Monarch 3 (7540) 8x42 User Reviews? (1 Viewer)

[FalcoSingh]

Just wondering if anyone has tried them out yet in the field?

I have Monarch ATB/DCF Mk3 8x42's (7294) and although I expect optical differences to be minimal I would still be interested in hearing about them, as well as any other differences.

I could theoretically return my bins via Amazon and buy those if need be. Am also considering these against Hawke Frontier ED 8x43's but that's a whole different story...

 

[perseid28]

I am also interested in this; I bought a Monarch 8x42 a few weeks ago and was satisfied with its performance for the price. But then I started wondering: what is the performance of the cheaper Monarch 3 or even the Prostaff 7? Could I save a bit of money on a product that has very close to the 7294's performance?

From looking at the specifications of these three binoculars, I note the following:

1) All of these binoculars have the same true field of view. At first glance, one might assume this is because the binoculars share the exact same objective lens/eyepiece combination, but I disagree because:

2) Each of the binoculars is a different length. This likely indicates that the focal length of the objective lens is different for each binocular, and that they thus do not share similar optics. Notice that the most expensive binocular is the shortest (the 7294 at 5.7"), and the least expensive binocular is the longest (the Prostaff 7 at 6.9"). Longer focal length objective lenses are cheaper to make, as the optical tolerances are not as tight as shorter focal lengths.

3) Similarly, each binocular employs a different reflective coating for the roof prisms. The ATB uses dielectric, the Monarch 3 uses silver alloy, and the Prostaff 7 uses aluminum.

4) Each of these binoculars uses phase coatings.

Because of 2) and 4), I really think that besides possible brightness differences (which may or may not be obvious in many lighting situations), the Prostaff 7 and Monarch 3 could really give similar optical performance to the ATB. Yes they are cheaper, but it appears that the difference in price could be mostly attributable to 2) and 3), which will not necessarily affect image sharpness or distortion. Same reason that porro prisms often beat roof prisms of the same price (or even several times more expensive).

A future review will determine whether this is correct or not.

 

[huntoctober]

8X42 Nikon

I have used a pair of Nikon 8 X 42 Monarch ATB for six years in all kinds of rough conditions and foul weather, with nary a hitch. Quite a glass for the inexpensive price.

 

[follownoone]

I own a pair and like them. I use them for hiking/bird watching, and astronomy. I have a pair of 7x50 porros that I thought would be better for astronomy but I prefer the Monarchs. It could be my exit pupil can not take advantage of the 7mm or the sky glow. I have a lot of sky glow living near a big city.

Oddly enough, during the day I slightly favor the porros for viewing. Better dof and brighter in low light situations to my eye. I use them a lot for backyard viewing, especially in the evenings.

I like the eye relief better in the Monarch 3. I wear glasses. They weigh less and have a better point and see feel.

I have a pair of 10x50 porros and they so seem to go a little deeper at night. They are great beach binoculars. But they are my least used.

I use the Monarch the most, but the others do some things a tiny bit better. If I had to pick one the Monarch would barely edge out the 7x50.

I have never owned more expensive binoculars so this has to be considered. A lot of details discussed about binoculars really come down to fit and feel as much as function.

 

[James Bean]

Dielectric coatings are the best performance-enhancing improvement in my experience, so that seems the way to go...

 

[brocknroller]

I'd be interested in A/B/Cing these three bins.

While I can see why James said that the dielectric Monarch 5 (aka ATB 5) is best performing because of having the newest prisms coatings, some users have reported dielectric coatings "flatten" the color balance (of course, the AR coatings could be made to skew the colors toward the "warm" end of the spectrum, as they were in the EDG, which has dielectric coatings, but would Nikon bother to do that in its lower end bins too?).

I tried the Monarch 5 back when it was called "III," and the image was bright, but compared to my 10x42 SE, which I had with me at the time, the overall color didn't seem as "warm" (and the SE is not as "warm" as the EII or HGL). I only had a brief look so this isn't definitive, YMMV, but that's the way they struck me at the time.

I also found the 6.3* FOV a bit cramped compared to the Hawk Frontier and Frontier ED I also tried from the store (compared them outdoors).

Assuming no other optical criteria were enhanced in the "5," some users might prefer the Monarch 3 for the warmer color balance. The ergos are also different. More like the EDG II.

The longer Prostaff 7 would likely show less aberrations than the shorter bins (less field curvature, less CA). I think Jerry and Hokokuru mentioned this in their comparisons, but it would also be the dimmest in poor light. "Simple and cheaper" can be better, at least in some ways.

In any case, I just wanted to challenge the assumption that the highest price bins with the latest technology coatings would always be "the best". In terms of brightness, yes. In other ways, maybe not.

Brock