Zeiss HT doesn't win shootout with... (1 Viewer)

Vespobuteo · Sep 21, 2015

Had some time with the HT 8x42 this weekend and could compared them with Conquest HD and Leica Trinovids, the outcome wasn't quite what I had expected.

The HT:s excel in brightness, they seem almost illuminated. The focus wheel are very nice, fast and precise, but perhaps a bit too fast for my taste. Ergonomics are also nice but a bit odd and perhaps everyone will not like it.

The weak point of HT:s are the small sweet spot and small EP:s (EP glass diameter is actually smaller than the Conquest HD:s) which makes it a bit harder to get a steady image, despite the good ergonomics. Field curvature might come in play here but also DOF and the ease of eye placement. (HT54 are even more tricky here).

Also the Trinovids appeared sharper to me and snapped easier into focus, might be due to better DOF also. The focuser of the Trinovids are quite nice. Precise and perfect resistance.

I didn't see any color cast in the HT:s, though I'm not very sensitive to that. They do seem very neutral to me with good vibrant colors. They also have the lowest CA of the three that will make the image look nice and clean.

Didn't see much CA in the Trinovids either, even though they are said to be non-HD:s, very nicely done by Leica. Even the ER seemed pretty OK for me. It's not just the spec. (15.5mm) it also the eye cup design etc. that makes the ER. So perhaps one should not rule out Leica on ER by default.

For the price the Conquest:s hold up good, but the difference is significant, but so is the price difference. Less than half the price of the HT:s. Trinovids are about 40% more expensive than Conquests but they also feel more alpha to me. And they look nicer. A bit retro but slim and stylish.

Overall it was the Trinovids that was my favorite.
But with better edge sharpness and larger EP:s the HT:s would be a dream, but that is probably quite difficult to achieve with AK-prisms. Even alpha-bins will always be a compromise. You can't get it all in one binocular.

Perhaps it's time for me to get a pair of Leicas again...
:eek!:

kkokkolis · Sep 21, 2015

For the price the Conquest:s hold up good, but the difference is significant, but so is the price difference.

Could you please code the differences between the two Zeiss' in a nutshell? Thank you.

jremmons · Sep 21, 2015

Odd, I found the new Trinovids quite mediocre, handling CA rather poorly for their price and having a narrow field of view and only mediocre "sweet-spot". The central sharpness was good but their CA control did not produce the sharpness I've seen in others that control CA well. The ergonomics were okay, and the construction was true alpha quality.

Vespobuteo · Sep 21, 2015

jremmons said:
Odd, I found the new Trinovids quite mediocre, handling CA rather poorly for their price and having a narrow field of view and only mediocre "sweet-spot". The central sharpness was good but their CA control did not produce the sharpness I've seen in others that control CA well. The ergonomics were okay, and the construction was true alpha quality.

Binomania was quite impressed with them also aparently:

http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/Leica_trinovid8x42/leicatrinovid8x42.php

Maybe you got a bad sample...

Vespobuteo · Sep 21, 2015

kkokkolis said:
Could you please code the differences between the two Zeiss' in a nutshell? Thank you.

The HT:s are a bit better at everything,
they are simply alpha:s, you can feel it,
even before putting them to your eyes,
the quality feel is complete,
(better than SF:s)

if it's worth the extra money depends on what you are after,
from a pure functional perspective
I think the Conquest HD:s are good enough for any birding,

you don't need a Mercedes C-class to go from A to B...a Fiat will do,
but the trip will be more enjoyable...
it's the same with alpha bins,
the level of quality, comfort and satisfaction,

jremmons · Sep 21, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
Binomania was quite impressed with them also aparently:

http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/Leica_trinovid8x42/leicatrinovid8x42.php

Maybe you got a bad sample...

Doubtful, I've tried 3 different samples, a 10x and 8x42 in store and another 8x in the field.for.about 30min while a tour member used my Kowa.

Binomania reviews.are.solid but different eyes see differently. Also, not sure I've ever seen them give a set of binos a negative review.
Justin

Steve C · Sep 21, 2015

This is an excellent illustration of why it is an error to call a review like Tobias did a shootout. Using the term shootout implies there is only one standing when the smoke clears. There can basically be no winner in a review like his. The differences basically come down to various combinations of individual preference.

I think Tobias did a very good comparative evaluation. There is something in it for everybody regardless of their brand preference.

So, who is right? both Tobias and Vespobuteo are. Who is wrong? Neither of them are.

kkokkolis · Sep 21, 2015

I'm happy with my Conquest (and Terra isn't bad either), I was just wondering.
There are a couple of Fiats that would do a more enjoyable trip than a Mercedes C, like the 1/9, unless you meant more comfortable (we would need a Citroen there), luxurious (a Jaguar would do better), or something else. I understand the example though as the "feeling of quality". The Conquest isn't a Fiat in that sense either.

Vespobuteo · Sep 21, 2015

kkokkolis said:
I'm happy with my Conquest (and Terra isn't bad either), I was just wondering.
There are a couple of Fiats that would do a more enjoyable trip than a Mercedes C, like the 1/9, unless you meant more comfortable (we would need a Citroen there), luxurious (a Jaguar would do better), or something else. I understand the example though as the "feeling of quality". The Conquest isn't a Fiat in that sense either.

:t:
I didn't say that the Conquests where like a Fiat,
or the HT:s are C-class,
It was just an example, (And I don't even like cars...)
theres no absolute truth here,
your own prefs, refs and feelings are the only thing that matters,

Vespobuteo · Sep 21, 2015

Steve C said:
This is an excellent illustration of why it is an error to call a review like Tobias did a shootout. Using the term shootout implies there is only one standing when the smoke clears. There can basically be no winner in a review like his. The differences basically come down to various combinations of individual preference.

I think Tobias did a very good comparative evaluation. There is something in it for everybody regardless of their brand preference.

So, who is right? both Tobias and Vespobuteo are. Who is wrong? Neither of them are.

Yep, something like that was my thought,
in the end, it's the personal experience that matters,
no matter how good the specs are on paper,
or what anyone else says,
quality is a complicated beast

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig's_metaphysics_of_Quality

troysufus · Sep 21, 2015

I agree regarding how good the sharpness of the Trinovid is. After comparing the Trinovid with Ultravid HD I could see no difference in the optics so I purchased the Trinovids.

Chosun Juan · Sep 21, 2015

Vespo, one of the things that struck me about the HT's was how much of the field edges seemed sharply in focus, at least in the horizontal - (and I don't think my focal accomodation is extraordinary or anything) - way more than Brock espoused ..... I 'spose I have him to thank for setting the expectations so low, and providing such a wonderful juxtaposition to reality! :eek!: :t:

Chosun :gh:

cycleguy · Sep 22, 2015

jremmons said:
Odd, I found the new Trinovids quite mediocre, handling CA rather poorly for their price and having a narrow field of view and only mediocre "sweet-spot". The central sharpness was good but their CA control did not produce the sharpness I've seen in others that control CA well. The ergonomics were okay, and the construction was true alpha quality.

You are not alone... although I've only had opportunity with them in the store, I've never found myself that impressed. Same holds true for the Swaro Companion. Both of which get frequent mentions of impressive views.

My .02,

CG

Sagittarius · Sep 22, 2015

Most Trinovid reviews I've seen over the past few years have not been very flattering.

kkokkolis · Sep 22, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
:t:
I didn't say that the Conquests where like a Fiat,
or the HT:s are C-class,
It was just an example, (And I don't even like cars...)
theres no absolute truth here,
your own prefs, refs and feelings are the only thing that matters,

It was a nice analogy. They are both tech products that evolve and as a teenager would put a poster of a Maserati in his bedroom I covered my Collins guide with the pic of a HT!

Troubador · Sep 22, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
The HT:s are a bit better at everything,
they are simply alpha:s, you can feel it,
even before putting them to your eyes,
the quality feel is complete,
(better than SF:s)

Two things to bear in mind when picking up a pair of SFs and comparing them to HT:

The weight distribution is so different that SF feels much lighter when actually it is only about 50g lighter. This can give an impression of lack of build quality due to the relative lack of 'heft'.

The rubber armour on SF has 'ribs and grooves' moulded into the underside. This means that the armour is very slightly soft to the touch (I think this feels nice) which can be misinterpreted as the armour being a bit loose. The armour is like this to give better shock absorption in case of the bins being knocked or dropped.

Lee

arran · Sep 22, 2015

HT SF compared

An SF in use now for an intensive birding week together with my wife's SV (2011)
I am extremely satisfied with the recent focus drive of te new SF , especially the micro focusing is very precise and pleasant.
The fact of gravity point lying more to the eye proves its advantage for longer observing sessions , you just get less tired and better holding still!
Extremely good antiglare properties as well , compared to the SV , especially under sunny conditions.
The relative yellowcast of the SF compared with the SV is a fact when comparing the 2 bins though
However , this is not relevant enough for birdwatching in my opinion.
Eg looking to stonechats yesterday in the field with reddish hues and tones , gave not a observable difference while looking at the bird under the same light conditions

Vespobuteo · Sep 23, 2015

arran said:
An SF in use now for an intensive birding week together with my wife's SV (2011)
I am extremely satisfied with the recent focus drive of te new SF , especially the micro focusing is very precise and pleasant.
The fact of gravity point lying more to the eye proves its advantage for longer observing sessions , you just get less tired and better holding still!
Extremely good antiglare properties as well , compared to the SV , especially under sunny conditions.
The relative yellowcast of the SF compared with the SV is a fact when comparing the 2 bins though
However , this is not relevant enough for birdwatching in my opinion.
Eg looking to stonechats yesterday in the field with reddish hues and tones , gave not a observable difference while looking at the bird under the same light conditions

nice to hear that you are happy with the SF,
I have also hard to believe that the warm "bias" would effect the color reproduction in any significant way,

HighNorth · Sep 23, 2015

arran said:
An SF in use now for an intensive birding week together with my wife's SV (2011)
I am extremely satisfied with the recent focus drive of te new SF , especially the micro focusing is very precise and pleasant.

The first two SFs I received in January and March this year had somewhat icky focusers, but the one I received in April (my current one) has a very nice focuser. Very smooth, crisp and accurate. I guess this means they have ironed out the bugs of the first few batches. :smoke:

HN

Rathaus · Oct 4, 2015

Have you tried to sit in a C class?

Vespobuteo said:
you don't need a Mercedes C-class to go from A to B...a Fiat will do,
but the trip will be more enjoyable...

I can't let this Terrible example go...I have tested this new merc...
Have you actually sat in the rear of the new C class? My head has to tilt at 45deg. It was so humorous I have a photo of it.
Or the claustrophobic front? Cramped like a lotus Europa. To their credit, Merc has worked hard to lift their quality control recently, (the only thing worse I can think of would be a fiat!)....However A Suzuki swift is far more roomy and comfortable. And it doesn't have an embarrassing orange peel paint job either. Holds value better too. Won't break down..etc

From experience, binoculars are sadly one of the last bastions of German manufacturing excellence...and yet we see some slippage here too...hence the continual comments about the SF.

Just my experience and my opinion....i have been known to be wrong :smoke:

Zeiss HT doesn't win shootout with... (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

&#928;&#949;&#961;&#943;&#949;&#961;&#947;&#959;&#

Wildlife Biologist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Wildlife Biologist

Well-known member

&#928;&#949;&#961;&#943;&#949;&#961;&#947;&#959;&#

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

&#928;&#949;&#961;&#943;&#949;&#961;&#947;&#959;&#

Attachments

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Περίεργο&#

Περίεργο&#

Περίεργο&#