Nikon 8x30 E2 vs Zeiss conquest hd (1 Viewer)

Is my old E2 equal in contrast and resolution?

At the Photokina I found a Chinese optics producer who had a model in stock, which was exactly the Nikon EII, so my hypothesis is that the Nikon EII is made by this Chinese company for Nikon.
In that case Nikon has a large profit margin, since the price from this Chines company for this binocular is about 35 euro's .. This may be the same for the Zeiss Terra, which gives Zeiss a nice profit margin.
Gijs

is my nikon 8x30e2 as good as the new hd conquest

Was not talking about the terra but the hd conquest.

Gijs van Ginkel said:

At the Photokina I found a Chinese optics producer who had a model in stock, which was exactly the Nikon EII, so my hypothesis is that the Nikon EII is made by this Chinese company for Nikon.
In that case Nikon has a large profit margin, since the price from this Chines company for this binocular is about 35 euro's .. This may be the same for the Zeiss Terra, which gives Zeiss a nice profit margin.
Gijs

Click to expand...

Gijs,

I presume you mean the model from Sichuan Danling Minhong Optics Co.
It would be nice if you backed this hypothesis up with a light transmission comparison, because this hypothesis is talking in the dark

Jan

Jan,
To verify my hypothesis more is needed than a transmission graph, it will also be necessary to compare the optical constructions inside, but the photograph in the flyer of Mihong Optics which I showed you yesterday and the model I saw brought me to my hypothesis.
Gijs

Zeiss12286,
It is not fair to compare the EII with the Zeiss Conquest. The Conquest has a much better handling comfort, a higher brightness due to higher light transmission and better color reproduction and a much smaller close focus. The only advantage of the EII would be a larger field of view in my opinion.
Gijs

Gijs van Ginkel said:

Jan,
To verify my hypothesis more is needed than a transmission graph, it will also be necessary to compare the optical constructions inside, but the photograph in the flyer of Mihong Optics which I showed you yesterday and the model I saw brought me to my hypothesis.
Gijs

Click to expand...

They even make the Zeiss Conquest Compacts: http://en.mh-optics.com/productshow.aspx?mid=10&id=18

They cost probably not more than 3,50 €, but I doubt Zeiss get's to see something of the margin...:king:

Gijs van Ginkel said:

Jan,
To verify my hypothesis more is needed than a transmission graph, it will also be necessary to compare the optical constructions inside, but the photograph in the flyer of Mihong Optics which I showed you yesterday and the model I saw brought me to my hypothesis.
Gijs

Click to expand...

Since Sunday is sales day (no Chinbin is returning to China because of the freightcosts, but are sold on Sunday; the later in the day the cheaper the price) I'll try to buy (among others) this model so you can take it apart (if Nikon doesn't got them first:-C).

Florian, post 7,
At first sight this looks like a real Zeiss Conquest Compact, but sure Zeiss will not see anything of a profit margin, it will all go to China.
Gijs

Yes, the logo made me suspect so as well

Not so unlikely that the same is true for Nikon then, don't you think?

Florian, post 10,
Yes, you are absolutely right, it may very well be a Chinese copy of the EII, therefore it may be interesting to compare them.
Gijs

Gijs van Ginkel said:

Florian, post 10,
Yes, you are absolutely right, it may very well be a Chinese copy of the EII, therefore it may be interesting to compare them.

Click to expand...

Several years ago there was a flurry of excitement when someone located a virtual copy of the Nikon SE on a Chinese optical site. They proved to be "not available." One of the items on this manufacturer's site is illustrated with the Baigish 8x30, complete with bakelite eyecups.

I have long thought, though, that Kamakura makes the EII, but no one has ever deciphered that mysterious "AM" on the front axle cap.

David

zeiss12286 said:

Is my old E2 equal in contrast and resolution?

Click to expand...

Even though I haven't tried the Conquest HD, I can tell you that with some confidence that your old EII is not equal in contrast to the Conquest HD, because newer bins have better coatings. However, your EII would be at least equal, maybe higher resolution than the Conquest HD, because when Steve (mooreorless) and I tested the 8x30 EII against the 8x32 SE, using boosted resolution and a 1951 USAF resolution chart, we could see down to the same bars, horizontally and vertically, with both bins, and the SE is about as sharp as it gets in its configuration.

The newer black body EIIs have better contrast than the older gray body models due to improved coatings, though the gray body models are still quite good and hold up well against modern roofs in the same price range. The Conquest HD costs more than twice as much as the EII.

Brock

I have both the 8x30 EII (a newer version black body) and the 8x32 Conquest HD.

I've had the EII a few months and the Conquest HD for about a year.

To my eyes, the EII offers the superior optics. I can see finer detail with it... I'll call it the sharper image or the clearer image..., and the image appears more crystal.

I also believe the EII to have a slight edge on the contrast too. I think it punches black better. (Ditto for the whites).

The color rendition of the two are slightly different. I don't find one better; just different The Nikon seems a bit warmer. My preference goes to the Conquest; however, I think many would prefer the Nikon.

Both are very fine binoculars, but which one you like best is down to your personal preferences and where you draw your priorities.

I also have a Nikon EDG on hand and would rate the EII in the same class of glass as the EDG. I don't find the Conquest to this level, but not far from it. The more time I spend with each, the more apparent it becomes. Sometimes you don't see a difference and other times you do.

