perterra
Well-known member
Field of view isnt that important to me, I prefer the Monarch 5 over the Monarch 7. Ergos are more comfortable, which I find more important than FOV.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Zeiss Terra ED: First Look (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ceasar
- Start date
Field of view isnt that important to me, I prefer the Monarch 5 over the Monarch 7. Ergos are more comfortable, which I find more important than FOV.
Interesting, I thought EVERYBODY liked a bigger FOV in general. If the ergos were equal on the Monarch 5 and 7 would you still prefer the Monarch 5?
perterra
Well-known member
Everything else the same, then field of view is a bonus. Ease of view is more important than field of view to me, 330 to 370 or so is fine. You can get a FOV too small no doubt, but to me 330 is fine if the rest of the glass is easy to use (eye relief, focus speed and tactile feel are just as important to me).
As a friend has told me, reality is relative, everyones reality is different.
As a friend has told me, reality is relative, everyones reality is different.
This is exactly why there is no perfect 'best in the world' binocular: because we all have differing requirements.
For me, FOV is quite important because we visit the Scottish islands so much where spotting re-surfacing birds, whales and otters that have dived and might come up almost anywhere is so important. I also use bins for surveying boggy ground for flowers and FOV is a big help here.
This doesn't mean I prioritise FOV above ease of view, definition and handling, but it does mean FOV is up there.
Lee
For me, FOV is quite important because we visit the Scottish islands so much where spotting re-surfacing birds, whales and otters that have dived and might come up almost anywhere is so important. I also use bins for surveying boggy ground for flowers and FOV is a big help here.
This doesn't mean I prioritise FOV above ease of view, definition and handling, but it does mean FOV is up there.
Lee
By ergos do you mean ease of use?
Eye relief affects ease of use.
If you want a wider FOV and you want to keep the prices down you will have to compromise in most cases with shorter eye relief. The 8x42 Terra ED has 18mm of ER and a 375' FOV. It also has 38 happy campers who bought one from Eagle Optics and gave them 5 Star ratings!
http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/zeiss/zeiss-terra-ed-8x42-binocular
Consider these Monarch binoculars. The Monarch 7 ATB 8x42 has 17.1mm ER and 420' FOV and costs $100.00 more than the Terra ED. The Monarch 3 ATB 8x42 has 24.1 mm ER and 330' FOV and costs $220.00. The Monarch 5 8x42 has 19.5 ER and 330' FOV and costs $150.00.
Swarovski's SVs have both long eye relief and flat fields with wide FOVs but to do this they ended up costing about 2000 bucks more than the Monarchs and the Terra EDs we are discussing here.
Bob
kkokkolis
Περίεργο&#
Many of these binoculars, all American, some Japanese and even Swarovski and Leica aren't available here (they sell ornaments and cameras respectively though) but Zeiss are, from Terra to Victory, and that is a very serious advantage. Even with Nikons you usually find mainly the cheaper ones.
I find Terra great. I would ask for a bit better color correction, 60-66 AFOV and elinination of spikes on bright lights, but I wouldn't pay 1000 € more for that.
I find Terra great. I would ask for a bit better color correction, 60-66 AFOV and elinination of spikes on bright lights, but I wouldn't pay 1000 € more for that.
Hermann
Well-known member
Terra: Made in China, optics are ok, but nothing special. I'd call the optics of the 8x42 and the 10x42 rather mediocre myself.
Conquest HD: Made in Germany (that's what it says on the bins, even though many suspect they're at least partly made in Japan). Rather good optics, not quite in the premium class, but closer than the price would suggest.
Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
Only if the quality of the image in the centre is excellent, and that includes glare resistance and so on. Same with flat-field optics: I've got no problem at all with flat-field optics, but ONLY if the image in the centre is excellent.
That's one of the reasons why I didn't buy an SV 8x32 a couple of months ago. Too much glare for my liking, and not just in difficult lighting conditions.
Hermann
I have some Terra 8x42 and Conquest 8x32. I find the Conquests superior in every way but one. The eyepieces adjust much better in the Terras. Optically, it's not even close. The Terras are sharp enough but have a slightly yellow cast to them. The Conquests have excellent optics that are color neutral.
That said, it's the Terras I keep in my vehicle.
Absolutely and without a doubt.
Conquest HD 8x32 is definitely superior to Terra ED 8x32 and is worth spending the extra money on, but both are excellent value for money and probably the Terra is a little bit better value for money than the Conquest. That isn't a contradiction by the way and you have probably noticed with many products that you have to pay more and more for smaller and smaller improvements, because those smaller improvements are harder and harder to achieve.
Lee
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
You would be right, unless that ''everybody'' was you, and the bins were the Zeiss SF's..........
brocknroller
porromaniac
Hermann,
Have you tried the 8x32 Terra ED? Better resolution than the 8x42 model. Someone said that, which intrigued me about this model, and now that I've compared the two models side by side, I can confirm that the 8x32 betters the 8x42 in "apparent sharpness" (to borrow another "Frankism"). I don't have a resolution chart to put up the numbers, but to my eyes, the 8x32 is "sharper." It's bigger brother does some other things better, but in resolution the nod goes to the 8x32.
Having seen what Zeiss can do at the low end, I'd like to see how the Conquest HDs stack up. That's as high as I can jump. Never say never, but it's very unlikely that even if my pockets were jingling that I would pay $2000+ for any pair of binoculars. Been too spoiled by the SE and EII. Premium optics at non-premium prices.
Brock
