Monarch HG 8x42 vs Conquest HD 8x42 vs Swarovski SLC 8x42 (2 Viewers)

[ZDHart]

The Monarch HG sounds like a gem. Would such superlatives apply, as well, to their 8x30 HG?

And, how might it compare to the 8x32 UVHD+?

 

[Paultricounty]

The Monarch HG sounds like a gem. Would such superlatives apply, as well, to their 8x30 HG?

And, how might it compare to the 8x32 UVHD+?

I can’t speak about the 30 mm counterpart. The 42 is an impressive Binocular for the price point but it’s not an ultravid. HG is it impressive Binocular and a good tool. But it’s not like the jewelry of the ultravid, SF, EL etc. etc. it’s a quality Binocular but there’s no wow. 😏

 

[[email protected]]

ok..... I had previously started a thread: Conquest HD 8x42 vs Swarovski SLC 8x42. I have started a new thread because I have added a third to the mix because of limitations/ ergonomics (for me) of Conquest HD 8x42 and the Swarovski SLC 8x42

So now I have all three to try back to back:

I only feel it is fair to include my purchase prices

• Monarch HG 8x42 ($685 refurb)
• Conquest HD 8x42 ($760 new)
• Swarovski SLC 8x42 ($1560 new)

They are all different and excel in different areas compared to each other.

Of the three, I would have loved to keep the SLC, but they did not work out for me due to the inability to focus past infinity without using my glasses (overdrive pas infinity).

Here are the comparisons of the above 3

Sharpness:
SLC>HD=HG (HD might be better? I can't find it, SLC I can)

Edge to edge sharpness
HD>SLC=HG (HD "techinically" wins, but b/c FOV of HG is so large, more stuff is actually sharp)

Brightness:
SLC>HD=HG

Least CA
SLC>HD>HG (HD very VERY slightly Less CA than HG, SLC CA almost non existent)

Weight (Least to most)
HG>SLC>HD (on stats HD=SLC, in use SLC noticeably lighter than HD)

Color accuracy (Not sure, but to me):
HG>HD (a little grey prob due to less contrast)=SLC (kind of yellow tint?maybe)

Contrast
SLC=HG>HD (SLC may have slight edge to HG, I can't tell)

Focus depth
SLC>HG>>HD (HD too thin, gets annoying and always focus hunting)

Exit pupil (least Black outs during use)
SLC(5.3mm)=HG(5.3mm)>>HD (5.25mm) During use alot of black out with HD

Focus knob (smoothness)
HD>HG>SLC

Diopter adjustment (personal preference between HG and SLC, I prefer HG)
HG=SLC>>HD

Focus/ over drive past infinity
HD=HG>>SLC (SLC is like -4 or so, this was a deal breaker for me other 2 are at least -6.5)

Close focus
HD6.5'=HG6.6'>SLC10.5'

Eye cup adjustment
SLC>HG>>HD (HD works, just really stiff)

Manufacture
HG Japan, HD Germany, SLC Austria

Build Quality
SLC>>HG>HD (SLC really feels like quality here, esp. eye cup function)

Construction
HG (Magnesium) = SLC (Magnesium) >> HD (Aluminum)

Protection / Durability
HD>>SLC>HG (HD is built like a tank and Heavy, if you rap on it it is solid like a brick. If you rap on SLC you can her something vibrating, SLC does have alot of padding, HG sounds a little hollow and has least padding) Not issue for me, I am very gentle with my binos and I don't hunt.

Ease / pleasure to use
SLC=hg>>>HD (because of focus wheel, weight and FOV HG>SLC. HD makes you work for the view. HD not as forgiving esp. b/c of thing focus depth. you really have to get jiggy with the focus wheel, have your eyes perfectly centered, the narrow FOV you have to move, weight also makes it more cumbersome)

Overall, I would have liked to keep the SLC, but not being able to use them without glasses is a complete deal breaker. Comparing The HD without glasses to the SLC with glasses I preferred the HD. So... unfortunately, the SLC was out and I was only mildly satisfied with the HD. I was planning to keep the HD but then a forum member suggested to take a look at the HG. Since my current binos were the Monarch 5s, which I was happy with, and I just wanted a step up in optics, I ordered the HG refurbished. After I received the HG, it was clear that for my use and preferences it is superior to the HD. It should have been SLC vs HG all along. IMO the optics in the HD might be ever so slightly (I mean very slightly) better than the HG, but the HG's ergonomic and ease of use just make it so much more pleasurable to use than the HD.

Compared to the HD the HG is so much easier to use and are more forgiving. The weight, FOV, and focus depth adds to the ergonomics. In spite of very slightly more CA on the HG vs the HD I find myself reaching for the HG vs the HD. In addition, using the HG leaves me happy, not fatigued, and I look forward to it using next time. Where as, after using the HD I feel fatigued and recalling limitations (like constant focusing and weight) as opposed to recalling what I was looking at. I find the ergonomic of the HD negatively distracting and I find them to get in the way of viewing and enjoying birding/bino-ing. And I find the ergonomics of the HG to allow me focus what I am looking at and forget about the binoculars. I had the same feeling with the SLC (actually even more so than the HG).

At the given prices I think the Nikon HG wins hands down. At cost non-issue the SLC is clearly the best as it should be at ~2x the cost. I don't think the SLC's price gives you 2x more bino than the HG. 10% more might even be a stretch...maybe...

The HG is a considerable upgrade from my Monarch 5. As forum members have said : "at $685, it is a no brainier." I agree with that. I have head of people finding $500 refub Monarch HGs, it is a steal at that price IMO.

In a way I am glad the SLC had a deal breaker ergonomic as it saved me $875 and I am happy with the HG. The Monarch HG 8x42 is the one I kept.

All of the above are my personal preferences and opinions. In addition, at this level it is kind of splitting hairs and any of these binos are fine and excellent instruments. In the comparisons above I really needed to look and test side by side to find differences.

I hope the above helps future buyers, I have not seen a direct comparison of these 3 on the web.

At your price point, I would also try the Leica Ultravid HD 8x42. A lot of times you can get one for around the price of the SLC, and they are more delicious than any of the other three you are looking at.

 

[mTown]

Looking for an upgrade (looking for an 8x42 up to about 1000 Euro) from my Nikon Prostaff 7s 8x30, I finally - and yes, I really searched a long time to find a suitable one - got stuck with the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42.

The Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 won out over the following (in 8x40/42/44 respectively): Leica Trinovid HD, Steiner Discovery, DDoptics SHG, Kowa Genesis, Kowa BD II, Meopta Meopro Air. I did not try the Conquest HD.

I like the Nikon Monarch HG very much. The only thing that partly bothers me is the (in my opinion) not so good edge sharpness, especially in the lower part of the image. Here, estimated from about 60%, a drop in sharpness begins and from about 75% it is then very blurry. Left, right and above are - at least felt - better. Of course, the center sharpness is more important, but you still look away from the center from time to time.

I'm not technically familiar with binoculars, but is this normal or could I have caught a lemon? I am very satisfied with the center sharpness and also with the CA.

 

[Swedpat]

Two-three years ago I got the opportunity to compare my Conquest HD 8x42 side by side to SLC 8x42.
They were so similar and the only optical difference I could detect was that SLC has wider FOV. So I did not find it worth to get SLC, at that moment almost twice the price of Conquest.
Today the price, at least in Sweden, of Conquest HD 42mm models has increased a lot.

 

[ragin-cajun]

SLC

 

[Troubador]

I like the Nikon Monarch HG very much. The only thing that partly bothers me is the (in my opinion) not so good edge sharpness, especially in the lower part of the image. Here, estimated from about 60%, a drop in sharpness begins and from about 75% it is then very blurry. Left, right and above are - at least felt - better. Of course, the center sharpness is more important, but you still look away from the center from time to time.

I'm not technically familiar with binoculars, but is this normal or could I have caught a lemon? I am very satisfied with the center sharpness and also with the CA.

This sounds rather strange and I am wondering if you are not viewing with your eyes on the optical axis (centre of the fov). Do you wear spectacles? It is quite easy to misplace the position of the eyecups on your spectacles. Anyway do try adjusting the position of the eyepieces in relation to your eyes and see if this alters the distribution of the image sharpness.

Lee

 

[mTown]

This sounds rather strange and I am wondering if you are not viewing with your eyes on the optical axis (centre of the fov). Do you wear spectacles? It is quite easy to misplace the position of the eyecups on your spectacles. Anyway do try adjusting the position of the eyepieces in relation to your eyes and see if this alters the distribution of the image sharpness.

Lee

Thank you for the answer. I have not yet come up with the idea. I use the binoculars without glasses.

But now that you said it, I notice that I always put the binoculars quite high up (from below I "press" the upper edge of the eyepiece to the top edge of the eye socket (I don't know if this is the right term) and the bottom end of the eyepiece has no contact with the eye socket). It seems that I unconsciously tilt the binoculars up very slightly when looking through them.

Respectively, it could be that by placing the binoculars high, I am not looking centrally at the axis center and am trying to make myself look at the center by tilting up slightly, which blurs the image at the bottom. I will investigate this further at some point.

It's a little hard to describe, but I hope it's understandable what I mean.

However, could it basically be that a "Lemon" model is "reflected" by poorer edge performance?

 

[Jessie-66]

Looking for an upgrade (looking for an 8x42 up to about 1000 Euro) from my Nikon Prostaff 7s 8x30, I finally - and yes, I really searched a long time to find a suitable one - got stuck with the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42.

The Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 won out over the following (in 8x40/42/44 respectively): Leica Trinovid HD, Steiner Discovery, DDoptics SHG, Kowa Genesis, Kowa BD II, Meopta Meopro Air. I did not try the Conquest HD.

I like the Nikon Monarch HG very much. The only thing that partly bothers me is the (in my opinion) not so good edge sharpness, especially in the lower part of the image. Here, estimated from about 60%, a drop in sharpness begins and from about 75% it is then very blurry. Left, right and above are - at least felt - better. Of course, the center sharpness is more important, but you still look away from the center from time to time.

I'm not technically familiar with binoculars, but is this normal or could I have caught a lemon? I am very satisfied with the center sharpness and also with the CA.

Turn the binoculars 90 degrees, look with 1 eye. Try the same with the other eye.
Look at structured flowers or similar at a distance of about 30 ... 50 m and tilt the binoculars until the same flowers are at the edge of the field of view.
Look with the right eye into the left eyepiece and vice versa and turn binoculars 90 degrees.
Please write the result. Can you still see uneven edge blur after these trials?
(With these tests one excludes errors with bad view into the eyepieces or own eye errors. Consider for yourself what causes apparent errors to "wander" or remain constant.)

 

[Troubador]

Thank you for the answer. I have not yet come up with the idea. I use the binoculars without glasses.

But now that you said it, I notice that I always put the binoculars quite high up (from below I "press" the upper edge of the eyepiece to the top edge of the eye socket (I don't know if this is the right term) and the bottom end of the eyepiece has no contact with the eye socket). It seems that I unconsciously tilt the binoculars up very slightly when looking through them.

Respectively, it could be that by placing the binoculars high, I am not looking centrally at the axis center and am trying to make myself look at the center by tilting up slightly, which blurs the image at the bottom. I will investigate this further at some point.

It's a little hard to describe, but I hope it's understandable what I mean.

However, could it basically be that a "Lemon" model is "reflected" by poorer edge performance?

From what you describe it seems likely to me that the 'poorer edge performance' (that is limited to one area of the edge) is created by how you are positioning the binos in relation to your eyes. I think you need to address this before you can begin to assess whether you might have a 'lemon'.

Lee