Which 8x32: Victory FL or New Conquest HD ? (1 Viewer)

kwikstaart · Oct 3, 2012

kabsetz said:
I have been telling people about the spring-loading of the Swaro binoculars on these forums for years, but it has not made a dent in the beliefs of those who prefer to consider this a QC-problem. I hope this time it would stick. In that spirit, I'll just add that the reason for having this spring in the system is not to annoy users or to help distinguish which direction one is turning the knob, but to keep any slack from developing in the moving focussing lens assemblies. It is not uncommon in other roof-prism binoculars with internal focussing that there is such a slack, and the problem that comes from it is not so much the feel of slack when turning the wheel, but the fact that with uneven amounts of slack between the right and left tubes, you can never get the diopter setting to stay exactly right. The side with more slack will always lag a bit behind the other side when focussing in one direction, and may be a bit ahead when focussing in the opposite direction, and this will cause a diopter setting discrepancy depending on which side of focus you came from.

Personally, I think that Swarovski's solution is a good engineering decision and works as intended, and the "unwanted side-effect" of uneven resistance is a small price to pay for knowing that the system will function properly for a very long time.

Kimmo

I understand, but still how good this design of SV may be, still some customers don't like the feeling. And, is there a possibility that the smooth Nikon solution is perfect als well but with the downside that sometimes the diopter drifts a tiny bit like mine? Maybe à bit far fetched but to me the SV-explanation sounds à bit too easy.

brocknroller · Oct 3, 2012

Gijs van Ginkel said:
The difference in turning resistance between both turning directions of the Swarovski SV-EL can easily be understood by looking at the cut-away of the instrument (for Dutch readers, there is one on display at House of Outdoor in Maarssen, and I think als one in the shop of the Dutch Bird Protectin Association, but from the last one I am not 100 % sure). There is a spring which is not giving resistance when turning in one direction and when turning in the other direction one has to turn against the resistance of this spring. So this is not a problem, but a consequence of the construction.

Gijs,

Thank you! for that explanation, now I can prove to the Black Knight of Absam that this issue is not "Ex nihilo," but something that comes from the way Swaro focusers are constructed.

Even though the cause has been identified, the uneven resistance is not a problem for everyone. I "bird" mostly at close range in tight woodland where birds are always flying around and you need a quick focuser (and/or great depth of field) to follow them. I turn the focuser knob a lot so a stiff or stiff in one direction focuser makes focusing tiresome.

Also, not all Swaro focusers have the same amount of resistance. Some SLC and EL focusers turn smoothly in both directions despite the spring, some turn smoothly only in one direction, and some are stiff or "coarse" right out of the box or they might become stiffer after years of use.

So depending on the sample, you might get a smooth one, a coarse one, or one that turns smoothly only in one direction. And it might or might not bother you, depending on your birding style and how important a smooth focuser is to you.

This spring set up probably worked fine when hunters were Swaro's main customers, because they don't do a lot of focusing and they focus mostly at long range where depth perception is good even in roofs.

However, now that Swaro has captured a portion of the biding market, I think it's time for the Wizards of Absam to go back to the drawing board and redesign the focuser (at no extra charge to their customers since this is something they should have addressed a while ago, i.e., it's not an "upgrade" but rather "catching up" with the smooth focusers of other major birding optics brands).

<B>

kwikstaart · Oct 3, 2012

Wonderfully said, Brock! By the way: my SV 8,5x42 focusser is evenly smooth in both directions, nothing gritty compaired to my brothers' 10x. In regard to the above, should I consider it broken?

Holger Merlitz · Oct 5, 2012

Well, I got the feeling that the recent rush toward fast and easy focusing has already gone a bit too far. A binocular, particularly one of the high performance class, is a precision instrument and relies on an accurate and reproducible focus. Why spending much money on the best optical design, the best glass and coatings, when at the same time the focusing accuracy is going down. Perhaps, this isn't apparent when following a bird in a hurry, but in the night under the stars I have frequently noticed that older generation binoculars made it easier to find the exact focal point. With a modern "fast and easy" focuser, one tends to overshoot, to require several attempts before pinning down the optimum focus, and the slightest inattentional touch knocks the wheel out of focus again so you have to start afresh. In this way, it is hardly possible to make use of a superb optics, because the instrument remains in a less than optimum focus most of the time.

Cheers,
Holger

Troubador · Oct 5, 2012

Holger Merlitz said:
Well, I got the feeling that the recent rush toward fast and easy focusing has already gone a bit too far. A binocular, particularly one of the high performance class, is a precision instrument and relies on an accurate and reproducible focus. Why spending much money on the best optical design, the best glass and coatings, when at the same time the focusing accuracy is going down. Perhaps, this isn't apparent when following a bird in a hurry, but in the night under the stars I have frequently noticed that older generation binoculars made it easier to find the exact focal point. With a modern "fast and easy" focuser, one tends to overshoot, to require several attempts before pinning down the optimum focus, and the slightest inattentional touch knocks the wheel out of focus again so you have to start afresh. In this way, it is hardly possible to make use of a superb optics, because the instrument remains in a less than optimum focus most of the time.

Cheers,
Holger

I think Zeiss have acknowledged this by moving from the 1.1 rotations of the FL focusser to 1.5 for the HT.

Lee

james holdsworth · Oct 5, 2012

Holger Merlitz said:
Well, I got the feeling that the recent rush toward fast and easy focusing has already gone a bit too far. A binocular, particularly one of the high performance class, is a precision instrument and relies on an accurate and reproducible focus. Why spending much money on the best optical design, the best glass and coatings, when at the same time the focusing accuracy is going down. Perhaps, this isn't apparent when following a bird in a hurry, but in the night under the stars I have frequently noticed that older generation binoculars made it easier to find the exact focal point. With a modern "fast and easy" focuser, one tends to overshoot, to require several attempts before pinning down the optimum focus, and the slightest inattentional touch knocks the wheel out of focus again so you have to start afresh. In this way, it is hardly possible to make use of a superb optics, because the instrument remains in a less than optimum focus most of the time.

Cheers,
Holger

If you are using it for birding and bugs, it is entirely practical and useful. If it is astronomy, maybe not so much. The set purpose of the bin needs to match its capabilities and a fast focus bin [sold to birders that desire that attribute] does so.

Chosun Juan · Oct 5, 2012

Chosun Juan · Oct 5, 2012

ronh said:
Kimmo,
I never noticed. You need to figure out how to make your posts come out in red! But that is a very smart observation. Now, people should complain if their SV DOESN'T exhibit the dreaded cw ccw difference!

.....Ron

ronh, DONE! :t:

kabsetz said:
I have been telling people about the spring-loading of the Swaro binoculars on these forums for years, but it has not made a dent in the beliefs of those who prefer to consider this a QC-problem. I hope this time it would stick. In that spirit, I'll just add that the reason for having this spring in the system is not to annoy users or to help distinguish which direction one is turning the knob, but to keep any slack from developing in the moving focussing lens assemblies. It is not uncommon in other roof-prism binoculars with internal focussing that there is such a slack, and the problem that comes from it is not so much the feel of slack when turning the wheel, but the fact that with uneven amounts of slack between the right and left tubes, you can never get the diopter setting to stay exactly right. The side with more slack will always lag a bit behind the other side when focussing in one direction, and may be a bit ahead when focussing in the opposite direction, and this will cause a diopter setting discrepancy depending on which side of focus you came from.

Personally, I think that Swarovski's solution is a good engineering decision and works as intended, and the "unwanted side-effect" of uneven resistance is a small price to pay for knowing that the system will function properly for a very long time.

Kimmo

The benefits of eliminating focusing hysteresis can not be understated.

Collimation, and resolution tolerances being Ok, it is probably THE most important element of obtaining a 'sharp', 'crisp', image ..... the pain in your butt from continual 'hunting' (or 'rocking') around a focus point to get a clear image is vastly underestimated, and hidden in the general focus 'slop'.

Chosun :gh:

brocknroller · Oct 5, 2012

kwikstaart said:
Wonderfully said, Brock! By the way: my SV 8,5x42 focusser is evenly smooth in both directions, nothing gritty compaired to my brothers' 10x. In regard to the above, should I consider it broken?

As Gijs pointed out with the spring design, the difference in focuser tension from one direction to the other is a consequence of the way Swaro focusers were designed (not because Bob is right handed

.

Your brother's Swaro focuser isn't "broken," it's just not a smooth turning sample like yours. Whether or not he should send it for tweaking or replacement depends on how much it bothers him.

Has he tried your sample, and if so, has he noticed the difference? If he's using his Swaro for hunting rather than birding, or if doesn't do a lot of close in birding (which he probably wouldn't with the 10x42), it might be something he can live with.

The mystery that remains is why there is "sample variation" in Swaro focusers such that your brother's sample has a "gritty" focuser and yours turns smoothly in both directions. I've experienced this same variation with Swaro focusers myself, which is what led me to post about it. To see if two samples out of three with focusers that were harder to turn in one direction than the other was an "anomaly" or if this was something others were experiencing as well. At this point, after reading dozens of complaints along the same lines, sample variation seems to be fairly common with Swaro focusers. One member tried three samples in a store, two had focusers that were harder to turn in one direction than the other, and one turned smoothly in both directions like yours.

Could there be variation in spring tension due to manufacturing variances or using different suppliers? Could it be the way the springs are installed that varies? Who knows? I have no idea, but Swaro better find out, because this issue has gone from one lone wolf crying out in the wilderness to a commonplace complaint.

With more and more birders buying Swaros - even the SLC now - I can;t see how such a consumer oriented company like Swaro could ignore these complaints and returns for repairs for this problem.

If a company like Zen Ray can quickly and effectively respond to complaints about something people didn't like such as the veiling glare and create a fix, surely the Wizards of Absam, who have much more experience with optics, could redesign the focuser to turn smoothly and consistently from sample to sample.

Like Holger said, at this price point, you should expect the focusers to have the same quality as all other aspects of the binoculars.

I think his example of having to "hunt" for the best focus on stars shouldn't be dismissed, I had the same problem with two sample 8x32 LXs with fast focusers at medium birding range.

Yes, as the member who responded to his post said, this works well at close distances for bugs and butterflies, but if you want a bug and butterfly bin, buy a Papilio or a close focusing 8x32 roof.

Asking one bin to do it all is bound to lead to compromises that aren't going to please everyone.

My philosophy is that full sized birding bins should be for general birding, optimized with a focusing speed and minimum focusing distance for the average distances that people watch birds. That's how they used to be, and you didn't hear these kinds of complaints before.

But then some manufacturer's marketing dept. said, hey, we got to make a focuser and close focus on our full sized bins as fast and close as our midsized bins, and then that drove the competition to follow suit.

But when they did this, they didn't think far enough ahead to figure out what the trade-offs would be in trying to be all things to all people. Well, now we know!

No doubt there are those who like having it all in one bin so they don't have to carry another bin for bugs and butterflies, but because of those folks, everybody else has to pay the "price," both figuratively and literally. To me, that doesn't seem right.

As someone pointed out, Zeiss did respond to this issue by making their HT's focusers a bit slower than their FLs and so did Nikon in moving from the LXL to the EDG.

Perhaps we'll now see this "winding down" of focuser speed (and with it, minimum close focus distance) from other companies and a reversal of the "one bin for everything" trend.

<B>

james holdsworth · Oct 5, 2012

brocknroller said:
As Gijs pointed out with the spring design, the difference in focuser tension from one direction to the other is a consequence of the way Swaro focusers were designed (not because Bob is right handed .

Your brother's Swaro focuser isn't "broken," it's just not a smooth turning sample like yours. Whether or not he should send it for tweaking or replacement depends on how much it bothers him.

Has he tried your sample, and if so, has he noticed the difference? If he's using his Swaro for hunting rather than birding, or if doesn't do a lot of close in birding (which he probably wouldn't with the 10x42), it might be something he can live with.

The mystery that remains is why there is "sample variation" in Swaro focusers such that your brother's sample has a "gritty" focuser and yours turns smoothly in both directions. I've experienced this same variation with Swaro focusers myself, which is what led me to post about it. To see if two samples out of three with focusers that were harder to turn in one direction than the other was an "anomaly" or if this was something others were experiencing as well. At this point, after reading dozens of complaints along the same lines, sample variation seems to be fairly common with Swaro focusers. One member tried three samples in a store, two had focusers that were harder to turn in one direction than the other, and one turned smoothly in both directions like yours.

Could there be variation in spring tension due to manufacturing variances or using different suppliers? Could it be the way the springs are installed that varies? Who knows? I have no idea, but Swaro better find out, because this issue has gone from one lone wolf crying out in the wilderness to a commonplace complaint.

With more and more birders buying Swaros - even the SLC now - I can;t see how such a consumer oriented company like Swaro could ignore these complaints and returns for repairs for this problem.

If a company like Zen Ray can quickly and effectively respond to complaints about something people didn't like such as the veiling glare and create a fix, surely the Wizards of Absam, who have much more experience with optics, could redesign the focuser to turn smoothly and consistently from sample to sample.

Like Holger said, at this price point, you should expect the focusers to have the same quality as all other aspects of the binoculars.

I think his example of having to "hunt" for the best focus on stars shouldn't be dismissed, I had the same problem with two sample 8x32 LXs with fast focusers at medium birding range.

Yes, as the member who responded to his post said, this works well at close distances for bugs and butterflies, but if you want a bug and butterfly bin, buy a Papilio or a close focusing 8x32 roof.

Asking one bin to do it all is bound to lead to compromises that aren't going to please everyone.

My philosophy is that full sized birding bins should be for general birding, optimized with a focusing speed and minimum focusing distance for the average distances that people watch birds. That's how they used to be, and you didn't hear these kinds of complaints before.

But then some manufacturer's marketing dept. said, hey, we got to make a focuser and close focus on our full sized bins as fast and close as our midsized bins, and then that drove the competition to follow suit.

But when they did this, they didn't think far enough ahead to figure out what the trade-offs would be in trying to be all things to all people. Well, now we know!

No doubt there are those who like having it all in one bin so they don't have to carry another bin for bugs and butterflies, but because of those folks, everybody else has to pay the "price," both figuratively and literally. To me, that doesn't seem right.

As someone pointed out, Zeiss did respond to this issue by making their HT's focusers a bit slower than their FLs and so did Nikon in moving from the LXL to the EDG.

Perhaps we'll now see this "winding down" of focuser speed (and with it, minimum close focus distance) from other companies and a reversal of the "one bin for everything" trend.

<B>

Brock, although many may not need or want a fast-focus / all - purpose bin., I for one do and I'm sure there are many more like me that want that versatility.

My FL has a focus speed and precision that really can't be beat - no hunting, superb clinical precision, fast and very close focus. It can be done and I wouldn't expect less with subsequent models. If the HT is slower, it is less useful for me.

RJM · Oct 6, 2012

Chosun Juan said:
...Collimation, and resolution tolerances being Ok, it is probably THE most important element of obtaining a 'sharp', 'crisp', image ..... the pain in your butt from continual 'hunting' (or 'rocking') around a focus point to get a clear image is vastly underestimated, and hidden in the general focus 'slop'.

Outside of any mechanical issues, the primary cause of focus "slop" is spherical aberration. Wide-angle binoculars with sub-5mm exit pupils are particulary prone to this.

Troubador · Oct 6, 2012

1) Swaro Focusser

OK the spring is there to prevent 'slack' or 'free play'. My 2003 EL had a smooth focusser, with just a tiny difference between cw and ccw and no slack. When it was new. Inside a year it had developed slack, grittiness and the difference between cw and ccw was very significant. Out of the box it had felt great. Within a year it was awful. Returning it to the factory resulted in a vast improvement but not to the point where it felt the same as when brand new. I swapped it for a Zeiss FL and never looked back.

The point here is that what appeared to be a near perfect focusser out of the box mutated into something horrible over a few months.

2) HT Focussing Speed

The modest slowing of focussing speed from the 1.1 of the FL to 1.5 for the HT is not dramatic but I think is a balanced improvement. There will always be situations where your focusser would have been better if a bit faster or a bit slower. I use my bins for many purposes including bugs (dragonflies and butterflies mostly) and find fast focussing is needed for them flying, but slower focussing better if they perch in dense vegetation (and they do...). In my view the HT is a better balance overall than the FL and a few months ago I wouldn't have believed I could possibly say such a thing.

Lee

shorebirder · Oct 13, 2012

Does anyone know if there has been modifications to the newer Zeiss FL 8x32 focussing. I have an older pair with the squarer cut eyecups and a newer pair (lutotec) with the rounder cut eyecups. I do seem to think that the older pair has a more presice focus with less rocking or hunting required to achieve optimum focus. Am I just imagining this (I have tried two pairs of newer Lutotec and found the same).

On both pairs of lutotec I seemed to be struggling to set the diopter correctly, constantly worring that it was not set right. Not so on the older pair. Could this just be individual variation in the bins?

Dave

Troubador · Oct 13, 2012

shorebirder said:
Does anyone know if there has been modifications to the newer Zeiss FL 8x32 focussing. I have an older pair with the squarer cut eyecups and a newer pair (lutotec) with the rounder cut eyecups. I do seem to think that the older pair has a more presice focus with less rocking or hunting required to achieve optimum focus. Am I just imagining this (I have tried two pairs of newer Lutotec and found the same).

On both pairs of lutotec I seemed to be struggling to set the diopter correctly, constantly worring that it was not set right. Not so on the older pair. Could this just be individual variation in the bins?

Dave

Hi Dave

Don't worry, you have just contracted a mild form of Diopter Anxiety. Seriously, this gets to us all at some time or other and it disappears as mysteriously as it arrives. I had this last year with my 2004 8x42 FLs and of course they are perfectly OK and my anxiety which I would have sworn at the time was well founded has disappeared.

My Lotutec-loaded FL 8x32s have the same dioter setting as the 42s and are just fine.

Other factors can affect your vision as well so its not always correct to blame the bins.

Set your diopter using a strongly marked image (brick wall, cliff face, poster hoarding etc) in good light, about 100 ft away and leave the setting alone thereafter and see how you get on after a month or two of using it in all sorts of lighting.

Good luck

Lee

stu_r · Oct 13, 2012

For what its worth, I have been using a set of Lotutec FL 8x32s for the last 3-4 years and have never felt the need to change them. They have been ideal in all manner of different situations and image quality has more than met my hopes/expectations

Steve Babbs · Oct 20, 2014

I'm bumping this as I'm pondering this choice and wondering if anyone has any more thoughts on the pair of them, maybe concentrating a little lesson the focus knob. I will try them out before I choose but to really get an impression it'd be good to hear from people who have tried in a variety of lights.

I can afford the Victory (although I've set the £1200 they cost as my upper limit) but any saved money can go towards foreign birding trips.

Troubador · Oct 21, 2014

Steve Babbs said:
I'm bumping this as I'm pondering this choice and wondering if anyone has any more thoughts on the pair of them, maybe concentrating a little lesson the focus knob. I will try them out before I choose but to really get an impression it'd be good to hear from people who have tried in a variety of lights.

I can afford the Victory (although I've set the £1200 they cost as my upper limit) but any saved money can go towards foreign birding trips.

Hi Steve

I have used both models extensively and can say they are both superb instruments.

The FL is a bit brighter and has a little more contrast and better control of flare or glare and chromatic aberration, which is noticeable occasionally with the Conquest if your eyes drift off the optical axis. This latter is more likely if you wear spectacles.

None of these things are serious enough for me to describe them as 'things that are wrong' with the Conquest, they just represent the things that a more expensive bin does better.

The Conquest handles better in my opinion but that is a very personal thing and the closer focus is very useful for nature observation.

For the price the Conquest is an absolute bargain, for the price the FL is one of todays top performers.

Lee

Steve Babbs · Oct 21, 2014

Thanks. The better close focus is the main thing that made me consider the Conquest in the first place. I spend a lot of time looking at butterflies and dragonflies. Although both are good, it would be good not to have to step backwards!

Troubador · Oct 21, 2014

Steve Babbs said:
Thanks. The better close focus is the main thing that made me consider the Conquest in the first place. I spend a lot of time looking at butterflies and dragonflies. Although both are good, it would be good not to have to step backwards!

Steve

Conquest is brilliant at close focus. Dragons and Butterflies are a big thing for me too and I have also used them for looking at wildflowers, especially in boggy places where the habitat is sensitive or it is daft to consider laying down.

They also come into their own when looking into rock-pools and freshwater. The closer focus allows a bit more of a perpendicular view into the water, cutting surface reflections and reducing the column of water you are looking through. Great not only for sea creatures but also dragonfly larvae, water beetles, fish etc.

Seriously, if close focus is important to you I would give the Conquests very serious consideration even compared with the FL.

Lee

Alexis Powell · Oct 21, 2014

I know the spec for the 8x32 FL is 6 or 6.5 feet, but for me it is comfortable down to 5 feet. Spec for the Conquest is just under 5 feet. How close, in practice, can you go with the Conquest?

--AP

Which 8x32: Victory FL or New Conquest HD ? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Consulting Biologist

Given to Fly

Given to Fly

porromaniac

Consulting Biologist

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Natural history enthusiast

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread