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

[jackjack]

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.

(UVHD+ became much neutral then HD. HD 10x32 have higer yellow biased then similar apatuer Kowa genesis, and Nikon EDG and non HD UV have more biased then HD one)

yes. not every people wants their bino closest to perfection. If every people's desire is like that, only Swarovski EL and NL will survive.
but EL proves the fact, close to Zero abberation could have countereffect on real usage.
same as SRBC too.

testing and preferring is lot different, I still use BN 7x42 because it is not bright with lot of edge fall outs and distortion even on modest FOV

Ironically, lack of brightness especially lack of blue spectrum make it pleasant under bright light.
edge fall out and additional distortion prevents rolling ball effect.
and for 7 power, 8degree FOV is just what I need.

Unlike Camera, bino's preformance cannot be edited. thats why I have lot of bino besides Swarovski 😀

 

[henry link]

Hi jack-jack,

It would help if your photos of binocular color bias included a reference image of the same "scene" made directly through the camera alone. It's easy enough to include color transmission samples of one or several binoculars along with the camera's color bias in a single photo. A white flat piece of paper can be photographed through the objective end of the tested binoculars. The same photo can include areas around the binocular(s) that are directly photographed by the camera. Crops of binocular transmission images and direct camera images can be juxtaposed so that even subtle color differences become obvious. The advantage for those of us interested in accurate color transmission is that the viewer can see exactly how the binoculars color biases compare to the reference colors, not just how they differ from each other or which one looks "better".

Henry

 

[jackjack]

Hi jack-jack,

It would help if your photos of binocular color bias included a reference image of the same "scene" made directly through the camera alone. It's easy enough to include color transmission samples of one or several binoculars along with the camera's color bias in a single photo. A white flat piece of paper can be photographed through the objective end of the tested binoculars and the same photo can include areas around the binocular(s) that are directly photographed by the camera. Crops of binocular transmission images and direct camera images can be brought together other so that even subtle color differences become obvious. The advantage for those of us interested in accurate color transmission is that the viewer can see exactly how the binoculars color biases compare to the reference, not just how they differ from each other or which one looks "better".

Henry

HD
HDX



that method is among the procedures I use to test the color renedition.
but I haven't used in on the review yet.
and still, it will be not 100% EXACT perfect way to tell about the color biased like other methods me and other reviewers go through.

 

[jackjack]

The EL 8x32 looks way sharper than the UV 8x32 or the CHD 8x32.

At the edge. yes
At the center. also yes.


In terms of image quality, EL is not on the same level with those two.

but glare and ghosting, compactness is worst on EL.

 

[Paultricounty]

At the edge. yes
At the center. also yes.


In terms of image quality, EL is not on the same level with those two.

Please clarify. Are you saying EL is below optically or are you saying the others are below EL’s level?

but glare and ghosting, compactness is worst on EL.

 

[jackjack]

Please clarify. Are you saying EL is below optically or are you saying the others are below EL’s level?

the latter one. 😀

 

[Paultricounty]

the latter one. 😀

Thank you 🙏🏼

 

[dylanf]

Hi jackjack, thanks so much for the review and comparison!
How do you perform the glare suppression test? What do you do to induce glare?

 

[jackjack]

Hi jackjack, thanks so much for the review and comparison!
How do you perform the glare suppression test? What do you do to induce glare?

at night, under the small lamp light, comparing bino in same angle.

sun and street light is to strong to test it until the limit.

 

[Hermann]

jackjack: Once again a very nice and useful review. Excellent work.

On an unrelated topic: I've been trying to do some phonescoping. Handheld. And I don't get any useful results. Could you perhaps make a post expaining step by step how you do it? What your workflow is? Ideally with some photos how you hold the phone and the binoculars.

I'm quite sure many people would be very interested in such a post.

Hermann

 

[SivaL]

@jackjack :

Your binocular comparisons are wonderful to read. In addition to the suggestion to capture image for gauging brightness, and since you are already doing a meticulous job, may I suggest taking pictures of a target at fixed distance under same lighting condition, and using a booster to measure in arc seconds. That is the only way to prove for sure whether one pair > another in resolution.

 

[tenex]

UVHD+ < CHD

In central sharpness? Frankly this isn't easy to believe, unless the difference is tiny -- which again is why I asked for some actual measurements. And I'd wonder how this might have varied among samples tested.

 

[jackjack]

In central sharpness? Frankly this isn't easy to believe, unless the difference is tiny -- which again is why I asked for some actual measurements. And I'd wonder how this might have varied among samples tested.

it is a tiny difference.
just about a sharpness difference between Zeiss HT to SF in 10x42 format

central sharpness is just a hair difference but in 8x32 (with 2 8x32 UVHD+ and 2 8x32 CHD), CHD's real magnification is slightly bigger then UVHD+ making more gap in apparent resolution.

10x42 is also same.
little bit better sharpness and bigger magnification.

three UVHD+ are all from Germany, maybe recent Portuguese one can be different?

 

[james holdsworth]

What do you define as “sharpness”?

The only resolution measurements I’ve ever seen here that are supported with sound technical methods are Henry’s, the rest are completely subjective.

 

[Maljunulo]

What do you define as “sharpness”?

The only resolution measurements I’ve ever seen here that are supported with sound technical methods are Henry’s, the rest are completely subjective.

I raised the same question a while ago, and didn’t get a very satisfying answer, but I dropped it.

 

[jackjack]

What do you define as “sharpness”?

The only resolution measurements I’ve ever seen here that are supported with sound technical methods are Henry’s, the rest are completely subjective.

How do Henry measure resolution?

 

[SivaL]

If @jackjack could accurately measure resolution (and maybe brightness and color fidelity) under controlled conditions as part of his binocular reviews, he would go down as a legend of BF much like @henry link (or even @[email protected] for other reasons )

 

[ArchStanton]

it is a tiny difference.
just about a sharpness difference between Zeiss HT to SF in 10x42 format

central sharpness is just a hair difference but in 8x32 (with 2 8x32 UVHD+ and 2 8x32 CHD), CHD's real magnification is slightly bigger then UVHD+ making more gap in apparent resolution.

10x42 is also same.
little bit better sharpness and bigger magnification.

three UVHD+ are all from Germany, maybe recent Portuguese one can be different?

How would you compare the Opticron Aurora 8x42’s to the CHD & CHDX 8x42’s? Your opinion would be appreciated!

 

[jackjack]

How would you compare the Opticron Aurora 8x42’s to the CHD & CHDX? Your opinion would be appreciated!

compared to CHDX 8x42
Aurora is sharper at the center and edge. and have wider FOV

color fidelity is slightly better in CHDX.
Aurora's color is more biased to blue spectrum not yellowish green of CHDX.

brightness is better in CHD and CHDX

CA is better corrected on Aurora at the center, CHDX at the edge.

distortion is even less in Aurora enough to pronounce rollingball effect.

glare better in Aurora, ghosting better in CHDX

Building quality and accessories better in CHDX

Ease of view better in Aurora

Close focus shorter in CHDX.

Comfort of the view and focusing much better on CHDX.

in terms of optics, Aurora is on the similar level or even better when user consider sharper and wider bino.
but out side the optics, CHDX is much easier to use and have better durability.

(CHDX still have bit of blackout issue compared to 10x32 CHDX because 8x42 CHD have worst blackout among CHD series. so Aurora stand a chance in term of eye placement. but other ease of use, CHD is superior)

 

[ArchStanton]

compared to CHDX 8x42
Aurora is sharper at the center and edge. and have wider FOV

color fidelity is slightly better in CHDX.
Aurora's color is more biased to blue spectrum not yellowish green of CHDX.

brightness is better in CHD and CHDX

CA is better corrected on Aurora at the center, CHDX at the edge.

distortion is even less in Aurora enough to pronounce rollingball effect.

glare better in Aurora, ghosting better in CHDX

Building quality and accessories better in CHDX

Ease of view better in Aurora

Close focus shorter in CHDX.

Comfort of the view and focusing much better on CHDX.

in terms of optics, Aurora is on the similar level or even better when user consider sharper and wider bino.
but out side the optics, CHDX is much easier to use and have better durability.

(CHDX still have bit of blackout issue compared to 10x32 CHDX because 8x42 CHD have worst blackout among CHD series. so Aurora stand a chance in term of eye placement. but other ease of use, CHD is superior)

I briefly spent time looking through the CHDX but wasn’t really impressed. However, it might be worth ordering it and comparing it to the Aurora that I recently purchased. I’d like to compare the brightness and contrast. Thank you very much for your comments and have a great day!