Which sub-alpha bino (1 Viewer)

jremmons · Jul 22, 2018

I owned the SLC 8x42... I'd argue that they are comparable to the 8.5x42 Swarovision and 8x42 HT, so I'd put them at the top of your list in terms of pure quality... that being said, I'd go with the Monarch HG. I just struggle to put so much value into the optics anymore, when even the stuff being produced at the $200-400 mark is, in many traits, better than some of the alpha quality stuff several years ago (which at the time was hailed as amazing). I've actually "downgraded" myself to optics even below the sub-alphas, such as the Meopro HD and Leupold BX-4.

The Monarch seems (from my limited experience and the reviews present on this and other forums) to have great optics and ergonomics, and is backed by a solid company. The Conquest HD is also very good, but I've never been as big a fan as some, relative to the competition at their price point. The Meostar/Euro HD and Kowa Genesis are also up there.

I'll disagree with a common notion, as I simply can't seem to get along with most 8x32 binoculars, and would always recommend a 42mm if you only have one pair of optics (ALTHOUGH, I have a lot of interest in the 8x30 CL as the 8x32 Swarovision was one of the few 32mm I enjoyed aside from glare)- but as with all things optical, your mileage may vary greatly...

dries1 · Jul 22, 2018

If someone spends time like I (some here) do, looking through different glass, don't you think they would eventually see differences in quality of view of different glass. I have no brand loyalty any more, I used to because I did not look through other brands of glass. I have come to realize what Canip said, while I have my health, and good vision, I like to collect and compare. While I enjoy the reviews of others, I like to check glass for myself with my own eyes to compare/contrast. What I have found out is comfort of use is as important as the optics, and all of the manufacturers have had hits and misses. Additionally, I have realized that the prices are going up, so be patient and buy used and not abused.

Andy W.

Troubador · Jul 22, 2018

dries1 said:
If someone spends time like I (some here) do, looking through different glass, don't you think they would eventually see differences in quality of view of different glass. I have no brand loyalty any more, I used to because I did not look through other brands of glass. I have come to realize what Canip said, while I have my health, and good vision, I like to collect and compare. While I enjoy the reviews of others, I like to check glass for myself with my own eyes to compare/contrast. What I have found out is comfort of use is as important as the optics, and all of the manufacturers have had hits and misses.
Andy W.

This pretty much sums up my feelings these days. Of course I have my favourites but they tend to be quite varied now as different binos can appeal for quite different reasons, sometimes based on solid performance characteristics but by no means always so.

Lee

justabirdwatcher · Jul 23, 2018

For me in 8X42, it would come down to the Monarch HG and the SLC. Not that the Conquest HD 8X42 isn't a nice binocular but it just doesn't have the FOV of the other two. I realize the added benefit of more FOV as my birding experience evolves.

I would disagree based on my personal experience.

The Monarch HG isn't the same IQ as the Conquest HD. It's just not as bright. I have looked at them side-by-side multiple times, and quickly ruled out the Monarch by comparison. It should be priced $200 less than the Conquest IMO.

The SLC is a heavy bin, and considerably more expensive. I don't consider it in the same class as either the Monarch or the Conquest HD.

For me at least, the Conquest HD provides the highest image to price ratio of any binocular I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. I don't own one currently, but it will be my next binocular purchase.

Ontario · Jul 23, 2018

justabirdwatcher said:
I would disagree based on my personal experience.

The Monarch HG isn't the same IQ as the Conquest HD. It's just not as bright. I have looked at them side-by-side multiple times, and quickly ruled out the Monarch by comparison. It should be priced $200 less than the Conquest IMO.

The SLC is a heavy bin, and considerably more expensive. I don't consider it in the same class as either the Monarch or the Conquest HD.

For me at least, the Conquest HD provides the highest image to price ratio of any binocular I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. I don't own one currently, but it will be my next binocular purchase.

Like everything else opinions vary see Rokslide's review by Matt Cashell aka The Optics Professor

http://www.rokslide.com/review-nikon-monarch-hg-10x42

Discussion thread.

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/optics/98613-nikon-monarch-hg-10x42-review-matt-cashell.html?

My vote is for the SLC.

