Visiting the Bay Area last year was a pretty neat experience for this UK birder. The amount of bird traffic passing through the massive natural gateway that is the Golden Gate - squadrons of cormorants flying out to sea and back, and the big brown pelicans hanging in the wind near the bridge, six to seven pound birds hardly moving their wings, kept aloft by the updraft alone; redtails patrolling the area near the Spencer Battery; Anna's hummingbirds with those spectacular pink heads shining in the sun; peregrines hunting from the Transamerica Pyramid and flocks of those green parrots going around Telegraph Hill. You're in a great location, in which almost any binocular would give great enjoyment and pleasure, let alone one as good as the EL.
-
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.
Alpha-class binocs? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter phiba
- Start date
The forum would be less like a fistfight prone dive and more like a relaxing and enjoyable lounge without him here. I guess some people like barfights, loud and obnoxious drunks and conflict, while some of the rest of us don't! LoL
Paultricounty
Well-known member
It almost looks like the responses are from a bot. The responses literally seem to dismiss the previous posts' points of discussion. For those who are reading this and want true subjective and objective opinions without a personal, biased narrative, even though the MHG thousand is 435ft at a thousand yards to the EDG's 404, the sweet spot is actually even or slighly more than the MHG because of the field flattener that works on the EDG as apposed to the soft edges on the MHG. The EDG image has more pop, sharper than the MHG, and doesn't washout the whites, simply gougous. I have these two together many days with multiple users and most agree with my finding. Build quality is more solid and tougher than the elegant MHG.
Seems like the twenty year old Leica BR, BN opinion doesn't apply to your rationale here. laughable.
Sounds like you had a defective UV, or they were fogged up. We know you sent them back after looking through them for a minute, like the real optical revewer you are.The Habicht 7x42 is way more transparent, much brighter and clearer than the Leica UVHD+ 7x42. When I compared the Habicht 7x42 and I went to the Leica UVHD+ 7x42, I thought the lenses were fogged up they were so cloudy and unclear compared to the Habicht. I packed them up in an hour and sent them back! Good riddens Leica maybe Paultricounty will buy my return. Haha! By the way, those Habicht 7x42 W with the green GA eyecups are butt ugly! Why didn't you buy the Habicht 7x42 GA?
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
The only difference in the Legend designation is the short distance spec increased, everything else is exactly the same. You cant tell the difference side by side, other than the close focus increase.
Thanks Paul, good to have that confirmed.
In my experience the SW late pre-FP 8.5 delivers the most accurate colors in various differing light conditions.
Mike
Oh my... Again?
"Oct 2024 - NLs are simply the best" NL's are simply the best!
Post #1
"I think I have to admit that Swarovski NL's are the best binoculars out there IMO, especially optically. I have tried over 100 binoculars and nothing wows me the way an NL does when I look through them. No other binocular has the huge FOV that is tack sharp right to the edge and comes as close to optical perfection as the NL. You might like the ergonomics or light weight of a Zeiss SFL better or the saturated colors of a Leica Noctivid, but no binocular is as close to being perfect as an NL. The NL's are also very bright and very transparent and no matter what binocular you try when you come back to them, they will wow you. Zeiss SF's are very good and are a little better with glare and CA on the edges, but they have some glare also, and they don't have the sharp edges and perfectly corrected FOV that the NL does.
FOV is very important because it makes it easier to find birds, and you can scan larger areas faster and if a bird suddenly flies to another tree you can follow them easier. The sharp edges of the NL make that huge FOV even more effective because you can see birds at the very edge of the FOV clearly. The Noctivid has great saturated colors, but it doesn't impress with it's relatively small FOV compared to the NL or SF. I think the NL has a combination of great fluorite glass and some of the best coatings in the industry that sets it apart from even other alpha level binoculars. When you look at the objectives on an NL, you see almost no reflections. It almost looks like there is no glass there. That is a testament to how good their coatings are. Not everybody agrees with Allbinos but every time they test an NL it ends up in first place even besting the Nikon WX a binocular that costs $6000 in the 10x50 class. NL's are about the most expensive binoculars out there, and they are the best. I guess it means you get what you pay for.
www.allbinos.com
Last edited: Oct 19, 2024
"Oct 2024 - NLs are simply the best" NL's are simply the best!
