• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD-AllBinos Review (1 Viewer)

I am not sure Jerry was saying Conquest HDs are remarkable. I wasn't. For me they are great honest performers with a focus speed that is a super compromise for getting onto nearby subjects then to far away ones and then back again, and all without overshooting focus unintentionally.

As for toughness, check out the Zeiss video of them being abused, run over and shot with a shot gun.

By all means feel free to be unimpressed, but those who enjoy them have a right to their opinions too.

Lee

Please quote where I said others didn't have a right to their opinion.... I found that comment bizarre. All I need was express mine!

I've seen the video several times. Impressive. However, I've held two or three pairs in my hand that have had slack/loose play, dodgy eye pieces and loose armouring.

One video doth not a tough binocular make!
 
Most owners seem impressed enough with the HD's build and quality, so a few poor examples is / are not a definitive example. Same applies to sharpness testing.

I use them for field surveys, all weather...all conditions, bang them around pretty good and they are as solid as a rock for me.
 
Most owners seem impressed enough with the HD's build and quality, so a few poor examples is / are not a definitive example. Same applies to sharpness testing.

I use them for field surveys, all weather...all conditions, bang them around pretty good and they are as solid as a rock for me.

Which sharpness testing have you done?
 
Most owners seem impressed enough with the HD's build and quality, so a few poor examples is / are not a definitive example. Same applies to sharpness testing.

I use them for field surveys, all weather...all conditions, bang them around pretty good and they are as solid as a rock for me.

I was in an optics shop a few months back and tried three models of the Conquest HD - all had slack in the focus, one had gritty focus and the other had loose armouring.

From what I remember, the original batch in this range had to have the eyepieces replaced because they were too short. The eyepiece mechanism has been stiff and awkward on every pair I've tried.

I'm sure Typo tried a cherry Terra which trumped the Conquest HD on sharpness. Having said all that, I quite like the 8x32. It's the best of the bunch.
 
I was in an optics shop a few months back and tried three models of the Conquest HD - all had slack in the focus, one had gritty focus and the other had loose armouring.

From what I remember, the original batch in this range had to have the eyepieces replaced because they were too short. The eyepiece mechanism has been stiff and awkward on every pair I've tried.

I'm sure Typo tried a cherry Terra which trumped the Conquest HD on sharpness. Having said all that, I quite like the 8x32. It's the best of the bunch.


Those samples sound pretty awful Petrus. Haven't met any like that myself.

The original eyecups work for the majority of people but some do require the slightly longer eyecups that are available from Zeiss at no charge.

And, no, you never said folks are not entitled to their opinion but you did challenge those who like the Conquests by saying "I don't think they are as good as some make out". Naturally you are entitled to this opinion but so are the folks who 'make out', as you put it, that they are really nice.

They are by no means perfect or 'remarkable' but IMHO they do a fine job.

Lee
 
Those samples sound pretty awful Petrus. Haven't met any like that myself.

The original eyecups work for the majority of people but some do require the slightly longer eyecups that are available from Zeiss at no charge.

And, no, you never said folks are not entitled to their opinion but you did challenge those who like the Conquests by saying "I don't think they are as good as some make out". Naturally you are entitled to this opinion but so are the folks who 'make out', as you put it, that they are really nice.

They are by no means perfect or 'remarkable' but IMHO they do a fine job.

Lee

Hi Lee,

Sorry, I wasn't really referring to anyone on this thread when I said that. I know a lot of people who rave about them and I think that's great that people really like the binocular they have chosen.

I actually really like the 8x32. If it had slightly more eye relief and had better focus (I have tried one with perfect focus, I was unlucky) then I would have kept it.
 
Hi Lee,

Sorry, I wasn't really referring to anyone on this thread when I said that. I know a lot of people who rave about them and I think that's great that people really like the binocular they have chosen.

I actually really like the 8x32. If it had slightly more eye relief and had better focus (I have tried one with perfect focus, I was unlucky) then I would have kept it.

No problem Petrus. Sounds like the optional eyecups would have suited you. With my previous pair of glasses I was fine with the original eyecups but with my latest pair I needed the optional eyecups. In fact this latest pair of spectacles has needed some 'assistance' with several models of bins with which all of my previous specs have been fine. Just goes to show its quite a challenge for manufacturers getting the ER / eyecup combo to work for everyone and especially every pair of spectacles.

Lee
 
...... By all means feel free to be unimpressed, but those who enjoy them have a right to their opinions too.

Lee
Please quote where I said others didn't have a right to their opinion.... I found that comment bizarre. All I did was express mine!
Ditto ! :t: :cat:
....... And, no, you never said folks are not entitled to their opinion but you did challenge (really???) those who like the Conquests by saying "I don't think they are as good as some make out". Naturally you are entitled to this opinion but so are the folks who 'make out', as you put it, that they are really nice.....

Lee
Lee, for the love of gawd! o:D will ya give it a rest already?! :eat: I think I'm going to *vomit* ..... this sorta stuff is making me more nauseous |!| than watching the Australian Cricket team bat! :eek!:

You can't keep doing this sort of thing :storm: ..... you're not the Internet police there to pounce on every single little remark that you think somehow disparages, offends, or paints a blue badged product in an other than glowing light (don't get too hung up on the labels - just trying to id the *apparent madness* :) ...... :smoke:

This is what Petrus actually said ..... "I've owned the 8x32, 8x42 and 10x42 and I've never been all that impressed with them. Build quality has never really struck me as remarkable and the view is very good, but just about right for the price point. I don't think they are as good as some make out......"
Just in case you are too far gone in the grip of the blue zombie virus, let me point out the salient part of that quote again - it's "I don't think" ..... yup! that's right, "I" - it's an opinion! an opinion based on Petrus's own personal experience ......

Petrus has got an opinion, you've got an opinion, I've got an opinion, we've all got @#$/^&! opinions !! :))

Petrus made no inference on other people not being entitled to their own opinion ....... so please stop this nonsense *grrrrr*
(I'd also stay away from forestry areas - you never know what sort of chemicals they're spraying up there! *big grin* : ))

Ps. I wouldn't switch on to the Olympics as consolation either - it seems you rather trail behind us in the medal tally! :king:


Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:
;);)Hello CJ

Its an English language thing: over here if you say "not as good as some make out" your usual meaning is that the folks that you are talking about have been making deliberately over-inflated claims. It was this that I gently objected to, not any criticism of Conquests.

So, I didn't say Petrus was wrong, and I did say he was entitled to his opinion and that others are entitled to theirs.

And thats what you said too!

So we all agree and all is well with the world. :t:

And anyone can see I don't require Conquests to be portrayed in 'a glowing light' as you put it, because I summed them up with "They are by no means perfect or 'remarkable'" .

Internet Police? I wouldn't apply for the job while you have it.;)

Why don't we agree we are both a bit quick off the mark and agree to calm down a bit?

And Australia's cricket team have their ups and downs like ours. They might get knocked off the number one spot but they will be battling to get it back PDQ. I hadn't realised the Aussie Olympics team had got off to such a flying start. Four golds is terrific. I will be rooting for the lovely Jess Ennis-Hill who comes from my home town, but she will find it tough coming back from having a baby.

Lee
 
Last edited:
Ditto ! :t: :cat:

Lee, for the love of gawd! o:D will ya give it a rest already?! :eat: I think I'm going to *vomit* ..... this sorta stuff is making me more nauseous |!| than watching the Australian Cricket team bat! :eek!:

You can't keep doing this sort of thing :storm: ..... you're not the Internet police there to pounce on every single little remark that you think somehow disparages, offends, or paints a blue badged product in an other than glowing light (don't get too hung up on the labels - just trying to id the *apparent madness* :) ...... :smoke:

This is what Petrus actually said ..... "I've owned the 8x32, 8x42 and 10x42 and I've never been all that impressed with them. Build quality has never really struck me as remarkable and the view is very good, but just about right for the price point. I don't think they are as good as some make out......"
Just in case you are too far gone in the grip of the blue zombie virus, let me point out the salient part of that quote again - it's "I don't think" ..... yup! that's right, "I" - it's an opinion! an opinion based on Petrus's own personal experience ......

Petrus has got an opinion, you've got an opinion, I've got an opinion, we've all got @#$/^&! opinions !! :))

Petrus made no inference on other people not being entitled to their own opinion ....... so please stop this nonsense *grrrrr*
(I'd also stay away from forestry areas - you never know what sort of chemicals they're spraying up there! *big grin* : ))

Ps. I wouldn't switch on to the Olympics as consolation either - it seems you rather trail behind us in the medal tally! :king:


Chosun :


When I read this I hear sirens and see flashing lights.....then the word ''hypocritical'' comes to mind....o:)
 
Did someone call? :-O

;);)Hello CJ........

Its an English language thing: over here if you say "not as good as some make out" your usual meaning is that the folks that you are talking about have been making deliberately over-inflated claims......

Lee

Lee,

Not in my book. It simply says to me he thinks they are wrong. That kind of disagreement would hardly be an unusual on the forum. We've been known to disagree ourselves. ;)

I'm pretty sure both you and I tried the same samples of the Conquest HD and the Terra on the Zeiss stand on the occasion Peteus is referring to. In my opinion the effective resolution of the Conquest HD samples were pretty variable and in some cases poor, the Terras were generally worse still, but one particular Terra 10x42 actually topped that particulal shoot out. Something another forum member concurred with at the time. In my opinion those Conquest HDs were disappointing for the price tag, an optical performance I've certainly seen bettered by binoculars a fraction of the price.

This is what you posted at the time:
"Best Value: Conquest HD 8x32 then in second place Terra ED 8x42 ......."

Sorry Lee, I didn't think they were as good as you made out. ;)

James,

Allbinos don't test effective resolution (sharpness). The astigmatism comment only refers to one form of readily identifiable edge distortion.

You may well find your Conquest HD sharp. It's entirely possible your sample might be better than those I tried. Alternatively we might have quite different expectations of resolution performance.

Cheers,

David
 
Which sharpness testing have you done?

Thousands of hours of field use. I know the technicians here consider this uselessly subjective but it has been my method of choice for decades.

Strange but true, I use my binoculars extensively for what they were destined.....crazy eh?
 
Hello CJ

Its an English language thing: over here if you say "not as good as some make out" your usual meaning is that the folks that you are talking about have been making deliberately over-inflated claims. It was this that I gently objected to, not any criticism of Conquests.

So, I didn't say Petrus was wrong, and I did say he was entitled to his opinion and that others are entitled to theirs.

And thats what you said too!

So we all agree and all is well with the world.

And anyone can see I don't require Conquests to be portrayed in 'a glowing light' as you put it, because I summed them up with "They are by no means perfect or 'remarkable'" .

Internet Police? I wouldn't apply for the job while you have it.

Why don't we agree we are both a bit quick off the mark and agree to calm down a bit?

And Australia's cricket team have their ups and downs like ours. They might get knocked off the number one spot but they will be battling to get it back PDQ. I hadn't realised the Aussie Olympics team had got off to such a flying start. Four golds is terrific. I will be rooting for the lovely Jess Ennis-Hill who comes from my home town, but she will find it tough coming back from having a baby.

Lee
Lee, you're clutching at more straws than Ricky Ponting trying to imitate a half way decent Captain! :eek!:

A simple, "Yes CJ, you are right, I will make ammends and try not to do it in future" would have sufficed! o:) :king: :t:

As far as "both a bit quick of the mark" goes, you've clearly jumped the gun and made a false start! ;) .... looks like your Games are over :gn:

We seem to be dropping plenty of expected Gold chances --- it's still daylight back to GB though :-O , but we're a little bit behind that country called "Michael Phelps" !! Good luck to your Jess - Olympic Gold should be a snack :eat: compared to giving birth! :king:


Chosun :gh:
 
Did someone call? *laughing*
*double wink* Hello CJ

Its an English language thing: over here if you say "not as good as some make out" your usual meaning is that the folks that you are talking about have been making deliberately over-inflated claims.....

Lee
Lee,

Not in my book. It simply says to me he thinks they are wrong. That kind of disagreement would hardly be an unusual on the forum. We've been known to disagree ourselves. *wink*
...........
Cheers,

David
Well guys, I can't claim that we are the keepers of the Queen's English :-O , but upon running Petrus's original comments through a "Fair Dinkum" :t: filter, gives the following read .....
Petrus was saying this is my opinion based on my experience, and he thinks his opinion doesn't agree with other some other opinions ....... :brains:

No impingement, constriction, or outright ban on others rights to other opinions was made expressly, implied, or inferred! :smoke: Jaysus! o:D we can't be casting aspersions, or having a go (or however you want to define it :) at someone just because they have an opinion different from one's own, or the consensus opinion, or whatever! :cat:

That's what makes BF great - the variety of opinion, experiences, modes of usage, sampling of variations, uncovering of hidden issues, or ratification of general opinion and reputations. Such a numerically high sampling becomes statistically relevant. Given that each individual's view is still going to be a highly individual experience, these opinions offer valuable information on how well a design caters for the normal distribution and usage, and the categories of users (for example some eyeglass wearers that reside within, or not, of it) :t:

Reading this seemingly glowing Allbino's review, and comparing it to my own experience (mechanical quality was ok, the view was very ordinary), raises lots of questions for me ..... If there was a HT and a HD sitting on a table, I may pick the HD up just once to compare to my previous experience, but unless anything dramatically changed with the view I'd pick up the HT every single time after that - and the difference to my eyes is chalk and cheese - it's not a close run thing to me at all! That's my opinion, and if others have different opinions, or the consensus is different, or even if I'm a total lone voice in the wilderness, then all well and good! I'm not for one second trying to tell others what they see, or what their opinions should be, or affect their right to express that ..... No dramas whatsoever - it's just my own opinion - no more, no less. All good :t: o:)


Chosun :gh:
 
Did someone call? :-O

Lee,

It simply says to me he thinks they are wrong.
David

Yes and by the time we had finished our brief and amicable exchange I reached the same conclusion.

And did we ever disagree about something? I don't remember that.......;)

Lee
 
Last edited:
you've clearly jumped the gun and made a false start!
We seem to be dropping plenty of expected Gold chances --- it's still daylight back to GB though :-O , but we're a little bit behind that country called "Michael Phelps" !! Good luck to your Jess - Olympic Gold should be a snack :eat: compared to giving birth! :king:

Chosun :gh:

Yes, as explained in my reply to David, by the time me and Petrus had finished our exchange I reckon my first impression was mistaken.

Didn't see the Aussie team dropping anything but our got-all-the-other medals canoeist failed to get his Olympic one to complete the set.

Lee
 
Did someone call? :-O


James,

Allbinos don't test effective resolution (sharpness). The astigmatism comment only refers to one form of readily identifiable edge distortion.

You may well find your Conquest HD sharp. It's entirely possible your sample might be better than those I tried. Alternatively we might have quite different expectations of resolution performance.

Cheers,

David


Here is Allbinos explanation about testing ''astigmatism''....

ASTIGMATISM (10 points) - We considered a level of astigmatism trying to achieve a perfect punctual image of stars. Then focusing in two different distances we measured the vertical and horizontal deformation in relation to spherical symmetry axis.

When they refer to ''perfect point-like stars'', they are referring to central sharpness.

This is their version of sharpness testing - it is not testing edge resolution or what we would consider classic astigmatism. This testing showed both samples to be ''sharper'' [if we want to use that term] than several FL's, the HT, Swaro SLC and Habicht.

I think, owing to the overwhelming sentiment expressed by owners / users of HD's and professional testing, that you have tested a poor sampling.
 
Last edited:
Here is Allbinos explanation about testing ''astigmatism''....

ASTIGMATISM (10 points) - We considered a level of astigmatism trying to achieve a perfect punctual image of stars. Then focusing in two different distances we measured the vertical and horizontal deformation in relation to spherical symmetry axis.

When they refer to ''perfect point-like stars'', they are referring to central sharpness.

This is their version of sharpness testing - it is not testing edge resolution or what we would consider classic astigmatism. This testing showed both samples to be ''sharper'' [if we want to use that term] than several FL's, the HT, Swaro SLC and Habicht.

I think, owing to the overwhelming sentiment expressed by owners / users of HD's and professional testing, that you have tested a poor sampling.

James,

What we commonly see in binoculars is oblique astigmatism. Check out the explaination here. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/coma.html

As you move away from the centre the difference between radial and tangential focus increases. On a point source like stars would appear elliptoid and is penalised by Allbinos. That is consistent with Arek's explaination. I'm sure centre astigmatism does occur but I've not detected it in my testing so far. Nocternal acuity is actualy very poor and it would be quite impossible to spot resolution differences in normal use.

I wouldn't question that you and others find the Conquest HD sharp, but the problem we all have is we have absolutely no idea whether that's because the binocular is good or your eyesight isn't good enough to spot it's deficiencies. That goes for professionals too. We need information on either effective resolution or visual acuity (preferably both) to understand the value of such a comment. You would certainly need better than average eyesight to spot the differences I mentioned.

David
 
The Astigmatism category in Allbinos reviews is another one I ignore. Any telescope can have astigmatism at the field center and many do, but it's a sample defect, not something that will be consistently present in all units of the same model. In binoculars it's usually confined to just one side or at least it's different in each side. Accurately evaluating it requires a high magnification star-test.
 
Last edited:
James,

What we commonly see in binoculars is oblique astigmatism. Check out the explaination here. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/coma.html

As you move away from the centre the difference between radial and tangential focus increases. On a point source like stars would appear elliptoid and is penalised by Allbinos. That is consistent with Arek's explaination. I'm sure centre astigmatism does occur but I've not detected it in my testing so far. Nocternal acuity is actualy very poor and it would be quite impossible to spot resolution differences in normal use.

I wouldn't question that you and others find the Conquest HD sharp, but the problem we all have is we have absolutely no idea whether that's because the binocular is good or your eyesight isn't good enough to spot it's deficiencies. That goes for professionals too. We need information on either effective resolution or visual acuity (preferably both) to understand the value of such a comment. You would certainly need better than average eyesight to spot the differences I mentioned.

David


Sure, let's go with that. Overwhelmingly, the consensus is that the HD looks sharp due to poor eyesight of an overwhelming number of individuals.

Makes perfect sense.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top