On reading the 2005 Cornell Lab binocular review I was interested to note the fact that they concluded that the best bins in the Top-Affordable section ($500-$1000) were generally no better than the best bins in the Mid-Price section ($200-$500). For example, the highest rated bins in the Top-Affordable section, the Nikon 8x32 HG DCF, were not noticeably better in image quality and overall feel than Nikon Monarch 8x42, ranked second in the Mid-Price section. It was only when you reached the Top-End section ($1000+), Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss, etc, that there was a noticeable jump in image quality, etc. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this. They seem to be saying 'either buy the best sub-$500 bins or go $1000+, in- between isn't really worth it'. Does this hold true?
Michael
I have a pair of HGs and tried some Monarchs a few weeks ago. The difference in quality was quite pronounced being sharper, more contrasty and with a better field of view in the HGs.
For those who might not know, here is where the Cornell review is found - http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Public.../Age_Binos.html
I don't say I necessarily agree with their conclusions ;-)
Michael