It hadn't occurred to me, but now that you mention it, it rings true. I will compare them and report back.
-
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.
New Zeiss Conquest HD (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter garymh
- Start date
It hadn't occurred to me, but now that you mention it, it rings true. I will compare them and report back.
Oh, the Zeiss. The Nikons are some of the most accessible binoculars I've used. For all day viewing, preferred. My nickname for them is "The Big Easy".
I like them as a duo because they are so different. The Zeiss are, well, more German, precise; the Nikons are like an old pair of really good running shoes. Both are a real pleasure to use mechanically, though I actually think the Zeiss build quality is slightly better. The waterproof aspect of the Zeiss will make them great for winter here in Seattle. The Nikon image is a little warmer and less true. The Zeiss coatings to me are spot on in accuracy. I do a lot of cycling and like to have a pair in the handlebar bag and the Zeiss are great for that.
I didn't mention it, but using the eye cup extenders is critical, for me at least. I use them one click up, and they are fine, just. They do have a second notch; don't know if you noticed that, it took me a while to figure out they'd go out further.
Interesting comment about the FL's, I haven't looked through them.
Not only that, they also have a third step. As i received the Conquest HD i was very impressed by the image but i suffered so much black outs that i wanted to send them back. A friend wanted to compare them against the 10x42 Conquest HD before they went back. We met the other day and he had already the 10x42 on the shelf. In the first moment i noticed that the eyecups stand out a lot more than in my 8x32 HD. That was the moment i figured out that i could twist them 2 more times. And that was also the KO for the blackouts :king:
Every new step reduces the black outs more and more. In the first it is almost useless for me. The second step works a lot better but still some black outs here and there. With the third step al black outs are gone.
I know that sounds embarrasing. But i never had any twist out eyecup bino before. And it needed a bit more strenght from the first to the second step. So in the first moent i thought that you can not twist them out any further.
Last edited:
That's funny, that was my experience too. I didn't want to break them, and then I actually read the manual, and saw that they extend further than one click. Been using them all week before I figured it out. It was sort of like, "aha!".
And when you turn them even further, the unscrewing of the eyecups sets in. So you cannot do anything really wrong by turning them further up.
BUT, when I sometimes turn from zero position to first or second click-position the unscrewing of the eyecup starts already. A little annoying!
chartwell99
Well-known member
Unfortunately, you are spot on. The 10x glasses need an additional 6mm for the eyecups.The returned mine (10 x 42) as unusable.
idaho john
Well-known member
That was an issue for me as well... With the 8x42 Conquest HD, I could not get a good fit, although the 10 power was actually easier to use. The 8x32 Conquest HD was easier to get placed than the 8x42 but was still finicky - too much so. The FL series are/were easier to get good placement for me. Less struggle for a full view.
Moving the eye cups out didn't work for me as I wear glasses (but I did try that in an effort to "make" the Conquest work for me). Conversely, the Terra ED was easier to get good eye placement. I have not had the pleasure of trying the HT binocular yet and I don't want to for fear of the "I want," or worse "have to have," behaviors.
John
Last edited:
I believe that the Conquest HD 8 x 42 and the Terra ED 8 x 42 both have 18mm eye relief and 4 position eye cups. The 8 x 42 Victory HT has 16mm eye relief.
I haven't tried the Conquest but if there are eye placement issues and blackouts for some people between it and the Terra ED it may be for a reason other than eye relief. Perhaps it is the design of the eye pieces as is the case with the Nikon EII and Nikon SE binoculars.
The Conquest and the Terra ED closely resemble each other in most respects. The Conquest is 1 inch longer and about 2.5 Oz. heavier. They both have very close focus. Conquest focuses 6.5'. One foot more than the Terra ED.
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/nature/en_us/binoculars.html
Bob
I haven't tried the Conquest but if there are eye placement issues and blackouts for some people between it and the Terra ED it may be for a reason other than eye relief. Perhaps it is the design of the eye pieces as is the case with the Nikon EII and Nikon SE binoculars.
The Conquest and the Terra ED closely resemble each other in most respects. The Conquest is 1 inch longer and about 2.5 Oz. heavier. They both have very close focus. Conquest focuses 6.5'. One foot more than the Terra ED.
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/nature/en_us/binoculars.html
Bob
There must be more to it than just the eye relief. I think so too.
Victory HT 8x42 and FL 8x32 were the easiest to use (haven´t tested FL 8x42).
Conquest HD 8x32 is ok (but not easy!), Conquest HD 8x42 was the worst, unusable(for me).
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Digging up an old post...
I think it's interesting that the AR objective coating colour on the 42 mm Conquests [yellow-green] differs from the 32 mm [FL-like magenta]. Why would that be?
BTW - the eye-piece AR coating on the 32 mm is this yellow-green colour, very different from the purplish FL. Is it also yellow-green on the 42's?
Pic of 42 mm objective...
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=374532&d=1331945540
Last edited:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
James:
I find the Conquest HD 10x42 has a very magenta reflective AR coating, on
both the objective and ocular lenses.
Jerry
Attachments
brocknroller
porromaniac
This question also arose with the differences in reflected color from the 8.5x42 SV ELs and the 8x32 SV ELs. I'll let our archivist mooreorless dig that out. Dale or someone from Swaro answered that the coatings are matched to the glass and lenses, and that's the why there was a difference. Rather than explain things, this made things more confusing, because then people were asking if the 8x32 used different glass than the 8.5x model!
According to Piergiovanni from binomania, the color reflected off the lenses is the color that is being transmitted the least. If you look at at an FL light curve graph, the steep fall off in the red/magenta side of the spectrum seems to confirm Pier's assertion.
OTOH, I've read comments on CN, saying that the reflections have no bearing on what part of the spectrum is being transmitted but it depends on the metal compounds used in the coatings.
Maybe Henry or Holger can give a more definitive answer as to relationship between the colors being reflected off the lenses and the light transmission.
It was certainly true with the pre-HD Meoptas that the 8x32 model did employ different coatings (more neutral) than the full sized models (slight yellow bias), but that was because Meopta was aiming the 8x and 10x32 models at birders, who desire more neutral color, while the full sized models were marketed to hunters, who like a slight yellow to cut through the din of winter.
But reading the reports of the Meopta HDs and the SLC HDs, both Meopta and Swaro seem to have come around to the design philosophy that a more neutral color spectrum works better for everybody, and that the day of the yellow tint is over.
<B>
According to Piergiovanni from binomania, the color reflected off the lenses is the color that is being transmitted the least. If you look at at an FL light curve graph, the steep fall off in the red/magenta side of the spectrum seems to confirm Pier's assertion.
OTOH, I've read comments on CN, saying that the reflections have no bearing on what part of the spectrum is being transmitted but it depends on the metal compounds used in the coatings.
Maybe Henry or Holger can give a more definitive answer as to relationship between the colors being reflected off the lenses and the light transmission.
It was certainly true with the pre-HD Meoptas that the 8x32 model did employ different coatings (more neutral) than the full sized models (slight yellow bias), but that was because Meopta was aiming the 8x and 10x32 models at birders, who desire more neutral color, while the full sized models were marketed to hunters, who like a slight yellow to cut through the din of winter.
But reading the reports of the Meopta HDs and the SLC HDs, both Meopta and Swaro seem to have come around to the design philosophy that a more neutral color spectrum works better for everybody, and that the day of the yellow tint is over.
<B>
Last edited:
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Thanks Jerry. That would suggest that [either] there are two versions of the 42 mm Conquests [magenta or yellowish AR objectives] or Zeiss changed them after introduction.[?]
Also, thanks for all that Brock. I don't think I can buy the idea that AR colour is the colour most reflected, as the HT is orange / magenta but shows no such fall-off in the red.
brocknroller
porromaniac
I'm not sure it is either, however, as I recall from Gijs' numbers for the FL and HT, and the light graph that someone developed for their respective light transmission curves, the two bins were nearly identical in their curves, with the HT's line higher overall in light transmission and maybe a bit higher in the red, but it was not a "bump" higher like the EDG's or the SE's light curve. Again, I will call upon our archivist to dig out that graph, because unlike Douglas Quaid, I do not have "Total Recall."
<B>