I hear/read a lot of people mentioning the high contrast level of the Conquest but I haven't seen it this way, and I think I am alone on this. The Conquest has always seemed to have a hair less contrast than many other quality binoculars I've had opportunity with. I don't know if this is due solely to contrast level or if it may have something to do with color saturation. Lately I've been thinking it is a combination of the two.


My .02,

CG

cycleguy said:

I have both the 8x30 EII (a newer version black body) and the 8x32 Conquest HD.

I've had the EII a few months and the Conquest HD for about a year.

To my eyes, the EII offers the superior optics. I can see finer detail with it... I'll call it the sharper image or the clearer image..., and the image appears more crystal.

I also believe the EII to have a slight edge on the contrast too. I think it punches black better. (Ditto for the whites).

The color rendition of the two are slightly different. I don't find one better; just different The Nikon seems a bit warmer. My preference goes to the Conquest; however, I think many would prefer the Nikon.

Both are very fine binoculars, but which one you like best is down to your personal preferences and where you draw your priorities.

I also have a Nikon EDG on hand and would rate the EII in the same class of glass as the EDG. I don't find the Conquest to this level, but not far from it. The more time I spend with each, the more apparent it becomes. Sometimes you don't see a difference and other times you do.

I hear/read a lot of people mentioning the high contrast level of the Conquest but I haven't seen it this way, and I think I am alone on this. The Conquest has always seemed to have a hair less contrast than many other quality binoculars I've had opportunity with. I don't know if this is due solely to contrast level or if it may have something to do with color saturation. Lately I've been thinking it is a combination of the two.


My .02,

CG

Click to expand...

I know what you mean about the blacks with the II. I had a 10x35 EII BB, and I was amazed at the color contrast. My neighbor has a black truck. When I compared the 10x42 SE with the 10x35 EII looking at the truck and its tires, the blacks looked darker in the EII whereas the blacks were closer to charcoal gray in the SE.

OTOH, reds are truer to life with the SE than the EII, which makes reds a bit warmish.

The reason the EII looks more saturated than the Conquest is probably due to the EII's boost in the red. Allbinos doesn't have a light transmission graph for the Conquest HD, but if it's similar to the original Conquest in its color balance, you can see the difference in where each company puts the emphasis.

With the EII, the light graph peaks in the violet/blue (near 90%), dips in the blue and green, but is still in the mid 80s, and then peaks higher (over 90%) in the red and stays high until about 675nm, then begins to drop.

In the original Conquest is about 75% in the violet at the same point as the EII and goes up slowly inches up until hitting 85% in the green and peaks in the yellow/orange, and then slopes downward quickly in the red although not as steeply as the FLs, which falls off the cliff when it hits the red.

Of course, I'm not sure if Zeiss kept the color balance scheme from the old Conquests or made the HDs closer to the FL/HTs, I'm guessing the light graph has been moved up for better transmission but is probably the same or similar in the red. Either way, you still have more boost in the red with the EII, which will give you the sense of more color saturation.

Zeiss's color "signature" is boosting the transmission high in the green-yellow where our eyes are most sensitive and a seondary peak in the violet/blue for low light performance. Zeiss and Nikon are very different in terms of where each company puts the emphasis.

I prefer the red boost for sunny days when I can already see enough green and yellow, but a middle peak with a secondary blue boost for cloudy days/low light. Boosted red tends to make the landscape look darker in dim light.

Here are the charts:

Nikon_8x30E_II

Zeiss_Conquest_8x56_T*

Zeiss_Victory_8x32_T*_FL

Brock

hi

thanks everyone!

Zeiss12286,
The Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 beats the Nikon EII as far as our light transmission measurements is concerned. Even the Kern Piza 8x30 porro is brighter than the Nikon EII and using an USAF 1951 chart we measuured a better resolution for the Kern Pizar 8x30 and the Swarovski 8x32 SV.
The Kern Pizar 8x30 is a Porro prism binocular which has a much better handling comfort than the Nikon EII, I find that a weak point of the EII. The new Zeiss Conquest HD's als beat the Nikon EII in that respect. Our transmission data show a higher light tranmission for the Conquests than the for the Nikon EII and that also explains why the Conquests are brighter than the EII.
Gijs

Gijs van Ginkel said:

since the price from this Chines company for this binocular is about 35 euro's .. This may be the same for the Zeiss Terra, which gives Zeiss a nice profit margin.
Gijs

Click to expand...

It certainly would Gijs, but given that Terra is equipped with Schott glass a price of €35 or $35 (the currency depends on which version of the rumour you heard :smoke doesn't seem likely.

Lee

The handling issue with the stubby barreled 8x30 EII can be easily remedied with a pair of Bushwacker #5s or a pair of equivalent Butler Creek objective covers, which extend the barrel length and allow your fingers to balance the bin better.

The long discontinued Kern Pizar has only "coated" optics, so it would be WAY behind the EII in contrast and also in light transmission if it were actually measured.

I notice Gijis didn't say that the Conquest HD beats the EII in resolution. I didn't think so. What the Kern, EII, SE and 8x30 Habicht, which I'm surprised he didn't mention, show is that you have to step up to the alpha class in roofs and pay $1,000 to $1,500 more to get the same resolution.

Brock

Lee, post 18,
Schott glass is not so expensive when I look at the price lists I have, but it may be a little different for the high transmission glass.
Gijs