10x42- What is Next Step in Quality/Price Above Zeiss Conquest HD? (1 Viewer)

[Paultricounty]

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.

Hi Scott,

I used Land, Sea, & Sky formally Texas nautical Repair. They are or were the official authorized warranty Swift repair co. They’re in Texas. Less Swift is the repair tech. They’ve serviced and repaired at least a dozen of my Classic and vintage porros. Very reasonable and fast turnaround times, when not to busy.

 

[tenex]

I actually did purchase these binoculars as they appeared too good to be true at $800.

I think they were fair value at that price. Eye relief has increased significantly in the last 30 years, although that's not a win for those of us who don't wear glasses since there's always a trade-off somewhere else with optics. How is the focus "not good", especially after that rebuild? I tried one like this many years ago and thought it worked fine; color was a bit yellowish but that should have been corrected on this one.

The final SLC 10x42 came in two variants, the first "HD" from 2010-13 (green and black armor), then a simplified one usually called "WB" with diminished close focus. It's one of my favorite binoculars, but some do complain about its focuser (typical Swaro asymmetry CW/CCW), although I'm quite used to it. Conquest HDX doesn't seem much of a "step" up at all from your HD; why are you considering it? Why do you want a second 10x42 at all?

 

[Winchester44]

I think they were fair value at that price. Eye relief has increased significantly in the last 30 years, although that's not a win for those of us who don't wear glasses since there's always a trade-off somewhere else with optics. How is the focus "not good", especially after that rebuild? I tried one like this many years ago and thought it worked fine; color was a bit yellowish but that should have been corrected on this one.

The final SLC 10x42 came in two variants, the first "HD" from 2010-13 (green and black armor), then a simplified one usually called "WB" with diminished close focus. It's one of my favorite binoculars, but some do complain about its focuser (typical Swaro asymmetry CW/CCW), although I'm quite used to it. Conquest HDX doesn't seem much of a "step" up at all from your HD; why are you considering it? Why do you want a second 10x42 at all?

Thank you for all the information!

Good to know that was a fair price. They are a great pair. Great optics. Built link a tank. Remind me of my Leica BN 8x30. If the focus was better, supported a tripod stud and they would slide into a bino harness I’d seriously consider keeping them.

Interesting fact about eye relief. I did not Know that. I appreciate a little extra for when using a tripod.

On the focuser I would say two faults I found in comparing them to far more modern binos, it’s quite stiff and small. The combination makes for one need to pay more attention to the operating focus than a larger focus wheel. I need to try them again to note if there is asymmetry. I have not noted that on my modern EL.

No yellow color. I remember noting this in an older pair of 8x30 SLC WB’s

I’m reading great things about the final version of the SLC. Many are asking why they stopped making it. Apparently they still do but sold under Khales label.

Sorry not looking for a second 10x42. Would like to just have one good relatively compact pair. I do plan to likely sell the old SLC’s and put those funds toward that effort. 10x42 being a good all around size I’d like to get a pair I’ll be be very happy with.

On the HDX vs HD I’m reading conflicting reports some claiming only minute improvements to a decade plus old design while others offering gushing reviews that it was the upgrade we all hoped for and more. I was told similar things about the Ultravid HD vs prior gen trinovid that they were essentially the same while others claimed massive improvements. I found the later to be true.

Anyhow, thanks for the thoughtful comments!

 

[Scott98]

Hi Scott,

I used Land, Sea, & Sky formally Texas nautical Repair. They are or were the official authorized warranty Swift repair co. They’re in Texas. Less Swift is the repair tech. They’ve serviced and repaired at least a dozen of my Classic and vintage porros. Very reasonable and fast turnaround times, when not to busy.

Thanks Paul! I should have tried them, I have had good luck with TNR repairing telescope stuff. Probably a better choice for me, I'm not comfortable with the communication issues w/ Suddarth

 

[Winchester44]

Would a 2018 vintage Swarovski SLC 10x42 be a good upgrade over the conquest HD? Looks like there are several available for about $1,100.

 

[Winchester44]

Hi Scott,

I used Land, Sea, & Sky formally Texas nautical Repair. They are or were the official authorized warranty Swift repair co. They’re in Texas. Less Swift is the repair tech. They’ve serviced and repaired at least a dozen of my Classic and vintage porros. Very reasonable and fast turnaround times, when not to busy.

I’m in Texas and have an old pair of 7 x 50 US Navy issue MK 28 that belong to my grandfather, who was an executive officer on a submarine during World War II. They have recently grown extremely stiff. With this service company, be a good option to look at having them cleaned up?

 

[Winchester44]

I think they were fair value at that price. Eye relief has increased significantly in the last 30 years, although that's not a win for those of us who don't wear glasses since there's always a trade-off somewhere else with optics. How is the focus "not good", especially after that rebuild? I tried one like this many years ago and thought it worked fine; color was a bit yellowish but that should have been corrected on this one.

The final SLC 10x42 came in two variants, the first "HD" from 2010-13 (green and black armor), then a simplified one usually called "WB" with diminished close focus. It's one of my favorite binoculars, but some do complain about its focuser (typical Swaro asymmetry CW/CCW), although I'm quite used to it. Conquest HDX doesn't seem much of a "step" up at all from your HD; why are you considering it? Why do you want a second 10x42 at all?

Wow, again you are a wealth of information. Checking the older SLC again you are spot on on the asymmetrical effort required to operate the focus. Spending another hour with them again perhaps I was being a bit harsh. The focus is not bad, not great, but with practice would likely be perfectly serviceable. I’ve just been spoiled with the modern ones with their larger sizes.

 

[Scott98]

I’m in Texas and have an old pair of 7 x 50 US Navy issue MK 28 that belong to my grandfather, who was an executive officer on a submarine during World War II. They have recently grown extremely stiff. With this service company, be a good option to look at having them cleaned up?

Yes, Texas Nautical Repair, also known as Land Sea Sky, is the perfect place to restore your binos - the focuser needs re-greasing.

I would say yes those 2018 SLC's are an upgrade. Other than being older and used.....they should eliminate the false color in the Conquest and have sharper edge of field too

 

[Winchester44]

Yes, Texas Nautical Repair, also known as Land Sea Sky, is the perfect place to restore your binos - the focuser needs re-greasing.

I would say yes those 2018 SLC's are an upgrade. Other than being older and used.....they should eliminate the false color in the Conquest and have sharper edge of field too

Great! Thanks so much!

 

[Winchester44]

Does anyone know why the latest model EL and SLC's appear to have a significantly larger eye piece lenses vs. the prior models? I'm just curious what difference this makes. Better light transmission, brightness, something else?

 

[Patudo]

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.

So reading the above it seems like you want more Leica-like colour rendition (most important), better edge performance, longer eye relief (?).

If that's the case the binocular most likely to offer a noticeable improvement over what you've already got is the Noctivid 10x42 (gulp). But it's gonna be expensive.

But you already have and like (not an opinion I share, but you're the end user) the Ultravid 10x50, which is a fairly small 10x50. Is there any reason why you require a 10x42 as well?

PS. you mention the need for a tripod stud quite a bit, how vital is it? The huge majority of birders I've met don't use tripods except for spotting scopes.

 

[Patudo]

Really the only 10x50 quality bino Nikon has ever made, as far as I know. Excluding WX of course.

It's odd isn't it? 10x50 was a pretty popular format (at least in Europe) with lots being made by Zeiss (both), Soviet manufacturers and IIRC some other Japanese manufacturers as well. Yet Nikon never attempted eg. an E series 10x50. I wonder why.

 

[Rg548]

If that's the case the binocular most likely to offer a noticeable improvement over what you've already got is the Noctivid 10x42 (gulp). But it's gonna be expensive.

Yesterday, I had my first ever viewing with a Noctivid, side by side with my Zeiss HT's. A kind gentleman allowed me 10 minutes with his pair as he used his scope.
I won't be swapping. I prefer the HT's, even though I'm a self confessed Leica fan.
I have to say, I was tad disappointed in the Nocts.... I expected more wow factor for the money they cost.
Beautiful build and feel as you would expect.
So that's Pures, and Noctivids now off my desire list since I found the HTs. Neither would tempt me to change.... which is good news i guess.

 

[Paultricounty]

I’m sure they would do a fine job I’ve worked on some 1950s Binoculars for me. But I also think Suddarth optical would also be very good because they may have more parts if needed.

 

[Winchester44]

So reading the above it seems like you want more Leica-like colour rendition (most important), better edge performance, longer eye relief (?).

If that's the case the binocular most likely to offer a noticeable improvement over what you've already got is the Noctivid 10x42 (gulp). But it's gonna be expensive.

But you already have and like (not an opinion I share, but you're the end user) the Ultravid 10x50, which is a fairly small 10x50. Is there any reason why you require a 10x42 as well?

PS. you mention the need for a tripod stud quite a bit, how vital is it? The huge majority of birders I've met don't use tripods except for spotting scopes.

So reading the above it seems like you want more Leica-like colour rendition (most important),
I would say it is something my eyes maybe seem to appreciate more than others with color rendition in the Leica's. There seems to be some secret color sauce in there that I've not experienced with any other manufacturer. I see many reviews making little or no mention of this aspect a pair of binoculars. Taking color rendition off the table I completely understand why others feel the Ultravid is inferior to others in the quality of the view vs. other similarly priced binoculars. However, when I look at the a Painted Bunting or the Pleiades through the Ultravids vs. EL's and its a big wow factor for me.

better edge performance
I do appreciate this on a tripod when glassing large areas like a tree line or hill side on a tripod or more often a monopod, but don't seem to miss when handholding. The Conquests to my eye are quite sharp until the last 15% or so

longer eye relief (?).
I wear contacts most days, but it has been nice to be able to use binoculars with my glasses on which was tough with prior lower end or older porros.


If that's the case the binocular most likely to offer a noticeable improvement over what you've already got is the Noctivid 10x42 (gulp). But it's gonna be expensive.
Oh no, don't say that! There is a 10x42 on ebay for $1,700 at the moment. It seems there is little information on them compared to others. I've just heard many reviewers felt the pricing was not justified vs. others.


But you already have and like (not an opinion I share, but you're the end user) the Ultravid 10x50, which is a fairly small 10x50.
I also have a 12x50 EL and find the comparisons between the EL and Ultravid for the most part completely fair in what ways the EL is better.
I don't want to knock the Ultravid more, but I also find it feels bit delicate vs. a Swarovski or Zeiss. It's probably in my head, but I always get nervous taking it out of its case.

Is there any reason why you require a 10x42 as well?
For the most part, would like something smaller. My conquests and old SLC's are quite a bit smaller. I often take my Leica BN 8x30 for quick walks, or to travel. My Conquest 8x42 are bigger but not much. A nice compact 42 seems very appealing.


PS. you mention the need for a tripod stud quite a bit, how vital is it? The huge majority of birders I've met don't use tripods except for spotting scopes.
Ah great question. I often carry a monopod with a tripod adapter. I find it extremely handy for glassing large hillsides or tree lines or longer or distance observation. The picture is so much better at distance. Where I am in Texas some of the landscapes and distances are quite expansive.

 

[Winchester44]

I’m sure they would do a fine job I’ve worked on some 1950s Binoculars for me. But I also think Suddarth optical would also be very good because they may have more parts if needed.

Thank you!

 

[tenex]

Does anyone know why the latest model EL and SLC's appear to have a significantly larger eye piece lenses vs. the prior models? I'm just curious what difference this makes. Better light transmission, brightness, something else?

This is necessary to increase eye relief for a given apparent field of view. Draw the triangle between the diameter of the ocular and your eye and think about it.

There is unfortunately no substitute for trying different bins yourself. Color and contrast are subtly different from brand to brand, sometimes even between models (SLC 42 is different from SLC 56!). I think people who like Noctivids strongly prefer the Leica presentation and consider NV the best version.

 

[Winchester44]

I went ahead and purchased some 8x42mm SLC’s model year 2013 (final version) for $1,050. Sold the old prior generation SLC’s for $950. Hopefully the $100 is worth it. I somehow got talked back into 8x. Tried to find some Ultravids for similar price, but no luck. Thought long and hard about Noctovid for $1,700 but no way to do a tripod stud. Very much enjoyed learning from you fine folks!!!


I think I’m done for a bit. Here is the current quiver

1. Leica 8x32 BN
2.Swarovski SLC HD 8x42
3. Leica 10x50 Ultravid
4. Swarovski 12x50EL 2018 version
5. Leica APO 62 spotting scope with 20-60 zoom

Maybe some Zeiss victory 8x25 and some big 15x56mm binos or bigger spotter someday.

 

[Patudo]

I often carry a monopod with a tripod adapter. I find it extremely handy for glassing large hillsides or tree lines or longer or distance observation. The picture is so much better at distance. Where I am in Texas some of the landscapes and distances are quite expansive.

But what birds are you looking for over those distances?

I've tried a friend's 10x42 Noctivid for something like 30 minutes in Singapore ... and fine binocular though it is, I'd agree with Rg548 that if you already own something like a HT (which I remember as an outstandingly bright and very sharp in centre binocular with accurate colour rendition and great clarity, a very formidable package) you might not wish to switch. (I certainly would exchange my 10x42 SE I think ... though I'd want to compare both side by side first) That said, if you are a fan of the "Leica view", it is the best of the Leicas I've tried (definitely better than any Ultravid I've looked through, which IMO are really in the sub-alpha tier now - I haven't even seen the Perger prism rangefinder models though).

But the SLC-HDs and later are great binoculars in their own right. From what I've seen there is little difference between the x42s and the ELs except for the flat field, and the x56s are stunning. If I'd known Swarovski would upgrade the prisms to dielectric like they did with your 10x42 I probably would not have given mine up for the 8x32 FL.

 

[Winchester44]

But what birds are you looking for over those distances?

I've tried a friend's 10x42 Noctivid for something like 30 minutes in Singapore ... and fine binocular though it is, I'd agree with Rg548 that if you already own something like a HT (which I remember as an outstandingly bright and very sharp in centre binocular with accurate colour rendition and great clarity, a very formidable package) you might not wish to switch. (I certainly would exchange my 10x42 SE I think ... though I'd want to compare both side by side first) That said, if you are a fan of the "Leica view", it is the best of the Leicas I've tried (definitely better than any Ultravid I've looked through, which IMO are really in the sub-alpha tier now - I haven't even seen the Perger prism rangefinder models though).

But the SLC-HDs and later are great binoculars in their own right. From what I've seen there is little difference between the x42s and the ELs except for the flat field, and the x56s are stunning. If I'd known Swarovski would upgrade the prisms to dielectric like they did with your 10x42 I probably would not have given mine up for the 8x32 FL.

1. I'm looking for any birds I can find. Ha-ha. There is little timber in this part of Texas so you are looking over mostly grass lands, scrub brush and river bottoms. Some shorelines around reservoirs. I do like Raptors, especially owls If I can spot them.

2. Afraid, I don't own an HT nor have I ever even seen one for sale in person. I hear they are great, but a bit bigger than what I think I would like.

3. I have Ultravids HD 10x a a late model EL 12x both in 50mm. They are very different views. I appreciate both of them, but for different reasons. Would love to look through a Noctovid someday, but similar to the Zeiss HT, have never even seen one for sale in person. Maybe if Zeiss puts out their next Alpha and prices go down, I can upgrade someday.

4. Excited about the SLC-HD's. I think they will prove to be that "next step up". I took a bath on selling my well loved Conquest HD's though. Barely $500. Wish I maybe had kept them to keep in the car. Oh well, they will give another great service.

5. Yes, I'm finding the added benefit to Swarovski's service is another big selling point to that manufacturer!