• 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.

The new Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 is very nice! (1 Viewer)

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
If there is something defective like their is with the Nikon M7 I bought. There is nothing wrong with returning it. You would return it too. Try one.
I had the Swarovision 8x32 and my Swaro 8x25 CL-P out this morning comparing them. Of course the bigger Swarovision is a little more comfortable to use with easier eye placement and a slightly larger FOV. In day light you notice no difference in brightness. The glare control is about the same on both or very good. The view is VERY similar between the two. The smaller FOV of the CL-P wasn't bothering me and then I found out why. The FOV is sharp to the EDGE like the Swarovision. Are these CL-P's using Swarovision technology? There is a 100% sweetspot! Amazing. I know the Swaro 8x30 CL-C doesn't have the sharp edge technology. The CA control on both is very good and really about the same even though the 8x32 has ED glass. ER is amazing on the CL-P at 17mm for a compact and there is no problem with smudging the eyepieces. I notice very little blackouts with it and of course none with the bigger 8x32. The eyecups on the CL-P are comfortably large although not quite as comfortable as the bigger eyecups on the bigger glass. It hangs flat against your chest. This is easily the best compact I have seen and it could be your main birding binocular. Folded it is VERY small and compact. Amazing little binocular.
 

ceasar

Well-known member
"Drive by Binocular Appraisals"

Crinklystarfish disagrees with you about glare.

"The CL-Companion did however throw up other errant light issues that the CL-Pocket did not. I'll describe those when I get a little more time. Suffice for now to say I sent the CL-C back very quickly because of errant light. I hesitate to give the phenomena I saw names as I don't want to provoke an international incident through a lack of understanding of the nuances of technical terminology."

Going from memory I had glare issues with the CL-C 8x30 also when I had them. So I tend to disagree with you. The CL-P to me seems very glare resistant for some reason and it seems to have an ability to as Crinkly has said to pick out birds which the M7 had a tough time doing.

On the Swaro CL-P if you leave the eyecups up a little bit you won't have any trouble with smudges. Lens covers and rain guards are a pain with a compact binocular. That is probably why Swarovski didn't include them. What is the matter with the Swaro case for storage. I think it is quite nice. You wind the strap around the binoculars and put it in and it fits on your belt quite nice.

Dennis,

If Crinklystarfish disagrees with me let him say so. He used his only briefly before returning it. He will have to comment on it from memory.

You don't have to remind anyone, like you did above, that you often do many brief, "drive by" binocular appraisals shortly before returning them and comment on them months, if not years later.

It's up to him to decide if this is a proper appraisal.

Since you quoted him, in part, above I am linking it here in full because the 8x30CL did not have the "smokescreen" effect which he also noted and which you left out.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2882430&postcount=73

For my part I have owned and used the 8x30CL since May 2013 and I have been comparing it off and on with my 8x25CL for 3 months since I got it on 9/13/2013. So I have no problem telling anybody that the 8x30CL controls glare better than the 8x25CL.

By the way, see your post #121 above. Unlike you who notices "very little blackouts" with the 8x25 CL I do not notice any. I quote you: "ER is amazing on the CL-P at 17mm for a compact and there is no problem with smudging the eyepieces. I notice very little blackouts with it and of course none with the bigger 8x32. The eyecups on the CL-P are comfortably large although not quite as comfortable as the bigger eyecups on the bigger glass. It hangs flat against your chest. .......... ."

But as far as protecting their lenses from fingerprints, it is the objectives that have the most problems. And keeping the eyecups extended does not replace a small well designed rainguard either.

The Swarovski Storage Case is just that. It is big and bulky and for storage. It's too big to fit in a jacket pocket or a car's glove compartment like the Nikon case will. In fact the Nikon 10x25 case will fit inside it, sans binoculars. Why would I carry it around with me when I don't carry the Nikon Case around either? I've never carried binoculars in a case strapped to my waist.

I will be keeping both of these binoculars for quite a while. How long will you keep your 8x25CL?

Bob
 
Last edited:

brocknroller

A professed porromaniac
United States
If I were to buy a binocular for birding tomorrow (which I'm not), these models would be in contention:

8x30/32.
Swarovision 8x32 (if the focuser is perfect)

8x42/8.5x42:
Zeiss Victory 8x42 HT.

10x40/42/50:
1. Zeiss Victory 10x42 HT.
2. Swarovision 10x50 (if the focuser is perfect)

By the way, if one of the alpha makers were to make a binocular that is suitable for birding and has an AFOV of at least 70 degrees while maintaining an optical quality at least as good as the Conquest HD, I'd definitely buy it once it's become clear there aren't any showstoppers.

