2012 razor hd (3 Viewers)

[bearclawthedonut]

Hi Bearclaw -

Could you give some specifics about what you are reporting? What did the the razor do better than the viper HD? Or in what way did the Viper HD come close to the Razor?

John

John:

Back in July, just after the new Razor HD arrived at the Portland Audubon Store I compared the the following HD's to my olde, silver coated, pre-DE prism Nikon Monarch 8x42: Viper, Razor and Conquest (all 8x42's).

It was a typical Portland day - cloudy/heavily overcast, plus I spent no more then thirty minutes with each binocular - outside the store, mainly looking at vegetation. I was not impressed by either the Viper HD or the Razor HD. The quality of their optics were about the same; the Viper had very slightly better contrast and the Razor had slightly better color fidelity. Both were equally bright (very good) and both had about the same overall resolution; however, the Viper had what I consider to be slightly cool and washed out colors, typical to that afforded by less expensive (without the very expensive top quality coatings) di-electric prism binoculars. To me - the Razor's view was very slightly more pleasing than the Viper's.

The Zeiss Conquest HD was the most pleasing of all with excellent brightness, contrast, resolution and colors! Optically, the new Conquest HD is one hell of a good binocular. However, I did not like its handling.

I would not put too much stock in my findings as I, contrary to most BF affection-ados, find that my Monarch presents a very, very good image (Heresy!). Close enough to both the Viper and the Razor to disqualify them as potential upgrades (More heresy!). The Conquest is a worthy upgrade - optically, but I can not accept its bad handling (obviously - to me). My suggestion, is that you should go try both for yourself and don't worry about what anyone else thinks.

bearclawthedonut

 

[Steve C]

I got a chance today to side by side the new Razor HD, the original Razor HD, the Viper HD, the Talon HD, a new Swarovski SLC (not the new SLC-HD), and the ZEN Prime HD. All 8x42. Rainy cloudy dull gray day.

As with most newer better quality higher end mid price the Viper HD and the Talon HD fared very well, very well indeed. I would certainly not be "shocked" at how much better the new Razor HD is over the Viper HD. The major difference is the fov. The Viper for me is on the very low edge of being just barely enough and the new Razor HD, while not the widest of 8x fov, is for me certainly right in the middle of the "enough fov".

Now having said that, the new Razor HD I would rate better than the Viper HD. It is also an upgrade over the original Razor HD as well, but the images differences are slight. The new Razor HD has much better edges than the original Razor HD, and has a wider sweet spot, in spite of a narrower fov. The new Razor is a much more compact binocular than the original Razor HD, or the Viper or Talon HD as well. Ditto the ZEN Prime HD. I think the Prime HD and the new Razor HD are much better constructed than the others. The apparent build quality increase between the two Razor HD's is striking.

The images of the new Razor HD and the ZEN Prime HD are too similar for me to call significant observable differences in at this point. The ergonomics are very different and will constitute the major difference. The smaller Razor HD and its smaller diameter ocular assemblies will certainly be preferred by some. The Prime is half the cost, does have sharper edges and a little flatter field than the new Razor HD and in quality the bang for the buck, in my view goes to the Prime.

I spoke pretty highly of the original Razor HD, but eventually I became a bit less than satisfied enough with it for it to keep its place, since at nearly $1,200 it was little better than either a Kruger Caldera, ZEN ED3 or other good high level mid price binocular. The new Razor HD has a certain "panache" in its ergonomics that speak of perhaps a lesson learned at Vortex. It is a solid, optically excellent, well built, and ergonomically pleasing binocular. Yes, in spite of the Vortex label, it is clearly worth the $1,200 price, given the cost of the new alphas.

Hawkeye Optics of Oregon has the new Swarovski SLC at $1,199, which makes a choice between the Razor Hd and the SLC either a no brainer or even harder, depending on your viewpoint. For me the ergos fall to the Razor HD, the build quality and optical performance seem to me to be a wash, and the price does favor the SLC by a few $$.

I think it's selection will come down to somebody looking for a non Chinese binocular of very high quality, and further one that does not cost the currently over $2,000 price of the current top end euros. There is slim competition in that rather narrow niche right now. Aside from the new Razor HD, there is the new Meopta Meostar HD, or its Cabela's branded equivalent, and the Steiner Nighthunter XP (and since Steiner has Chinese facilities there may well be some Chinese influence).

Edit: I seem to have forgotten about the Minox MIG lines here, but I have a strong gut feeling, that like Steiner, there MAY be some Chinese components there too.

I have developed the opinion lately that the current design traditional binocular evolution has probably peaked. Their optical performance I think, has gotten to the point that a typical 20/20 human can't use much better.

