Terra, Premier, Monarch... ??? (1 Viewer)

scobrown · Mar 20, 2015

So, I have a quandary. I would like to invest in a nice, but not overly rich, pair of full(er) size binoculars for the ensuing spring migrations. I purchased last year a pair of Nikon HG LX-L 10x25s for daily carry and general use. They live in my car or daily carry bag and I love them. The only issue I see if slightly narrow field and small exit pupil, which I would like to have for longer use, such as I expect at the Biggest Week, etc.

My price range is max of $500ish. I had seen a few pair of used Premier HG 8x32 here on the forum, but the seller did not wish to explore this price range. I think a used pair of these (even in the 8x42 or 10x42) would be ideal, so if any of you have a pair you wish to part with, lets talk.

Otherwise, I am exploring Monarch 7 (8x42 or 10x42, likely, so as not replicate the small pair I have now too much), Terra 8x42 or 8x32, or ??? Ideas? I would really like: wide field of view, excellent build quality (would love for these to extinguish my gear acquisition syndrome for 10 or more years), smooth focuser, adequate ER for glasses, and good warranty (or genuine lack of need for such).

Please have at me with some ideas (or PM me about Premiers you want to sell me

)...

Best and cheers! B

Scott

NDhunter · Mar 20, 2015

Scott:

Welcome to Birdforum. I have some of the choices you mention. The 10x25 LXL, is certainly
a fine binocular, but not easy to use everyday, as with the limitations you mention.

I have the 8x42 Zeiss Terra and it is a very nice binocular, well made and I like the view, and in
its price point, a nice value.

I have had the Monarch 7 in 10x42, and this is the best of those you mention, with a very nice, bright
view, and with a quality fit and finish.

You should try to find a store to try these binoculars for yourself.

Jerry

ads · Mar 21, 2015

Hi Scott,

You probably should decide what power you want, and what your size/weight constraints are.

I think in the full-size 10x class, the Vanguard Endeavour ED is very solid choice for around $230. They are somewhat on the heavy side, and have a very slight warm color cast.

The Monarch 7 is a safe choice. You might want to check out the Kowa BD 8x42 XD thread in the Kowa forum. They might be a good choice too.

If you can travel to a store with a good selection of optics, that would be ideal. There are several Cabela's in Michigan I think.

brocknroller · Mar 21, 2015

scobrown said:
So, I have a quandary. I would like to invest in a nice, but not overly rich, pair of full(er) size binoculars for the ensuing spring migrations. I purchased last year a pair of Nikon HG LX-L 10x25s for daily carry and general use. They live in my car or daily carry bag and I love them. The only issue I see if slightly narrow field and small exit pupil, which I would like to have for longer use, such as I expect at the Biggest Week, etc.

My price range is max of $500ish. I had seen a few pair of used Premier HG 8x32 here on the forum, but the seller did not wish to explore this price range. I think a used pair of these (even in the 8x42 or 10x42) would be ideal, so if any of you have a pair you wish to part with, lets talk.

Otherwise, I am exploring Monarch 7 (8x42 or 10x42, likely, so as not replicate the small pair I have now too much), Terra 8x42 or 8x32, or ??? Ideas? I would really like: wide field of view, excellent build quality (would love for these to extinguish my gear acquisition syndrome for 10 or more years), smooth focuser, adequate ER for glasses, and good warranty (or genuine lack of need for such).

Please have at me with some ideas (or PM me about Premiers you want to sell me )...

Best and cheers! B

Scott

Scott,

if you can hold a 10x25 compact steady, you must have very steady hands, so I wouldn't worry too much about ergonomics, but the 8x30 M7 certainly works well for my shaky hands since it allows plenty of room for me to wrap my fingers around the barrels. Comfortable eyecups, nice, wide FOV, and decent flair control if you get a sample whose metal parts in the objective housings are all painted (there was a QC issue with this early on, and no doubt, some defective samples still exist out there, but Nikon will fix the issue if you get one).

I did not like the Terra 8x42 ED because of its ultra fast focuser. i'm not alone in this, others have reported the same issue. The 8x32 Premier HG also has a fast focuser (1/2 turn from cf to infinity, a bit less, actually, because there is some 'dead' focuser travel before close focus). Too easy to focus past your target with both of these, but for me, the Terra was worse. From the review of the 8x32 model's focuser might not be as fast as the 8x42. Maybe Zeiss read the gripes and responded.