Upland · Jul 23, 2018

If money isn’t an issue than the SLC is probably the best choice. For the value I would say Tract Toric. I own the 10x42 and like them more than the Conquests I’ve owned. Primarily because of the focusing speed. One turn for the Toric which is just right for me. The Conquests are faster and I was constantly fidgeting with it. Even when I had things in focus the depth of field was lacking as well. Many times I would get an object perfectly in focus and then neither fore or aft objects were in focus. The Toric 8x42 is being closed out for $524. Nothing at the price will come close. I also noticed a review on here said the actual fov is quite a bit wider than the specs. Not sure about that but I do know my 10x42s close focus 2 feet closer than the spec.

justabirdwatcher · Jul 24, 2018

zzzzzz said:
Like everything else opinions vary see Rokslide's review by Matt Cashell aka The Optics Professor

http://www.rokslide.com/review-nikon-monarch-hg-10x42

Discussion thread.

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/optics/98613-nikon-monarch-hg-10x42-review-matt-cashell.html?

My vote is for the SLC.

Huh, I thought that link was going to take me to a review of the Monarch HG compared to the Conquest HD. Funny thing is I had the Monarch, the Conquest and the Meopta all out for a test, side by side and the Conquest beat both the Monarch and the Meopta, much to my surprise - because I consider the Meopta to be a great bin.

And yea, of course everyone would take the SLC if we're just talking about IQ. But the lighter weight and size and price of the Conquest is why I would choose it over even the SLC.

Troubador · Jul 24, 2018

Since depth of field in binos is governed by their magnification all 8x binos have the same depth of field. If this statement is too simplistic I would be happy to be shot down in flames by any more knowledgeable member who would care to correct this.

A fast focuser such as the Conquest HD's can give the impression of a smaller depth of field as a small adjustment of the focuser can lead to a larger shift in the point of focus with a consequent more dramatic shift of the band of field depth. For me this is one of the Conquest's biggest assets as it allows fast focus change from nearby subjects to distant ones and then back to close subjects and all without time-wasting finger-pumping on the focus wheel. I don't find this fast focus tricky to manage but I can understand some people finding it difficult to adjust to.

I wouldn't consider the latest model SLC as the close focus is miserable and greatly reduces this model's versatility but for just birding it wouldn't be a problem.

Lee

jgraider · Jul 24, 2018

justabirdwatcher said:
Huh, I thought that link was going to take me to a review of the Monarch HG compared to the Conquest HD. Funny thing is I had the Monarch, the Conquest and the Meopta all out for a test, side by side and the Conquest beat both the Monarch and the Meopta, much to my surprise - because I consider the Meopta to be a great bin.

And yea, of course everyone would take the SLC if we're just talking about IQ. But the lighter weight and size and price of the Conquest is why I would choose it over even the SLC.

Funny how we perceive things. I had my Toric, SLC HD, Meopta HD, and my bud's Conquest HD side by side several times. I found the Meostar, Conquest, and Toric "too close to call" and the SLC a slight frontrunner. I agree with Upland that the Toric's are really, really good. I find the Conquest eyepeices terrible to deal with.

justabirdwatcher · Jul 24, 2018

jgraider said:
Funny how we perceive things. I had my Toric, SLC HD, Meopta HD, and my bud's Conquest HD side by side several times. I found the Meostar, Conquest, and Toric "too close to call" and the SLC a slight frontrunner. I agree with Upland that the Toric's are really, really good. I find the Conquest eyepeices terrible to deal with.

That is funny. Just goes to show all our eyes are a little different! Also, the eyepieces are a bit tricky on the Conquests, I'll give you that. But the eyecups fit my eyes perfectly and I prefer eyepieces that stay put when you extend them. I returned a pair of Maven C3's for exactly that reason. The eyepieces would collapse on their own through normal use. Drove me nuts. It was a shame since the optics on those were superb.

dries1 · Jul 24, 2018

OK how about build quality, I would say that goes to the SLC and Meopta.

Andy W.

denco@comcast.n · Jul 24, 2018

The weak points of the Zeiss Conquest HD are the rough eye cups, the edges aren't as sharp and the contrast isn't as good as the other two binoculars. Most people like them because they are bright but when you compare them to other binoculars like the Nikon MHG, SLC, Meopta or even the new Swarovski 8x30 CL it is easy to see they don't have as much contrast and the edges aren't as sharp. SLC(1st), MHG(2nd),Conquest(3rd).

