Of the three, I would have loved to keep the SLC, but they did not work out for me due to the inability to focus past infinity without using my glasses (overdrive pas infinity). The porro prisms used in these are made from BaK-4 glass, which is important. This design of prism also means they they do not require any additional highly reflective coatings to achieve total internal reflection as the roof prism models do, nor do they need to be corrected for phase shift. Superior waterproof/fog-proof performance with a nitrogen-filled body that resists water pressure to a depth of up to 5m/16.4 ft. for 10 minutes and prevents fogging inside the optical system even in low-pressure environments up to altitudes of 5,000m/16,404 ft. equivalent

How much you decide to spend will largely depend on your personal circumstances, how often you use your optics and how much you want to get out of them. The 10x will give you more magnification, of course, but a smaller field of view in trade off, and may be harder to hold still (hand vibration is magnified along with your vision, so any hand trembling / fatigue / etc will be magnified 10x vs 8x). Both 8x and 10x are very useful and are by far the dominant magnifications for birding. 10x is perhaps better for open country (deserts, shorelines, etc). 8x is usually preferred for denser habitat or if you are inside forest. All of the above are my personal preferences and opinions. In addition, at this level it is kind of splitting hairs and any of these binos are fine and excellent instruments. In the comparisons above I really needed to look and test side by side to find differences. 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.

So it stands to reason that the absolute perfect pair of binoculars for each of these extreme scenarios will be somewhat different.

Comparisons were made at very advanced twilight, therefore only in the range up to 100 m. Both binoculars show no practically relevant differences. A little bit better I recognized a trellis for climbing plants as well as details of a small, bright multicolored watering can (decoration with picture) in front of a dark hedge in 50 m distance with the Hawke APO 10x42, which could identify the decoration. I don't consider the difference in brightness of both 42 mm binoculars to be of practical relevance even in far advanced twilight. If you observe in such advanced twilight, it is better to choose binoculars with a lens diameter of 50 mm or more. The Maven B.1 is the heaviest binocular here. I weighed the B.1 and the MHG with objective covers ON and with the UL-Harness snaps I typically use. As mentioned earlier, the MHG is the lightest 8X42 I've ever used at 24.3 ounces. That's LIGHT! The B.1 Maven in the same configuration weighs in at 30.3 ounces. That's pretty heavy but consider the SV 8.5X42 is right there with it at 30.5 ounces. Many of these cheap instruments are fine for the occasional user, but for the BEST compact Nikon bird watching binocular I have opted for a higher end instrument as I feel it is more important than ever to have quality optics to make be best use of the limited amount of light that a compact can collect and use. Image brightness in low light conditions will also improve for many users as you get a larger 6mm exit pupil (42 ÷ 7) compared to the 5.25mm you get on an 8x42. For more on take a look at this article on the exit pupil & image brightness.

Nikon Premier LX 8x20 Binoculars

The level of optics and coatings used is very similar, indeed the only difference that I can see is that the Monarch 7 does not have the field flattener lenses like the EDG and HG lines do, but at this price range this is what you would expect and so these will be no different than any of their direct competitors. I think that this caution Nikon is using in keeping its better binoculars from competing with each other is one of the reasons why the Monarch HG 42mm binoculars were built on lightweight Magnesium frames and why they have a wide fields with a field flattener but do not have an expensive to make flat field like the EDGs have. It makes them a reasonably priced attractive lightweight binocular alternative, with larger exit pupils, to the smaller but more expensive 32mm binoculars. So what has this all got to do with Nikon and birding I hear you ask? Well my point is that choice is generally good, but sometimes it can make it somewhat difficult, even overwhelming (and time consuming) to make the right selection one is right for you and what you need. Indeed the only slight downside is the 8.2ft minimum close focus distance, which beats the EDG and should still be perfectly fine for nearby bird watching, but means that these may not be the ideal if you also like viewing things like butterflies or flowers from very close ranges.

In just about every way, the Monarch HG is the same as the EDG (especially the most important areas), but yet it costs less than half the price and this is why I have no hesitation in suggestion that for my money, this is the best Nikon birding binocular overall: Objective lens caps are integrated to prevent loss. Interchangeable objective rubber rings without caps are included and can be switched according to applications.MONARCH HG 8×42 is engineered to perfection. Its body is made of magnesium alloy, which means that it is agile, impact-resilient, and lightweight. The rubberized panels further optimize the slim body profile, ensuring an unrivaled grip through and through. Compared to the HD the HG is so much easier to use and are more forgiving. The weight, FOV, and focus depth adds to the ergonomics. In spite of very slightly more CA on the HG vs the HD I find myself reaching for the HG vs the HD. In addition, using the HG leaves me happy, not fatigued, and I look forward to it using next time. Where as, after using the HD I feel fatigued and recalling limitations (like constant focusing and weight) as opposed to recalling what I was looking at. I find the ergonomic of the HD negatively distracting and I find them to get in the way of viewing and enjoying birding/bino-ing. And I find the ergonomics of the HG to allow me focus what I am looking at and forget about the binoculars. I had the same feeling with the SLC (actually even more so than the HG). Whilst 8x42's have become popular, a 7x42 like this is a more classic birding configuration and here's why: At 145 m at 1,000 m, the field of view is admirably wide, although I was not able to see its full width with the eyecups at maximum extension. However, the image remains nicely sharp to the very edges of the field at all extension settings. The field-flattener system employed ensures there is also minimal field curvature at the edges.

NEXT up is the EDG II 8X42. It is obvious the EDG II is a cousin to the MGH. How close is what I'm trying to determine. Even as nice as the MHG focus adjustment IS, the EDG II is even better. IMO, it's THE focus adjustment all others are judged by. I can't imagine one being better. But the MGH is certainly in the top tier. Optically....about the same can be said for the EDG II as was said for the SF, except to a lesser degree. Even though the MGH has "field flattener" written all over it, it just ain't so. I CAN tell the FOV IS larger with the MGH, it's just not flat edge to edge. In fact it's really about a 70% flat field. The EDG II is pretty dang flat edge to edge. Not quite to the level of an SF/SV, but pretty close. Conclusion of EDG II comparison on birding day TWO... 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. Weight... The MGH is lightweight binocular. I didn't realize it until just now but it's the lightest 8X42 I own or have ever owned. Meanwhile I find it very interesting to test and compare binoculars of the middle class, to analyze their errors and weaknesses, to learn more than just using upper class binoculars (due to experiences of users written in forums also not perfect) without comparison to the middle class, only to make comparisons within the upper class.High-quality multilayer coating is applied to all lenses and prisms while dielectric high-reflective multilayer coating is applied to the roof prisms, achieving up to 92% or higher light transmittance, which enables a bright view and natural colour fidelity 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. As I mentioned above, when it comes to the cheaper end of the market it is often a really good idea to go for a porro prism binocular over a roof prism one. They are far cheaper to make and thus you get the same quality of image as a much more expensive roof prism binocular. The glare issue, again. Once again when using the Trinovid HD I found I could swap to the MHG and find much less glare present.