Need advice on upper mid-level 8x32s, e.g. Rainier or Conquest hd (1 Viewer)

cycleguy said:

So i stopped at cabelas this morning and spent some time looking at binoculars. I'd go with the conquest hd 8x32.

CG

Click to expand...

Yes. But did you try a Alpen Rainier 8x42 ED? It is pretty good. I do agree with you that the Conquest 8x32 HD is one of the best binoculars at it's price point.

613Orm said:

I felt the Conquest was a noticeably step up in magnification from my Dialyt, but the Lynx felt not to be as much differrent. Maybe the measurements say differently, but it is my impression. It certainly has a wide FOV.
I have two 10x binos, but I'd like to complement them with something with wider FOV, a bit brighter, a bit more steady, but lighter/smaller than my old Dialyt. I felt 8x30-32 (36} could be just right.

I am curious about the Ultra HD. What is its most obvious difference towards the four times more expensive binos? Is it in the antireflex treatment? I acknowledge that certainly there will be differences in all aspects (incl mechanics), but I wonder what would be the most critical difference that would tell to go for the Conquest (or Alpen).

Has any of you tried any of these side by side?


Thanks!

Click to expand...

I'm told that the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. Unless you are in the wettest part of the plains (I heard parts of Europe were flooded by downpours), I would recommend a Nikon 10x35 EII. You won't find a roof at this price that can beat it.

I have shaky hands, but I could hold the 10x EII steady because of its size, shape and perfect balance. Excellent sharpness, gradual fall off at the edges, and an extra wide 70* AFOV, with a bit bigger exit pupil than the competition. Not waterproof, but that's what umbrellas are for!

Nikon 10x35 EII on eBay

Brock

Thanks again for geat advice! I have seen the very good test results and reviews of the Alpen Rainier 8x42, but while carrying my Dialyt around plus camera with 300m tele, and a tripod with a spotting scope I have come to the conclusion that I would like something smaller, but still with good brightness and somewhat higher magnification than the Dialyt. The Conquest HD 8x32 and eventual competitors seem to be just what I am looking for. I have not had the chance to see the Nikon E2 10x35. I am a bit hesitating to go for another 10x bino as I already have the Ultra HD 10x36 and the Leica Ultravid 10x25. Both have their pluses and minuses (The Leica too narrow FOV for me to be able to spot flying birds). I use to bring them on days I don´t bring the spotting scope for their higher magnification than the Dialyt. I thought 8x would be a good compromise.

PS. I have noticed that my browser of some reason is applying a Spanish automatic spell check shifting some English words to Spanish. Can make some strange results.

I should add that whatever its shortcomings(i.e. to big/heavy for me, not enough magnification, a certain greenish tint) I still just LOVE my Dialyt T*P*. It has a feel to it like some fantastic vintage car. It's the only binocular I think I could accept as a decoration in my home. I will probably ask to be burried with it some day

The peculiar automatic spell checker is changing "binos" to "vinos"!!
It affects also the personal emails I send within the forum.
I wonder how I turn it off??
I think it is the forum and not the browser, but I am not sure (I´m no computer guy)

That is interesting about your Dialyt T*P*. I have always wanted to try one of those but always felt the Zeiss FL was a better buy.

613Orm said:

The peculiar automatic spell checker is changing "binos" to "vinos"!!
It affects also the personal emails I send within the forum.
I wonder how I turn it off??
I think it is the forum and not the browser, but I am not sure (I´m no computer guy)

Click to expand...

The 10x35 EII's are good glass but in Spain when it rains they could be a pain.

I finally decided to buy a second hand pair of Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD through the Birdforum. I have compared the HDs and my old 7x42 Dialyt T*P* today. First, when looking at dead objects such as tree trunks, rocks, distant antennas, buildings etc, I did not notice much difference. I felt I could resolve the same details with the 7x as the new 8x. But then I began to look at birds. That was the difference I had hoped for! Suddenly, from just being a bird in the view, it turned into a much more experience of the animal. Sure, I have seen the same when using my 10x bins (Bushnell Ultra HD), but they instead don´t have the light that I feel is needed even during day to lift out the bird in the image. Certainly, I could have gone for a 10x42, but then I am out of the scope with this purchase. I wanted something smaller and handier than my old Dialyt, but with equal or better performance. I think I got what I wanted. [Someone suggested the Nikon 10x35 Eii, and maybe they would have done the job, but I did not want to go for another pair of 10x having both the really nice Bushnells and the Leica 10x25]
Yesterday night I also made a brief test of the low-light performances of the Dialyt vs. the HDs. I was wondering if the modern HDs, as they appear brighter during daytime than the Dialyt, would now beat the Dialyt despite the 6mm pupil of the latter. However, the Dialyt was noticeably better in low light. I do not understand how the HDs can have a brighter view during day than the Dialyt, but then drop off in the light intake compared to the Dialyt when it gets dark?? Maybe it is due to that the Dialyt has some kind of fuller colors, a bit more yellow-green tint (although not disturbing) that make the image appear darker during daytime than the somewhat whiter image of the HD. In any case, I am happy that my Dialyt holds its ground as low-light performers. I find my new HDs are the better binoculars between the two, but I have a special affection for the Dialyt, they are like a vintage car. Modern cars perform better, but the old classics can offer a very nice ride [I once went with 8 (!) others in a huge open cabriolet from the 50s (or 60s, I am no car expert) and it was like floating along in a boat. It had nothing to do with riding in a modern car].
So, birding during daytime: I´ll love the HDs.
Looking for wolves at night: I´ll stick to my Dialyt.
/J

BTW, It certainly does rain a lot in Spain (here I refer to central Spain where I live), both in the mountains and in the plains. But unfortunately the rain only falls during the winter half of the year. During summer it is dry and hot, hot, hot, and dry...

6_rm, in the night comparison did you wait for your pupils to widen in the dark? This may take 15+ mts, some say more. It might seem that this will favour the 7x42 with its 6 mm exit pupil more than the 8x32 with its 4, but in my exprnc. bins in night compars. perform differently from all theory I have seen, the closest conformity (with optical quality very similar, of course) being with the "twilight factor" formula, sqrt. m.d. Here that's 17.1 vs 16.0, but if it did work, I would expect the superior opt. quality of the Conq. HD to outbalance that small advantage.

Hi!
I got a couple of very nice emails that I think explain very well why I have the feeling that the HD appears brighter than the Dialyt during daytime, but that the Dialyt appears brighter after dark. One thing is perception due to the transmission in various wave lengths, another is the actual amount of light.
I paste the main content of the emails below:

"A few comments on the brightness issue. Traditionally binocular manufacturers measured transmission levels at 550nm in the green for daylight viewing and 500nm green/blue for night time viewing as these are the peak sensitivities for our eyes. I haven't tried to find transmission graphs but It's quite likely that the Conquest HD is 5 or 10% brighter at these points than the older Dialyt. However I would guess that the difference in the blue transmission (~550nm) is even greater giving the perception the Conquest HD difference is even bigger.

If the pupils of your eye will dilate to 6mm the Dialyt view will offer a 2.25x advantage in low light for exit pupil area, totally swamping the transmission advantage.

The amount of detail you eyes can resolve decreases considerably in low light and I prefer to increase magnification.
Brightness is a very complex subject. It's a perception issue, to do with your brain, and very little to do with physics. We are actually very bad a judging light levels. Over a wide range of daylight levels the pupil of our eyes adjust so the perceived brightness appears about the same. However we can judge colour and contrast with much higher accuracy and this feeds in to what we call brightness. Binoculars with a bluer bias appear brighter than those with a yellow or red bias even though the total transmission may be lower. Likewise those with better contrast appear brighter.

However in near darkness then exit pupil and transmission are much more important. There is no visual colour and contrast is diminished so perceived brightness is governed by light levels reaching the eye."

6_rm, thanks. I'm aware of many of these valuable theories, but it's v. seldom I can co-relate one to my exprncs. when comparing several bins at low or v. low light levels.

The forum doesn't do that to me. If you can't figure out what
is fixing it, try using "bins". People will know what you're saying and the
spell-checker will think you are talking about 'containers' and leave you alone.