A Monarch 7 8x30 for a couple of days (1 Viewer)

[oetzi]

A friend of mine wanted to buy a new bino as a present for her husband. Intended for hiking, canoeing and bicyclng it had to be small enough without being a compact. I helped her decide on a Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, which was available for € 252,- delivered. It arrived at my doorstep, so the hubbie wouldnt be suspicious and I can handle it a couple of days before delivering it.

Today I only did some pictures and had a look at glare/flare. Serial-No. 0007391, this is what I saw, in a short time, in random notes.

The sun was up in cloudless sky, beaming down at an angle of ca. 30°, calculated by measurements of the pole and its shadow.

Holding the M7 level, there was. serious glare in the lower quarter of the FOV. Reflexions from the eyepieces, because I could watch my own eyes. Not much veiling glare to be seen.

By varying the angle of the M7 in the vertical plane, this glare gradually grew worse, up to 50% of the FOV. Sometimes this glare was slanted to left and ricght, depending on the position of the bino in relation to the sun.
In an area +/- 15-20° to the sun, horizontal angle, these glare-sensations were happening. At shallower angles it went down quickly to zero.

By comparison with Swaro EL 8x32 WB, 8x30 EII and Aculon 7x35:

The EII showed a tiny bit more veiling glare, very small amounts of eyepiece glare.
Ditto Aculon.
Ditto slight glare in the lower parts of the Swaro, compared with huge amounts at the M7.

At last the tint of the M7:
A smidgen warmer than the EII.
Much warmer than the Swaro.
Much, much warmer than the Aculon, which is pretty neutral.


Mind, this was quick and dirty work. No in-depth comparison.
Lots of pics, though.

I hope, I got the technical terms right. With "flare" I mean the translucent curtain of light, which softens up the image. "Glare" are this bright, whiteish areas which cover parts of the image,

 

[Swedpat]

Thanks for your review!

I am planning to get a compact or semi-compact binocular and like the design of this Nikon. It seems to be pretty compact size for an 8x30. Actually it looks like it's not much larger sized than the new Swarovski 8x25. Of course the Swarovski is optically superior, but for twice the price.

 

[oetzi]

Its much smaller in the hand, than the pictures make it appear.
IMO a perfect small-sized companion.
And with today experiences, I do know the "zone" (in relation to the sun) where this bino suffers.

 

[paddy7]

I've done similar tests with an M7. I can encourage the crescent of glare in the bottom quadrant when looking under a low, bright sun, but haven't experienced this 'veiling glare' of everything contrasting out. To be honest, i'm not sure what bin would give you a bird i.d. in these circumstances anyway, and would usually employ some kind of field craft to get round to a better angle on it.
In almost all circumstances, i find the M7 8x30 a really handy, wide, bright little set, and like it a lot. I can't compare it to the others mentioned, but i have encountered optics much more expensive with more irritating properties than this occasional glare, which can normally be negated by moving a bit!

 

[CliveP]

I think I got lost in all the trigonometry oetzi.

I think I would be blind if I tried this?
"In an area +/- 15-20° to the sun, horizontal angle, these glare-sensations were happening. At shallower angles it went down quickly to zero."

I didn't get any glare in similar sounding circumstances with my E2 yesterday so I'm surprised to read you say it was even worse than the terrible sounding M7.

Actually it was possible to induce a little but I had to contort the E2 to a awkward angle to even get that and that was the only time in all my usage that I ever saw any type of glare with the E2.

Was considering swapping my E2 for a 7 but if the 7 has such glare problems then this would not seem sensible for me to do although paddy7 doesn't seem to have experienced any real glare issue with the M7?

Confusion reigns however thanks for the photos oetzi. Good to see how nice and compact the E2 is beside the 7.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I think I got lost in all the trigonometry oetzi.

I think I would be blind if I tried this?
"In an area +/- 15-20° to the sun, horizontal angle, these glare-sensations were happening. At shallower angles it went down quickly to zero."

I didn't get any glare in similar sounding circumstances with my E2 yesterday so I'm surprised to read you say it was even worse than the terrible sounding M7.

Actually it was possible to induce a little but I had to contort the E2 to a awkward angle to even get that and that was the only time in all my usage that I ever saw any type of glare with the E2.

Was considering swapping my E2 for a 7 but if the 7 has such glare problems then this would not seem sensible for me to do although paddy7 doesn't seem to have experienced any real glare issue with the M7?

Confusion reigns however thanks for the photos oetzi. Good to see how nice and compact the E2 is beside the 7.

I compared a Nikon M7 8x30 to my other binoculars which are an EII, SV 8x32 and a Leica Trinovid 8x32 BA and it was easily the worst of the lot for glare. The Nikon M7 8x30 is a "Glare Monster" I don't care what anybody says. I see it with my own eyes. I have tried them twice one just recently and returned them both.

