One of the top birders in my county used a garbage Tasco 10x fold up...probably cost about $25 or so. He was better at ID than most.
-
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 HG wins 1st Place in Field and Stream test of 13 new Binoculars. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ceasar
- Start date
A birder/researcher I know uses Swarovskis. Always sceptical, I asked if he thought they were worth the money. He said he’d happily pay double for them.
One comment I heard (elsewhere) was that despite not being that much better for id, alpha binoculars are less tiring for all day observing for research.
One comment I heard (elsewhere) was that despite not being that much better for id, alpha binoculars are less tiring for all day observing for research.
Egrets Ivadafew
Well-known member
I like alphas...no, honestly, I do. In a world of make it quick, make it cheap, we need quality. I also understand people who buy alphas, (£1000 for a season ticket at Chelsea is ludicrous UNLESS you're a blue to the bone supporter who gets a knee buckling belt of adrenalin to see them bang the winner past Arsenal on a Saturday afternoon), so yes, for people obsessed with birds, buy the best, and who am I to judge a decent man spending decent cash on something harmless.
Anyway, I'd saved up for a complete revamp of gear -Bins, scope, tripod, and went along to the Birdfair to checkout my shortlist. I had no intention of buying an alpha but, all the same, I noticed folk buzzing like flies round the Leica stand and, well, decided to take a peek. So there I am poised, my fingers caressing the luxurious tactility of a brand new pair of Noctivids, I raise them to my eyes, tilt, and...well not much actually. I mean they were lovely, but? I think I was more relieved than disappointed.
Roll on a couple of weeks, and my gear turns up, Nikon MHG (nice sharp view) Opticron HR80 GA ED + SDLv2 eyepiece (nice sharp view) Manfrotto 500 head (smooth op), and 055 tripod (sturdy). Not top of the shop, but more than enough for me. So I'm happy right? Then I get the bill come up on my bank statement -£1945 (ok I'd shopped around for the best deals) and it suddenly dawned that I'd got all this stuff for the same price as 1xNoctivid. That's when my condition began -the Binocular Doubt I mentioned in an earlier post. I thought I'd missed something, hadn't given the Leicas a fair chance, was too quick to tick the 'ok I suppose' box. After all, when I nail my first Hawfinch (I'm sure they don't exist) I want to be punched between the eyes with those gorgeous markings not left with an anti-climax.
Thanks to the tablets prescribed by Dr Chill4x4 and Dr Troubadour, I think I'm over the worse. Certainly the nightmares aren't so frequent (the last one involved me coming home unexpectedly to find Mrs Egrets in bed with a pair of 8.5x42ELs), and nurse assures me that one day I'll be able to look through a pair of binoculars and smile at the same time.
It's just that price leap from £800 (MHG) to £1900 (Noctivid), I just feel I've...NURSE! MY BEDPAN PLEASE!!!......too late.
They've come down somewhat in price then...... Time to snap a pair up before the exchange rate nose dives after *you*know*what*...... 8-P
I just thought I'd throw in this story about my search for better binoculars. I became convinced my old low end Bushnells were out of alignment. I'd always struggled with their stiff focusing, and visited several shops to try as many top end ones as possible. Zeiss and Leica seemed ok, but not right. Swarovskis felt really nice, my eyes just relaxed as I looked through them. The difference was so obvious that I decided I should save up for those.
Later at home, I tried to work out just how out of alignment my Bushnells were, and discovered that MY GLASSES WERE TWISTED. I straightened them, and the binoculars were fine again. Not out of alignment.
That explains why the Zeiss and Leicas were uncomfortable. But what was going on with the Swarovskis that they worked great with twisted spectacles?
For the record, still fairly happy with my Monarchs after 7 years, and if I busted them, the current plan is to just get another pair. I think I'd have to use alpha binoculars for a whole day of birding to convince myself they're worth it. No amount of looking out of shop windows at pigeons is going to do it.
Later at home, I tried to work out just how out of alignment my Bushnells were, and discovered that MY GLASSES WERE TWISTED. I straightened them, and the binoculars were fine again. Not out of alignment.
That explains why the Zeiss and Leicas were uncomfortable. But what was going on with the Swarovskis that they worked great with twisted spectacles?
For the record, still fairly happy with my Monarchs after 7 years, and if I busted them, the current plan is to just get another pair. I think I'd have to use alpha binoculars for a whole day of birding to convince myself they're worth it. No amount of looking out of shop windows at pigeons is going to do it.
Egrets Ivadafew
Well-known member
I think you've whacked the nail on the head there pshute. After all the debating and the agonising, if you lost your bins but received the full cost of them in cash, would you buy the same again or would you look round for an alternative. Me? Early days for the MHG, but they feel comfy, (sort of 'for me').
I tried a Nikon Monarch MHG 8x42. Overall it is a nice binocular for under $1000.00. The total package is very nice. It is very light for a 42mm and compact. The ergonomics are very good and the focus wheel is typical Nikon smooth. The case and especially the objective covers are really nice the way they attach and become part of the binocular. The eyecups are smooth and the really lock into place tightly and the diopter can be locked which is nice. They are very bright and have a huge FOV. But as Chill 4x4 said they are no Zeiss SF or Swarovski SV when it comes to a flat field and sharp edges. I am surprised Nikon advertises them as having sharp edges because in my opinion they do not. So it takes away from any WOW factor. There is quite a bit of fall off in sharpness at the edges unlike the SV, SF or Canon 10x42 IS-L which are tack sharp to the edge. Flare control is very good. Right up there with the best. CA is about average with a tiny bit on-axis and a little above average on the edge. I can see why some complained about CA. They are fine but the CA may bother some people that are sensitive to it. If you are used to an SF of SV these are going to disappoint. They are not up to that level. Comparing sharpness to my Canon's 10x42 IS-L's the Canon's seemed quite a bit sharper on-axis and especially at the edges. The thing that was a deal killer for me was that the eye relief was longer than the eye cups for my eye socket depth. I seem to do best with about 15mm of eye relief. The 17mm on the MHG's made the eye relief too long and I had to hold the binoculars almost a little ways about .5mm from the eye cups to avoid blackouts and I can not tolerate that. I want to put the binoculars firmly into the eyes and not have any blackouts. I would say these are very nice binoculars for $1000.00 but if you want flat field and sharp edges and you can pop for the extra on an SF or SV you will be happier but your bank account may not be.:-O
Last edited:
This is certainly better than the usual "almost as good as an Alpha" type of review that one sees so frequently.
I will agree if you want a BIG, flat FOV with sharp edges. SF , SV or Canon 10x42 IS-L are the only game in town.
Last edited:
Egrets Ivadafew
Well-known member
If anyone finds this is all that detracts from what are a decent pair of bins, the rubber eyecups from the Kowa Prominar 8.5x44 fit very snugly over the MHG 8x42 eyecups and thus fitted cut out the blackouts. I can understand those who say 'why should I pay for improvements'...but still, they work.
I agree the MHGs aren't sharp to the very edges but let's face it, if they were then at £1000 more, Zeiss would really be struggling with sales of the SF.
I don't usually modify my binoculars. There are too many other binoculars that work without changing them. It takes a lot of lenses especially in the eyepiece to correct a flat wide FOV so they are sharp right to the edge hence they are expensive to manufacture like the SF. The only binocular that has an AFOV of 65 degrees and is flat and sharp to the edge and is under $1000.00 is the Canon 10x42 IS-L. The other two I can think of but they are over $2000.00 are the Swarovski 10x50 SV and the Zeiss 8x42 and 10x42 SF. For this reason these four binoculars are my biggest WOW binoculars. Any binocular with an AFOV bigger than 65 degrees with a perfectly corrected flat field and sharp edges is going to be a WOW binocular because it is like peering into a window that is big and real because it is sharp to the edge.
I wonder if they are any good? They look like interesting porro's and they come in 7x30 and 8x30. It looks like they target military usage. Check out the thermal imaging binoculars.
I agree with a lot of your impressions denco. I had a look through the 8x42 at Birdfair and there was a lot to like about it. The overall impression of build quality is good - better in my opinion than Opticron's version of the Tract - and the overall size/weight fit handled well in my hands. Optical performance also seemed very solid - I was aware it had a large field of view (although did not quite realize it was as large as it is). I'd say it's very competitive with the Conquest HD. My impression was that the Conquest HD was a little brighter/more contrasty (I know we're not supposed to perceive small differences in brightness but that's how it seemed to me, maybe my eyes were fooled by some Zeiss sleight of hand) and maybe just a tiny bit sharper, but in between looking through the Conquest HD and the Monarch I had been looking through the best binoculars in terms of image I was to see that day (8x56 SLC, 10x50SV, 8x54 and 10x54 HT) so my eyes might well have been a bit jaded by then. If I was intent on purchasing either of those I would make sure to test both again to be sure of what I saw through them. No issues personally with eye relief and the sweet spot was large, no doubt because of the field flattener. I didn't think to test for absolute sharpness all the way to the edge, being content with the large sweet spot for observation, but I'd have been surprised if a 145m field of view could be made sharp edge to edge. I wish I had compared it to other offerings in this price range eg. from Kowa, Kite, Leica Trinovid, etc.
The Zeiss SF 8x42 is about the only binocular that has a 444 foot flat FOV with edge to edge sharpness. But you will pay for it. It is on another level above the Nikon MHG. I agree with you on the Conquest HD. I also feel it is brighter and more contrasty and a little sharper than the MHG. The MHG didn't seem to me as sharp on-axis as some other binoculars I have tried maybe because of the big FOV. If your content with a smaller FOV I would go with the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42 or perhaps the Conquest HD 8x32 for a little bigger FOV over the Nikon MHG
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Dennis ...... Nice summary of the Nikon Monarch HG 8X42. I have had mine now for a couple of months and am quite happy with it. I agree with most of what you observed with just a few exceptions.
What makes this binocular stand out among other models in the same class are the exceptional wide FOV and the light weight and handling for a 42mm. You also made note of those features. I suspect it did remind you to some degree of your prior Swaro EL SV 8X32. You have mentioned previously of your desire for the smaller lighter size of a 32mm as compared to a 42mm. The HG is a lot closer to those attributes of your old 32mm than other 42mm models.
You and Chuck are right about the HG not being sharp to the edge. Some other members have observed the same. I do not understand why Nikon says the following:
"Nikon’s Field Flattener Lens System - Works in conjunction with MONARCH HG’s extraordinarily wide field of view* —8.3° and 6.9° respectively in the 8x42 and 10x42 models—to provide a sharp, clear view to the lens periphery."
My guess is Nikon wanted a larger center view than that of the Monarch 7 but did not want to infringe on the flat view of the EDG so they held back to some degree in the HG. It is a very nice compromise.
There is noticeable fall of in sharpness closer to the edge compared to a flat field model such as the Zeiss SF, Nikon EDG or Canon 10X42 L IS, but not compared to a classic design, such as a Tract Toric or Zeiss Conquest, that does not use lens flatteners. Realistically, the HG should be classified with and compared to classic designs rather than flat field models even though Nikon promotes the HG as a flat field binocular.
When compared to classic models, the 8X42 HG has a very large center view. I compared it to an 8X42 Swaro SLC WB HD and they are very close with the HG maybe being ever so slightly larger. That says a lot considering the SLC is known for having a large center.
I would not say that the lack of a flat field takes away from the WOW factor as that can be a matter of personal preference. There are posts from members who do not like the flat views, saying they look unnatural. I personally like the view from a full flat field model but I am also impressed with the views from many of the classic models. I think the HG can give an impressive view, especially when considering the exceptional wide FOV.
There is resolution and apparent sharpness. I did not do a controlled resolution test so I do not know how that works out. I did compare to some other 8X units and the HG resolved just as well for me. The HG resolves to at least my corrected visual acuity which per a recent eye exam is "almost 20/15".
The perceived sharpness can be quite subjective. Your comparison was with an 8X vs. a 10X which complicates things even more. On the face of things, the 10X will show more detail than the 8X. That then leaves the difficult task of trying to equate the two. I found the apparent sharpness of the HG to be very good but just not quite at the level of a Zeiss SF. I did compare it to a Nikon EDG 8X32 and after careful comparison, it is just a little bit easier to pick out the fine detail with the EDG. I also compared the HG to the SLC and again, I think I was a little bit quicker picking out fine detail with the SLC.
It really needs to be compared to other binoculars in the same class. I do not have a Tract Toric 8X42 but I do have a Toric 10X42 and so I did compare the two. The power difference makes it a difficult comparison but I concentrated mainly on contrast differences and thought the HG was ever so slightly better in showing those contrasts differences. Color balance and the color of what is being viewed can influence the perception so the result can be variable. The Toric looks to have a slightly warmer color balance than the HG so that may play a part in my results. They are close enough so I think the apparent sharpness of the HG is as good as other contenders in this class.
The absolute eye relief is not the main concern when viewing without eye glasses. The real number of interest is what I think of as the "net eye relief". It is the amount of eye relief after adjusting for the length of the extended eye cup. For example, using relative numbers of 15mm for eye relief and 9mm for the length of the extended eye cup, the net eye relief would be 6mm. In another example, if the eye relief is specified as 17mm and the extended eye cup is 12mm, then the net eye relief is 5mm.
Dennis, even though you generally have had more success with a 15mm total eye relief model, in the above example, the 17mm model may work better for you because it has less net eye relief.
What counts is how long the eye cup is in relation the the total eye relief. I have a problem with several models where the eye cup is to short for the eye relief when viewing without glasses. It seems each manufacturer has their own idea what the ideal number should be.
Unlike your experience, I did not find the eye cup to be to short for the eye relief in the HG. I am not sure why you had this problem and I did not as the HG worked out better for me in this regard than many other models out there. I am curious what eye cup setting you use for the Canon 10X42 L IS. That is the only binocular I have where I have to retract the eye in one position from full extension in order to get the full FOV. Do you use it with the eye cups fully extended or do you retract it one stop or more stops?
Just a couple of things come to mind that could be a cause of the results you had. Are you sure you had the eye cups of the HG fully extended? There are four positions. Full retraction, two intermediate stops, and fully extended. A second possibility is the IPD setting was off somewhat. Your experience is not what I would have expected with the HG but I am at a loss to explain it.
Having a Zeiss SF 8X42, I think it is the finest binocular I have ever used. Even so, the Nikon HG is not a disappointment. Actually, it is quite impressive. The SF is better optically but the HG is still very good and the differences are not huge. There are times that I go for the HG when looking for the smaller size and lighter weight and I am not giving up a lot optically. The FOV of the HG is larger than most, the view is bright with a nice contrast and center view is also larger than most. Given a choice between the two, I would easily choose the SF but I would not be disappointed with the HG.
What would be interesting to hear is how you think the Nikon Monarch 8X42 HG compares to your Tract Toric 8X42. Unless you can find a resolution to the eye cup length issue you experienced, the HG would not be a contender for you, but assuming they were the same in that regard, how do they compare?
I have compared the 8X42 HG to my Tract Toric 10X42. Based on what I have read, I am assuming the 8X42 and 10X42 Toric are very similar other than magnification and apparent FOV. Based on what I have experienced and making mental adjustments for the differences in the specs between the two Torics, I would go with the HG due to the large FOV, the smaller size and lighter weight and what I think would be ever so better contrast.
What makes this binocular stand out among other models in the same class are the exceptional wide FOV and the light weight and handling for a 42mm. You also made note of those features. I suspect it did remind you to some degree of your prior Swaro EL SV 8X32. You have mentioned previously of your desire for the smaller lighter size of a 32mm as compared to a 42mm. The HG is a lot closer to those attributes of your old 32mm than other 42mm models.
You and Chuck are right about the HG not being sharp to the edge. Some other members have observed the same. I do not understand why Nikon says the following:
"Nikon’s Field Flattener Lens System - Works in conjunction with MONARCH HG’s extraordinarily wide field of view* —8.3° and 6.9° respectively in the 8x42 and 10x42 models—to provide a sharp, clear view to the lens periphery."
My guess is Nikon wanted a larger center view than that of the Monarch 7 but did not want to infringe on the flat view of the EDG so they held back to some degree in the HG. It is a very nice compromise.
There is noticeable fall of in sharpness closer to the edge compared to a flat field model such as the Zeiss SF, Nikon EDG or Canon 10X42 L IS, but not compared to a classic design, such as a Tract Toric or Zeiss Conquest, that does not use lens flatteners. Realistically, the HG should be classified with and compared to classic designs rather than flat field models even though Nikon promotes the HG as a flat field binocular.
When compared to classic models, the 8X42 HG has a very large center view. I compared it to an 8X42 Swaro SLC WB HD and they are very close with the HG maybe being ever so slightly larger. That says a lot considering the SLC is known for having a large center.
