Help request: some doubts about M5/M7 (1 Viewer)

[Davide_Videvitt]

Hello everyone! I need help in choosing my first binoculars. I finally decided to buy one so I can do some birdwatching, the main if not only reason for my purchase. After reading a lot of reviews and trying a few at a few stores I ended up being undecided between two: the monarch m5 and the m7, both 8x42. I bought both and am testing them to figure out which one to keep and which one to return, but being a novice I am not entirely sure of my judgment so I am turning to you for some opinions and advice.

I want to start by saying that they both look amazing to me for their price range, I'm just trying to figure out if the m7 is worth the financial effort (I bought them for 335€ and 465€ respectively). Optically, I can't see much difference, other than some slight advantage of the m7 in particularly difficult lighting conditions. When the light is low it comes out slightly brighter and sharper, in backlight it has better CA handling. But we are talking about really minor differences, at least to my eyes: both seem to perform very well. If that were all there was to it I think I would keep the M5. However, as we all know, the M7 has a much wider fov, and on paper this is the main reason why I'm leaning toward it: I feel that the M5 might get tight on me relatively soon because of this limitation of its own, while the M7 seems to me to be a more complete pair of binoculars that might satisfy me for a longer time.

Turning to the practical side, however, I have some concerns, but these may simply be dictated by my experience. When I am looking at something tens or hundreds of meters away, the wide fov of the M7 contributes a lot to the spectacular view in front of me, and if I am looking at something perpendicular to me with my eyes straight on axis the sharpness seems excellent, with a very wide sweet spot and slight edge degradation, starting at say 75-80% from the center. In these situations the M7 wins without a doubt. However, there are two situations in which the M5 seems better to me, and I would like to understand if this is normal, if I am doing something wrong or if I happened to have a defective M7 sample (and a particularly good M5 sample). Namely:

1 - if I look at something a few meters away the M5 continues to be sharp almost to the very end of the edges, while the sharpness of the M7 degrades much and much faster than at other distances,
and the result is a moderately narrow sweet spot. So the M7 also shows slightly more field, the result is that I can see more sharp things when framing with the M5. I notice this especially when testing the binoculars with texts or at least flat surfaces. Less in other contexts.

2 - The same thing seems to happen to me, with different proportions and especially in low light conditions, if with the M7 I observe a scene that develops diagonally from me (let's say at about 30-40m, not very great distances). The edges seem very blurry to me and the blurriness seems to start much closer to the center than usual. If I then try to look directly towards the edges, with my eyes off-axis and without moving the binoculars, the image is terrible. Again, however, in these conditions the M5 field seems more homogeneous and looking towards the edges, even off-axis, I notice less blurring and distortion.

In short: the M7, thanks to its wide field, seems much preferable to me in most situations, but in some specific conditions it seems worse and the vision is more disturbing than the M5. Are these normal differences due to the "wide angle" and therefore greater curvature of the M7 lenses? Am I wrong in judging the image by looking at the off-axis edges? Are there any other "tests" that you recommend me to do to understand if my M7 is a good sample or does it have problems?

These were my main doubts, but I take this opportunity to expose two others, which however concern me less:

3- Stargazing with the M7 by hand (without a tripod or other support) I struggle to get pinpoint stars, especially the brighter ones show spikes. Am I focusing wrong? Am I shaking too much? I don't think it's a problem with my eyes because in general I have excellent vision.

4- The diopter adjuster does not lock exactly in the center, in the perfect 0 position. It's the only place it doesn't fold down and lock, so I'm forced to move it slightly to the left or right to close it. Is it a manufacturing defect or are they all like that? Looking at other images of M7 I lean towards the second, but I ask to be safe.

Thanks for your help and sorry if I wrote nonsense and for the possible stupidity of my questions.

 

[S_Man]

I have the M7, just a few thoughts:

1. sometimes I have to set a smaller spacing between lenses when looking at something close, else I get very poor IQ - ie set the spacing differently than for normal use at longer distance, it's obviously linked to point 2. I guess...
2. I noticed the poor peripheric resolution only when the M7 were laying on a fixed support, I suppose the same way our eyes have poor resolution on the edges, we are expected to look in the center of bins - unlike cameras and "fixed" optics like scopes where peripheral sharpness is more important - the larger FOV of the M7 is just adding some comfort and more information.
3. I haven't checked that yet, but have no issue with planets
4. I noticed that too, but it's much less than a millimeter off, so after trying and failing to set it in the exact position, I just forgot about it until your post.

 

[Davide_Videvitt]

I have the M7, just a few thoughts:

1. sometimes I have to set a smaller spacing between lenses when looking at something close, else I get very poor IQ - ie set the spacing differently than for normal use at longer distance, it's obviously linked to point 2. I guess...
2. I noticed the poor peripheric resolution only when the M7 were laying on a fixed support, I suppose the same way our eyes have poor resolution on the edges, we are expected to look in the center of bins - unlike cameras and "fixed" optics like scopes where peripheral sharpness is more important - the larger FOV of the M7 is just adding some comfort and more information.
3. I haven't checked that yet, but have no issue with planets
4. I noticed that too, but it's much less than a millimeter off, so after trying and failing to set it in the exact position, I just forgot about it until your post.

Thanks! And thank for the advice about the point 1. Anyway, maybe I just need to get used to the poor peripherical resolution and pay less attention to it in order to enjoy the pros of a wider fov.

3. I'll try again tonight then

4. Good to know

Since I haven't any experience with binoculars, the most difficult thing to me is judging quality without making confusion between general problems with binoculars or a specific model and any problems with my sample. And in this case, talking about the confrontation with the M5, especially what is considerable a good edge sharpness for this price range and with this fov.

 

[tenex]

Welcome to Birdforum!

(1,2) Hopefully the blurriness you're talking about here is mostly field curvature, not uglier aberrations. (Are fuzzy stars still round?) Anyway, since you like to set up tests, try to find a scene that allows you to compare M5's full view with the equivalent section of M7's (ignoring the rest). Are objects near the edge for M5 any less sharp in M7? I doubt it. And then M7 gives the rest of the field too, which would matter to me both aesthetically and for tracking moving birds etc. Also bear in mind that in the closer range depth of field is always reduced, so you can expect less to be sharp at once in such situations.

(3) Stars are a severe test for optical aberrations. Try the same experiment here too: are the outermost stars visible with M5 any worse in M7? Of course if you intend to do mostly astronomy, you'll want a different bin entirely that performs better in this respect.

 

[Davide_Videvitt]

Welcome to Birdforum!

(1,2) Hopefully the blurriness you're talking about here is mostly field curvature, not uglier aberrations. (Are fuzzy stars still round?) Anyway, since you like to set up tests, try to find a scene that allows you to compare M5's full view with the equivalent section of M7's (ignoring the rest). Are objects near the edge for M5 any less sharp in M7? I doubt it. And then M7 gives the rest of the field too, which would matter to me both aesthetically and for tracking moving birds etc. Also bear in mind that in the closer range depth of field is always reduced, so you can expect less to be sharp at once in such situations.

(3) Stars are a severe test for optical aberrations. Try the same experiment here too: are the outermost stars visible with M5 any worse in M7? Of course if you intend to do mostly astronomy, you'll want a different bin entirely that performs better in this respect.

Thank you for your answers! I hope too that it's just the curvature of the field, I've noticed that if I want to I can also focus quite well on the edges at the expense of the centre which then goes out of focus. I did the test and it is as you say. Only at very short distances (less than 5m) do objects at the edges of the fov of the M5 seem to me to be seen better than in the M7: perhaps because the advantage of the wider fov in very close observation is lost and at the same time the blurring due to the curvature is accentuated?

I will try it again later with the stars as well.
I don't know what to do. Sometimes I also seem to have more difficulty focusing with the M7 when it comes to small and fairly distant details. Maybe because of the slightly greater flicker due to the difference in weight. Or maybe because of the better positioning of the eyes, as the smaller eyecups of the M5 adhere to my face perfectly, whereas with those of the M7 being larger I struggle. On the other hand, however, the wide vision one has with the M7 is really magnificent and I really want to keep this one.

Sorry for the amount of doubts, although I take comfort in having noticed that for many the first choice is difficult.

 

[Binastro]

The spikes with stars may be because of the prism edges.

But even with excellent eyesight if the stars are bright enough then there will be spikes because of the eyes.

Are your eyes good enough to see any of Jupiter's moons without optical aid in a dark location?

