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

[ukorim]

Out of curiosity what was wrong with the Nikon SE 10X42 and did they replace the eyecups? I wonder if the EU has any extra SE eyecups.

Andy W.

I 've had two repairs (interestingly I noticed No 2 below soon after I received back from repair for No 1):

1. Fungus on edge of objective lens - this was removed, cleaned and binoculars recollimated.

2. The dioptre assembly was loose and the repair stated: "Adjusted dioptre adjustment ring. Repair, adjust and lubricate focusing helicoid operation".

Both repaired under the 10 year warranty.

 

[dries1]

Ukorim,

Thanks here in the US, Nikon service for anything achieved (binoculars not made anymore), is inconsistent at best. Will it get better? who knows. The SE 10X42 is still a very able glass, I still have mine.

Andy W.

 

[muxo]

I have been enjoying my MHG 8x30 quite a lot after picking it in the refurb sale. Sorry for the dumb question, why might someone choose the 8x42 over the 8x30 other than for better low-light performance? Personally, I am happy with the low-light performance of the 30mm diameter. Does the larger objective diameter offer other benefits than just low-light (the FOV appears to be identical)?

 

[pbjosh]

I have been enjoying my MHG 8x30 quite a lot after picking it in the refurb sale. Sorry for the dumb question, why might someone choose the 8x42 over the 8x30 other than for better low-light performance? Personally, I am happy with the low-light performance of the 30mm diameter. Does the larger objective diameter offer other benefits than just low-light (the FOV appears to be identical)?

With the larger aperture you'll inherently get a little bit better resolution, assuming the lenses are all of equal quality of course. But I think the biggest difference will be a larger exit pupil resulting in easier eye placement and a potentially more "comfortable" view.

 

[[email protected]]

With the larger aperture you'll inherently get a little bit better resolution, assuming the lenses are all of equal quality of course. But I think the biggest difference will be a larger exit pupil resulting in easier eye placement and a potentially more "comfortable" view.

Bigger apertures are generally better at glare control also.

 

[John A Roberts]

To pick up on pbjosh’s comments in post #124, about the advantages of a 42 mm objective over a 30 mm one . . .

Although for convenience we express objective sizes (and exit pupil sizes) in terms of diameter, in use they function in terms of their area
So a 42 mm diameter objective has basically twice the area of a 30 mm one: 1.96x to be exact, at 1,386 sq mm verses 707 sq mm

And for me when comparing an 8x42 to an 8x30, the significantly increased objective area - and therefore similarly larger exit pupil area -
makes both for much easier eye placement, and for a much more comfortable viewing experience

- - - -

And for comparison:
- a 32 mm diameter objective has an area of 805 sq mm, so a 42 mm objective has 1.72x greater area, and

- a 32 mm objective in turn has a 1.14x greater area than a 30 mm objective (though to me not obviously significant on direct comparison)


John

 

[muxo]

Many thanks for the detailed replies, looks like I will try to pick up the MHG in a 10x42 configuration next year