Prime for pre order on Zen Ray site now (1 Viewer)

Prime HD on Zen Ray site now

FYI
http://www.zen-ray.com/shop/binoculars/prime-hd.html

The actual placement of the pre order is likely a few days away yet, but its closer.

Can't wait to get my hands on these!!!

John

In addition to all of the other great features discussed in some of the previous threads, another change I noticed is the Prime HD line carries a Lifetime "No Fault" Warranty.

Well Steve, when are you and Frank going to collaborate on a kung pao primo review?

ETA:

Before ZR attempts to pull Excalibur from stone cutting a swath through the Black Forest, before the scepter is cast and crown bejeweled perchance it would care to try on a tiara whilst taking on the new Conquest HD. Two new/improved contenders both in 8/10x42 sporting magic glass and in somewhat the same price range.

The Prime lays claims in the neighborhood of a grand MSRP as does the Conquest. The 8x FOV area arena belongs to ZR, but does the field flattener provide the same edge as the somewhat smaller Conquest?

Does the German cost of production eat away at value and/or the Chinese manufacture allow field flattener for a song?

Realistically the projected price of the ZR isn't quite 3/4 of the Zeiss. As time rolls on and prices settle the Prime will most likely be around 2/3 the price.

Now, which models to choose? The Conquest 10x42 is only 5' extra FOV over the Prime, 340' vs. 345', but in 8x the Prime has a 42' advantage, 426' vs. 384'.

The Prime HD in 8x/10x cannot follow the same path of enlightened ascent into the hall of fame binoculars w/separate style dimensions.

I take note of the heading: PRIME HD Birding Hunting Binoculars. Are the 8x wider FOV to be heralded as the birder bin whilst the 10x as the hunter version?

Interestingly enough the Theron Wapiti ED 8x42-367', 10x42-315' has been reviewed as using ED glass also in the ocular as a field flattener I suppose due to the glass properties as opposed to having a separate lens as a field flattener.

Lawd knows at $350 we can't expect complete red carpet cachet, yet in this Rocky Marciano mode we might as well include this scrapper that I'm unaware of ever claiming to be anything save a hunting bin. It does include dielectric coating to it's repertoire.

The trifecta of thrifty glass. For roughly the price difference betwixt the lowly top of the line Theron and the entry level new & improved Zeiss Conquest HD you can pre-order the prophesized alpha slayer Primis HDamus.

Let the games begin.

Nix,

Steve and I haven't discussed another joint review and, to my knowledge, neither of us has had our hands on the Prime HD yet. Charles hasn't released anything to the general public for review at this point.

Hopefully that will change soon as I would be happy to work with Steve on writing something up.

As for the price comparison between the Prime HD and the Conquest HD....I think the current price for the Prime in 8x42 is $540 with the discount. The Zeiss is selling for over $900 if memory serves me correctly. Big difference there. Based on the skuttle-butt around here I would expect the Conquests to be ever so slightly brighter...considering their advertised light transmission numbers....but that might not be noticeable considering the small percentage of difference. I expect the Primes to have better edges. In all other common optical performance areas I expect the comparison to be a wash.

I would pay heed to a review from you & Steve. My curiosity is piqued in the FOV department. Towit, I speculate that the Prime is being offered as a wider FOV 8x for birding and a tighter FOV 10x for hunting/longer range birding. It appears a two pronged attack.

One need not be an optic engineer, shaman or telly evangelist to read the writing on the wall. Perusing various manufacturers models offered in 8 & 10 magnification it becomes apparent that many follow the same difference in equation concerning the 2x/FOV difference.

There can be no way for the Prime 8x to have the same edge as the 10x because of it's ambitious FOV. Nothing as the EDII I'm sure, yet the other side of the coin argues, if that were not the case, then why isn't the 10X FOV larger?

Prime HD 8x42-426'
Prime HD 10x42-340'
conquest 8x30 360'
conquest 10x30 315'
conquest ABK 8x40 360'
conquest ABK 10x40 315'
Conquest HD 8x42 384'
Conquest HD 10x42 345'
Theron Wapiti ED 8x42-367'
Theron Wapiti ED 10x42-315'

So, I submit that the Prime is indeed involved in a scattergun approach in an attempt to lasso as wide a diversity as possible within one line of two models. It appears that the FOV jump in 8x is 1.5X the norm and I fear the edges must soften up a mite to accommodate.

I agree the Conquest is quite a bit more expensive while the Prime is in 25% off pre-order, yet $950 vs $720 certainly tightens up the 8x42 race.

Maybe. Maybe not. The entire selling point of the Prime lineup is to have sharp edges so I doubt the 8x42 will disappoint in this area.

Truth be told, though this will be the widest 8x42 with field flatteners available, the apparent field of view is pretty much identical to that of the Swarovision (thinking 8x versus 8.5x here) so in that sense it will have at least one contemporary.

Nixterdemus said:

So, I submit that the Prime is indeed involved in a scattergun approach in an attempt to lasso as wide a diversity as possible within one line of two models. It appears that the FOV jump in 8x is 1.5X the norm and I fear the edges must soften up a mite to accommodate.

Click to expand...

I submit that this is the case in any binocular, regardless of who makes it or what they will charge for it. Any particular magnification choices are compromises offered to consumers my the maker, but that seems to be industry standards of 8x and 10x, sadly at the expense of 7x. The consumer choice of magnification is basically a set of compromises as well. I can't image what it would cost to go to somebody like Zeiss and have them make a specific custom binocular just for you and your eyes.

I have not seen the Prime yet. And I will second what Frank said in that we will probably not collaborate, certainly we have not talked about that. I will however speculate we might well email back and forth some. I will speculate you will see reviews from both of us when we feel ready to write them.

Yes these are pretty wide fov's in both magnifications. ZR also seems to have (based on the description) reasonably sophisticated field flatteners to handle that, so I guess we have to wait and see what shakes out.

"I will speculate you will see reviews from both of us when we feel ready to write them."

Easy there Steve-areno I didn't wish to imply, nor intend that either of you gents were at anyone's beck 'n call. Certainly not mine.

You do write reviews, are pro ZR and will write at least one on the Prime this year. No need of astrology, soothsayers or psychic telepathy to come to that conclusion. It's as safe a bet as the Pirates having a losing season and I'd parlay that w/Cubbies not making the NL playoffs.


Because none will back them making the World Series!

Frank, that's some heady company for El Primo.

"The entire selling point of the Prime lineup is to have sharp edges so I doubt the 8x42 will disappoint in this area."

Yes, but 86' FOV difference betwixt the twain? If 426' @ 8x is sharp to the edge then why wouldn't 10X be able to see another 40' (380' FOV) & stay sharp to the edge? This is rhetorical questioning as I don't expect you to answer, but when I stated 1.5X difference in FOV I thought I was being fairly conservative as it's close to twice as much as I see in other lines.

Anywho, I'm merely talking out loud. I had planned to snag a 8x42 Prime, yet now I ponder over the two distinctly different formulas.

Still, I think a three way shootout would be interesting as each represents a differing price point under a grand and hopes to offer it's own version of value to the mix.

Naturally I have surmised a theory, yet I was waiting for another to come to the same conclusion before blurting out my 2 cents worth of speculation.

Nix,

Truth be told I always wondered how the field of view differences between an 8x and a 10x in any given lineup were determined. I have seen references from time to time such as "the 10x42 was the gem of the lineup" and "the 7x42 and 8x42 are just off shoots of the 10x42 design". So that left me to wonder if a company keys in on a specific configuration and then works off of that "key configuration" when designing the other magnfications for that particular objective diameter.

As for why the 10x42 isn't wider in general...I would respond with "Have you ever seen a roof prism 10x42 that had a wider field of view than 340 feet (give or take a few feet)?" Sure some 10x32s and 10x35s start approaching 360 or 370 feet but nothing in the 10x42 category. Wonder why that is?

I do/did. My assumption was that it was because of some type of restriction inherent to the 10x42 format. Prism size? Optical performance parameters in terms of centerfield resolution or sweet spot size?

Just some things that popped into my head.

Yes, it appears that 330' FOV for 10x is the popular limit going all the way to 340'. Even the alphas tend to stop around 390-400' FOV for the 8X. The 8.5X Swarovision you mentioned came in at 408' I believe.

Going along w/them @ 10x "standard" FOV seems to point to the 8X Prime as doing something beyond different. If the 10x42 cannot stretch it's legs any further then how can the 8x42 Prime HD gain so much ground? Realistically 30' over some of the alphas.

How can it be curvature if it's sharp to the edge? Granted, the more magnification the tighter tolerance/QC/less arcseconds of error available. Is it possible they're straddling the ragged edge of resolution/error in the lower 8x stretching the limits?

Would they fudge on the 8x by half a point for a little breathing room? Maybe the optics are a-dyno-mite, Kryptonite infused. There has to be an answer coz nobody else is pulling that FOV out of their edge to edge sharp hat.

Steve C said:

I submit that this is the case in any binocular, regardless of who makes it or what they will charge for it. Any particular magnification choices are compromises offered to consumers my the maker, but that seems to be industry standards of 8x and 10x, sadly at the expense of 7x. The consumer choice of magnification is basically a set of compromises as well. I can't image what it would cost to go to somebody like Zeiss and have them make a specific custom binocular just for you and your eyes.

I have not seen the Prime yet. And I will second what Frank said in that we will probably not collaborate, certainly we have not talked about that. I will however speculate we might well email back and forth some. I will speculate you will see reviews from both of us when we feel ready to write them.

Yes these are pretty wide fov's in both magnifications. ZR also seems to have (based on the description) reasonably sophisticated field flatteners to handle that, so I guess we have to wait and see what shakes out.

Click to expand...

Steve:

It will be interesting to see how the new ZR Prime performs. I was thinking
you and Frank would get to test one before the introduction, but it seems that
is not the case.

The flat field, great edges thing is what will be good to see, as I really like that
in a quality binocular.

I do recall your distaste for anything nearing rolling ball, as you have mentioned
when reviewing some other optics.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

Steve:

It will be interesting to see how the new ZR Prime performs. I was thinking
you and Frank would get to test one before the introduction, but it seems that
is not the case.

The flat field, great edges thing is what will be good to see, as I really like that
in a quality binocular.

I do recall your distaste for anything nearing rolling ball, as you have mentioned
when reviewing some other optics.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

I bought a Prime sight unseen for future delivery a long time ago. I hope I did not shoot myself in the foot. That may get me an early sample of the few Primes express shipped to ZR ahead of the general first order. So I'm hoping for a surprise package from FedEx or USPS by the end of the month...or not. I really don't know for sure.

No, I really do not like rolling ball...at all. I was really flabbergasted to see it in the Swarovision EL the way I do. Yeah, even after a year and several more viewing sessions, evidently I don't adjust. What is maybe stranger is that was the first time I ever really saw rolling ball. It was so far off my radar that I had to finally realize..."so that is rolling ball huh?...yech"! I do know from communications with Charles that they plan to use a little pincushion, something on the order of 5% or thereabouts, in the final Prime. ZR didn't want to get into the rolling ball complaints from a considerable number of buyers, so they went for a little pincushion and a tad less than perfect edge. I like the idea of a flatter field better than a real sharp edge. The edge thing has never been a critical issue for me.

Nix, sorry to give the impression I was not taking it easy....

No problemo senor Steve. I could've misinterpreted.
I wouldn't mind having a version w/little RB. Did you go w/8 or 10?

Nixterdemus said:

No problemo senor Steve. I could've misinterpreted.
I wouldn't mind having a version w/little RB. Did you go w/8 or 10?

Click to expand...

I think I have asked him to send both and I'll send the loser back. However, I'm pretty likely to go 8x. That seems the best overall, given no 7x. But if the optics are really first class and shine at distance resolution, I may go 10x. Depends on how I like the 10x. Typically I don't feel I can see any more with 10x over 8x.

That's interesting. Could you say the same for 8x vs. 6x or 10x vs. 12x?

I don't need any more, but the 8x is intriguing.

Hey, @ 77 yds through double pane glass unassisted I can still tell if a squirrel is looking out the knothole. I'm going to look through the 8.5x50 Viper and then the 10x40 Conquest and see if I can tell the difference other than the Conquest having a tad more FOV over the Viper.

Nixterdemus said:

That's interesting. Could you say the same for 8x vs. 6x or 10x vs. 12x?

I don't need any more, but the 8x is intriguing.

Hey, @ 77 yds through double pane glass unassisted I can still tell if a squirrel is looking out the knothole. I'm going to look through the 8.5x50 Viper and then the 10x40 Conquest and see if I can tell the difference other than the Conquest having a tad more FOV over the Viper.

Click to expand...

Well, I think I can frame my personal preferences like this. For me 6x is the lower borderline of enough magnification. I like 7x a little better, which I really can't tell from 6.5x, but I can see a little difference there from 6x. Going to 8x I again have trouble seeing much difference. The 8x image does look a little bigger, but I like the depth perception increase afforded by 6.5-7x, which makes 6.5-7 vs 8x sort of a wash for me. My maximum limit for hand held is 10x. I can hold that steady enough, so that is not yet an issue. What has always held me back from more use of 10x is mirage distortion as much as anything. There have been days afield where I have had lots better luck with lower powers. Now I can see that 10x images do look bigger than 8x. But if this makes any sense I really can't say I think I can catch much more detail. Having said that, there are those cool clear. crisp days when reaching for distance that a 10x is a nice thing to have. Where the 10x detail increase works best for me is close in. So the wildcard for me is really 8.5x. It seems to give a bigger image compared to 7x, and nearly as much image size to my eye as 10x. So in an ideal world I'd like a compact (more so than the ZEN ED 2) 7x30ish and what I'd really like in a Prime HD is an 8.5x43, but since that does not seem to be in the cards, the 10x Prime may catch my eye. When I was communicating with Charles securing price for the Prime, I really made a case for 7x, 8.5x and 10x Prime HD models. I had lots of luck there.

Thanks for the reply Steve. 8.5 does seem to straddle the fence well. In my case w/Viper though the FOV as mentioned is a tad smaller than the 10x40 Conquest & I see more detail for a ways w/10X. The 50mm vs ABK prism in a 40 is about a wash & they both are on the heavy side though the Conquest is smaller.

I can't say the 10x40 is worth twice the price, yet I can see where others might be so inclined. I can't say it isn't worth twice either. I will say that looking @ the same FOV @ 1.5x more is better than looking at 1.5X less, but I only realize that through comparision.

Oh, for the record I don't see the squirrel @ 77 yds inside the knothole unassisted through double pane glass.

I notice that even on the dark trunk hickory the void of the black hole that the gray squirrel is masking.

Hmm, Steve's post got me to thinking....

What is to say that Zen Ray won't follow the other companies and introduce a "30-ish" binocular in the Prime lineup next year? It would most likely be the usual 8x32/10x32 combination but a 6.5x32, 8x32, 10x32 combination would work just as well.

Who's to say the 8x42 isn't actually closer to 8.5x? Not a direct reference to ZR, but over the years some companies have fudged a mite extra. I suppose in an effort to boost the view over the competition in a SxS.

I can appreciate Charles trying to keep cost & inventory to a minimum whilst trying to appeal to the majority. Also, w/field flattener in this 8/10x42 line it does not go unnoticed that some, whom cannot afford a full sized alpha, might well be lured by the modest price; dependent on reviews.

W/prices going through the roof(s) it would seem a bit of the 30/32 draw is lower price. Certainly not for everyone, yet some justify pulling the trigger on the smaller alphas by the money saved over full size.

However, if 8.5x44 is the holy grail of birding magnification, granted though in a porro, then why not? Then, if Prime HD wished to be a birding/hunting bin, way not top it off w/10.5x56?

I'm sure It's an ordeal in juggling. On one hand they wish to conform to proven "industry standards" 8/10x42, yet on the other they try to stay on the cutting edge of technology offering ED & field flattener on a budget.

You cannot realistically compare the Prime HD to the deuce grand & up 30/32 alphas, but when the regular price is a third less it does warrant investigation.

The Prime HD 8x42 wide FOV is the ZR model that needs to be scrutinized by the all binz bois. A mediocre result wouldn't necessarily hurt the Hyundai/Kia of the bin world though a positive review of build/performance for a thrifty price would definitely add to the spotty resume.

Come on Primo Grande. Step up to the plate, take a swat and show us what ya got muchacho. Of course, if you really don't have any heat you can continue the waltz w/knuckleball and sidearm.