• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Need Your advice! (1 Viewer)

Szmako81

Well-known member
Hungary
Dear Members,

Today I was offered a Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 for my Leica UV 8x42 BR!
I do not know whether to grab the *Nikon or keep the Leica!?

Best regards,
Szabolcs
 
Do you want 10x? That is probably more important than the difference between these. Although the MGH's are very lightweight, you might appreciate the lighter weight.
 
Dear Members,

Today I was offered a Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 for my Leica UV 8x42 BR!
I do not know whether to grab the *Nikon or keep the Leica!?

Best regards,
Szabolcs
I'd say leave the old cannoli and take the new HG. :)

It depends on four factors:

(1) if you can hold 10x bins steadily, not everybody can, I can't, at least most. The Nikon 10x35 E2 is best in that regard for me, so ergonomics are make it or break it for 10x bins. Leica UV and Nikon HG are completely different animals ergonomically. If you shake with a 10x, you won't see more detail than an 8x.

(2) For most birders, 10x bins are specialty bins since in most cases having the wider FOV and closer focus of a quality 8x42 is better for birding. So make sure you have a good quality backup to your 8x UV BR if you're going to trade it.

(3) Are you susceptible to "rolling ball?" Like the 10x42 LX/HG L before it, the new 10x42 HGs optics has low in distortion and some users have complained about seeing "rolling ball" while panning.

(4) Leica is based in Europe, Nikon in Japan, and I've head bad reports of Nikon's customer service and repairs for European customers. Leica UVs seems to stand the test of time better than the new HG (the old HG were more robustly built but heavier).

That's my 5 cents (2 cents + $3 cents for inflation). :)
 
I'd say leave the old cannoli and take the new HG. :)

It depends on four factors:

(1) if you can hold 10x bins steadily, not everybody can, I can't, at least most. The Nikon 10x35 E2 is best in that regard for me, so ergonomics are make it or break it for 10x bins. Leica UV and Nikon HG are completely different animals ergonomically. If you shake with a 10x, you won't see more detail than an 8x.

(2) For most birders, 10x bins are specialty bins since in most cases having the wider FOV and closer focus of a quality 8x42 is better for birding. So make sure you have a good quality backup to your 8x UV BR if you're going to trade it.

(3) Are you susceptible to "rolling ball?" Like the 10x42 LX/HG L before it, the new 10x42 HGs optics has low in distortion and some users have complained about seeing "rolling ball" while panning.

(4) Leica is based in Europe, Nikon in Japan, and I've head bad reports of Nikon's customer service and repairs for European customers. Leica UVs seems to stand the test of time better than the new HG (the old HG were more robustly built but heavier).

That's my 5 cents (2 cents + $3 cents for inflation). :)
Brock. That was an impressive post! Glad to have you back. :)
 
Dear Members,

Today I was offered a Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 for my Leica UV 8x42 BR!
I do not know whether to grab the *Nikon or keep the Leica!?

Best regards,
Szabolcs
The 8x42 is a better all around binocular for most people because of the bigger FOV, better DOF, easier eye placement, they are brighter, and you can hold them steadier than a 10x, so the increased resolution and detail of the 10x often time won't help much unless you can hold them steady. If you can only have one binocular I would keep the 8x42, but that being said it is nice to have an 8x and a 10x, with the 10x being beneficial in more open country and coastal areas where you are scanning longer distances and the increased detail will be appreciated. The Nikon HG 10x42 is IMO one of the best binoculars you can buy at the $1000 price point, so if you could add it to your arsenal and still keep the 8x42, you would have the best of both worlds.
 
The 8x42 is a better all around binocular for most people because of the bigger FOV, better DOF, easier eye placement, they are brighter, and you can hold them steadier than a 10x, so the increased resolution and detail of the 10x often time won't help much unless you can hold them steady. If you can only have one binocular I would keep the 8x42, but that being said it is nice to have an 8x and a 10x, with the 10x being beneficial in more open country and coastal areas where you are scanning longer distances and the increased detail will be appreciated. The Nikon HG 10x42 is IMO one of the best binoculars you can buy at the $1000 price point, so if you could add it to your arsenal and still keep the 8x42, you would have the best of both worlds.
Got the Swaro 7x42 NEU (2006) and the aforementioned UV BR.
Would like to add (in the distant future) the SW SLC HD(2010-2012) 8 and the 10x42(strong distortion?), plus the Zeiss Victory FL 7x42(rolling bowl?)... 😎
Sz.
 
Got the Swaro 7x42 NEU (2006) and the aforementioned UV BR.
Would like to add (in the distant future) the SW SLC HD(2010-2012) 8 and the 10x42(strong distortion?), plus the Zeiss Victory FL 7x42(rolling bowl?)... 😎
Sz.
Watch the SW SLC 8x42 and 10x42 for funky focusers. Check them before buying. About 80% of them are sticky and harder in one direction.
 
Got the Swaro 7x42 NEU (2006) and the aforementioned UV BR.
Would like to add (in the distant future) the SW SLC HD(2010-2012) 8 and the 10x42(strong distortion?), plus the Zeiss Victory FL 7x42(rolling bowl?)... 😎
Sz.
Did you read Allbinos review of the 10x42 SLC HD? Is that where you got the idea that it had "strong distortion?"


As with too much AMD (which creates "rolling ball"), it depends on how much distortion your eyes have to begin with since they are the last elements in the optical train. I don't have a lot distortion in my eyes, so I see "rolling ball" easier than I do "rolling bowl" (too much distortion), but I have seen "rolling bowl," and coined the term to describe it.

To my eyes, the 10x42 SLC HD had smooth panning and a wonderful, bright and color saturated image. The thumb indents and long barrels to wrap my fingers around also helped me hold the bin steady. But as Dennis mentioned, it's a crap shoot with Swaro focusers, some work better than others, but all turn harder in one direction and easier in the other. Since you already have the Swaro 7x42 (not so) NEU and find the focuser acceptable, the two-way tension might not be an issue for you as it is for me.

Brock
 
Thank you both for the reply!
Keeping my UVs-"seems to stand the test of time"! Got the same conviction!
Sz.
I too own a pair of 8x42 BRs. They don’t have the aqua dura coating which might be nice in the rain, but every time I bring them down to test against the latest-greatest Swarovski, Zeiss or Leica, they still hold up optically. One more thing, the BRs came with a lifetime Passport warranty card. If you’re the original owner that’s a “No-fault “ warranty. Accidentally run them over, send the parts back to Leica for free repair or replacement.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 1 year ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top