• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

NIKON introduces new Monarch HG 8x30 and 10x30 Binoculars (1 Viewer)

chill6x6

Well-known member
With the "shortish" eye relief the complete FOV might be difficult to enjoy, at least if wearing glasses.
Eye cup rim seem to be rather high as well, stealing some of the ER. The 42mm HG was not optimal with glasses either and to me it looks like the eye pieces are similar in the 30mm version.

Yeah, the eye relief of the 8X30 DOES look to be cutting it close for me..
 

MandoBear

Well-known member
If I'm watching a bird in flight (and most of the birds round here do fly), I'll take a wider FoV any day (all other things being equal). The view is just more involving and natural - and I find acquiring and following a fast-flying bird so much easier with a wider FoV.
 

ceasar

Well-known member
Funny discussion this. A FOV of 145m/1000m is almost best in class for a 8x roof binocular, while 132m/1000m is pretty average. If this matters to you, up to you to decide. I certainly appreciate a good FOV.



Yeah, the 8.3º Monarch 8x42 HG at 145m/1000m has almost the same FOV as the 8.4º 148m/1000 FOV of the Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF which costs about $2000.00 more.

Which one would you rather have?

132mm/1000m is about what the old Zeiss Victory 8x42 FL and Nikon 8x42 EDG and Swarovski 8.5x42 Swarovision all have. Nobody complained about them having small FOVs. They all are, and were, top of the line binoculars.
 
Last edited:

dalat

Well-known member
Europe
Yeah, the 8.3º Monarch 8x42 HG at 145m/1000m has almost the same FOV as the 8.4º 148m/1000 FOV of the Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF which costs about $2000.00 more.

Which one would you rather have?

The Zeiss FOV is awesome. But its too bulky for me. And too expensive. If the new HG 8x30 turns out to be good optically, I will seriously consider.

Really not sure what you're up to here? Of course FOV is important. Just as CA control, edge sharpness, weight, color, price, eye relief etc. What is more important to you, you have to decide. But please let me decide myself if the difference of 145 to 132 matters to me or not.
 

dries1

Member
Fov

Yeah, the 8.3º Monarch 8x42 HG at 145m/1000m has almost the same FOV as the 8.4º 148m/1000 FOV of the Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF which costs about $2000.00 more.

Which one would you rather have?

132mm/1000m is about what the old Zeiss Victory 8x42 FL and Nikon 8x42 EDG and Swarovski 8.5x42 Swarovision all have. Nobody complained about them having small FOVs. They all are, and were, top of the line binoculars.

:t:

All three of those are great glass, and are used by other outdoor enthusiasts (besides birders) who appreciate a well built glass, that are constructed to the highest standard and are not fragile. The Nikon HG is a tough glass also and built better than the one costing over 2 grand more.

Andy W.
 

jgraider

Well-known member
Based on the HG 10x/8x full size binos, I don't have any reservations about build quality or optics. They are impressive. With the smaller 8x32 class glass, it's always an ER issue that will make or break the deal for me. I don't know how many great binos don't work for me because of this.
 

ceasar

Well-known member
The Zeiss FOV is awesome. But its too bulky for me. And too expensive. If the new HG 8x30 turns out to be good optically, I will seriously consider.

Really not sure what you're up to here? Of course FOV is important. Just as CA control, edge sharpness, weight, color, price, eye relief etc. What is more important to you, you have to decide. But please let me decide myself if the difference of 145 to 132 matters to me or not.

I'm not up to anything. I'm just moving along the discussion.;)

Bob
 

ceasar

Well-known member
Based on the HG 10x/8x full size binos, I don't have any reservations about build quality or optics. They are impressive. With the smaller 8x32 class glass, it's always an ER issue that will make or break the deal for me. I don't know how many great binos don't work for me because of this.


ER has always been a problem for me also with 30/32 mm binoculars. It becomes a bigger problem when they have wide field oculars on them.

I find that even the design of the eye cups can make a difference. I don't like eye cups that have rounded off tops. Straight flat tops make them easier for me to brace up against my eye brows.

Swarovski seems to have eliminated some eye placement problems with its curious "optical box" design of the oculars in their new CL Companion 8/10x30B. I am able to use those binoculars braced up against my eye brows or with the eye pieces back around my eye balls which I could not do with any previous binocular.
 

cycleguy

Well-known member
Not really. The Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 B and new Nikon Monarch 8x30 HG have FOVs that are close to each other but the Nikon FOV is wider. All you really want to do is move the Swarovski slightly by "pivoting" your neck to create a similar FOV as the Nikons. It isn't complicated. You probably do it unconsciously with any binocular when following a bird flitting through the branches of a tree. That is what I meant when I commented that the Nikons "38 more feet FOV at 1000 yards was insignificant in normal use" when compared with the Swarovski. See Post #12 above.

It is absurd to think that uncontrolled neck swiveling will make a binocular with a narrow FOV competitive with one with a very wide FOV.

Bob,

Yes it is; as are many things BirdForum!

Hey, I'm just trying to fit in here!!;)

CG
 

dries1

Member
I have a Leica UV 8X42 HD and although it has a bit less FOV than the HG Nikon 8X42, I don't have any problem missing something afield. We are not talking large differences between the CL and the HG 8X30 with respect to field of view at all, minuscule IMHO.

Andy W.
 

bartd

Well-known member
I have been using Nikon's MONARCH HG 10x42 binos for over a year now. I think without a doubt they are the best bino's I own and that includes some Euro bino's that cost more than double. The clarity and low use make them perfect for my needs. It's great that Nikon has come out with a more compact version, the 8 and 10x30 models. I use the MONARCH 7 8x30's for scouting and preseason waterfowl identification. Easy to wear around your neck for hours. I keep the full-size bino's in a chest strap for ease of use and protection.
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Lee,

As a practical matter, if I were doing something like that on a regular basis I would not use any 8x30 or 8x32 binoculars which are very useful in closeup work in the canopy or while engaged in general birding.

I would use instead a high quality wide field 7x42 like Jerry Liguori recommends in his books: "Hawks at a Distance" and "Hawks at any Angle." The binoculars he has used since 1994 were the Zeiss 7x45 Night Owl and later the 7x42 Victory FL.

I'm sure that they would be just as advantageous while sweeping the sea for Otters, Seals, Loons or Whales from the land or from a boat. Their large exit pupils are very forgiving.

Bob

Absolutely agree about 7x. I have a MeoStar 7x42 which is not a fov-monster like an FL but has the extra depth of field and ease of eye-placement to which you refer. But I do like the compact form of a 30/32mm on some days especially when carrying a lot of photo gear/tripod.

Lee
 

aCuria

Well-known member
Bob is right here. The fov difference is insignificant. Lee make the point about a 19% increase in viewing area, but that too is, as a practical matter...insignificant. That is my opinion. What is factored out in fov discussions is that while we can change magnifications, fov width, coatings and other things, we are stuck with our narrow focus human vision. Give that same human vision a 19% larger area, you simply are adding a larger area for our narrow vision, central focused vision at that, to contend with. This, again in my opinion, causes observers to rely more on the fov of the binocular and far too little on our own eyes, which are what should be getting ti most use in a birding situation. There is certainly some advantage to adding peripheral vision,m but those who seem to feel they can dart their eyes to the edge are simply exposing various aberrations that are caused by off axis viewing that were never intended to be tin the center field in the first place. Plus that edge darting seems a splendid way to create eye strain. It is very hard to actually look at the edge of the fov.

Humans have an approximately ~120 degree field of vision in the horizontal axis, and I would have to agree that binoculars having a AFOV in excess of human FOV would be "insignificant"

Of this ~120 degrees, the central ~60 degrees is "binocular vision" while the outer ~30 degrees on both sides only seen by one eye would be "peripheral vision". The specific angle would vary from person to person.

The amount of vision we actively use also varies between people. It is said that to play certain sports (football perhaps?) at the highest level you would need to make full use of your peripheral vision.

Differences between individuals is probably why some people value having high FOVs in binoculars more than others... I would like as much AFOV as I can get!
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Field of view is important for some of my activities but it is not the only factor. We have been using Leica Trinovid HD 8x32 for several days on North Uist because although their fov is modest at 124m it has a close focus of only 1 metre and that suited our needs on those days. Today I am using a wider fov to watch a mother and young Otter as they dive and disappear, then re-surface. The wider fov just makes re-finding them a little bit easier although just at the moment the naked eye is good enough for this as there is no wind and the water is flat calm. Later today when the water is choppy the wider fov will be more important.

Lee
 

dalat

Well-known member
Europe
A wide field is always nice to have (the image just looks bigger and thus more close to our natural wide angle view). But I find it most useful in forests when following warblers or other small birds in dense vegetation, where you are never sure where exactly they reappear. Prime example are bird waves in in tropical forests, where a wide view just helps you to detect more movement and find more birds.

Ok, but back to the Monarch! It has hit the shelves now, at least some retailers show it in stock. Can someone please buy it and tell us all about it? ;)
 

zzzzzz

Well-known member
...
Ok, but back to the Monarch! It has hit the shelves now, at least some retailers show it in stock. Can someone please buy it and tell us all about it? ;)

Someone posted this on another forum. Google translated.

https://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,440778,440891#msg-440891

Thank you for the many tips and useful hints. I took a closer look at two glasses, the Zeiss Conquest 10x32 and the Nikon Monarch 10x30 HG. At first I had problems with shadowing at the beginning. From Zeiss I got a couple of alternative eyecups sent. I screwed these up; but I can not say that they are longer. Nevertheless, the problems have settled, probably simply because I got used to the glass and now it automatically holds better. I am thrilled by the sharpness of the glass. If I have focused exactly, a very nice spatial picture is created. Compared to the Nikon, the picture is a little bit darker, but also more contrast. I also like the picture of the Nikon. Sharpness is not a problem (although it can not compete with the Zeiss). Overall, the picture looks a little brighter and "sweeter". This also probably contributes to the fact that it is very spacious. However, I do not get along with the Nikon at all, as far as shading is concerned. I have to hold the glass so that it may even have 1-2 mm distance to the eyebrows, otherwise I see constantly black edges and stains, ie I can not really do it at all, but must keep it "floating" in front of the eyes. Why is that, I can not say, I just realize that the eyecups are somehow too short for me. That's why I'll send it back. Whether I would have preferred it to the Zeiss, if I did not have this problem, I can not say. It's of course wonderfully small and compact, the covers fit perfectly, and it makes a pretty sturdy and waterproof impression, making it ideal for hikes. Nevertheless, the Zeiss has struck me with its sharp and spatial image in its spel
 
Last edited:

dalat

Well-known member
Europe
Thanks a lot, indeed someone who had it in hand. I understand he ordered it directly from Nikon.

What he says about eyecups is probably personal, but he also said it was sharp, but less than the Zeiss Conquest HD...

Ok, I guess we need a couple of more impressions :)
 

In Focus

Well-known member
We have just taken delivery of these and first impressions are excellent. Available from tomorrow in our London Colney head office if anyone local to that shop wants to test them - please contact other shops for availability. Also available to order online of course:

https://www.at-infocus.co.uk/product/nikon-monarch-hg

Our prices are £799 and £829.

Best regards, The In Focus Team
 

typo

Well-known member
I was able to have a quick look at the 8x30 this morning. Compared to the Monarch 7 I thought the field was a little flatter and the edges sharper. The glare and CA were also improved but under the light conditions at the time, not as good as the CL. One little frustration was the eye position was really critical with my glasses. The margin between blackouts and narrowing the field of view was pretty much zero it seemed. The focus was very fast, less than 1/4 turn between 5m and infinity, with good resistance and smoothness, and very much to my taste.

The killer for me was that neither the HG or CL were as sharp as the Monarch 7. Others will have different priorities.

David
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top