• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

10x42L vs Nikon MHG (1 Viewer)

That is a tough one. The problem with a scope is that although it gives you more magnification, actually finding the bird in the scope, with its smaller field of view, can be difficult. Then you need to bring a tripod or at least a monopod, which is more awkward and cumbersome. Ideally you also need a friend with wide field binoculars to help you with spotting!

I've tried the Canon 10x42, albeit only at a birding stand in the UK. It functions very effectively and I don't doubt you would get (as kabsetz did) more bird IDs with it than an unstabilized 8x42 if you could handle it effectively through the session. But the thought of carrying that thing and pointing it regularly up into the trees in an environment like Singapore leaves me very cold. I'm just not that serious a birder. Carrying it on the trek to Jelutong Tower, then deploying it from there - yes, it'd be great for that. But for walking around and regularly looking upwards - I personally would rather have the easy handling of a MHG or similar, even if I missed a number of IDs.

I guess a lot really depends on just how important it is to see/identify those birds. If you're not a really serious birder it may be most practical and enjoyable to work within the limitations of the gear you already have, that is light and handy to carry. Some birds will always be too far away.

Incidentally, if you just want to get a good view of birds in trees, and don't really care what they are, areas where the trees are not so high (eg. Pasir Ris Park, Jurong Lake, Botanic Garden to some extent etc) are likely to give you better views than eg. Bukit Timah or Dairy Farm. The birds may be more commonplace (you won't see van Hasselt's sunbird etc), but they'll be easier to see and in my experience anyway, more abundant.
Although most of us agree, the Canon 42 optics are excellent, it always seems to come down to what is the individuals preferred tool for the intended purpose, and what shortfalls or compromises were willing to make in comfort. As I read the posts I agree that they are fantastic in some ones, and a real pain in the neck (literally) in other ways. I think Sig and Kite are trying to alleviate many of those negatives of the 42 Canons, but I’m not sure the optics are on the Canon L level.
 
Although most of us agree, the Canon 42 optics are excellent, it always seems to come down to what is the individuals preferred tool for the intended purpose, and what shortfalls or compromises were willing to make in comfort. As I read the posts I agree that they are fantastic in some ones, and a real pain in the neck (literally) in other ways. I think Sig and Kite are trying to alleviate many of those negatives of the 42 Canons, but I’m not sure the optics are on the Canon L level.
Kite's weight and size seems perfect. But the FOV is a far cry from MHG and may makes it less enjoyment.
 
Forget the Kite IS, it has some weird glare problems and in the higher magnifications a lot of CA. If you have to have an IS binocular, the Canon's are the best and the Canon 10x42 IS-L is THE best optically, but it is a brick at over 40 oz. with hard uncomfortable eye cups.

The Nikon MHG 8x42 IMO is a much better overall birding binocular than the Canon 10x42 IS-L. It is brighter and has easier eye placement with its bigger EP, has a much better DOF, it is WAY lighter and smaller with MUCH better ergonomics than the Canon and has a much bigger FOV.

For an all around birding binocular, you can not beat a good quality 8x42 like the MHG.

The Canon 10x42 IS-L constantly focuses and refocuses when you are looking at a bird, producing optical artifacts that are very distracting. It over 2x the weight of the MHG and is very uncomfortable to carry around your neck for any length of time, whereas, the MHG is barely noticeable.

Yes, the view is steadier with the Canon, and you can see more detail, but I have compared it side by side with the MHG and even with the steady view of the Canon I preferred the view of the bird through the MHG.

I could make out smaller differences in shading and color with the MHG and the bird was just more stunning in the MHG, whereas, it was just dull and unexciting in the Canon.

I think you are making a BIG mistake, trading an MHG 8x42 for a Canon 10x42 IS-L. You will still have the MHG in 10 years, and you don't have to change the batteries with that frail battery door on the Canon that you scratch every time you try to open it.

I doubt you will have the Canon in 10 years. There is a reason very few professional birders us an IS binocular like the Canon 10x42 IS-L. You never ever see ANY when birding.
 
The Canon 10x42 IS-L constantly focuses and refocuses when you are looking at a bird, producing optical artifacts that are very distracting.
Utter nonsense.
You will still have the MHG in 10 years, and you don't have to change the batteries with that frail battery door on the Canon that you scratch every time you try to open it.
"Frail battery door"? More utter nonsense.
There is a reason very few professional birders us an IS binocular like the Canon 10x42 IS-L. You never ever see ANY when birding.
"You never see ANY when birding"? You might want to get out more.

Hermann
 
Utter nonsense.

"Frail battery door"? More utter nonsense.

"You never see ANY when birding"? You might want to get out more.

Hermann
Great glass for sure, but I do find the image shift a little annoying. When you have the IS engaged and your observing a stationary object or following a slow moving object it’s fine, but when your panning and look at another object in the same focus area, it takes a second to focus in, it’s like a lag. The more you pan, the more annoying.
 
Utter nonsense.

"Frail battery door"? More utter nonsense.

"You never see ANY when birding"? You might want to get out more.

Hermann
The image shifting, focusing and refocusing and optical artifacts are the greatest weakness of IS binoculars. All these optical aberrations make the IS binoculars not worth the advantages of a steady image.

"There was some image drift or shift, annoying at times, but not a dealbreaker to anybody. Focusing is a little slow. One thing noticed by everyone was that when observing an object on a branch at distance, then moving up the branch it appears it’s out of focus for a second, then moving back down the branch, same thing. I believe or equate this to the image shift/drift and the IS function delay. Some older observers didn’t like it. I got used to it."

I and many other people have observed optical artifacts in the Canon IS binoculars, and it bothers some people more than others where the IS system seems to create image shift when it stabilizes the image or the focus softens when the IS is engaged. The newer Canons are improved in this area, but I still saw it in the recent pair of Canon 10x42 IS-L I had.

Also, in Ken Rockwell's excellent review of the Fujinon 14x40 Techno-Stabi binoculars, he talks about the softening of the image in Canon IS binoculars.

Fujinon 14x40 Techno-Stabi
I found that the Canons get softer when there IS is ON.
Even though much less sharp than Leicas or good Nikon's, the Canons allowed me to read handwriting 75 feet (25 m) away because of their stabilized image. Other binoculars impressed me with their sharpness, but since their images wiggle even in my rock-steady grip, I couldn't actually read the fine details.

These Fujinons impressed me because they have stabilization as well as the sharpness of the other high-end non-stabilized binoculars. They are the best of both worlds. They don't get softer with stabilization ON.

These Fujinons use solid-glass shifting prisms to stabilize the image. Canon uses mushy fluid-filled wet-bag prisms, which is why I suspect the Canons get softer with IS active. With IS, the Canons often have a constant dithering of the edges; artifacts of the interaction of the IS system with the motions it's attempting to counter. The Fujinons have none of these problems and lock down a sharp, rock-stable image. The Canons fade in and out of sharpness.

I'd rather a Canon IS over Leica for utility (Leica still wins at mechanical build quality), and I bought (whoops, asked Santa to get me) these Fujinons because of their greater sharpness and contrast over the Canons.

Other folks have emailed me that they prefer the Canons, and I'm a little confused at that. I've never seen these Fujinons at retail. I only saw them at an industry trade show, where I also was able to compare them directly to the Canons and Leicas and Nikon's and everything else. The differences are obvious and repeatable. The Canons get soft with the IS on; they are OK with it off, but who cares how sharp they are with IS off? With further questioning of these Internet reports, it seems none of them had ever actually seen these Fujinons. I only saw them at a huge industry trade show where every vendor brought everything in their catalogs. You may be able to find the Nikon Stabileyes, which seem identical, at retail for comparison against the Canons.

