Thanks Ed and Arthur.
I read post 17 and a few further posts that were in the Audubon thread.
I have the 8x30 E11 and 8x32 SE, but it is the 8.5x44 HR/5 that sits on my desk for instant use together with a Leica 8x32 BA.
The Leica 8x32 BA is superior for me to a Conquest 8x32 HD because the Leica is so well shielded for flare and ghosting and can be used in any situation. The HR/5 is not so good for flare or ghosting.
What I don't understand is the praise for the SE. It is excellent but the 10x42 SE is no better than the 10x42 Conquest HD when using a 6.0 degree field regarding edge performance. Star images are just as good in the Conquest HD using a 6.0 degree field, and it goes out to 6.55 degrees with more errors.
In addition, I don't like the SEs because of blackouts. I do keep them because they do have fine star images to compare with other binoculars. They perform so well because the field size is limited.
I read post 17 and a few further posts that were in the Audubon thread.
I have the 8x30 E11 and 8x32 SE, but it is the 8.5x44 HR/5 that sits on my desk for instant use together with a Leica 8x32 BA.
The Leica 8x32 BA is superior for me to a Conquest 8x32 HD because the Leica is so well shielded for flare and ghosting and can be used in any situation. The HR/5 is not so good for flare or ghosting.
What I don't understand is the praise for the SE. It is excellent but the 10x42 SE is no better than the 10x42 Conquest HD when using a 6.0 degree field regarding edge performance. Star images are just as good in the Conquest HD using a 6.0 degree field, and it goes out to 6.55 degrees with more errors.
In addition, I don't like the SEs because of blackouts. I do keep them because they do have fine star images to compare with other binoculars. They perform so well because the field size is limited.