Hermann

Hermmann,

You mean even after Jan told you that the focusers on every Swaro in his shop aside from one (which had a "gritty" focuser) turned smoothly, you're still worried about getting another Swaro with a stiff focuser? Me, too. ;)

Re: your btw, there are 70* AFOV binoculars suitable for birding (except in the rain, but I never understood birding in the rain, or for that matter why Gene Kelly was "Singing in the Rain" while dancing around a lamppost :). But for fair weather, you can't beat the 8x30 and 10x35 EIIs for EWA 70* AFOV sharp, contrasty images.

I haven't tried the Conquest HD, but the centerfield sharpness on my 8x30 EII matches that of my 8x32 SE, and Bruce H said the same thing about the 8x EII he just bought compared to his 8x SE. It simply doesn't get sharper than the 8x SE, so it should match the 8x32 Conquest HD.

Ditto for the 10x35 EII vs. the 10x32 C-HD. You're not going to find a 70* AFOV midsized roof even at the alpha level in either configuration, and I'm not just saying that to "pump and dump" because I'm selling a 10x EII. Either 8x and 10x model will give you give you top optical quality with an EWA.

Good Luck! in finding one, though. I only see one 8x EII left from Japan on eBay. I have seen some in European stores, I'm not sure if it's the VAT or what, but Euro store prices on EIIs are really high. Japan's prices are catching up, though, due to the high cost of energy since shutting down most of the country's nuclear plants. They're using imported liquid natural gas, which costs three times what natural gas costs in the U.S.

I see 8x EIIs from Japan selling for over $600 on eBay. They used to cost a little more than half that much - $325-$350 for the 8x EII and $350-$375 for the 10x EII -- when they first came out in 1999.

The newer black body models are better - stronger armor and more advanced AR coatings -- but I think most of the difference in price today is due to the higher cost of manufacturing in Japan due to higher labor costs and energy prices vs. 1999.

Brock
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Dennis,

If Crinklystarfish disagrees with me let him say so. He used his only briefly before returning it. He will have to comment on it from memory.

You don't have to remind anyone, like you did above, that you often do many brief, "drive by" binocular appraisals shortly before returning them and comment on them months, if not years later.

It's up to him to decide if this is a proper appraisal.

Since you quoted him, in part, above I am linking it here in full because the 8x30CL did not have the "smokescreen" effect which he also noted and which you left out.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2882430&postcount=73

For my part I have owned and used the 8x30CL since May 2013 and I have been comparing it off and on with my 8x25CL for 3 months since I got it on 9/13/2013. So I have no problem telling anybody that the 8x30CL controls glare better than the 8x25CL.

By the way, see your post #121 above. Unlike you who notices "very little blackouts" with the 8x25 CL I do not notice any. I quote you: "ER is amazing on the CL-P at 17mm for a compact and there is no problem with smudging the eyepieces. I notice very little blackouts with it and of course none with the bigger 8x32. The eyecups on the CL-P are comfortably large although not quite as comfortable as the bigger eyecups on the bigger glass. It hangs flat against your chest. .......... ."

But as far as protecting their lenses from fingerprints, it is the objectives that have the most problems. And keeping the eyecups extended does not replace a small well designed rainguard either.

The Swarovski Storage Case is just that. It is big and bulky and for storage. It's too big to fit in a jacket pocket or a car's glove compartment like the Nikon case will. In fact the Nikon 10x25 case will fit inside it, sans binoculars. Why would I carry it around with me when I don't carry the Nikon Case around either? I've never carried binoculars in a case strapped to my waist.

I will be keeping both of these binoculars for quite a while. How long will you keep your 8x25CL?

Bob
I don't see anymore glare on my CL-P's than I do on my Swarovision's so I find it weird that the CL-C's would have less glare than the CL-P's but everybody see's thing differently sometimes. I don't get many smudges on my objective lenses but I guess it is possible. I don't think rainguards and objective covers are practical on a compact where you are trying to minimize size and weight. This is a good discussion on some good birding binoculars in sub 32mm sizes which seem to increasing in popularity because of their weight and size and excellent performance. The Nikon M7, Swaro CL-P and Swaro CL-C. Anybody else have any opinions on these three?
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Hermmann,

You mean even after Jan told you that the focusers on every Swaro in his shop aside from one (which had a "gritty" focuser) turned smoothly, you're still worried about getting another Swaro with a stiff focuser? Me, too. ;)

Re: your btw, there are 70* AFOV binoculars suitable for birding (except in the rain, but I never understood birding in the rain, or for that matter why Gene Kelly was "Singing in the Rain" while dancing around a lamppost :). But for fair weather, you can't beat the 8x30 and 10x35 EIIs for EWA 70* AFOV sharp, contrasty images.

