Review: ZEN Prime HD (1 Viewer)

Ok just got back from the lake and a short stop at the beach. Solved the problem with diopter with one small drop of super glue! Not enough to hurt any thing if it needed adjustment again i could turn it and free it up! The good, extremely happy! The minute differences between barrels is just that. In everyday use different distances you can't tell any difference and even when i stated it i knew it probably wouldn't have mattered! Operation of bin adjustments, focus, eye cups right up there! The one thing i had hoped for and i think Steve alluded to is the dof. This is what will seperate this bin from all bbut the most expensive bins! That aside distant objects were easily brought to focus with good detail. The closer you start to focus details start to emerge with better depth and color fringing for the most part was non existent!!! I really need a cooler day to be able to push the distance to see if i can get the detail that you get in the mid to closer regions!? Though when i was using the charts and graphs i was getting some strain just using the bins normally i haven't noticed any. Something i didn't mention before was the interior of the bin. Very clean not rough shoddy machineing! That's all for now, next up head to head with the big boy's. Might be an apples to oranges because of magnification but, we'll see! Bryce...

Would enjoy reading the comparison Bryce.

and...

Bryce: thanks for your reply and I am looking forward to your further review(s).

John

Steve C said:

Nix, it might be you and me against the world here. The overwhelming desire that I see for a 10x or greater glass is for additional reach. That is the reason I included the distances. After you get past the distance you can read license plates with a 10x, there is no practical difference..."that I can see"...in the 8x vs 10x comparison. So I think lots of folks complicate their gear wanting to add a 10x. Now some do like the extra magnification...can use it...or whatever ...they should stick with it. It is just my never to be humble opinion that there are lots of 10x binoculars in front of eyes that would be as well or even better served with 7-8x. Look in the hunting optics forums and there are endless questions about..."I'm headed out west where I need more reach than I can get with my 8x, what 10x do you guys recommend?" Even here the overwhelming desire for 10x seems to me to be for extending reach.

The Bald Eagle conference data was handheld. That is how most of binocular use occurs, not on a tripod. If I need to use a tripod to see a difference, it is a difference that is ultimately of little importance to me.

Click to expand...

Well, as a rule I don't hardly have more than 175 yds of clear view unless I look up. I have four tripods w/one holding a Pentax 16x60 designated for feeder duty. I enjoy the mounted view though I glass by hand as well.

Hand held detail to me is useless if the object is postage stamp sized. Eight & 10x show a detailed and a clean pic, yet soaring hawk was still lacking in size. A 14-16x has such a narrow beam that even though the bird looked good it was hard to shoot from the hip and acquire target for any length of time before the bird passed over the house and out of sight. In this case I liked 12x.

A 10x compared to the 8x appears to have more difference in detail say 5-150 yds in relation to 8x having more detail at 1.5mi/3miles due to perception. There's no arguing that each power, 6x, 7x, 8x etc., brings you that number times closer. However, it's easier to notice detail in higher powered glass up close than farther away. At short range your brain can adjust to slight movement better. The farther away the view the more magnified the movement, but the target is so far away that you cannot isolate the movement and it ends up being interpreted as fuzzy/dull. I have to strain to hand hold a 7x looking at stars.

I think maybe though what a lot of folks call better resolution is not just the result of less movement, but the combination w/the brighter view of lower powered glass along w/expansive fov. I agree that the easiest way to determine different x in a sxs comparison is the fov.

[Edit: Perhaps a mite easier on longer distance targets, however close targets the difference in dof is also a dead giveaway especially as a feeder suspended w/background far enough behind it to be a bit out of focus. The background on the lower power will be less out of focus/closer to focused than the higher power. Less power less focusing/more power more focusing in close range]

The 8x affords a much wider/more forgiving fov than the 10x and it more so than the 12x etc.

[Edit: If the fov was the same I would be able to pick out the 10x over the 8x easy enough at short range, but as the range stretches it becomes harder to compare. A mountain range thirty miles off would only appear 3 miles w/10x and 3.75 miles at 8x. Once past a couple of hundred yds, as example, I'm outside of my naked eye range to distinguish fine detail and it's hard to compare minute differences past that distance. If I look through an 8x glass I've extended my range to 1600 yds, more or less, and the 10x takes me to 2000 ever so roughly, so long as I stay within my detail slot I can see the 2x difference. Beyond that by and large I have to rely on fov as the difference at distance diminishes and the higher power resolution is more susceptible to movement.
On the other hand at 30'/30yds an 8x brings me to 3.75'/3,7yds and the 10 to 3'/3yds. I can easily see/determine the difference at and between 3-3.75'/3-3.75yds.]

It also is noted that the higher magnification glass must be built to closer tolerances w/less leeway. No reference here to the Primes, but higher powers could be handicapped by being right on the outside edge of acceptable deviation. Of course 2x isn't that much and any power bin could be compromised by less than rigid QC. I eyeballed collimated a 40x100. It was so far out vertically that when I managed to massage a merged view I thought I was out of the woods. I later noticed at 200 yds an electric Co. transformer that I wasn't able to render any better resolution w/40x than 20x. I went back to viewing the truck at 125 yds and sighted in a parking decal on the back window. Using 1/4-1/8 turns and working off my previous notes I managed to tighten the barrel views where I could read the decal letters and years w/40 That I couldn't w/20. Though the transformer might have been a better target at around twice the length the small letters and numbers were easier for me to gauge progress. Flying by the seat of my pants, taking notes and having to pull the turret every time for adjustment by eyeballin' wasn't nerve racking, but it was labour intensive.

Looking at the moon I have no problem seeing more detail at 40x over 20x or 25x, yet the difference in 40x and 32x, even though different bins, is hard to notice. On the other hand looking at young squirrels, not quite ready to venture out, through a knothole jockeying for the window seat the difference in the 32 vs 40 detail was readily apparent even though I find the view through the 32x more relaxed. Probably has something to do w/my shade tree collimation. I can't screw up a 32 as much as a 40.

Hey, just a shout out to Charles it's his contest that enabled me to receive these fine binoculars! Thanks, Bryce...

Steve C said:

Nix, it might be you and me against the world here. The overwhelming desire that I see for a 10x or greater glass is for additional reach. That is the reason I included the distances. After you get past the distance you can read license plates with a 10x, there is no practical difference..."that I can see"...in the 8x vs 10x comparison.

Click to expand...

It depends on your circumstances. Last year in Namibia we were glassing hillsides for game. At one mile plus (possibly "way" plus), through my 7x binos, zebras were grey spots, indistinguishable from bushes. Through 10x binos, they were clearly black and white striped critters. I resolved then to get a 10x pair before I went again.

The Primes have landed! (finally, after a month of tracking)....

Only 5 mins of daylight left today to check 'em out, and way too much work to do over the next week to play :-C

I just threw them up to the eyeballs, without too much thought or trouble.

I don't want to say too much at all until I can properly evaluate them, but first impression - nice edge sharpness, tiny size, noticeably smaller, and heavier than the ED3's, and the rubber colour is much nicer than the baby duck poo green of the ED3's, although I'd like to see it in bright daylight to really check it out.

Too cloudy to even check stars, so that will have to do for now.... more after a week or so....


Chosun :gh:

stereotruckdriver said:

Ok just got back from the lake and a short stop at the beach. Solved the problem with diopter with one small drop of super glue! Not enough to hurt any thing if it needed adjustment again i could turn it and free it up! The good, extremely happy! The minute differences between barrels is just that. In everyday use different distances you can't tell any difference and even when i stated it i knew it probably wouldn't have mattered! Operation of bin adjustments, focus, eye cups right up there! The one thing i had hoped for and i think Steve alluded to is the dof. This is what will seperate this bin from all bbut the most expensive bins! That aside distant objects were easily brought to focus with good detail. The closer you start to focus details start to emerge with better depth and color fringing for the most part was non existent!!! I really need a cooler day to be able to push the distance to see if i can get the detail that you get in the mid to closer regions!? Though when i was using the charts and graphs i was getting some strain just using the bins normally i haven't noticed any. Something i didn't mention before was the interior of the bin. Very clean not rough shoddy machineing! That's all for now, next up head to head with the big boy's. Might be an apples to oranges because of magnification but, we'll see! Bryce...

Click to expand...

Well after a long week (24hrsOT) i have finally gotten to do a pretty good comparison between the Prime, Swaro 8x32 el and 7x42 slc. This is going to be short and not a lengthy review gotta get my honeydo list done for our Virginia trip! For starters it's not good to compare bins of different mags! I feal it's unjust and in this case probably more so what i have read rather than being able to observe. I will begin with saying the Primes are a step up from the series II ed's that i'm familiar with. Build quality and optically they are in the same ball park as alot of Japanese bino's from the likes of Pentax, Minox and Vortex offerings. One thing it's very easy to get a relaxed veiw without the annoying obvious distortion's that plague lesser glass! The sweet spot is generous and easy on the eye's when you eliminate those typical distortions. The sweet spot on the Primes is obviously attributed to the field flatner used in the ep's. This gives you the impression of being sharp to the edges, i like this but compared to the Swaro 7x42 i find it's sweet spot as wide or wider with pinchusion? What i'm saying is although they give the impression of being sharp to the edge there is a softening or role off of the image towards the edges. The 7x42's stay sharper to the edge of the fov before pinchusion becomes obvious. Now in the case of the el's pinchusion is more prominent and the primes sweet spot appears wider. While the Primes use ed glass i find the colors to be very similiar to swaro's very saturated and true to nature. The lack of cal in the center field of the primes adds contrast but, they don't exhibit as sharp an image as either swarovski. I had all three mounted side by side and veiwing at different targets near and far both swaro's were sharper! Not that the primes are lacking it's that last little bit of texture that the swaro's pull out that are defining. It's almost porro like comparisons to a roof! A little more three dimensional!!! So let's keep this in prospective, i'm comparing this prime to alot more expensive glass! I had all 3 mounted on tripods. The Primes are 10x versus 7 and 8x glass! 10x does magnify any air turbulence more so. These things alone should be considered with this little comparitive! I really wished i had went with the 8's it would have leveled the playing field! Still the Zen Primes have really

impressed. They truly aren't that far behind optically. In every day use birding, hunting what ever you do the differences will be far less. They are sharp, bright, contrasty well defined fov

Well defined images and a wide fov without major abberations. Bryce...

stereotruckdriver said:

Well after a long week (24hrsOT) i have finally gotten to do a pretty good comparison between the Prime, Swaro 8x32 el and 7x42 slc. This is going to be short and not a lengthy review gotta get my honeydo list done for our Virginia trip! For starters it's not good to compare bins of different mags! I feal it's unjust and in this case probably more so what i have read rather than being able to observe. I will begin with saying the Primes are a step up from the series II ed's that i'm familiar with. Build quality and optically they are in the same ball park as alot of Japanese bino's from the likes of Pentax, Minox and Vortex offerings. One thing it's very easy to get a relaxed veiw without the annoying obvious distortion's that plague lesser glass! The sweet spot is generous and easy on the eye's when you eliminate those typical distortions. The sweet spot on the Primes is obviously attributed to the field flatner used in the ep's. This gives you the impression of being sharp to the edges, i like this but compared to the Swaro 7x42 i find it's sweet spot as wide or wider with pinchusion? What i'm saying is although they give the impression of being sharp to the edge there is a softening or role off of the image towards the edges. The 7x42's stay sharper to the edge of the fov before pinchusion becomes obvious. Now in the case of the el's pinchusion is more prominent and the primes sweet spot appears wider. While the Primes use ed glass i find the colors to be very similiar to swaro's very saturated and true to nature. The lack of cal in the center field of the primes adds contrast but, they don't exhibit as sharp an image as either swarovski. I had all three mounted side by side and veiwing at different targets near and far both swaro's were sharper! Not that the primes are lacking it's that last little bit of texture that the swaro's pull out that are defining. It's almost porro like comparisons to a roof! A little more three dimensional!!! So let's keep this in prospective, i'm comparing this prime to alot more expensive glass! I had all 3 mounted on tripods. The Primes are 10x versus 7 and 8x glass! 10x does magnify any air turbulence more so. These things alone should be considered with this little comparitive! I really wished i had went with the 8's it would have leveled the playing field! Still the Zen Primes have really

impressed. They truly aren't that far behind optically. In every day use birding, hunting what ever you do the differences will be far less. They are sharp, bright, contrasty well defined fov

Click to expand...

Ok so they're dull as in unexciting and not really desirable and the 8x is probably better. Sound just like the Hawke Sapphire 10x42 I returned last week and kept the 8x43 the view of which I find better than the 8x32el's I had but then they are a fair bit larger and don't look as cute.

I felt let down with the 10x42 Sapphire and returned them because I just knew I would never really want them.

has all the competition winners received there zen ray binoculars has have not received my primes yet???????????????

CliveP said:

Ok so they're dull as in unexciting and not really desirable and the 8x is probably better. Sound just like the Hawke Sapphire 10x42 I returned last week and kept the 8x43 the view of which I find better than the 8x32el's I had but then they are a fair bit larger and don't look as cute.

I felt let down with the 10x42 Sapphire and returned them because I just knew I would never really want them.

Click to expand...

Clive, i wouldn't go that far and if i came off that way my opologies. With all the superlatives posted about the 8x i'm sure it's the better of the two?! They aren't bad i was just hoping the 10's would be better for me! It's hard to make a good 10x more so than lower powered glass! One thing is the apparent dof! I was hoping these would be better in that regard, i have only seen alpha's accomplish it in 10x!!! I might not have a good representative sample so i 'am holding off posting a reveiw! Don't want to push any negativities further! I'm leaving for a week in the am, i planned on taking them along with my se's and el's to compare to some newer glass, the swaro sv's to be exact!!! So these are on hold until i get back. Bryce...

STD, thanks again for the honest opinion and short reviews. No doubt that glass in the two grand range will have advantage in material, design, production and QC. Likewise for all that the Prime brings to the table it's price could be considered modest. Certainly you have no complaints there you lucky dawg, but I appreciate you being objective in spite of your windfall.

We can look to the Theron Wapiti, Kruger Caldera, Nikon M-7, Zeiss Conquest HD and others in the 4 bills to a grand mix as comparison. Each bin has it's strength and weaknesses somewhat dependent on the individual.

While it's true that the higher the power the more critical the tolerances there's not really that much betwixt 8 & 10. Pentax still offers a 20x60 WP porro for 175 clams, so it isn't that much of a leap to acceptably merge two 10x barrels.

Be that as it may, I was hoping for a Prime in 12x, barrels only have to be within tolerance, yet if at the outside edge in each barrel and those barrels merged at the outer limit then I could see perhaps some eyestrain from extended viewing. And then again maybe not because if it is within tolerance then our eyes shouldn't have a problem merging the image.

It's tough for you as you're trying to compare different powers. Hand held I look through 10-12x all the time. I don't find the FOV to be restrictive. When I pick up an 8 or 7 I duly note the wider FOV. I don't see more detail at lower power save for more of a view that provides static detail not accessible in a 10 or 12.

For you possibly the 8x is the way to go and closer to your terms in viewing pleasure. Worse case scenario is someone would be happy to buy your 10x and you would be out little for an 8. I'd speculate that you've already received a few offers to purchase the LNIB Prime.

Anywho, looking forward to your continued review. How's the RB on the 10s? Steve mentioned the percentage of PC in the 8, yet I don't recall anyone allude to the amount in the 10. I'm curious how much you see as some might think the 10x RB more intense due in part to the extra magnification combined w/less FOV. Keep up the good work.

As for the rest of youse bums that bought a Prime, how about a few words?

I found this somewhere, so I thought I'd share.

Mag --- step------convergence----divergence
7 -- 2 ardmin -- 6.5 arcmin -- 3 arcmin
10 -- 1.5 AM -- 4.5AM -- 2AM
15 -- 1 AM -- 3 -- 1.5
20 -- .75 -- 2.25 -- 1
30 -- .5 -- 1.5 -- .67
40 -- .38 -- 1.13 -- .5

Are the 8x's back in stock yet?

Prime HD 10x42

I have no connection with Zen Ray apart from buying binoculars.

The comments and opinions expressed here are mine and relate solely to this pair of binoculars.

Pre ordered April, finally received Friday 3rd August, a day before I went on a one week holiday to the Lake District and in time to take them to the bird fair.

Over the past 2 weeks I have compared the Prime HD to my current binoculars, SV 8.5x42, Zeiss FL 8x32 and Hawke ED 8x42. On my return from holiday I also took delivery of the Nikon EDG2 8x32.

I had to wait until the bird fair before I could directly compare the Prime HD with other 10x42’s.
As a spectacle wearer, I sold my previous Zen Ray 10x42 ED2 about 3 years ago because of insufficient eye relief. I have been looking forward to owning another 10x42 that fits me.

My binocular preferences.
Since buying the SV, edge to edge sharpness and definition, together with an absence of CA is a priority for me together with a wide FOV.

The FL is a superb binocular being small, light, sharp, bright and almost free of CA. But the edge is not sharp and eye placement is a little finicky. Build quality is excellent.

The Nikon EDG is optically equal to the FL, even less CA than the FL, sharp to the edge but a little larger and heavier. No problem with eye placement and the build quality is exemplary.

The SV is optically superb across the entire FOV, very sharp to the edge with a small amount of CA visible towards the very outer edge. The SV is of course larger than the FL and EDG. Build quality is excellent.

The Hawke frontier ED is optically good but suffers some edge distortion. CA is well controlled in the centre and only slightly noticeable around the edge. Its build quality is OK (I returned two previous samples due to QC issues) and its focus mechanism feels vague and imprecise. However, it is excellent value for money given the image it provides.

Prime HD 10x42.
First Impressions.
Fit, feel, build quality is first rate, comparable to my SV, Zeiss, Nikon and superior to the Hawke.
Focus is smooth with no free play, the hinge mechanism is firm but not too tight and the dioptre ring has enough resistance so as not to be inadvertently moved.

Internally, my sample is spotlessly clean, no dust, grease, glue or visible oil. The quality of the internal finishing looks excellent.
How long this binocular holds together is of course unknown.
So far I am very impressed with my purchase.

Accessories.
Binocular strap is pretty decent, the rain guard and objective lens covers adequate but flimsy and the case is much longer than the binoculars.
The accessories do not do justice to the quality of the binoculars.

Optics.
Superb.
Bright, very sharp across the entire FOV, right to the edge.
Image definition and clarity is as good as the SV with just a little more visible CA towards the outer edge compared to the SV.
Eye relief is excellent. I can see the entire FOV with no blackouts. The view is nice, relaxed and for me fatigue free. The image definitely has the WOW factor.

One area where the Prime HD is not as good as the SV, FL or EDG is the control of glare in particularly difficult lighting conditions i.e. Sun just outside the FOV or the Sun behind foliage.
What I am saying is the Prime HD, relative to those three binoculars shows a little more glare and veiling. NOTE: I am not talking about the severe veiling and glare like my previous Zen Ray 7x36 ED exhibited.

Bird Fair. Saturday 18th Aug.
I took my Prime HD 10x42’s along and did very quick comparisons with the following 10x42’s.
Nikon EDG, Zeiss Victory FL/HT, Meopta Meostar/HD, Leica Trinovid/Ultravid, Swaro SV,Opticron Aurora, Pentax ED, Bushnell Elite/Legend, Vortex ? and both Hawke Sapphire ED’s.

Please note I did not spend to much time with each pair but sufficient to gain an impression of the optical characteristics of each binocular compared to my Prime HD.

Nikon EDG.
Excellent control of CA and nice edge definition. PrimeHD shows slightly more CA towards the edge.

Zeiss FL & HT.
Both have a very bright and contrasty image. The HT does appear brighter and to have a slightly larger sweet spot before the edge definition falls away compared to the FL. CA is very well controlled in both binoculars. Prime HD has better edge definition but slightly more CA towards the edge.

Meopta Meostar.
The regular Meostar was not as bright as the Prime and suffers some edge distortion. The Meostar HD had a nice flat field almost to the edge but seemed to lack a little contrast. Control of CA very similar to the Prime HD. Prime HD has better contrast and edge definition.

Leica Trinovid & Ultravid.
The short time I had with these I could not tell them apart. Nice image with a large sweet spot that softens towards the edge. Control of CA was excellent.

Swarovski 10x42 SV.
I am biased towards the SV. Superb optics. Ditto the 8x32SV that I looked through.

To my eyes the Prime HD was optically better than the Opticron Aurora, Pentax ED, Bushnell Elite’s / Legend and both Hawke Sapphire ED’s. I cannot remember the model of Vortex.

My conclusion:
The Nikon EDG and Swarovski SV are superior to the Prime HD in the control of CA at the edge of the FOV.
The Nikon EDG and Swarovski SV are superior at handling glare in particularly difficult lighting conditions.

To my eyes, image definition is about equal among all three binoculars. They are very sharp across the entire FOV.

Overall, I am absolutely delighted with my Prime HD. Its optical performance is comparable with the best available, only losing out in the control of CA at the edge of the FOV. Even here it is by no means objectionable.

I’ve left the value for money aspect till last. VFM = Outstanding.

Cost including promotional discount, shipping and customs duty, under £500.
Nikon EDG and Swarovski SV 10x42 about £1500 a pair.

Quite the stirring tale relegated w/comparisons from so many others of quality and being a 10X to boot!

Now, the only bit of puzzle dangling for me is the 20mm of ER and the eyepiece length to tame such for the discriminating non-bespectacled gentlemen of leisure that enjoy immersing eyecups deep into ye olde eye sockets.

Bryce didn't appear to have problems w/blackouts/eyepieces, yet I'm not sure how far he buries the bins into his skull. Speakin' of he's about due for continued review fresh from vacation.

Different strokes for different foks in multipication factor/FOV/EP/ER/ED/make/model, but the Prime does sound like candidate, if not shoe-in, for best bang for the buck beyond 500 clams.
--------------------
Following post:
"That 8x sound like the "bomb"!

I read where he owns the Prime 10x42 though I could be mistaken.

"I had to wait until the bird fair before I could directly compare the Prime HD with other 10x42’s. As a spectacle wearer, I sold my previous Zen Ray 10x42 ED2 about 3 years ago because of insufficient eye relief. I have been looking forward to owning another 10x42 that fits me."

Very impressive denniswaugh. Thanks for taking the time to post your findings. That 8x sound like the "bomb"!

Progress Report 10x42

Just a brief update on a few points (some that others have raised), as I haven't been able to measure, or test the 10x42's out in bright light yet, or for any length of time.

*Hinge movement: Perfect - tension is just right to adjust, and hold position.
*Diopter: There is a mark (slightly more prominent indent) at the centre position. Movement is smooth and nicely tensioned. Holds position. I haven't spent a great deal of time fine tuning or adjusting, but the view is nice right out of the box.

*Blackouts: None - not an issue. Please note, I wear glasses, and eyecups are permanently in the all the way down position.
*ER: In the ballpark sufficient (better than 8x43 ED3) - eyes are largely free to roam around the field. The large oculars are inconsequential for me, but for those folk viewing au naturel (eyeballwise!) the eyecups twist up a total of 8mm. The actual ER is meant to be 19.6mm maximum, but I haven't measured yet to confirm this.
*FOV: nice flat field as far to the edges as I might want. No RB to speak of (there isn't a straight line within 100 miles of here anyway!)
*Focus: Nicely tensioned and smooth - yes, in both directions! No slop initially - now seems to have loosened a bit to negligible levels. Speed is appropriate for a 10x (you tend to do a lot of focusing with a 10x following the changing dof, so this is nice - I certainly wouldn't want it any slower). Direction is CCW to infinity - bummer!

*Sharpness: - initial thoughts are fine (as good as ED3), or better than? - an area I would like to delve into more thoroughly, along with dof, when I get some R&R! (Note: passes DVD cover test! and flames of fire seem faithfully warm in tone....)
*Colour rendition: Very neutral. Undecided whether it is slightly warmer than ED3 yet in the conditions I have briefly viewed, or whether it's just young age-related lower brightness in the 10x. Colour saturation is excellent - better than the ED3, and I don't think you would want any more.
*CA: I don't know if the originally slated APO triplet survived the mid-gestation design overhaul or not?, but there seems a slight improvement so far over the ED3 (widely recognised to have excellent control in the centre sweet spot). I would say I'm quite sensitive to CA, and I eventually started seeing a bit in the ED3. The limited conditions I have viewed the Prime HD do not allow a sufficient basis for a comprehensive opinion yet, but the outlook is good.
*Glare: The long lunch yesterday was longer than first planned! B Consequently, I only had a couple of hours before sunset to roadtest. A by-product of this was some opportunity to check out some glary situations. Viewing towards the western setting sun (just above the tree tops), the ED3 was not able to get within 45* (starting) ~30* (substantial crescents present) of the sun, when viewing ducks at about 80m. The Prime HD performed very well, getting to 22.5* before any effects became noticeable. The main glare I have noticed so far is with reflections off my glasses when lighting is behind me, which results in match-head sized mini orbs at about the 7:30 position. Putting the HD through further paces is required, but so far it handles glare very well.
*Brightness: Unable to assess properly so far due to being limited by the 4.2mm EP of the 10x, restricting the light my younger eyes are capable of receiving, in the soft afternoon light conditions I've been able to get out in so far. They are not as bright as the 8x43 ED3's in these conditions, and I would like to get them out at midday as spring approaches to check them out then.
Dennis: I'd like to get your take on brightness of the Prime in comparison to the 10x42 SV, FL, and HT, EDG, and Meostar HD. How would you comparitively rank the brightness of each on a 100 scale? Were the conditions you viewed at the time sufficiently bright not to have EP restrictions come into play for your pupils?

*Rubber armouring: A big step up. Very classy. Nice colour, and the texture and firmness of the rubber is spot on for a very secure grip.
*Weight: As I only have the strength of a 3 year old girl in my right arm after coming off second best in a blue with gravity - not my favourite aspect, only being of any real benefit when holding in strong winds.
*Ergonomics: Not a happy marriage for my large hands - even with thumbs outside the centre under each opposing barrel, my fingers are all at sixes and sevens trying to find some real eatate to securely grip. This inconvenience is further compounded by a smaller focus knob size which makes my preferred two finger push-pull operation quite crowded. All in all, not as natural a grip for me as an open hinge design (haven't tried the high 'H' bar style yet - but it looks more promising than closed bridge), but the balance longitudinally is quite nice, so I may be able to work something out. The strap lugs are in the same position as the ED3, but with the smaller focus knob, would better suit me if moved back toward the eyepiece 1/2 a cm (as far as they can go). This bin is dimensionally smaller than ED3 (save the slightly fatter barrels at the ocular end), and I think would suit those with normal, even smaller hands quite well.

*Quality: More precisely built than the ED3. A note for those that like a 'solid' feel: weight does not= quality! I'd like to check in bright daylight for internal finish (and those pesky dust specs!) - maybe I'll get a chance this w/e, although the weather prediction is not good, so measuring will have to wait a whiles yet.


Chosun :gh:

Wow, i must have a subpar sample!? Bryce...

Dennis: I'd like to get your take on brightness of the Prime in comparison to the 10x42 SV, FL, and HT, EDG, and Meostar HD. How would you comparitively rank the brightness of each on a 100 scale? Were the conditions you viewed at the time sufficiently bright not to have EP restrictions come into play for your pupils?

Chosun




Bird Fair, Rutland Water, UK

Sat 18th Aug 2012.

Viewing conditions.

Bright sunny day.

Viewing was done inside a marquee looking outside, so minimal reflections from backlighting affecting the eyepiece.
Leica and Swarovski had supplied resolution and colour test targets located at various locations around the venue.
As expected around a lake, scenery consisted of trees, foliage, reeds, birds and of course the lake itself.

I did not take note of the position of the Sun relative to my viewing position but Nikon, Zeiss and Swarovski occupied the same marquee and shared the same viewing opportunity.
The Meopta was in a different marquee and did not share the same view.

I could easily see the hides across the lake and far into the distance with minimal interference from haze. I’d say pretty much ideal viewing conditions.


Comparative brightness.

I did not specifically set out to observe differences in brightness between the binoculars.
If I noticed any differences in sharpness, contrast, brightness, edge softening, colour rendition, size of FOV etc., I made a mental note of all of these aspects to form an overall impression.

My recollection of brightness when I looked through the binoculars is as follows;

Zeiss HT appeared the brightest followed by the FL

Differences in absolute brightness between the Prime, SV and EDG were imo negligible when switching glasses. To my eyes the rendition of colour is similar between these three and it is this aspect that created the impression of a comparable viewing experience between them.

If I was pressed to rank them on brightness I would mark the the SV and EDG equal closely followed by the Prime.

The Meopta HD is difficult for me to describe. I would not say it lacked brightness but the image appeared less vibrant and lacked contrast compared to the Prime HD.

Comparative brightness ranking.
Zeiss HT 100 %percentage points, not expressed as actual light transmission.
Zeiss FL 98
SV & EDG 97
Prime HD 96
Meopta HD ?? I would need to take another look.

The above is obviously not scientific and is only my impression. I am in no way stating that the light transmission of the HT is 2% more than the FL or 3% over the SV/EDG.

I give the Zeiss HT 100 percentage points, only because it was the brightest 10x42 binocular that I looked through. There may be others (Kowa?) that offer a comparatively bright view.