I've done the basic internet reading, so am interested in personal experience -- specifically about Nikon Monarch 7, but also in general.

From what I've gathered, the main difference is that the 8x30 doesn't perform quite as well in low-light (dawn/dusk) situations, though many report it really isn't that significant. Also concerns about ease of use b/c 8X30 has smaller exit pupil (3.8 v 5.3) and eye relief (15.1 v 17.1) for the M7.

Interestingly, the specs show that the M7 8x30 field of view is actually wider (435/1000 ft or 8.3 deg vs 420/1000 ft or 8 deg). Many reviewers corroborated this (many surprised).

Other than FOV, the obvious advantages of 8x30 are smaller size (4.6x4.8 v. 5.6x5.1) and less weight (15.3 oz v 21.8). Since I'll be using these mostly for hiking and woods walking (not a serious bird watcher), the consensus seems to be that lighter and smaller are good, especially without serious degradation of viewing.

Oh, and the 8x30 are cheaper. I could swing the M7 8x42, but it would be a push above my comfortable budget.

Thanks.

The decreased weight of the 8x30’s will be more ideal for hiking than the 8x42’s. If you don’t see yourself needing the low light capabilities then I’d reckon the 8x30’s is the way you should go. As a hunter, I opt for the larger exit pupil.

Also the larger exit pupil's will be more stabil when looking through them and holding them.

For hiking and general purposes Id go 8x30. For hunting as others said 8x42 for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
For hiking and general purposes Id go 8x30. For hunting as others said 8x42 for sure.

+1

I've got 10X50s for when I really need to look at something, and 8x28s for when I actually need to carry a pair of binoculars.

either will be fine , just fine.

I carry the monarch 7 8x30s in my deer hunting pack. They work well past legal shooting time. I don't regret the purchase at all. I think I paid $440-470 for them.

I keep a set of cheaper 10x50 Nikons in the truck.

Thanks for all the replies. As usual, I'm overthinking the whole thing. A large part of me wants that extra edge of low-light viewing and better eye relief, imaging that perfect dawn or dusk moment or deep in the dark overhanging woods and swamp, just me and the wildlife communing in the universality of being.

But the reality will be snarling at the four boys to quit grab-assing and shut their yaps before they drive every living and dead beast into the next three parishes over while struggling with all the gear they insisted on bringing regardless of me telling them they'll get tired of carrying, but who listens to me anyway.

So the 8x30s are probably the better practical choice. I'm hoping the local Bass Pro or Cabelas has them onsite to test out.

But that extra edge . . . .

You've put your finger on the difference.

8x30s are smaller and lighter.

8x40s give about optimal light gathering, and will be brighter looking when light is low.

Which is more important to you? I picked 8x40s. They are bigger, but are still fairly small. I like the brighter image in deep woods or twighlight.

A few years ago (haha) when I was in grad school I took a year of biophysics classes. One of the things I remember about those classes was due to the construction of the human eye the best lens size to magnification ratio was (is) 5:1.

In other words 7x35, 8x40 and 10x50 are the ideal sizes to take advantage of your eyes construction.