BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
I haven't mentioned every binocular I have owned on Bird Forum. In my experience most 8x and 10x's from the same brand and model perform pretty similar when it comes to glare control. I always test my binoculars for glare control but not always side by side but my memory is pretty good in most cases and the two best binoculars I have ever used for glare control are the Canon 10x42 IS-L and the Nikon 8x32 SE. Have you ever tried a Canon 10x42 IS-L against a Zeiss Conquest HD? The Conquest HD is good and better than say the SV 8x32 but it was not as good as the Canon. Try them sometime.
Dennis ... Thanks for the response.
Your answer concerning your experience with the Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD is rather open ended so I take that to mean you have never owned one and most likely have not used one.
Yes, I have experience with both the Canon 10X42 L IS and the Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD, owning one of each. I find it difficult comparing glare control with just one side by side comparison. I have found that binocular A may show some glare characteristics in a certain situation whereas binocular B does not, then a few minutes later, in a different viewing situation, it is just the opposite. For me, I need to use the binocular over a period of time to gain a general idea of how it handles stray light. So far, both the Canon and the Zeiss do a very good job of this. I have not seen anything yet to determine that one is better than the other in this regard.
At the end of your comments you said "The Conquest HD is good and better than say the SV 8x32 but it was not as good as the Canon". Which specific Conquest HD is this?
We are discussing the 10X42 model of the Canon IS series. It appears you are doing an apples to oranges comparision of the 8X32 Conquest HD to the 10X42 Canon. You are basing this on memory from several years ago concerning a binocular that you gave a big thumbs up and did not mention any glare issues that I can recall.
It then seems you are making a leap in faith that the Conquest 10X42 and 8X42 handle glare the same as the 8X32, then conclude that the Canon handles glare better than any of the Conquests. (Again, we are discussing the 10X42.) This is just pure speculation on your part yet your statements come across as if they are based on actual observation and this can easily give a wrong impression.
So, getting back to the original question, what specific experience do you have with a Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD, the power of this discussion?
If you have not owned a Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42, then I doubt that you have had any extensive field experience with it. Therefore, I have a hard time accepting your conclusion that the Canon handles glare better than the Zeiss. You do have extensive field experience with the Canon so I have no problem with your conclusion that it is not a "glare monster" (term from your old posts ). However your conclusion that the Canon handles glare better than the Zeiss Conquest (implying the 10X42 HD) makes no sense to me since it appears you have not done any kind of comparison. I take your conclusion as speculation. That is fine so long as it is represented as such.
I have to agree with David that one can not necessarily conclude one power in a model line will exhibit the same characteristics as another power in the same line. I have seen it go both ways. There is no way of knowing for sure until someone checks it out.
You mentioned that you "always test my binoculars for glare control ". How exactly do you do that?
David has had extensive field experience with both the Canon 10X42 and the Conquest HD 10X42. He has concluded that the Conquest handles glare just fine based on actual observation. His findings are consistent with what I have observed so far. I therefore put much more credence in David's actual obervastions than your speculations.
The fact that the Canon handles glare well stands on it's own. It is not necessary to post negative speculation on another product in order to promote your product du jour.