I agree the Swarovski 8x30 CL is not for everybody and it is not as good as the SV 8x32 by a long shot but it controls glare better than the M7 and it will cut through haze better..
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nikon Monarch 7 new 8x30 and 10x30 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fkrow
- Start date
The Swarovski 8x30 CL is a good binocular with a mediocre FOV. Not anywhere near as good as the SV 8x32 but in my testing it controlled glare better than the Nikon M7 8x30. I have personally compared the Nikon M7 to MANY binoculars and I find it the worst at controlling that veiling type glare that floods the FOV. For me a deal breaker. I think you need to compare the M7 to some more expensive binoculars and you will see what I am talking about. Even an E2 controls glare better.
FrankD
Well-known member
Dennis,
I usually don't get involved in these discussions with you but I feel compelled to say that you are way off base with this one. I have compared the CL repeatedly with both the Nikon M7 and the Maven B3. The CL isn't in the same league optically. The CL doesn't have the contrast of either of the other two not to mention the notably narrower field of view. It seemed well built on the occasions that I handled it but, lets be honest, the price difference between these models is solely based on the cost of labor from the country of origin.
I don't have a problem with the glare issue with either the Nikon (now that I have handled fully blackened units) or the Maven.
In defense of one of Dennis' points, I found the Maven B3 (the closely related sibling of the Nikon) to be to be a "glare monster" too.
Now glare can be quite dependent on the nature of the incoming light (angles of the incoming light, etc.) and also eye positioning of the user... but it's hard for me to see how FrankD could have missed the glare issues of the B3 unless the copy he received was considerably different than mine. I really don't know. The glare I saw was easily manifested under many real world conditions. I always test with multiple models at the same time so I have as many models as possible to compare to.
Now glare can be quite dependent on the nature of the incoming light (angles of the incoming light, etc.) and also eye positioning of the user... but it's hard for me to see how FrankD could have missed the glare issues of the B3 unless the copy he received was considerably different than mine. I really don't know. The glare I saw was easily manifested under many real world conditions. I always test with multiple models at the same time so I have as many models as possible to compare to.
Last edited:
Yes. I agree. I find the Nikon M7 a "glare monster" I don't care what Frank says and there are many other people on this forum that agree with me. Frank thinks the Maven B3 is optically better than the Swarovski CL 8x30 but outside of the Maven's bigger FOV he is totally off track. I compared those two binoculars under different conditions such as twilight and the Swarovski CL 8x30 was optically superior especially in bringing out detail which Swarovski's are known for. Sometimes it takes time and a lot of observing to really appreciate a superior binocular and I don't think Frank took the time to REALLY compare these two. I quickly returned both the Maven B3 8x30 and the Nikon M7 8x30. I all I can say is buyer beware and don't always believe everything you read. Frank is known for writing reviews of inexpensive binoculars that he finds comparable to much more expensive optics. I have tried many of his so called "bargain basement binoculars" and although I will admit they are good for their price they are not even close to binoculars which cost more. I have kept none of his binoculars because I have had some kind of a problem with all of them either with the optics or the build quality.The Maven B3 or Nikon M7 even with their bigger FOV are not near the binocular the Swarovski 8x30 CL is either optically or build quality wise. Frank is also wrong on the fact that price difference between the Swarovski 8x30 CL and Maven B3 is based on the cost of labor. Look at the binoculars side by side. The Swarovski's are obviously higher quality. The Maven's look CHINESE built which they are. I really think they are just an M7 knockoff. If you can't see the difference in quality you are blind. The materials on the Swarovski are way higher quality and the optical glass and coatings are also.
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Nice dodge, but .......
Your point in an above post was that you get what you pay for in regards to the Swaro CL 8X30.
Do you think the Swaro CL 8X30 is worth $1,000, especially considering the FOV, the subtle haze type veiling glare, the Swaro potential focus mechanism issues, and quality of view as pointed out by Frank in his above post?
* * * * * * *
I do question your statement that you compared the Nikon Monarch 7 8X30 to "MANY" binoculars.
First, you cycle through your binoculars so you generally have only one on hand, or maybe a few for a short period. That does not allow for an opportunity to do "MANY" side by side comparisons if you have nothing to compare with. Second, you had the first M7 for a very short period (two weeks?) and the second for only a couple of days. That means you did not have an opportunity to compare to "MANY" binoculars over a period of time.
You mentioned that I should compare the M7 to some more expensive binoculars. Why? Your complaint is that it is "the worst at controlling that veiling type glare that floods the FOV". You do not need to do a comparison to notice glare that floods the FOV. It is quite obvious. I am not saying the M7 is immune from that type of glare because it is not. I am saying for me it is rare and thus it is not a "Glare Monster".
Now if you are saying the M7 suffers from that very thin overcast, smokey type glare that covers the view and reduces the contrast, then that is a different story. It can be difficult to pick up that subtle haze of veiling glare without something to compare with. (James H. has a good post on that.) So, if you say you compared from memory and noticed that type of glare in the M7, then your results have little validity without doing a side by side comparison with a binocular known to handle that type of glare.
I have done side by side comparisons of my M7 8X30 with a Zeiss HT, a Nkon EDG, a Zeiss SF, a Nikon SE and a Nikon EII, plus more regarded as being able to handle this type of subtle glare, and the little M7 held it's own. I did not compare it to a Swaro EL SV for two reasons. First, the EL has problems with this type of glare so it did not make any sense in comparing the two since the goal is to spot a difference. Second, I do not own any Swaro EL models (see the previous sentence).
You said in your testing, the CL controlled glare much better than the M7. Did you have both of these models at the same time to do a side by side comparison? If you are talking about the subtle overcast glare, that is a difficult statement to substantiate without testing side by side. I would like to do an outdoor comparison of the M7 and the CL. My expectation is that I would see that faint overcast contrast reducing glare in the CL that I see under the store lights and have seen outdoors in the Swaro EL, but I do not see outdoors in the M7.
I do wonder why some members have more glare issues with the M7 than others. It does have a small exit pupil so the IPD setting is more critical. I wonder if an improper IPD setting is part of the problem for some. There has been speculation Nikon made some production changes, but I still have doubts about that.
You make the point that the M7 view is inferior to the CL. Not all agree as pointed out by the above post from Frank. Your modus operandi on the forum is to cherry pick a single post and then draw a general conclusion. So here is a single post made today from a member not participating in this discussion saying the M7 is just as good as the CL.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3233713&postcount=19
Based on your logic, you will have to agree that the M7 is as good as the CL, else it would be hypocritical of you to say otherwise! :king:
Finally, I have a Zen-Ray E2 7X36 and do not have pervasive glare issues with it or the Monarch 7 8X30.
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Dennis, you do not keep any binoculars!
It is not a matter of if the SV 8X32 is headed to the Bay, it just a matter of when.
The only mystery is what is going to be the new Best Birding Binocular in the World.
I have had the SV 8x32 for about two years with no plans on flipping it. I haven't found anything better in an 8x32. I also have the Nikon E2 8x30 for my wide FOV binocular and the Leica Trinovid 8x32 BA(I found the BA sharper than the BN)for my car and rough duty binocular. From the feedback I am getting I don't think the Zeiss SF 8x42 could replace my SV. A lot of people that have compared them still like the SV better.
"Now if you are saying the M7 suffers from that very thin overcast, smokey type glare that covers the view and reduces the contrast, then that is a different story. It can be difficult to pick up that subtle haze of veiling glare without something to compare with. (James H. has a good post on that.) So, if you say you compared from memory and noticed that type of glare in the M7, then your results have little validity without doing a side by side comparison with a binocular known to handle that type of glare.
I have done side by side comparisons of my M7 8X30 with a Zeiss HT, a Nkon EDG, a Zeiss SF, a Nikon SE and a Nikon EII, plus more regarded as being able to handle this type of subtle glare, and the little M7 held it's own. I did not compare it to a Swaro EL SV for two reasons. First, the EL has problems with this type of glare so it did not make any sense in comparing the two since the goal is to spot a difference. Second, I do not own any Swaro EL models (see the previous sentence)."
The smoky contrast reducing glare is exactly what I am talking about. I am amazed that you compared the M7 to and EDG, Nikon SE and a Nikon E2 and found the M7 to "Hold it's Own". I have compared it to all three of those binoculars and found them to be superior to the M7 in reducing this type of glare specifically. The SE especially is one of the better binoculars I have found at controlling this type of glare. It makes me wonder if this type of glare is hard to detect by some people. I had the Swarovski 8x30 CL at the same time I had the M7 and spent many hours at different times of the day comparing them. The M7 was pretty good on an overcast day but that smoky haze still crept into the FOV when I would move the binoculars especially in a vertical direction. It was at twilight when I better coatings of the Swarovski's really paid off. I was looking at the base of a big Blue Spruce out in the yard which has a bunch of pine cones and debris under it and I really noticed that I could see a lot more detail with the CL's than I could with the M7's. For me it was an Aha moment of discovery! I really don't think Frank tests binoculars under these conditions like this. But this is exactly where the superior binocular really show it's true colors. Under tough lighting conditions like this. Of course when I pulled out my 8x32 SV's they literally blew the M7's away. The CL 8x30's have a similar view to the SV 8x32's but they just don't have the big FOV or the sharp edges. In that smaller FOV though you could see more detail than the M7's. I have had the first generation M7's and the newest model because I just bought them on Amazon.com. NO DIFFERENCE!
To me, the Maven seemed to be of good quality, except for the minor point of a slightly under-tensioned bridge (and the susceptibility to glare).
For reference, I find that the Nikon 8x30 EII seems quite good at controlling glare under most conditions.
The 7x36 (Eagle Optics version) falls somewhere in the middle (This is a reversal of my previous initial opinion where I thought the 7x36 was better in that respect than the EII. Glare definitely depends on the conditions.)
For reference, I find that the Nikon 8x30 EII seems quite good at controlling glare under most conditions.
The 7x36 (Eagle Optics version) falls somewhere in the middle (This is a reversal of my previous initial opinion where I thought the 7x36 was better in that respect than the EII. Glare definitely depends on the conditions.)
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
What happened to the Atlas 7X36?
I suspect you are right that you would not like the SF. Not because of the optics, which are superb, but because you have a strong preference for the smaller 30mm class. The SF is noticeably larger than your SV 8X32.
I am reading the same posts as you and I am not seeing a "lot" of people saying they like the SV better. Out of all the people posting about shopping for the SF, I just recall one that actually bought the SV instead. The vote that counts the most is the one cast with the wallet and there are now a number of members who have an SF. Go though the long Zeiss SF thread and there are numerous posts from members with hands on experience favorably discussing the SF.
I have compared the 10X42 Zeiss SF with the 10X42 SV side by side and like High North and other posters, used my wallet to vote for the SF. I really do not understand why you continue to cherry pick information and continue to make unsubstantiated statements to repetitively slam a binocular you have never seen. You have made comment after comment to cast the SF in a negative way, but nary a positive comment. Keep in mind these are comments concerning a binocular you have never seen. What's up with that? There is something going on that just does not seem right to me.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
I am happy to say no smoky glare for me with the M7 8X30.
It can be hard to detect because it is very subtle. That is why it is best to compare with a binocular known to handle this situation well. I had no problem detecting it in the 8X32 SV. The last two times were in a comparison with a Swaro SLC, which does not have the problem. It shows up best against a dark background. The one case was looking at a mounted black bear high on the wall next to a back lit window at the local Cabela's. The bear was clear with the SLC but there was a very light haze with the SV. The other time was at a festival looking at a black ribbed material on the backdrop of the opposite booth. The SLC showed all the material and ribbing in splendid detail but the same backdrop looked like a dark blob with the SV. That was the worst example I have seen with the SV. It was quite surprising. In fairness, the problem should be much less outdoors where there are not the numerous light sources as found on the ceiling of a convention room.
Getting back to the original issue of "you get what you pay for": Do you think the Swaro CL 8X30 is worth $1,000 considering everything worth considering?
Elmer Fudd
Well-known member
That makes me feel better about my order of a M 7 8x30 I placed a few days ago in my local camera store. This morning I received an email that I can pick it up at the store.
I didn't have any experience before with this pair of binos because they just had a specimen of of a 10x32 Pro Staff which less expensive than the M7.
Tomorrow is the day....
Dennis,
If you want to maintain what little credibility you have left around here you had better be able to prove that the Maven binoculars are made in China.
Here is the response you received from Maven when you inquired about this issue with them. You posted it here and you are now calling them liars. If I were in their shoes I would sue you! (Mostly for the lack of gratitude you have shown to them for the polite and helpful response they made to you!)
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3180223&postcount=19
Bob
Last edited:
What did you prefer about the Zeiss 10x42 SF over the Swarovski 10x42 SV besides the larger FOV? What other optical advantages does it have?
I would say the Swarovski CL 8x30's are worth the $1000 if you consider the warranty and how well Swarovski handles warranty problems but I don't like the smaller FOV either. My point is I feel they handled glare better than the M7 when I compared them and I feel the M7's don't handle glare well. I only paid $700 for mine when I bought them but I sold them because I have the 8x32 SV's which have everything they do plus a larger FOV and sharper edges. I moved back to 8x32's with bigger FOV's. I have the SV, EII and the Trinovid which all have big FOV's and that is what I like now. Of the three the SV is the weakest glare handler of the three but they all handled glare better than the M7. I would have to agree that optically the Trinovid and the EII are better optically than the Swarovski 8x30 CL especially when you factor in their bigger FOV's. That is why I have them.
Howard220
Well-known member
I feel compelled to repeat that I see no veiling/smoky/whatever you want to call it glare in my M7 8x30's. I DO know what the effect is because it's readily apparent in my Nikon 9x25 Travelite V's. The whole scene is fogged over under many different conditions of lighting. I also reiterate the serial number range of mine: it's just above 8000. I bought it about a month ago at a local store that received it directly from Nikon. I would have seen them a lot sooner, but the store people told me Nikon was doing inventory (or some such) and therefore wasn't shipping anything to anyone for a while. Translation: I may have gotten one of the most recently made ones.
Interesting so you noticed it in the Nikon 9x25 Travelite's V. So it is in other models. Maybe my M7's were defective but I did definitely notice it. Some people don't see it.
Dennis,
The 9x25 is a old model reverse porro that was discontinued by Nikon several years ago. Nikon no longer makes 9x25 reverse porros. Current prices of the other Travelites are under $100.00. So yes, it is in some of Nikon's other models, Genius!
But the Travelites give much better views than any binocular Swarovski makes which costs less than $100.00 so what is your point!
Bob
Last edited:
