Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD-AllBinos Review (2 Viewers)

maico said:

The Conquest 8x42 HD measured 4.7/4.7 centre resolution in arc seconds. How does that compare with the alphas ?

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/Shooting/optics/Zeiss-Conquest-HD-8x42/

Click to expand...

All those 4.7/4.7s in the chart suggest to me that 4.7" was the limit of the test set-up.

I agree with David. 3.5" would be a good result for the full aperture of a 42mm binocular. Keep in mind, however, that 3.5" works out to 147/D, a pretty poor result if the binocular were held to the same standards that apply to high quality telescopes.

typo said:

Lee,

From your past comments on the forum, it probably makes no difference to you at all, but others might be able to do those things at considerably further range.... if the binocular is good enough.

Belated Happy Chrismas and hope you have an excellent new year.:king:

David

Click to expand...

Thanks David and the same to you a B, and yes you were right about the Terra 8x32, its capable range is less than the Conquest 8x32.

Lee

henry link said:

All those 4.7/4.7s in the chart suggest to me that 4.7" was the limit of the test set-up.

I agree with David. 3.5" would be a good result for the full aperture of a 42mm binocular. Keep in mind, however, that 3.5" works out to 147/D, a pretty poor result if the binocular were held to the same standards that apply to high quality telescopes.

Click to expand...

All the binoculars where sent to Zeiss AG for testing. It suggests all German Zeiss must reach that standard or better.

typo said:

I'm certainly confused. Just to add another uncertainty, the ISO standard was updated this year but I've not found anything about what might have changed.

David

Click to expand...

David, Henry;

Maybe just adding to the confusion.

I have attached Tables 1 & 2 from ISO 14133-2 for high performance instruments and an ISO figure about convergence/divergence that I found somewhere. Note the ISO definition is bassackwards of the rest of the world. There definition is for emergent beams for the eyepieces (image space), not referenced to the optical visual axis.

You will note that table one is based on the emergent beams (image space/apparent angle) so the power is applied. Also, this method has a means for reducing collimation error as power is increased. Example: for convergence (20’) at 6x the allowable error is 3.33’ in object space and at 15x the allowable error is 1.33’ in object space. This is maximum over the full IPD range.

Table 2 is the defined resolution in object space (real angle in arc seconds).

I have not seen the new specification David referred to.

Ron,

I think the only change in the 2016 -2 ISO is that exit pupil threshold for resolution has changed from 4.5mm to 4mm. The collimation and other criteria stay the same.

David

Thanks David, I will make a note of that.

If that is the only change I don't think I will buy the 2016 ISO.

An old thread but an interesting one. Going even further back 5 years this thread (post 61) has resolution test results, also measured by a German optical company. 4.7 arc/sec does seem to be the target for good mid-range binoculars. Alphas slightly better.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=180743&highlight=comprehensive+test+10x42&page=3

Would you need eyesight of 20/15 or better to see the difference ?