 

[brocknroller]

A friend of mine wanted to buy a new bino as a present for her husband. Intended for hiking, canoeing and bicyclng it had to be small enough without being a compact. I helped her decide on a Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, which was available for € 252,- delivered. It arrived at my doorstep, so the hubbie wouldnt be suspicious and I can handle it a couple of days before delivering it.

Today I only did some pictures and had a look at glare/flare. Serial-No. 0007391, this is what I saw, in a short time, in random notes.

The sun was up in cloudless sky, beaming down at an angle of ca. 30°, calculated by measurements of the pole and its shadow.

Holding the M7 level, there was. serious glare in the lower quarter of the FOV. Reflexions from the eyepieces, because I could watch my own eyes. Not much veiling glare to be seen.

By varying the angle of the M7 in the vertical plane, this glare gradually grew worse, up to 50% of the FOV. Sometimes this glare was slanted to left and ricght, depending on the position of the bino in relation to the sun.
In an area +/- 15-20° to the sun, horizontal angle, these glare-sensations were happening. At shallower angles it went down quickly to zero.

By comparison with Swaro EL 8x32 WB, 8x30 EII and Aculon 7x35:

The EII showed a tiny bit more veiling glare, very small amounts of eyepiece glare.
Ditto Aculon.
Ditto slight glare in the lower parts of the Swaro, compared with huge amounts at the M7.

At last the tint of the M7:
A smidgen warmer than the EII.
Much warmer than the Swaro.
Much, much warmer than the Aculon, which is pretty neutral.


Mind, this was quick and dirty work. No in-depth comparison.
Lots of pics, though.

I hope, I got the technical terms right. With "flare" I mean the translucent curtain of light, which softens up the image. "Glare" are this bright, whiteish areas which cover parts of the image,

So that's the 8x32 EL next to the 8x30 M7? It looks like a full-sized roof by comparison. You can clearly see the advantage of the M7 in terms of its size, and it's also about 5 oz. lighter.

From reading all the reports of the veiling glare in the M7 and one report where there were no unpainted parts in the objective tubes, yet flare still was bothersome it appears there's more going on with this issue than the unpainted objective housing parts alone.

The sample I tried did a good job of handling flare/glare. I could induce it only by pointing the M7 close to the sun, and even then, the flaring wasn't more than the EII. So it was a "cherry."

What else might be going on with the M7 beyond the unpa9inted parts in the objective housings, I don't know. It seems to be user dependent, with some commenting that by repositioning their eyes, they can make the flaring go away.

I really like the 8x30 M7, but it sounds like it would be a "crap shoot" if I were to buy one as to whether or not the flare would be bothersome, depending on the sample. Nikon should have addressed this issue by now, and perhaps they have but since they don't do recalls like auto manufacturers, some "bad" samples might still be out there on store shelves.

At least one owner reported Nikon fixing the problem, so I think there's hope if you send it to Nikon, they will send you a better sample.

Brock

 

[ads]

The EII showed a tiny bit more veiling glare

Than? It wasn't clear which binocular your statement was in reference to.

 

[Howard220]

It's time for me to chime in. I've owned the 8x30 M7 (s/n a shade above 8000) for nearly 3 weeks, and I find it so good for my needs I really need look no further for another binocular. (I've been searching for my "perfect" binocular for quite a few years.)

I am no expert at inducing flare or veiling glare as some of you are purported to be, but I hardly see any in these M7's under just about any conditions. Granted, I don't look into the sun, so.... I do know what veiling glare is; it's awful in my Nikon 9x25 Travelite V's. I'm not going to deliberately go looking for it. Instead, I'll let it find me, and so far it has not. I don't think anyone has anything to be concerned about these issues in M7's anymore.

 

[CliveP]

Good news Howard. I think glare wouldn't bother me as much as purple/yellow fringing i.e. CA

How are the M7 in that regard. It's quite annoying with the E2 I bought and that's really why I think I need to change them. Even my cheap 8x25 Hawke are better in that regard with no fringing at all but can have a lot of glare but only occasionally. The E20 have damn fringing almost always and I really dislike that.

Do you notice a lot of purple edging against backlit objects such as tree branches or birds against the sky? Would be really helpful to know. Thanks.

 

[paddy7]

I think i'm very susceptible to CA, and have noticed hardly any in the M7. As for the glare issue, i can get it if i look under a low sun, and in the lower quadrant as a small crescent. I've had this with other bins too.
If you're going to compare the M7 8x30 to bins costing a lot more, you're going to find something lacking. If you go like-for-like and price-for-price, they're quite an exceptional little set. Wide, bright, seemingly fairly rugged and pocket sized. I wouldn't go looking for owls with them, but they do pretty well up to passerine roost time.

