10x42- What is Next Step in Quality/Price Above Zeiss Conquest HD? (2 Viewers)

[Scott98]

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.

I'm guessing Nikon was selling mostly to mariners and the 7x50 is more in-demand vs 10x50 for them. And they make 10x70 and 18x70 for the astronomers. Fujinon has been making the big heavy 10x50 marine porro.

And Zeiss....no more porros from Zeiss...no more 10x50 from Zeiss....no more 7x from Zeiss......too bad! Although I'm sure they would say the 10x54 HT is their version of 10x50....they do weigh about the same. Considering how long Zeiss made porros though, I'm sorry they don't offer one or two for tradition and pride in the design

 

[greekgeek]

Not sure if it was already mentioned yet, but for me the next step up from 10x42 CHD was the 10x42 CHDX. The X version is significantly lighter, trimmer and better feeling armor, the focuser is more fluid and with a slightly slower focus, the field is a little sharper to the edges, CA is lower, and best of all the color and contrast is more natural and lifelike.

The most important difference to me is the color representation, but I don't think I would have have upgraded on that alone. Its a very significant difference and more than enough to upgrade when you add them all up.

Amazingly, they held the price to the same $1k. The CHDX does not yet seem to get the love it deserves on the forum. Maybe it will come into its own once the $600 CHD clearance stocks run out.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Not sure if it was already mentioned yet, but for me the next step up from 10x42 CHD was the 10x42 CHDX. The X version is significantly lighter, trimmer and better feeling armor, the focuser is more fluid and with a slightly slower focus, the field is a little sharper to the edges, CA is lower, and best of all the color and contrast is more natural and lifelike.

The most important difference to me is the color representation, but I don't think I would have have upgraded on that alone. Its a very significant difference and more than enough to upgrade when you add them all up.

Amazingly, they held the price to the same $1k. The CHDX does not yet seem to get the love it deserves on the forum. Maybe it will come into its own once the $600 CHD clearance stocks run out.

I had the Zeiss Conquest 10x42 CHDX and 10x42 CHD and compared them closely and kept the 10x42 CHD. I didn't think the 3 oz. weight difference was that significant between the CHDX at 25 oz. and the CHD at 28 oz. Likewise, I preferred the ergonomics of the CHD over the CHDX, and I thought the German made CHD's armor was much higher quality than the Japanese made CHDX, which had a cheap, sticky feel to me. The build quality of the CHD seemed better to me than the CHDX and I also thought the original CHD was sharper on-axis and the edge sharpness was about the same despite Zeiss touting the CHDX has a field flattener.

The focuser on my sample of the CHD was smoother than the CHDX, and I prefer the faster focuser. Color, contrast and CA control were a wash for me between the two, with no noticeable difference. I also saw more glare with the newer CHDX than I did with the older CHD, which had a reputation for being excellent for controlling glare. This is a case of where the older German made model is better than the newer Japanese made model. Get the original Zeiss CHD why you can before they are all gone. They are probably the best bargains in binoculars right now.

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[greekgeek]

I had the Zeiss Conquest 10x42 CHDX and 10x42 CHD and compared them closely and kept the 10x42 CHD. I didn't think the 3 oz. weight difference was that significant between the CHDX at 25 oz. and the CHD at 28 oz. Likewise, I preferred the ergonomics of the CHD over the CHDX, and I thought the German made CHD's armor was much higher quality than the Japanese made CHDX, which had a cheap feel to me. The build quality of the CHD seemed better to me than the CHDX and I also thought the original CHD was sharper on-axis and the edge sharpness was about the same despite Zeiss touting the CHDX has a field flattener.

The focuser on my sample of the CHD was smoother than the CHDX, and I prefer the faster focuser. Color, contrast and CA control were a wash for me between the two, with no noticeable difference. I also saw more glare with the newer CHDX than I did with the older CHD which had a reputation for being excellent for controlling glare. This is a case of where the older German made model is better than the newer Japanese made model. Get the original Zeiss CHD why you can before they are all gone. They are probably the best bargains in binoculars right now.

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Different strokes, for different folks, I suppose? Each of the points comes down to a personal preference but for me, they are all positive upgrades, albeit each mild on its own. Except color, which I am sensitive to so it's appreciably better to my taste.

Re: made in Germany vs. made in Japan, it is my understanding that both were made predominantly in Japan, with final assembly of the original taking place in Germany. Kamakura puts out a quality product, toll manufactured to spec.

 

[PatR]

It is another case of horses for courses, and again down to personal preference. I have tried my HD’s against the HDX’s and there are undoubtedly differences. Some good, some not quite so good but I am more than happy with my HD’s, will not upgrade and have saved many beer tokens. If the HD’s were not at the bargain price I got them and I was starting anew it would be a different story. Possibly.

MIG vs MIJ ? My HD’s have MIG on them, are probably 98% Japanese and the MIG bit is likely down to Hans in the packing department who adds a bit of Teutonic magic to the boxing of the bino’s. Couldn't care less but FWIW I much prefer the armour and feeling of solidity of my MIG (😏) HD’s over the new ones. But both are cracking bino’s, if you can still pick up the HD’s at the bargain run out prices you will be delighted with them especially as the ever excellent Gary at East Coast Bino’s (UK) will send you some longer eyecups FOC.

 

[Dennis Mau]

It is another case of horses for courses, and again down to personal preference. I have tried my HD’s against the HDX’s and there are undoubtedly differences. Some good, some not quite so good but I am more than happy with my HD’s, will not upgrade and have saved many beer tokens. If the HD’s were not at the bargain price I got them and I was starting anew it would be a different story. Possibly.

MIG vs MIJ ? My HD’s have MIG on them, are probably 98% Japanese and the MIG bit is likely down to Hans in the packing department who adds a bit of Teutonic magic to the boxing of the bino’s. Couldn't care less but FWIW I much prefer the armour and feeling of solidity of my MIG (😏) HD’s over the new ones. But both are cracking bino’s, if you can still pick up the HD’s at the bargain run out prices you will be delighted with them especially as the ever excellent Gary at East Coast Bino’s (UK) will send you some longer eyecups FOC.

" Couldn't care less, but FWIW I much prefer the armour and feeling of solidity of my MIG (😏) HD’s over the new ones."

The build quality and feel of the armor is what really made me prefer the older HD over the new HDX. The feel of the armor and just the overall quality was much higher on the HD's than the HDX's. I don't really know if it has anything to do with MIG versus MIJ stigma, but it certainly is apparent in the quality of the binoculars.

 

[greekgeek]

It is another case of horses for courses, and again down to personal preference. I have tried my HD’s against the HDX’s and there are undoubtedly differences. Some good, some not quite so good but I am more than happy with my HD’s, will not upgrade and have saved many beer tokens. If the HD’s were not at the bargain price I got them and I was starting anew it would be a different story. Possibly.

MIG vs MIJ ? My HD’s have MIG on them, are probably 98% Japanese and the MIG bit is likely down to Hans in the packing department who adds a bit of Teutonic magic to the boxing of the bino’s. Couldn't care less but FWIW I much prefer the armour and feeling of solidity of my MIG (😏) HD’s over the new ones. But both are cracking bino’s, if you can still pick up the HD’s at the bargain run out prices you will be delighted with them especially as the ever excellent Gary at East Coast Bino’s (UK) will send you some longer eyecups FOC.

Yeah, I mean at $600 vs $1,000 for brand new in box, right now, the 10x42 CHDX is a very hard sell. It is priced about 2/3 or 66.67% higher than the CHD at the moment but, that moment will eventually pass as the old stock clears out. At that point I think the CHDX will come into its own as the low cost option vs. the $1,800 SFL.

I am actually fairly surprised that the stocks haven't sold through at all the major online retailers yet. Along with the 8x32 (which have sold through), I thought the 10x42 was the best of the CHD lineup.

 

[Winchester44]

My Swaro SLC 8x42 HD’s arrived and I’ve been using them this week. I can say definitively from an optical standpoint. Optically across the board they are a substantial step up from the conquest HD and much better than the prior generation SLC just as folks on this forum insisted they would be. They are also ergonomically an excellent size. However, I’m not sure how it’s possible, but the focus is even worse on these than the prior generation I just sold. It might be the worst focuses on the binocular I’ve ever had. It’s not smooth at all. Grabs then lurches way past the intended position. Horrible asymmetry too. However, there’s got to be something wrong with it. I can’t imagine Swaro putting out something this bad.
Also, the armoring is extremely cheap feeling. It has a tackiness and looks like it has already substantially deteriorated in its short life. I don’t know what they made it out of, but it just looks like it’s falling apart.
I still got a great deal on them so I think they will be headed back to SONA to be worked on. If I can get the focus or fixed and some new armor for not too much money, I think I’ll be very happy with them.

 

[dorubird]

In my opinion the next step în quality/price above Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 is Zeiss Victory SF 10x42

 

[GrampaTom]

In my opinion the next step în quality/price above Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 is Zeiss Victory SF 10x42

Seems a rather large step. Nothing in between? Why in your mind not... say the SFL for example?

 

[Dennis Mau]

My Swaro SLC 8x42 HD’s arrived and I’ve been using them this week. I can say definitively from an optical standpoint. Optically across the board they are a substantial step up from the conquest HD and much better than the prior generation SLC just as folks on this forum insisted they would be. They are also ergonomically an excellent size. However, I’m not sure how it’s possible, but the focus is even worse on these than the prior generation I just sold. It might be the worst focuses on the binocular I’ve ever had. It’s not smooth at all. Grabs then lurches way past the intended position. Horrible asymmetry too. However, there’s got to be something wrong with it. I can’t imagine Swaro putting out something this bad.
Also, the armoring is extremely cheap feeling. It has a tackiness and looks like it has already substantially deteriorated in its short life. I don’t know what they made it out of, but it just looks like it’s falling apart.
I still got a great deal on them so I think they will be headed back to SONA to be worked on. If I can get the focus or fixed and some new armor for not too much money, I think I’ll be very happy with them.

The Swaro SLC 8x42 is infamous for having a poor focuser. What is funny is it is isolated to JUST the SLC 8x42, not the other SLC'S. I have had 5 SLC 8x42's and 4 of them have had sticky, rough focusers. If I were to buy another, I would ask the seller if the focuser is smooth or not. We all know Swarovski armor is worthless. That is a given. Good luck on the fix. When I sent my SLC 8x42's to get the focuser smoothed out, it came back worse than it was. The SLC 8x42 is very good optically, but it is too bad it has such a poor focuser. Buy them with caution.

 

[Dennis Mau]

In my opinion the next step în quality/price above Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 is Zeiss Victory SF 10x42

That is only a 5% improvement at twice the cost.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Seems a rather large step. Nothing in between? Why in your mind not... say the SFL for example?

The SFL is very little improvement optically over the HDX, but it is nicer ergonomically. At $1800 I would never upgrade from an HDX to a SFL, but if I could get the SFL for $1100 like Greentoe had them I would get the SFL for the improved ergonomics and smoother focuser.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yeah, I mean at $600 vs $1,000 for brand new in box, right now, the 10x42 CHDX is a very hard sell. It is priced about 2/3 or 66.67% higher than the CHD at the moment but, that moment will eventually pass as the old stock clears out. At that point I think the CHDX will come into its own as the low cost option vs. the $1,800 SFL.

I am actually fairly surprised that the stocks haven't sold through at all the major online retailers yet. Along with the 8x32 (which have sold through), I thought the 10x42 was the best of the CHD lineup.

I like the 10x42 CHD the best also. It has the biggest FOV at 6.6 degrees, which is pretty big for a 10x.

 

[Winchester44]

The Swaro SLC 8x42 is infamous for having a poor focuser. What is funny is it is isolated to JUST the SLC 8x42, not the other SLC'S. I have had 5 SLC 8x42's and 4 of them have had sticky, rough focusers. If I were to buy another, I would ask the seller if the focuser is smooth or not. We all know Swarovski armor is worthless. That is a given. Good luck on the fix. When I sent my SLC 8x42's to get the focuser smoothed out, it came back worse than it was. The SLC 8x42 is very good optically, but it is too bad it has such a poor focuser. Buy them with caution.

Thanks for the advice! Can you expand on armour? My EL armour is excellent.

I doubt SONA could make this focuser worse. It’s that bad.

You bought 5 SLC 8x42’s!!!!

 

[GrampaTom]

That is only a 5% improvement at twice the cost.

5% of what...

 

[Dennis Mau]

Thanks for the advice! Can you expand on armour? My EL armour is excellent.

I doubt SONA could make this focuser worse. It’s that bad.

You bought 5 SLC 8x42’s!!!!

Yes, I had 5 8x42 SLC's over a few years and 4 of them had rough, sticky focusers. It is a well known fact that Swarovski has trouble with the longevity of their armor on many models of their binoculars and the problem is primarily due to sweat because sweat is slightly acidic, so if you sweat on your binocular, make sure you give it a bath when you get home with the Swarovski soap.

 

[dorubird]

That is only a 5% improvement at twice the cost.

Yes it is 3% difference in size of the FOV (6.6 vs 6.8). Yes it is 10% more sharpness extension at the edges!
But overall subjective impression can't be quantifed in percentages, because more velvety focus of the SF 10x42 cannot be estimated in %. Also the fantastic balance in the hands of the SF 10x42 can not be quantifed in percentages. Also much lower chromatic aberrations it is not easy to estimate procentual.

 

[Conndomat]

In summary, the SF 10x42 is IMO the clearly better binocular!
Whether the additional price is justified remains an individual decision.

Andreas

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes it is 3% difference in size of the FOV (6.6 vs 6.8). Yes it is 10% more sharpness extension at the edges!
But overall subjective impression can't be quantifed in percentages, because more velvety focus of the SF 10x42 cannot be estimated in %. Also the fantastic balance in the hands of the SF 10x42 can not be quantifed in percentages. Also much lower chromatic aberrations it is not easy to estimate procentual.

The SF 10x42 has better CA control, a slightly bigger FOV and slightly sharper edges than the HD 10x42. But the HD 10x42 handles glare better, and has a slight green tint, but it is not nearly as green biased as the SF. I just looked at the edges on my HD 10x42, and I was amazed how tack sharp they are right to the edge. I wonder if Zeiss made some improvements in them. Furthermore, I can't see how the SF 10x42 could have sharper edges.

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com