Popeye32
Active member
I just dont see it, evan if I hunt for it.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Brief comparison between Opticron Aurora VHD VS Nikon Monarch HG (in 8x42) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jackjack
- Start date
Popeye32
Active member
Do you see this at a certain eye relief distance? I am not a glasses wearer and have them fully extended.
You have to look harder!
I can see both with, without glasses.
opticron aurora's eyecup is bit longer then other such as MHG and conquest. some users will have to leave one clickstop left to get a full field of view.
to me, the deep blue CA starts from about 85 ~ 90% at the edge
left / center / right
CA is really well corrected at center of the image. significant over 1000$ price, beating 8samr power EDG and SFL.
I hate saying bino that CA is non existent because actually it is not, but in Aurora level, I can say CA is practically close to Zero at center in most viewing conditions.
but at the edge it is different it feels like all the CA that surpressed well in Center moves to the edge...
I know the 'Blue ring of death' thing insisted by a member in this forum especially on Zeiss SFL
I think it is not a nessersary to call it death because it depend of sensitivity of the user.
but If I call one bino between I have seen as 'blue ring of death',
the closest will be Aurora 8x42 not SFL 10x40.
because when SFL has deep purple color of CA , Aurora's is more close to blue spectrum. and the color of the rim of the FOV is much bright and acknowledgeable in Aurora then SFL 10x40
colot the rim of the view differ from bino to bino, mainly bright blue and greenish yellow but whatever the color is, aurora's rim coloring stands out too much enough to annoy me in some occasions
(see the post I posted earlier in this thread)
Last edited:
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Really nice review. My opinion of the MHG is very in line with what you found. There is a bit of color bias, and central sharpness is one of the weaker spots. But overall it's a really nice package with a pleasing view and it is a really good birding binocular. I now prefer the 8x30 SFL which is, to me, essentially the same binocular but with more neutral color and sharper centrally. For me those two remain the two best binoculars in their size class.
I seen 8x30 8x42 10x42 MHG. MHG's sharpness (both on edge and cneter)doesn't stands out in it's price point but it is still better then usual 500$ class.
there are three famous 30mm in high grade bino.
MHG, CL companion, SFL
I have seen all three in 8x30 and SFL is step over then other.
best brightness, sharpness, color renedition, mechanical
it is most expensive but I think it deserve it's higher price.
I use 8x32 as my main birding bino but for more activitive purpose, 30mm can be better because it is significantly compact lighter the most 32mm .
since20~25mm is hard to use in every occasions...
Last edited:
color tone
Aurora : bit blue tint
SRBC : bit yellow - red tint. view turns bit more to reddish at low light then it was at good light
color fidelity, satuation bit better in SRBC
SRBC's color is bit closer to natural color, aurora feels bit colder than natural
central sharpness / central CA is much better in opticron
brightness / edge ca / edge sharpness better in SRBC
Eye placement, handling better in Aurora
focusing more fluid in SRBC
(usable eyerelif longer in Aurora)
close focus better in Aurora
stray light better in Aurora
Comfort of the view (eyestrain, rolling ball)
bit better in SRBC
Build quality bit better in SRBC
Accessories better in SRBC
Aurora is lighter and compact.
I like Aurora's massive central sharpness a lot, but overall optic quality will be win for SRBC
if not regarding the Warranty, there will be very few bino that can beat SRBC under 1000$ range.
Last edited:
Nice digiscoping. But I am concerned about the digiscoping when used to show how sharp a bino is, or how much CA it has.
I find the reports of comparisons of sharpness and resolution between binoculars very unreliable, I have seen so many contradictions. I find it hard to believe that some people can have such sharp eyes to distinguish differences in resolution in upper mid range (and even alpha) optics. And specially if you can see it with a cellphone camera (according to my phone's camera, my ~100$ Nikon Aculon is sharp edge to edge).
In addition to that, I am sensitive to CA but I can manage to suppress CA at the centre of my MHG 10x42 with proper IPD setting and correct eye placement, although there are some color fringes near the centre. The MHG 10x42 version is worse in CA than the 8x42 according to many reviews (and it also makes sense). Yet you can see it at the centre when digiscoping. It screams to me incorrect eye/camera placement. This could also explain the difference in sharpness between both binos.
I don't have super sharp eyes, but I am relatively young and have at least good eyesight. The MHG is very sharp to my eyes, only when I boost the resolution using another bino in a fixed setup I can see its limits. Although I can finally see the blurry image this way, I can extract even more information than tripod mounted and without a booster. Furthermore, when I stop down the aperture, the boosted image improves in resolution and contrast.
I speculate that by placing the eyes slightly off-centre (due to incorrect placement or IPD), this is equivalent to placing the aperture off-axis. Because of this, we would be using the worst and most aberrated part of the optical path, degrading the image quality.
Is the aperture of the camera the same as the human eye's pupil in daylight? the focal distance? If it is shorter than the eye's, the image would show less field curvature. What about the resolution of the camera? comparable to the human eye? Anyone knows?
I find the reports of comparisons of sharpness and resolution between binoculars very unreliable, I have seen so many contradictions. I find it hard to believe that some people can have such sharp eyes to distinguish differences in resolution in upper mid range (and even alpha) optics. And specially if you can see it with a cellphone camera (according to my phone's camera, my ~100$ Nikon Aculon is sharp edge to edge).
In addition to that, I am sensitive to CA but I can manage to suppress CA at the centre of my MHG 10x42 with proper IPD setting and correct eye placement, although there are some color fringes near the centre. The MHG 10x42 version is worse in CA than the 8x42 according to many reviews (and it also makes sense). Yet you can see it at the centre when digiscoping. It screams to me incorrect eye/camera placement. This could also explain the difference in sharpness between both binos.
I don't have super sharp eyes, but I am relatively young and have at least good eyesight. The MHG is very sharp to my eyes, only when I boost the resolution using another bino in a fixed setup I can see its limits. Although I can finally see the blurry image this way, I can extract even more information than tripod mounted and without a booster. Furthermore, when I stop down the aperture, the boosted image improves in resolution and contrast.
I speculate that by placing the eyes slightly off-centre (due to incorrect placement or IPD), this is equivalent to placing the aperture off-axis. Because of this, we would be using the worst and most aberrated part of the optical path, degrading the image quality.
Is the aperture of the camera the same as the human eye's pupil in daylight? the focal distance? If it is shorter than the eye's, the image would show less field curvature. What about the resolution of the camera? comparable to the human eye? Anyone knows?
Another remark about sharpness:
We can conclude that the central sharpness difference between the Aurora (a mid range bino) vs the EDG (an alpha) is so wide that we can put two other binos in between. Isn't it weird?
Edit: Sorry if this sounds like a harsh critic. It is the only aspect I find hard to believe, these are overall nice reviews.
- You said in the EDG vs MHG thread that the MHG has better central sharpness than the EDG.
- Here you say that the CHD is significantly sharper than the MHG, and the Aurora is significantly shaper than the CHD.
- So, Aurora >> CHD >> MHG > EDG
We can conclude that the central sharpness difference between the Aurora (a mid range bino) vs the EDG (an alpha) is so wide that we can put two other binos in between. Isn't it weird?
Edit: Sorry if this sounds like a harsh critic. It is the only aspect I find hard to believe, these are overall nice reviews.
paddyluke
Well-known member
it's all about opinions
I don't think the Aurora is a mid-range bino unless you are looking only at pricepoint - it's Opticron's flagship model. And sharpness is just one criteria of comparison - it's quite possible Nikon optimized not just sharpness but many other things when making the EDG.
yes exactly.
I also have had all of them (not all mine) to compare in one place.
plus two binos. el sv (not field pro swarovision) and conquest hd 8x32
the central sharpness is
EL 8x32 > Aurora 8x42 > CHD 8x42 > CHD 8x32 > MHG 8x42 > EDG 8x42
and not a direct comparison but I can get HGL 8x42 between 8x42 MHG and 8x42 EDG which I have compared with same bino. MHG 8x30
first of all, EDG is made lot cheaper then top of the range big 3 bino.
price itself is more similar to sub alphas such as SLC.
It's recent japanese price and price that it was first introduced in korea, (About 1500$) is the price point that EDG really have to be placed. not at the level of 2000$+
IF I count EDG for an alpha, it s definitely not because of it's central sharpness.
I think EDG's central sharpness fell LOT below it's price point.
Definitely not an alpha in central sharpness and brightness.
but EDG exel other alpha 8x42 (EL / NL / SF / HT / NV) with stray light control, focusing, ease of view and comfort of view.
it was the most comfortable field flattener bino I have used.
so in that part, EDG can be real alpha.
I still enjoy using EDG not because it is alpha in total image quality but have thos3 advantages that even exels the best priced one.
to summerize, EDG is nice bino for 1500$.
it's central sharpness and brightness fall's below (especially central sharpness) 1000$ range
edge sharpness, CA control, build quality significantly better then 1000$ range
focusing, ease of view, comfort of view leveled or even better then Alphas.
which combined to make EDG good choice around1500$
but not enough to compete at 2500$ alphas
I think it is bit overhyped because of it's brand name and puffed price tag at western countries.
but with it's advantage of comfortable viewing and fabulous focusing, It could give more pleasure in birdwatching then alphas.
Two fellow birders choose EDG over alphas because of it's comfortess even they also agree it is not as sharp.
Last edited:
dries1
Member
I guess they will have to take his word on that.
dries1
Member
Thanks for the subjective opinion, mine differs.
The other thing is - beyond a certain point, not all of us can see these differences in sharpness. Some who are blessed (or cursed!) with exceptional vision may be able to arrive at decisions like those in jackjack's post #33 quite quickly, but I have to be honest, a lot of the sub-alpha category are sharp enough (certainly on axis) that I would need really careful side by side comparison to really get a sense of which I felt were sharper - and I would hesitate to say my perception of sharpness (aka my subjective opinion) would be backed up by more substantive testing (USAF charts etc). I haven't met any in that category, including both Nikon models, that were not at least sharp enough for my birding.
