quite well with the slight outward flare of the body armor.

Field Performance:

Both are about equal in this regard. The field on each one is much flatter than one would expect for a $350 binocular neither of which use field flattener technology. Edge distortion is minimal with each one, and edge performance is above average in both. Field curvature is present, but to me anyway, largely unnoticeable.

The slightly larger fov of the Monarch does not seem evident, to me at least. I think the sweet spot may well be judged in favor of the Monarch, by just a tad. I don’t think it is so much an actual difference in the optics, but due more to the nature of Looksharp’s perceived fov concept. When analyzing the edges, the Monarch has a smaller outer black ring the eye perceives between the field stop and the outer unmagnified view. If you are a fov edge view wanderer, you may prefer this to the Mojave. If you are an obligate image centerer, you may well display no preference. I have no particular preference for either in this regard, but it is an area where some users will take more note of than others. The field is wide enough on both that you should not feel constrained with either one.

Image Performance:

CaChing…..!!! We finally have a winner here, in my opinion. The gold star goes by a nose, to the Mojave. It is definitely sharper, has better contrast, and more natural color representation. The difference is slight, but there nonetheless. You get a fleeting impression for first glance through either one that the Mojave is better. I first thought that this was mostly due my preference for the warmer color bias of the Mojave to the actually sort of non-Nikon cool/neutral color balance of the Monarch. Use some sort of resolution chart and the Mojave will squeak in a bit extra detail from the smallest spacing’s separable.

Despite its lack of ED glass, the Mojave appears to control CA every bit as well as the Monarch. Flare is evident only in extreme conditions, such as panning under the sun, and is a bit better controlled with the Mojave.

Now I posted earlier that you need to just close your eyes, grab whichever one your hand fall on, head out and go look at stuff. That still applies here. While I may state an analytical preference for the Mojave, what we have here are two very evenly matched not too expensive binoculars each capable of punching quite a bit above their price point. Each are very field worthy and each is quite capable of showing their respective user all the detail necessary for an enjoyable outing.

One little sort of a fly buzzing around the back of my subconscious I’m not completely sure of is just how this Monarch is, or is not, affected by the oft posted shiny interior surface and loss of contrast issues. I explained that as best I can above. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

NOTE: This post edited to change the sated focus directions, which I initially got turned around.

Steve, aren't those two focusing directions actually the other way round (in your Ergos. secn.)? PS - thanks for your comparison!

pompadour said:

Steve, aren't those two focusing directions actually the other way round (in your Ergos. secn.)? PS - thanks for your comparison!

Click to expand...

Good catch! :eek!: I had checked the close focus directions as a double check while sitting at the desk typing this last night, but typed infinity instead. I have edited the errors in my post.

OPTIC_NUT said:

I think to see any 'veiling' (ie, with a perceived gradation to the noise), it would need to
be many times bigger than the very subtle effects you described.

Click to expand...

I was on the beach on Saturday watching the seals who were in the shallows watching the dog walkers.

A couple of pretty young girls bounced up and facing the dunes they started to make a fuss of my dog.

"Look behind you", I said.

"Oh, WOW ! Look at that seal !!", they thrilled.

"Here, have a look through these", I said, handing over my bins.

"Thanks ... wow ... that's a fantastic view ... but I did notice the fainest hint of veiling glare ... !"

Yeah, right ... !!

There are less than 20 people in the world who are sensitive to veiling glare, and one or two others who would like to be if they could only work out what veiling glare actually is.

For the other many hundreds of thousands of consumers it just doesn't figure. Time to get out and about and enjoy the view. :t:

I just wanted to share a PM that I sent to another forum member a few minutes ago. I think it is applicable to this thread since it involves my experiences with the Leupold and the Nikon this past weekend.

Here is what I can tell you about the Nikon...

I now have two samples in my possession and neither is fully blackened internally. I am guessing it is this issue that is ultimately affecting two key issues optically. It has been mentioned that contrast is lacking. It is to an extent. Even without the contrast level I would expect from this binocular it is still better than many others out there.

The bigger concern, for me, is the lack of apparent sharpness that is most likely the result of that lack of higher level contrast. I spent most of the weekend out at a local lake comparing the Nikon to the Leupold and the Sightron. In my opinion the Nikon was definitely the least impressive when it came to resolving the finest details. Both the Sightron and the Leupold were notably better. I was observing a variety of waterfowl on the lake and at one point I was watching Wood Ducks and a Great Blue Heron that were nestled in some trees (half submerged in a cove). With both the Sightron and the Leupold I had no problem separating the birds from their surroundings. The Nikon just seemed to muddy them all together. I believe that is resulting from the apparent sharpness/contrast issues.

I love everything else about the little Nikon, the field of view, the size of the sweetspot, the apparent brightness...and most certainly the handling and focusing feel. But, sadly, without that apparent sharpness I just can't bring myself to want to keep it.

If they get the issues resolved then I have no doubt that this will be the binocular you are looking for. Until that time I would feel more comfortable recommending the Leupold Mojave. It has excellent apparent sharpness and contrast. The sweet spot is large and the image is very relaxed. It is only a few ounces heavier than the Nikon and the field of view is only about 12 feet narrower.