btw.....the conquest is not an alpha.....just a step up from the terra.....and most of that step up is in build toughness.....not optics
Pure hogwash. Not surprised given the poster. The Terra is nowhere near as good optically as the Conquest HD. .......
I'm riding along with JG on this one.
The Conquest HD is not quite alpha but it is darn close. I think of it as a sub alpha and just a small step down from the Zeiss SF.
There is a noticeable step up in the optics of the Conquest HD compared to the Terra. The Terra offers a very good view but the improvement in the Conquest HD is immediately noticeable. Actually, it is even more noticeable when then switching back to the Terra.
The first thing is the color balance where the Terra is on the warm side and the Conquest HD is much closer to netural. When first looking through the Terra, all looks ok. Then look through the Conquest HD and everything looks brighter with more contrast and a more natural appearance. Now switch back to the Terra and the view has a relatively muddy flat look. No back and forth is required to see the obvious difference.
Another difference is the size of the center view. The clear area is noticeably smaller with the Terra. Also CA fringing is much more noticeable about 2/3rd away from the center.
The Terra is good but it is not even close to the Conquest HD in view quality.
The build quality on the Terra looks to be strong but I agree the Conquest HD is most likely better with a magnesium frame vs. a composite for the Terra. I doubt if the frame of the Terra would hold up as well to the blast of shotgun!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qri4RuT7Bk
Next is comparing the Conquest HD to the Zeiss SF. There is a difference but it is not near as noticeable as with the Terra comparision. Both have a similar color balance that is close to neutral and each are bright with good contrast. Detail will stand out a little more with the SF but it is not a stark difference. I just did a side by side under what is left of the harsh summer noon day sun and there is really no significant difference under these lack luster viewing conditions.
The difference becomes more noticeable under less harsh light conditions with subjects that are not dull like the brown desert I looked at a bit ago. Additionally, the advantages of the SF and the ability to pick out the fine detail will be more apparent in the SF under adverse conditions such as a very gloomy day. or early and late viewing.
The SF steps ahead of the Conquest HD in a noticeable way with the larger FOV and the flat field. Those are a couple of benefits resulting from the extra bucks for the SF.
The SF is the better binocular than the Conquest HD but the improvement is not near as noticeable as the improvement of the Conquest HD over the Terra.
The comments above are based on ownership of all three binoculars and side by side comparisons using the 10X42 models.
..........
So my question is, will I experience a similar contrast between a nice pair of bins vs my Terra EDs? I'm not going to go "alpha," but would probably upgrade to the Zeiss Conquest HDs or something similar (suggestions welcome). Thanks.
HeadWest ...... Getting back to your original questions, yes I think you will easily see an improvement going from the Terra to the Conquest HD. If you are a serious viewer, can afford the increased price and have the ability to see the difference, then I think the upgrade is worth the price.
There are a lot of good choices available in the sub alpha class. Some 8X42 models to consider are the Conquest HD, the Tract Toric (which JG likes), Opticron iMagic BGA VHD, Maven B1, Leica Trinivid HD and the new Nikon Monarch HG. My benchmark for this 8X42 group is the Nikon HG because it is unique in the class for the wide FOV of 435 ft and low weight. Many in this size have a FOV of about 380 ft so this is a significant plus for the HG. It is also relatively small in size and has a light weight of 23.4 oz (weighed no strap or covers). I bought one recently under the current instant rebate and like it.
Of the group, I would probably leave off the Trinivid HD and Maven from my personal list. For whatever reasons, I have never been able to warm up to the Trinivid, either the current of prior models, and the Trinivid HD FOV is only 372 ft. The Maven looks good but it is expensive for a non name brand and rarely has a discount so some of the others may be a better value.
The group would be the same for the 10X42 models but the benchmark would be the Conquest HD. The Nikon larger FOV advantage is not as great in the 10X and I think Zeiss Sports Optics is the much better company than Nikon and I like the construction better on the Zeiss. I also recently acquired the iMagic in a 10X42 and it is very nice. The Conquest looks to have just a little bit more contrast so far but it is close. The iMagic is a little smaller and lighter with the iMagic at 24..6 oz and the Conquest HD at 27.8 oz (both weighed no strap or covers).
Most of these come from Kamakura in Japan so there are a lot of similarities. The iMagic and Conquest HD have the exact same focus feel (although they have opposite travel directions). The iMagic and Tract are said to be built on the same frame and they may have similar optics. If so, then I can see why Tract gets good reviews.
You can not go wrong on any of these. I think the choice is less dependent on optical differences and comes down more to ergonomics and value.
On Edit: I started this post before the posts from pbJosh and Jack S. but posted it later after getting a couple of phone calls. So it looks like I will not only be riding along with JG but also pbjosh and Jack. All aboard!