Usually only seen by children with exceptional vision, but some adults also.

Regards,
B.

 

[exup]

This mostly sounds like field curvature to me from your description.

The only roof bins I can think of at ~£330-440 with flat fields are Celestron Regals, Meade Masterclass and Canon 10x30 IS. These would display a flatter field, due to their FF lenses, but they can still show some astigmatism and coma (stars not perfect pinpoints). For terrestrial use, they would look 'nicer' to many people.
Some people prefer FC, it gives focus to terrain in the foreground.

 

[tenex]

The spikes with stars may be because of the prism edges.

Good point, this may not be the best sample of M7 and another might do better.

Only at very short distances (less than 5m) do objects at the edges of the fov of the M5 seem to me to be seen better than in the M7...

Hopefully you're still comparing objects at the edges of M5 with the same objects in M7, not others at its edge. If this is still so, I'm not sure exactly why, not knowing what's different in the optical designs. Some end up doing better in the near range than others, often at the expense of something else.

Sometimes I also seem to have more difficulty focusing with the M7 when it comes to small and fairly distant details.

I doubt that weight or eyecups would explain this. I wonder again whether it could be a poor sample. There can be more variation in lower priced models.

 

[grackle314]

Since you state birdwatching is your intended main interest, there is an advantage to wider field of view, FOV, if you are a beginning birder. The wider FOV gives a beginner easier getting the bird in view. Once in view, people tend to view towards center of the image. A wider FOV helps, even if outer third provides degraded view. A good center view enables identification steps and prolonged enjoyable view once on the bird.

 

[Davide_Videvitt]

The spikes with stars may be because of the prism edges.

But even with excellent eyesight if the stars are bright enough then there will be spikes because of the eyes.

Are your eyes good enough to see any of Jupiter's moons without optical aid in a dark location?

Usually only seen by children with exceptional vision, but some adults also.

Regards,
B.

First of all, thank you. Regarding the moons of Jupiter, I do not know, I have never tried. When I am in the right conditions I will try.

However, last night I did some tests more calmly and with both binoculars, even though the sky was not ideal. Equivalent results, except for the greater number of stars framed sharply by the M7. If out of focus the stars appeared as large blurred dots. By leaning against a railing and focusing carefully I seemed to be able to get no visible spikes from either the stars or Jupiter (moving my eyes slightly further away from the eyecups than normal seemed to help in getting perfect circles).

Good point, this may not be the best sample of M7 and another might do better.


Hopefully you're still comparing objects at the edges of M5 with the same objects in M7, not others at its edge. If this is still so, I'm not sure exactly why, not knowing what's different in the optical designs. Some end up doing better in the near range than others, often at the expense of something else.

I doubt that weight or eyecups would explain this. I wonder again whether it could be a poor sample. There can be more variation in lower priced models.

Yes, of course, I compared the same objects. I tried looking at a library and the last book that was well readable in the M5 in the M7 already appeared slightly blurred. But as I said, I was 3m away. At greater distances either the M7 wins or they are equivalent, but the M7 adds the extra field even if at lower resolution.
On the subject of focusing, perhaps I explained myself wrongly. I don't feel that the binoculars themselves struggle to focus or maintain focus. I was blaming it on the heavier weight because with more shake I struggle to see small or intricate objects firmly and know exactly when they are in focus. Perhaps it's also down to getting used to the M5's focuser (for over two weeks I've only been using this one, I've only had the M7 on test for 3 days) which is stiffer and requires slightly more strength to move.

In any case, I decided to keep the M7. I returned the M5 this morning. Now I just have to figure out if this M7 is a good sample or not. It's a big expense for me and I'd hate to spend almost 500€ for a bad one. I think that my harsh judgement of the M7 was also influenced by some reviews that talk about the major clarity of this one compared to the clarity of the M5, which in the vast majority of conditions I didn't notice, even trying. They both seemed excellent to me. Perhaps this is due to my lack of experience, although even Nikon never seems to have mentioned better optical qualities in the M7.

 

[tenex]

I was blaming it on the heavier weight because with more shake I struggle to see small or intricate objects firmly and know exactly when they are in focus.

