New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Pentax DCF HRc vs. Nikon Monarch
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Pentax DCF HRc vs. Nikon Monarch

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/27/2008 at 13:00
magshooter1 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/27/2008
Location: El Dorado, AR
Status: Offline
Points: 731

My Nikon Monarch 8x42 were stolen.  I need to replace them.  I am leaning toward buying the same ones but I found a really good deal on a set of Pentax DFC HRc 8x42's.  ANyone know how the Pentax's would compare to the Monarch's?  Need help fast this deal won't last long.  Thanks,

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/27/2008 at 14:56
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
I have no experience with either, but in 2006, the Cornell Ornithology Lab (I am a bird watcher) reviewed lots of binoculars and concluded that the Nikon Monarchs were the best binoculars in the under $500 class. They also recommended them for the $500 to $1000 class of binoculars believing that none of the binocs in that higher price category were significantly better.

I haven't looked for more recent information.


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/27/2008 at 18:39
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

...in 2006, the Cornell Ornithology Lab... reviewed lots of binoculars...

Actually, the review was published in their Winter 2005 publication (Volume 24, number 1)
Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

...and concluded that the Nikon Monarchs were the best binoculars in the under $500 class.
This is incorrect. 

To begin with, the Cornell review doesn't have a single "under $500" class. They actually concluded that the Leupold WindRiver Katmai 6x32 was the best in the $200-$500 class.  They have an entirely different "Economy (under $200)" class and the Nikon Action EX 7x35 was tops in that category.

Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

They also recommended them for the $500 to $1000 class of binoculars believing that none of the binocs in that higher price category were significantly better.
  This is in essence accurate though, not very precise. 

What was actually said was, "In the $500 to $1,000 category, we were hoping to see some exceptional quality at prices that a wide range of birders could still afford. In general, though, the 14 models in this group did not rate any higher than the top-ranked, less expensive models. Once again, Nikon led the field with the 8x32 HG DCF, which received an overall quality rating comparable with many top-of-the-line binoculars. Although they offer a wider field of view and slightly closer focus, these Nikons were not noticeably better than the inexpensive Monarchs in terms of image quality or overall feel. The only other model in this category worth mentioning is the Zeiss 8x30 B T* Conquest, which some reviewers felt offers the brightest, sharpest image of any binocular under $1,000."

The entire review can be read here:
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/Winter2005/Age_Binos.html

In general, the Cornell Lab's reviews (for binoculars and spotting scopes) get slammed pretty hard on birding sites for their very subjective nature and their relatively obvious biases.  For example, in the $200 - $500 category, where is the Pentax DCF WP, the Bushnell Discoverer, the full size Brunton Eterna, the Leupold WindRiver Cascades, or the porro prism Bushnell Legend, Pentax PCF series, etc.?  For that matter where is anything from Burris, Kowa, Minox, Swift, etc.?  Also, they even say themselves that, "Many of the tests took place indoors in the Lab's second-story lunch room, which overlooks Sapsucker Woods Pond."  Conducting optics tests by looking out a window is always a bad idea.



Edited by lucznik - August/27/2008 at 21:37
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/28/2008 at 11:18
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

...and concluded that the Nikon Monarchs were the best binoculars in the under $500 class.
This is incorrect.  To begin with, the Cornell review doesn't have a single "under $500" class. They actually concluded that the Leupold WindRiver Katmai 6x32 was the best in the $200-$500 class.  They have an entirely different "Economy (under $200)" class and the Nikon Action EX 7x35 was tops in that category.
Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

They also recommended them for the $500 to $1000 class of binoculars believing that none of the binocs in that higher price category were significantly better.
  This is in essence accurate though, not very precise. 


Lucznik, you are right about the date and the fact that the Nikon Monarchs were second, not first, and I stand corrected. The original post inquired about 8x42 binos, and I responded to that specific. I should have said the Nikon Monarchs were the best 8x42 Binos.

As regards the "under $500 class," I should have, again, been more specific. I should have said that the Nikon Monarchs were the highest rated 8x42 binos for under $500.

As regards your comment, "Conducting optics tests by looking out a window is always a bad idea," do you know they looked out a window? Even if they did, I really believe that they are intelligent enough to understand and control factors that would influence the tests.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2008 at 13:05
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:


As regards your comment, "Conducting optics tests by looking out a window is always a bad idea," do you know they looked out a window?
Yes.  There is a picture that they posted as part of their article where they are shown doing exaclty this.
 
Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:


Even if they did, I really believe that they are intelligent enough to understand and control factors that would influence the tests.
Apparently not as they could not possibly control the myriad imperfections that are inherent to any  building glass.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2008 at 13:16
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

As regards your comment, "Conducting optics tests by looking out a window is always a bad idea," do you know they looked out a window?
Yes.  There is a picture that they posted as part of their article where they are shown doing exaclty this.
 

Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

Even if they did, I really believe that they are intelligent enough to understand and control factors that would influence the tests.
Apparently not as they could not possibly control the myriad imperfections that are inherent to any  building glass.

A photo taken for an article should not be construed as representing fact.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2008 at 13:29
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

As regards your comment, "Conducting optics tests by looking out a window is always a bad idea," do you know they looked out a window?
Yes.  There is a picture that they posted as part of their article where they are shown doing exaclty this.
 

Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

Even if they did, I really believe that they are intelligent enough to understand and control factors that would influence the tests.
Apparently not as they could not possibly control the myriad imperfections that are inherent to any  building glass.

A photo taken for an article should not be construed as representing fact.
Why? 
 
It is not a photo that someone else has posted or has otherwise been taken out of context.  They posted it both in support and as part of their article and wrote the caption to be included themselves.
 
If, as you suggest, they were smart enough to know not to look out pane glass to review optics, then they should be equally smart enough not to print a picture of themselves doing exactly that.   Loco


Edited by lucznik - September/02/2008 at 11:12
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2008 at 08:26
magshooter1 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/27/2008
Location: El Dorado, AR
Status: Offline
Points: 731
I have located a set of Minox BL 8x42 BR's that I can get for a little bit more than the Nikon Monarch's.  I understand that these are supposed to be superior to the Monarch's do you agree?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2008 at 11:10
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
I have no experience with Minox binoculars.   I have read good things about them but, that is all.
 
They really would not have to be all that good to be better than the Monarchs, which to be frank, are quite highly overrated. 
 
Monarchs are comparable to the Bushnell Legend, Leupold Cascade, and Pentax DCF WP. Not bad but, nothing stellar.  It's popular mostly because Nikon spends a lot of money on advertising and sponsoring outdoor programs.
 
For the same (or even a lesser) price you can get the porro prism Bushnell Legend, Leupold Cascade, or Pentax PCF WP II.  You could also possibly still find one of the discontinued roof prism Bushnell Discoverers.  Any of these is better than the Monarch.
 
A modest increase in price (sometimes as little as just a few dollars) can net you a Brunton Eterna, Leupold Katmai, Mojave, or Pinnacles, Pentax DCF SP,  Vortex Viper,  etc.  all of which are also better than the Monarch.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/03/2008 at 07:36
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

If, as you suggest, they were smart enough to know not to look out pane glass to review optics, then they should be equally smart enough not to print a picture of themselves doing exactly that.   Loco


Since you wear glasses, I conclude that your observations include optical abberations from them, not just the optic itself.

Since you don't know how to correctly describe basic issues about focus, among other fundamental facts, I conclude that you don't understand the information you get from your more well informed source.

Since you used more than 3500 words to "evaluate" a binocular, I submit that you are more concerned about your image than that produced by the binocular.






Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/03/2008 at 14:13
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
To the rest of you:

I apologize profusely.  Gunshow75 sent me a PM asking loaded questions and fishing for answers that would have allowed him to use his expertise as a "physicist" to explain the appearance and cause of optical abberations thus winning for himself something of an apprentice.  I didn't bite. 

He also chose to take the opportunity to chastise me because he felt that, in both correcting his total mis-representation of the Cornell review and pointing out that the birding community does not exactly fawn over these reviewers' work as being authoritative, I was being rude.  I rejected this notion.

The communication turned to a bit of an argument and it appears that, rather than keep PM-conversations private (as the name implies), he has felt a need to vent publicly, both in this thread and also in the Member's Reviews forum under my review of the Vortex Razor binocular.

Again, I apologize that you all have had to be witness to this however, I just couldn't, in good conscience, allow a relative newbie to slander my good name unchallenged.  For those of you not directly involved in the disagreement, please feel free to skip the following...




Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

Since you wear glasses, I conclude that your observations include optical abberations from them, not just the optic itself.
Actually both.  Eyeglasses are easily removed and diopter settings re-adjusted. It is very interesting to make this comparison as I doubt many people realize just how much optical abberation can be attributed to one's own eyeglasses.  Having said that, am I supposed to be reading something of a "four-eyes" taunt here?  Surely, you could not have stooped to that level of grade-school childishness.  Could you?

Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

Since you don't know how to correctly describe basic issues about focus, among other fundamental facts, I conclude that you don't understand the information you get from your more well informed source.
That I use layman's terms to describe what I see is a personal choice.  I find that overly-technical babble is mostly a turn off to readers, especially those whose lives do not revolve around math and science as is the case with the majority of us non-"physicists."  I write from the perspective of an enthusiastic user, not a professional. In addition to that, I have made no bones about the fact that I am neither a physicist nor an optical engineer and I referred you directly to people who are (and/or to people whose knowledge surpasses my own) when your PM questions went beyond my ability to evaluate and answer. 

Personally, were I you, I wouldn't be so quick to judge as I'm not the one who completely misread the review in question and subsequently posted information that was both erroneous and misleading and that had to be corrected.

Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

Since you used more than 3500 words to "evaluate" a binocular, I submit that you are more concerned about your image than that produced by the binocular.
  You're still just upset that I didn't give you the opportunity to impress me with private tutoring lessons so that you could show off your vast knowledge. 

By the way, the Cornell review that you seem to love so much clocks in at 3838 words - not counting their chart.  Seems I'm not the only verbose writer around - or are you now accepting my premise that they don't know what their doing/talking about?

Yet again you delve into hypocrisy here as you have chosen to move a disagreement we've had in PMs to the public forum so that you can be seen chastising me.   Who does that suggest is obsessed with their own image? 

Counting PMs, I think we are now on FOUR definitive acts of hypocrisy on your part.  Gosh, you must be proud.  I'll bet that does wonders for the so-called "Christian faith" you self-professed to practicing in your first PM to me.

As I said to you before; I'm sorry if the application of fact turns your world paradigm to turmoil.  However, I cannot and will not ignore reality just to make you feel more secure.


BTW:
I don't suppose you are, by some chance, known in other venues by the handle "rootmanslim?"
Could you possibly share with us your opinion on such topics as:
The Air Force?
Barnes Bullets?





 


Edited by lucznik - September/03/2008 at 15:16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/03/2008 at 23:36
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
                
 
                                                                                            Yikes
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/04/2008 at 17:02
Sled2live View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: February/14/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 39
Lucznik,
  I for one appreciate your taking the time to write your opinions in layman's terms.  I also enjoy hearing other's opinions in technogarb too.  I learn from both. I hope both you and Gunshow 75 continue to contribute to this forum in the positive manner inwhich we have come to expect on this website.
  Again thanks for the education I've been receiving!
 
Scott
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/05/2008 at 08:11
magshooter1 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/27/2008
Location: El Dorado, AR
Status: Offline
Points: 731
Decided to get the Minox BL 8x42 BR'sSmile
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/06/2008 at 00:56
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:


Since you wear glasses, I conclude that your observations include optical abberations from them, not just the optic itself.

Since you don't know how to correctly describe basic issues about focus, among other fundamental facts, I conclude that you don't understand the information you get from your more well informed source.

Since you used more than 3500 words to "evaluate" a binocular, I submit that you are more concerned about your image than that produced by the binocular.
 
???
Disagreement isn't cause for personal insults. 
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Pentax DCF HRc vs. Nikon Monarch"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax DCF SP VS. Nikon Monarch dbilliott Binoculars 7 8/12/2006 6:28:17 AM
Pentax DCF WP, Legend, Monarch ? drum Binoculars 2 1/26/2006 1:56:06 PM
Pentax DCF SP vs DCF WP Rusty Binoculars 2 6/7/2005 5:28:35 PM
pentax dcf hrII or nikon monarch atb? ACKLEYGUY Binoculars 3 1/23/2005 4:35:02 PM
Nikon Monarch vs Monarch Gold vs Titanium royy2 Rifle Scopes 1 9/21/2006 2:26:34 AM
Nikon ProStaff ATB 10x25 or Pentax 8x25mm DCF SW blurkuna Binoculars 3
Pentax DCF SP vs Alpen Wings ED Matt G Binoculars 2
Pentax dcf sp 8x43 vx. 8x32 DAVE44 Binoculars 1
Pentax PCF WPII vs. DCF HRII babymaker Binoculars 4
Pentax DCF ED Vs. Meopta B1 dchavo1975 Binoculars 2


This page was generated in 0.438 seconds.