• expired

Nikon 8x42 Monarch M5 High-end Binoculars $428 + $9.90 Delivery ($0 NSW C&C/ in-Store) @ Georges Cameras

160
Nikon 8x42 Monarch M5 High-end Binoculars $428 + $9.90 Delivery ($0 NSW C&C/ in-Store) @ Georges Cameras
Go to Deal
nuker on 03/07/2025 - 20:23 georges.com.au (486 clicks)
Last edited 03/07/2025 - 22:44 by 1 other user

IN STOCK at lower price ! LOL

+ Payment & Handling Fee ($0 with Bank Deposit)

My previous post, which was Backorder.

High contrast and resolution realised with ED glass

Employing extra-low dispersion (ED) glass corrects chromatic aberration that causes colour fringing, which realises a contrast-rich and high-resolution image.

Bright, clear wide field of view

Multilayer coating is applied to all lenses and prisms. Dielectric high-reflective multilayer prism coating and phase correction coating are applied to the roof prisms. All of this effectively combines to deliver a bright field of view plus natural colour fidelity. The wide apparent field of view offers spectacular viewing.

Waterproof (up to 1m/3.3 ft. for 10 minutes) and fog-free with O-ring seals and nitrogen gas

Product page: https://www.nikon.com.au/monarch-m5-8-x-42
Review: https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Blog/review-new-nikon-monar…

I will not rest until every OzBurger has one.

Sports & Outdoors Binoculars Nikon

Related Stores

Georges Cameras
Georges Cameras

closed Comments

  • UFO on 03/07/2025 - 20:56

    Recently bought these Nikon's for $317.

    10x42, Prostaff P7

    https://www.amazon.com.au/Prostaff-P7-10-x-42/dp/B0B3H4LFPX

    • nuker on 03/07/2025 - 20:58
      +3

      Nice, but not ED glass. Hard to see (literally) the difference without trying both. Your brain kind of blows up when you first try ED glass ones.

      • jv on 03/07/2025 - 23:28
        -2

        first try ED glass ones.

        🔎

        • nuker on 03/07/2025 - 23:39
          -1

          jv, you need professional help with audio-emotional perception distortion syndrome (AEPDS). Start detox gradually, with "The Mortail Coil", approved anti-AEPDS treatment.
          Alternate with Thom Yorke.

          • jv on 03/07/2025 - 23:48
            -2

            @nuker: You should reflect on that.

            • nuker on 03/07/2025 - 23:49

              @jv: How do you feel when you imagine me reflecting on that?

  • Low Punt on 03/07/2025 - 20:57

    Can you get something much cheaper? Looking for something for whale watching and used by kids so don’t want to drop $500.

    A few years back there was eBay or amazon binoculars that were super popular. Im pretty sure they were sub $100. Those deals don’t pop up anymore (gone the way of the xiaomi air purifiers:-D

    • nuker on 03/07/2025 - 21:00
      -1

      This is not for kids, this is for You, high-end, as in description :)

      • Low Punt on 03/07/2025 - 21:07
        +2

        Correct - which is why asked for suggestions as this post might draw a few people in considering something.

    • ASR-Briggs on 03/07/2025 - 21:17
      -6

      With all due respect, that's a really dumb question. Yes, you can get cheaper binoculars. No, they will not be as good. You get what you pay for when it comes to binoculars.

      • Low Punt on 03/07/2025 - 21:42
        +6

        It’s not actually and your response shows your lack of knowledge in the area - with respect.
        I’m very familiar with optics used for sporting and hunting including photography and work in microscopy.. I have zero knowledge of brands of binoculars.
        We use Celestron scopes because they are kinda hardy, well priced,’perfect for the occasional use. Suggesting such an item over a top shelf Telescope makes sense.
        I can recommend a scope or lens from the top shelf with unbelievably glass and weather sealing or I could suggest something a quarter of the price that’s extremely good and not far off in most use cases.
        In the same price range someone could easily go on eBay, Amazon, or any other store and spend about the same but actually have an item worth cents if you’re lucky.

        Edit: thus the question of what might be recommended in the lower price ranges.

        • ASR-Briggs on 03/07/2025 - 21:47
          -5

          Making assumptions about my level of knowledge now huh. I researched binoculars for a very long time before making my purchase. Perhaps you should do the same. Regardless, let's have another look at exactly what you asked:

          "Can you get something much cheaper?"
          Yes
          "Looking for something for whale watching and used by kids so don’t want to drop $500."
          Then buy something cheaper.

          Insightful. Thanks for playing.

          • Low Punt on 03/07/2025 - 21:53
            +7

            @ASR-Briggs: So you researched but have no ongoing experience in this field and lack any regular experience with optics to make an educated, evidence based perspective. You could have said you researched this prior and you found xyz. This would be useful.

            You think belittling people is proactive support.

            The thing that makes OzB great is we are here to help each other whether it’s through advice or a deal. Your comments turn people away. You have not contributed anything to the discussion .

            Fyi - won’t be reading further posts from yourself as its counter intuitive to the OPs great post.

            • ASR-Briggs on 03/07/2025 - 21:55
              -4

              @Low Punt: I said it was a dumb question and you went off on a bizarre (unfounded) tangent that I apparently don't know anything on the subject. Obviously struck a nerve I guess.

          • Igaf on 03/07/2025 - 22:00
            +1

            @ASR-Briggs: The question wasn't well-phrased but it was clarified in the very next sentence. He was obviously looking for suggestions for (decent) cheaper options.

        • ruprectaus on 05/07/2025 - 01:10

          Can you recommended me a telescope for backyard star gazing, we live in rural Tassie. prefer some quality and features but only the occasional use. Wondering if Id be better served with a spotting scope ?

      • ruprectaus on 05/07/2025 - 01:08

        You get what you pay for when it comes to binoculars.

        I scored a pair of Leica Ultravid 8x binoculars quite some years ago that I imported. I otok apunt on the name and they are superb quality , still amaze me to this day and we use them once or twice a week at least (we have a waterfall we can see from the kitchen window … just see it with the naked eye but easily with the binoculars and it looks great after rain) Expensive but ok price at the time. I see they are about $3K in Australia last I looked (WAY more then I paid) and zero chance id ever pay $3k, so there often is a trade off to be made.

        • ASR-Briggs on 05/07/2025 - 11:27

          That is quite the score. Should serve you very well for a long time!

          There’s always going to be some that are better value than others. For example the Zeiss HDX’s in the $1800 range are outperformed by Maven, GPO, and Vortex. They’re still going to be excellent, but you’re paying for the name.

          This deal however, is only $428 for a pair of good binos from a highly regarded Japanese brand. It’s not a lot of money to spend on an optic. Not in the scheme of things.

          Just the notion of “can I spend less money than this and get something as good or nearly as good”, is insane to me. There’s a lot of things in life where, yeah, you can just go to aliexpress, buy a knock off, and get similar-ish performance. Optics is not one of them however.

          • Igaf on 05/07/2025 - 15:09

            @ASR-Briggs:

            Just the notion of “can I spend less money than this and get something as good or nearly as good”, is insane to me. There’s a lot of things in life where, yeah, you can just go to aliexpress, buy a knock off, and get similar-ish performance. Optics is not one of them however.

            Plenty of reviewers of binoculars and cameras disagree.

            • ASR-Briggs on 05/07/2025 - 17:36

              @Igaf: Link one then

              • Igaf on 05/07/2025 - 19:01

                @ASR-Briggs: Your search engine not working? When you read "best" reviews (picks) read comments as well. People have their own views based on what they value (and need) most, even at the top end. Any decent review/"best" site will have comments about best for this, best for that and most acknowledge that mid-range binos are plenty good enough.

                To get you started here's one guy's view of the often mention very best, Swar NL . You might note the comment about GLARE, something others have missed : https://www.birdforum.net/threads/leica-zeiss-swarovski-bino…

                His closing par is respresenative of pretty much every "review/rating" site.
                As a closing remark, I would like to stand up for the Nikon Monarch M7. They retail for 400-500 dollars or 350-450 euro and are therefore a fraction of the price of all the binoculars I tested above. Still, when looking through them even in direct comparison to the Victory SFs, I’m not missing nearly as much as the difference in price would indicate. Yes, there’s more chromatic aberration in high contrast situations. Yes, there’s a bit less sharpness in the center of the image, maybe 10-20% less. Yes, there’s a bit more field of view (155m vs 144m). But considering the price, these are outstanding binoculars that anyone could be happy with. They deliver 90% of the performance of a top-of-the-line binocular, at 20% of the price. If you’re on a tight budget, I’d wholeheartedly recommend these. I'll pass them on to my little son as soon as he's old enough to go birding with me.

                Buying a $20K camera and $20+K worth of lenses makes zero sense for non-professional use, irrespective of the "optics".

                • ASR-Briggs on 06/07/2025 - 14:40

                  @Igaf: If I go out and buy a $100 coffee grinder and try to use it to make espresso, it will be garbage. If I go out and buy a $300 coffee grinder, I'll get much better results (maybe 90% of the way there). If I spend $500 on a coffee grinder, I'll get 95% of the way there. To eek out that final 5%, you could be spending as much as $3000. It's a bell curve, and this phenomenon is reflected in just about every category of goods.

                  At what point did I diss the Monarch M7's? In fact, IF ANYTHING, I am ADVOCATING for them over buying some ultra cheap garbage from "amazon or ebay" as the other guy wanted.

                  • Igaf on 07/07/2025 - 00:23
                    -1

                    @ASR-Briggs: We all understand the concept, where we disagree is your notion that it doesn't apply for optical products. As I said the vast majority of reviewers (and commenters for that matter) of binoculars, monoculars and cameras that I've read - and I've read hundreds - disagree. The quote was simply ONE of a multitude of examples of people making the same point - you (most people) don't need to pay exorbitant amounts for high quality optical products. There are PLENTY of moderately-priced items which will do a VERY good job. If you want "the best" and are happy to pay a premium that's your choice, and I wouldn't quibble with that.

                    • ASR-Briggs on 07/07/2025 - 00:40
                      -1

                      @Igaf:

                      disagree is your notion that it doesn't apply for optical products

                      No I'm saying that it DOES. When you start going cheaper than this level (sub $400), they start getting garbage. I've owned Bushnells (they were a gift). If you're happy with that level, power to you. But I am recommending to AT LEAST spring for the level that this deal is.

                      • Igaf on 07/07/2025 - 12:33

                        @ASR-Briggs: As I said, the vast majority of reviewers and commenters disagree with your view that lower priced optical products are "garbage". The vast majority of users don'rt require elite level optics (even ones which give you the extra glare not found in bonoculars at a tenth of the cost). If you read about "best binos for birding" (just one of many examples) you will see top end products mentioned along with plenty of lower priced products. Why? Because they're overkill for MOST users and because the quality/benefit/cost equation doesn't add up in MOST cases.

                        • ASR-Briggs on 07/07/2025 - 13:24

                          @Igaf: a) I asked you to link me to these mythical cheap binos that still perform great and you haven't. Instead, you linked me to a review of the Monarch H7's (which I literally never questioned, and in fact advocated for.).
                          b) Define "lower priced products". Because this deal is already at $400ish dollars, and that IS low priced for an optic.

                          • Igaf on 07/07/2025 - 14:39

                            @ASR-Briggs: No $400 isn't low priced for decent binoculars, esp since there is no one size fits all solution. There are always trade-offs on magnification, size, weight, objective lens size, eye relief, fov etc

                            Since your search engine seems to be malfunctioning here's one guy at the extreme end of birding. Note his budget recommendation, a sub $150 binocular. https://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/gear/binoculars/best-binoc…
                            https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KABKBNU

                            Others which get regulat mentions are the Celestron Nature's, the Opticron Oregon Oasis….. and that's just for one specialist use.

    • Igaf on 03/07/2025 - 21:30
      +4

      CELESTRON 8x42 WP Outland X. ~$120

      Google 'best budget binos' for some options

      Just one of numerous sites: https://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/binocular-awards-2024.…

      • Low Punt on 03/07/2025 - 21:44

        Cheers will have a look.

    • howdydood on 05/07/2025 - 18:22

      I got these Nikon binos - not ED glass but 100% waterproof and are excellent - $159.96 if you have a Amazon business account or $230 without one.
      https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B0001HKIJK?ref=fed_asin_title&t…

  • killingtime on 03/07/2025 - 21:10
    +1

    I got some of these a few years ago. Everyone I lend them to is always amazed have good they are. Most people are only used to crappy ones.

    They're pretty tough as well. Mine has a few dings on the rubber but looks good as new through the lenses

    • nuker on 03/07/2025 - 21:12

      Now try M7 :)

      • ASR-Briggs on 03/07/2025 - 21:18

        Now try my Maven B1.2's :-P

        • nuker on 03/07/2025 - 21:35

          Garbage. :)

          Specs 8x42 Maven B1.2 Nikon M7
          Field of View (FOV) 8.0° 8.3°
          Weight, g 759 670

          • ASR-Briggs on 03/07/2025 - 21:43

            @nuker: Now let's see Paul Allen's light transmission figures :-P

            • nuker on 03/07/2025 - 21:47

              @ASR-Briggs: light gets transmitted through M7, I can confirm :)))
              Could you find the spec for M7? Nikon is mum on this. Maven says 93.95% …

              • ASR-Briggs on 03/07/2025 - 21:49

                @nuker: Yeah the Maven figure is insane. I'd love to see some independent testing on that, because from memory I think the Zeiss HDX series (approximately the same price) sits at about 90%.

                • nuker on 03/07/2025 - 21:55

                  @ASR-Briggs: I just tortured ChatGPT and it insists (even after torture) that M7 is ~92%. It even tried to explain how it got it, pathetic.

                  • ASR-Briggs on 03/07/2025 - 21:57

                    @nuker: The future of humanity ladies and gentlemen. I'm actually really curious on it's explanation now……
                    When a manufacturer won't freely release all the specs on their binos, it usually means they're not good…… and they don't want you to know…..

                      • yyhazy on 03/07/2025 - 22:07

                        @nuker: Incredible

                      • ASR-Briggs on 04/07/2025 - 11:27

                        @nuker: That’s insane. It couldn’t find a figure, acknowledges that it’s a mid range optic, and then goes “🤷‍♂️ guess they’re the same!”. And then in the next paragraph, says that in tests it’s 0.5 to 1 stop darker than the HG series….(which is a massive difference).

                        • nuker on 07/07/2025 - 20:33

                          @ASR-Briggs: Yea, 0.5-1 stop is massive, but not real number. I think it hallucinated here, making up the stops number from context.

                          • ASR-Briggs on 08/07/2025 - 13:12

                            @nuker: Yeah I figured the same. I was just using it to illustrate how bipolar it is in it’s findings.

  • Hugh G Rection on 04/07/2025 - 15:55

    does canon make binoculars, their L series glass is the best.

    • Igaf on 04/07/2025 - 22:54

      Yours for just under $2K. Bulk and weight are "bonuses".

      • Hugh G Rection on 05/07/2025 - 17:47

        dang it, i was hoping it would be cheaper then there lenses, but it is just as expensive. i'll just zoom in with my camera lens instead, lol.

  • Ozvalue on 05/07/2025 - 14:13

    Does anyone know if these are good for hunting?

  • anastasiastarz on 06/07/2025 - 02:39

    OP I'm after opera glasses for those rare stadium concerts we attend, any reccs?

    • nuker on 07/07/2025 - 21:04

      This will do just fine, you'll look like a Pro :)

  • Malleeroot on 08/08/2025 - 12:01

    For anyone that bought these, did they come with a carry case?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join