I haven't tried the Conquest HD, but the centerfield sharpness on my 8x30 EII matches that of my 8x32 SE, and Bruce H said the same thing about the 8x EII he just bought compared to his 8x SE. It simply doesn't get sharper than the 8x SE, so it should match the 8x32 Conquest HD.

Ditto for the 10x35 EII vs. the 10x32 C-HD. You're not going to find a 70* AFOV midsized roof even at the alpha level in either configuration, and I'm not just saying that to "pump and dump" because I'm selling a 10x EII. Either 8x and 10x model will give you give you top optical quality with an EWA.

Good Luck! in finding one, though. I only see one 8x EII left from Japan on eBay. I have seen some in European stores, I'm not sure if it's the VAT or what, but Euro store prices on EIIs are really high. Japan's prices are catching up, though, due to the high cost of energy since shutting down most of the country's nuclear plants. They're using imported liquid natural gas, which costs three times what natural gas costs in the U.S.

I see 8x EIIs from Japan selling for over $600 on eBay. They used to cost a little more than half that much - $325-$350 for the 8x EII and $350-$375 for the 10x EII -- when they first came out in 1999.

The newer black body models are better - stronger armor and more advanced AR coatings -- but I think most of the difference in price today is due to the higher cost of manufacturing in Japan due to higher labor costs and energy prices vs. 1999.

Brock
Brock. You seem to be unloading your EII's. What type of binocular are you going to and what configuration? If you want to try a roof for it's durability and resistance to the elements I would suggest the Zeiss Conquest's 8x32 HD in a demo at Cameraland for $675.00. I don't think you will get more performance for the dollar and you might find the on-axis sharpness a little better than even your EII's. The only roof I have tried that bests it at all is my Swarovision 8x32 and it is 3X times the costs.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Brock. You seem to be unloading your EII's. What type of binocular are you going to and what configuration? If you want to try a roof for it's durability and resistance to the elements I would suggest the Zeiss Conquest's 8x32 HD in a demo at Cameraland for $675.00. I don't think you will get more performance for the dollar and you might find the on-axis sharpness a little better than even your EII's. The only roof I have tried that bests it at all is my Swarovision 8x32 and it is 3X times the costs.
So to summarize this thread to this point if you haven't been following this fascinating read. It started with my positive review of the new Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 and very quickly many people who have tried the M7 pointed out it was very weak at handling glare and exhibited a glare problem we coined "The Smokescreen Effect" which is an all encompassing glare which causes the field to be obscured by glare. Henry theorized on what possibly was causing the problem but the fact remains it does exist. Upon further evaluation of the M7 and after comparing it to a Swarovski CL-P 8x25 upon others recommendation saying that the Swaro performed much better especially in the handling of glare I realized that the M7 was very weak in this area and returned it and bought the Swarovski CL-P. After using the CL-P for awhile and comparing it to my Swarovision 8x32 I realized that once again Swarovski has the class leader in the compact binocular arena and is the perfect choice if you want a sub 32mm size binocular. One thing that has not been pointed out about the CL-P is that it must use Swarovision technology and it is sharp right to the edge of the field! Swarovski has a real winner in this compact and Nikon needs to go back to the drawing board with the M7 or at least make improvements in glare control as production progresses.
 
Last edited:

ceasar

Well-known member
"Drive by Binocular Appraisals"--Continued.

So to summarize this thread to this point if you haven't been following this fascinating read. It started with my positive review of the new Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 and very quickly many people who have tried the M7 pointed out it was very weak at handling glare and exhibited a glare problem we coined "The Smokescreen Effect" which is an all encompassing glare which causes the field to be obscured by glare. Henry theorized on what possibly was causing the problem but the fact remains it does exist. Upon further evaluation of the M7 and after comparing it to a Swarovski CL-P 8x25 upon others recommendation saying that the Swaro performed much better especially in the handling of glare I realized that the M7 was very weak in this area and returned it and bought the Swarovski CL-P. After using the CL-P for awhile and comparing it to my Swarovision 8x32 I realized that once again Swarovski has the class leader in the compact binocular arena and is the perfect choice if you want a sub 32mm size binocular. One thing that has not been pointed out about the CL-P is that it must use Swarovision technology and it is sharp right to the edge of the field! Swarovski has a real winner in this compact and Nikon needs to go back to the drawing board with the M7.

Dennis,

You know very well that Nikon will not "go back to the drawing board with the M7." They really don't care how it performs against an $800.00 8x25 compact or a $900.00 8x30 and especially not a $2000.00 8x32.

They are making it to compete in the $300.00 to $400.00 8x30/32 market.

And I have not yet weighed in on it's merits and I typically use one for a month or so before I venture to do so.:king:

Bob
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Dennis,

You know very well that Nikon will not "go back to the drawing board with the M7." They really don't care how it performs against an $800.00 8x25 compact or a $900.00 8x30 and especially not a $2000.00 8x32.

They are making it to compete in the $300.00 to $400.00 8x30/32 market.

And I have not yet weighed in on it's merits and I typically use one for a month or so before I venture to do so.:king:

Bob
I don't know about that. If they get enough returns and negative feedback on the glare problems. At least I could see some more internal blackening and baffles being added as the production run progresses. There is less glare in $200.00 binoculars like the Bresser Everest. They need to look at it.
 

ceasar

Well-known member
"Drive by Binocular Appraisals"--Continued.

I don't know about that. If they get enough returns and negative feedback on the glare problems. At least I could see some more internal blackening and baffles being added as the production run progresses. There is less glare in $200.00 binoculars like the Bresser Everest. They need to look at it.


Dennis,
Unless you compared the two at the same time under the same conditions your opinion about how they handle glare is very questionable.
Bob
 

cycleguy

Well-known member
Tell me more about the smokescreen effect. Is this somethinv that happens in ed or hd glass or does this happen in all glass?

C G
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Tell me more about the smokescreen effect. Is this somethinv that happens in ed or hd glass or does this happen in all glass?

C G
It is not a CA problem. It is a glare problem and is not affected by the lack of or presence of HD glass. It is probably caused by insufficient internal blackening or baffles. Maybe Nikon cheaped out on these two things because of the low price but why would they put every other bell and whistle on the thing and cheap out on blackening and baffles.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Dennis,
Unless you compared the two at the same time under the same conditions your opinion about how they handle glare is very questionable.
Bob
I easily remember the Bresser's glare performance and it was better than the M7. It could be partly that it was a 42mm though. But I remember lookin through under the exact conditions I did the M7.
 

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist
So to summarize this thread to this point if you haven't been following this fascinating read. It started with my positive review of the new Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 and very quickly many people who have tried the M7 pointed out it was very weak at handling glare and exhibited a glare problem we coined "The Smokescreen Effect" which is an all encompassing glare which causes the field to be obscured by glare. Henry theorized on what possibly was causing the problem but the fact remains it does exist. Upon further evaluation of the M7 and after comparing it to a Swarovski CL-P 8x25 upon others recommendation saying that the Swaro performed much better especially in the handling of glare I realized that the M7 was very weak in this area and returned it and bought the Swarovski CL-P. After using the CL-P for awhile and comparing it to my Swarovision 8x32 I realized that once again Swarovski has the class leader in the compact binocular arena and is the perfect choice if you want a sub 32mm size binocular. One thing that has not been pointed out about the CL-P is that it must use Swarovision technology and it is sharp right to the edge of the field! Swarovski has a real winner in this compact and Nikon needs to go back to the drawing board with the M7 or at least make improvements in glare control as production progresses.


Jeez, Dennis, what happens when you discover the same sort of glare problem in your Swaro. 8x32 - the problem that others here have already reported? I think you told us the Conquest did a better job than the Swaro. in this regard - and the Conquest sure isn't perfect here either! I think maybe your standards are too low, or you just don't have a suitable reference standard to compare.

Bus meet Swaro.....
 

FrankD

Well-known member
...not until Zeiss introduces the 32 mm version of the HT...not named HT of course. ;)

Anyone taking bets?
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Jeez, Dennis, what happens when you discover the same sort of glare problem in your Swaro. 8x32 - the problem that others here have already reported? I think you told us the Conquest did a better job than the Swaro. in this regard - and the Conquest sure isn't perfect here either! I think maybe your standards are too low, or you just don't have a suitable reference standard to compare.

Bus meet Swaro.....
Overall I like the SV better than the Conquest HD. That is to be expected with the price difference. The Conquest HD might have handled glare a little better but you can't beat the optics on the SV with the sharp edges. I REALLY like the ergo's on the SV also. That open bridge with those thin tubes that you can wrap your fingers around is hard to beat. IMO the Swaro SV 8x32 is the best all around birding binocular you can buy and the Swaro 8x25 CL-P is the best pocket binocular. Let's face it. Swarovski is hard to beat. HaHa! Haaaa! Expensive but as they say "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR". You hear that Frank! HaHa!
 

ceasar

Well-known member
I easily remember the Bresser's glare performance and it was better than the M7. It could be partly that it was a 42mm though. But I remember lookin through under the exact conditions I did the M7.

Can you describe the conditions and give us the day, date, time and locations where they occurred? You can probably review your posts about the Bresser to find the date.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Can you describe the conditions and give us the day, date, time and locations where they occurred? You can probably review your posts about the Bresser to find the date.
I never experienced the type of glare with the Bresser that I did with the M7 in the whole time period that I owned it. I certainly would have remembered "The Smokescreen Effect" if I had seen it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top