I tried the Canons again (18x50). The Canons are sharp with the IS off, but turning IS on softens the image as the mush-prisms do their work. The stabilized images softly fade in and out of sharpness as Canon's wet bag prisms wiggle around.

The Fujinons use sold glass prisms in rotating gimbals, so no quality is lost as they deflect to counter motion. The Fujinons are as sharp with IS on or off; their prisms always have parallel sides. The Canons' wet bags are deflected from parallel (made trapezoidal) to counter motion as it happens. Look for yourself: the Canons fade in and out of sharpness; it's not your imagination. The Fujinons stay sharp. Who cares how sharp they are with IS off? I bought these to use with IS ON.

Also, Scopeviews review of the Canon 12x36 IS III talks about the focus shift.



Canon 12x36 IS Binoculars Review

scopeviews.co.uk
scopeviews.co.uk
"However, compared to the smaller model, the 12x36s take longer to settle after hitting the button. Even when they have settled down, here are those weird artifacts in the view that I had experienced with the 18x50s and not found with the 10x30s. In particular, I found a cyclic shift in focus disturbing: over the course of a few seconds, the focus would blur out and then sharpen again. The 12x36s didn’t take well to being panned either, making a chattering noise and giving a strange jerkiness to the edges of the view."


 
Last edited:
Firstly, the Fujinons, at least the older 14x40s have an annoying jiggling that makes them unusable for me and others.
The image is clean and good but the jiggling unacceptable to me.

I did estimate the amplitude and frequency but cannot remember what they are.

Yes, indeed, tripod mounted IS binoculars with IS off are sharper than hand held with IS on.

However, for revealing unknown detail hand held IS binoculars completely outclass any hand held normal binocular.

Just repeatedly digging out quotes to suit completely one sided opinions, and frequently completely contradicting oneself is no way to convince anybody that these comments can be taken seriously.

Some comments are indeed useful, but about 90% aren't.

I have been using IS binoculars for 25 years including the Zeiss and when detail is needed they are the ones to use.

For other observations where fine detail isn't needed I use non IS binoculars.

For birdwatchers though, the majority use non IS binoculars, although some do use IS binoculars sometimes as their only binoculars.

B.
 
Yes, indeed, tripod mounted IS binoculars with IS off are sharper than hand held with IS on.
Agreed. Nothing beats a good tripod.
However, for revealing unknown detail hand held IS binoculars completely outclass any hand held normal binocular.
Absolutely. And the difference isn't subtle, even at low magnifications.
Just repeatedly digging out quotes to suit completely one sided opinions, and frequently completely contradicting oneself is no way to convince anybody that these comments can be taken seriously.
That's why I assigned Dennis once again to my ignore list. Shouldn't have taken him off, actually.
I have been using IS binoculars for 25 years including the Zeiss and when detail is needed they are the ones to use.

For other observations where fine detail isn't needed I use non IS binoculars.
I only use non IS binoculars if I carry a scope+tripod/monopod as well.

Hermann
 
Firstly, the Fujinons, at least the older 14x40s have an annoying jiggling that makes them unusable for me and others.
The image is clean and good but the jiggling unacceptable to me.

I did estimate the amplitude and frequency but cannot remember what they are.

Yes, indeed, tripod mounted IS binoculars with IS off are sharper than hand held with IS on.

However, for revealing unknown detail hand held IS binoculars completely outclass any hand held normal binocular.

Just repeatedly digging out quotes to suit completely one sided opinions, and frequently completely contradicting oneself is no way to convince anybody that these comments can be taken seriously.

Some comments are indeed useful, but about 90% aren't.

I have been using IS binoculars for 25 years including the Zeiss and when detail is needed they are the ones to use.

For other observations where fine detail isn't needed I use non IS binoculars.

For birdwatchers though, the majority use non IS binoculars, although some do use IS binoculars sometimes as their only binoculars.

B.
That is the first time I heard about the Fujinon's jiggling, but they have artifacts also and that could be what you are talking about. True, an IS will reveal more detail, but on the downside you have to put up with the artifacts the IS system creates.

There is constant focusing and refocusing and softening of the image as the IS engages. You might see more 'detail' with an IS binocular because it is steady, but the view of the bird is not as good as with an alpha level binocular or even a high quality mid-tiered binocular like the MHG IMO.

The only IS binocular I have used that didn't have artifacts was the Zeiss 20x60 S because it doesn't use electronics but rather a gyro and magnet system to stabilize the image. It was not as efficient at steadying large hand movements, though, and I didn't care for the narrow FOV of the 20x magnification.

Your last statement just proves my point. There are many reasons the majority of birders don't use IS binoculars, but rather stick with a lightweight traditional binocular like the Nikon MHG 8x42.

I prefer to use a high quality 8x42 for most of my birding and a good spotter scope and tripod when I want a closer look at a bird, and every professional guide I have used does the same.

I have never had a professional guide in Costa Rica use a Canon 10x42 IS-L. Most of the time they have a beat up old Leica Trinovid BN 8x32 or 8x42 and a spotter on a tripod carried over the shoulder.

I think if you showed up for a guided birding trip in Costa Rica with a Canon 10x42 IS-L I am sure they would be snickering behind your back.

They spot the bird FAST by sight and sound and ID it with the Leica's and plop the spotter on the ground, and everybody takes pictures of the Quetzal with their cameras through the spotter.

I guarantee you they don't mess around with batteries or pushing buttons on an IS binocular. By then the bird might be gone. I doubt a Canon 10x42 IS-L would endure a week in the rain forest at Monteverde.

Most birders don't care to carry the considerable weight of a Canon 10x42 IS-L and put up with its lousy ergonomics and uncomfortable eye cups, and they prefer not to have to worry about carrying enough batteries to get through the day.

The Nikon MHG 8x42 also has a wider FOV, better DOF, easier eye placement, and it is brighter than the Canon 10x42 IS-L making it much easier to spot and follow birds.

The Canon 10x42 IS-L is a specialist binocular and might be good for long range spotting of birds, but for an all around birding binocular I will take the MHG 8x42 any day and I would bet 99% of birders would also.


No Canon 10x42 IS-L's here. Mostly beat up old Leica BN Trinovid 8x42's.
Costa Rica Pictures 121.JPG
 
Last edited:
Thumbs up for Binastro's post #27 above.
I have not tried Fujinon and Nikon stabilised binoculars often, but whenever I did, I noticed the jitter and found it highly annoying. Canon 10x42 works fine for me. The focus does not change when IS is on, but de-focus you were not aware of in a jiggly hand-held image becomes noticeable in a stable one, and whatever artefacts there are can be misinterpreted as poor focus.
 
My current 8x42 is ok for general viewing and birding. Just that I see jittery movements which I'm quite annoyed of and a little more zoom of 10x or 12x will be preferred.
As I believe Hermann mentioned, going from 8x to 10x may not be enough.

I had a somewhat similar situation that might be relevant.

I had a small collection of binoculars on demo before I settled on an 8x42 SLC and then I added a 16x42 OIS. That was two years ago, in 2022.

The 16x42 were very good for stabilization, but the image quality was mediocre so I sold them.

I missed the magnification and bought the 15x50 Canon later in 2022 and it has been my most used optic since. Better image compared to the 16x42. I carry it with an Op/Tech shoulder strap along my side while taking the dog on long walks. It's mostly urban/suburban here but there are greenspace/wetlands mixed in, a few parks, and a small airport nearby. I'd say that my primary interest is watching the herons hunt and the aircraft. There has been nesting pairs of osprey as well. I like to observe all sorts of creatures, landscapes, etc. But I don't ID or track birds per se. I just like to observe the environment.

Anyway, I took the 8x42 on some of these long walks too, but every time I wish I had the 15x so I stopped!

I recently sold the SLC. I loved the image but the weight vs capability didn't add up for me. I also put my 15x50 up for sale and then came back to my senses. They are not perfect but very capable.

It may seem crazy, but I could almost get by with the 15x50 and nothing else. But I would want the shoulder strap! The exception to that would be when flying, and limited to a small carryon bag. I need something smaller.

I would just suggest that if you do try any of the bigger Canon models to just dedicate a decent period of time with them. May not be possible with return policies, but I found that after awhile the eyecup issues, jittery image, size, weight, ergonomics, shallow DOF, etc. became almost insignificant. If I had to carry the 15x50 around my neck or in a chest pouch, it would be different though!
 
I would take MHG over most 10x42l, IMO. The MHG has advantages of edge to edge clarity and it deals with glare and flaring much better.
That's not my experience at all. After using the 10x42 IS L for several years now, I think I can safely say that its glare resistance is far better than that of the great majority of roofs. Edge sharpness is also excellent.

Hermann
 
Last edited:
I can't speak to the Canon 10x42, but I have not noticed any flare/glare from the 15x50. And the FOV is sharp and usable nearly to the very edge, unlike the 16x42 OIS that I had prior.
 
That's not my experience at all. After using the 10x42 IS L for several years now, I think I can safely say that its glare resistance is far better than that of the great majority of roofs. Edge sharpness is also excellent.

Hermann
We all have our opinion and perspective at looking at things. Thanks for the insight about the 10x42L.
 
That's not my experience at all. After using the 10x42 IS L for several years now, I think I can safely say that its glare resistance is far better than that of the great majority of roofs. Edge sharpness is also excellent.

Hermann
Edge sharpness is excellent on the Canon 42 because it has field flatteners that actually work, unlike the MHG 😉🤭.
 
Edge sharpness is excellent on the Canon 42 because it has field flatteners that actually work, unlike the MHG 😉🤭.
Some Tips on Binocular Edge Sharpness

The only binocular that has sharper edges than the Canon 10x42 IS-L is the Swarovski EL and NL. The EL's edges are just slightly sharper than the NL. The edges are sharper on the Nikon EDG than the Nikon MHG.

Usually the sharper the edges and the flatter the field, the more RB you will see. That is why Swarovski just slightly reduced the field flattening on the NL to avoid RB. The EL has the most RB when panning because it has the strongest field flatteners.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too. Sharp edges and a flat field mean RB is going to be there.

The EL is the 'King' of sharp edges, followed by the NL and then the Canon 10x42 IS-L, and then the Nikon EDG, and then the Zeiss SF and then the Swarovski SLC.

The Swarovski SLC has the least sharp edges of the Swarovski's outside of the Habicht porros.

The Habicht porro has soft edges, but they are not noticeable or distracting in the way that Kowa's are. The Habicht has a more gradual fall off of sharpness at the edge, whereas, the Kowas falloff is more abrupt, making it more noticeable.

With Kowa's you can see a noticeable ring of softness around the edge of the FOV even when you are looking on-axis. I really notice this on the Genesis Prominars.

The older huge FOV porros some having 13 degree FOV's had soft edges in general which I find distracting. FOV can get too large in some of these.

None of the Leica's have sharp edges. They almost always have fall off at the edges, even the Noctivid. The Noctivid though has the sharpest edges of the Leica's. It is Leica's first attempt at Field Flattening. The Retrovid, UVHD and Trinovid all have soft edges.

Sharp edges and flat fields are not a Leica thing. Saturated colors are. Leica has stayed with this design philosophy for years and because of this have not kept up with Swarovski and Zeiss in flat field and large FOV binocular advancements.

Leica's have soft edges, but you do not notice them the way you do Kowa's. If you notice soft edges or not or they are distracting depends on how the optics are designed.

Almost ALL Swarovski's have sharp edges, except for the Habicht porros. Even the compact Curios's 7x21, 8x25 CL-P and the 8x30 CL have sharp edges. That is a trademark characteristic of Swarovski's.

Some binoculars that have soft edges are more noticeable than others. Kowa's in general have soft edges that are more noticeable than say the Nikon MHG.

The noticeably soft edges on Kowa's are a big reason I don't personally care for Kowa's in general. I notice the soft edges on Kowas, and it detracts from the view.

If you like sharp edges, stick with Swarovski's. Some like the EL though will have the Absam Ring which is a slight ring before the very edge that is slightly less sharp. The NL doesn't have the Absam Ring anymore.

The ONLY Zeiss that has fairly sharp edges are the SF's. None of the older Zeiss, including the FL's, HT's or Dialyt's have sharp edges. They all have fall off at the edges.

So if you like sharp edges, the only Zeiss you will like is the SF.

If you like a huge FOV with a flat field and sharp edges, get the Nikon WX. It has the biggest, flattest FOV with sharp edges that you can get, but it weighs 5 pounds, has IF and costs $6000.

The Nikon SE has quite sharp edges for a porro. The E2 less so even though it has a huge FOV. The E2 has considerable fall off at the edges.

Really, the MHG doesn't have very sharp edges for a binocular that is supposed to have field flatteners, but at least they aren't distracting. You don't notice them that much except maybe subconsciously, unless you deliberately look at the edge.

I really like sharp edges, that is why I notice which binoculars have the sharpest. I always look at the edges to see how sharp they are.

This conversation is getting kind of edgy, I think I better leave.😬
 
Last edited:
Edge sharpness is excellent on the Canon 42 because it has field flatteners that actually work, unlike the MHG 😉🤭.
I see this point raised all the time. Surely the fact that the MHG has a bigger FOV plays a role? Maybe the inner 6.5º of the MHG is equally sharp as the whole field of the Canon. The same thing with the case of EDG vs MHG.
After all I am not sure if it is instead a large AFOV makes it complicated to correct aberrations rather than a big FOV. The AFOV of the MHG is not super wide, 62-63º according to Canip, not so far from other binos that have a smaller FOV.
 
Some Tips on Binocular Edge Sharpness

The only binocular that has sharper edges than the Canon 10x42 IS-L is the Swarovski EL and NL. The EL's edges are just slightly sharper than the NL. The edges are sharper on the Nikon EDG than the Nikon MHG.

Usually the sharper the edges and the flatter the field, the more RB you will see. That is why Swarovski just slightly reduced the field flattening on the NL to avoid RB. The EL has the most RB when panning because it has the strongest field flatteners.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too. Sharp edges and a flat field mean RB is going to be there.

The EL is the 'King' of sharp edges, followed by the NL and then the Canon 10x42 IS-L, and then the Nikon EDG, and then the Zeiss SF and then the Swarovski SLC.

The Swarovski SLC has the least sharp edges of the Swarovski's outside of the Habicht porros.

The Habicht porro has soft edges, but they are not noticeable or distracting in the way that Kowa's are. The Habicht has a more gradual fall off of sharpness at the edge, whereas, the Kowas falloff is more abrupt, making it more noticeable.

With Kowa's you can see a noticeable ring of softness around the edge of the FOV even when you are looking on-axis. Ireally notice this on the Genesis Prominars.

The older huge FOV porros some having 13 degree FOV's had soft edges in general which I find distracting. FOV can get too large in some of these.

None of the Leica's have sharp edges. They almost always have fall off at the edges, even the Noctivid. The Noctivid though has the sharpest edges of the Leica's. It is Leica's first attempt at Field Flattening. The Retrovid, UVHD and Trinovid all have soft edges.

Sharp edges and flat fields are not a Leica thing. Saturated colors are. Leica has stayed with this design philosophy for years and because of this have not kept up with Swarovski and Zeiss in flat field and large FOV binocular advancements.

Leica's have soft edges, but you do not notice them the way you do Kowa's. If you notice soft edges or not or they are distracting depends on how the optics are designed.

Almost ALL Swarovski's have sharp edges, except for the Habicht porros. Even the compact Curios's 7x21, 8x25 CL-P and the 8x30 CL have sharp edges. That is a trademark characteristic of Swarovski's.

Some binoculars that have soft edges are more noticeable than others. Kowa's in general have soft edges that are more noticeable than say the Nikon MHG.

The noticeably soft edges on Kowa's are a big reason I don't personally care for Kowa's in general. I notice the soft edges on Kowas, and it detracts from the view.

If you like sharp edges, stick with Swarovski's. Some like the EL though will have the Absam Ring which is a slight ring before the very edge that is slightly less sharp. The NL doesn't have the Absam Ring anymore.

The ONLY Zeiss that has fairly sharp edges are the SF's. None of the older Zeiss, including the FL's, HT's or Dialyt's have sharp edges. They all have fall off at the edges.

So if you like sharp edges, the only Zeiss you will like is the SF.

If you like a huge FOV with a flat field and sharp edges, get the Nikon WX. It has the biggest, flattest FOV with sharp edges that you can get, but it weighs 5 pounds, has IF and costs $6000.

The Nikon SE has quite sharp edges for a porro. The E2 less so even though it has a huge FOV. The E2 has considerable fall off at the edges.

Really, the MHG doesn't have very sharp edges for a binocular that is supposed to have field flatteners, but at least they aren't distracting. You don't notice them that much except maybe subconsciously, unless you deliberately look at the edge.

I really like sharp edges, that is why I notice which binoculars have the sharpest. I always look at the edges to see how sharp they are.

This conversation is getting kind of edgy, I think I better leave.😬
New members or beginners who ask about edge sharpness on specific binoculars should print this out and pin it to their wall. Very accurate, I agree with most everything here. I’d like to ad that the Nikon EDG is one of the best with edge sharpness as described, but doesn’t suffer from globe effect like the Swaros or others with field flatteners. The SE is very good in that area as well, flat field with good panning. It seems Nikon really knew how to combine flat fields with excellent panning characteristics. To me it’s surprising that Nikon would go backwards on the quality of field flatteners and yet print/label it right on the MHG barrel. Although I really like the MHG, I think it’s one of the best (if not the best) in its price category , it’s the only binocular that I’ve ever had that has field flatteners but doesn’t have edges like binoculars with flatteners. It’s almost closer Leica Ultravids than Swaros or SF’s.

Although I like binoculars with flat sharp edges, field flatteners and a wide FOV, which undoubtably brings a very impressive image, I still look to the center image quality and characteristic of the binoculars more. It’s why I think I lean towards Leica more than the others. I’ll grab an Ultravid or retro more times than my SF’s or EL/NL’s. It’s like id miss the characteristics of the Leica more than I would miss the sharp and flat wide field of the Zeiss and Swaro. Imo the Noctivid is going in the direction of combining both , flat field , but still good edges and good panning characteristics while keeping that Leica image, of course if they can keep that characteristic and ad a wider field of view that would be great.
 
I see this point raised all the time. Surely the fact that the MHG has a bigger FOV plays a role? Maybe the inner 6.5º of the MHG is equally sharp as the whole field of the Canon. The same thing with the case of EDG vs MHG.
After all I am not sure if it is instead a large AFOV makes it complicated to correct aberrations rather than a big FOV. The AFOV of the MHG is not super wide, 62-63º according to Canip, not so far from other binos that have a smaller FOV.
That is true to a point, and it is complicated and expensive to have a large AFOV WITH sharp edges.

It takes a much more complicated eyepiece with more elements in it, and hence usually makes the binocular a little heavier and bigger and most importantly more expensive.

You can see this in the Zeiss SF and Swarovski NL, which both have a huge AFOV with sharp edges. What is most important is if the binocular does have softer edges, are they designed to be gradual or abrupt.

If they are abrupt like in most Kowas you will notice them more, but if they are gradual like in the Nikon MHG they are not as noticeable to your eyes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top