-
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.
Review: ZEN Prime HD (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Steve C
- Start date
spacepilot
Well-known member
Thanks for the clarification, Charles! Any chance you can change the focus direction before July 5th
? I forgot to mention in my last post, the minimalist Prime HD is very classy looking judging from Frank's photos. The improved fit and feel is also very promising based on Steve and Frank's first impression. As far as the image goes, I never had a doubt that Zen Ray was going to deliver on optical performance since I first heard about the product. Congratulations Charles on the latest product line! I can't wait to get my hands on the 8x I ordered!
mayoayo
Well-known member
Well..I mentioned the serial number because is the first ZEN RAY model that to my knowledge has a serial number on it..I owned ZEN ED 8x,7x36 and the ZEN ED Scope ,and I dont remember any of these models having a serial number on i. It clearly shows a different approach to production in the current lines coming from ZENRAY own facility
Thanks for the clarification, Charles! Any chance you can change the focus direction before July 5th
Sure, if we can redefine the "infinity" vs. "close focus".
Charles
birdazzLED
Well-known member
Sure, if we can redefine the "infinity" vs. "close focus".
Charles
hehe, good one Charles.
FrankD
Well-known member
I wanted to write a follow up post to my original one. I forgot to mention one key issue when I did my initial post...the environmental conditions. I did not give it much thought at the time but the overall conditions were poor. We had approaching thunderstorms (and actually a tornado watch) in our area the day I posted my initial comments.
Since that time I have used this pre-production unit quite extensively under a variety of conditions. It has not failed to impress for an 8x full-sized binocular. Under full daylight conditions the image is nothing but...well, beautiful. Colors are extremely well saturated. The various shades of blue on the back of a male Eastern Bluebird are very well represented. Even the subtle shades of green on the back of a male Ruby-throated Hummingbird are very easy to identify. The contrast level is instantly notable.
Details easily jump out at you. It is one of those situations with a binocular where you think you have achieved perfect focus only to find that another bump of the focus knob brings out even more detail in the object being observed.
I did take the time to see how they handle stray light issues. The dreaded crescent is not evident in the image under regular use. If I push the bins and start heading towards the sun and if I shift my eye position down towards the bottom half of the exit pupil then I begin to notice a faint crescent with a midpoint at approximately 7 o'clock. It is faint and not comparable to what the first generation of 7x36 ED2s displayed under similar conditions and usage.
The size of the sweet spot continues to impress me. It is notably larger than that of the ED3 series so, therefore, the image feels very natural to my eyes.
One last thought that struck me this morning was the handling. It has reminded me of something for several days but I just couldn't put my finger on it. They remind me of the Nikon Monarchs (original Gen II version) in terms of length and overall feel in my hands. Yes, they weigh a bit more but the way they fit into my hands is very similar to the Monarchs.
All for now.
Since that time I have used this pre-production unit quite extensively under a variety of conditions. It has not failed to impress for an 8x full-sized binocular. Under full daylight conditions the image is nothing but...well, beautiful. Colors are extremely well saturated. The various shades of blue on the back of a male Eastern Bluebird are very well represented. Even the subtle shades of green on the back of a male Ruby-throated Hummingbird are very easy to identify. The contrast level is instantly notable.
Details easily jump out at you. It is one of those situations with a binocular where you think you have achieved perfect focus only to find that another bump of the focus knob brings out even more detail in the object being observed.
I did take the time to see how they handle stray light issues. The dreaded crescent is not evident in the image under regular use. If I push the bins and start heading towards the sun and if I shift my eye position down towards the bottom half of the exit pupil then I begin to notice a faint crescent with a midpoint at approximately 7 o'clock. It is faint and not comparable to what the first generation of 7x36 ED2s displayed under similar conditions and usage.
The size of the sweet spot continues to impress me. It is notably larger than that of the ED3 series so, therefore, the image feels very natural to my eyes.
One last thought that struck me this morning was the handling. It has reminded me of something for several days but I just couldn't put my finger on it. They remind me of the Nikon Monarchs (original Gen II version) in terms of length and overall feel in my hands. Yes, they weigh a bit more but the way they fit into my hands is very similar to the Monarchs.
All for now.
Stet
Well-known member
Excellent follow up Frank. Just what I was hoping to hear. Can't wait for July!! After selling my Nikon HG's and SE's, I have banking on these to be a good replacement.
Now with my 7x43 ED3's and various 7x porro's, I'm kinda torn if I should keep my original preorder at the 8x or change it to a 10x, which would compliment my other bins better. This came about by a recent purchase of a used ZRS HD 10x42 which I absolutely love. The balance on these bins are so good that I find I can hold them just as steady as my 7x bins. My line of thinking would be that the Prime's are similiar in design so should share the same balance and I should be able to hold them just as steady.
Steve, do you still own the ZRS HD's and if so can you give me any insight into what I'm thinking is true in respect to the 10x Prime's.
Now with my 7x43 ED3's and various 7x porro's, I'm kinda torn if I should keep my original preorder at the 8x or change it to a 10x, which would compliment my other bins better. This came about by a recent purchase of a used ZRS HD 10x42 which I absolutely love. The balance on these bins are so good that I find I can hold them just as steady as my 7x bins. My line of thinking would be that the Prime's are similiar in design so should share the same balance and I should be able to hold them just as steady.
Steve, do you still own the ZRS HD's and if so can you give me any insight into what I'm thinking is true in respect to the 10x Prime's.
Steve C
Well-known member
Prime HD Full Review.
Well Mother Nature gave us a work delay today, it rained nearly .75” last night and is still raining, so I have some time to write this out. Might have a little more time off too, it’s supposed to snow tomorrow and/or Wednesday. Oh well, maybe that’ll provide some good CA test background!
This is a binocular we have all waited on for quite some time. It has had quite an evolution and I’ll give some of it as I know it. I found out about it when talking with Charles about the then soon to be released ED 3. I kept in reasonably close touch through the course of development and decided I’d better pre order one way ahead.
Frank posted a Prime HD thread quite some time ago. This is a different binocular than that one. Seems that one was one of those things that did not transfer from design board to reality too well, certainly not as well as it was thought it would. It would produce a good binocular, but the prisms didn’t play too well with the eye pieces. It became evident to Charles that he’d have to compromise some tolerance standards and he decided he’d have a high a probability of a too high return rate. One of the other things he’d have to have compromised on was the center focus/diopter mechanism. It, to put it kindly, was not very good. They went through a couple of diopter designs, but were not happy. So the went back to the somewhat old fashioned, but reliable right eye diopter. I had one of the early prototypes for awhile and the diopter was pretty unsatisfactory. I imagine he’d like to have the color brochure he released early on back, but I personally give him credit for taking his lumps, waiting out delays, and sticking to his original goals.
The principal change, aside from the diopter, was a switch to a different (and in this case larger) prism configuration. They also tried several levels of pincushion distortion and settled in on 2% for the 10x and 5% for the 8x. My example is a 10x and it is quite edge sharp. Going from memory, I’d say not quite Swarovision sharp, but this edge is (or at least should be) good enough for all but the most compulsive edge sharpness fanatics.
As I understand the recent evolution in Zen Ray Optics, they changed from more or less a rebrander, to a nearly complete OEM capability. The seem to have advanced the OEM standing further with the Prime as Charles was able to not compromise here on some issues he may have had to settle on with his older situation (part of the reason for apparent delay...wheels were always turning here). One of the things that does seem evident to me is there is a noticeable increase in the apparent build and feel quality of the Prime. There is a good, solid, dense, hefty feel to this binocular. The focus wheel movement is better than anything we have seen from ZR to date and is as good as any binocular I have tried. Soft, smooth, silky and precise, there is absolutely no slack evident here.
Physical attributes
This is a both reasonably compact yet fairly large binocular. Yeah, I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but that is what this is. It is shorter than the ED series but fatter barrels. In many ways it will remind those who have had experience with the Leupold Gold Ring, quit a lot about that binocular. It is a more traditional piano hinge style instrument and both looks and feels different from the ED series. In many ways it will remind us of a larger ZRS HD. I mentioned earlier that this has large oculars. This final beta prototype I have also has eye cups with very square edges. This combines to give an ocular assembly larger than the Kruger Caldera and about the same size as the Swift 820 Audubon. So if you don’t like larger oculars, this may be a problem. Charles said he’d try to get the eye cup done with an ED like upper curve, but that getting the overall eye cup diameter reduced will be more for a long term fix. Larger oculars may be what we need to accept for a wide, flat and edge sharp field. The IPD ranges from 57-74mm.
The armor is thick, and feels softer from the ED series. It is just slightly pebble textured and has no ridges, bumps or other protrusions. I’ve already given thanks for the lack of thumb indents.
Image characteristics-object performance:
The centerfield resolution is somewhat better than the ED 2-3 series. Having said that, it is not significant, but it is there nonetheless. This has an almost neutral color bias. There is very good contrast and the apparent brightness is improved over the ED 3 series. However, my ED 3 at the moment is the 7x43, so the magnification is somewhat apples to oranges. It does seem to have somewhat improved contrast and brightness over the 10x43 ED 2 I have. I said in my first post that I think the brightness seems to be due to an improvement in light transmission, and I still tend to think that.
I hesitate to say much about apparent depth of field. In this final beta unit I have, the dof is on par with the 10x 43 ED 2. However this is probably the fourth beta unit of several different binoculars I have had my hands on (others beside ZR too). All of these final beta prototype binoculars had less depth of field than the final production runs. Charles cautioned both Frank and I that there may be a couple of issues in this vein and he said he’d have them fixed in the final run. So until I see my own final production sample, I’ll leave it at that. Suffice it to say this unit gives a very bright, sharp, crisp image with plenty of contrast, and does so in a mostly neutral tone. There is an ever so slight tendency to a yellow tint, but no evidence is in the image.
Image characteristics-field performance
This is the area of most improvement over the ED series of binoculars. The field is a lot flatter than the ED 3 series, and the edge is just about razor sharp at the edge. There is a bit of some distortion noticeable at the edge, some likely due to the 2% pincushion and there is a little field curvature (it can be focused out) and a little of probably astigmatism (can’t be focused out). The sweet spot I think easily exceeds 90% of the field likely approaching 95%. The latter is Frank’s estimate and we agree here. When it quits raining I’ll check the actual fov measurement. The distortions are easier to see with the measuring tick marks on the tape and easier to quantify.
To those who wonder, the CA control remains excellent. There is no veiling glare reminiscent of the first 7x36 ED 2. There can be a little reflection off the ocular lens ...in EXTREME conditions with bright light behind you with light ove on sholder or the other. Coatings have a maghenta-violet hue.
So to those who wonder…”do I need to upgrade my ED?” I think the best way to answer that is to ask how much you think you need a flat field and how much you need an edge sharp binocular. You will not gain significant centerfield performance with the Prime, you gain flatter field of view and sharper edges. You also get a larger diameter ocular assembly with less minimum IPD. You will also have a fatter binocular in the Prime and the two feel different in hand. The ergonomics of the overall feel are non consequential to me. Needing a flat field with sharp edges and wanting the same are two different things.
So to wrap this up, it is my opinion Zen Ray has pretty neatly met their goal of widening the sweet spot of the ED series, sharpening up the edge performance, improving the focus wheel response (although sure as the sunrise, it will be too…something…for somebody), and improving the overall apparent quality of the Prime. Comparisons to the alpha will continue and whatever differences existed in the view between alpha class and ED 2-3 binoculars has decreased a little bit more. This is an excellent binocular
There will surely be questions about how these compare to things like the Vortex Razor HD or maybe the new Meopta Meostar HD and even the Zeiss Conquest HD. I have an original Razor HD which you can see in the pictures I’ll include here. How exactly the comparison will shake out, I as yet have no idea. I will venture that the selection of which one will be more of an overall issue of physical and optical preference as it relates to the viewer. I think it unlikely that anything between the ZEN Prime HD and a Swarovision will “blow away” anything else there. Differences surely exist, but I always get a kick out of seeing that phrase. So balance your budget against your personal preferences, pick one out and go use it…and be happy with it.
Just for grins I’d like to see some Prime HD’s decked out in black with a Leica logo and handed out to people who are told these are a new Leica and see what the reaction would be.
Well Mother Nature gave us a work delay today, it rained nearly .75” last night and is still raining, so I have some time to write this out. Might have a little more time off too, it’s supposed to snow tomorrow and/or Wednesday. Oh well, maybe that’ll provide some good CA test background!
This is a binocular we have all waited on for quite some time. It has had quite an evolution and I’ll give some of it as I know it. I found out about it when talking with Charles about the then soon to be released ED 3. I kept in reasonably close touch through the course of development and decided I’d better pre order one way ahead.
Frank posted a Prime HD thread quite some time ago. This is a different binocular than that one. Seems that one was one of those things that did not transfer from design board to reality too well, certainly not as well as it was thought it would. It would produce a good binocular, but the prisms didn’t play too well with the eye pieces. It became evident to Charles that he’d have to compromise some tolerance standards and he decided he’d have a high a probability of a too high return rate. One of the other things he’d have to have compromised on was the center focus/diopter mechanism. It, to put it kindly, was not very good. They went through a couple of diopter designs, but were not happy. So the went back to the somewhat old fashioned, but reliable right eye diopter. I had one of the early prototypes for awhile and the diopter was pretty unsatisfactory. I imagine he’d like to have the color brochure he released early on back, but I personally give him credit for taking his lumps, waiting out delays, and sticking to his original goals.
The principal change, aside from the diopter, was a switch to a different (and in this case larger) prism configuration. They also tried several levels of pincushion distortion and settled in on 2% for the 10x and 5% for the 8x. My example is a 10x and it is quite edge sharp. Going from memory, I’d say not quite Swarovision sharp, but this edge is (or at least should be) good enough for all but the most compulsive edge sharpness fanatics.
As I understand the recent evolution in Zen Ray Optics, they changed from more or less a rebrander, to a nearly complete OEM capability. The seem to have advanced the OEM standing further with the Prime as Charles was able to not compromise here on some issues he may have had to settle on with his older situation (part of the reason for apparent delay...wheels were always turning here). One of the things that does seem evident to me is there is a noticeable increase in the apparent build and feel quality of the Prime. There is a good, solid, dense, hefty feel to this binocular. The focus wheel movement is better than anything we have seen from ZR to date and is as good as any binocular I have tried. Soft, smooth, silky and precise, there is absolutely no slack evident here.
Physical attributes
This is a both reasonably compact yet fairly large binocular. Yeah, I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but that is what this is. It is shorter than the ED series but fatter barrels. In many ways it will remind those who have had experience with the Leupold Gold Ring, quit a lot about that binocular. It is a more traditional piano hinge style instrument and both looks and feels different from the ED series. In many ways it will remind us of a larger ZRS HD. I mentioned earlier that this has large oculars. This final beta prototype I have also has eye cups with very square edges. This combines to give an ocular assembly larger than the Kruger Caldera and about the same size as the Swift 820 Audubon. So if you don’t like larger oculars, this may be a problem. Charles said he’d try to get the eye cup done with an ED like upper curve, but that getting the overall eye cup diameter reduced will be more for a long term fix. Larger oculars may be what we need to accept for a wide, flat and edge sharp field. The IPD ranges from 57-74mm.
The armor is thick, and feels softer from the ED series. It is just slightly pebble textured and has no ridges, bumps or other protrusions. I’ve already given thanks for the lack of thumb indents.
Image characteristics-object performance:
The centerfield resolution is somewhat better than the ED 2-3 series. Having said that, it is not significant, but it is there nonetheless. This has an almost neutral color bias. There is very good contrast and the apparent brightness is improved over the ED 3 series. However, my ED 3 at the moment is the 7x43, so the magnification is somewhat apples to oranges. It does seem to have somewhat improved contrast and brightness over the 10x43 ED 2 I have. I said in my first post that I think the brightness seems to be due to an improvement in light transmission, and I still tend to think that.
I hesitate to say much about apparent depth of field. In this final beta unit I have, the dof is on par with the 10x 43 ED 2. However this is probably the fourth beta unit of several different binoculars I have had my hands on (others beside ZR too). All of these final beta prototype binoculars had less depth of field than the final production runs. Charles cautioned both Frank and I that there may be a couple of issues in this vein and he said he’d have them fixed in the final run. So until I see my own final production sample, I’ll leave it at that. Suffice it to say this unit gives a very bright, sharp, crisp image with plenty of contrast, and does so in a mostly neutral tone. There is an ever so slight tendency to a yellow tint, but no evidence is in the image.
Image characteristics-field performance
This is the area of most improvement over the ED series of binoculars. The field is a lot flatter than the ED 3 series, and the edge is just about razor sharp at the edge. There is a bit of some distortion noticeable at the edge, some likely due to the 2% pincushion and there is a little field curvature (it can be focused out) and a little of probably astigmatism (can’t be focused out). The sweet spot I think easily exceeds 90% of the field likely approaching 95%. The latter is Frank’s estimate and we agree here. When it quits raining I’ll check the actual fov measurement. The distortions are easier to see with the measuring tick marks on the tape and easier to quantify.
To those who wonder, the CA control remains excellent. There is no veiling glare reminiscent of the first 7x36 ED 2. There can be a little reflection off the ocular lens ...in EXTREME conditions with bright light behind you with light ove on sholder or the other. Coatings have a maghenta-violet hue.
So to those who wonder…”do I need to upgrade my ED?” I think the best way to answer that is to ask how much you think you need a flat field and how much you need an edge sharp binocular. You will not gain significant centerfield performance with the Prime, you gain flatter field of view and sharper edges. You also get a larger diameter ocular assembly with less minimum IPD. You will also have a fatter binocular in the Prime and the two feel different in hand. The ergonomics of the overall feel are non consequential to me. Needing a flat field with sharp edges and wanting the same are two different things.
So to wrap this up, it is my opinion Zen Ray has pretty neatly met their goal of widening the sweet spot of the ED series, sharpening up the edge performance, improving the focus wheel response (although sure as the sunrise, it will be too…something…for somebody), and improving the overall apparent quality of the Prime. Comparisons to the alpha will continue and whatever differences existed in the view between alpha class and ED 2-3 binoculars has decreased a little bit more. This is an excellent binocular
There will surely be questions about how these compare to things like the Vortex Razor HD or maybe the new Meopta Meostar HD and even the Zeiss Conquest HD. I have an original Razor HD which you can see in the pictures I’ll include here. How exactly the comparison will shake out, I as yet have no idea. I will venture that the selection of which one will be more of an overall issue of physical and optical preference as it relates to the viewer. I think it unlikely that anything between the ZEN Prime HD and a Swarovision will “blow away” anything else there. Differences surely exist, but I always get a kick out of seeing that phrase. So balance your budget against your personal preferences, pick one out and go use it…and be happy with it.
Just for grins I’d like to see some Prime HD’s decked out in black with a Leica logo and handed out to people who are told these are a new Leica and see what the reaction would be.
Last edited:
WilsonsWarbler
Well-known member
Thanks SteveC and FrankD for the very interesting reviews & the photos!
How would you say the CA control is compared to the 7x43 ed3? I know 10x often has more CA, but not always...:-O
How would you say the CA control is compared to the 7x43 ed3? I know 10x often has more CA, but not always...:-O
Last edited:
Steve C says......"Just for grins I’d like to see some Prime HD’s decked out in black with a Leica logo and handed out to people who are told these are a new Leica and see what the reaction would be."
I've been saying the same thing for years, and I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. People's preconceived notions often get the better of good judgement.
Very well done, as usual. I appreciate the info. I've had mine pre-ordered also. Looks like in July I'll see how they compare to my SLC HD's.
I've been saying the same thing for years, and I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. People's preconceived notions often get the better of good judgement.
Very well done, as usual. I appreciate the info. I've had mine pre-ordered also. Looks like in July I'll see how they compare to my SLC HD's.
Steve C
Well-known member
I'm probably not the best guy to ask about CA since I don't see it under any normal viewng circumstance. Strangely enough I get PM's from various kind folk telling me how to see it or why I should
.I can"t entice CA in the Prime HD 10x I have under my normal CA test approach, so I'd say the CA control is quite good, certainly on par with the ED 3 at worst. I could not get CA to speak of in the 10x ED3 when I had it.
WilsonsWarbler
Well-known member
Ok, thanks Steve. :t:
Telling you to look for CA? It's not anything like a pot of gold or Aladdin's lamp! Quite the opposite... If ancient cultures had optics, CA would be regarded as a bad omen and be greatly feared.
I'm probably not the best guy to ask about CA since I don't see it under any normal viewng circumstance. Strangely enough I get PM's from various kind folk telling me how to see it or why I should
Telling you to look for CA? It's not anything like a pot of gold or Aladdin's lamp! Quite the opposite... If ancient cultures had optics, CA would be regarded as a bad omen and be greatly feared.
Last edited:
Sure, if we can redefine the "infinity" vs. "close focus".
Charles
Why did you choose a counter-clockwise to infinity focus? I believe all the top alphas are clockwise.
looksharp65
Well-known member
Change of perspective?
Since long I've had the ED3 7x43 on my wish-list, it's just the timing that has not been right.
The Prime series seems to deliver what has been promised long ago by Charles.
I'm not surprised to read that the Primes shine, but to be honest I'm a little confused by the ballyhoo around them. The comparisons against the ED3s make these appear quite underwhelming - in contrast to what had been said about them before the Primes arrived.
If the ED3s performance is 94% of an alpha (this is a random number chosen by me and has not actually been mentioned by reviewers) and the Primes 97%, they are close to each other. Even the ED3s are quite close to the alpha.
But the comparisons seem to stretch the differences between them so that the ED3 appears like 80% of an alpha and the Prime 95%.
I do understand that at this very high level, small differences have to be pointed out, and I can tell you reviewers have done a splendid job.
Still, I have to ask why the ED3s seem to have fallen down so drastically from what I have read, as compared to before the Primes arrived.
I'm not an engineer, but as far as I can judge, all that's needed is machinery and tools that can make left-handed threads.
Then, a certain turning direction will move the inner assembly towards the opposite direction, compared to a right-handed thread.
This should be way easier than fine-tuning the optical properties or the feel and smell of the rubber, for example.
If someone has a 7x43 ED3 for sale from September on, I'd most likely be interested.
//L
Since long I've had the ED3 7x43 on my wish-list, it's just the timing that has not been right.
The Prime series seems to deliver what has been promised long ago by Charles.
I'm not surprised to read that the Primes shine, but to be honest I'm a little confused by the ballyhoo around them. The comparisons against the ED3s make these appear quite underwhelming - in contrast to what had been said about them before the Primes arrived.
If the ED3s performance is 94% of an alpha (this is a random number chosen by me and has not actually been mentioned by reviewers) and the Primes 97%, they are close to each other. Even the ED3s are quite close to the alpha.
But the comparisons seem to stretch the differences between them so that the ED3 appears like 80% of an alpha and the Prime 95%.
I do understand that at this very high level, small differences have to be pointed out, and I can tell you reviewers have done a splendid job.
Still, I have to ask why the ED3s seem to have fallen down so drastically from what I have read, as compared to before the Primes arrived.
Manufacturing the Primes with an anticlockwise focuser is a mistake in my opinion, but still some kind of relief for me since I can rule them off right away.Sure, if we can redefine the "infinity" vs. "close focus".
Charles
I'm not an engineer, but as far as I can judge, all that's needed is machinery and tools that can make left-handed threads.
Then, a certain turning direction will move the inner assembly towards the opposite direction, compared to a right-handed thread.
This should be way easier than fine-tuning the optical properties or the feel and smell of the rubber, for example.
If someone has a 7x43 ED3 for sale from September on, I'd most likely be interested.
//L
Last edited:
It's dictated by the optical prescription and mechanical design. Our ZEN ED2/3 series binoculars focus clockwise to infinity. It's because the focuser lens moves towards ocular end when focusing to infinity. With PRIME HD, the focuser moves to objective end for infinity in this particular design.
Among all of our models,the transfer gear in the focus wheel enclosure share the same polarity among different models. This allows us to improve the manufacturing precision and consistency, also helps reducing mistakes during assembly process.
When I switch between ED3 and PRIME HD, I may forget the focusing direction difference for the first couple of seconds. But I can quickly adapt and get used to it.
Hope this helps
Charles
FrankD
Well-known member
LS,
I understand what you are saying to an extent. I don't necessarily look at it that way though. Speaking strictly in terms of optical performance I look at them as "different flavors".
In terms of optical design and performance I think of the ED3s as Zeiss FLs. The Prime HDs are more like Nikon EDGs or Swarovisions. Easy comparisons to make since most folks would agree that the ED3s control CA very well and have excellent centerfield performance. The Primes do much the same thing optically but then extend that centerfield performance out to the edges.
That is the way I look at it.
If you look at it from a build quality perspective or handling then the waters are very muddy. The Primes are shorter and not lighter. The ED3s have the open bridge design to give you more area to grip. I guess we could dig into which one is built to higher tolerances but I would have no way of making that determination. I can't tear each one apart to see if they used plastic versus metal for various components.
As I said, I think they are just different flavors depending on what you prefer in a binocular.
I understand what you are saying to an extent. I don't necessarily look at it that way though. Speaking strictly in terms of optical performance I look at them as "different flavors".
In terms of optical design and performance I think of the ED3s as Zeiss FLs. The Prime HDs are more like Nikon EDGs or Swarovisions. Easy comparisons to make since most folks would agree that the ED3s control CA very well and have excellent centerfield performance. The Primes do much the same thing optically but then extend that centerfield performance out to the edges.
That is the way I look at it.
If you look at it from a build quality perspective or handling then the waters are very muddy. The Primes are shorter and not lighter. The ED3s have the open bridge design to give you more area to grip. I guess we could dig into which one is built to higher tolerances but I would have no way of making that determination. I can't tear each one apart to see if they used plastic versus metal for various components.
As I said, I think they are just different flavors depending on what you prefer in a binocular.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
not sure I agree -- they seem to be exactly what people were expecting. not sure what YOU were expecting but the ED3's already had alpha-class light transmission, brightness, FOV, and control of CA, so the only things to really be improved upon were flatness of field, size of sweet spot, edge performance, and physical attributes (build quality, focus precision especially). In that sense it seems like they have delivered as promised no?
I don't think there was ever any discussion of the Prime completely outclassing the already fine center-field performance and brightness of the ED3's, so it seems like these are exactly as "whelming" as they should be
eitanaltman
Well-known member
so the eyecups aren't like those on the ED3? They look about the same from Frank's photos, with slightly rounded edges.
I will make a pitch here if Charles is paying attention and bring up again that I think the Vorex Fury have the absolute best eyecups I've ever used. :eat: They are also pretty "fat barreled" binoculars with pretty sizable oculars, but the eyecups with their tapered design and soft rubber edges are just a joy to use and nestle really nicely in my eye sockets. If Charles can implement a similar design, with a soft edged, tapering profile, it may help mitigate the massive oculars.