Opinions vary on this; some feel a bit more weight keeps a bin steadier, others find it stressful. In any case, it's a good idea to support with the palms not just fingers, and not let elbows get too far out to the side. Give yourself some time to learn to use your new binoculars; the brain even learns to process a shaking image, so with practice you can expect some improvement -- though looking up at stars handheld remains less ergonomic.

On "major clarity": differences between models like M5 and M7 should be subtle, so maybe that person had a poor M5. Otherwise you'd need to look significantly higher in price to really notice such an overall difference, and then decide how much it's worth to you.

On focusing: be sure to get the diopter set properly, covering one tube instead of squinting. If spikes are avoidable, that's good, though none of my (higher end) bins ever show them. If in doubt about resolution of distant details, test with better support, on a tripod or even a ledge as available, on a day with good atmospheric conditions.

 

[Davide_Videvitt]

Opinions vary on this; some feel a bit more weight keeps a bin steadier, others find it stressful. In any case, it's a good idea to support with the palms not just fingers, and not let elbows get too far out to the side. Give yourself some time to learn to use your new binoculars; the brain even learns to process a shaking image, so with practice you can expect some improvement -- though looking up at stars handheld remains less ergonomic.

On "major clarity": differences between models like M5 and M7 should be subtle, so maybe that person had a poor M5. Otherwise you'd need to look significantly higher in price to really notice such an overall difference, and then decide how much it's worth to you.

On focusing: be sure to get the diopter set properly, covering one tube instead of squinting. If spikes are avoidable, that's good, though none of my (higher end) bins ever show them. If in doubt about resolution of distant details, test with better support, on a tripod or even a ledge as available, on a day with good atmospheric conditions.

Thanks for the advice. By holding it correctly, I immediately noticed an improvement in image stability. I hope time and practice will do the rest. Stargazing correctly is not crucial for me. I was more interested in making sure that the optics of my sample had no problems.

Yes, in fact I did not expect great differences in this respect. If I chose to spend a little more on the M7, it is for other reasons, above all the wider fov. For the time being I cannot afford binoculars of higher ranges, and the M7 seems to me to be sufficiently perfomant and balanced to give me good satisfaction in the long run. Yesterday I observed a bat flying in front of my balcony; with the narrow fov of the M5 I would have had a much harder time following its rapid and erratic flight.

Regarding the diopter, I think position 0 is the right position for me. But I will do some tests to make sure. Yesterday I quickly tried focusing using a stand. I observed a pigeon 30-40 meters away, straight ahead. The feathers, the eye, the texture of the chimney it was resting on were rendered with amazing sharpness.
Focus-wise, the only problem I continue to experience is in oblique observation, at an angle of more or less 45°, at distances shorter than 100m. With the M5 I was not struggling to get proper focus, while with the M7 I struggle to get the same area in focus, as if the blurring at the edges was more pronounced than normal. Could this be a consequence of field curvature? Or of eye placement or ipd adjustment? The strange thing is that when observing the same scene unfolding obliquely, from the same point, if I put my right eye in the left eyepiece (and vice versa) the edge blurring problems seem to disappear, and I get almost edge-to-edge sharpness, although the image appears slightly smaller and geometrically distorted, as if it were more wide-angle. These are probably normal optical phenomena that I don't know much about, but if anyone has an explanation I would appreciate it.

 

[tenex]

Yes, bats are very challenging even with the widest FOV I have, Nikon E II 8x30, which many people here highly recommend (8.8°, 140/1000m). You'd expect stepping down to 7x or even 6x to help, but (counterintuitively) those models don't tend to have any wider a field, indeed often less.

"Oblique observation": if you read up on field curvature you'll find that in some situations it seems to enhance overall sharpness, while in others it just looks like blurry edges, depending on how distant various objects are and where in the field. A wall at a 45° angle is a worst-case scenario with every part at a different distance, so you'll see only a narrow slice of sharpness surrounded by increasing blur. Few real-world situations are like this.

I'm not sure why the result would be any different when you swap eyes. You have the view with both eyes, vs with one eye in the other eyepiece. Try a third way: just cover one barrel, so you have a one-eyed view without changing eyepieces. What is the result? (You may not quite be getting your eye properly centered the other way.)

 

[Davide_Videvitt]

Yes, bats are very challenging even with the widest FOV I have, Nikon E II 8x30, which many people here highly recommend (8.8°, 140/1000m). You'd expect stepping down to 7x or even 6x to help, but (counterintuitively) those models don't tend to have any wider a field, indeed often less.

"Oblique observation": if you read up on field curvature you'll find that in some situations it seems to enhance overall sharpness, while in others it just looks like blurry edges, depending on how distant various objects are and where in the field. A wall at a 45° angle is a worst-case scenario with every part at a different distance, so you'll see only a narrow slice of sharpness surrounded by increasing blur. Few real-world situations are like this.

I'm not sure why the result would be any different when you swap eyes. You have the view with both eyes, vs with one eye in the other eyepiece. Try a third way: just cover one barrel, so you have a one-eyed view without changing eyepieces. What is the result? (You may not quite be getting your eye properly centered the other way.)

I am sure it is difficult even with an 8.8, especially when they are very close. Fortunately, observing bats is not my priority, but I enjoy doing it when it happens and I'm glad that the 8.3 fov of the M7 allows me to do it quite well.

On further testing I really think it was a problem of correct eye alignment. Changing ipd seems to have more or less solved it. The eyepieces on the M7 are very large for my facial conformation and I struggle to get a good fit. I didn't think so, but evidently in certain situations finding the positioning for me is difficult and critical. I hope I will find it easier with time.

 

[Maljunulo]

Of the two, the 7 is the better glass.

Its limitations are consistent with its price range.

Whether it is “worth” the extra 130€ is a question only you can answer.

 

[Swedpat]

Several years ago I tried 8x42 M5. I think it's a good choice for the price. And what you can recommend to "normal" people as a quality binocular which does not cost a fortune.
Some year later I tried 8x42 M7. Excellent optics, but I did not find the eye relief enough long with eyeglasses. At least not the useable eye relief: the eye lens is unneccesary recessed so a few mm of eye relief is wasted. Which I don't recall I experienced with the M5.

 

[Davide_Videvitt]

Of the two, the 7 is the better glass.

Its limitations are consistent with its price range.

Whether it is “worth” the extra 130€ is a question only you can answer.

In the end I ordered a second sample which turned out to be better. It has less field curvature, so a slightly wider sweet spot, and it also seems to me to have slightly better resolution or at least more accurate focusing (I noticed this when comparing focusing on intricate areas like brambles or ivy). I also paid only 410€, so just 80€ more than the M5, which makes the M7, in my opinion, a very good deal.

Several years ago I tried 8x42 M5. I think it's a good choice for the price. And what you can recommend to "normal" people as a quality binocular which does not cost a fortune.
Some year later I tried 8x42 M7. Excellent optics, but I did not find the eye relief enough long. Unfortunately the eye lens is unneccesary recessed so a few mm of eye relief is wasted. Which I don't recall I experienced with the M5.

Do you wear glasses? Without glasses I have not noticed any problems, although I know that the M5 has more eye relief.

 

[Swedpat]

In the end I ordered a second sample which turned out to be better. It has less field curvature, so a slightly wider sweet spot, and it also seems to me to have slightly better resolution or at least more accurate focusing (I noticed this when comparing focusing on intricate areas like brambles or ivy). I also paid only 410€, so just 80€ more than the M5, which makes the M7, in my opinion, a very good deal.

Do you wear glasses? Without glasses I have not noticed any problems, although I know that the M5 has more eye relief.

Yes, I forgot to write I mean with eyeglasses.

 

[Maljunulo]

In the end I ordered a second sample which turned out to be better. It has less field curvature, so a slightly wider sweet spot, and it also seems to me to have slightly better resolution or at least more accurate focusing (I noticed this when comparing focusing on intricate areas like brambles or ivy). I also paid only 410€, so just 80€ more than the M5, which makes the M7, in my opinion, a very good deal.

If you are happy, it was indeed a good deal.

Enjoy.

 

[MiddleRiver]

In the end I ordered a second sample which turned out to be better. It has less field curvature, so a slightly wider sweet spot, and it also seems to me to have slightly better resolution or at least more accurate focusing (I noticed this when comparing focusing on intricate areas like brambles or ivy). I also paid only 410€, so just 80€ more than the M5, which makes the M7, in my opinion, a very good deal.

Do you wear glasses? Without glasses I have not noticed any problems, although I know that the M5 has more eye relief.

Are you saying a second example of otherwise same bino, had different optical characteristics?