 

[CliveP]

I think i'm very susceptible to CA, and have noticed hardly any in the M7. As for the glare issue, i can get it if i look under a low sun, and in the lower quadrant as a small crescent. I've had this with other bins too.
If you're going to compare the M7 8x30 to bins costing a lot more, you're going to find something lacking. If you go like-for-like and price-for-price, they're quite an exceptional little set. Wide, bright, seemingly fairly rugged and pocket sized. I wouldn't go looking for owls with them, but they do pretty well up to passerine roost time.

Thanks Paddy. The CA with the E2 really put me off them today. It can crop up seemingly anywhere anytime and with such a wide view it's always there somewhere be it mostly around the outer view but it happens right down the middle also. It's just unacceptable in a supposed quality birding bin. I'm sick of seeing purple/yellow blobs moving across the sky. How can that be a good bin for birding? unless mine is really faulty?

Think I'll see about getting a 10x30 M7 tomorrow. Even if it's less bright or whatever if it doesn't have CA all over the place I'll take it. I had a cheap Hawke 10x32 before that used to show CA but it still wasn't as annoying as these E2. Albinos review shows the E2 to have no CA in the centre but that has not been my experience. I actually saw a whole purple oak tree the other day whereas with my Hawke Sapphire there would not have been event the slightest purple.

I think I need to cut my losses with this E2 as I know long term that the CA will drive me crazy.

 

[paddy7]

There's a lot i can forgive binoculars for - but not CA! It does seem some see it where others don't, but once you have, you find it all the time. My comments have all been regarding the 8x M7, and i haven't tried the 10x,; you won't get as much of that wide view with the bigger mag.
I found it quite astonishing the first time i used the 8x - that a view that wide could be got through a little roof, having been used to a Travelite 8x25 reverse porro, which physically is no smaller, but very restrictive on FoV.

 

[CliveP]

There's a lot i can forgive binoculars for - but not CA! It does seem some see it where others don't, but once you have, you find it all the time. My comments have all been regarding the 8x M7, and i haven't tried the 10x,; you won't get as much of that wide view with the bigger mag.
I found it quite astonishing the first time i used the 8x - that a view that wide could be got through a little roof, having been used to a Travelite 8x25 reverse porro, which physically is no smaller, but very restrictive on FoV.

Yes, I already have the 8x43 Sapphire at 426ft so that will be my wide view and low light bin. I thought get a 10x just to at least have one although I agree the 8x30 would certainly probably be the better all-rounder. I've had a few 10x over the years and I usually get on with them ok. The 10x30 M7 has an evenbigger APOV than the 8x and also slightly more eyerelief so should certainly be interesting and unless there are any major problems with it then I will keep it. I expected a lot from the E2 but the CA of the type it has is just a no-no. I can tolerate some CA but I never like it. Just makes the Hawkes seem amazing in that you never have to even think about it with them especially good for birds in flight but they do lack some of the Nikon colour richness and I believe the M7 is quite warm in tone? moreso even than the E2 which by comparison can make the Hawkes somewhat bland looking at times. So trade offs with everything.

 

[F88]

I compared a Nikon M7 8x30 to my other binoculars which are an EII, SV 8x32 and a Leica Trinovid 8x32 BA and it was easily the worst of the lot for glare. The Nikon M7 8x30 is a "Glare Monster" I don't care what anybody says. I see it with my own eyes. I have tried them twice one just recently and returned them both.

I strongly agree with Dennis.
The M7 8x30 suffers from glare more than any other binoculars I've tried. Sometimes it can go unnoticed and when it does they are quite good for their tiny size but when it shows it's terrible and it can happen when you wouldn't particularly think it would.
I participated in another thread where this wasn't the main topic but came up and in that thread I mentioned how I never sought out glare or even remotely pointed them at the sun, it just happened and then with further use became evident that there were too many situations where glare completely washed out the view of colour and contrast.
I really wanted to like the little M7 and even thought I could relegate them to a backpack pair but the "Glare Monster" won and they had to go.
I'm happy to hear that people are having success with them but for me the above was their "fatal flaw".

 

[paddy7]

There was quite an extensive debate of this glare issue on another thread (i think concerning veiling glare within the Nikon section). One avenue of exploration was whether earlier M7s suffered from it, with Nikon possibly addressing it in later models. The OP refers to reflections in the oculars, and i wondered if anyone has tried those fancy 'anti-glare' accessories as used with Steiner bins?
While i can't say they're glare-free, my experience with the M7 (including several trips out trying to induce it) certainly don't put it in the 'glare-monster' category.
For anyone interested:
http://www.allbinos.com/index.php?test=lornetki&test_l=272

 

[paddy7]

I'm going to experiment. I just ordered a pair of Avian winged eyecups, and will slam them on the M7s and try to get to the bottom of this glare thing - does it come from stray light into the oculars, or from some other problem with internal reflective surfaces?
Will post something when there's something to report.

 

[BruceH]

Paddy7,

Good luck with the experimenting. I hope you can find out something definitive.

I bought a M7 8X30 last September and had only one glare incident, which was close to a total washout. The conditions were such that any binocular would have struggled.

The location was in a small river valley in the AZ high country with pine tree covered mountain ridges. The sun was coming up and was just under the ridge, but there was bright sunlight coming through the trees on top of the ridge. I was looking near the top of the ridge directly in line with the sun when seeing the wash out. However, by putting one hand over the top of the objectives as a shield, the wash out went away and the view was amazingly clear considering the conditions.

I was curious to see how another binocular would handle this and got a Nikon EDG 10X42 from the truck to compare. It was about a 10 minute period before returning to the spot and then I was unable to reproduce the wash out with the M7 8X30. The view was poor as would be expected looking toward the sun, but it was not a wash out anymore. The view was somewhat better with the EDG.

I have tried to reproduce the wash out a few times since by viewing mountain sides with the sun just below the ridge, but have not been able to do so. Other than that one incident, which would give any binocular fits, the M7 has handled glare as well or better than many other binoculars. Based on my experience, there can be situations where glare shows, but it has not shown itself to be anywhere close to a glare machine.

There are a few posts from members sending them in to Nikon for some form of upgrade. I have considered that, but have not done so yet because it has not really been a problem and since I can not consistently reproduce the glare, I have no way of confirming any improvement. I will be interested in knowing if you find a consistent way to get the glare to show.

You might want to consider Henry's comments on this issue when setting up your experiments.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2955784&postcount=25
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2998123&postcount=87


I doubt Nikon has made any changes since some people with early models did not have issues, and some with new models do. I also doubt there are some with unpainted rings but instead some of the rings used in each unit are a lighter shade and they can look unpainted depending on the angle and brightness of the flashlight used to inspect the internals.

It has been a puzzle to me why some see the wash outs regularly and others do not. There are two things that come to mind after considering what Henry said. One is the user many have not taken the time to properly adjust the IPD setting so they are more likely to get glare than when all is centered. The other thought has to do with pupil dilation. If your eyes are more dilated, then they may be catching the reflected light of the exit pupil. That may explain why I am unable to reproduce my experience. It was quite a bit brighter ten minutes later when I went back to the same spot so my pupils were smaller. All subsequent testing has been back in the desert low country under a brighter morning sky.

The little Monarch 7 is a great binocular with it's light weight, small size but easy to hold body, and a great wide bright view. The only complaints are somewhat touchy eye placement (expected with a small exit pupil and smaller eye cups of a small binocular) and possible occasional glare incidents that may be resolved by just shielding with the hand. The positives far out weigh the negatives for my purposes.

If you are able to reproduce the wash out, try shielding the top of the objectives with your hand and see if that improves the situation.

I look forward to reading your findings.

 

[paddy7]

Eye placement is definitely a critical factor with the M7; it may be more touchy than most, and there may be some physical facial characteristics of some users (or just lack of patience) that prevent the movement necessary to get it just right. The glare i have seen has been controllable by adjustment.
An interesting point regarding the pupil dilation. I read through Henry's posts and noted that the use of winged eye cups caused pupil dilation as the stray light from the sides was removed.
If the glare comes from the objective end, then the use of the eyecup and the subsequent dilation should make any problem worse. If it comes from stray light into the oculars, as i believe Oetzi suggested, then it should all but disappear.
Please disagree with this logic if you can see a flaw in it, otherwise it will be the basis on which i'll test it!

 

[Howard220]

Clive, my M7 shows a *little* bit of CA around bright tree limbs that are against a bright sky. I just about have to look for it. The amount I see is far less than my Zen-Ray ZRS HD 8x32, which costs half as much. With those, CA is evident, and can even wipe out a backlit bird in a tree at 30 meters, giving it color that isn't really there.

I will let others fight over "glare," as I don't see it in mine -- unless I position the eyepieces "incorrectly." Translation: I can induce it under some conditions, and then it disappears with proper eye placement. Knowing of the issue from the very first report here nearly two years ago I was skeptical when I went to try one out. I spent a fair amount of time outside the camera shop with them, looking at bright objects, through trees, looking everywhere for glare and flare. I couldn't see any, so I bought them.

I do find eye placement a little bit tricky to avoid blackouts, trickier than with the Zen-Rays, but that's a different topic.