I would not say that the lack of a flat field takes away from the WOW factor as that can be a matter of personal preference. There are posts from members who do not like the flat views, saying they look unnatural. I personally like the view from a full flat field model but I am also impressed with the views from many of the classic models. I think the HG can give an impressive view, especially when considering the exceptional wide FOV.
There is resolution and apparent sharpness. I did not do a controlled resolution test so I do not know how that works out. I did compare to some other 8X units and the HG resolved just as well for me. The HG resolves to at least my corrected visual acuity which per a recent eye exam is "almost 20/15".
The perceived sharpness can be quite subjective. Your comparison was with an 8X vs. a 10X which complicates things even more. On the face of things, the 10X will show more detail than the 8X. That then leaves the difficult task of trying to equate the two. I found the apparent sharpness of the HG to be very good but just not quite at the level of a Zeiss SF. I did compare it to a Nikon EDG 8X32 and after careful comparison, it is just a little bit easier to pick out the fine detail with the EDG. I also compared the HG to the SLC and again, I think I was a little bit quicker picking out fine detail with the SLC.
It really needs to be compared to other binoculars in the same class. I do not have a Tract Toric 8X42 but I do have a Toric 10X42 and so I did compare the two. The power difference makes it a difficult comparison but I concentrated mainly on contrast differences and thought the HG was ever so slightly better in showing those contrasts differences. Color balance and the color of what is being viewed can influence the perception so the result can be variable. The Toric looks to have a slightly warmer color balance than the HG so that may play a part in my results. They are close enough so I think the apparent sharpness of the HG is as good as other contenders in this class.
The absolute eye relief is not the main concern when viewing without eye glasses. The real number of interest is what I think of as the "net eye relief". It is the amount of eye relief after adjusting for the length of the extended eye cup. For example, using relative numbers of 15mm for eye relief and 9mm for the length of the extended eye cup, the net eye relief would be 6mm. In another example, if the eye relief is specified as 17mm and the extended eye cup is 12mm, then the net eye relief is 5mm.
Dennis, even though you generally have had more success with a 15mm total eye relief model, in the above example, the 17mm model may work better for you because it has less net eye relief.
What counts is how long the eye cup is in relation the the total eye relief. I have a problem with several models where the eye cup is to short for the eye relief when viewing without glasses. It seems each manufacturer has their own idea what the ideal number should be.
Unlike your experience, I did not find the eye cup to be to short for the eye relief in the HG. I am not sure why you had this problem and I did not as the HG worked out better for me in this regard than many other models out there. I am curious what eye cup setting you use for the Canon 10X42 L IS. That is the only binocular I have where I have to retract the eye in one position from full extension in order to get the full FOV. Do you use it with the eye cups fully extended or do you retract it one stop or more stops?
Just a couple of things come to mind that could be a cause of the results you had. Are you sure you had the eye cups of the HG fully extended? There are four positions. Full retraction, two intermediate stops, and fully extended. A second possibility is the IPD setting was off somewhat. Your experience is not what I would have expected with the HG but I am at a loss to explain it.
Having a Zeiss SF 8X42, I think it is the finest binocular I have ever used. Even so, the Nikon HG is not a disappointment. Actually, it is quite impressive. The SF is better optically but the HG is still very good and the differences are not huge. There are times that I go for the HG when looking for the smaller size and lighter weight and I am not giving up a lot optically. The FOV of the HG is larger than most, the view is bright with a nice contrast and center view is also larger than most. Given a choice between the two, I would easily choose the SF but I would not be disappointed with the HG.
What would be interesting to hear is how you think the Nikon Monarch 8X42 HG compares to your Tract Toric 8X42. Unless you can find a resolution to the eye cup length issue you experienced, the HG would not be a contender for you, but assuming they were the same in that regard, how do they compare?
I have compared the 8X42 HG to my Tract Toric 10X42. Based on what I have read, I am assuming the 8X42 and 10X42 Toric are very similar other than magnification and apparent FOV. Based on what I have experienced and making mental adjustments for the differences in the specs between the two Torics, I would go with the HG due to the large FOV, the smaller size and lighter weight and what I think would be ever so better contrast.
Last edited:
