New Nikon Monarch X (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Purcell]

Very Interesting, Brock. But stoopid, as I think that Laugh-in line went.

This is not so much haggling (which sort of implies a back and forth in price) but asking for a price reduction that they can't advertise to get the sale. And then a take it or leave it. Often works if you see a strong MAP (everyone with the same price). Sort of a you get the business if you make the deal.

The smarter companies often prefer a sale with a smaller profit to no sale at all.

I've done it. And it works!

 

[kristoffer]

So you've not actually used one?

Strange, Johns reply disappeared.

 

[FrankD]

Kristoffer,

Actually John did reply that he used mine on one occasion and his neighbor's on, I am assuming, several occasions. He was quite impressed with the 8x43s if I may speak for him. Enough so to recommend them to his neighbor obviously. Everyone has an opinion on binocular performance. Even I would publicly state that the Zen ED is not at the optical performance level of Zeiss FL in many respects. In some it is very close and might even equal it but there has to be a reason for that much of a price difference. It isn't all just the difference in cost of labor.

...but I am looking forward to comparing the Zen ED IIs to the FL when the time comes.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

The question is "do the ZR ED rival the FLs"

As you know, Frank, I have called out plenty of differences but I think its disingenuous to say they don't rival the FLs and to compare them to "lots" of $300 roofs. And I know you can tell the difference too.

But they do rival the FLs. They give a potential FL purchaser pause: is that FL worth FIVE times this bin? Or even buying discoutn and used THREE times.

And for some the answer is (in fact) yes the FL is worth that much.

But for most the ZR ED is a rival in that it will be picked over the FL more often than not.

IMHO.

 

[CLRobles]

And that brings many of us full circle.... When you can buy a Nikon SE, of any power, for slightly more than a ZR or a Monarch X but still three times less than the Zeiss FL... And it is more than a match on any level to the Zeiss, why would one consider any of the other three if one could only afford one of the four? hahah Did that make any sense? Why pay for anything but the best optics, especially when they can be had for such a bargain with the SE? :t:

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Well, the SE versus the roofs argument goes back again to waterproofing (and I have a 10x42 SE I'm going to use of the winter in the PNW to see how that works without babying).

But perhaps to take us back on topic ... why would someone choose the Monarch X?

I'm not sure I see the reason to pick it over any other bin. To me the mix of features (including price) just doesn't seem to add up? Narrow FOV, weight (compared to the Monarch), the silly rod, price.

I can see why one would pick Nikon for quality and warranty and perhaps the original Monarch, even today, particularly for lightness in a full-size 40mm.

 

[Steve C]

But perhaps to take us back on topic ... why would someone choose the Monarch X?

I'm not sure I see the reason to pick it over any other bin. To me the mix of features (including price) just doesn't seem to add up? Narrow FOV, weight (compared to the Monarch), the silly rod, price.

I can see why one would pick Nikon for quality and warranty and perhaps the original Monarch, even today, particularly for lightness in a full-size 40mm.

Kevin, in this assessment of the Monarch X, I fully concur. I would not select the X over a ZEN if it were half as much money. Nikon had a winner with the original Monarch, so much so they were able to sit on their laurels with it for over a decade. I happen to think they laid an egg with the Monarch X.

As for the SE, yes it is a good glass, but unless re-introduced, its "bargain" status is pretty ephemeral. There can't be many left, and if there was the demand for them, those few survivors would not be bargains as they are now. I am more curious about the image of a more decently compact, wide fov 7x36 ZEN than I am about an SE. Not to say I won't get an SE if the conditions align.

 

[CLRobles]

Well, the SE versus the roofs argument goes back again to waterproofing (and I have a 10x42 SE I'm going to use of the winter in the PNW to see how that works without babying).

But perhaps to take us back on topic ... why would someone choose the Monarch X?

I'm not sure I see the reason to pick it over any other bin. To me the mix of features (including price) just doesn't seem to add up? Narrow FOV, weight (compared to the Monarch), the silly rod, price.

I can see why one would pick Nikon for quality and warranty and perhaps the original Monarch, even today, particularly for lightness in a full-size 40mm.

I think the SE statement is on topic, in most cases it can be had for the same price as the monarch and is in a different league optically. One would have to admit that most people, probably a overwhelming majority, will never stand out in the weather to use there bins so the sealing is not a issue to them. But I am glad you will put yours to the test in the weather. I have used both my 8's and 10's now dozens of times in the rain and have not had any issues of any kind yet? I think you will report back the same and look forward to it.

Kevin, in this assessment of the Monarch X, I fully concur. I would not select the X over a ZEN if it were half as much money. Nikon had a winner with the original Monarch, so much so they were able to sit on their laurels with it for over a decade. I happen to think they laid an egg with the Monarch X.

As for the SE, yes it is a good glass, but unless re-introduced, its "bargain" status is pretty ephemeral. There can't be many left, and if there was the demand for them, those few survivors would not be bargains as they are now. I am more curious about the image of a more decently compact, wide fov 7x36 ZEN than I am about an SE. Not to say I won't get an SE if the conditions align.

They are not in there "last days" yet.... although you might have to go to the web to get a pair they are easy to find there and are THE bargain in the optics world... I have pitted them against Zeiss FL's, Swaro EL's, and Leica BRF's and they were always more than a match against these Alphas so as I said, when one thinks about the Monarch X one would have to think very seriously about passing on the optical quality of the SE for sealing.... I know which one I would buy with my hard earned money... jmo

 

[kristoffer]

Edit: Wrong thread. Sorry

 

[Swedpat]

The question is "do the ZR ED rival the FLs"

As you know, Frank, I have called out plenty of differences but I think its disingenuous to say they don't rival the FLs and to compare them to "lots" of $300 roofs. And I know you can tell the difference too.

But they do rival the FLs. They give a potential FL purchaser pause: is that FL worth FIVE times this bin? Or even buying discoutn and used THREE times.

And for some the answer is (in fact) yes the FL is worth that much.

But for most the ZR ED is a rival in that it will be picked over the FL more often than not.

IMHO.

Hi Kevin,

You mention an interesting point of view. I see there are several different qualities to take in consider when it comes to optics.
If Vortex Razor is sharper on-axis than SLC and Zen bin is sharper than Razor it just have to rival Victory FL in that respect. Especially with such a lower price.
But then we have overall sharpness, internal reflexions, ease of view, holding comfortability etc.
When it comes to as well ease of view and edge performance I consider SLC 7x42 to be one of the absolute best. SLC 7x42 provide such a relaxed image.

Some weeks ago when I was in Preston, Lancashire, I also tried my friend Kenny's Zeiss Classic 7x42 and became impressed about the quality of that binocular. Edge sharpness was much better than the new Victory FL. Both of us agreed in rather prefering the Classic than Victory FL.

According to what I can notice I think it's easy possible to get a sharper on-axis image for the sacrifice of edge sharpness. There are several glasses who seem to prove my theory. Maybe Swarovski chosed to keep edge sharpness and therefore cannot really reach the on-axis sharpness of some of the competitors?

Regards, Patric

 

[dustyview]

Just curious John, but have you done a head-to-head test w/ the Zen and the FL? I remember you posting that the Zens compared pretty well to your Ultravids.......

Patric,

Plain and simple, the Zen does not rival the Zeiss FL.

John

 

[Pileatus]

Just curious John, but have you done a head-to-head test w/ the Zen and the FL? I remember you posting that the Zens compared pretty well to your Ultravids.......

The Zen ED 8X43 is the best binocular you can buy under $535. It's not an FL and the FL is not a Zen.

Hope that helps,

John

 

[Swedpat]

In this matter I have understood we actually are talking about differences the most people cannot notice...

Regards, Patric

 

[Steve C]

The Zen ED 8X43 is the best binocular you can buy under $535.
John

OK I'll bite, that begs the question of what in your estimation that is over $535 out there that beats the ZEN? Does that, whatever it is rival the FL? I'm not claiming that the ZEN or the $535 binocular is the equal of the aplha class in general or the FL in particular. I am just curious here. But I also suppose you anticipated the question too.

 

[dustyview]

Thanks, but my question was whether you had actually compared both, side by side, in real use (birding; game spotting) or with an eye chart or resolution chart. I'm not saying they're equal. I simply want to know whether your statement is based on any objective, reproducible evidence.

Hope that helps.

The Zen ED 8X43 is the best binocular you can buy under $535. It's not an FL and the FL is not a Zen.

Hope that helps,

John

 

[Pileatus]

I made up the $535 number. It could be $545 for all I know.

I have no experimental data available for anything I've ever said on BF. I estimate that 99.25% of everything said on BF is based on personal opinion, not science. I'll let others debate, ad infinitum, the exact percentage knowing, of course, that the debate itself will change the outcome.

It should be clear by now that numbers do not define the quality of a binocular. It's silly to think otherwise.

The FL 8X42 has the best centerfield of any roof prism binocular I've seen. I don't believe the Zen matches it, but sample variation and/or innovation might change my opinion.

Hope that helps,

John

PS
I like my 8X32 SE better than either model, but that's not a fair comparison considering the SE is the overall best birding binocular.

 

[ceasar]

Thanks, but my question was whether you had actually compared both, side by side, in real use (birding; game spotting) or with an eye chart or resolution chart. I'm not saying they're equal. I simply want to know whether your statement is based on any objective, reproducible evidence.

Hope that helps.

Kimmo Absetz did this about as well as it could reasonably be done in his reviews in "Alula" but reality issues involving time and expense always interfere in studies like these. "Better View Desired" tried something similar but not as precise and still ran into reality's constraints. For most of the rest, John Traynor's comments in thread #76 are perfectly on point.
Cordially,
Bob

 

[FrankD]

I like my 8X32 SE better than either model, but that's not a fair comparison considering the SE is the overall best birding binocular.

Come on now John. We know that is simply not true. It is only an 8x32. If it was an 8x42 or 7x42 then you would have a valid argument.



Sorry, couldn't resist.

We can have all the fun in the world next month comparing the Zen EDIIs, the FLs and the SEs though.

 

[CLRobles]

Come on now John. We know that is simply not true. It is only an 8x32. If it was an 8x42 or 7x42 then you would have a valid argument.



Sorry, couldn't resist.

We can have all the fun in the world next month comparing the Zen EDIIs, the FLs and the SEs though.

Sorry Frank, you lost me here? I'm guessing this is in jest? Your not really saying that a 8x32 can't have the same optical quality as a 8x42 are you?

 

[Kevin Purcell]

I think Frank is saying it doesn't have a 5mm exit pupil size which I think is required for a "overall best birding binocular".

I actually had an interesting case of this when helping band some Cooper's Hawk's last week. I took my Zeiss FL 8x32 (small, light, bright, widish FOV ... everything I needed for looking for perching juvies). And I was surprised how dim it was at 6am on the western side of a hill in an overcast (1500 stratus marine layer ... typical Seattle ... not that thick and not that dark) under the trees. I think aside from twilight and post-twilight owling this is one for the few times I've actually seen a significant difference birding with a 32mm i.e. enough for me to think I should have brought the 8x42 Zen ED or the 7x42 FLs.

I'm normally a skeptic of this 4mm versus 5mm difference (especially 1 hour after sunrise) but in this case (open forest, overcast and the wrong side of a hill for the sun). It quickly brightened up though and was decent by 6:30.

So whilst I love the SE 8x32 and 10x42 they can just miss out on the best of all possible bins due to exit pupil size.

Of course your mix of compromises will probably be different to mine. But this result surprised me a bit.