The problem with that is that paultricounty is correct in his assessment. The truth hurts sometimes.
-
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.
10x42- What is Next Step in Quality/Price Above Zeiss Conquest HD? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Winchester44
- Start date
I hear you on the Maven 45's - I was surprised to see tons of CA. It's amazing to me how certain huge flaws get hidden away in the forums, you can read 100 posts and not read about the biggest obvious problem with a bino - like Leica focusers, another example.
Are you taking about the current Zeiss HT 54's? They have problems too, surprised you would mention those. Swaro's not designing anything new because the 56mm SLC are so much better than the 54mm HT's IMO. Zeiss themselves moved on from 42mm HT's what, like 10 years ago?
So funny....Nikon stopped making EDG. You're only buying brand new EDG because they're in the warehouse. Gee, how does that work? They're not going to make another run till the old one is sold. By that standard, Zeiss and Swaro have stopped making all their binoculars......for now.
btw did you know that Nikon USA will service 1980's binoculars you bought in the classified for $45.....for FREE? And you get them back within 2 weeks.
EDG from Japan exist to expose the current over-hyped, over-priced state of high end "alpha" binos. It's the man behind the curtain from Wizard of Oz. Do not look at the man behind the curtain! Dennis says
Interesting claim. You know this how?
Again where did you get that info?
You mean profit? Don’t all Bino brands offer profit to sellers? What other financial incentives are you thinking about?
Ah, a stranger to d***o and his endearing ways...
------------------------------------------------------------
@Winchester44 - to get more helpful/focused advice (excuse the pun) you really have to be clear about which areas the Conquest does not do well enough for your requirements. So far you have only said pretty vague things like "step up", "better", "upgrade". "Better" means different things to different people. Do you need/want more FOV, brightness, sharpness (tough ask), performance against glare, handling/weight, does its colour rendition or distortion pattern displease you?
It's much more difficult to find what you're looking for if you don't know what you want to find.
With regard to Maven specifically, a good many folks aren't sensitive to CA, and many, especially outside the U.S., have never tried the brand. I never handled one myself last year (the 9x45 Abbe-Koening model, which incidentally did not show me obvious CA) and I'd be surprised if there were much over 100 posts about Mavens in the last couple of years.
Have I missed something about Leica focusers? Waterproofing, yes (the infamous Allbinos test) but focusers? Now I'll admit to having less interest in (because I've tended to be less impressed by) the brand, so may not have read every last post, but given how quick folks here are to point out flaws in binoculars they don't like, can "huge flaws" really be hidden away forever?
PS. I've only tried the EDGs at one Birdfair, so maybe they have improved, but to me they were unexciting - FOV not as wide as a SF (or now NL), perceived brightness falls short of the other alphas, no advantage in perceived sharpness, colour rendition though pleasant doesn't leap out at you like a Leica (if you like saturated colours). I don't doubt those who report that their performance against glare is very good, but this is not a decisive factor in most UK birding and probably most birding full stop. They are a well-executed design and do seem well made, but I can see why they were/are the lowest selling alpha and why prices are what they are (I'll bet Nikon would charge more for them if only they could!). IMO they show what is needed to perform at an alpha level, but have no single standout quality, there isn't anything they can be said to be best at. To riff on your final paragraph, they exist to show just how good the best alphas are. But each to their own, etc.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
No , the ones in your picture are not the latest and now discontinued SLCs. John Robert’s is a great wealth of info on these matters. Maybe he’ll chime in and straighten it all out.
I’m also not sure which 1989’s model Habichts your referring too, the roofs or Porros.
I’m also not sure which 1989’s model Habichts your referring too, the roofs or Porros.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
When you purchased yours has nothing to do where they’re being manufactured now. Im sure there are hundreds of old stock MIJ still on shelves. It’s also the reason I bought another one (MIJ) after confirming all new stock will be MIC. I’d suggest anybody buying to confirm where the ones being bought were made. If they could buy them and if they get a MIC, just blame Denco Dennis.
PIA, might be for some. Risky not so much. I’ve rarely ever had a problem shipping back and forth over the last 20 years. Worst can be Canada.
That’s what I said if you were reading my post.
Your eye are not what they use to be master Po.
If it’s better for you, that’s great and the way it should be. But don’t mislead members that EDG is not a superior optic just because you’ll be selling a MHG very soon.
Unfortunately not any more. Let me know when your ready to put your money where mouth is. Would you care for a small wager my dear friend.
Be carful your going to get exposed again.
Winchester44
Well-known member
So sorry! That is totally fair. My complaints with the conquest are very few.
-Compared to say my Swarovski EL they are not sharp edge to edge (every bit of Sharp on Center). The eye box is very forgiving. The field of view seems excellent relative to the magnification.
- Compare to my Leica Ultravid fits the color and contrast appears very flat or cool. Also, the eye relief on the ultravid is amazing.
Overall, I think the Zeiss Conquest is wonderful. They were
I'm so sorry! I'm comparing my Conquest 8x42 HD to Leica Ultravid HD 10x50 and Swaro EL SV 12x50 . In doing that comparison here is what stands out.
Swaro- Better Field of view relative to magnification, edge to edge sharpness (on center Conquest is just as sharp) Brighter (probably due to larger objective), much better eye cups. More forgiving eye box. Seems tough and very robust. Locking diopter.
Leica- Much better eye relief, really amazing even significantly better than Swaro! Perfect glare control. Amazing Contrast and color. Zeiss is cooler and flatter by comparison, locking diopter. Beautiful to hold and operate, almost too nice. I want to baby them thinking they are too beautiful.
However the Zeiss on the other hand has (to me at least) , grippy armor , better focus, and overall more compact package, a normal binocular stud tripod adapter unlike the Leica or Swaro.
I know everything is a compromise. If I had to pick just one thing it would probably be the color and contrast the Leica offers.
Winchester44
Well-known member
Yes I believe that is correct. Was just really stumped on the serial number. I would bet they 90's vintage that was remanufactured in 2018 to the point they got a new serial number. All the ones that got new serial's seem to be virtually new internals up to the latest except non-HD glass.
Reading more on this HD/ED glass I think I maybe learned something. HD glass is unquestionably better. However there are only a handful manufactures of it with Schott being the one the Alpha's all go to. Therefore the difference from say a non-HD Vortex to an HD Vortex is a much bigger difference than a HD Swaro vs. non HD Swaro. Basically, pre HD lots of lenses were made by lots of companies with very wide variability. However, now at least in terms of HD/ED the top companies are getting their lenses from the same places that Swaro always got their lenses (Schott) so it's potentially a much change for other brands that it was for Swaro, Zeiss and Leica. However, I may have that all wrong!
I will believe that the Monarch HG is made in China when I see one with "Made in China" stamped on it , that is yet to happen .
Hermann
Well-known member
One piece of advice: Don't get too hung up on all these different terms (that don't have a standardized meaning!), look through the different binoculars that interest you and decide what you like. Even if a manufacturer claims they're using the best ED/SD/HD glass on the world market, this doesn't mean the binoculars are good. And it certainly doesn't mean they'll work for you.
Yes. I think so.
Hermann
This is the amazing part to me - before I even got the 9x45 focused, I could see purple - big time purple. I remember looking at my wood owl-house out back, purple all around it. As I focused, the purple remained constant and a glowing rim around the box. None of my other binos show any CA on the box at all. I think it's the most CA of any binocular I've tried here at the house. The last ones that even came close were the 8x56 Dialyt and my old Nikon 8x42 Premier LXL's and I don't think the purple was that bright or prominent, at least not in the center.
Rather than "sensitivity" to blue/purple colors, I think some people just can't seem them at all. There's a term for that but it sounds pretty frightening and so I'll leave it at that
It was a tough day for Maven. The same day I got them, I received 1989 Nikon 10x50 Gold Sentinel porros, purchased for $93 with tax and shipping from an Phoenix, AZ antiques dealer. Zero false color on the owl box or anything else. Razor sharp optics, easier eye placement, less blackouts than the Mavens. Full 50mm of aperture.You can't blame me for reacting the way I did to Maven....it was NOT a good day for Maven. The Gold Sentinel are still here and Maven's return/refund service is excellent
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I know exactly what your saying. So many people don’t know that they could pick up such quality optics at such a low cost. I picked these up a couple years ago, I think I paid $200, but they were like new in the box with papers and case. I don’t think it was used because the focuser was so tight from probably all the grease hardened up. Everything else was perfect so I just had the focuser serviced. But I’m sure you’ve noticed this thing has A ridiculously fast focuser. Faster than any binoculars I’ve ever used. I don’t think it makes one rotation from close to infinity. You really have to get used to it.This is the amazing part to me - before I even got the 9x45 focused, I could see purple - big time purple. I remember looking at my wood owl-house out back, purple all around it. As I focused, the purple remained constant and a glowing rim around the box. None of my other binos show any CA on the box at all. I think it's the most CA of any binocular I've tried here at the house. The last ones that even came close were the 8x56 Dialyt and my old Nikon 8x42 Premier LXL's and I don't think the purple was that bright or prominent, at least not in the center.
Rather than "sensitivity" to blue/purple colors, I think some people just can't seem them at all. There's a term for that but it sounds pretty frightening and so I'll leave it at that
You can't blame me for reacting the way I did to Maven....it was NOT a good day for Maven. The Gold Sentinel are still here and Maven's return/refund service is excellent
Attachments
Last edited:
MikeRottier
Well-known member
I liked the Zeiss conquest 10x42 HD better than the Swarovski NL 8x32. The look of the image, the handling, the ease of use. So don't sell the Conquest before you are absolutely sure you have something better.
Hermann
Well-known member
Agreed. Or just keep on using the Conquest and go out watch some birds. It's a very good binocular.
Hermann
Winchester44
Well-known member
Haha very well said!
I understand what makes great view is not ED glass but rather its overall optical design including the component lenses, mechanical design, precision of manufacture and quality of materials. Then what looks great to one eye may not to another eye.
Winchester44
Well-known member
This weekend I got to try a pair of Swarovski EL range 10 x 42 with a laser rangefinder next to my conquest 8 x 42. I think the Swarovski were a smidge better but not by much. However, they were so much bigger! Are the Swarovski EL 10 x 42 without the rangefinders still significantly bigger than the conquest HD 10x42?
tenex
reality-based
Where did you get this photo? This SLC body is from (early?) 1990s, but a "DA" serial number means it's been completely refurbished by SONA, in this case 2018. Better coatings can probably be assumed, but surely the lenses aren't fully interchangeable to make them quite equivalent to the final (post-2010) SLC 42s that are so highly praised.
"HD glass" is a vacuous marketing term. "HD" means something specific only in TVs, whereas "ED" for example means extra-low dispersion which actually is a property of glass.
I think there's a problem with the original question, "what is the next step in quality". Such incremental steps don't exist, certainly not that many can agree on. And trying to upgrade in modest steps surely isn't worth the cost in the long run. Try to find a model with a clearly better view, and then it makes sense to ask whether you want to pay the price.
Last edited:
oooooh....another beautiful pair! Super rare bino. I'd love to pay $200 for a NIB one like that.
Where did you get the focuser serviced - Suddarth? I actually tried sending mine to Nikon USA for this - they did a great job on my 7x35 Action (all these Action have super fast focuser btw). When I sent the 10x50 GS to them, they failed big-time. Put a new scratch on them and said they could not be repaired. That's the difference between them & Suddarth I guess. Of course Nikon USA is free though.
I'd still like to get them re-greased if possible. Not a big deal for astronomy but I love using them for birding too. For some reason these are one of my absolute favorite binoculars. Really the only 10x50 quality bino Nikon has ever made, as far as I know. Excluding WX of course.
Winchester44
Well-known member
My apologies! Let me answer each of these in order
1. You are absolutely correct, those are mid 1990's SLC's that were refurbished by SONA in 2018. I agree with your scope of work. I actually did purchase these binoculars as they appeared too good to be true at $800. Only later did I realize that they remanufactured. However, I am pleased to report that the view is excellent and they are in flawless like new condition. I spent several hours with them next to my Zeiss Conquest 10x42 HD, Leica Ultravid 10x50 and a borrowed EL Range 10x42. A couple of interesting notes
- Try as a might, I could not find a hint of CA until getting to the last 30% of the FOV. (Looking at tree branches against a flat sky)
- The view was very sharp when in focus, but depth of field was notably inferior to the Ultravid and EL Range
- Color and Contrast in the EL Range and Conquest HD was slightly better, but all trounced by the Ultravid. Grass is green, feathers are radiant, etc. etc.
- The focus is not good, but did like the pop in and out diopter.
- Could not figure out if the end cap comes off to screw in a bino adapter.
- Eye Relief is notably inferior to all of them
- The sharp corners of the bridge will absolutely not go into a bino harness easily.
- Loved the compact size. I have EL 12x50 and the EL Range is even bigger. I don't think the EL 10x42 is much smaller. The old SLC are even more compact then my 8x42 Conquests
- Overall they seemed pretty comparable to my conquest HD. Pretty neutral flat color. Razor sharp on center. Short and heavy in the hands.
2. I believe Swaro does use the term HD to denote their version of ED glass. However, I completely agree with your overall comment. Also Swaro's non-ED glass is probably better than the vast majority of other manufacture's non-ED glass.
3. Your last point is well taken. I would say what is overwhelmingly agreed upon as being better. As far as next step up in quality, I think I might have my eye on either a lightly used final model of the 10x42 Swaro SLC with the HD (Looks to be available for +/- $1,300 if patient) or maybe a new pair of the Conquest HDX for +/-$1,000. I would love any comments if you think the extra $300 would be well worth the SLC over the latest and greatest from Zeiss HDX. Before anyone says a used pair of Swaro EL 10x42 I would agree they are unquestionably better, they are just a bit too big and not easily adapted to a bino stud.
Thank you everyone very very much, this has been great fun!