Post #1
"I think I have to admit that Swarovski NL's are the best binoculars out there IMO, especially optically. I have tried over 100 binoculars and nothing wows me the way an NL does when I look through them. No other binocular has the huge FOV that is tack sharp right to the edge and comes as close to optical perfection as the NL. You might like the ergonomics or light weight of a Zeiss SFL better or the saturated colors of a Leica Noctivid, but no binocular is as close to being perfect as an NL. The NL's are also very bright and very transparent and no matter what binocular you try when you come back to them, they will wow you. Zeiss SF's are very good and are a little better with glare and CA on the edges, but they have some glare also, and they don't have the sharp edges and perfectly corrected FOV that the NL does.
FOV is very important because it makes it easier to find birds, and you can scan larger areas faster and if a bird suddenly flies to another tree you can follow them easier. The sharp edges of the NL make that huge FOV even more effective because you can see birds at the very edge of the FOV clearly. The Noctivid has great saturated colors, but it doesn't impress with it's relatively small FOV compared to the NL or SF. I think the NL has a combination of great fluorite glass and some of the best coatings in the industry that sets it apart from even other alpha level binoculars. When you look at the objectives on an NL, you see almost no reflections. It almost looks like there is no glass there. That is a testament to how good their coatings are. Not everybody agrees with Allbinos but every time they test an NL it ends up in first place even besting the Nikon WX a binocular that costs $6000 in the 10x50 class. NL's are about the most expensive binoculars out there, and they are the best. I guess it means you get what you pay for.
Binoculars rankings - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.www.allbinos.com
Last edited: Oct 19, 2024
I don't know why your reaction score is so high, it certainly isn't because you know anything!
Most probably agree with your findings about the EDG because you are paying for lunch! Simply gougous! Really! You need a spell checker! Build quality is more long in the tooth on the EDG with all that old-fashioned rubber. It looks like an old Plymouth with whitewalls or something! The HG looks like a new Corvette. Don't drop your EDG because when you send it in to Nikon for repair they will send you a real binocular. A Nikon HG 8x42. I was ready to be wowed by the $2000 Leica UVHD+ 7x42, but it was more like uuuugh! Where's the cheese?
Last edited:
I didn't see the GLARE at first in the NL, but once I did, it hit the chopping block and died an early death on eBay. Frankly at that point I had never compared the NL 8x32 to the HG 8x42 but once I did, I couldn't believe it. The HG 8x42 was brighter, had nearly as big of a FOV, it was just as light, had easier eye placement, and it didn't have the confounded GLARE that the NL has at the bottom of the FOV. The HG 8x42 saved me $1200, and I like that!
@jafritten - from what I have seen (trying my brother's Fieldpro side by side with the "Legend" display units at Birdfair last year) I cannot tell the difference between them optically, although the late versions will have longer short focus. Next time I look through a "Legend" I'll look closely at the edges, but I thought they were really similar in all respects including edge performance. Essentially the entire FOV is sweet spot.
I think Swaro have kinda attempted to do exactly this with the use of the field flattener. I have used my brother's 8.5x Fieldpro on numerous occasions and it has remarkable ease of view/eye placement/"eye box". Yes, it has a 5mm exit pupil, but I really think the much criticised (yet somehow liked enough by buyers that both Zeiss and Leica have incorporated partial field flatteners in their top line products) field flattener helps with this.
Yarkho
Optics afficionado
Phiba, congratulations on an excellent choice of EL 8.5x42. Hope it brings you many great views.
I really liked them when I tried them; the two reasons I didn't get them was (1) the uncertainty regarding armor in combination with the fact that (2) I can't focus them at infinity (stargazing) without my glasses, unlike the 10x Swaros.
The MHG... is a good binocular; light, with a really large FOV, one has to really pay attention to minutiae at the edges when comparing to an NL. I nevertheless gifted my MHG 8x42 to a family member due to unacceptable (to me) levels of chromatic aberration, even in the center, especially in difficult light conditions. All airborne birds were surrounded by violet. Yes even in my 40s I still see wavelengths below 400nm, and it gets expensive.
I really liked them when I tried them; the two reasons I didn't get them was (1) the uncertainty regarding armor in combination with the fact that (2) I can't focus them at infinity (stargazing) without my glasses, unlike the 10x Swaros.