 

[Mapleton]

Mapleton:

Glad to hear that the new 10x42 Razor HD is a winner. There have been a number of conflicting reports on the 8x42 Razor HD. I found the 8x42 Razor HD to be rather disappointing. It's a very good (!) handling binocular, but the optics did disappoint. I wonder if there were quality control issues on the 8x? It seems as though the 10x has been uniformly - well received.

bearclawthedonut

I'm comparing them to the new 10x42 EL Swarovision. I did not compare them side by side but at different times. I am getting a pair of Swarovisions next year and I will be able to compare them side by side. But I cannot tell you how impressed I am with the Razors.

I also have several pairs of the Viper HDs and the upgrade is very significant.

 

[O.Reville1989]

Tried the new new 8x32 Viper HD and WOW! Literally one of the best 8x32's i've looked through. Compared it to the Zeiss conquest HD 8x32, which is around £130 more and its hard to pick the differences. Zeiss maybe a bit "whiter"? Thats it.
Great work Vortex, keep it up.

 

[ceasar]

Tried the new new 8x32 Viper HD and WOW! Literally one of the best 8x32's i've looked through. Compared it to the Zeiss conquest HD 8x32, which is around £130 more and its hard to pick the differences. Zeiss maybe a bit "whiter"? Thats it.
Great work Vortex, keep it up.

Allbinos tested the 8 x 32 Viper in March 2011 and noted then that the Viper "series boasts a low dispersion XD glass in objectives......"

http://www.allbinos.com/198-binoculars_review-Vortex_Viper_8x32.html

Here is how they ranked them in the 8 x 32 category:

http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8x32.html

Anybody know how this differs from HD glass? And how much it differs?

Bob

 

[idaho john]

and...

appreciate Steve's (Klamath Steve) post on the differences between the Vortex Razor models and the compare and contrast with the prime.

O.Reveille - I appreciate your brief report on the Viper 8x32 HD.

Bearclaw - thank's for your reply as well. In response to your preference for your Monarchs, I am happy for you. Maybe that sense of satisfaction will help curb the acquiring impulse!

John

 

[14Goudvink]

Bob,

An indication could be how the Viper 10x42 (XD) compares to the Viper 10x42 HD. Allbinos tested them both.

George

 

[eitanaltman]

Allbinos tested the 8 x 32 Viper in March 2011 and noted then that the Viper "series boasts a low dispersion XD glass in objectives......"

http://www.allbinos.com/198-binoculars_review-Vortex_Viper_8x32.html

Here is how they ranked them in the 8 x 32 category:

http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8x32.html

Anybody know how this differs from HD glass? And how much it differs?

Bob

I was just going to point out that Allbinos reviewed both the original (XD) and the newer "HD" version of the 10x42 Viper, but I see that George beat me to the punch

Viper 10x42 XD: http://www.allbinos.com/114-binoculars_review-Vortex_Viper_10x42.html
Viper 10x42 HD: http://www.allbinos.com/240-binoculars_review-Vortex_Viper_HD_10x42.html

The "HD" version looks a bit better corrected -- slightly better scores in Astigmatism, Coma and edge performance. Plus the improvement in CA.

In my experience (not a direct A/B, but having owned both the 6x32 Viper and the 8x32 HD version) the newer "HD" versions are just a bit better all around -- a little sharper, a little brighter, a bit wider sweet spot, etc. The biggest change is the CA performance; the 6x32 Viper is just OK in this regard, whereas the 8x32 HD was terrific (as good as the Zen ED3 that I was comparing it against).

 

[jnielsen]

Steve, when comparing the Prime and new Razor HD is the brightness equal?

Is the Razor any brighter?

This is the only area I find my 10x Prime lacking when compared to my alpha 10x,8.5x.

If the Razor has better brightness I may acquire one.

 

[Steve C]

Steve, when comparing the Prime and new Razor HD is the brightness equal?

Is the Razor any brighter?

This is the only area I find my 10x Prime lacking when compared to my alpha 10x,8.5x.

If the Razor has better brightness I may acquire one.

I think the brightness levels of the Prime HD, the Razor HD, and the Swarovski SLC were functionally equal. Going from memory I think the SLC-HD is a little bit brighter than the SLC. I That for me is a nit pickish sort of a difference. You can get too bright fairly quickly. For me the Zeiss FL is too bright in some instances.

 

[stereotruckdriver]

I haven't tried the new Razor hd but i did have the Primes in 8 & 10x, the Primes aren't as bright as the slc's or slc hd's. It is quite obvious in direct comparisons in different light levels! That said for birding it wouldn't make a difference to me! Big game hunting would be a different story, most hunters want really low light capable optics? Personaly i have never had that problem so to me it would be a mute point. Bryce...

 

[Steve C]

I haven't tried the new Razor hd but i did have the Primes in 8 & 10x, the Primes aren't as bright as the slc's or slc hd's. It is quite obvious in direct comparisons in different light levels! That said for birding it wouldn't make a difference to me! Big game hunting would be a different story, most hunters want really low light capable optics? Personaly i have never had that problem so to me it would be a mute point. Bryce...

I would put the brightness of the three as follows. Swarovski, Razor HD, ZEN Prime. It was much more apparent inside than outside. It was a dreary, gray, rainy, overcast day outside and there the differences were negligible, far from obvious. In fact, it would have pressed anybody to tell much of a difference in the view from any of the three. I used the terminology "functionally equal" for a reason. Anytime you get close enough in view quality that a difference, in say "brightness" can't be immediately apparent without a side by side, then the difference is too slight for me to worry much about. The view of each should satisfy anyone. I suppose if somebody prefers A over B or C, the they should go with A. As far as my eyes can tell, the images are close enough. Yes there are differences, but these days, I have ceased going to the point of obsessiveness and deliberately picking nits.

 

[eitanaltman]

these days, I have ceased going to the point of obsessiveness and deliberately picking nits

we might have to revoke your forum membership!

 

[ayeforgot]

It looks as though the folks at OpticsReviewer.com have a review of the 2012 apo Razor HD and a comparison between the 2011 and 2012 models up now.

The 2012 Razor HD review is here: http://www.opticsreviewer.com/razor-hd-binoculars.html

The 2011 vs 2012 Razor HD comparison is here: http://www.opticsreviewer.com/2011-vs-2012-razor-hd.html

It's December 23 - we're getting close enough that I'll say "Merry Christmas" in case I don't get in to say anything else before the big day!

All the very best,

Ayeforgot

 

[Chosun Juan]

Thanks for that link Ay.

Damn || ,I wish that 10x with its extra-wide angle view was a CW to ∞ focuser !! :-C


Chosun :gh:

 

[WiscTJK]

Thanks for that link Ay.

Damn || ,I wish that 10x with its extra-wide angle view was a CW to ∞ focuser !! :-C


Chosun :gh:

FYI - It says the 10x is a clockwise focuser.

Todd

 

[Chosun Juan]

FYI - It says the 10x is a clockwise focuser.

Todd

Thanks for that Todd. Admittedly I only skimmed that review, and was basing what I said on Andy (winwinbino) telling me the focus to ∞ was CCW?! :cat:

To quote the review (of the 2012 Razor 10x42 HD): "The focus wheel adjusts to infinity in about 1.5 clockwise revolutions of the wheel. We prefer a single revolution to enable rapid focusing without causing us to have to "fiddle around" to achieve a good fine focus. We're willing to accept 1.5 as the outer limits of reasonableness, but still being quite functional.
The focus wheel turns smoothly with a very reasonable amount of resistance to the touch. The design of the binocular has the weight distributed so that when the thumb indents on the bottoms of the barrels are actually used comfortably, the instrument is well balanced in the hands and the index fingers rest easily on the wheel."

Could someone please confirm the focus direction to ∞ ??

The other interesting thing to note in the review was the backwards steps in glare control ........ Anyone able to measure how many ° (horizontally) from a low bright sun they can get before glare either rears its head as a visible artifact or washes out the colours /image ??
How does this compare to the competitors (Meostar HD, Conquest HD, FL, SV, SE, etc.)?


Thanks, Chosun :gh:

 

[ayeforgot]

Could someone please confirm the focus direction to ∞ ??

Very apologetic folks at opticsreviewer.com! They kindly double checked and then changed to say:

The focus wheel adjusts to infinity in about 1.5 counter-clockwise revolutions of the wheel. We prefer a single revolution to enable rapid focusing without causing us to have to "fiddle around" to achieve a good fine focus. We're willing to accept 1.5 as the outer limits of reasonableness, but still being quite functional. (Despite our proofreading and double-checking process, we erroneously initially reported this as clockwise revolutions to infinity. We appreciate the reader who brought this to our attention!)

AF

 

[Chosun Juan]

Well good for the correction :t: (cheques, money orders, paypal, or free 2012 razor hd's gratefully accepted! - I'll get them modded!!)

BUT ......

Damn! for the CCW direction to ∞ :-C

(I blame Looksharp || for this now non-negotiable ......... =(


Chosun :gh:

 

[eitanaltman]

Chosun - on your other question, I would recommend you contact the folks at opticsreviewer.com. I have found them to be very friendly and responsive, they would likely be happy to answer your question.