I didn't like the ergos on the 8x32 HG, it was awkward to hold, but you might find them okay. Image-wise, the color saturation and contrast beat the M7 and Terra. Considering the big price difference, they had better! You'd be lucky to find an 8x32 HGL for $500, but maybe the earlier 8x32 HG. Image-wise, I like the original version better. The colors are skewed too warm on the HGL, IMO.

The full sized HG/HGLs are different than the 8x32 in that the optics have very low distortion, so if you are susceptible to seeing "rolling ball" in binoculars, you are much more likely to see in in the full sized models. Chances are, you will adjust to it, but you need to give yourself time, so make sure you can return them in two weeks.

ER on the 8x32 is 16mm, I think. I could just about see the entire FOV with flat sunglasses. The ER is longer with the full sized models, 19-20mm, about the best around.

I didn't try the M7 or Terra ED with glasses, so i couldn't comment on those.

Although it's new, the Maven B3 is worth taking a look at. Frank's review was very favorable, and the warranty is very good, and it ticks almost all your other boxes, but will the company be around in 10 years? That's an unknown. ER is 15.3mm, which might work, depending on your facial features and glasses, and how much of that is useable for eyeglass wearers.

Maven 8x32 B3

If waterproofing isn't a "must," consider a Nikon 8x30 EII or 8x32 SE. The latter is discontinued and will probably cost over your budget even used, but you can get an EII for around $500 or less. Being Porros, they give a better 3-D view and have optics that easily match roofs costing three times the price. The 8x30 EII has the widest FOV available in a CF bin (8.8*). ER for glasses is tight. If you have flat facial features and thin lens glasses with a wire frame, you might see most of the FOV. The FOV is so generous that you might still see more than the 8x32 SE (7.5*). The SE has field flatteners so it's nearly sharp to the edge like the HGL, and the 17.4mm ER is better for eyeglass wearers. I can use flat sunglasses with them and see the entire FOV, and I had deep-set eyes.

typo · Mar 21, 2015

Scott,

You have picked out some very different binoculars there.

The HD-LXL is a very good binocular, particularly as the x42 in my opinion. The warm balance to the view might be rather unfashionable but I'd still put it easily at the top of your list. The Monarch7 x42s are technically quite good. Small, light, wide view, good colour, contrast, sharpness etc. but personally, I found the distortion in the view bothers me. Others seem to find it fine so don't rule it out. I don't think it's possible to generalise about the Terra ED. I've tried 5 and no two were alike. One was extremely sharp, excellent CA control and large sweet spot, but the others ranged fro OK to disappointing for the money. If you get to cherry pick which one you buy then definitely worth considering.

If you don't mind a warm colour balance then I found the Vanguard Endeavour EDII even better than the regular ED Ads suggested. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=290229

David

HighNorth · Mar 21, 2015

scobrown said:
Otherwise, I am exploring Monarch 7 (8x42 or 10x42, likely, so as not replicate the small pair I have now too much), Terra 8x42 or 8x32, or ???
Scott

I have to vouch for the Nikon M7 8x42! It has the largest FOV of the bins you mention, which would be very useful during spring migrations I think!

Just be careful with the eyecups, which are cheap plastic and can break easily if you treat them too rough. Other than that, it's a very solid bin! :t:

brocknroller · Mar 21, 2015

typo said:
Scott,

You have picked out some very different binoculars there.

The HD-LXL is a very good binocular, particularly as the x42 in my opinion. The warm balance to the view might be rather unfashionable but I'd still put it easily at the top of your list. The Monarch7 x42s are technically quite good. Small, light, wide view, good colour, contrast, sharpness etc. but personally, I found the distortion in the view bothers me. Others seem to find it fine so don't rule it out. I don't think it's possible to generalise about the Terra ED. I've tried 5 and no two were alike. One was extremely sharp, excellent CA control and large sweet spot, but the others ranged fro OK to disappointing for the money. If you get to cherry pick which one you buy then definitely worth considering.

If you don't mind a warm colour balance then I found the Vanguard Endeavour EDII even better than the regular ED Ads suggested. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=290229

David

David,

That's a lot of sample variation in the Terra EDs. So much for the German Zeiss employees who were supposed to oversee QC at the Chinese factory.

How about the focuser speed, did it vary from sample to sample? The sample I tried had a very fast focuser, fastest focuser west of the Pecos.

typo · Mar 21, 2015

brocknroller said:
David,

That's a lot of sample variation in the Terra EDs. So much for the German Zeiss employees who were supposed to oversee QC at the Chinese factory.

How about the focuser speed, did it vary from sample to sample? The sample I tried had a very fast focuser, fastest focuser west of the Pecos.

Brock,

An important person at Zeiss told me they are fine when they leave the factory and that the sample variation was due to rough handling by the Chinese transport system. Sounded a surprising claim but as far as I could tell he wasn't joking. :eek!:

I found the fast focus was OK when the resistance was light and smooth, but there was variation between samples and one I'd call difficult.

David.

brocknroller · Mar 21, 2015

typo said:
Brock,

An important person at Zeiss told me they are fine when they leave the factory and that the sample variation was due to rough handling by the Chinese transport system. Sounded a surprising claim but as far as I could tell he wasn't joking. :eek!:

I found the fast focus was OK when the resistance was light and smooth, but there was variation between samples and one I'd call difficult.

David.

Yeah, well, I guess a rikshaw can give a pretty bumpy ride.

In reality, Chinese transportation infrastructure is becoming better than America's.

while-u-s-fills-potholes-china-plans-transport-boom/

If there's "rough handling," it's probably by the workers who handle the packages, and if that's the case, is it those loading the bins on trucks at the factory or the DHL-China workers sorting the packages at the HUBs, or the dock workers who load them on ships? Plus roofs are supposed to keep their collimation better than Porros, so they must really bash them around to knock them out.

dontthrowmybinocularpackage

I wonder if this is the same reason why sample variation runs rampart in other Chinese bins?

I can see how rough handling can have an "impact" on collimation, but not on the focusers being stiff or Toulouse. Even Swaros suffer from focuser issues, as well as many other brands made in Japan and Europe. It seems that the focuser is the component of binoculars that is the most difficult to make work consistently from sample to sample.

typo · Mar 21, 2015

Brock,

I guess I can believe collimation issues, maybe a few breakages or perhaps even a bent focus shaft at a pinch, but I'm finding it hard to understand why the effective resolution is so variable if a pair has survived the other stuff. Could the lens mounts shake loose or something?

David

St. Elmo · Mar 21, 2015

I'm not buyin' that "rough handling" excuse.

It sounds like the product of this conversation:

"A lot of these Terras are coming back for warranty work right after they are sold."
"Aren't our QC boys doing their job?"
"What QC boys?"
"Oh."
"What should we say if anyone asks about this crap we're selling as ZEISS."
"Tell 'em it's not the product, it's the 'rough handling' in China."
"But that's where all my Apple products are made and they are far more delicate than binoculars intended to be used in the wild."
"It's all we got."

brocknroller · Mar 22, 2015

St. Elmo said:
I'm not buyin' that "rough handling" excuse.

It sounds like the product of this conversation:

"A lot of these Terras are coming back for warranty work right after they are sold."
"Aren't our QC boys doing their job?"
"What QC boys?"
"Oh."
"What should we say if anyone asks about this crap we're selling as ZEISS."
"Tell 'em it's not the product, it's the 'rough handling' in China."
"But that's where all my Apple products are made and they are far more delicate than binoculars intended to be used in the wild."
"It's all we got."

:-O You're on fire, St. Elmo!

typo · Mar 22, 2015

brocknroller said:
:-O You're on fire, St. Elmo!

:t:

David

John Dracon · Mar 22, 2015

Folks - I have been following this thread with interest, particularly as it "drifted off" to discuss "rough handling" being some kind of explanation for the so called variations with the Terra binoculars. I do not think such is as far fetched as it may sound. And I will attempt to explain why we must keep an open mind on such matters.

When I purchased my first Terra, an 8x42, I was surprised by the way it was "packaged." It came with a complex, molded polymer something which displayed the binocular nicely. It has three basic pieces: a clear plastic casing surrounding the binocular and two molded lids which are white and opaque. The bottom lid covers a cavity (above) where goodies are stored, i.e., the velvet storage bag, papers, etc. The thickness of the entire structural frame work is about 2.5 mm. It is rigid and essentially non-flexible.

The top lid differs in that the bottom of that lid has molded recesses in it to conform to the binocular standing erect with it ocular cover on. A very thin piece of black foam is in the recess (3/8ths/10 mm deep) giving the impression that it has a a cushioning effect. It squeezes between the thumb and forefinger down to nothing. It is cosmetic.

Molded into the clear casing is another recessed bottom where the objectives with the thin cover of hard rubber (functional to help keep dust out) fit. In other words, the binocular is sandwiched between two recessed structures, the top lid and the main body. When all put together, the binoculars are in a form fitting case. They are not wedged in the recesses which are perpendicular. The fit is snug but not tight, and when shaken nothing moves. Now for the rest of the story.

After purchasing the 8x42 and playing with it for over a year, I passed it on to one of my several nieces. I was one of those persons clamoring for an 8x32 Terra, and the Gods answered our optical prayers. So when it finally emerged on the market, I called Eagle Optics, and in their usual efficient and courteous way, they mailed me a new one. Anything I say after the above comments should not be construed as a criticism of Eagle Optics. They are in the loop only as a retailer but not responsible for the evidence of rough handling that my newly arrived Terra clearly demonstrated. I'm not a forensic scientist, but the physical evidence of rough handling is overwhelming.

I must mention that the Terra itself showed no damage whatsoever and perhaps I lucked out and got a "cherry" one, but the casing described above showed unexpected and unanticipated damage. What evidence do I have to support my statement? The bottom recess was fractured around the edges, and the fractured piece simply fell down into the bottom storage area when I removed the binocular from the case. The fracture lines clearly show that significant force downward caused the fracture.

I have not talked to the Eagle Optics folks about this, and will, but it is not significant to me as the Terra is in perfect working condition. My understanding is that as an internet retailer, Eagle Optics may not have even physically handled my Terra, but another distributor may have. I don't know. But the puzzle of the fractured recess area is intriguing for a number of reasons, the most important being the packaging itself, which I found to be exceptional. If my prose has you bored and ready to click off, do so. If not, stay on for a while.

The Terra arrived in what I call a factory cardboard box with letters in red stating "fragile" and arrows pointing up on all four sides. The polymer plastic housing was encased in 3/8ths - 10 mm foam with high impact properties, and that was nicely placed as a separate unit in the cardboard box with no slop. It was the kind of package which one would expect to survive almost any kind of fall without damage to the binocular. I believe it originated in China.

Having crossed the Pacific twice on troop ships to and from Korea, it is a mighty big ocean, and other than flying the package, I suspect it came over on a gigantic container ship on a big pallet. My blue water experience as a civilian (sailing and power boating) suggests damage to the casing could occur prior to loading and unloading, but not on the ocean itself. Then it is a matter of how it was handled after arrival. Truck or by cargo plane. It came to me by USPS priority mail, and the exterior package showed no damage whatsoever. It could have been dropped 30 feet on a steel floor and landed flat with out showing visible exterior damage.

But I believe the fractured recessed area was caused by G forces of the Terra sitting on a very rigid surface while the package fell somewhere and at some distance. The Terra weighs a little over a pound and is subject to gravitation like any physical object. Like the old joke about falling not killing one but rather the sudden stop at the end. A pallet full of Terras could fall 10 feet and land on a steel deck and give the appearance of no damage whatsoever to the packages. But the Terra is accelerating at 32 ft/p/second squared.

We have physicists and mathematicians lurking on this web site who understand more of this than I do. Perhaps they could add their expertise to this discussion. I went on the net last night to look at the formulas relating to gravity and quickly decided to go to bed. As an 8th grade student I could determine square root using the long division method, but that didn't help last night.

I would happily send the entire packaging and casing to the Zeiss folks as physical evidence of something gone wrong, and it wasn't a flawed molding that caused the fracture.

A friend loaned me his Terra 8x42 so I comparing it to the Terra 8x32 now and will give a summation on another thread.

John

scobrown · Mar 22, 2015

John,

Thanks for your thoughts. As an aside, I just want to let you know how much I enjoy your "prose" -- too much today is bullet pointed thoughts and it is refreshing to see ones thought processes laid out in such a fluid, deliberate manner. Glad you're on the forums...

An additional question -- I know the build and general fit/finish of the Premiers (per my original question on the thread) are going to be better than say the Terra or Monarch. However, the technology seems so much note advanced in those leaser binoculars. What is to be gained by buying a used 10 year old Premier vs a brand new Monarch, Terra, etc. I have the 10x25 LXLs, so I know the edge to edge sharpeness is better (eg, sweet spot will be more noticeable on the Monarch or Terra)... Thoughts?

ceasar · Mar 22, 2015

John Dracon said:
Folks - I have been following this thread with interest, particularly as it "drifted off" to discuss "rough handling" being some kind of explanation for the so called variations with the Terra binoculars. I do not think such is as far fetched as it may sound. And I will attempt to explain why we must keep an open mind on such matters.

When I purchased my first Terra, an 8x42, I was surprised by the way it was "packaged." It came with a complex, molded polymer something which displayed the binocular nicely. It has three basic pieces: a clear plastic casing surrounding the binocular and two molded lids which are white and opaque. The bottom lid covers a cavity (above) where goodies are stored, i.e., the velvet storage bag, papers, etc. The thickness of the entire structural frame work is about 2.5 mm. It is rigid and essentially non-flexible.

The top lid differs in that the bottom of that lid has molded recesses in it to conform to the binocular standing erect with it ocular cover on. A very thin piece of black foam is in the recess (3/8ths/10 mm deep) giving the impression that it has a a cushioning effect. It squeezes between the thumb and forefinger down to nothing. It is cosmetic.

Molded into the clear casing is another recessed bottom where the objectives with the thin cover of hard rubber (functional to help keep dust out) fit. In other words, the binocular is sandwiched between two recessed structures, the top lid and the main body. When all put together, the binoculars are in a form fitting case. They are not wedged in the recesses which are perpendicular. The fit is snug but not tight, and when shaken nothing moves. Now for the rest of the story.

After purchasing the 8x42 and playing with it for over a year, I passed it on to one of my several nieces. I was one of those persons clamoring for an 8x32 Terra, and the Gods answered our optical prayers. So when it finally emerged on the market, I called Eagle Optics, and in their usual efficient and courteous way, they mailed me a new one. Anything I say after the above comments should not be construed as a criticism of Eagle Optics. They are in the loop only as a retailer but not responsible for the evidence of rough handling that my newly arrived Terra clearly demonstrated. I'm not a forensic scientist, but the physical evidence of rough handling is overwhelming.

I must mention that the Terra itself showed no damage whatsoever and perhaps I lucked out and got a "cherry" one, but the casing described above showed unexpected and unanticipated damage. What evidence do I have to support my statement? The bottom recess was fractured around the edges, and the fractured piece simply fell down into the bottom storage area when I removed the binocular from the case. The fracture lines clearly show that significant force downward caused the fracture.

I have not talked to the Eagle Optics folks about this, and will, but it is not significant to me as the Terra is in perfect working condition. My understanding is that as an internet retailer, Eagle Optics may not have even physically handled my Terra, but another distributor may have. I don't know. But the puzzle of the fractured recess area is intriguing for a number of reasons, the most important being the packaging itself, which I found to be exceptional. If my prose has you bored and ready to click off, do so. If not, stay on for a while.

The Terra arrived in what I call a factory cardboard box with letters in red stating "fragile" and arrows pointing up on all four sides. The polymer plastic housing was encased in 3/8ths - 10 mm foam with high impact properties, and that was nicely placed as a separate unit in the cardboard box with no slop. It was the kind of package which one would expect to survive almost any kind of fall without damage to the binocular. I believe it originated in China.

Having crossed the Pacific twice on troop ships to and from Korea, it is a mighty big ocean, and other than flying the package, I suspect it came over on a gigantic container ship on a big pallet. My blue water experience as a civilian (sailing and power boating) suggests damage to the casing could occur prior to loading and unloading, but not on the ocean itself. Then it is a matter of how it was handled after arrival. Truck or by cargo plane. It came to me by USPS priority mail, and the exterior package showed no damage whatsoever. It could have been dropped 30 feet on a steel floor and landed flat with out showing visible exterior damage.

But I believe the fractured recessed area was caused by G forces of the Terra sitting on a very rigid surface while the package fell somewhere and at some distance. The Terra weighs a little over a pound and is subject to gravitation like any physical object. Like the old joke about falling not killing one but rather the sudden stop at the end. A pallet full of Terras could fall 10 feet and land on a steel deck and give the appearance of no damage whatsoever to the packages. But the Terra is accelerating at 32 ft/p/second squared.

We have physicists and mathematicians lurking on this web site who understand more of this than I do. Perhaps they could add their expertise to this discussion. I went on the net last night to look at the formulas relating to gravity and quickly decided to go to bed. As an 8th grade student I could determine square root using the long division method, but that didn't help last night.

I would happily send the entire packaging and casing to the Zeiss folks as physical evidence of something gone wrong, and it wasn't a flawed molding that caused the fracture.

A friend loaned me his Terra 8x42 so I comparing it to the Terra 8x32 now and will give a summation on another thread.

John

John,

For the record, I ordered a Zeiss 8x32 Terra ED from Eagle Optics on 3/ll/2015 the day after you wrote your excellent review about it.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3182564&postcount=63

It arrived on the next day (my birthday:king

.

I just looked over the packaging it came in and it came packaged as you describe it above. It was very well packaged against what I would call "dropping and/or tossing" damage. There was also a generous amount of "foam peanuts" in the box from Eagle Optics which I have saved in a bag but I think I will be keeping the binocular.

The plastic container has no evidence of any kind of rough treatment at all. The circular taped seals on it were intact and, indeed, were difficult to remove. There were no dents or dings on the box it came in.

The binocular shows no evidence that it had ever been handled subsequent to its sealing and packaging. Its focus wheel works very smoothly with satisfactory stiction to keep it in place and the diopter is commendably firm when setting it. Its optics are what IMO one would expect from an under $400.00 binocular.

I will make a report on it come spring. Meanwhile it is my car binocular.

Bob

John Dracon · Mar 22, 2015

Scobrown - responding to your question, if you are buying a 10 year old Nikon Premier, you are buying an excellent binocular. It probably won't sell for under $500. I skimmed through my collection of binocular catalogs to see when the Premiers began to hit the market. A 1997 catalog listed them by a different name - HG DCF WP 8x42 & 10x42. Then somewhere along the way that name changed to Premier LX, and now just Premier with the suffix LX being dropped. Nikon has ungraded these models in prism and lens coatings. Perhaps some slightly different coverings. Nikon then introduced the super premium called the EDG which costs as much as the European alphas do today.

In terms of gain it won't be obvious during the day IMO, but in very low light conditions, you might see a difference. Every gain in binoculars today creates an inverse relationship in terms of cost - small gain equals a need for a fatter wallet. Many birders have the original HGs and love them, as do birders with the Nikon SEs and EIIs, all excellent birding binoculars.

John

John

John Dracon · Mar 22, 2015

Bob - Looking forward to your report on the Terra 8x32.

John

BruceH · Mar 22, 2015

Bob .... Good to hear that things are working out well so far with your new Terra 8X32.

As I recall, you posted some time ago that you were strongly considering the purchase of a Nikon Monarch 7 8X30, but it appears you never did. I am curious as to why you ultimately went with the Terra over the Nikon. I think your thoughts on this are on topic since Scott, our OP, is considering both of these models.

Thanks.

brocknroller · Mar 22, 2015

John Dracon said:
Folks - I have been following this thread with interest, particularly as it "drifted off" to discuss "rough handling" being some kind of explanation for the so called variations with the Terra binoculars. I do not think such is as far fetched as it may sound. And I will attempt to explain why we must keep an open mind on such matters.

When I purchased my first Terra, an 8x42, I was surprised by the way it was "packaged." It came with a complex, molded polymer something which displayed the binocular nicely. It has three basic pieces: a clear plastic casing surrounding the binocular and two molded lids which are white and opaque. The bottom lid covers a cavity (above) where goodies are stored, i.e., the velvet storage bag, papers, etc. The thickness of the entire structural frame work is about 2.5 mm. It is rigid and essentially non-flexible.

The top lid differs in that the bottom of that lid has molded recesses in it to conform to the binocular standing erect with it ocular cover on. A very thin piece of black foam is in the recess (3/8ths/10 mm deep) giving the impression that it has a a cushioning effect. It squeezes between the thumb and forefinger down to nothing. It is cosmetic.

Molded into the clear casing is another recessed bottom where the objectives with the thin cover of hard rubber (functional to help keep dust out) fit. In other words, the binocular is sandwiched between two recessed structures, the top lid and the main body. When all put together, the binoculars are in a form fitting case. They are not wedged in the recesses which are perpendicular. The fit is snug but not tight, and when shaken nothing moves. Now for the rest of the story.

After purchasing the 8x42 and playing with it for over a year, I passed it on to one of my several nieces. I was one of those persons clamoring for an 8x32 Terra, and the Gods answered our optical prayers. So when it finally emerged on the market, I called Eagle Optics, and in their usual efficient and courteous way, they mailed me a new one. Anything I say after the above comments should not be construed as a criticism of Eagle Optics. They are in the loop only as a retailer but not responsible for the evidence of rough handling that my newly arrived Terra clearly demonstrated. I'm not a forensic scientist, but the physical evidence of rough handling is overwhelming.

I must mention that the Terra itself showed no damage whatsoever and perhaps I lucked out and got a "cherry" one, but the casing described above showed unexpected and unanticipated damage. What evidence do I have to support my statement? The bottom recess was fractured around the edges, and the fractured piece simply fell down into the bottom storage area when I removed the binocular from the case. The fracture lines clearly show that significant force downward caused the fracture.

I have not talked to the Eagle Optics folks about this, and will, but it is not significant to me as the Terra is in perfect working condition. My understanding is that as an internet retailer, Eagle Optics may not have even physically handled my Terra, but another distributor may have. I don't know. But the puzzle of the fractured recess area is intriguing for a number of reasons, the most important being the packaging itself, which I found to be exceptional. If my prose has you bored and ready to click off, do so. If not, stay on for a while.

The Terra arrived in what I call a factory cardboard box with letters in red stating "fragile" and arrows pointing up on all four sides. The polymer plastic housing was encased in 3/8ths - 10 mm foam with high impact properties, and that was nicely placed as a separate unit in the cardboard box with no slop. It was the kind of package which one would expect to survive almost any kind of fall without damage to the binocular. I believe it originated in China.

Having crossed the Pacific twice on troop ships to and from Korea, it is a mighty big ocean, and other than flying the package, I suspect it came over on a gigantic container ship on a big pallet. My blue water experience as a civilian (sailing and power boating) suggests damage to the casing could occur prior to loading and unloading, but not on the ocean itself. Then it is a matter of how it was handled after arrival. Truck or by cargo plane. It came to me by USPS priority mail, and the exterior package showed no damage whatsoever. It could have been dropped 30 feet on a steel floor and landed flat with out showing visible exterior damage.

But I believe the fractured recessed area was caused by G forces of the Terra sitting on a very rigid surface while the package fell somewhere and at some distance. The Terra weighs a little over a pound and is subject to gravitation like any physical object. Like the old joke about falling not killing one but rather the sudden stop at the end. A pallet full of Terras could fall 10 feet and land on a steel deck and give the appearance of no damage whatsoever to the packages. But the Terra is accelerating at 32 ft/p/second squared.

We have physicists and mathematicians lurking on this web site who understand more of this than I do. Perhaps they could add their expertise to this discussion. I went on the net last night to look at the formulas relating to gravity and quickly decided to go to bed. As an 8th grade student I could determine square root using the long division method, but that didn't help last night.

I would happily send the entire packaging and casing to the Zeiss folks as physical evidence of something gone wrong, and it wasn't a flawed molding that caused the fracture.

A friend loaned me his Terra 8x42 so I comparing it to the Terra 8x32 now and will give a summation on another thread.

John

Thank you, Quincy, for the detailed forensics.

What your experience and Bob's suggest is that even with rough handling, the Terra ED's molded plastic packaging is robust enough to protect the bins. That doesn't help Zeiss make its case that rough handling is the cause for sample variation with the Terra EDs, rather it makes it harder to write off David's experience of sample variation as being due to rough handling.

In my own experience and from reading the experience of others, the persistent problem in Chinese-made bins is lack of QC. Sample variation happens at all price points, but in Chinese bins, they seem to run rampart. As Frank can corroborate, you might need to buy two, three, four or even five samples to find one in which everything works optimally.

I look forward to reading your 8x42/8x32 Terra ED comparison. Please note the speed and stiction at which each focuser turns. The focuser on the 8x42 Terra ED I tried turned way too fast for my taste and had little stiction. I'm dismayed that this seems to be the trend in binoculars today- the focusers seem to get faster and faster due to a combination of short turning radii and lack of stiction.

Terra, Premier, Monarch... ??? (1 Viewer)

Active member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

John Dracon

Active member

Well-known member

John Dracon

John Dracon

Avatar: Harris Hawk

porromaniac

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread