Nikon HG 8x30 dissection (2 Viewers)

[Dennis Mau]

Get the popcorn, it's showtime again.


I suspect most figure that out themselves.

Not everybody knows that trick. Some people try to find the bird by putting the binocular up to their eyes and scanning the area where they last saw the bird. You must keep the binoculars aligned with your eyes. and not move your head after seeing the bird or animal, and then slowly bring the binoculars up to your eyes.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Including whisky drinking bears!
View attachment 1621277
From the Financial Times: ‘He drank all my whisky’: Romania wrestles with trespassing bears
(Caution: the article includes a photo of a pig recovering after having been clawed by a bear, and another of the bloodied paw of a dead bear.)


John

That sounds similar to the Cocaine Sharks off the coast of Florida that eat the cocaine bundles that the smugglers throw out of their boats and airplanes when the DIA is hot on their trail. I wouldn't want to meet a Grizzly Bear that had been drinking whiskey or a Great White Shark high on Cocaine!😬

 

[Dennis Mau]

In other words, outside of the general volum there is no other difference, what I already sad! But HG 8x30 is smaller than HG 8x42 in all dimensions not only in length, resulting obviously a smaller volume and a lower weight! When we want something smaller and compact we choose 8x30 HG vs 8x42 HG obviously!

An inch shorter makes a noticeable difference in volume and weight because that is a big section of the binocular, and of course your lenses are bigger and heavier in the 42mm. The HG 8x42 is 30% heavier than the HG 8x30, but it pulls in 200% more light. You have to decide what is most important to you. If I lived next to Count Dracula, I know which one I would choose.

 

[dorubird]

Back to the topic. Here is my trusty Nikon HG 8x30

 

[forent]

This light and compact bino is really beautiful and feels great in the hand. Your excellent photos do it justice. I tried everything to make friends with the 10x30 version, but unfortunately I had too many blackouts. What a pity.

 

[Dennis Mau]

This light and compact bino is really beautiful and feels great in the hand. Your excellent photos do it justice. I tried everything to make friends with the 10x30 version, but unfortunately I had too many blackouts. What a pity.

Same here. The eye cups on both the HG 8x30 and HG 10x30 are too short for the eye relief, forcing me to hold the binoculars away from my face to avoid blackouts. It was sad because I really liked them. I have no problem with the HG 8x42, probably because of the bigger exit pupil. Be wary of the HG 8x30 and HG 10x30 if you don't wear glasses.

 

[Scott98]

Vampires have never been seen in Romania, only on TV Instead, there are many bats, big owls, wolves and bears At night I mostly use Habicht 7x42, and for astronomy I use big 70mm and 100mm binoculars with many eyepieces!

Interesting! What 70mm and 100mm instruments are you using? Do you have parallelogram mount for them? I've been considering trying a "big bino" like this.

Another thing about the diminutive 8x30 MHG is the long barrels provide a very comfortable grip for such a small, light bino. That is what jumped out at me right away when I tried them.

 

[dorubird]

Interesting! What 70mm and 100mm instruments are you using? Do you have parallelogram mount for them? I've been considering trying a "big bino" like this.

Another thing about the diminutive 8x30 MHG is the long barrels provide a very comfortable grip for such a small, light bino. That is what jumped out at me right away when I tried them.

I use APM SemiAPO 70mm/45⁰ for "grab and go" nature and astronomy, and big Omegon Acrhromat 100mm/90⁰ only for astronomy.


I use Omegon 100mm on big E-Image GH10L mount for astronomy


Eyepieces pairs:
TeleVue Plossl 32mm (12.5x / 17x)
Zeiss 25mm ortho (microscope), Fujiyama ortho 25mm, Leica 25mm (microscope), APM UFF 24mm,
Baader Morpheus 17.5mm,
TeleVue DeLite 11mm,
Fujiyama ortho 6mm (67x / 91x)

 

[Dennis Mau]

I use APM SemiAPO 70mm/45⁰ for "grab and go" nature and astronomy, and big Omegon Acrhromat 100mm/90⁰ only for astronomy.
View attachment 1621526

I use Omegon 100mm on big E-Image GH10L mount for astronomy
View attachment 1621530

Eyepieces pairs:
TeleVue Plossl 32mm (12.5x / 17x)
Zeiss 25mm ortho (microscope), Fujiyama ortho 25mm, Leica 25mm (microscope), APM UFF 24mm,
Baader Morpheus 17.5mm,
TeleVue DeLite 11mm,
Fujiyama ortho 6mm (67x / 91x)
View attachment 1621529

 

[Dennis Mau]

Nice, dorubird! What Bortle index are your skies where you observe in Romania? I would imagine they are pretty dark if the Count resides there.

 

[Scott98]

I use APM SemiAPO 70mm/45⁰ for "grab and go" nature and astronomy, and big Omegon Acrhromat 100mm/90⁰ only for astronomy.

Very nice! Thanks - so you're using a video pan head for the mount. Looks like a lot of fun. I've used telescopes for many years, and handheld binos, but never anything like this. I have a bino-viewer for my telescope, but it can't do lower power or wide field, the maximum FOV is just over 1 degree.

 

[tenex]

Not everybody knows that trick. Some people try to find the bird by putting the binocular up to their eyes and scanning the area where they last saw the bird. You must keep the binoculars aligned with your eyes. and not move your head after seeing the bird or animal, and then slowly bring the binoculars up to your eyes.

You must also first remove the rainguard, even when it's raining, which can seem confusing at first.

 

[dorubird]

The construction and optics of this Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 exude quality "through every pore." The Japanese know how to make things pleasing to the eye!

 

[mnich]

Even the new M7 8x30 are so good. I own the HG 8x42 and wanted to like the HG 8x30 but sadly I couldn’t get a pleasant view without blackouts. Now that the new M7 8x30 we’re out I tried them and can’t be happier. Perfect view, nice and sharp and not a lot to give up compared to the HG 8x42, especially for about 350€. I‘m really looking forward to the recently announced M7+ 8x30.

A few days ago I did a small comparison of both binoculars. I had high expectations for the new M7+, maybe too high...
The MHG is optically much better - central sharpness and contrast, better color saturation and generally a better impression of the image as a whole. The M7+ has slightly better edges, but at the cost of rolling ball distortion. My MHG was manufactured in 2024 and I have the impression that Nikon has slightly improved the optical parameters, compared to the first copies from 2018.
At this moment I can compare the optical properties of the MHG to the UVHD+ 8x32 also from 2024 in the L.E. version

 

[Dennis Mau]

A few days ago I did a small comparison of both binoculars. I had high expectations for the new M7+, maybe too high...
The MHG is optically much better - central sharpness and contrast, better color saturation and generally a better impression of the image as a whole. The M7+ has slightly better edges, but at the cost of rolling ball distortion. My MHG was manufactured in 2024 and I have the impression that Nikon has slightly improved the optical parameters, compared to the first copies from 2018.
At this moment I can compare the optical properties of the MHG to the UVHD+ 8x32 also from 2024 in the L.E. version

I have MHG 8x42 and the M7 8x30 and there is maybe 5% difference between the two. The HG 8x42 is slightly brighter in low light because of the bigger aperture, has slightly better contrast and has slightly sharper edges. The M7 8x30 is amazingly good for the price of $300 on eBay. IMO, I would never pay three times as much for the HG 8x30. I think it is exorbitantly overpriced, and so does Allbinos in their review of HG 8x30.

"Cons:

• too big decrease of sharpness on the edge of the field of view,
• blackening inside the tubes could have been better,
• exorbitant price, especially compared to the performance.

Unfortunately, the FIELD FLATTENER inscription on the casing of the binoculars seems to be just a joke of the producer. On the edge of the field there is a really huge blurry area, practically as big as the one you see on the edge of the Monarch 7 8x30, a device three times cheaper, without any field flattener. It is an obvious slip-up. Another slip-up: the blackening near the prisms. At this price point we expect perfection – everything should be dark, matt and excellently baffled – meanwhile here some parts shine, resembling interiors of models several times cheaper. As a result, the area close to exit pupils is too bright and the performance against bright light leaves a bit to be desired. In our test we got too few excellent or outstanding results for the 1000 Euro price point instrument. Such aberrations as coma, astigmatism, distortion, brightness loss on the edge of the field or chromatic aberration are corrected well, a bit above average, but never very well or outstandingly well. Don't get me wrong – I wouldn't like to end my summary in a pejorative way. The Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 remains a very good pair of binoculars which will be undoubtedly a joy to use in most of the situations. Still, my job means I expected the best, basing my expectations on the excellent performance of the Monarch HG 10x42, a higher price of the smaller models, and unfulfilled declarations of the producer concerning flat image. The final result is such that the Monarch HG got merely 4 points more than the Monarch 7 8x30.

https://www.allbinos.com/331-binoculars_review-Nikon_Monarch_HG_8x30.html

 

[mnich]

I have MHG 8x42 and the M7 8x30 and there is maybe 5% difference between the two. The HG 8x42 is slightly brighter in low light because of the bigger aperture, has slightly better contrast and has slightly sharper edges. The M7 8x30 is amazingly good for the price of $300 on eBay. IMO, I would never pay three times as much for the HG 8x30. I think it is exorbitantly overpriced, and so does Allbinos in their review of HG 8x30.

"Cons:

• too big decrease of sharpness on the edge of the field of view,
• blackening inside the tubes could have been better,
• exorbitant price, especially compared to the performance.

