Yes allbinos is very useful, but for me that general ranking is very subjective and unimportant.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.
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.
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