Conquest HD vs HDX - differences? (2 Viewers)

[justabirdwatcher]

Sorry if this has already been asked, but as a long time fan and owner of the Conquest HD, I'm wondering what gives with the new HDX.

The skeptic in me worries that they changed nothing but the cosmetics and more importantly, the location of manufacture, and are now selling a lesser product as "new and improved" to help their profits. But the optimist in me hopes they are still made in Japan and have some new feature that would warrant them replacing one of the world's best binocular values of all time.

 

[ArchStanton]

Sorry if this has already been asked, but as a long time fan and owner of the Conquest HD, I'm wondering what gives with the new HDX.

The skeptic in me worries that they changed nothing but the cosmetics and more importantly, the location of manufacture, and are now selling a lesser product as "new and improved" to help their profits. But the optimist in me hopes they are still made in Japan and have some new feature that would warrant them replacing one of the world's best binocular values of all time.

The field flatteners, eyecups, and armor appear to be the only significant differences. I briefly compared CHDX 8x42 and CHD 8x32’s and liked the latter better, but I’m no optics expert. I recently purchased a pair of CHD 8x42’s on clearance but returned them because one of the eyecups broke with half of it stuck on the eyepiece. I called Zeiss and was advised to return it to the seller, which is what I did because it wasn’t worth the hassle of sending it to them for warranty repair.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I have a simplistic POV: Optics have reached a pretty amazing level of quality, and competition from MIC and MIJ is getting better all the time. The big mfg need to stay ahead of the wave, so they make improvements and find ways to reduce mfg costs (SFL line is a good example - stunning glass if they had existed 20 or even 10 years ago). But changes are just - by definition - going to be incremental and relatively minor. Only optics enthusiasts would give one whit for them.
If you own CHD, you're fine. If you are buying new bins, you buy - for roughly the same money - the newer updated bins... and you are fine. At least until someone on BF tells you the old ones had more magik, or such and such have glare, blackouts, CA, fuzzy edges,...

 

[Maljunulo]

Many, if not most, “flaws and defects” probably go unseen ….. until someone here points them out.

Then they can’t be unseen.

Dissatisfaction results.

 

[justabirdwatcher]

I have a simplistic POV: Optics have reached a pretty amazing level of quality, and competition from MIC and MIJ is getting better all the time. The big mfg need to stay ahead of the wave, so they make improvements and find ways to reduce mfg costs (SFL line is a good example - stunning glass if they had existed 20 or even 10 years ago). But changes are just - by definition - going to be incremental and relatively minor. Only optics enthusiasts would give one whit for them.
If you own CHD, you're fine. If you are buying new bins, you buy - for roughly the same money - the newer updated bins... and you are fine. At least until someone on BF tells you the old ones had more magik, or such and such have glare, blackouts, CA, fuzzy edges,...

I'm sure you're right, and I didn't think about this until just now, but if they did nothing more than fix the kidney bean problem with longer eyecups from the beginning, that's probably enough. I mean, they are at the same price point that the original Conquest HD's have been at for a while now. But since they are at the same price point, it begs the infamous question... "where are the made now?"

Vortex made the mistake of screwing with what was a pretty darn good MIJ Razor binocular, and started having them made in China to keep their profits but not raise the price. I could tell the difference even if most folks couldn't.

 

[A2GG]

if the color fidelity has been improved this would be a good upgrade IMO.
oh and if armor has an improved feel this would be a plus.

 

[Hermann]

I mean, they are at the same price point that the original Conquest HD's have been at for a while now. But since they are at the same price point, it begs the infamous question... "where are the made now?"

Who cares, as long as they are made to Zeiss' specifications?

Vortex made the mistake of screwing with what was a pretty darn good MIJ Razor binocular, and started having them made in China to keep their profits but not raise the price. I could tell the difference even if most folks couldn't.

Did you know where they were made before you "could tell the difference"? If the answer is "yes", it's quite likely that knowledge influenced your perception.

Hermann

 

[HeadWest]

If the eye cups are more durable that is a big win. I’ve had my CHD for 5 years and love the glass, but the eyecups are hot garbage. I’m on my 6th pair of eyecups.

 

[adhoc]

I take it the eyecups in post #2, ArchStanton, and #8, HeadWest, are the later, longer, type (factory fitted? on newer production, given as replacement FOC by Zeiss for older).

How do we reconcile the eyecups, original or later, breaking like this with the famous super-toughness Conquest videos? There nothing much happens to anything except that on one of the several occasions an SUV is driven over the bino one eyecup gets stuck.

Maybe we should have a thread for reports of Conquest HD/X being found to be unusually tough in actual use by members.

One of them, notoriously gullible, namely Adhoc, went by those videos and got an HD 10x32. Just cannot bring myself to treat it nonchalantly. It's still doing fine. Eyecups replaced with longer. Been twisting them in and out, both original and later pairs, without special care compared with other binos, but no problem with them yet.

It is possible that Conquest really is very tough and the eyecups and/or their adjustment design are a weakness.