Observation objects are horizontal and vertical edges of buildings as well as tightly stretched high-voltage power lines. The binoculars are swivelled slightly so that the sharp edges appear at the edge of the field of view. Both binoculars have moderate pincushion distortion, which starts at about 50 percent of the field of view radius. A reversal of the cushion-shaped distortion at the edge of the field of view to a barrel-shaped distortion (in total the unpopular mustache distortion) is not visible with any binoculars. It is not possible to distinguish which binoculars record more without photographic aids. A globe effect or rolling ball effect when panning the binoculars I can not detect. Some pincushion distortion is a reasonable choice of the designer to avoid the effect when panning the binoculars, some observers even get headaches or nausea from this effect. Pincushion distortion is not an optical defect or aberration, in the past a quite large pincushion distortion was even modern and apparently popular among designers and users. very "fast" focusing with correspondingly small depth of field of a 10x42 (probably advantageous for some birdwatchers, 10x42 is more often to focus, you can get used to it, turns slower than usual) ok..... I had previously started a thread: Conquest HD 8x42 vs Swarovski SLC 8x42. I have started a new thread because I have added a third to the mix because of limitations/ ergonomics (for me) of Conquest HD 8x42 and the Swarovski SLC 8x42 Apparent angle of view of Hawke APO 10x42 is 2.9% larger than Nikon MHG 10x42 (FoV x magnification). A comparison of astigmatism and its distinction from edge blur due to field curvature caused by refocusing in the blurred edge region is dubious because it is not clear: Both binoculars have a very small blurred range (10 and 20 percent of the field of view radius, respectively), minor differences in the beginning (difference 10 percent) and experiments with objects observed in such a small ring at the edge of the field of view do not show any results that can be seriously evaluated, especially since an extremely oblique, strenuous view is required. The low edge blur makes comparisons between binoculars in this respect uncertain and practically irrelevant.

The only point I'd like to make in addition to all the good advice you have been given above is: 8x42 has certain advantages over 8x32, but 8x magnification, fundamentally, is still 8x mag. Looking at the job you require it to do - " I just want a brighter, clear view of that bird up in the oaks of my habitat with obvious field marks" - made me feel that if the trees are high and the birds a long way up, it may well be (and I would not hesitate to ask for the opinion of the really experienced birders here like dwatson, wolfbirder and others) 10x mag, despite some real disadvantages (shallower field of view and typically smaller field of view) may let you better see those field marks. Beginning of veil glare later (smaller angle to the sun). The real angle of view (FoV) of the Hawke APO 10x42 is 1.2 degrees smaller than that of the Nikon MHG 8x42. However, the sun was outside the field of view. Overall, the Hawke Frontier APO 10x42 is a good and inexpensive wide-angle binocular with very low edge blur, little lateral CA, hardly any spikes - but with small mechanical weaknesses. Compared to the Hawke Frontier EDX 8x42, also known to me, Hawke has made significant improvements in edge sharpness and exit pupil surroundings (no larger, bright areas), and I with my physiognomy have no more shadows (kidney beans). The Hawke Frontier EDX 8x32 with smaller field of view has more edge sharpness than the Frontier EDX 8x42, both binoculars show very little lateral CA and only very small spikes on street lamps. I had shadows with both Hawke Frontier EDX due to my physiognomy in combination with the relatively small diameter of the eyecups and a too small adjustment range of about 10 mm. The HG's from what I read... are better in terms of overall quality as listed above that the Monarch 7's experience. I couldn't tell you this for sure as I haven't had the HG's that long to really determine but from people I have talked to that have an HG for any length of time, they are still satisfied with the quality overall. While people I know who have Monarch 7's, while they don't complain about it too much, still have that quality control exterior problem, glare...... and the coatings might go un-noticed since the view between the Monarch 7's and HG isn't that much difference ( again in the 8x30, ) unless you count glare.

Best Overall

The HG uses the same ED glass as the EGE, the same field flattener lens system, has dielectric and phase corrected coatings on the prisms and is fully multi-coated.

The prisms have also been phase corrected and have multilayer coatings of the best, very highly-reflective dielectric material, meaning more light gets transmitted and in the right way for the brightest, highest quality views possible. comfortable view for observers without glasses with not deep-set eyes, who often have problems with kidney beans because too small eyecups or too short adjustment range Both binoculars provide a sharp image at a distance of less than 2 m. The Hawke APO has a 20 cm shorter close-up range than the Nikon MHG. The measured values were roughly measured from the eyes, from eyecups. Today I'm basically trying to firm up what I believe I all ready know. Today I did things a little differently from previous days. I put either the B.1 OR the Trinovid HD as my primary binocular with the MHG to the side. Pine warblers and even more so, yellow-rumped warblers were EVERYWHERE. So lots of glassing on moving birds. For the comparison of center sharpness and contrast, I intentionally observe many distant, flat objects with fine, low-contrast structures at a distance of 40 to 300 m on a dull, gray day: mosses, lichens, tree bark, roof tiles, wood with grain, etc. The aim is to recognize which binoculars just show details and which show less detail. I can't see any differences in sharpness and contrast between the binoculars. And if I could, the result would not be clear, because both binoculars have different magnifications.Nikon's established Monarch range saw two new models join the armoury in the latter half of last year: the 8x42 HG and the 10x42 HG. Described as the most advanced models in the history of Monarch binoculars, the HGs represent a significant upgrade to the range, differing from the others in their superior optical performance and handling. The Monarch’s feel confidently solid in the hand, but still soft to the touch thanks to the rubberized armoring that surrounds the magnesium alloy body. Despite being made of metal Nikon has kept the weight down thanks to the use of the magnesium allow and the binoculars weigh in at a comfortable 680g. SLC=hg>>>HD (because of focus wheel, weight and FOV HG>SLC. HD makes you work for the view. HD not as forgiving esp. b/c of thing focus depth. you really have to get jiggy with the focus wheel, have your eyes perfectly centered, the narrow FOV you have to move, weight also makes it more cumbersome) Way more comfortable (my glasses eye pieces don't dig into my nose from pushing binos on glasses lens to stabilize)