One 8x3x to rule them all (1 Viewer)

[dorubird]

While Allbino's reviews shouldn't be taken for gospel, they have a largely standardised method that should ensure that, at minimum, closely related binoculars could be compared with some degree of precision. They had high hopes after reviewing the 10x42, but the 8x30's price-performance ratio didn't impress them.

If you compare the individual ratings, you find a striking similarity with the original Monarch 7.
And the rumours about the original Kite Lynx HD claimed it had slightly better glass than its twin, the Monarch 7.
It also has a FOV of 151 m, which is just barely perceptably smaller than the E II's 154 m.

This is exactly what I meant with the €1000 expense. The Monarch HG is clearly better in some respects and may allow me to use spectacles, but as a whole it's just another one that brings nothing new to the table. And it's sad, because I had really high hopes for it.
The 42 mm MHG's seem very close to, and partially better the EDG in some respects. The 30 mm MHG only seem to be half a notch above the Lynx, and I'd expect the M7 to be even closer to the MHG, but without the Kite's ginormous FOV.

//L

Edit: OK, it brings something to the table as it's actually better than the Kite and the E II. But it has drawbacks compared to the Meostar, and in particular I'm thinking about ruggedness. While MHG and Meostar B1 Plus are very different animals, it would be nice with a head-to-head comparison.

Yes allbinos is very useful, but for me that general ranking is very subjective and unimportant.
For example, I compared Nikon HGL 8X32 (5th place in their ranking) and Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 (16th place in their ranking). I also thought that I would like HGL much more. But the reality is the opposite fact: except for the amazing clarity on the edges and the lack of glare, HGL has no more advantage over M HG. In the rest of the chapters, the Monarch HG is a little better optically performing binocular, even in a much smaller and much lighter body! Resolution, contrast, resistance to chromatic aberrations are little higher in M HG than in HGL. Visual field of view also are larger in M HG (8.3 vs 7.8deg). Even if HGL has a 32mm and M HG has 30mm, the brightness in low light conditions is identical in both, which indicates a very large margin of error in the measurement of light transmission at HGL (the error is -1.5% as written in the review because they used an old method). So between 5th place and 16th place there should be a huge difference and this should be reflected in reality, but it doesn't happen like that. So I never give importance to the general rating, because I find useful only the allbinos presentations broken down separately by chapter, but here too we have to take them with salt and pepper (light transmission, clarity on the edges, chromatic aberrations, etc.). Then I combine the results with my direct results to make an image as correct and objective as possible for me. It's true, if someone appreciates edge sharpness a lot, then the HGL is a much better pair of binoculars. But binoculars are not only about sharpness on the edges but also about many other important qualities

 

[looksharp65]

Yes allbinos is very useful, but for me that general ranking is very subjective and unimportant.
For example, I compared Nikon HGL 8X32 (5th place in their ranking) and Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 (16th place in their ranking). I also thought that I would like HGL much more. But the reality is the opposite fact: except for the amazing clarity on the edges and the lack of glare, HGL has no more advantage over M HG. In the rest of the chapters, the Monarch HG is a little better optically performing binocular, even in a much smaller and much lighter body! Resolution, contrast, resistance to chromatic aberrations are little higher in M HG than in HGL. Visual field of view also are larger in M HG (8.3 vs 7.8deg). Even if HGL has a 32mm and M HG has 30mm, the brightness in low light conditions is identical in both, which indicates a very large margin of error in the measurement of light transmission at HGL (the error is -1.5% as written in the review because they used an old method). So between 5th place and 16th place there should be a huge difference and this should be reflected in reality, but it doesn't happen like that. So I never give importance to the general rating, because I find useful only the allbinos presentations broken down separately by chapter, but here too we have to take them with salt and pepper (light transmission, clarity on the edges, chromatic aberrations, etc.). Then I combine the results with my direct results to make an image as correct and objective as possible for me. It's true, if someone appreciates edge sharpness a lot, then the HGL is a much better pair of binoculars. But binoculars are not only about sharpness on the edges but also about many other important qualities

The old HGL is certainly special. Not entirely the opposite to the MHG, but very different. If anything, the bigger MHG's should be compared with the more closely related EDG, not the HGL. Unfortunately, seems the smaller MHG's aren't quite up to that level. The Kite Lynx HD/HD+, Monarch 7 and M7 are quite good, so they're the competitors at least when price is factored in.

Regardless of Allbino's general rating, based of the total points a binocular earns, and using the method you advocate, way too many scorings are exactly the same for the Monarch 7 and the MHG. Since their general 'style' or 'flavour' seems very similar, I actually believe that this test method is valid this case, and that the MHG is better than the M7, but not by as much as they should have been. The benchmark being the 42 mm models.

Got my Svbony scope this evening, seems as I expected. Very good, but lacking the ED82A's incredible resolution, it's fine for its purpose.
Will put the Wide DS 40/60/75x on the ED50A for sharpness comparison once sun rises. I'd be disappointed and surprised if the Svbony isn't the clear winner.

//L

 

[dorubird]

I say that, contrary to what the allbinos tests may suggest, the Monarch HG 8x30 is much much better than the Monarch 7 8x30. I am sure that allbinos did not have them next to each other, but tested them separately in different periods. Here, I just posted a comparison between these two binoculars.

Nikon Monarch HG 8X30 vs Nikon Monarch 7 8x30

I directly compared Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 (M HG ) with Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 (M 7) Mechanics and ergonomics The weight and dimensions are very similar. The focus wheel moves similarly and very accurately and pleasantly in both binoculars, also ergonomics. But this is where the similarities...

www.birdforum.net

 

[looksharp65]

I say that, contrary to what the allbinos tests may suggest, the Monarch HG 8x30 is much much better than the Monarch 7 8x30. I am sure that allbinos did not have them next to each other, but tested them separately in different periods. Here, I just posted a comparison between these two binoculars.

Nikon Monarch HG 8X30 vs Nikon Monarch 7 8x30

I directly compared Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 (M HG ) with Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 (M 7) Mechanics and ergonomics The weight and dimensions are very similar. The focus wheel moves similarly and very accurately and pleasantly in both binoculars, also ergonomics. But this is where the similarities...

www.birdforum.net

If opportunity arises, I'll A/B the MHG with the Kite!

 

[ghht492]

Lately I've had a lumbago acuta

Sorry to hear about your pain. I hope you get back to shape in no time..

 

[dries1]

If I had a M7 8X30, the latest production with the improved armor, I would not need to look at the MHG in 8X30. My subjective opinion.

 

[looksharp65]

Sorry to hear about your pain. I hope you get back to shape in no time..

Thanks a lot, it took more than a month, but now I'm like before besides that my physical condition plummeted.

//L

 

[looksharp65]

After having read Why I like a refined Nikon EII 8x30 porro binoculars? it occured to me that the perfect 8x3x doesn't exist, but that the newest E II samples maybe deliver the best image there is. Among my current binoculars, it's actually the E II's image I already rate the highest. So, carrying on with the two respectable little roofs for slightly rougher jobs, and upgrading the E II might even be financially sound, as explained below.

• The Kite could be sold to part-fund a MHG, but the expense is too much.
• The Meostar cannot be sold as it's out of collimation but suits me, so upgrading the Meostar for a 1.1/Plus would mean I must sell the Kite, which works with contacts, which means the new Meostar must replace the Kite for use with contacts, and it's not as good for that because of the small eyecups. And then it's the expense
• The E II will never leave (other than for a newer E II), because any roof would actually deliver a lesser image quality.

Ergo: Whatever I could sell would mean actual loss of money because upgrading a roof is expensive, or loss of functionality.
Unless I save for a 820xxx E II . Of course it's an expense as well, but they are not too expensive plus I could sell my current E II.

//L

Oh, and I ordered an Svbony 10x50 just to see what it's about 😀
Edit Sept 16: Svbony goes back.

 

[Paultricounty]

After having read Why I like a refined Nikon EII 8x30 porro binoculars? it occured to me that the perfect 8x3x doesn't exist, but that the newest E II samples maybe deliver the best image there is. Among my current binoculars, it's actually the E II's image I already rate the highest. So, carrying on with the two respectable little roofs for slightly rougher jobs, and upgrading the E II might even be financially sound, as explained below.

• The Kite could be sold to part-fund a MHG, but the expense is too much.
• The Meostar cannot be sold as it's out of collimation but suits me, so upgrading the Meostar for a 1.1/Plus would mean I must sell the Kite, which works with contacts, which means the new Meostar must replace the Kite for use with contacts, and it's not as good for that because of the small eyecups. And then it's the expense
• The E II will never leave (other than for a newer E II), because any roof would actually deliver a lesser image quality.

Ergo: Whatever I could sell would mean actual loss of money because upgrading a roof is expensive, or loss of functionality.
Unless I save for a 820xxx E II . Of course it's an expense as well, but they are not too expensive plus I could sell my current E II.

//L

Oh, and I ordered an Svbony 10x50 just to see what it's about 😀

No, the new or newest EII’s do not give the best image of all 8x30/32’s.

 

[looksharp65]

No, the new or newest EII’s do not give the best image of all 8x30/32’s.

So, how do you feel about cilantro...?

Thing is, taste is inherently subjective. And my small Meostar has the least image of all my six good binoculars, but for me it is very likable. Granted , ergonomics may play a part there.
But my current selection has slowly evolved to what I feel is the best I can have within reasonable budget limitations. I have owned a 10x32 HG L, a Monarch X 10,5x45, a Fury 8x42, a 10x32 FL to name a few, and what I now have is better.

Re my current E II. It matched the 10x32 FL for resolution, but the FL's colour reproduction was a bit poor in my view. The HG L had better colours but rather too much, and the also too much CA. My Meostar 12x50 HD has the most correct colour reproduction among my current bins, but lack the colour punch that the Nikons provide. The EDG is the closest to exact reproduction thanks to its insane resolving power and its 100% edge flat field without rolling ball effect, but it has a small AFOV and is somewhat "clinical", like watching an 8K screen.

This is my reason for saying the E II's image is the best, or certainly competes with the best out there, a combination of advantages:

• Central resolving power
• Absence of CA
• Enormous AFOV
• 3D effect
• Nikon colours. It's exactly as the EDG

So if I value 3D effect and AFOV, both the Habicht and exactly every roof are beaten. If I value resolving power and colour reproduction, all Zeisses are beaten in the colour game. If I value freedom from CA, there are some roofs but they failed in the first run. If edge sharpness matters the most, the E II would certainly lose. But the soft edges are markedly different from how moderate-AFOV roofs with so-so edges deliver. It's more...organic, in lack of a better word.
So as long as we can't all agree upon whether cilantro is heaven or hell, I stay by my opinion that E II competes with the very best and most expensive binoculars with regard to image quality. My conclusion, based on personal preference, is that it is, or at minimum probably is, the best in terms of image quality.

//L

 

[Paultricounty]

So, how do you feel about cilantro...?

Thing is, taste is inherently subjective. And my small Meostar has the least image of all my six good binoculars, but for me it is very likable. Granted , ergonomics may play a part there.
But my current selection has slowly evolved to what I feel is the best I can have within reasonable budget limitations. I have owned a 10x32 HG L, a Monarch X 10,5x45, a Fury 8x42, a 10x32 FL to name a few, and what I now have is better.

Re my current E II. It matched the 10x32 FL for resolution, but the FL's colour reproduction was a bit poor in my view. The HG L had better colours but rather too much, and the also too much CA. My Meostar 12x50 HD has the most correct colour reproduction among my current bins, but lack the colour punch that the Nikons provide. The EDG is the closest to exact reproduction thanks to its insane resolving power and its 100% edge flat field without rolling ball effect, but it has a small AFOV and is somewhat "clinical", like watching an 8K screen.

This is my reason for saying the E II's image is the best, or certainly competes with the best out there, a combination of advantages:

• Central resolving power
• Absence of CA
• Enormous AFOV
• 3D effect
• Nikon colours. It's exactly as the EDG

So if I value 3D effect and AFOV, both the Habicht and exactly every roof are beaten. If I value resolving power and colour reproduction, all Zeisses are beaten in the colour game. If I value freedom from CA, there are some roofs but they failed in the first run. If edge sharpness matters the most, the E II would certainly lose. But the soft edges are markedly different from how moderate-AFOV roofs with so-so edges deliver. It's more...organic, in lack of a better word.
So as long as we can't all agree upon whether cilantro is heaven or hell, I stay by my opinion that E II competes with the very best and most expensive binoculars with regard to image quality. My conclusion, based on personal preference, is that it is, or at minimum probably is, the best in terms of image quality.

//L

I like cilantro, but it’s not the best 🤪. EDG is not the most accurate in color , far from it. I’ll spare you the list of all of the binoculars that I’ve had side-by-side with EII’s. The EII is a upper mid tier optics. I’ll leave it at that before I get myself in trouble 🤣. One thing we can agree on (the only thing😜) in this discussion, is we both agree we can have different opinions. I’ll stick to my opinion as well.

Paul 🙏🏼

 

[dries1]

Yes we are all different as to how we view color, as I feel the EDG gives me a very good accuracy of color to my eyes. Additionally IMO Nikon is still the best for the design of flat field optics. I really wished they took the next level after the EDG. I am strictly speaking about optics here, as the EDGs design is over 10 years old, and guess what.. many who for the first time viewing one says woah...what are these? Not bad for a 10 year old design eh.

 

[looksharp65]

I like cilantro, but it’s not the best 🤪. EDG is not the most accurate in color , far from it. I’ll spare you the list of all of the binoculars that I’ve had side-by-side with EII’s. The EII is a upper mid tier optics. I’ll leave it at that before I get myself in trouble 🤣. One thing we can agree on (the only thing😜) in this discussion, is we both agree we can have different opinions. I’ll stick to my opinion as well.

Paul 🙏

Surely you're entitled to your opinion. The E II has a couple of infamous disadvantages that forbid it from the title "Best ever binocular".
But, in my opinion, it's not the image. Some of the image characteristics can be traced to choices by the optical engineers, and represent a chosen point on a continuum where one great trait is accompanied with a disadvantage.
For example, you can't get an 8.8 degrees FOV wth perfectly sharp edges, and preferably without rolling ball. Same with the colours.

However, if 3D is a, or the most desirable part of image quality, no roof would ever compete, which reduces competition with 99 percent.
And if a wide FOV is the second most desirable quality, the E II beats the Habicht. Colour neutrality, transmission rate, edge clarity, and resolving power are other desirable qualities.
As you can see, all is a matter of how you weight qualities. Ratings like "upper mid-tier" are to considerable extent influenced by arbitrary weighting decisions. In particular, they don't apply to high quality porros IMO. Those beasts break the game.

With the above preferences in mind, please guide me to a binocular that beats the E II for 3D and FOV, with equal or better brightness, colours and resolving power, and I'll call it the best binocular, image-wise, that can be obtained for money.
(The WX obviously out of contest)

//L

 

[Trinovid]

...guide me to a binocular that beats the E II for 3D and FOV, with equal or better brightness, colours and resolving power, and I'll call it the best binocular, image-wise, that can be obtained for money.
(The WX obviously out of contest)

Sounds very interesting indeed, but, what is the WX?

 

[Binocollector]

Sounds very interesting indeed, but, what is the WX?

Nikon WX.

Nikon WX | Astronomie-Ferngläser | Extrem großes Sehfeld

Nikon WX, Astronomie-Ferngläser, extrem großes Sehfeld, ED-Glas, Bildfeldebnungs-Linsensystem, Mehrschichtenvergütung, Abbe-König-Prismen, Magnesiumlegierung.

www.nikon.de

 

[Paultricounty]

Surely you're entitled to your opinion. The E II has a couple of infamous disadvantages that forbid it from the title "Best ever binocular".
But, in my opinion, it's not the image. Some of the image characteristics can be traced to choices by the optical engineers, and represent a chosen point on a continuum where one great trait is accompanied with a disadvantage.
For example, you can't get an 8.8 degrees FOV wth perfectly sharp edges, and preferably without rolling ball. Same with the colours.

However, if 3D is a, or the most desirable part of image quality, no roof would ever compete, which reduces competition with 99 percent.
And if a wide FOV is the second most desirable quality, the E II beats the Habicht. Colour neutrality, transmission rate, edge clarity, and resolving power are other desirable qualities.
As you can see, all is a matter of how you weight qualities. Ratings like "upper mid-tier" are to considerable extent influenced by arbitrary weighting decisions. In particular, they don't apply to high quality porros IMO. Those beasts break the game.

With the above preferences in mind, please guide me to a binocular that beats the E II for 3D and FOV, with equal or better brightness, colours and resolving power, and I'll call it the best binocular, image-wise, that can be obtained for money.
(The WX obviously out of contest)

//L

Just a couple, thats two . Your just throwing stats around that are not all accurate. Im not going to sit here and pick them all apart. EII the best binoculars in the world. To each his own. Im done here.

 

[Binocollector]

And once again this thread proves that there is not "one best bino". There are only multiple "best at xyz" binos, it seems. And matters of taste.
I do like my porros, but none is perfect. Fujinon 7x50 FMTR -- FoV too small and IF. Vintage wide angles -- blurry edges, eye-relief too short, dim coatings; Flat field binos -- FoV smallish.
I thought, the whole point of an "alpha" like the NL Pure for example, was to combine all those things that we value in separate binos and put it in one:
-- wide FoV
-- sharp edges
-- great brightness
-- good handling
And wasn't that the justification for the price?
I can get all those things in maybe 5 different binos, probably for a much cheaper price but still -- to get the "whole package" -- wasn't that what the "alphas" are for?
And don't the NL Pures have an even larger FoV than the E2 AND a flat field without curvature? Also less pincushion from what I heard but that is a design choice mostly. Pre-WWII bins had no pincushion distortion. And everybody sees the "rolling ball" effect differently. I almost never notice it, not even in binos that are (in)famous for it, like the Komz 7x30.

 

[looksharp65]

Just a couple, thats two . Your just throwing stats around that are not all accurate. Im not going to sit here and pick them all apart. EII the best binoculars in the world. To each his own. Im done here.

Am I throwing stats around? What's that even supposed to mean? Does the 8x30 E II not have an 8.8 degree FOV? Is it not a porro? Is it according to you a myth that porros have better 3D rendition?

Obviously, there were 8x porros with bigger FOV and wider objective separation, but they are 50+ years old and single coated so they have other issues. Lately, we were talking about E II's image quality, not discussing the overall best, which undeniably was the original scope of the thread. And I admitted it has issues.

I maintain that nobody presented a binocular rivalling the E II if 3D and wide FOV are the highest priorities while still keeping a generally very high score on other parts of what constitues image quality.

Vice versa, if 3D and huge FOV are left aside in the weighting, you can always prioritize flat field, low aberration, true colours, glare and straylight resistance, and resolving power to point out a roof bin that bests the E II. But they seem curiously difficult to make approaching perfection, which makes the prices skyrocket. At the same time, the E II actually holds its own for at least a couple of these things while the price is reasonable. I'd really be delighted to see what would beat the E II with the two top priorities still there.

Best binocular overall? Wouldn't think so. Why, you think, do I use four roofs and one porro?

//L

 

[looksharp65]

And once again this thread proves that there is not "one best bino". There are only multiple "best at xyz" binos, it seems. And matters of taste.
I do like my porros, but none is perfect. Fujinon 7x50 FMTR -- FoV too small and IF. Vintage wide angles -- blurry edges, eye-relief too short, dim coatings; Flat field binos -- FoV smallish.
I thought, the whole point of an "alpha" like the NL Pure for example, was to combine all those things that we value in separate binos and put it in one:
-- wide FoV
-- sharp edges
-- great brightness
-- good handling
And wasn't that the justification for the price?
I can get all those things in maybe 5 different binos, probably for a much cheaper price but still -- to get the "whole package" -- wasn't that what the "alphas" are for?
And don't the NL Pures have an even larger FoV than the E2 AND a flat field without curvature? Also less pincushion from what I heard but that is a design choice mostly. Pre-WWII bins had no pincushion distortion. And everybody sees the "rolling ball" effect differently. I almost never notice it, not even in binos that are (in)famous for it, like the Komz 7x30.

The NL's are, and should be, as far developed as current optical science allows for, and being waterproof obviously infinitely more useful.
Still, they don't have the 3D rendition of a porro. If one wants one single binocular to do-it-all, that's probably a reasonable sacrifice.
But imagine all the effort now put into the NL's instead in a groundbreaking new Swarowski porro 🎯

We could assume it's fair to say the NL is the answer to my original question. Can't see myself going that route though, both because of finances and the logistics issue demanding that I have two or three sets of birding kits.
Thank you gentlemen for your participation and dedication to the subject! 🙏

//L

 

[Troubador]

Zeiss SF 8x32.

Lee

If I was forced to choose one 32 then this would be it, but in the interests of full disclosure, in practice it is not quite so simple.

I use:
SF8x32 especially when the wide fov is important, so searching for otters and seals in the sea off the west of Scotland.
In habitats with a big diversity of butterflies, dragonflies and moths, as well as birds, then I use the faster-focusing Conquest HD 8x32.
For sea-shore expeditions where the walking can be tricky due to the under-foot conditions, and for similar reasons in boggy habitats when looking for flowers, I use Leica Trinovid HD 8x32 which can focus down to 1 metre.
On big coasts with long viewing distances, providing the wind is not too blustery or strong then I often use SF 10x32.

Lee