34 replies to this topic

[tmichaelbanks]

Wanting a “nice” binocular for hiking and birding, about a year ago I picked up a Nikon HG 10x42.  It’s been a great performer, the proverbial all ‘rounder, and I have no complaints about it.  I’ve used it often on my evening walks and it’s provided tremendous views of the night sky, especially in the fall when the air is dryer and the foliage blocks a good portion of the ground-level LP at my suburban location.

 

I also have noticed that recently that Roger Vine has added a review of the HG 10x42 on his website:  Mr. Vine does his usual, very thorough job of evaluating the HGs and I won’t spend a lot of time here describing various aspects of them.  I do agree with his basic conclusions, i.e., that the HG is a fine binocular, at its best during the day for nature viewing but with a few very minor shortcomings for astronomy use.  To me, at times his review seems to strike a theme of reluctant praise, but in my experience I’ve found the views through the HGs to be exceptionally good.  I consider them a very good value in the mid-price range, especially if you can purchase them at a discount.  In addition, the unit’s small size and light weight makes it very easy to handle and use.  As an aside, Mr. Vine also has new reviews of the Vortex 18x56 UHD and Canon 12x36 IS III, both of which make for interesting reading.

 

Lately though, with no foliage cover and occasionally with snow on the ground, my skies on cold, clear, winter nights have generally been grayish, with only the major stars of the constellations visible to the naked eye.  The 10x42 still does fine under these conditions, but I couldn’t help feeling that a little more magnification would make the views more enjoyable.  Taking my Pentax 20x60s out for a few nights reinforced this idea, but the views with the Pentax’s narrow TFOV were a little dim and of course there’s the issue of the shakes handheld at 20x.

[tmichaelbanks]

After mulling over the material on CN I decided to try the 12x50 configuration to see what just a little more magnification and aperture could provide while still being portable.  I also liked the 4.2 mm exit pupil of my 10x42s and a 12x50 would keep that almost the same.  I considered higher magnifications, but I thought that conventional 15/16x56s would have too narrow a TFOV to enjoy the views while walking and that the weight would be going up as well.  I gave some thought to porros, but on the hoof I’m partial to roofs because of their smaller size and lighter weight.  I also didn’t want to jump right away into the Canon IS 15x50s due to cost and the weight.

 

There has been a lot of feedback on CN about 12x50s, focusing frequently on the difficulty of holding them steady (a very fair point) and not being able to pull in views different enough from 10x to be worthwhile.  After much reading of specs, CN reviews, and the detailed review of the similar DB 10x50 on https://www.allbinos.com/, followed of course by the required, extended gnashing of teeth, I decided to try a pair of Vortex Diamondback 12x50s, purchased from Sport Optics for about $227.  Although this write-up probably has more detail about the DB 12x50s than is typical for a lower-priced model, I think that a lot of folks can’t afford to invest $1,000 - $2,000 in a pair of binoculars and I personally found it hard to wade through the large number of models available in the $200 - $300 range.  I think the moral of the story is that you can find decent models at that price range, but you have to know how you’re going to use them to help your selection.

 

 

 

[tmichaelbanks]

Factors that swayed this decision for me were the general feedback on CN about Vortex quality, Vortex’s lifetime warranty (which many CNers apparently have used) and the analytical review of the 10x50s on allbinos.com.  And I have to say that right out of the box, the binocular’s construction oozes quality.  My HGs are flawless in this regard, but I couldn’t find much to complain about with the Vortexes.  The center hinge, diopter adjustment, and focuser all had a nice, substantial feel.  The armor fit and finish was very good: no loose spots, squelching, or rough edges.  They also have a nice heft to them, significantly more than the HGs (700 g for the HGs, 820 g for the Vortex)) but they are not so heavy that your arms get tired quickly using them.

 

Full disclosure though, on the objective lens of one barrel, there is a circular spot about 0.5 mm in diameter of what I think is small drop of glue or some other residue, and it is either on the back side of the objective lens assembly or perhaps in between the doublet lenses.  I’ve included a photo of the spot below.  I suppose you should never shine a bright LED flashlight down binocular barrels; it’s extremely hard to see in ambient light.  I didn’t think it would affect the views much but it was, after all, right out of the box.  I submitted an RMA request to Sport Optics to get a replacement.  But, after thinking about it I included a note in the request saying that if they would provide an additional $25 credit (about the cost of shipping to Vortex for warranty repair if the spot gets worse), that I would keep them.  I give the customer service department at Sport Optics a lot of credit.  They called me the next day and said I could get the $25 or the replacement, whatever would make me happy.  So, I selected the credit and I sleep well knowing Vortex will make good if the lenses start to separate or something like that.

