Mighty Midgets: Terra 32 vs Conquest 32 vs CL 30 (1 Viewer)

ceasar said:

....

IMO the Swarovski CL would not be getting nearly the amount of criticism it gets if it was designed to have a FOV of 7.6º (399'@1000yds which is the same as the 8x30 Habicht) or more rather than the 7.2º 378'@1000yds) it has.

Bob

Click to expand...

The moderate FOV does seem to be the main "beef" since it replaced the 8x30 SLC, which had a 7.8* FOV. Some have also been disappointed in its resolution for the price point. I think Gijis measured the resolution but I don't remember what it was. Steve C. ranked the CL behind the 8x32 EL and 8x30 SLC. I thought it would at least as sharp as the SLC.

Lee's review didn't get much push back, in fact, some Swaro fans even agreed with him. Even Jan the Swaro Salesman didn't like the CL, and that should tell you something.

I think buyers expect a lot from a bin with the name Swarovski, which is one reason why we will probably never see a Chinese-made Swaro that was designed to compete with the Terra ED and M7. It would be simple to make, however, take the optics from the CL and put them in a polycarb body, charge under $400, and they'd be selling like hotcakes at the Fireman's Bazaar.

Brock

brocknroller said:

The moderate FOV does seem to be the main "beef," although some have also been disappointed in its resolution for the price point. I think Gijis measured the resolution but I don't remember what it was. Steve C. ranked the CL behind the 8x32 EL and 8x30 SLC. I thought it would at least as sharp as the SLC since that's the bin it replaced.

Lee's review didn't get much push back, in fact, some Swaro fans even agreed with him. I think buyers expect a lot from a bin with the name Swarovski, which is one reason why we will probably never see a Chinese-made Swaro that was designed to compete with the Terra ED and M7.

Brock

Click to expand...

Brock,

There is a large tall Oak tree which sticks above the canopy about 150 yards from my house. I center on its peak and use it to compare FOVs. I see very little difference there when I compare the FOVs of the 8x30 CL and the 8x30 SLC but I will give an edge to the SLC on that issue.

I have measured the diameter of the glass in the oculars of both binoculars. It is virtually the same, 19mm give or take a smidgeon. The ocular housing is wider in the SLC and its eye cups are wider. The glass in the CL sticks up higher in its housing than the glass in the SLC does which is recessed. The SLC's rubber eye cups are wider but IMO they are not any better than the CLs eye cups. The CLs are not as wide but just as thick.

I think the SLC was built on the frame of an 8x32. The protective flat glass in front of the objectives which covers and protects the 30mm focusing objectives in the SLC is visibly wider than 30mm.

I can't see any difference in their respective sharpness but I have not put them on a tripod and measured them against an Air Force chart.

Bob

brocknroller said:

I'm sure Lee will chime in, but the 8x32 Conquest HD only weighs 22.2 oz., which is not much. I find the 8x32 TED a bit too lightweight @ 17.5 oz. Twenty ounces used to be my bare minimum weight requirement for bins (although ergonomics plays a significant role, which is my concern with the long closed bridge Conquest). Now being older and shakier, I prefer a minimum of 22 oz. The 8x32 SE is 22 oz. and the weight, balance and ergos are perfect for me.

If you are on a tight budget, get the 8x32 Terra ED, the optics are really good for the money (if you get one with a huge sweet spot like the sample I'm using). I don't think you'd miss much by not spending 3x more on the Conquest unless you intend to run the bins over with a truck, tie it to the back bumper and drag it over a dirt road, and then shoot it with a shotgun.

IOW, for most birding situations, the 8x32 Terra ED will work fine, for hunting, the Conquest HD would be preferable. The Conquest HD is for advanced birders who really want to see fine details to distinguish difficult field markings, but for simple bird IDs, and casual birding, the Terra ED will work fine.

My tighter budget has moved me from an optics obsessive to a more practical birder/nature watcher. If it feels good in the hand, is pleasing to the eye, and has a focuser I can live with, that's the bin I use regardless of the price point or brand name.

Brock

Click to expand...

I wanted to pick this thread back up and ask the opinion of those who have used the Conquest HD and Terra 8x32s side-by-side. Apparently Lee noticed that the contrast of the HD was higher than the Terra (no surprises), and Brock has said that the Terra is suitable for "simple bird IDs," but I was wondering if either of you could further quantify the differences. For example, Brock, what would you consider a difficult bird ID that the Terra might not be able to handle, but that would still be possible with an SE or Conquest HD? Lee, does the lower contrast of the Terra ever severely hinder bird IDs when compared to the Conquest?

For budgetary reasons I'm looking to downgrade from the Conquest HD, and I was wondering how different the experience would be with the 8x32 Terra. I'm certainly more of a recreational bird watcher, but at the same time I'd like to know that I've given myself the best tools for successfully ID-ing the birds.

Many thanks for any input you have!

perseid28 said:

I wanted to pick this thread back up and ask the opinion of those who have used the Conquest HD and Terra 8x32s side-by-side. Apparently Lee noticed that the contrast of the HD was higher than the Terra (no surprises), and Brock has said that the Terra is suitable for "simple bird IDs," but I was wondering if either of you could further quantify the differences. For example, Brock, what would you consider a difficult bird ID that the Terra might not be able to handle, but that would still be possible with an SE or Conquest HD? Lee, does the lower contrast of the Terra ever severely hinder bird IDs when compared to the Conquest?

For budgetary reasons I'm looking to downgrade from the Conquest HD, and I was wondering how different the experience would be with the 8x32 Terra. I'm certainly more of a recreational bird watcher, but at the same time I'd like to know that I've given myself the best tools for successfully ID-ing the birds.

Many thanks for any input you have!

Click to expand...

It could be something as simple as distinguishing an eyering that's almost the same color as the head or stripes on a wingbar. There are variations in species that can be quite subtle that the SE could pick up with its higher resolution that the 8x32 TED might miss (Lee could probably give some specific examples of subtle field markings).

For me, it was my ability to distinguish the plumage of Blue Jay fledglings from their mom.

I was comparing the SE and TED, l could see the difference in eye color and the color around the eye a bit better in the SE than the TED, but I was looking at the Blue Jays a good distance in the park across from the house. In the backyard, where I'm watch birds at most about 50 ft. (beyond that, the foliage is too dense to see), they would probably be on par. It's when you're looking at tiny details as a distance that you will notice differences in resolution.

I heard the birds squawking in the park, and I wanted to check them out to see if they were the same ones that feed at my suet feeder each day. Every year, there is always one Blue Jay mother who is slow on "weaning" her young. Most of the other Blue Jay juveniles are already independent by this time and on their own, but this one mom has her young birds always hanging around and flapping their wings and opening their mouths like they were chicks! This happens every year, and while I have not been able to positively identify her as the same Blue Jay, it seems likely that she is, because there is only one mom and her juveniles who act this way.

I throw peanuts to the Blue Jays when I'm in the backyard, and most of the juveniles and adults swoop down (after taking a quick look for Grey Kitty and other dangers) and pick up the peanut and fly off. But this one mom's young instead of swooping down, start flapping their wings and squawking for her to feed them the peanuts, which she does. Eventually, they will learn to get their own food, but for some reason, it always takes them longer than other young birds.

Brock

perseid28 said:

Lee, does the lower contrast of the Terra ever severely hinder bird IDs when compared to the Conquest?

Many thanks for any input you have!

Click to expand...

Persy

Your question is a bit like asking in what circumstances is it better to have crash in car 'a' as opposed to car 'b'. And the answer is similar. It all depends on the circumstances and the worse the circumstances are, the more you will notice the better crash protection in the more expensive car.

Turning the previous paragraph around to refer to bins and I offer this opinion. If you do birding a lot in marginal conditions including gloomy light conditions, in rain, near dusk or dawn, and especially at longer distances, then Conquest is the better option. If for whatever reason you take your holidays during spring, autumn or winter when there is an even bigger chance of dark and changeable weather than in summer, then choose the Conquest.

On the other hand if you more or less stick to birding in medium to fully favourable weather and close to medium distances, and your finances are putting pressure on your decision then Terra is a nice option.


Most of my birding with the Terra has been of the backgarden variety and the distances are not at all challenging. On a day at the coast the Terra performed very well, easily separating Guillemot and Razorbill at distances where the difference between the brown of the first and the black of the latter are not so easy to discern. Puffin bill-stripes were visible at the expected distances too. But it was a bright, clear and sunny day and these conditions flatter all binoculars. Sorry to use my local species as examples but I haven't yet taken the Terra to Mexico.


Lee

I finally had the chance to look through the 8x32 Terra ED myself, and I was very impressed, especially considering its price.

As background, I ended up deciding to buy an 8x32 Conquest HD. This turned out to have some QC issues that resulted in it being sent to Germany for a repair job, and I was told to expect it to be gone for 10 weeks. I didn't want to go that long without birding, so I decided to order the 8x32 Terra ED and 8x30 Monarch 7, and keep whichever impressed me the most (or perhaps unimpressed me the least). The Terra arrived first and I brought it to a local spot yesterday afternoon; it performed admirably (see below). The Monarch came today, and long story short I decided to keep the Terra. People have compared and re-compared these models, but I'd like to offer my 2 cents anyway. I obviously wasn't able to directly compare them to the Conquest, but I consider myself familiar enough with their characteristics to make a rough comparison.

Image Sharpness
The Monarch 7 is the definite winner here; its center sharpness is at or just slightly below what I remember my Conquest's to be. Terra is noticeably softer, but I can't say that it affects the ability to resolve much; I tried comparing resolutions by reading text at a distance and there wasn't a situation where the Monarch resolved something the Terra couldn't. When I used the Terras yesterday I was getting sharp images of waterfowl at around 300 yards, and at that distance the size is pretty small and you're limited more by magnification than anything. I especially think that there would be a difference between the two in daily use, since the vibrations of my hands seemed to impose the biggest limit on resolution.

Focuser
My first birding binocular was an old Monarch ATB in 2011 and the 8x32 SE was my primary binocular for about 3 years, so I'm used to (and probably biased towards) the resistance and smoothness of Nikon's focusers. They must use a bit of grease in the workings though, because the Monarch 7 made interesting "greasy" sounds when the focuser was reversed. The Terra's focuser was of a similar stiffness, but less "lush" I would say. Probably less grease I wish the ribbing on the Terra's focuser was closer together, that's my only real complaint. My preference is the Monarch.

Ease of view
The Monarch's eyecups have a smaller diameter which fits my eyes more comfortably, and also seems to make eye placement more natural. In the Terra, I had to spend more time than usual making sure that both of my eyes were properly centered in the field. I think both binoculars were more finicky in terms of eye placement than my Conquests; if my eyes were off center at all I noticed that a good part of the field of view became fuzzy.

Ergonomics
The Monarch's barrels were too close together at my IPD for me to comfortably wrap my hands around them. The Terra had a little more space, and it turned out to be just enough. Now I think I understand why the Conquest's designers gave the 8x32 such a long bridge--it's much more comfortable for my large hands to hold!

For each of the points above, the Monarch beat the Terra, but I ended up going with the Terra because of the final point:

Glare
My Terra sample had spectacular glare control. It is probably even better than my Conquests, which had issues only when the sun or other source of bright light was almost perpendicular with the binoculars. When I was out yesterday afternoon, I really didn't notice any glare to speak of.

My simple indoor test with the Monarch today was enough to convince me that it has the potential for some very serious glare. Its prism housing is, as others have noted, not blackened. This results in bright flares very near the exit pupils when a bright object is around 20-30 degrees away. It was bad, so much so that I disqualified the Monarchs on that fact alone.

Summary: I will be happy with my Terras. My limited use so far has convinced me that they should be as effective as the Conquests as an ID tool; time will tell if they have limitations. But if these serve me well over the next 10 weeks, there may be some Conquests up for sale in the near future

Also, I truly underestimated the performance of this tier of binoculars. You can certainly get a more pleasing image by spending more money, but I'm not sure that it is a more useful image. Perhaps durability is going to be less in these lower-priced models, but then again my 2 month-old Conquests are out of action for 10 weeks...

Attaching some photos of the prism housings and glare that I noticed in the Monarch (the glare is visible just to the upper right of the exit pupil in the second image). The Monarch was, in almost every other way, the superior binocular, both in build and in optics, so I was a little disappointed to send them back. But for me the situations that put the biggest strain on optics have been when the subject is somewhat backlit or when it is sitting in shaded foliage with an open bright sky above me. In these situations, even the Conquests sometimes struggled with a bit of veiling glare, and their glare control in simple indoor tests was impeccable.

I think both binoculars were more finicky in terms of eye placement than my Conquests;

Click to expand...

In my case it's the opposite. I have the same exact models, but Zeiss are both 8x42 and Nikon 8x30. I also prefer Zeiss focusers. Terra is much more eye friendly than both other binoculars. I find it better than the Monarch in most ways, but the Monarch has three basic advantages. It has less residual color at the sweet spot, more field of view and a lower price.

perseid28 said:

Attaching some photos of the prism housings and glare that I noticed in the Monarch (the glare is visible just to the upper right of the exit pupil in the second image). The Monarch was, in almost every other way, the superior binocular, both in build and in optics, so I was a little disappointed to send them back. But for me the situations that put the biggest strain on optics have been when the subject is somewhat backlit or when it is sitting in shaded foliage with an open bright sky above me. In these situations, even the Conquests sometimes struggled with a bit of veiling glare, and their glare control in simple indoor tests was impeccable.

Click to expand...

Allbinos review of the Monarch 7 8x30 on 3/24/2014 shows these internal curved reflections which can be seen in your second photo. (See link to review below.)

They do not criticize these in their review; perhaps they feel that they are outside the cone of light? I haven't experienced any undue glare problems with mine. The blackening in the objective tubes seems adequate to me. Most binoculars will have some when they are pointed in the general direction of the sun so I stay well away from that area.

Allbinos does have some criticism about a loose rubber covering over them which was the subject of another thread here.

http://www.allbinos.com/272-binoculars_review-Nikon_Monarch_7_8x30.html

Bob

ceasar said:

Allbinos review of the Monarch 7 8x30 on 3/24/2014 shows these internal curved reflections which can be seen in your second photo. (See link to review below.)

They do not criticize these in their review; perhaps they feel that they are outside the cone of light? I haven't experienced any undue glare problems with mine. The blackening in the objective tubes seems adequate to me. Most binoculars will have some when they are pointed in the general direction of the sun so I stay well away from that area.

Allbinos does have some criticism about a loose rubber covering over them which was the subject of another thread here.

http://www.allbinos.com/272-binoculars_review-Nikon_Monarch_7_8x30.html

Bob

Click to expand...

I remember that there were a number of threads here that discussed the glare that some people noticed in the 8x30 Monarch 7s. My recollection was that it only affected early models, which is why I decided to try these for myself; I was surprised to get glare in so many situations. After reading your post, I took the binoculars out again to investigate. I took another picture, which shows that there is actually some glare just to the lower right of the exit pupil, and maybe it was this one that I was seeing. The picture was taken in a situation where the binoculars were pointed at a darker object with a bright background nearby (probably similar enough to looking at perched birds against an overcast sky). Perhaps in bright daylight the user's pupil could be sufficiently constricted that the glare would not enter the eye, but I found plenty of situations in which a good part of the field of view was covered in veiling glare; just looking at objects in my house with an open window nearby caused the glare in the Monarchs (the main effect was a reddish-orange-yellow haze that washed out colors) whereas the Terras could be pointed closer to the window without showing any glare, and when they did have glare it was significantly less.

Again, I seem to recall that people said some samples had this problem and some didn't. But I don't want to play the game where I cycle through binoculars until I find a sample I like, and my little tests weren't meant to push the binoculars to their optical limits by any means--they were just to give me a feel for the basic characteristics of the bins. The goal was to find binoculars I liked in a short time.

And I feel that it's important to point out that the glare on the Monarch 7s is not a deal-breaker at all. I enjoyed their image sharpness, and I don't think that that one optical drawback would be visible in most observing situations anyway. For the price, I still think they provide a great value. I just ended up liking the Terra's overall characteristics better.

Also, does anyone know who I should contact about getting the better bag for the Terra? I thought I heard that a person could contact someone and basically pay the price of shipping to get an upgraded case.