New Nikon Monarch X (4 Viewers)

[Nikon Kid]

I have just been reading this thread on the new Monarch X and see all the posters are from the US. Will these be available in the
UK, when and what price. I already own the 8 x 42 DCF Monarch, and they have served me well, would the new Monarch X be a upgrade ?

 

[Kevin Purcell]

I noticed that binoculars.com blog (not as bad as you might think ... some of the article are predicable but there is some real content there too!).

http://www.binoculars.org/binocular-reviews/nikons-new-monarch-x-binoculars/

Side-by-side with the Monarch X Binoculars

The first thing I wanted to compare was how much better were the Monarch X binoculars to the original Monarch ATB binoculars. I compared the 10×42 Monarch binocular to the 10.5×45 Monarch X binocular. Even though they have slightly different magnifications and objective lenses, they stay consistent with a 4.2mm exit pupil, so I still found it relevant to compare them side by side. Immediately the optical quality is noticed switching between the binoculars on a bright subject about 100 yards away. Overall brightness and color were preferred on the Monarch X binocular. Most noticeable was the edge-to-edge sharpness difference - the Monarch is very good for a 300$ binocular, however it was substantially better on the more expensive Monarch X binocular.

Overall impression on the Monarch X binocular

I think Nikon filled a great need with this binocular and users will love it. If your budget minded, the original Monarch ATB binocular is a great choice, however if you want to see what high-end optics can deliver, the Monarch X is a perfect binocular that keeps the price reasonable. If you have 2000$ to spend on a Swarovski or Zeiss, then go for it, but for under $600 I think this new Monarch X Series of binoculars will be pretty tough to beat.

So clearly it's a notch up. How it compares to others in that $500 price class (and say the Chinese EDs) remains to be seen.

 

[FrankD]

Ah, and I think you hit the nail on the head. How is it going to compare to the Chinese EDs? If it doesn't then I think it would be a bit of a step backwards considering we are talking about a bin that is $100 more expensive but proivdes less optical performance. What would be the benefit?

 

[Steve C]

Ah, and I think you hit the nail on the head. How is it going to compare to the Chinese EDs? If it doesn't then I think it would be a bit of a step backwards considering we are talking about a bin that is $100 more expensive but proivdes less optical performance. What would be the benefit?

I had my ZEN ED on a harness when I stopped at the Nikon booth at the NW Sportsman's show. It would an ergonomic boost to get rid of the rod down the middle. It had a nice image, but it is NOT the image of the ZEN ED. It is better than the original series Monarch, and it is not the image of the Premier series roof either.

I asked the Nikon rep why would I pay $200 more for less image when I bought a Monarch, or 3x more to get an essentially equivalent image in the Premier? The answer was something to the effect of "well we've been around a long time and have refined our products over the years and have a known warranty and company history". They had to think a bit to come up with that.

Now those are quite definitely solid reasons. I simply found it interesting that they didn't jump onto the "better constructed, optically superior, better design and engineering".

FWIW, the Monarch X image and Leupold Northfork images are quite similar, although I'd give the advantage to the Northfork. They look close enough that they may have the same basic optics in modified enclosures.

 

[FrankD]

Well, that would have been the route I would have expected them to take. It does make sense as they are the main reasons to choose the Nikon over the Zen Ray. Hmm, I wonder though....Are the Monarch X and the Norfolk Japanese or Chinese bins?

 

[Steve C]

The Monarch and Northfork are Japanese. The Chinese have apparently won the race (if there was one) to win the high quality view with a decently wide fov.

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, the image on either the Monarch X or the Leupold Northfork is really quite nice. The image difference can be seen when the binoculars are side by side with the ZEN. The almost 2* wider fov is pretty noticeable too.

Nikon made the actual fov the same 330' @ 1000 yds. for both the 10.5 and 8.5.

 

[hackeriii]

Well, that would have been the route I would have expected them to take. It does make sense as they are the main reasons to choose the Nikon over the Zen Ray. Hmm, I wonder though....Are the Monarch X and the Norfolk Japanese or Chinese bins?

Checked thes out at a local birding store. I"Made in China".

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Very interesting. I suspect they ahve their own factories in China now. Like Pentax.

Oh, I can see this causing some problems on 24hourcampfire.com. At this rate they'll only be able to buy (liberal) Euro bins or secondhand bins

 

[FrankD]

Oh, I can see this causing some problems on 24hourcampfire.com. At this rate they'll only be able to buy (liberal) Euro bins or secondhand bins

Yep, why do you think Minox is so popular over there?



So the Monarch X and the Northfork are both Chinese or it that one is Chinese and one is Japanese in origin?

 

[Kevin Purcell]

You mean the Minox that's made in China now ...

"Thems fightin' werds"

 

[Steve C]

Well, the mistake here is definitely mine |:S|. I checked my notes from the Sportsman's Show and I definitely had Japanese written down. Good thing I did not make a bet or my binocular bucks stash would have taken a hit for sure, because I have definite memory of the Nikon rep saying Japan. I just checked with Eagle Optics and the Monarch X is Chinese.

I also had them check the Leupold Northfork, as I had the same definite memory of the Leupold representative telling me Japan. In this instance, I am correct. The Northfork is Japanese. So as Frank postulated above, we have one of each.

The Monarch X now seems a bit strange at its price, which is some $200.00 higher than the ZEN ED, and it has no ED glass to boot. It has dielectric prism coatings, but I doubt those coatings are that expensive. Plus the fact the Monarch X has much less fov.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Outdoor Life has a "review" (and I use that term loosely!)

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/gear/hunting/2009/05/optics-test-2009?photo=8

Nikon Monarch X Dielectric 10.5x45
Overall Rating: 3 1/2 stars
The large objective and high magnification of the reinvented Monarch give it more light transmission and a greater twilight factor than other optics in its class, but also make the bino a bit more difficult to hold steady and comfortably. The open-bridge design and polymer body help shed some weight. It performed admirably in the low-light test and turned in an excellent resolution score. ($599; nikonsportoptics.com)
Report Card Optical Quality: 2nd
Image: B+
Design: B
Price/Value: B+

I'd check with the other reviews (but only if you have your blood pressure control medication set correctly if you are say a Leica lover!).

 

[mooreorless]

Hi Kevin, I am not impressed with Outdoor Life's optics reviews at all anymore. I used to look forward to this issue of the magazine. The full size binocular test include 32mm up to 50mm[in the past] and said this about the Leica Ultravid HD 8x32 "It didn't fare as well in our optical-quality test, largely due to low power and small objective lenses" and then gave it a A+ for image.Well it wasn't a Zeiss.
Regards,Steve

 

[Kevin Conville]

That is one of the most apples to oranges type of "review" I'd ever seen. Ridiculous really.

Note that a Zeiss Rangefinder MONOCULAR takes top honors for "Optical Quality" over Leica 8x20 BINOCULARS in the Compact Optics category, in spite of their rating the Zeiss' image at B+ and the Leica an A. Pretty whacky.

They also rate Leica 8x32s as 7th in spite of giving them matching honors to the 1st place Zeiss Rangefinder (again) binoculars, in the full size class.

Two things are quite apparent I think...
One is they LOVE rangefinders! Hunters, I presume.
Two, they're plain goofy.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Don't shoot the messenger, lad. Note I did say review in "scare quotes".

So far it's the only folks to mention the bin. Same with a few other things they "review".

Fortunatly I think we can see through a lot of the bunk and get the occasional insight or the just plain laugh out loud joke (the monocular RF was a joke right).

Though it must be said that even reading the RF review I noticed from the picture that this monocular is actually designed to be held two handed to steady it. That was something I hadn't thought about before and is interesting all on it's own: why aren't there more two handed monoculars?

See even the jokes can be informative

BTW the summary page is here if you want to see what they reviewed (they didn't put that as the first page ...).

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/gear/hunting/2009/05/optics-test-2009?photo=26

 

[Kevin Conville]

Don't shoot the messenger, lad. Note I did say review in "scare quotes".

So far it's the only folks to mention the bin. Same with a few other things they "review".

Fortunatly I think we can see through a lot of the bunk and get the occasional insight or the just plain laugh out loud joke (the monocular RF was a joke right).

I wouldn't shoot you Kevin Scare quotes properly placed. Besides, we can't be holding everyone accountable for the content they link us to, can we?

Do you suppose Outdoor Life is aware that Bushnell, Nikon, Leica, and probably a few others I'm missing also offer rangefinders? Imagine the tizzy they'd work themselves into with all those!

 

[ceasar]

................................................................................ That was something I hadn't thought about before and is interesting all on it's own: why aren't there more two handed monoculars?

See even the jokes can be informative ...............................................

Not this one!

Why aren't there more two eyed monoculars?:-O:-O:-O

Sorry about that,
Bob

 

[FrankD]

Two, they're plain goofy.

Now that there is just funny.....

 

[Swedpat]

Two weeks ago I tried Nikon Monarch X 8,5x45. I became a bit dissapointed; the edges were not good at all considering only 50deg AFOV. My total impression was that I wondered if it's any better than the usual Monarch.

Actually as well swedish and english Nikon sites claim incorrect numbers of FOV; 50,1deg AFOV and 6,3deg TFOV are quite correct relation between the values for 8x, but not for 8,5x. If the AFOV is 50deg the TFOV must be around 5,9deg.

Comments?

Regards, Patric

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Actually as well swedish and english Nikon sites claim incorrect numbers of FOV; 50,1deg AFOV and 6,3deg TFOV are quite correct relation between the values for 8x, but not for 8,5x. If the AFOV is 50deg the TFOV must be around 5,9deg.

Comments?

We already hammered that one out ... the websites are correct with the, odd but true, same FOV at 8.5x and 10x. The AFOV is different. And they use the "correct" method for calculating it (ISO style with arctans!).

See

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1386910&postcount=8

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1472799&postcount=20
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1472799&postcount=29