Those pictures look familiar to me. Didn't you take those pictures through the Habicht 10x40? Or at least similar pictures of the moose and the badgers?
Last edited:
-
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.
A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Those pictures look familiar to me. Didn't you take those pictures through the Habicht 10x40? Or at least similar pictures of the moose and the badgers?
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Those are Dennis’s google pictures , there’s one with goats that’s used as an example of his binoculars CA. 😆
You're correct. Both the SLC 8x56 and Conquest HD 10x56 have AK prisms which usually have at least 2% higher transmission, and they seem to have more stereopsis, better contrast and color purity than an SP. I really notice a difference in the 3D effect versus an SP prism, so it must be either the prism or the objective spacing. A big advantage of the bigger aperture is the easier eye placement with the bigger exit pupil. People don't realize what an advantage that is. I all know is when I compared the SLC 8x56 to several superb binoculars like the SE 8x32 and Habicht 8x30 in the daytime the SLC was really better. I have never done that, so it surprised me.
Last edited:
No not through the Habicht, but I think I did put those up before. They are just taken with a cellphone. I went to Yellowstone this summer, but I was too lazy to take a lot of pictures. I did see Black Bears and cubs again though and wolves as well.
I would say try the SLC 10x56 if you don't hike miles with it. I think it would be the only thing that might beat your EL 10x50. That EL 10x50 is a pretty nice binocular!Well, I have the EL 10x50 and am wondering this as well. I have the SLC 8x42 and recently got the SLC 10x42 too. The last one is in Austria now, because the focuser came loose. So no experience with it yet.
I have no experience with a 56 either. In brightness there isn't much difference between the SLC 8x42 and the EL 10x50. I actually think the 8x42 is just a bit brighter in dim light. I love the 5mm exit pupil of both. It just makes the view more enjoyable and easy. In bright daylight I prefer the view through the EL 10x50. Very little glare and if it occurs, it is just at the edges. The SLC 8x42 has just a bit more, although the exit pupil is a bit larger. But it still doesn't bother me, because it is still at the edges.
I think, if I would have been be a 8 power person, a 8x42 would be the sweet spot for me. Being a 10 power person, I don't know yet, if it is going to be a 10x42 or a 10x50. Maybe the latter, but I really like the comfort of the compactnes of the SLC 42.
I would love the SLC 10x56, that's for sure... but thinking about putting it on a tripod gives my shivers. I just don't like tripods. Now I wear the EL 10x50 with a ryo harness and I like that. The size of a EL 50 isn't too big either. I think walking around with a SLC 56 would be a bit "much", a bit overdone. I might feel a bit ashamed when I am walking together with others who aren't nature enthousiast like me. A 56 is more specialized, a 50 is more allround. However, I don't now yet if the step between a 42 and a 50 is big enough to justify having both. Having a 10x42 and a 10x56 sounds more logic to me, at the moment.
I might swap the EL 10x50 for a 12x50 one day, but I don't know yet. I like the exit pupil of 5 mm
A 56 has Abbe-König prisms which supposed to be something special.
Maybe a modern SLC 10x50 with Abbe-König prisms and 93% transmission would be the sweet spot for me.
The SLC 10x56 would be brighter, have easier eye placement and have less glare than the EL 10x50, although the EL would have sharper edges. The SLC is only about 8 oz. heavier than the EL, and you could also use it with a harness.
A lot of people like the SLC's better than the EL's because they seem to be a little brighter, especially the bigger AK models, and they don't have any RB.
I put some new pictures up. I don't know 3 months would be a long time for me to keep any binoculars. Maybe two months at the most.
Last edited:
No, these are originals. 😁
Last edited:
CharleyBird
Well-known member
I've been down this rabbit hole of bigger is better.
Be very wary buying a 10x50 or 12x50 as an everyday birding binocular.
At 1135g they may not initially seem weighty and chunky. But they are. I bought a uv+ and after a year of lugging one around, bandolier style, was pretty darn happy to downsize to a smaller lighter 12x42 under 1kg.
As for buying an even heavier 8x56 or 10x56 for everyday birding?
😄jokes.
I've carried a 9x63 which is the same weight at 1350g, once🤪. That was enough of a trial. Keep them as a car binocular.
Be very wary buying a 10x50 or 12x50 as an everyday birding binocular.
At 1135g they may not initially seem weighty and chunky. But they are. I bought a uv+ and after a year of lugging one around, bandolier style, was pretty darn happy to downsize to a smaller lighter 12x42 under 1kg.
As for buying an even heavier 8x56 or 10x56 for everyday birding?
😄jokes.
I've carried a 9x63 which is the same weight at 1350g, once🤪. That was enough of a trial. Keep them as a car binocular.
I don't use the SLC 8x56 or Conquest HD 10x56 when I am hiking over 1/4 of a mile. I use them from hides, stands, blinds or statically when I get out of the car at an overlook. If I hike or walk very far, I go light with a Nikon HG 10x25 at 10 oz. If I hike over a mile, I don't even like carrying an 8x32 or 8x42.
I really like 42's best for serious birding. A high-end 56mm is like a special treat, like a fancy dessert at a restaurant, for someone that likes optics, you will enjoy it. As Dennis says it's a lot of fun to throw the 10x56 SLC in my car for quick stops at places like the salt marsh or other view points.
I would probably stop at 42mm if I didn't do astronomy. For occasional low-light birding the 56mm is also nice though - I tried to find woodcocks this spring and the 10x56 SLC wiped out all my other binoculars for viewing at dusk. There is a point when 42's show only dark shadows and the 56mm show the scene and it looks like a light has been turned on. Big exit pupil won't help you - my 7x42's were not a factor.
Exactly. When the light gets low, a 42 mm will start giving up, but then I pull out the 56 mm, and it looks like a light has been turned on. If you look into the shadows with a 56 mm, you can see much more than with your own eyes.
It is surprising, actually. Last night, I was comparing my SLC 8x56 and Conquest HD 10x56 in low light, and they were really pretty close in performance. The SLC 8x56 might have been a tiny bit brighter, but I could see more detail with the Conquest HD 10x56.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I thought this discussion was about how the 56’s were better and brighter during the day. I went back and looked for your posts about that , but they’re gone for some reason, I can’t for the life of me understand why. The 8 x 56 is brighter than the 10 x 56, i’m shocked. And you could see more detail with a 10 X 56 than with an 8X56, i’m even further shocked, Who would’ve thunk it
CharleyBird
Well-known member
And 9x63 are even 'better' than 8x56 for an 'extra few minutes' of low light? Get a 9x63 then? They are extremely bright, eye-achingly so on a sunny day.
I'm surprised you can even tolerate the view through the Nikon 10x25, when anything less than 56mm for you is now "mediocre".
Why not get the actual best, a Nikon 10x50WX, proof that optically, maximum aperture alone isn't everything.
I'm surprised you can even tolerate the view through the Nikon 10x25, when anything less than 56mm for you is now "mediocre".
Why not get the actual best, a Nikon 10x50WX, proof that optically, maximum aperture alone isn't everything.
William Lewis
Wishing birdwatching paid the bills.
I miss more birds by not carrying a scope than I gain by carrying the weight of a '56 - by a huge margin.
I'm much less inclined to take the scope out if I'm carrying the '56 so the reality is that great though the SLC 8x56 HD is to look through, as a birding tool it's compromised - even holding it up to your eyes for long periods isn't a particularly pleasant experience.
Will
I'm much less inclined to take the scope out if I'm carrying the '56 so the reality is that great though the SLC 8x56 HD is to look through, as a birding tool it's compromised - even holding it up to your eyes for long periods isn't a particularly pleasant experience.
Will
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Agreed. It really is a specialty item that just fills a small certain area of observing , unless on a tripod, but then you can take a small spotter instead. I think the upper limit imo for a daily allrounder is a 50mm, and even that is not optimal. I’d say the 42 is probably the best all around bino for most nature and birding observing.
Paul
William Lewis
Wishing birdwatching paid the bills.
Still the best 133m 8x closer I've seen in terms of optics though so I can't be too harsh!
Will it really really be much better than the 136mm 8x view of the SLC 8x42 in bright daylight? I still wonder. What is your experience if you have it?
Last edited:
The Meopta Meostar 8x56 is quite good, although not quite as bright as the SLC 8x56, nor are its edges as sharp. The big difference though between the SLC and the Meostar is the SLC has a 7.6 degree FOV and the Meostar has only a 6.4 degree FOV which is a little small for my tastes. That is the reason I upgraded to the SLC. I bought a LNIB Meopta Meostar B1 8x56 for $550 and sold it for $550. The SLC 8x56 was $2000.
Last edited:
