2,532 Brands 452 Categories All Departments

Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post a reply


Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Jne_K on Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:28 am

You are so very welcome. Enjoy those Nikons!

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Birdie on Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:24 pm

[quote="Jne_K"]Hi

I would not let the lens covers issue bother you in the least. I don't use objective lens covers - ever - and after forty years of birding and using binoculars on an almost daily basis, I have yet to scratch an objective lens. Especially for birding, I would just leave them in the box. If you take the time to mess with the lens covers when you see a bird, you will lose a lot of birding opportunities. If you leave the covers dangling, they will sometimes obscure your view. I regard them as a rather useless accessory. Rainguards I do use - those are useful - but not objective covers.

Absolutely no difference between an 8x or 10x as to number of birds identified in the field and the 8x is easier to steady and has a wider field of view, making it the easier binocular to handle. I use both 10x and 8x for my birding. Really just a personal preference.[/quote]
Thank you so much for your quick response. I spent days researching binoculars and sometimes I think you just get caught up on something as silly as lens covers. You're absolutely right, I never use the ones I have now so why did I over think it. I think it must have been delirium from 4 hours of reading about binos. Any way, I went ahead and purchased the Monarch 5 8x and can't wait to try them out. Thanks again for your help.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Jne_K on Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:48 am

Hi

I would not let the lens covers issue bother you in the least. I don't use objective lens covers - ever - and after forty years of birding and using binoculars on an almost daily basis, I have yet to scratch an objective lens. Especially for birding, I would just leave them in the box. If you take the time to mess with the lens covers when you see a bird, you will lose a lot of birding opportunities. If you leave the covers dangling, they will sometimes obscure your view. I regard them as a rather useless accessory. Rainguards I do use - those are useful - but not objective covers.

Absolutely no difference between an 8x or 10x as to number of birds identified in the field and the 8x is easier to steady and has a wider field of view, making it the easier binocular to handle. I use both 10x and 8x for my birding. Really just a personal preference.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Birdie on Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:47 pm

Im hoping you can help me. Im trying to decide between the Monarch 3 and the Monarch 5. I am willing to spend the little extra to get the dielectric coating but I really like that they fixed the lens covers and attached them on the 3. Do you know if the 5 has the new lens covers or are they using the older model faulty ones for the 5. Also, I was thinking of going with the 8x but you are all going with the 10x. I am using my binoculars for birding 90% of the time. Please advise and thank you.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Jne_K on Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:07 am

Hi

I doubt you will be able to tell any significant difference in low light. If money is a concern, go with the 3.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by deLuna on Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:47 am

Will it make much difference in terms of low light situations or at night? I'm willing to spend the extra $30 or so for the 5 if it's an improvement but if they're equal in every regard essentially I'll go lower. Thanks again.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Jne_K on Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:41 pm

Haven't tried the 5, yet, but the 3 is more than adequate for birding. I guarantee the difference in coatings will not make one bit of difference in the number of birds identified.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by deLuna on Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:07 am

Can you comment at all on the Monarch 3 vs. 5? I'm primarily interested in it for birding and can't discern much of a difference beyond the silver/dielectric coatings. I'd use an 8x42 either way. I'm on a <$300 budget and would like to get as much value as I can, this will be the pair I intend to use for for quite awhile. Beyond the Monarchs, is there another pair you'd recommend for me? Thanks!

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Jne_K on Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:34 am

Hi

Yes, dielectric is the best coating used, these days, but can your eyes sees the difference? That's arguable, since it's unlikely our eyes can detect a difference less than 3% in in total light transmission, anyway. Still, every bit of light transmission is a good thing. The dielectric coating process allows manufacturers to match the formula of the coating exactly to the specific refractive index of the lenses or mirror surface, in this case, rather than just going with a simple silver or aluminum coating on the roof prism.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by pedro on Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:51 pm

[quote="Jne_K"]
[link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-brand.html]Nikon[/link] is making a point of advertising image brightness on the new Monarch 3 [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binoculars[/link], via its silver coated roof prisms as opposed to the old Monarch’s dielectric coatings. It is rare to see silver coated prisms at this price, no doubt about it. That’s a feature you typically find on more expensive roof prism [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binoculars[/link]. [/quote]

Hi Joanie

Is not the Dielectric prism coating the brightest available today? Swarovski, Leica and some others are using Dielectric instead Silver or Alluminium mirror, am I wrong?

Pedro

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Jne_K on Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:51 am

Hi

I agree - his criticism was a bit over the top on such a minor issue. Too much eye relief is an easy fix.

There are people who, for one reason or the other, carry grudges against certain brands. Perhaps they had a bad experience or perhaps, as you said, they view a good review on a brand they don't like as an attack on their binocular. They do have a right to their opinion, of course and they are still welcome to post, here as well.

The Nikon Monarch 3 has been out long enough, now, to get a good idea of how it will be accepted and, on that basis, it's been a great success for Nikon. It's an amazing binocular for the money, as I posted in my review and apparently a lot of folks agree with me. :)

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by puzzled on Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:13 pm

Why would anyone post something as negative as "their new Monarch 3 series is doomed for disappointing sales" and "they have produced something that no one wants?" What makes someone think he is so smart he can make such a prediction? Because in his mind the eye relief is excessive? Really? Or is he simply afraid that maybe there's something better out there than his own prized possession?

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Jne_K on Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:09 am

You are so very welcome

I don't think your Monarch is atypical at all. I've been testing Monarchs for over 8 years and the thing that has most impressed me is how consistently good they are, year after year. By all means keep your Monarch if you are happy with it.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by bearclawthedonut on Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:40 pm

Joan:

I will definately look for the new Monarch 3 in local retail outlets. However, in the past, it has been my experience that it sometimes takes appreciably longer for new models to appear in local retail stores than to be available for purchase on line. My gut instinct suggests that the Monarch 3 will not be for me. My concern is that, if I wait too long to find a Monarch 3 to hold in my hands and look through, then the present Monarch ATB (DE prisms) may no longer be available.

I have no intentions of retiring my old Monarch 8x42 as it is the best full sized [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binocular[/link] that I've ever used. I do not know if mine is atypical or just average. But I really like it. Yes, a few other [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binoculars[/link] have slight improvements in brightness, contrast or even resolution, but no other [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binocular[/link] that I've ever held comes close to it in handling! Any additional Monarch 8x42 that I purchase will simply be a backup for my present Monarch. Thanks very much for your review and comments.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Jne_K on Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:26 am

Hi Bearclaw

I rellay do think you should give the Monarch 3 a try as to that weight. As mentioned in my review, the bino balances beautifully and 24.7 oz is still on the light side for a 42. I found it a joy to carry and handle.

24mm is a lot of eye relief, yes, at least for most eyeglass wearers, but there will be some folks that will need it. If you do need less, the eyecups can be popped up to the first detent position, anyway, and that should solve the issue.

As I said, try to get one in your hands when you get a chance. Don't know if you'll want to retire your old Monarch when you do, but I think you'll like the Monarch 3. Give it a try.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by bearclawthedonut on Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:51 pm

Bart:

Yes, the specified eye relief for the new [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-monarchatb8x40.html]Nikon Monarch 3 8x42[/link] is over 24 mm as I previously posted. My question in regard to that eye relief is: as 24 + mm of eye relief is excessive is this a typo? I certainly hope so for your and [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-brand.html]Nikon[/link]'s sake.

My other question was: with the introduction of the new Monarch 3 8x42, is [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-brand.html]Nikon[/link] planning on discontinuing the current Monarch 8x42 with di-electric prism coatings? I suspect that they will not. Their new Monarch 3 series is doomed for dissapointing sales. They have produced something that no one wants, just like they did with the Monarch X series.

I currently own a Monarch 8x42 (pre DE prism); it is a supurb [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binocular[/link]. I've compared it to many apha's and optically a few of them have very, very slight advantages in brightness or contrast and in one or two instances in usable (for a hand held [link=http://www.OpticsPlanet.Com]optical[/link] instrument) resolution. However, none of the 40/42 mm alpha's can begin to compare with my Monarch's unsurpassed handling for a full sized [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binocular[/link]. Unfortunately, the new Monarch 3 series has added weight, length and bulk and when combined with excessive eye relief - I'm not sure who would want this [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binocular[/link]?

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Jne_K on Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:58 am

Glad to help.

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by scoter on Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:00 pm

Thanks Joanie,

I should have known that a $250 binocular could not be expected to be the equal of a pair which costs more than twice as much. But given your glowing review, I just had to ask!

Thanks again and keep up the great work!

Scoter

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by bman940 on Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:31 am

Bear, The Monarch 3, 10x42 is listed at 17.4 mm and the 8 x at 24.1, these are the correct eye reliefs measurements.
I am not aware of any changes in the Monarch line at this time. It has certainly proven itself over time so I doubt any major changes are coming.
As for the weight issue of the Monarch 3 compared to the Monarch 42mm ATB's. The 3's are only 3 oz. heavier. If you are really interested in a light weight pair of binoculars check out the Premier's in 10x25 which weigh in at 10.5 oz., also the Monarch ATB's in 10x36 weigh in at only 20.3 oz.
Thanks for your reply Bear and Jne_k, Excellent review.

Bart
Nikon Pro Staff

Re: Nikon Monarch 3 10x42 Review

Post by Jne_K on Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:37 am

Hi bearclaw

Unfortunately, don't have an 8x42 version to examine, but maybe we can bart, the Nikon rep, to answer this one. I'll forward it to him

I agree, there can certainly be too much eye relief on binoculars and that is often the source of blackouts at the edge of the field and other uncomfortable things. I do my best, for instance with binoculars that have an actual 15-17mm of eye relief.

I don't know Nikon's specific plans for the future of the Monarch line of binoculars, but I'd be shocked if Nikon ever dropped the line. I'm sure the Monarchs will be around, in one form or another, for a long time.

Top