Even though this is not about compact binoculars, so this post will be off topic ( but what the heck; the thread has been off the compact topic for a while).
I bought one of Cameraland's demo 8x32 Conquest HD's for the great price they had it and received it a 5 days ago. Not that I needed another binocular, but thought I would maybe get one for a back up.
Binocular arrived and certainly did not look like anyone had touched it for being a demo. It is well built and has a clean crisp view. But for me the eyecups are much too short and produce significant blackouts. I know I could get the new ones from Zeiss, but do not know if I want to take that chance and have those also be too short. Because these are really short for me. With eye glasses they are fine, but I use my binoculars a lot without them.
Optically the Conquests are very, very good. They did not beat my Swarovski 8x30 Habicht porros in sharpness and apparent resolution, but I did not really expect them to. I mostly ordered the Conquests to be a tough back up for what I have and one for my wife to possibly use. But she too gets blackouts with them also- so that may not work.
The thing that surprised me a bit the last few days when I have been testing them and weighing out the pros and cons for keeping them- was how they fared compared to my Leupold 8x42 Cascade Porro. I had not put them up against each other for the first couple days of having the Conquests. I thought I should check out that difference before deciding what to do with the Conquest. I fully expected the Zeiss to be better optically before comparing them- but it did not turn out that way. Except for the narrower FOV, and obviously longer near focus for the Cascade, it was better in every way for me. The ergos was way better for the Cascade; the sharpness and contrast was clearly better; and it was just a easier, much more pleasing view. I tested these two multiple times a day for 3 days and everytime for me the Cacade porro was better. I knew the Cascade I have was good, but I have to say, I was not expecting this ahead of time. Everytime I picked up the porro, it was a joy to hold and look through. Where as the Zeiss was a struggle getting the bin held right on my eye brow, and ergos was not as good, and then even the view was not as good as far as sharpness.
Well after that, my decision was easy. Why keep a bino as a back up, when it is not as good as my other backup and it does not work for me or my wife. So they will be going back.
But if they work for someone- the $675 demo price from Cameraland is a great deal. They seem to be a very good bino for the price. But they did not work for me. And my Cascades cost me significantly less than $200 to boot.
* Edit added regarding focus.- Another thing that I really liked about my Cascade vs the Conquest was the focussing. The Conquest seemed to be a little to fast for me, but did not notice that part that much, until I compared it to the Cascade Porro. The Cascade focus was smooth and precise, and allowed me to really dial in the detail. The Conquest, while not bad at all, it was just a bit to quick and had me working a little bit harder to dial in the sharpness. The sharp point of the focus ( area where focus was clear) also seemed to be a bit more narrow of an area on the focus wheel.
I found myself trying to achieve a better clear detailed focus with the Conquest after comparing to the Cascade; and then after multiple trials, I realized it was also the fact that the Cascade showed better detail, and I was trying to achieve the same with the Conquest and could not.
I have plenty of things to use to determine details- lots at varieties of greens, moss, tree bark, shadows, distance viewing etc, etc. Just a wide number of contrast mediums. We have a rook of Great Blue Herons that are around again this winter and they are roosting about 200-250 ft behind our house. They have been fun the watch ( the juveniles pecking and fighting etc) and they also provide a good test subject with their colors to test perceived resolution and contrast.
