Brief comparison between Opticron Aurora VHD VS Nikon Monarch HG (in 8x42) (1 Viewer)

[jackjack]

This spring I have compared Nikon MHG / Opticron Aurora in 8x42 apature and wrote some review in Korean forum.

compare of size between MHG / Aurora.

Despite Aurora is light and small bino then average 42mm but MHG is even smaller and lighter
(Ignor the bino adapter under aurora's hinge. the owner who lend me the Aurora put it on)


MHG has body textuer feeling like thin leather and Aurora just feels like hard rubber.
MHG also has more textured barrel for better grip. It works quitr well so I prefer handling od MHG better

Aurora's eye relief is stated larger (17.8 / 20) and has bit shallower placed ocular lens
so I got more usuable eye relif in Aurora (but MHG is still fine)

long ER can lead to blackouts if eyecup doesn't extends long enough, but I find Aurora's eye placement better in my naked eye then MHG.
so, ease of view with&without glasses is better in Aurora.

(but build quality of eyecup is better in MHG. Aurora is but nore wobbly.)

MHG has pop up diopter at right side of the tube and Aurora has pop up diopter above the focus wheel.

they both have bit cheap looking, working diopter but Aurora is far inferior then MHG on this part.
diopter is made with very thin plastic and moves like 100$ pair of bino. in fact, Nowadays, cheap bino such as Svbony SV202 has more rugged better operating diopter then Aurora.

I would like better if opticron put their diopter in right tube with no locking system like usual under 500$ binos.
Center locking diopter is spec many bino brands deploy to their high grade bino but, in Opticron aurora, it is a failure.


Focus knob also will be big disadvantage to Aurora.
It's tension is very light
lighter then MHG but have really dry feel that it bit hard to focus fastly bucause focuser easily get stiff while rotationg because of it's friction made by too dry focusing.
the owner put some grease for himself but it is sill far stiffer then MHG.
some of the Vixen optic OEM bino have similar dry feel, such as leupold cascade, Vixen artes J, but concerning the highest price, Aurora's focusing is high disappointment. you can find better focuser under 500$ such as Nikon M7, Kowa BD2, Zeiss Terra....

 

[jackjack]

Optics

MHG

Aurora


MHG


Aurora


As you see in the photo, MHG has distinctive yellowish - green tone.

Aurora has bit bluish tone. not very commen in most binocular.
there are some bino thet emphasize blue light more then average bino such as Zeiss HT and Fujinon HC. but their blue is not their main tone. they stull have more level of other spectrum green (HT) red (HC) higher
Aurora's main tone is blue.

so overall, MHG color is mostly better satuated at natural objects such as tree and grass but overall color fidelity is better in Aurora.

brightness is significantly better in MHG. it may be emphasized because color tone, which Aurora feels even cold because of it's blue tone while MHG feel bit warmer.

but between comaprison at night and day, still I think MHG is bit brighter


Central sharpness is significantly better in Aurora (and also you can see better CA correction)

MHG / Aurora


Aurora manages to remain more percentages sharper then aurora.

approx 82 ~ 84% for MHG, 88 ~ 90 for Aurora
but MHG has bit milder fallouts then Aurora so Edge sharpness don't differ that much.
(But I think Aurora is better fitted for Field flattener name.)

MHG / Aurora



CA control

Center

MHG / Aurora

Edge

MHG / Aurora



In center, Aurora shows less CA but at the edge, Aurora fall down much more then it wins at center.


Distortion.

MHG and Aurora both has slight barral didtortion at the edge of the field which make some rolling ball effect.
BUT, Aurora has even higher barral distortion making much higer rollingball effect the MHG making up to rolling ball level of EL or more higher.

MHG / Aurora


Glare suppression is better in Aurora

top : MHG
Bottom : Aurora

Aurora indeed surpress glare very well, not at the level of mighty EDG, but very good for it's size. and also, MHG, even it fall bit behind Aurora, preform nicely with it's more compact size.

ghosting is better in Aurora to bit worse but almost at the level of Zeiss conquest.

+ comfort of the view.

As I said above, Aurora has more easy view with and without glasses according to its more ER and better eyecups.

but as for the comfort of view, such as lower eye strain and less rolling ball, MHG is clear winner.
binocular with yellow hue tends to give usually less eyestrain because of it has lower amout of blue transmission that more idel to give eyestrain to users eye.

Opticron Aurora instead, empisize blue part of spectrum.
making it on of the most eye - strainfull roof bino I seen at 1000 range and more.

moreover it also has high rolling ball because of it's barrel distortion at the edge of the view.

and last, Aurora has very significant bright blue ring. at the rim of the FOV (not made by CA)

EL 8x32 / SFL 8x40
MHG 8x42 / Aurora 8x42

look at the left rim of the field.


I wonder why they make it like this, but it is enough to bother me.

so according to these disadvantages, Aurora give more eyestrain even then many binocular then under 500$
such as Kowa BD series, Skyrover bannercloud, Nikon monarch series and more.

big warn to whom got use to eye relexing bino (such as leica trinovid BN, Nikon HGL / EDG)

 

[jackjack]

So, is it a Clear win for MHG?

NO.

Aurora exels MHG highly in it's best asset.

the center image quality.

first, I. contrary of it's strong blue CA at the 85 ~ 90% of the FOV,
it have very high level of CA correction at the center of the view blowing away exceeding MHG, Conquest, SFL and Even Nikon EDG

Aurora / EDG in 8x42


it's CA control at center of ther view is hand down alpha class competing with SF, EL, NL

more satisfying result it it's central sharpness,
to the ones that have read my other reviews, I'm very Skeptical of calling any binocular 'Sharp as Alpha'

but Aurora has hand down alpha class central sharpness.

in 8x42

Zeiss conquest is significantly sharper then MHG and Aurora is Significantly sharper then Conquest similar amount to conquest sharper then MHG.

It's really a over sharp bino not only at it's price point but between whole bino.

Not only it exels zeiss conquest, it excels 8x40 ~ 42 zeiss SFL, SF, HT, Noctivid.
only leaving 8 power NL, 8x32, 8.5x42 EL clear ahead.


conculsion.


Opticron Aurora has more steep gap between advantage and disadvantage then MHG.

it has fabulous center image quality and nice glare suppression.

I couldn't found any bino thet exceed it's central image quality under 1500$.

but it gives one of the lost strainfull view because of it's blue hue, rolling ball effect, too bright blue rim.

also it's build quality is lot weaker then people desire at it's price point.
MHG is not a rugged bino but, Compared with Aurora, it feel much safer then it used to be.


At the end I prefere Aurora over MHG.

overall, Aurora has more disadvantages then MHG, but I can't get THAT amount of central image quality in any other bino at that price point.

Real steal for optic manias who what there bino to be sharp as it gets.

but, to average birder that use bino more to watch birds not admiring it's optics, I have to suggest MHG.

It is more comfortable to use mechanically and optically.

I really enjoyed admiring it's high sharpness but at the same time have some high time because of it's eyestrain.



Opticron Aurora gives phenomenal central sharpness and CA control (center) at it's price point.

but also give very very high CA at edge, class leading eyestrain, lower class build quality at it's price point.

to central sharpness maniacs like me, Aurora really worth a try even it has severe fall outs.
it could be best purchase at it's price point when you need central sharpness high enough to thrill you.

but for the users who prefere bino with relaxing view (such as Nikon EDG),
it could be worst purchase at it's price point

 

[A2GG]

nice review. In your photos it’s obvious to see the yellow bias in the Nikon.

I used to own MHG 8x30 and I used it as my only binocular for about 2.5 years. I noticed it had a slight yellow bias in the image but I didn’t mind it at the time. When I compared it to Trinovid HD 8x32 I could see how it was just too warm (yellow) compared to the more natural Leica colors. So I ended up selling the MHG which was actually my second pair. It was a replacement sent to me from Nikon because the rubber came unglued from the focuser on the first binocular. I preferred the Trinovid HD overall and have been using it for well over a year now. It has Leica’s latest coatings which IMO gives the image a good color balance, a little less warm than previous versions of Leica binos; mine is a 2022 production series.

 

[lmans66]

Nice review....I like this as you have highlighted areas of interest to me...practical areas. As I always say, it is up to each to determine which categories/areas hold greater value to each individual's needs/wants. Nicely done. Both are solid for the $. I haven't tried the 42's but have tried to MHG 8x30 and the 8x32 Verano. I love the Verano but the MHG is a bit better; of course, 2x the $ too.

 

[jackjack]

nice review. In your photos it’s obvious to see the yellow bias in the Nikon.

I used to own MHG 8x30 and I used it as my only binocular for about 2.5 years. I noticed it had a slight yellow bias in the image but I didn’t mind it at the time. When I compared it to Trinovid HD 8x32 I could see how it was just too warm (yellow) compared to the more natural Leica colors. So I ended up selling the MHG which was actually my second pair. It was a replacement sent to me from Nikon because the rubber came unglued from the focuser on the first binocular. I preferred the Trinovid HD overall and have been using it for well over a year now. It has Leica’s latest coatings which IMO gives the image a good color balance, a little less warm than previous versions of Leica binos; mine is a 2022 production series.

you can also check yellow hue of mhg in comparison of EDG at my former post.

MHG is definitely not a sharpest and clearist bino at it's price but I think it is really usefull to birders because of it's compact size, weight, large FOV and stray light performance.

Conquest series is half step above the optic quality of MHG but If I go birding, I might prefer MHG over conquset because of it's advantages I wrote above.

 

[jackjack]

Nice review....I like this as you have highlighted areas of interest to me...practical areas. As I always say, it is up to each to determine which categories/areas hold greater value to each individual's needs/wants. Nicely done. Both are solid for the $. I haven't tried the 42's but have tried to MHG 8x30 and the 8x32 Verano. I love the Verano but the MHG is a bit better; of course, 2x the $ too.

That's why I write the reviews No bino is perfect in every parts. similarly price bino doesn't mean they share similer advantage and disadvantage.
it depends which stats that owner prefer.
If some prefer Central sharpnesee highly, it is nessersary that they go to Aurora then MHG, but to ones prefore more comfortable view, better choice is the opposite.

I tried 8x30 MHG three times. overall optic quality is significantly below conqest 8x32 but I really like it's compactness. will well compete against swaro CL.
in curious of verano. there are one internet shop in korea thet sells it. on the past, I have thoughts to get them but I didn't.
which part does It compete well at it's price range and which part it doesn’t?

 

[jackjack]

Digiscoped photo of birds taken by Opticron Aurora 8x42

1.Eurasian tree sparrow

x3 zoom using my galaxy s21 (24 magnification)



2. Chinse blackbird

x3


3. Vinous throated parrotbill



4. Eurasian spoonbill

x3


5. Cinereouse vulture



x3

6. flying mallards


7. Brown eared bullbull
x3


8. Grey headed woodpecker

x3 investing on deserted beehive


9.squirrel


x3

 

[lmans66]

what are you using to capture really good shots from a binocular?

 

[jackjack]

what are you using to capture really good shots from a binocular?

galaxy s21 and my hands

 

[Patudo]

Really interesting stuff, thanks. I was able to try both at the Global 2024 Birdfair last weekend. I wasn't able to compare the two side by side over the amount of time you did, and don't have the expertise to go as deep into the technical aspects as you've done, but your thoughts on the Opticron Aurora agree quite a bit with mine (brief notes here) both in relation to image and to build quality. Definitely agree that image sharpness of the Aurora seems very good; I didn't find the 8x42 to be difficult in terms of ease of view like you did, and thought the overall image quality (correction etc) was very good, but agree build quality is behind the Monarch HG and some other competitors (although probably functional enough for most everyday birding). I had a lot of difficulty setting the diopter of the 10x42 Aurora demo unit and agree it would be better if the diopter adjustment was located on the right barrel like the MHG and many others.

I think the MHG is somewhat better made (but also somewhat more expensive in the UK) but the two seem very close optically. That area of the market has some really good binoculars now, I was really impressed by what I saw.

 

[jackjack]

Really interesting stuff, thanks. I was able to try both at the Global 2024 Birdfair last weekend. I wasn't able to compare the two side by side over the amount of time you did, and don't have the expertise to go as deep into the technical aspects as you've done, but your thoughts on the Opticron Aurora agree quite a bit with mine (brief notes here) both in relation to image and to build quality. Definitely agree that image sharpness of the Aurora seems very good; I didn't find the 8x42 to be difficult in terms of ease of view like you did, and thought the overall image quality (correction etc) was very good, but agree build quality is behind the Monarch HG and some other competitors (although probably functional enough for most everyday birding). I had a lot of difficulty setting the diopter of the 10x42 Aurora demo unit and agree it would be better if the diopter adjustment was located on the right barrel like the MHG and many others.

I think the MHG is somewhat better made (but also somewhat more expensive in the UK) but the two seem very close optically. That area of the market has some really good binoculars now, I was really impressed by what I saw.

I count ease of view and comfort of the view differently.
ease of view mainly depends on eye placement. such as, poket bino's finickly eye placement.

comfort of view depends on eye strain and nausy panning effect. which occur after you got proper eye placement of the view.


in Korea, MHG and Aurora is under 100$ differ. Aurora bit more expensive but distributor of Opticron have much better warranty then distributor of nikon does to MHG.

so, In Korea, Aurora could have more advantage over MHG then other countries.

My eyes may be really sensitive to stressfull situation such as rolling ball, CA, extra.
and I think Aurora's abnormal eyestrain mainly occurs with it's blue coloring. not only for it's strong rolling ball and blue edge.

I have seen another blue tinted bino. nikon P7 8x30, and have same type of eyestrain in comparison of Aurora. even bit more because it have bit more tinted to blue spectrum

top to bottom

P7 8x30 / Aurora 8x42 / MHG 8x42

 

[Patudo]

quick question jackjack - Swarovski transmission curve (at least for the EL series) is supposed to have a bias towards blue ("cold" view compared to eg Leica). Do you feel eyestrain when viewing through an EL, also do you see rolling ball?

 

[jackjack]

quick question jackjack - Swarovski transmission curve (at least for the EL series) is supposed to have a bias towards blue ("cold" view compared to eg Leica). Do you feel eyestrain when viewing through an EL, also do you see rolling ball?

swaro EL has higer blue transmission curve then bino such as Nikon edg, leica NV, zeiss SF. if compared to them, indeed I felt bit more strain but not that enough to ruin my pleasure.
Aurora has significantly more blue tint then EL.

and rolling ball. which I am really sensitive at...
I have been using 8x32 and 10x32 EL.
and their rolling ball is enough to ruin my comfort.
especially 8x32 which has largest real FOV among EL models.
I have some hard time getting use to my 10x32 EL but still getting use or maybe not be able to to rolling ball on 8x32 EL.

and aurora's rolling ball is similar maybe bit stronger then 8x32 EL.

EL is not a comfortable bino at it's price point I think it is the worst comfort bino among recent big 3+ nikon flagships (SF, NV, NL, EL, EDG)

I know EL have these critical disadvantages but I choose it's optical quality over it's disadvantages

but for Aurora, I need much more time too choose.
if Aurora's central sharpness is just a level of zeiss conqest, I will immediately go to MHG. but Aurora is even step over it.

 

[Popeye32]

Great review.
I am amazed at the blue edge of the Aurora images as I physically dont see that with mine at all, evan thos this has been mentioned before.
Also I get zero rolling ball effect that I did get with some others that I tried.
Lastly I did not feel the Aurora has a cold image, for me all the Zeiss, esp the SFL that was very blue/cold

 

[ArchStanton]

swaro EL has higer blue transmission curve then bino such as Nikon edg, leica NV, zeiss SF. if compared to them, indeed I felt bit more strain but not that enough to ruin my pleasure.
Aurora has significantly more blue tint then EL.

and rolling ball. which I am really sensitive at...
I have been using 8x32 and 10x32 EL.
and their rolling ball is enough to ruin my comfort.
especially 8x32 which has largest real FOV among EL models.
I have some hard time getting use to my 10x32 EL but still getting use or maybe not be able to to rolling ball on 8x32 EL.

and aurora's rolling ball is similar maybe bit stronger then 8x32 EL.

EL is not a comfortable bino at it's price point I think it is the worst comfort bino among recent big 3+ nikon flagships (SF, NV, NL, EL, EDG)

I know EL have these critical disadvantages but I choose it's optical quality over it's disadvantages

but for Aurora, I need much more time too choose.
if Aurora's central sharpness is just a level of zeiss conqest, I will immediately go to MHG. but Aurora is even step over it.

Thanks Jackjack for your detailed analysis comparing the MHG and Aurora 8x42’s. They both seem like great binoculars, but with pluses and minuses. If Zeiss doesn’t come out with a new Conquest in the near future I might try either the MHG or Aurora. Cheers!

 

[jackjack]

Great review.
I am amazed at the blue edge of the Aurora images as I physically dont see that with mine at all, evan thos this has been mentioned before.
Also I get zero rolling ball effect that I did get with some others that I tried.
Lastly I did not feel the Aurora has a cold image, for me all the Zeiss, esp the SFL that was very blue/cold

guess you are born with more lucky eyes then I am

 

[jackjack]

Thanks Jackjack for your detailed analysis comparing the MHG and Aurora 8x42’s. They both seem like great binoculars, but with pluses and minuses. If Zeiss doesn’t come out with a new Conquest in the near future I might try either the MHG or Aurora. Cheers!

I feels like opticron Aurora is contrary model with Nikon EDG.
EDG giving great mechanics and comfortable view without high end level of central sharpness.
on the other hand, Aurora give one of the best central sharpness in market getting crummy mechanics and comfortness.

I'm also waiting for new conquest too. I don't know when but I hope they manage the new one's central sharpness at lesat par with old ones.
because conquest HD's central sharpness can compete in really high level even it was made more then 10 years before.

 

[paddyluke]

Great review.
I am amazed at the blue edge of the Aurora images as I physically dont see that with mine at all, evan thos this has been mentioned before.
Also I get zero rolling ball effect that I did get with some others that I tried.
Lastly I did not feel the Aurora has a cold image, for me all the Zeiss, esp the SFL that was very blue/cold

is the blue ring only visible when using a camera?

 

[jackjack]

is the blue ring only visible when using a camera?

NO. To me, it is Definitely visible in real sight. I don't use any referance photo regarding effects I haven't seen with my real eyes.