 

[tmichaelbanks]

A few more notes on the physical package.  Other than the small spot mentioned above of course, the interior of the barrels were spotless under a high intensity flashlight.  No dust, no metal shavings or other debris, no stray glue.  Interior construction appears to be very good.  Behind the objectives is a series of ridges to control stray light and most surfaces are a flat black.

 

However, the objectives themselves are set very close to the end of the barrels and the lens edges don’t appear to be blackened (I strongly suspect that these two factors are related to some of the glare issues I describe below).  The twist-up eye cups have three positions: fully in, fully out, and one intermediate.  The eye cups twist and lock with a light but positive motion, not as positive a click stop as on the HGs but you always know where the intermediate position is.  The diopter adjustment is by a ring on the right eyepiece, which moves the lens in and out, same as the HG.  One minor point: Mr. Vine describes the diopter lock ring on the HG as “flimsy”, expressing a concern that it may be easily moved to the unlocked position.  However, after a year and a few months of using the HGs in the field, day and night, I haven’t experienced this problem.

 

[tmichaelbanks]

The objective caps and rain guard are the same lightweight type as on my Oberwerk 8x32s.  I mention this because I really like the caps and guard on the Obies and the Vortex caps slide on and off easily but fit snugly.  By contrast, the HG caps and rain guard are made of much higher quality materials and fit more tightly.  However, while the HG objective caps pop off easily, putting them back on requires that they “seat” properly on the inside of the barrel.  If you don’t seat them right, they quickly flop out. The HG rain guard is made of a hard plastic and fits very snugly over the eyepieces. As opposed to the HG objective caps, the HG rain guard is easy to fit on but can be difficult to get off quickly.  The HG comes with an alternate set of barrel “bumpers” that replace the objective caps with rubber rings that fit on the ends of the barrels.  This would allow you to use individual caps if you like (or no caps at all), but I haven’t taken advantage of this because that’s another thing to lose while out on a walk.

 

Why is any of this important?  Well, these days I do the majority of my nocturnal binocular observing walking about in cold temperatures with high relative humidity.  I try to keep the caps and guard on when not observing because I don’t want the lenses to frost over.  As a result, I’m taking the caps and guard on and off frequently.  The caps and guards on the Obies and Vortex are simply easier to work with; you don’t even have to look at them while putting them on.  But, I sometimes have to fuss quite a bit with the HG rain guard and especially with the caps. It’s just a distraction and if I’m wearing heavy gloves I have to take them off to put the caps back on.  OK, enough about caps and rain guards.

 

    

 

    

[tmichaelbanks]

Ergonomically, the 12x50s are very nice to handle.  I find that their added weight, compared to the HGs, makes them easier to hold steady.  The barrels flare around the objectives and have distinct ridging, so you can scooch up and down the barrel length to find your best balance point.  The flare on the barrels also makes it easy to let the barrels rest on the meaty part of the outside of your palm, which sometimes makes for a steadier view than when grasping the barrels between your thumb and fingers.

 

Having to wear thick eyeglasses to observe I keep the diopter on the zero setting, but the diopter adjustment ring moves firmly and smoothly; it’s unlikely you will knock it out of adjustment during use.  The focuser knob is fairly large, falls easily to gloved hands, and moves smoothly.  The action is noticeably lighter than my HG, but the Vortex focuser is well-damped and stays where you put it.  So far, I haven’t noticed any play or “sticktion” with the focuser.  The center hinge is on the tighter side of medium, but I don’t mind that because once you’ve set it you’re typically done with it.

 

Compared to the 1.5 pound HGs, the extra weight of the 1.8 pound Vortex around my neck for a two-hour hike is noticeable.  I am used to taking my heavier binoculars on hikes (my M5 8x56 at 2.8 pounds and my Pentax 20x60 at 3 pounds, for example) so I don’t find the 12x50s uncomfortably heavy, just more noticeable than the lightweight HGs.  Vortex provides a very nice binocular case with pockets, netting, and a built-in clips for the included harness, which they call a “Glasspak”, and it allows you to carry the binoculars and case against your torso.  I haven’t felt the need to use the case and harness though, but it’s there is you want your binos handy on longer hikes.

[tmichaelbanks]

During the day, the extra 2x is noticeable and welcome, especially when trying to view birds between 25-100 feet away.  The additional detail on plumage really jumps out at you.  Does the view shake?  Yes it does, but how you hold the binoculars can reduce the shakes and how much the shakes bother you is a personal thing; I don’t find it especially bothersome.  I find that with higher mag binos handheld, panning around a little while viewing actually helps my brain stabilize the view a bit versus fixing on a target.  YMMV of course.  The depth of field in the Vortex is pretty shallow and it doesn’t have the focus “snap” of the HGs.  Sharp focus is achievable of course, but I find you have to pay attention a lot more closely than with the HGs, where the focus snap is crisp and unambiguous.  Contrast is also noticeably better in the HGs and is most evident on gray, overcast days.  But in bright sunlight the 12x50’s views are very crisp and the color rendering seems very true.

 

These are $225 binoculars with “HD” glass, not ED, UHD, SD, or whatever-D.  So yes, there’s a little color.  During the day, you see it on thin, dark branches against a white or bright sky.  I don’t find it to be that bad, even my HG has a little, but how much tolerance you have for it is again a personal thing.  Notably, when using the 12x50s for plane spotting (one of my favorite binocular-assisted activities), specular reflections of the sun off a high-flying jet’s nose and engine nacelles do not produce any color.  However, there’s just a tiny trace of color on the edges of contrails.  The shallow depth of field necessitates frequent refocusing on moving targets nearby and you can detect fringing as the targets move about.  Watching a red-tailed hawk circling above at about 200 feet AGL shows purple and green fringing against white clouds in the background as the hawk’s path swings about, but it’s not nearly as noticeable against a blue sky.

 

Below on the left is a shot of a left-over birds nest looking through the 10x HG, and on the right through the 12x Vortex.  These were taken on a bright, completely overcast day.  Although it's not easy to see in these photos, in the original high-resolution versions, you can see fringes of purple and green on some of the branches with the Vortex, but almost nothing with the HG.  These shots were taken with my phone handheld, and I think the greenish tint on the left of the Vortex shot on the right is due to coming close to an exit pupil blackout; you do not see that coloration when using your eyes.  Apologies for the orientation of the photos, I could not seem to get them right-side-up for love nor money.

 

    

 

 

[tmichaelbanks]

I’m no optics expert, but I think that the closeness of the objectives to the barrel ends, the unblackened lens edges, and no doubt other internal design factors, is responsible for noticeable glare in the view of the 12x50s depending on what you’re looking at.  During the day, most noticeable around dusk, you can get sky glare washout in the bottom portion of the view, and as you pan toward a bright sun you can see that the glare has a curved shape and appears 180 degrees from the sun’s position.  Placing a hand in front of the barrel to shade the sun eliminates the glare.  At night, viewing very clost to bright streetlights produces significant glare, some ghosting, and very faint, multiple receding reflections, like in a dressing room with mirrors on opposing walls.  My HGs, on the other hand, have none of this.  You can be looking only a few degrees from a streetlight, the moon, or the sun and not see any glare or ghosting.  I think this is one optical characteristic that definitely separates less expensive binoculars from those priced at the middle and premium levels, especially in roof designs.

 

Regarding eye relief, I’ll describe what I see, but bear in mind that I probably have an unusual eyeglasses prescription, and as always YMMV.  I wear thick eyeglasses that correct astigmatism in both eyes.  I also have highly asymmetrical diopters between my eyes, so one eyeglasses lens is about twice as thick as the other.  Also, with the binocular eyecup against the thicker eyeglasses lens, I often unconsciously “tilt” binoculars so they also rest against the thinner eyeglasses lens and I have to adjust the IPD a little to compensate.

 

For the 12x50s, eye relief is specified at 14 mm, but it’s a bit tight for me.  Even so, I find that the FOV I see, which I’d guestimate at about 4.8 degrees, is quite usable.  Also, the portion of the FOV I see is quite flat; the portion of the FOV I can’t see without peering “around the corner” of the eyepieces, gets progressively softer and I can’t focus the softness out.  Without glasses and setting the eye cups to the intermediate position I can see almost the entire FOV.  And very interestingly, when viewing without glasses the glare seems to vanish.  You can see a clear circle in the center of the view and this circle expands as you move closer to the eye cups until all you see is the clear circle.  Perhaps I haven’t noticed this phenomenon with my other binoculars because I hardly ever observe without wearing eyeglasses and the glare I experience simply wouldn’t be an issue if you don’t wear glasses, I really don’t know.

[tmichaelbanks]

With the HGs, again, there is none of this (I’ve found that Nikon binoculars generally have good-to-copious eye relief), another benefit of the optical designs typically available at higher price levels.  The HGs are definitely a much more “comfortable” binocular for me to look through.  The Vortexes are not uncomfortable to look through by any means, but for me they are just fussier about eye position.  One minor note is that the exit pupils on the 12x50 appear to be ever so slightly truncated, with the EP “circle” on the right-hand barrel showing a barely discernable flat edge centered around the 7 O’clock position and on the left-hand barrel centered around the 5 O’clock position.  Also, there is a “fingernail” (false exit pupil?) at the 7 O’clock position on the left-hand barrel and at 5 O’closck on the right-hand barrel.  The review in allbinos.com of the 10x50 Diamondback model also shows these.

[tmichaelbanks]

Comparisons of HG and Vortex under the stars.

 

To summarize, I find that views of the night sky are aesthetically more pleasing in the HGs.  The HG’s 6.9 degree TFOV, wide AFOV, and 17 mm of eye relief make for a comfortable, wide-angle viewing experience.  Stars are also very tight in the HGs and star colors are intense.

 

That said, views in the Vortex definitely show more detail under the same sky conditions and for many objects I think those views can be more interesting.  For example, the 12x50 shows more of the Orion Nebula, specifically the extension of the nebula’s arms and a partial split of the Trapezium.  Star fields in the sword and belt regions are more prominent in the 12x50 view than with the HG, and the same could be said of the Pleiades.   In Gemini, M35 shows about 2-3 times as many individual stars as with the HG and a lot more individual stars are visible in M41.  In Auriga, M36 was visible (not so in the HG), M38 showed barely visible hints of it’s “starfish” shape with averted vision, and M37 resolved a few individual stars whereas the HGs presented a misty object.

 

You can fit almost all of the Hyades and the association in Perseus in the HG FOV.  You can’t quite do that with the 12x50s, but you can see almost all of these associations in the FOV and notice more fainter stars around them (bear in mind that without eyeglasses, you may be able to see these groupings in their entirety).  I actually thought that the view of the Double Cluster was nicer in the 12x50s than in the HG.  The DC is one object where additional magnification brings out more detail to make the view more pleasing.

 

I read a while back, probably from one of Professor EdZ’s CN posts and more recently posts by Tony Flanders, that under light-polluted skies magnification frequently becomes more important than aperture, all things being equal.  My experience here is that magnification and a bit more aperture can do a very good job compensating for somewhat lower optical quality.  The HGs are superb and I wouldn’t give them up.  But while the 12x50 views seem just a tad dimmer despite having the same exit pupil as the HGs (lower % transmission perhaps?), they present more detail for most objects.

[tmichaelbanks]

Direct Comparison of 12x50s With the HGs

 

A few nights ago I hung both binoculars around my neck and went for my late evening walk.  Skies were exceptional for my white-to-red transition zone, to the south skies were a uniform gray with only a few stars visible to the naked eye, but above the trees from the southwest to the northwest skies were dark and full of the main constellation stars, a string of beautiful sights:  Canis Major, Orion, the Hyades, the Pleiades, Auriga, Gemini, Perseus, the Double Cluster, Cassiopeia getting a bit low, the Big Dipper, faint Leo climbing, and the moon was long gone.  Wow…with the lousy weather here in the Northeast, it seems you only see skies like this a few times a year and I stretched a one hour walk into two hours.

 

TARGET                   “BETTER” VIEW         COMMENTS

 

Canis Major               DB 12x50                 Stars tighter in HG, but M41 showed several stars vs. a few, “tail” region much more interesting

 

Orion sword region    DB 12x50                 Larger image more interesting, nebula more defined

 

Orion belt star region DB 12x50                 More stars visible, star clouds easily visible

 

Hyades                     HG 10x42                 Wider FOV, better presentation, stars similar magnitude

 

Pleiades                    DB 12x50                 Nicer framing, more stars visible, star clouds visible

 

Perseus                    Tie                           HG FOV nicer, but DB fits most of it in with more stars

 

Double Cluster          DB 12x50                 Nicer framing, many more stars, star clouds visible

 

Cassiopeia                Tie                           More stars in 12x50, too low in sky for good comparison

 

Auriga                      DB 12x50                 M38 visible, easy ID on M37, M36, a few stars visible

 

Gemini                      DB 12x50                 Several stars visible in M35, more stars, star clouds nearby

 

Leo                          Tie                            In my skies, not a lot to see in Leo with binoculars

 

[tmichaelbanks]

Views of the Moon

 

On Feb. 3 skies were clear and steady and the moon was a beautiful gibbous phase.  Views of the moon showed a little color, with a very faint hint of green on the terminator and a more easily seen very thin line of purple on the limb.  Despite this, the view was very sharp and detailed with major features easily seen:  Plato, Copernicus, the long arc of the Alps and the Apennines around Mare Imbrium, Bulliadus, Tycho, and lots of features in the Southern Highlands.  At 12x the view of the moon through the Vortex was definitely more engaging than in the HGs, although in the HGs the same view appears subjectively sharper and without the CA.  With the 12x50s lunar features were simply easier to locate and appreciate and with practice I didn’t find that the shakes were a problem.  It’s important to note that shake is sometimes hard to suppress in the HGs, although I suspect part of the problem is that the lighter weight of the HGs doesn’t damp out movements from my muscles and heartbeat and the compact size favors a thumb and fingers hold.

 

With the moon in the view, glare did not seem to be a problem in the 12x50s.  I could easily see Ain (e Tau) a little less than a degree to the north of the terminator.  However, panning nearby a few degrees to the east and south, that glare I observed during the day was back, although it was not so severe that it blocked the view of the rest of the Hyades grouping in Taurus.  Panning about 10 degrees to the west, the glare was absent and the view of the Pleiades was relatively undiminished.  I could easily see the delicate arc of stars from Alcyone heading off to the southeast.  Looking further afield from the moon, glare from the 12x50 was absent and views of Orion’s belt stars and sword region were affected only by the general sky glare from the moon itself.  Further to the east, you could easily find M41 in Canis Major and see several individual stars.  I think the verdict is that when I’m on the hoof, the 12x50s can provide a satisfying view of the moon, but my Canon 10x30 IS is the bino to take.  For static viewing I’ll stick to my Pentax 20x60s or use a small scope.

[tmichaelbanks]

To sum things up, I think I’ve “discovered” (experienced first-hand is probably more accurate) a maxim that I’ve heard on this forum from time to time, i.e., that in light polluted skies, invest in higher magnification (more aperture if you can) instead of instruments with lower aperture and magnification that are of much higher quality.  The dark skies under which I did the direct comparisons were exceptional for my little corner of the planet:  cold (25 F), low humidity (44% RH), clear, calm, no moon, no snow on the ground.  The more typical winter evening has skies that are murkier and gray due to the LP and humidity.  Considering these two binoculars, I think most nights I would be better off taking the 12x50s on my walks, even with the reduced FOV and short eye relief.  On a bright, sunny day the 12x50s would be OK for nature viewing, but the HGs offer wider, “crisper” views plus more comfort at the eyepiece.  The HGs are also much better on cloudy days with reduced contrast.  I thought about trading in the DB 12x50s for the Viper model, which appears to have better optics, but at double the price of the DBs I don’t know if the improvement in nighttime views would be worthwhile under my skies.  The Viper 12x50s do have, on paper at least, a couple of additional mm of eye relief (16 mm vs. 14 mm).  If true in practice, that would make for more comfortable viewing for me, but at 4-5 times the cost...hmm....

 

I suppose a Vortex Razor UHD 12x50 or a Swarovski 12x50 EL would be ideal, but ER might not be that much better, those binoculars weigh nearly a half-pound more than the DB 12x50, and with my skies they are likely not worth the investment.  Funds are probably better spent for travel to dark sites with the equipment I have.  Someone on this forum said something on the order of, “If I had to do it all over again, I’d spend more time observing and less time on equipment.”  I think I’ve reached that stage, but I have to admit that it's fun to compare.  

[KennyJ]

Thank you TMB, for such a carefully written and interesting two way comparison.

 

For us readers with longer memories, I can't help feeling the "HG" used in Nikon's and your own description for this model could be quite confusing.

 

This is because many of us probably remember the "HG" as being the universally recognised name used for the top of the range HIGH GRADE Roof models which practically ruled supreme over all other Roof prism models around 20 years ago, and was also known as "Venturer".

 

The model refered to in this comparison will presumably be a specimen of the much more recent ( and considerably less expensive) Nikon MONARCH HG.

 

Thanks again,

Kenny

[Erik Bakker]

Thank you for that wonderful comparison!

[paulsky]

Hi,

 

what a fantastic chronicle !!

Thanks,

Paul

[tmichaelbanks]

Hi Kenny, yes indeed the HG I have is the Monarch HG 10x42.  I should have added that to the title to differentiate it.

 

I have no experience with the previous "HG" models, but Mr. Vine does have a few interesting notes about the "HG" and "EDG" lines in his recent review of the Monarch HG 10x42.

 

The Monarch HG 10x42 is the only mid-range binocular I have, but I really enjoy the views it provides and its versatility.  It's not an "alpha" class instrument like the EDG, but the views, focus snap, colors, etc. are at a level above anything else I have.  The DB 12x50s are a decent binocular, but for me they cut through the LP to provide nighttime views that on the whole are more engaging than the Monarch HGs.  For other uses I would most likely take the 10x42s.

[Cestus]

That is a great review. I have the 12x50 DB's. I don't know enough to go into that kind of depth.

[dries1]

Thanks for taking the time for the review, nice presentation.

 

Andy W.

[Yarddog]

After reading this thread over a few times, I decided to order a 10X50 Vortex Diamondback HD. 12 power is just a bit too much for me even sitting down.

 

I did a bit of checking around and the best price I found was $229 at B&H and also includes a free headband flashlight. Also free shipping and no tax. I hope you folks have not led me astray.

[tmichaelbanks]

Hello there Yarddog,

 

I hope you've not been led astray as well!  BTW, if you haven't read it already, check out the DB 10x50 review on allbinos.com:https://www.allbinos...back_10x50.html

 

I think this review describes the non-HD model, but it sort of pushed me in the direction of Vortex.  B&H is a great vendor with a good return policy if the binos just aren't to your liking.  I bought my Canon 10x30 IS and Pentax 20x60 there with no problems, but a Pentax Papillo came with defects and they took it back and issued a prompt refund.

 

Let us know how you like them - or not!  

 

Mike

[Yarddog]

Thanks, will do.

[cupton]

After reading this thread over a few times, I decided to order a 10X50 Vortex Diamondback HD. 12 power is just a bit too much for me even sitting down.

 

I did a bit of checking around and the best price I found was $229 at B&H and also includes a free headband flashlight. Also free shipping and no tax. I hope you folks have not led me astray.

I think you'll be happy with your 10x50's. I purchased the same 10x50 HD's  back in December for a trip to Hawaii. I've been extremely happy with them. Ive never had a bad experience with Vortex. Enjoy!
 

[Cestus]

After reading this thread over a few times, I decided to order a 10X50 Vortex Diamondback HD. 12 power is just a bit too much for me even sitting down.

 

I did a bit of checking around and the best price I found was $229 at B&H and also includes a free headband flashlight. Also free shipping and no tax. I hope you folks have not led me astray.

If you are a veteran you can get a discount from Vortex and free shipping. I have the 12x50 DB's and like them, but I use a tripod. Last night I had some great views of the moon and Pleiades.

[Traveler]

Thanks for this in depth writing! 

 

btw...do we see here a colleague of professor Edz?   

Again: well done!