The MHG... is a good binocular; light, with a really large FOV, one has to really pay attention to minutiae at the edges when comparing to an NL. I nevertheless gifted my MHG 8x42 to a family member due to unacceptable (to me) levels of chromatic aberration, even in the center, especially in difficult light conditions. All airborne birds were surrounded by violet. Yes even in my 40s I still see wavelengths below 400nm, and it gets expensive.
jafritten
Well-known member
I agree. The sweet spot is enormous, that's for sure. I remember how surprised I was at discovering that the edges focus closer than the center when I tried the closest focus distance looking down at a gravel path. Naturally, the field curvature is not apparent at long ranges and in open country. I admit the curvature is fairly mild, but it's certainly there and easy to see in dense woodland at closer ranges and in other richly structured environments. I am curious to hear from you.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Absolutely I can't agree more. The color is very neutral and very accurate as to what the eyes see. Another good trait of the EL's.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Maybe it wasn't foggy, you might've got cheese wiz on it.I don't know why your reaction score is so high, it certainly isn't because you know anything!
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Then why would you give an opinion about a binocular if you didn't have enough time to give an accurate opinion? Seems amateurish at best and deceiving or misleading at worse. We all have a betting pool going when the MHG's will go on sale. It's very difficult to take you seriously, seriously.I didn't see the GLARE at first in the NL, but once I did, it hit the chopping block and died an early death on eBay. Frankly at that point I had never compared the NL 8x32 to the HG 8x42 but once I did, I couldn't believe it. The HG 8x42 was brighter, had nearly as big of a FOV, it was just as light, had easier eye placement, and it didn't have the confounded GLARE that the NL has at the bottom of the FOV. The HG 8x42 saved me $1200, and I like that!
"Even though the MHG thousand is 435ft at a thousand yards to the EDG's 404, the sweet spot is actually even or slightly more than the MHG because of the field flattener that works on the EDG as apposed to the soft edges on the MHG."
FOV and central sharpness are two of my most important criteria when judging a binocular, and the HG beats the EDG in both of them. I don't care if the EDG is sharper at the edge because you can still see movement at the edge with the HG's much bigger FOV and then move the object you are seeing to the center of the field. Even with slightly softer edges, you can find the bird or animals easier with the bigger FOV of the HG 8x42 versus the EDG 8x42.
You don't observe at the edge anyway. Jackjack says the MHG is sharper on-axis than the EDG, so that is to me two of the most important reasons to choose the MHG over the EDG. You can easily see that MHG is much sharper than the EDG in these two pictures. You can make out way more detail on the bark of the tree. The sharpness difference is the biggest advantage of the MHG over the EDG for my uses. The EDG almost seems soft in comparison to the razor sharp image of the MHG.
Central sharpness is better in MHG
(MHG / EDG)
Brief comparison berween MHG VS EDG '8X42'
First, I have to apologize for being late and making this review briefer then I planned... so busy lately.... but I'll post the every main points of my thoughts. Nikon EDG is discounted in most of the countries including South Korea. so, Monarch HG AKA, MHG is taking place of the most...
www.birdforum.net
Last edited:
I just wanted to thank you for the community service of sifting through his posts so that we don't have to.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Yet the mods continue to sit on the sidelines…
At least they have stopped whacking folks who challenge his nonsense.
AMEN!!!
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Then why would you give an opinion about a binocular if you didn't have enough time to give an accurate opinion? Seems amateurish at best and deceiving or misleading at worse. We all have a betting pool going when the MHG's will go on sale. It's very difficult to take you seriously, seriously."Even though the MHG thousand is 435ft at a thousand yards to the EDG's 404, the sweet spot is actually even or slightly more than the MHG because of the field flattener that works on the EDG as apposed to the soft edges on the MHG."
FOV and central sharpness are two of my most important criteria when judging a binocular, and the HG beats the EDG in both of them. I don't care if the EDG is sharper at the edge because you can still see movement at the edge with the HG's much bigger FOV and then move the object you are seeing to the center of the field. Even with slightly softer edges, you can find the bird or animals easier with the bigger FOV of the HG 8x42 versus the EDG 8x42.
You don't observe at the edge anyway. Jackjack says the MHG is sharper on-axis than the EDG, so that is to me two of the most important reasons to choose the MHG over the EDG. You can easily see that MHG is much sharper than the EDG in these two pictures. You can make out way more detail on the bark of the tree. The sharpness difference is the biggest advantage of the MHG over the EDG for my uses. The EDG almost seems soft in comparison to the razor sharp image of the MHG.
Central sharpness is better in MHG
(MHG / EDG)
Brief comparison berween MHG VS EDG '8X42'
First, I have to apologize for being late and making this review briefer then I planned... so busy lately.... but I'll post the every main points of my thoughts. Nikon EDG is discounted in most of the countries including South Korea. so, Monarch HG AKA, MHG is taking place of the most...