Unfortunately, the FIELD FLATTENER inscription on the casing of the binoculars seems to be just a joke of the producer. On the edge of the field there is a really huge blurry area, practically as big as the one you see on the edge of the Monarch 7 8x30, a device three times cheaper, without any field flattener. It is an obvious slip-up. Another slip-up: the blackening near the prisms. At this price point we expect perfection – everything should be dark, matt and excellently baffled – meanwhile here some parts shine, resembling interiors of models several times cheaper. As a result, the area close to exit pupils is too bright and the performance against bright light leaves a bit to be desired. In our test we got too few excellent or outstanding results for the 1000 Euro price point instrument. Such aberrations as coma, astigmatism, distortion, brightness loss on the edge of the field or chromatic aberration are corrected well, a bit above average, but never very well or outstandingly well. Don't get me wrong – I wouldn't like to end my summary in a pejorative way. The Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 remains a very good pair of binoculars which will be undoubtedly a joy to use in most of the situations. Still, my job means I expected the best, basing my expectations on the excellent performance of the Monarch HG 10x42, a higher price of the smaller models, and unfulfilled declarations of the producer concerning flat image. The final result is such that the Monarch HG got merely 4 points more than the Monarch 7 8x30.

https://www.allbinos.com/331-binoculars_review-Nikon_Monarch_HG_8x30.html

Note in which year the Albinos test was done, I didn't like the first years of production either. As I wrote earlier, Nikon improved the optical qualities and at this point it is comparable to UVHD +, only with a slightly larger field.
I also had the MHG 8x42, and I got the impression that the 3D effect was slightly worse in x42, so it was returned to the store. I noticed the same phenomenon in Leica, where 8x32 renders space better than 8x42.

 

[ArchStanton]

A few days ago I did a small comparison of both binoculars. I had high expectations for the new M7+, maybe too high...
The MHG is optically much better - central sharpness and contrast, better color saturation and generally a better impression of the image as a whole. The M7+ has slightly better edges, but at the cost of rolling ball distortion. My MHG was manufactured in 2024 and I have the impression that Nikon has slightly improved the optical parameters, compared to the first copies from 2018.
At this moment I can compare the optical properties of the MHG to the UVHD+ 8x32 also from 2024 in the L.E. vers

Note in which year the Albinos test was done, I didn't like the first years of production either. As I wrote earlier, Nikon improved the optical qualities and at this point it is comparable to UVHD +, only with a slightly larger field.
I also had the MHD 8x42, and I got the impression that the 3D effect was slightly worse in x42, so it was returned to the store. I noticed the same phenomenon in Leica, where 8x32 renders space better than 8x42.

Did the MHG 8x42’s have the same 2024 date as well? I’m thinking about ordering the MHG 8x42’S and would appreciate the confirmation.

 

[mnich]

Did the MHG 8x42’s have the same 2024 date as well? I’m thinking about ordering the MHG 8x42’S and would appreciate the confirmation.

MHG 8x42 was from 2023 production.
There is also the issue of variability of individual copies.
As experience shows, you have to put binoculars to your eyes, to determine the correctness of its optical system.
Good luck!

 

[dorubird]

Note in which year the Albinos test was done, I didn't like the first years of production either. As I wrote earlier, Nikon improved the optical qualities and at this point it is comparable to UVHD +, only with a slightly larger field.
I also had the MHG 8x42, and I got the impression that the 3D effect was slightly worse in x42, so it was returned to the store. I noticed the same phenomenon in Leica, where 8x32 renders space better than 8x42.

I would be grateful if you could say a little more about the MHG 8x30 vs Leica Ultravid 8x32 comparison. Thank you!

 

[mnich]

I would be grateful if you could say a little more about the MHG 8x30 vs Leica Ultravid 8x32 comparison. Thank you!

The task is not easy, to convey my observations and feelings, which are completely subjective, even for me. Today I feel like it, another day I look for another... Nothing is permanent.
Leica vs MHG... if I had to have one, it would be a difficult choice, that's why I have both. I use MHG more often, the greater eye relief - although I don't wear glasses - makes it easier to see, 101g less weight - without accessories, 10m larger field of view and better ergonomics for me.

But when I pick up UVHD+ I feel different, I put it to my eyes and... it's Leica. The feeling of quality is rather an individual matter, but it is a parameter worth noting.

As I wrote in previous posts, the image quality is quite similar, except for the field of view. Leica has different characteristics of edge blur. The color rendering can be a bit surprising in Leica, you can no longer see the red dominance, like in HD models from a few years ago, but a very delicate shade of yellow with green - something like the latest production SLC x42 or Kahles Helia S. MHG adds a bit of red to this palette, which generally warms up the image in MHG. But the difference is so subtle that it is probably unnoticeable to most observers, especially if there is no direct comparison. The overall impression is interesting, binoculars twice as cheap, may be (is) more interesting. I will also add that Leica controls reflections better.
You have to try it yourself.