Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Which sub-alpha bino

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 24th July 2018, 14:00   #51
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,511
OK how about build quality, I would say that goes to the SLC and Meopta.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 24th July 2018, 14:39   #52
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,790
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).

Last edited by [email protected] : Tuesday 24th July 2018 at 19:17.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 03:19   #53
Upland
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 321
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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 12:54   #54
Upland
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 321
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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 13:01   #55
Upland
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 321
Meant depth of field not fov in post above. Not enough coffee in my system yet!
Upland is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 13:39   #56
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by justabirdwatcher View Post
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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1AE8DA5E-76B3-4CD0-A47B-0E058C71FE4C1.jpeg
Views:	135
Size:	55.2 KB
ID:	669131  Click image for larger version

Name:	94E2D61A-3F44-42DD-800C-8528FB8E7BD01.jpeg
Views:	140
Size:	55.9 KB
ID:	669132  
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 13:40   #57
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upland View Post
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!
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 15:40   #58
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
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!
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 16:25   #59
justabirdwatcher
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: TX
Posts: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
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.
justabirdwatcher is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 18:52   #60
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,790
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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	6E024561-F2CB-4FE2-9B96-458D078D0809.jpeg
Views:	161
Size:	84.5 KB
ID:	669162  

Last edited by [email protected] : Wednesday 25th July 2018 at 19:10.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 20:24   #61
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,511
They all seem compressed in height and increased in girth in that pic.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 23:37   #62
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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!
Complete and utter rabbit hole.

I'm pretty sure, Dennis, you know what you are trying to perpetuate simply cannot exist - but yet you pursue it.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th July 2018, 23:38   #63
perterra
Registered User
 
perterra's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: tx
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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.
I'm not sure after you reach mid 40's that 4% is a perceptible difference for the normal human eye.
__________________
"Chan eil aoibhneas gun Chlann Dhomhnaill"
perterra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 00:20   #64
Pinewood
New York correspondent
 
Pinewood's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by perterra View Post
I'm not sure after you reach mid 40's that 4% is a perceptible difference for the normal human eye.
Hello Perterra,

I doubt that a young man could perceive such a difference. This is what Bill Cook likes to point out: some folks obsessively pursue improvements which they cannot perceive. It may be measured but that does not mean that it is useful.

I would grant that for astronomical use, assuming clear skies, one might perceive a 4% improvement but in terrestrial diurnal use, I think not.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
__________________
Bread is not enough. Give us circuses!
Pinewood is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 00:27   #65
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls, Idaho
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by perterra View Post
I'm not sure after you reach mid 40's that 4% is a perceptible difference for the normal human eye.
Now, Gerry:

Don’t you realize that if we removed all the posts relating to differences in optical performance that are demonstrably below the average observer’s ability to perceive, the forum would shrink to vapor?

Bill
__________________
“Socialism only works in two places ... Heaven, where they don't need it and Hell, where they already have it.” — Ronald Reagan
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 00:44   #66
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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.
ACTUALLY...the allbinos transmission % data is:

Conquest HD 10X42- 93.1%
MHG- 88.3%
SLC- 93.4%

House of Outdoors data:

Conquest HD 8X42- 92.5%
SLC 8X42- 90.1%
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 00:46   #67
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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!
Shouldn't be any difference with any 8X binocular. I don't notice a difference. As Lee mentioned, the fast focus of the Conquest HD may amplify this perception.

If one desires more DOF...get a 7X42...
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 00:47   #68
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
They all seem compressed in height and increased in girth in that pic.

Andy W.
Quick iPhone pic just for comparison purposes!
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 01:04   #69
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls, Idaho
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinewood View Post
Hello Perterra,

I doubt that a young man could perceive such a difference. This is what Bill Cook likes to point out: some folks obsessively pursue improvements which they cannot perceive. It may be measured but that does not mean that it is useful.

I would grant that for astronomical use, assuming clear skies, one might perceive a 4% improvement but in terrestrial diurnal use, I think not.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
Sorry, Arthur,

I was working on mine while you were working on yours.

In the vein of stacking BBs, I have designed telescopes in which all visible wavelengths—at the edge of a 1.5-degree field—would fit in the Airy disc and look like a pea in the middle of a platter. My BB stacking was for the purpose of learning. But ...

Neither hands nor machine could produce the optics to spec, changes in temperature and humidity would keep the performance in flux, a dove flapping its wings 50 feet away could destroy the best interferometric testing, and NO HUMAN EVER BORN could discern the difference between that telescope and one in which those rays got even close to the EDGES of that platter (Airy disc). Furthermore, there are folks who have bragged about their 3-quarter wave mirror as if it were made by God or Zambuto.

We all have such varied differences in perceptions. If you took the smoothest lens or mirror surface ever produced, and magnified it enough, it would look like an aerial view of a rock quarry! (Note Herbert Highstone’s excellent article in The Best of Amateur Telescope Making Journal, Vol. 2). And before anyone gets their knickers in a twist because I am promoting an article in the book, all should know I don’t get a dime from them.

Bill
__________________
“Socialism only works in two places ... Heaven, where they don't need it and Hell, where they already have it.” — Ronald Reagan

Last edited by WJC : Thursday 26th July 2018 at 01:06.
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 01:31   #70
Maljunulo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
Now, Gerry:

Don’t you realize that if we removed all the posts relating to differences in optical performance that are demonstrably below the average observer’s ability to perceive, the forum would shrink to vapor?

Bill
Occasionally I read a post here which states that two instruments are "essentially the same" or "do not differ significally" and I am tempted to suggest a trip to the ophthalmologist, or at least an optometrist.

So far I think I have resisted this impulse.
__________________
All behavior offends someone.
Intellectual curiosity is as rare as common sense.
Maljunulo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 01:38   #71
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
Complete and utter rabbit hole.

I'm pretty sure, Dennis, you know what you are trying to perpetuate simply cannot exist - but yet you pursue it.
I am curious why Upland observed it. I don't think I did when I had my Conquest's. You can't say it doesn't exist because all our eyes are different. I am sure Upland observed what he did. Some people see different things through the same binoculars. For example, some see glare through the SV 8x32 and some don't. Some see CA and some don't. I think DOF is more complicated than it seems on the surface."Depth of field refers to the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp in an image. In principle, only the image on which the binoculars are focused is really clear and sharp. However, since people are fortunately able to see slightly blurred images as sharp, phenomena like depth of field occurs. The consequence of this is that the depth of field is not easy to determine. One person may think that a particular image is sharp and crisp whereas another person may find this same image unacceptably poor in quality." I think everybody differs in what they feel is sharp so Upland may be more critical than some other people in what he feels is sharp hence he feels the DOF of the Conquest is poor while others who are less critical would think it satisfactory.

Last edited by [email protected] : Thursday 26th July 2018 at 01:58.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 01:48   #72
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
ACTUALLY...the allbinos transmission % data is:

Conquest HD 10X42- 93.1%
MHG- 88.3%
SLC- 93.4%

House of Outdoors data:

Conquest HD 8X42- 92.5%
SLC 8X42- 90.1%
Sometimes I do question Allbino's data when they get 88.3% transmission on the Conquest HD 8x32 and they get 93.1% on the Conquest HD 10x42. Too much difference in my opinion for the same binoculars even if they are different formats.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 02:19   #73
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,511
I got my laughs tonight from these two, I call this humor with a twist.

"Don’t you realize that if we removed all the posts relating to differences in optical performance that are demonstrably below the average observer’s ability to perceive, the forum would shrink to vapor? "

"Occasionally I read a post here which states that two instruments are "essentially the same" or "do not differ significantly" and I am tempted to suggest a trip to the ophthalmologist, or at least an optometrist.

So far I think I have resisted this impulse".

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 02:31   #74
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls, Idaho
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maljunulo View Post
Occasionally I read a post here which states that two instruments are "essentially the same" or "do not differ significally" and I am tempted to suggest a trip to the ophthalmologist, or at least an optometrist.

So far I think I have resisted this impulse.
Sorry, Richard:

Neither doctor could help because so many of the questionable contributors don’t relate well to reality, in that they cannot do so and still have a sturdy soapbox under themselves. In the Navy, we just fixed and collimated the stuff. In the civilian world, it’s a realm for conversation. And while accuracy is helpful, it’s not essential.

I once saw a question on a writer’s forum about how many spaces should be used after a period. The answers included: what “I’ve always used …,” what “I think looks best …,” what “I always heard …,” and what “my 8th-grade teacher said ....”

With this having gone on post after post, I took pity and butted in. Please remember, these were people who presented themselves as professional writers.

I offered references from the Chicago Manual of Style, with additional information from the Associated Press Style Guide. Yet when I walked away from the forum for the last time there had been over 50 more responses. There was more of: what “I’ve always used …,” what “I think looks best …,” etc.

It seemed clear to me those people weren’t really looking for the helpful information they claimed; that certainly wouldn’t have taken days of discussion. I’m confident they just wanted to chat and circulate their own opinions. Being right or wrong had little place in the issue. The same can be said about binocular forums. An important question might be answered by someone quoting a renowned authority in the pertinent field only to have the quote ignored so the questioner can get swiftly back to the opinions of well-read, armchair speculators.

Bill
__________________
“Socialism only works in two places ... Heaven, where they don't need it and Hell, where they already have it.” — Ronald Reagan

Last edited by WJC : Thursday 26th July 2018 at 15:13.
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th July 2018, 16:57   #75
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I am curious why Upland observed it. I don't think I did when I had my Conquest's. You can't say it doesn't exist because all our eyes are different. I am sure Upland observed what he did. Some people see different things through the same binoculars. For example, some see glare through the SV 8x32 and some don't. Some see CA and some don't. I think DOF is more complicated than it seems on the surface."Depth of field refers to the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp in an image. In principle, only the image on which the binoculars are focused is really clear and sharp. However, since people are fortunately able to see slightly blurred images as sharp, phenomena like depth of field occurs. The consequence of this is that the depth of field is not easy to determine. One person may think that a particular image is sharp and crisp whereas another person may find this same image unacceptably poor in quality." I think everybody differs in what they feel is sharp so Upland may be more critical than some other people in what he feels is sharp hence he feels the DOF of the Conquest is poor while others who are less critical would think it satisfactory.
Dennis,

I'm sure that what Upland is experiencing is the fast focus effect of the Conquest, which can suggest lesser DOF. We know that DOF is fixed by magnification.

Also, Dennis, you mention less contrast in the Conquest - I suggest you go back and review what you said when you briefly owned the 8x32 HD - ''great contrast'', even compared to the 8x32 SV....have your later samples been noticeably different?
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which Alpha & Why cycleguy Binoculars 15 Thursday 3rd March 2016 14:48
Hello Bino nuts.... er.... Bino friends telroger Say Hello 3 Wednesday 29th April 2015 22:34
Stearns Mad Dog Gear Pro Series Bino Manager and Bino Belt Kevin Purcell Binoculars 3 Thursday 23rd April 2009 01:24
Recommend the next Alpha bino? etc Binoculars 12 Wednesday 5th March 2008 23:02

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.26141191 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:44.