Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 9th December 2016, 23:28   #51
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Which Conquest HD and which Ultravid in a direct side by side comparison please?
I have had both the Conquest HD and the Leica HD in 8x42 and 10x42's and neither even approached the glare resistance of the Canon 10x42 IS-L.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th December 2016, 03:20   #52
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
Wouldn't surprise me at all. And, I'll be defenseless and blind to the invasion as the veiling glare from my HT will be overwhelming.

PS - check an atlas and see who is a ''little country.''

Now, some of this reads like Breitbart......
James: Don't feed Dennis the troll. I am now repeating myself.

Jerry
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Troll image.jpg
Views:	31
Size:	16.0 KB
ID:	607987  
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th December 2016, 04:20   #53
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Jerry,

That may be so if you are looking for Canon cameras but for the special orders for Canon binoculars it is not immediately self evident when you go to the binocular site to look for Canon and find that Canon is not listed. The rest of the binocular companies are listed there.

Frankly, I think that Camera Land's new website is less than friendly to use.

Bob
Bob:

A seller like Cameraland will not stock a very slow moving product like
any Canon binoculars.

There is a reason why. No market for these but for a very few.

Jerry
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th December 2016, 05:38   #54
maico
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
"PS - check an atlas and see who is a ''little country.''"

I am not referring to geographical size but military size. Canada is a "little country" compared to the US in military strength. Are Air Force alone is probably 30 times the size of the Canadian Air Force. If the US ever went to war with Canada you guys would be high tailing it up into the woods and fighting guerilla style. It would never happen though we need your oil too much to piss you guys off. Don't mess with Trump though he might put you on his "To Sue" list.
War plan red is being reactivated.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
maico is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th December 2016, 16:45   #55
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
I have had both the Conquest HD and the Leica HD in 8x42 and 10x42's and neither even approached the glare resistance of the Canon 10x42 IS-L.

I take the above statement to mean that you have "owned" both a Leica 8X42 Ultravid HD and also a Leica 10X42 Ultravid HD. Please let me know if that incorrect.

What about the Conquest HD? I am not sure from the wording exactly what your experience is with that line. I do remember that you owned a Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32 for a while and gave it excellent reviews, saying it was very close to your prior Swaro 8X32 EL SV. I do not recall you ever mentioning any glare handling issue with it.

I do not recall you ever saying you owned a Conquest HD 8X42 or 10X42.

Could you provide more detail on your experience with the Conquest 10X42 HD so I can more easily put your comments in perspective? Have you ever owned one and if not, have you ever looked through one? I do recall (until the more recent comments on the Swaro 10X50 EL SV) that you mostly ignored 10X power binoculars. I do not recall you ever commenting on actual viewing experiences with a Conquest HD 10X42. Have you ever evaluated the Conquest 10X42 for glare handling and if so would you please describe the circumstances.

Thanks.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 10th December 2016, 19:05   #56
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
Bruce, what you are asking for is unreasonable - we need to deal in hyperbole and unfounded bluster - not all of the unnecessary ''factual'' aspects. The only thing that facts actually do is cloud the issue when post-truth is so much clearer and easier to digest.

*political metaphors entirely intentional*
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th December 2016, 19:26   #57
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,177
James .......
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 11th December 2016, 06:31   #58
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
I take the above statement to mean that you have "owned" both a Leica 8X42 Ultravid HD and also a Leica 10X42 Ultravid HD. Please let me know if that incorrect.

What about the Conquest HD? I am not sure from the wording exactly what your experience is with that line. I do remember that you owned a Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32 for a while and gave it excellent reviews, saying it was very close to your prior Swaro 8X32 EL SV. I do not recall you ever mentioning any glare handling issue with it.

I do not recall you ever saying you owned a Conquest HD 8X42 or 10X42.

Could you provide more detail on your experience with the Conquest 10X42 HD so I can more easily put your comments in perspective? Have you ever owned one and if not, have you ever looked through one? I do recall (until the more recent comments on the Swaro 10X50 EL SV) that you mostly ignored 10X power binoculars. I do not recall you ever commenting on actual viewing experiences with a Conquest HD 10X42. Have you ever evaluated the Conquest 10X42 for glare handling and if so would you please describe the circumstances.

Thanks.
I haven't mentioned every binocular I have owned on Bird Forum. In my experience most 8x and 10x's from the same brand and model perform pretty similar when it comes to glare control. I always test my binoculars for glare control but not always side by side but my memory is pretty good in most cases and the two best binoculars I have ever used for glare control are the Canon 10x42 IS-L and the Nikon 8x32 SE. Have you ever tried a Canon 10x42 IS-L against a Zeiss Conquest HD? The Conquest HD is good and better than say the SV 8x32 but it was not as good as the Canon. Try them sometime.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th December 2016, 15:03   #59
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
1). 8x and 10x binoculars from the same brand are not the same regarding glare control.
There are different models, importantly different eyepieces, different field stops and different field sizes and possibly different baffles.

2). Judging binoculars from memory does not work.

3). I have tested many binoculars side by side.

4). I have carefully tested the 10x42 Conquest HD side by side with the Canon 10x42 L as well as with other binoculars.

5). From memory I thought that the Canon 18x50 IS, the Canon 10x42 L IS, the Ultravid 12x50 and the 10x42
Conquest HD were all immaculate regarding glare control. They are within limits.

But the 2014 Canon 10x42 L is slightly better than the 15 year old 18x50.
The ten year old 12x50 Ultravid is a bit better than the Canon 10x42 L.
The 10x42 Conquest HD is better than the 12x50 Ultravid.

The 8x32 Conquest HD is worse than the above four binoculars.

These are my actual findings.

Now, testing methods vary and illumination is different at about latitude 53 degrees compared with say latitude 35 degrees. The lighting, weather and many other factors vary, so it is essential to test side by side and not from memory.

But to make categorical statements without actual testing and just using words instead of actual careful testing is just not on.
Also each binocular is individual and can vary from a seemingly identical binocular.
But at least actually test the binocular.

People reading the comments on various aspects of binocular performance are mislead when statements are made about a specific binocular without having actually tested the binocular.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th December 2016, 16:30   #60
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
1). 8x and 10x binoculars from the same brand are not the same regarding glare control.
There are different models, importantly different eyepieces, different field stops and different field sizes and possibly different baffles.

2). Judging binoculars from memory does not work.

3). I have tested many binoculars side by side.

4). I have carefully tested the 10x42 Conquest HD side by side with the Canon 10x42 L as well as with other binoculars.

5). From memory I thought that the Canon 18x50 IS, the Canon 10x42 L IS, the Ultravid 12x50 and the 10x42
Conquest HD were all immaculate regarding glare control. They are within limits.

But the 2014 Canon 10x42 L is slightly better than the 15 year old 18x50.
The ten year old 12x50 Ultravid is a bit better than the Canon 10x42 L.
The 10x42 Conquest HD is better than the 12x50 Ultravid.

The 8x32 Conquest HD is worse than the above four binoculars.

These are my actual findings.

Now, testing methods vary and illumination is different at about latitude 53 degrees compared with say latitude 35 degrees. The lighting, weather and many other factors vary, so it is essential to test side by side and not from memory.

But to make categorical statements without actual testing and just using words instead of actual careful testing is just not on.
Also each binocular is individual and can vary from a seemingly identical binocular.
But at least actually test the binocular.

People reading the comments on various aspects of binocular performance are mislead when statements are made about a specific binocular without having actually tested the binocular.
We pretty much agree although I have never tested the 12x50 Ultravid. I have found the newer Canon 10x42 IS-L I have now better than some of the older models I had. Better baffling?
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th December 2016, 22:30   #61
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
I haven't mentioned every binocular I have owned on Bird Forum. In my experience most 8x and 10x's from the same brand and model perform pretty similar when it comes to glare control. I always test my binoculars for glare control but not always side by side but my memory is pretty good in most cases and the two best binoculars I have ever used for glare control are the Canon 10x42 IS-L and the Nikon 8x32 SE. Have you ever tried a Canon 10x42 IS-L against a Zeiss Conquest HD? The Conquest HD is good and better than say the SV 8x32 but it was not as good as the Canon. Try them sometime.
Dennis ... Thanks for the response.

Your answer concerning your experience with the Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD is rather open ended so I take that to mean you have never owned one and most likely have not used one.

Yes, I have experience with both the Canon 10X42 L IS and the Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD, owning one of each. I find it difficult comparing glare control with just one side by side comparison. I have found that binocular A may show some glare characteristics in a certain situation whereas binocular B does not, then a few minutes later, in a different viewing situation, it is just the opposite. For me, I need to use the binocular over a period of time to gain a general idea of how it handles stray light. So far, both the Canon and the Zeiss do a very good job of this. I have not seen anything yet to determine that one is better than the other in this regard.

At the end of your comments you said "The Conquest HD is good and better than say the SV 8x32 but it was not as good as the Canon". Which specific Conquest HD is this?

We are discussing the 10X42 model of the Canon IS series. It appears you are doing an apples to oranges comparision of the 8X32 Conquest HD to the 10X42 Canon. You are basing this on memory from several years ago concerning a binocular that you gave a big thumbs up and did not mention any glare issues that I can recall.

It then seems you are making a leap in faith that the Conquest 10X42 and 8X42 handle glare the same as the 8X32, then conclude that the Canon handles glare better than any of the Conquests. (Again, we are discussing the 10X42.) This is just pure speculation on your part yet your statements come across as if they are based on actual observation and this can easily give a wrong impression.

So, getting back to the original question, what specific experience do you have with a Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD, the power of this discussion?

If you have not owned a Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42, then I doubt that you have had any extensive field experience with it. Therefore, I have a hard time accepting your conclusion that the Canon handles glare better than the Zeiss. You do have extensive field experience with the Canon so I have no problem with your conclusion that it is not a "glare monster" (term from your old posts ). However your conclusion that the Canon handles glare better than the Zeiss Conquest (implying the 10X42 HD) makes no sense to me since it appears you have not done any kind of comparison. I take your conclusion as speculation. That is fine so long as it is represented as such.

I have to agree with David that one can not necessarily conclude one power in a model line will exhibit the same characteristics as another power in the same line. I have seen it go both ways. There is no way of knowing for sure until someone checks it out.

You mentioned that you "always test my binoculars for glare control ". How exactly do you do that?

David has had extensive field experience with both the Canon 10X42 and the Conquest HD 10X42. He has concluded that the Conquest handles glare just fine based on actual observation. His findings are consistent with what I have observed so far. I therefore put much more credence in David's actual obervastions than your speculations.

The fact that the Canon handles glare well stands on it's own. It is not necessary to post negative speculation on another product in order to promote your product du jour.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 12th December 2016, 00:36   #62
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,502
Bruce:

I agree with you on calling out someone on his dissing the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42. I dislike armchair, no experience comparisons.

This binocular has received very good marks from what I have seen on
This site, and I have been pleased with mine for over 3 years.

There is a good reason some rank it as a top choice in the mid-range.

It is just trolling for Dennis. He likes attention, that is why he has been
On my ignore list.

Jerry
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 27th December 2016, 18:37   #63
bdg1
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Oregon
Posts: 40
my two cents (I'm not an expert) FWIW.

I compared new canon 10x42 with Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42. I noticed that optical quality of both Zeiss and Canon are the same but Canon had the upper hand with 3D like view and IS.

However the ergonomics of Canon is very bad, I don't mind the odd shaped body but the hard plastic Eyepiece is a poor design.
bdg1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 1st January 2017, 21:13   #64
maico
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdg1 View Post
my two cents (I'm not an expert) FWIW.

I compared new canon 10x42 with Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42. I noticed that optical quality of both Zeiss and Canon are the same but Canon had the upper hand with 3D like view and IS.

However the ergonomics of Canon is very bad, I don't mind the odd shaped body but the hard plastic Eyepiece is a poor design.
The Canon and Zeiss did indeed get the exact same score for resolution
(10+) and contrast (10+) out of 12 on kikkertspesialisten.

Their new test scoring system hasn't yet listed the Canon

https://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/w...10x42_rev3.pdf
maico is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th January 2017, 23:09   #65
maico
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 207
Talking of testing, why don't allbino test Canon binoculars ? Did the Polish distributor tell them to get lost or something...
maico is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th January 2017, 23:21   #66
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by maico View Post
The Canon and Zeiss did indeed get the exact same score for resolution
(10+) and contrast (10+) out of 12 on kikkertspesialisten.

Their new test scoring system hasn't yet listed the Canon

https://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/w...10x42_rev3.pdf
Careful with their "tests" (or whatever you want to call them). They never explained their methodology anywhere, and some of their "results" have been pretty fishy over the years.

If you want to read a good test of the Canon, have a look at the Lintuvaruste site: http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/...IS_WP_GB.shtml

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th January 2017, 20:35   #67
maico
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
Careful with their "tests" (or whatever you want to call them). They never explained their methodology anywhere, and some of their "results" have been pretty fishy over the years.


Hermann
This is what I could find on their test scoring:

"Construction quality: Ruggedness is not tested. The test points are determined on how the binoculars are built and how often we have received customer returns or repairs.

Field sharpness: Apparent area of vision maintaining a high quality of resolution and contrast as tested.

Comparison of test values in different reviews: The test scores in one test report tell the level of quality of a model compared to other models in the same review. Do not compare scores in different reviews! In other words, if you compare the test score of a model in the 7x magnification test review to the score of a model in the 8x magnification review, you are likely to end up with an incorrect conclusion about which is better. The test score of 12 on a 8x20 pocket model does not mean that this model hasthe same level of image brightness as a 7x50 model with a score of 12 in the 7x magnification review.

Resolution, Contrast and Brightness: each scored 1 to 12 with +/- graduations:

12 Perfect
11
10 Excellent
9
8 Very good
7
6 Good
5
4 Fair
3
2 Poor
1

(They have recently switched to a 1-100 rather than 1-36 scoring system)

Do Allbinos even test resolution ?
http://www.allbinos.com/2.1-article-...noculars_.html

Last edited by maico : Friday 6th January 2017 at 20:49.
maico is online now  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kimmo's Review of 10x42L IS dipped Canon 10 Tuesday 22nd January 2013 20:34
300/2.8 First Impressions Roy C Canon 58 Sunday 13th September 2009 21:40
First impressions with a 40D. senatore Canon 13 Wednesday 12th March 2008 17:30
Impressions. NIK III Birds & Birding 14 Thursday 30th November 2006 07:37
First Impressions mESH Say Hello 12 Wednesday 3rd August 2005 16:28

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.23166394 seconds with 27 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:23.