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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="adhoc" data-source="post: 3532700" data-attributes="member: 131373">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.</blockquote>