Several days birding with Monarch HG 8X42 (1 Viewer)

[maico]

Binastro, what about contacting Nikon UK. If your sample is bellow par they may replace it.

 

[adhoc]

...I suppose a distortion profile with zero pincushion and high a.m.d. must be what is somtimes found "unnatural"...

Henry, that is exactly what I first thought should give the impression of flatness. However, you list 5 models which highly correct both "field curvature" and "astigmatism": Swaro SV, Nikon ProStar, Astroluxe, LX-L, EDG. Now I am one of those who sees flat-looking fields and finds them a bit unnatural. I have used the SV, Astroluxe and LX-L. I have thought that the two Nikons, unlike the SV, are not highly corrected for a.m.d. and rectilinear distortion. But they too seem to me to show a flat and unnatural view, the Astroluxe even across its small FOV. Of course I know this may vary a lot with the user.

 

[Alexis Powell]

Some people are so used to the optical limitations of most binoculars and other optics that they find a well-rendered view "unnatural". For example, I can't tell you how many relative newcomers to birding with good binoculars have said something like "these are too sharp--they hurt my eyes." I think these sort of phenomena are widespread when it comes to visual comfort. Many people think that video with high frame rate looks unnaturally fake or "too real" compared to the lower frame rate that is standard for film. I notice that in some scenes in Pixar animated films that they add animated lens flare when depicting scenes that include the animated sun in the view. My point with these examples is that there is no simple accounting for what makes a view "natural" or not for an observer because among other things, expectations from prior experience play a big role.

--AP

 

[henry link]

Henry, that is exactly what I first thought should give the impression of flatness. However, you list 5 models which highly correct both "field curvature" and "astigmatism": Swaro SV, Nikon ProStar, Astroluxe, LX-L, EDG. Now I am one of those who sees flat-looking fields and finds them a bit unnatural. I have used the SV, Astroluxe and LX-L. I have thought that the two Nikons, unlike the SV, are not highly corrected for a.m.d. and rectilinear distortion. But they too seem to me to show a flat and unnatural view, the Astroluxe even across its small FOV. Of course I know this may vary a lot with the user.

I probably shouldn't speculate at all about what other people find "unnatural" in binocular views. I have a 7x50 Prostar (same eyepiece, so same distortion as the 10x70 Astrolux). Because of the narrow 50º apparent field it comes very close to being distortion free. I can't detect any a.m.d. and only a tiny amount of pincushion, so it doesn't fit the profile.

 

[adhoc]

Henry, AP, thanks. Since 30 years ago I have used the Astroluxe (I am not sure of the name back then) and other "alphas" and "near-alphas" from time to time. Some do not cause that problem in me, some do. For example in Swaro the SLC view is fine, Swarovision not.

Even as I appreciate the detail in the view and admire the designers and other engineers involved I am bothered. Sorry to be so vague but "flat looking and unnatural" is the best I can do. I just thought there might be some ready explanation. In defense of the Astroluxe this was when I used it to watch birds in spite of its purpose (and impossible size)!

Back to the thread's subject, no matter how the field of the Monarch HG is explained, it seems to be overall one of the best binoculars for nature watching. Another reviewer in this forum found not much difference between the Zeiss SF and the Monarch HG in 10x42, unlike Chuck did in 8x42.

 

[crinklystarfish]

Thanks to all of the better informed, particularly Henry, for once again taking the time to explain and to attempt to objectify the various subjective terms (mine included) used to describe perceived optical experiences. I will, eventually, get to grips with this stuff...

 

[chill6x6]

After some prodding....I got off my tail and did a few test concerning CA this am. This is a little bit late in coming but work, tax return, vacation(), birding, etc has taken it's toll!

First....the CA test. I quickly picked up six binoculars. Three of the conventional FOV best high end 8X42s I have then the Monarch HG along with the Leica Trinovid HD and Maven all 8X42s. I do a test with a black pattern on white poster board. It literally eats binoculars alive. Should have taken a picture.

In the first group I rank from 1st to 3rd, left to right: picture at the bottom.

Zeiss FL, Nikon EDG, Swarovski SLC. The FL and EDG are a little bit ahead of the SLC in this regard. The FL does the best all across the FOV. The EDG only slightly less so. I find this parameter lower down the list of importance for me. Rarely is the best binocular in controlling CA my favorite birding binocular. That IS that it's all about, RIGHT?

NEXT up are direct competitors. Picture is first to third from right to LEFT! No idea why I lined them up like that! The Maven B.1 8X42 is the better binocular when CA is concerned followed closely by the Monarch HG then the Leica HD. I felt the Maven was best every time I picked it up.

I've done quite a bit of birding lately....the majority with the Monarch HG. The more I use it, the more I like it. I've directly compared the Monarch HG with the Maven B.1, Leica Trinovid, Trinovid HD, SV 8.5, Monarch 7, and Zeiss FL...all 8X42s except the SV. From the above list I'd prob put the Monarch HG as the number two binocular. As recently as Sunday I carried the FL 8X42 along with the HG. Conditions were not that good. Cloudy with little to no sunlight. Birds in top of the trees with a gray, cloudy background. Terrible conditions for color and contrast. In practically every instance I thought the HG topped the FL. I couldn't believe it either...

I used the Monarch HG all over Curacao and while birding in Labadee, Haiti as well. It's really a first class birding binocular. I am particularly impressed with it's focus adjustment and the clarity of images. Low weight and small stature pay dividends when sticking in a pack or while hanging around ones neck.

 

[chill6x6]

In Curacao and Haiti I was able to evaluate the Monarch HG and glare. Sun was prevalent for sure. I am happy to report glare was a non-issue. It never presented itself. In fact, the Monarch HG is a joy to use. I'm surprised at how much I like it.

Quickly...birds.. I'm definitely a binocular first, camera later birder tho I've noticed a trend of birders that show up without a binocular and only a camera! A few exceptional birds I saw on Haiti were a broad-billed tody(google it!) and a black crowned palm tanager. No pictures. On Curacao....wild American flamingos, brown throated parakeet, crested caracara, Venezuelan troupial, American oyster catcher, et al. So just a few photos of some when time...

 

[adhoc]

Refreshing straight talk about using a premium binocular to watch birds, from someone fortunate to compare it with other such binoculars. I was waiting for that CA report from you!

 

[jremmons]

Great comments, as always. It's a pleasure reading thorough in the field, hands-on comparative reviews. I compare a lot of high and mid-tier binoculars, but can rarely have so many on hand at once (typically 2-3, at most). As you have access to 6+ top tier options, I tend to lend a fair bit of weight to your musings.

Of your many quality 8x, which would you grab before the HG?

 

[wdc]

Thanks Chuck for sharing more comparative reports, and field experience, plus birding! Good to know the Maven and the new Nikon can stand up to the others on many issues.

Bill

 

[chill6x6]

Refreshing straight talk about using a premium binocular to watch birds, from someone fortunate to compare it with other such binoculars. I was waiting for that CA report from you!

Thanks! For the average user, I think they will be pleased with the Monarch HG.

Great comments, as always. It's a pleasure reading thorough in the field, hands-on comparative reviews. I compare a lot of high and mid-tier binoculars, but can rarely have so many on hand at once (typically 2-3, at most). As you have access to 6+ top tier options, I tend to lend a fair bit of weight to your musings.

Of your many quality 8x, which would you grab before the HG?

Hmmmm. Though not exactly an 8X, the 8.5 SV gets the nod if I'm going to a new place, don't know the terrain/foliage situation. If I'm headed out the door around here, and there is a LOT of great birding areas around here....the SLC or EDG.

Thanks Chuck for sharing more comparative reports, and field experience, plus birding! Good to know the Maven and the new Nikon can stand up to the others on many issues.

Bill

Thanks....either are fine binoculars....

 

[Avron]

MHD or Nikon SE

Hi,

Has anyone had the chance to compare the Monarch HD to the Nikon SE porro prism binoculars? Nikon is offering a trade-in and I am not sure whether to repair the SEs (collimation problems) or go for the Monarchs. I'd be grateful for any feedback that you could provide.

Thanks,
Avron

 

[arran]

After some prodding....I got off my tail and did a few test concerning CA this am. This is a little bit late in coming but work, tax return, vacation(), birding, etc has taken it's toll!

First....the CA test. I quickly picked up six binoculars. Three of the conventional FOV best high end 8X42s I have then the Monarch HG along with the Leica Trinovid HD and Maven all 8X42s. I do a test with a black pattern on white poster board. It literally eats binoculars alive. Should have taken a picture.

In the first group I rank from 1st to 3rd, left to right: picture at the bottom.

Zeiss FL, Nikon EDG, Swarovski SLC. The FL and EDG are a little bit ahead of the SLC in this regard. The FL does the best all across the FOV. The EDG only slightly less so. I find this parameter lower down the list of importance for me. Rarely is the best binocular in controlling CA my favorite birding binocular. That IS that it's all about, RIGHT?

NEXT up are direct competitors. Picture is first to third from right to LEFT! No idea why I lined them up like that! The Maven B.1 8X42 is the better binocular when CA is concerned followed closely by the Monarch HG then the Leica HD. I felt the Maven was best every time I picked it up.

I've done quite a bit of birding lately....the majority with the Monarch HG. The more I use it, the more I like it. I've directly compared the Monarch HG with the Maven B.1, Leica Trinovid, Trinovid HD, SV 8.5, Monarch 7, and Zeiss FL...all 8X42s except the SV. From the above list I'd prob put the Monarch HG as the number two binocular. As recently as Sunday I carried the FL 8X42 along with the HG. Conditions were not that good. Cloudy with little to no sunlight. Birds in top of the trees with a gray, cloudy background. Terrible conditions for color and contrast. In practically every instance I thought the HG topped the FL. I couldn't believe it either...

I used the Monarch HG all over Curacao and while birding in Labadee, Haiti as well. It's really a first class birding binocular. I am particularly impressed with it's focus adjustment and the clarity of images. Low weight and small stature pay dividends when sticking in a pack or while hanging around ones neck.

I have been the testing the nikon 10x42 Hg several times in different light situations and I have to change my opinion on them
In the past , I was fond of their brightness , and great FOV , and this remains a great pro
On the other hand , just asking myself whether it is a great birding glass , I would definitely say no, because the more I look trough them , the more they appear to be quite nervous in image
So for a quick bird spot , just fine , for long birding sessions , you just feel they don't give the same ease of looking
What could be the reason for this?

 

[Troubador]

I have been the testing the nikon 10x42 Hg several times in different light situations and I have to change my opinion on them
In the past , I was fond of their brightness , and great FOV , and this remains a great pro
On the other hand , just asking myself whether it is a great birding glass , I would definitely say no, because the more I look trough them , the more they appear to be quite nervous in image
So for a quick bird spot , just fine , for long birding sessions , you just feel they don't give the same ease of looking
What could be the reason for this?

Try having less Chimay Bleu the night before you go birding :eek!:

Lee

 

[ceasar]

Hi,

Has anyone had the chance to compare the Monarch HD to the Nikon SE porro prism binoculars? Nikon is offering a trade-in and I am not sure whether to repair the SEs (collimation problems) or go for the Monarchs. I'd be grateful for any feedback that you could provide.

Thanks,
Avron

1st, Are you sure you do not mean a Monarch HG instead of a Monarch HD? or possibly a Monarch 7 HD? There is about a $500.00 difference in the two. The Monarch HG is a better binocular than the Monarch 7 HD.

A Nikon SE is a better binocular than a Monarch 7 HD and the SE might be worth getting fixed by a professional.


Nikon discontinued the SEs a while back and probably doesn't want to get involved with repairing them, especially if the nature of the problem was not covered by their warranty as in damage happening to the binoculars

What happened to yours that resulted in it getting out of collimation?

Suddarth Optical Repair is the place to contact for this kind of collimation work and they have been highly recommended by many members here on Bird Forum.

https://suddarthoptical.com/

Bob

 

[Avron]

Thanks, Caesar. But, yes, I did mean Nikon Monarch HG. Does that change things?

Lee: how in the world did you know about the Chimay Bleu?!

A

 

[ceasar]

Thanks, Caesar. But, yes, I did mean Nikon Monarch HG. Does that change things?

Lee: how in the world did you know about the Chimay Bleu?!

A

Yes Avron,

It does change things. You will be getting a brand new binocular which sells for nearly $1000.00 absent the trade in value of your SE. You will also be getting Nikons warranty on it.

You will have to make the decision on your own, I'm afraid.

I have all three SEs and I recently got a Monarch HG which I am very impressed with. I'm not sure I would trade any of the SEs even up for it though, but we are not likely to see the SEs again.

You have to decide whether or not to repair yours so your situation is different. Under those circumstances I probably would decide to get the Monarch HG.

Did you have the opportunity to try a Monarch HG yet?

Bob

 

[Avron]

Yes Avron,

It does change things. You will be getting a brand new binocular which sells for nearly $1000.00 absent the trade in value of your SE. You will also be getting Nikons warranty on it.

You will have to make the decision on your own, I'm afraid.

I have all three SEs and I recently got a Monarch HG which I am very impressed with. I'm not sure I would trade any of the SEs even up for it though, but we are not likely to see the SEs again.

You have to decide whether or not to repair yours so your situation is different. Under those circumstances I probably would decide to get the Monarch HG.

Did you have the opportunity to try a Monarch HG yet?

Bob

Thanks, Bob. I have not had the opportunity to try the Monarch HG. But I am somewhat worried by, for example, Arran's change of heart. Perhaps I should not be, given your impressions of the MHG.

One more question: the reason that I am concerned about the SEs is that, after my wife indicated that she was having difficulty with them, I tried a simple star test. With my 10x42 ELs I was able to resolve a star into a single point. With the SEs, I could not do the same: the same star divided into two points. Is that sufficient indication that the binoculars are out of collimation?

Once again, I am grateful for the help.

A

 

[ceasar]

Thanks, Bob. I have not had the opportunity to try the Monarch HG. But I am somewhat worried by, for example, Arran's change of heart. Perhaps I should not be, given your impressions of the MHG.

One more question: the reason that I am concerned about the SEs is that, after my wife indicated that she was having difficulty with them, I tried a simple star test. With my 10x42 ELs I was able to resolve a star into a single point. With the SEs, I could not do the same: the same star divided into two points. Is that sufficient indication that the binoculars are out of collimation?

Once again, I am grateful for the help.

A

I can't help you with the star test. I don't know if that in itself is sufficient to determine if your SE was out of collimation but I am sure that there are others here who can give you advice on that.

My experience with collimation problems have been of the readily evident variety; like seeing two telephone poles where only one exists and almost everybody would see that kind of problem.

On the SEs that problem would be fixed by the technician by adjusting the eccentric rings located near the objective lenses.

May I ask if your wife might have been having partial blackouts in the view when she used your SE?

Some people who used the SEs were affected by these blackouts and found the SE impossible to use while many others were not affected by them. The blackouts were called "kidney beaning" because they were shaped somewhat like a kidney bean. (There is a technical definition for this optical problem which I have forgotten. Perhaps someone will volunteer it?)

The blackouts would disappear if you held the binocular braced up against and just under your eyebrows and tilted it very slightly upwards. It became known as the MOLCET technique. It is an acronym for "Mooreorless Ceasar's Eyebrow Technique" named after Steve Moore and myself who used the SE in that manner to make the blackouts disappear.

Bob