10x42L vs Nikon MHG (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

New members or beginners who ask about edge sharpness on specific binoculars should print this out and pin it to their wall. Very accurate, I agree with most everything here. I’d like to ad that the Nikon EDG is one of the best with edge sharpness as described, but doesn’t suffer from globe effect like the Swaros or others with field flatteners. The SE is very good in that area as well, flat field with good panning. It seems Nikon really knew how to combine flat fields with excellent panning characteristics. To me it’s surprising that Nikon would go backwards on the quality of field flatteners and yet print/label it right on the MHG barrel. Although I really like the MHG, I think it’s one of the best (if not the best) in its price category , it’s the only binocular that I’ve ever had that has field flatteners but doesn’t have edges like binoculars with flatteners. It’s almost closer Leica Ultravids than Swaros or SF’s.

Although I like binoculars with flat sharp edges, field flatteners and a wide FOV, which undoubtably brings a very impressive image, I still look to the center image quality and characteristic of the binoculars more. It’s why I think I lean towards Leica more than the others. I’ll grab an Ultravid or retro more times than my SF’s or EL/NL’s. It’s like id miss the characteristics of the Leica more than I would miss the sharp and flat wide field of the Zeiss and Swaro. Imo the Noctivid is going in the direction of combining both , flat field , but still good edges and good panning characteristics while keeping that Leica image, of course if they can keep that characteristic and ad a wider field of view that would be great.

That is true about the Nikon EDG having sharp edges, but still being one of the best binoculars for panning. If Nikon had perfected the EDG and perhaps given it a bigger FOV to compete with the SF and NL, it would have easily been the best binocular made.

Nikon is a monster of a company and can make all their own glass and lenses, and Swarovski and Zeiss has nothing over on Nikon. Nikon could easily make a binocular that would beat the NL and SF and for less money. Even the MHG at $1000 is very close as you say to the NL and SF outside of the softer edges and smaller FOV.

I agree on Leicas center images also. I have a Leica Trinovid BN 7x42 which is really about the same optically as the UVHD+ 7x42 because Leica never changes their binoculars much, and I use it a lot because it just has a relaxing appealing image that is easy on the eyes.

What a lot of people don't realize is the Leica Trinovid BN and BA are pretty much the same as the Leica UVHD+ optically, and they are built better, plus you can buy one for about 1/2 the price of the UVHD+.

Leica's may not seem at first as sharp as an NL or SF, but the more you use them, you realize they are very sharp because you are seeing just as much detail. The sharpness just doesn't hit you in the face like an NL or SF.

The Noctivid is Leica's first attempt at flat field and sharp edge design, following the SF and the NL but yet keeping the view that Leica is famous for. The Noctivid is one of the sharpest binoculars I have seen on-axis, and it has stunning saturated colors.

The Noctivid has about the best build quality of any binocular I have seen, outside of maybe the older Leica Trinovid's like the BN and BA.

 

[4 The Birds1]

........ Maybe the inner 6.5º of the MHG is equally sharp as the whole field of the Canon. .........

Your argument is flawed.
You cannot use the figures for the real field of view if you are comparing binoculars with different magnification.
You need to look at the figures for the apparent field of view.
If you do that you will see that the MHG 8x42 (60.3°) is not significantly wider than the Canon IS 10x42 (59.2°)

The Canon is the better optic, period. (Its disadvantages are in the sphere of ergonomics: weight and -for those who do not wear glasses- potentially challenging / uncomfortable eyecups.)

 

[agus_m]

Your argument is flawed.
You cannot use the figures for the real field of view if you are comparing binoculars with different magnification.
You need to look at the figures for the apparent field of view.
If you do that you will see that the MHG 8x42 (60.3°) is not significantly wider than the Canon IS 10x42 (59.2°)

The Canon is the better optic, period. (Its disadvantages are in the sphere of ergonomics: weight and -for those who do not wear glasses- potentially challenging / uncomfortable eyecups.)

Whoa, Who said I was comparing binos of different magnification? I referred to the 10x42. We don't know the real AFOV, unless they are measured, the FOV of the mhg is clearly wider. And if you read my comment you'd see that I said the same thing about the significance of the AFOV.

 

[GrumpyBuzzard]

Anyone able to get canon IS serviced in the UK ?

 

[Binastro]

I had Canon IS serviced north of London a few years ago.
Maybe near Stanmore?
Canon's own technicians.

I don't know if they still do this.

Regards,
B.

 

[Binastro]

Try Canon repair centre.

Unit 160 Centennial Park,
Elstree

0207 660 0186.
Mon to Fri 8.30 to 5.00PM.

I think the quality of the repair depends on which technician you get, but my experience was good on two occasions.

Maybe near Stanmore Orthopaedic hospital.

Regards,
B.

 

[GrumpyBuzzard]

Super thanks , I'll try that. Looked at canon website and it was the old "sign up create an account" rubbish.