Upland · Jul 25, 2018

I don’t know the physics of dof but not all binoculars have the same and I’m sure it has to do with quality of materials and the way they are built. I owned both the 8x42 and 8x32 Conquest and they both lacked in the dof department. When I absolutely had an object in perfect focus I would look at another that was five feet in front and five feet in back. Neither would be in focus. Nothing to do with the focus speed there. And yes the experiment was repeated at all distances. For my eyes the Conquest has an optical flaw with dof. Otherwise a very nice bino.

Upland · Jul 25, 2018

I hope I didn’t offend any of you who own the Conquest. All of are eyes are different. Unfortunately for me the fov, apparent fov, depth of focus or whatever one wants to call it didn’t work. For those of you who are thinking of buying the HG there is a great deal today. LL Bean is having a 20% off sale that applies to Nikon so you can save a couple hundred dollars on the HG. Unfortunately it won’t work on Swaros. I’m going to post this on the bargains thread but since the HG is a big part of the discussion here I thought I would put it here as well.

Upland · Jul 25, 2018

Meant depth of field not fov in post above. Not enough coffee in my system yet!

chill6x6 · Jul 25, 2018

justabirdwatcher said:
I would disagree based on my personal experience.

The SLC is a heavy bin

But the lighter weight and size and price of the Conquest is why I would choose it over even the SLC.

The Zeiss Conquest HD and the Swarovski SLC weigh almost EXACTLY the same...about 28 ounces with RYULH snaps installed..

The Conquest HD IS a nice binocular....I have TWO. It's also among the best for light transmission for a roof prism binocular. And if that's ones thing...it's a good choice. The SLC is just as good in that aspect, more FOV, and a little better quality. The Monarch HG adds even MORE FOV, lighter weight, smaller size, better designed objective covers, and the best focus of the three.

chill6x6 · Jul 25, 2018

Upland said:
I don’t know the physics of dof but not all binoculars have the same and I’m sure it has to do with quality of materials and the way they are built. I owned both the 8x42 and 8x32 Conquest and they both lacked in the dof department. When I absolutely had an object in perfect focus I would look at another that was five feet in front and five feet in back. Neither would be in focus. Nothing to do with the focus speed there. And yes the experiment was repeated at all distances. For my eyes the Conquest has an optical flaw with dof. Otherwise a very nice bino.

Although a pricey binocular, you might try a Leica UVHD+ 7X42!

denco@comcast.n · Jul 25, 2018

chill6x6 said:
The Zeiss Conquest HD and the Swarovski SLC weigh almost EXACTLY the same...about 28 ounces with RYULH snaps installed..

The Conquest HD IS a nice binocular....I have TWO. It's also among the best for light transmission for a roof prism binocular. And if that's ones thing...it's a good choice. The SLC is just as good in that aspect, more FOV, and a little better quality. The Monarch HG adds even MORE FOV, lighter weight, smaller size, better designed objective covers, and the best focus of the three.

Chuck. Have you experienced the DOF problems with your Conquest's that Upland described? How is the DOF on your Conquest's compared to your SLC'S or other binoculars? Thanks!

justabirdwatcher · Jul 25, 2018

chill6x6 said:
The Zeiss Conquest HD and the Swarovski SLC weigh almost EXACTLY the same...about 28 ounces with RYULH snaps installed..

The Conquest HD IS a nice binocular....I have TWO. It's also among the best for light transmission for a roof prism binocular. And if that's ones thing...it's a good choice. The SLC is just as good in that aspect, more FOV, and a little better quality. The Monarch HG adds even MORE FOV, lighter weight, smaller size, better designed objective covers, and the best focus of the three.

Interesting. Must be the "chunkier" feel of the SLC's that make them seem heavier. Thanks for the data though.

I'm a hunter and bird watcher and light transmission is very very important to me. Hunting places some of the highest demands on light transmission that one can find, because it could mean the difference between harvesting a trophy animal, or food for the table, and making a very expensive mistake.

Very true there is something to like about all three. I do like the size and handling of the Monarch, for sure. And the light transmission and build of the SLC are tops for sure.

denco@comcast.n · Jul 25, 2018

I don't know about the Conquest HD having among the highest light transmission of any roof prism binocular. According to Allbinos the SLC is 1st @92%, the Nikon HG is 2nd @88.3% and the Conquest HD is last @88.1%. Also, I always thought the Conquest HD was the "Chunky Monkey" of the three because it has the widest bridge.

Which sub-alpha bino (1 Viewer)

Wildlife Biologist

Member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Attachments

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread