Brief Comparison between Zeiss Conquest HD & HDX (in 10x32 format) (2 Viewers)

[jackjack]

Background of CHD and CHDX can be found in many other article.

I will go straight to the point because I don't have much time to spend and I still have many aspects to say about.

so

CHD / CHDX

more then 10 years of waiting, what is the difference?

photo of 10x32
CHD / CHDX



'Zeiss' lettering is engraved on HD and embossed on HDX


texture of the rubber armoring is different.
HDX's armor is bit more sticky and have little embossing on it in order to give firmer grip.


Objective side.

32mm HDX have tripod thread available
ocular side
mmot significant diffrence is

'Made in Germany' on HD
'Designed by Zeiss' on HDX


weight is almost same.
about 2~4g differ


HDX have longer eyecup which have more resistance of blackout issues it's predecessor have.

Eyecup click stop of

HD / HDX
non click / 1
2 /3



you can see HDX's eyecup extends highly at third chickstop.
(so there are more room (approx 2mm) between ocular lens and eye)

Color of the lens coating is different.

HDX shows more reddish tint then HD bot in objective and ocular lenses



Accessories are also different

HDX's Accessories are practically identical as SFL series.


Objective cap of HDX is more easy to use with less risk of loosing.
and ouclar cap is made with harder rubber

 

[jackjack]

OPTICS

1. Color

HD / HDX


Color difference might be the biggest optical diffrence that user could see
(at least for me)

Basically, HD and HDX both have yellow~green tint like other HD series.

but the collor bias (especially yellow spectrum) is more suppressed to show
not very significant but still better color fidelity and higher contrast between dark and light side


though HDX have increased color fidelity, it is still significantly color biased compared to among the highest color fidelity bino (EL 10x32)

HD
HDX
EL


2.Field of View


can be considered identical

about 6.8 as stated.

2. Central Sharpness

HD / HDX



Central sharpness seems just a little bit increased on HDX.
Resolution will be more influenced by better color contrast of HDX.

but still, HDX is not as sharp as 10x32 FL and 10x42HT
and have significant diffrence compared EL and NL

3. Edge sharpness

HD / HDX


HDX have sharper edges

HD's sharpness maintains about 84~86%
HDX is about 88~90%
and also, HD have more stronger fallout.
but still, HDX's edge sharpness is not great like top class field flattening binos such as EL, NL, SRBC

HD / HDX / EL


4. Distortion

pincusion distortion is practically identical on HD and HDX

they have more Pincusion distortion the EL 10x32 but I prefer conquest's distortion because EL have



5. Chromatic Abberation

center

HD / HDX / EL



edge

HD / HDX / EL


Amount of CA on HD / HDX is almost identical.

but color of the CA is bit different.

as on the second comparison photo, HD's CA have more bluish - megenta spectrum similar to bino such to nikon EDG

on the other hand,

HDX's CA is more biasd to yellowish green and violet.
similar to Swaro EL

both 10x32 HD and HDX have much more CA then EL, NL, SRBC.
CA is the biggest optical disadvantages CHD have(especially 10 and bigger magnification),
and still remains unfixed till HDX.


6. Glare suppression

HD


HDX


EL


glare suppression is what HDX rarely fall behind older one.

but still much better then 10x32 EL and NL which are notorious for glaring.

7. Close focus

HD
about 1.3~1.4m

HDX
about 1.1m

HDX's close focus is significantly shorter then HD.

8. Eye placement

Usable ER is identical on both.
but due to longer eyecup of HDX, user have more chance to avoid blackouts.

9. Focusing

about 1.1 rotation on HD
and 1.25 rotation on HDX

HDX's more rotation may because of closer focus distance.

focus speed of HD is much faster then HDX.
since there were some complains about HD's focus being too fast to get a accurate focus easily, HDX's focuser is slower and more responsive.
though HDX's focuser have little bit of uneven tension then HD but whom complianed about finicky focusing of HD will be happy with HDX's focusing.

10. Handling

As I said at the first post, HDX's rubber armor is bit more grippy they HD and also, hinge of the HDX is smaller then HD.
tripod thread cover might bother the grip, but it can be unscrewed.

 

[jackjack]

CONCLUSION

There are optical and Ergonomical upgrade on HDX compared to it's predecessor.

Critical parts of image quality (Central, Edge sharpness and color fidelity) are increased and also Critical parts of Ergonomics (Eyepoint, focusing) are increased. along with better accessories.

it is obvious to say MIJ CHDX is better binocular then MIG CHD which is introduced more then 10 years ago.

BUT.

I doubt to say this amout of difference as 'UPgrade'
Though HDX have some nice 'Improvements',
it is not significant enough to say 'sell your CHD and change to HDX for significantly better experience'...

moreover, CHD's price have been dumped around 650$ before the lauch of CHDX.

In my opinion
if the price difference is around 200$, CHDX's improvement is well worth it.
but if HD series are still available around 600$, it is obvious to go for old ones which still operating nicely.

Zeiss Conquest HDX will take a part among best 30~32mm bin around 1000$ beause CHD is still one of the most renowned and loved 32mm bino around 1000$ and HDX have worthy improvement compared to it.

Ironically, HDX's biggest goal will be overcoming the price - value of it predecessor, not competing with other brands binocular.

Zeiss CHDX 32mm will be highly recommended binocular if one is looking for nice price - value optical quality in 32mm high level binocular.

despite it's slightly heavy weight for it's lens size, it still have superior optics that have advantage over lighter competitors such as MHG and Companion.
the optics will not be perfect (Such as CA issue) but other critical imafe quality such as Brightness, FOV, Central & Edge sharpness should not be overlooked.


this phrase is also can still be used as introduction of 32mm Conquest HD series.

 

[tenex]

Thanks jackjack. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the edges of HD/HDX with a more conventional alpha bin, like UV or FL 10x32.

 

[jackjack]

Thanks jackjack. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the edges of HD/HDX with a more conventional alpha bin, like UV or FL 10x32.

I don't consider Leica UV's optics an Alpha, because it's optics doesn't even reach the level of CHD
if UV's optics are considered alpha, CHD, CHDX, opticron Aurora, DD optics SHG, Vortex Razor UHD, EDG, and even Meostar HD, Kowa genesis and MHG will have a chance to be considered alpha too.

Even UVHD+ is only can be considered alpha if it's compact, ruggedness and glare, ghost suppression is highly valued.

I have comparison with

UVHD+ 8x32 / CHD 8x32 / EL 8x32


UV's edge is around 74%, CHD aroung 83% and EL over 99%

FL 10x32's edge is around 82% bit less then CHD

 

[tenex]

I don't consider Leica UV's optics an Alpha, because it's optics doesn't even reach the level of CHD

That obviously depends on the weighting of different factors in the evaluation (and then of course there are mechanical ones too). Dealers were easily able to get buyers to concentrate on edge sharpness, which is how Swarovision got to be #1, but it's a debatable point. Your photos are confirming my impression that it really doesn't matter much to me. I can be very happy using a bin as long as at least 75% of the field looks sharp, the falloff is slow, and the edges aren't distractingly ugly (as on FL 42 for example), which leaves me free to appreciate other qualities. The FOV of NLs would be a greater attraction to me than edge sharpness.

I think it was Patudo who recently asked, if you can have sharp edges, why wouldn't you? Again, this must have sold a lot of ELSVs, but not to me. You have a wider range of choices if you don't insist on a flat field. It's also possible that modest field curvature makes panning more pleasant, but I haven't spent enough time with a flat-field bin to reach a conclusion about that, and don't seem curious enough to make it happen.

 

[Maljunulo]

What are the percentages?

 

[jackjack]

What are the percentages?

same types of the percentage like allbino use.
sharpness maintenance starts from center of FOV diameter till~%

 

[jackjack]

That obviously depends on the weighting of different factors in the evaluation (and then of course there are mechanical ones too). Dealers were easily able to get buyers to concentrate on edge sharpness, which is how Swarovision got to be #1, but it's a debatable point. Your photos are confirming my impression that it really doesn't matter much to me. I can be very happy using a bin as long as at least 75% of the field looks sharp, the falloff is slow, and the edges aren't distractingly ugly (as on FL 42 for example), which leaves me free to appreciate other qualities. The FOV of NLs would be a greater attraction to me than edge sharpness.

I think it was Patudo who recently asked, if you can have sharp edges, why wouldn't you? Again, this must have sold a lot of ELSVs, but not to me. You have a wider range of choices if you don't insist on a flat field. It's also possible that modest field curvature makes panning more pleasant, but I haven't spent enough time with a flat-field bin to reach a conclusion about that, and don't seem curious enough to make it happen.

I don't like flat field but I have to grade it higer because it is obviously harder to achieve them not falt view when FOV is identical.
and I also personally like high distortion bino such as HT and meostar.

but sadly, other optical quality apart from 'Flat' such as Brightness, Central sharpness, CA control just stay about half a price tag UV have.

so there are Zero part in optics that can be called alpha in UV (except for glare suppression)

but still, it's small size, unique focus mechanism, top of the range build quality still entertain many mania such as me. apart from the Red dot that escalated it's price more then it deserve.

 

[Maljunulo]

same types of the percentage like allbino use.
sharpness maintenance starts from center of FOV diameter till~%

Oh, okay.

Thank you for the explanation.

 

[Paultricounty]

I don't like flat field but I have to grade it higer because it is obviously harder to achieve them not falt view when FOV is identical.
and I also personally like high distortion bino such as HT and meostar.

but sadly, other optical quality apart from 'Flat' such as Brightness, Central sharpness, CA control just stay about half a price tag UV have.

so there are Zero part in optics that can be called alpha in UV (except for glare suppression)

And leaving out the rich color saturation image that makes them so much more pleasing to look through than either conquest.

but still, it's small size, unique focus mechanism, top of the range build quality still entertain many mania such as me. apart from the Red dot that escalated it's price more then it deserve.

 

[Cest]

Great review. HDX looks like an improvement, but not enough of one for me to regret getting the HD for $650.

 

[claves_10]

After so much time and effort you placed into this I can only say THANK YOU!!!! 감사합니다
And of course humbly, keep posting more bino reviews JACKJACK.
GRACIAS !!!!!!!

 

[jackjack]

And leaving out the rich color saturation image that makes them so much more pleasing to look through than either conquest.

yes but thinking which color is better depends on preference of people and what they are looking at.
some will think leica color warm and vivid, other will think it too yellow...

I personally love leica color (I prefer BN's color then UVHD+ which have much better colorfidelity) but which color is better will highly depends on preference.

I think thats why allbino evaluate color by color fidelity.

but again. evaluateing and preferring is bit different....
I even use IOR 7x40 quite happily despite it is one of the bino with worst color fidelity... 😀

 

[jackjack]

Great review. HDX looks like an improvement, but not enough of one for me to regret getting the HD for $650.

when it is first introducedto Korea, Dozens CHD 32mm was group purchased by Korean manias around 500$.

so there are still some that have 500$ CHD... so CHDX feels much expensive then it should be.

I think it is not a wise choice for Zeiss to dump the price of such a high performance. durability bino...

Again, My personal estimation of improvement of CHDX compared to HD will be around 200$ (150$ for Spec wearers and 250$ for non spec wearers which have not so deep eye socket)

so 350$ gap is hard to overcome.

In korea, CHD's retail price don't go down. I think sellers already sold most of the remaining CHD before the presence of CHDX...

does 650$ CHD is still available in western countries?

 

[jackjack]

After so much time and effort you placed into this I can only say THANK YOU!!!! 감사합니다
And of course humbly, keep posting more bino reviews JACKJACK.
GRACIAS !!!!!!!

gracias por el cumplido 😀

 

[tenex]

I have to admit the current price of Ultravids (now made in Portugal) which have been only incrementally improved for the last 20 years is hard to justify in rational terms. Then again, so is that of NLs a thousand dollars higher still. Sadly it's hard to deny that alpha status is just a matter of the price tag when manufacturers themselves are playing the game this way, charging as much as they think the market will bear. One has to talk about quality control, levels of service and so on, and do a lot of handwaving. Given the alternatives today, I can't really say they're worth it, just that some may still prefer them anyway and needn't strain to justify their choice. (Well, maybe a few are actually worth their price... EL 42 as long as it lasts, or SLC 56 for its niche market.)

Which brings us back to the much more rational proposition of Conquests, and how they compare to similarly priced mid-range bins...

 

[tenex]

P.S. - jackjack, I'm curious about your claim that Leicas fall short in central sharpness. What were your measurements on this? I once had that impression but have since found that my BN just wasn't in optimal adjustment.

 

[jackjack]

P.S. - jackjack, I'm curious about your claim that Leicas fall short in central sharpness. What were your measurements on this? I once had that impression but have since found that my BN just wasn't optimally adjusted.

same measurements like evey reviews I gone throungh (which I said at the posts before, same procedure that folks in this forum goes through with additional testing of each tubes separately)

Leica itself is not a dull bino, but at the same price range, there are always much better option even for central sharpness then Leica.

such as

UV 25mm < CL 25mm
UVHD+ < CHD
NV < EL, NL, SFL
Televid apo 82mm < Swaro ATS 80mm

 

[Paultricounty]

yes but thinking which color is better depends on preference of people and what they are looking at.
some will think leica color warm and vivid, other will think it too yellow...

I haven’t met anybody who thinks UV+ is to yellow. Of course most of my testing is subjective in the field with multiple people in side by side comparisons in different lighting conditions to get more subjective opinions of overall image desirability. There’s something a little bit more tangible than just color saturation, some have called it a richness (delicious) to the image in the Leica’s. There’s also a very pleasing image immersion, possibly due to the curvature design, other could chime in on that.
I also respectively disagree about conquest or any of the $1000 options being on the level of the UV’s, and I’m not alone there.

Of course when checking objective boxes like CA, pincushion, edge falloff, there are others that do out perform the UVs for less money. The same can be said in the opposite with the top alphas, there are cheaper binoculars that don’t have a greenish unnatural image as an SF, or flat images and to some uncomfortable panning of NL’s and EL’s. I think that choosing and using binoculars in all different conditions for long periods of time, there are binoculars that seem to you could use them for days without eye fatigue, and others that seem to drain the user after only a few hours under bright sun. I find that to be true with some Zeiss and Swarovski. Owning most of the binoculars we discuss here I find that the image feel and comfort compensates for better edges or a larger FOV.

I personally love leica color (I prefer BN's color then UVHD+ which have much better colorfidelity) but which color is better will highly depends on preference.

I think thats why allbino evaluate color by color fidelity.

but again. evaluateing and preferring is bit different....
I even use IOR 7x40 quite happily despite it is one of the bino with worst color fidelity... 😀