Conquest HD vs HDX - differences? (4 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.

 

[Peter Carnall]

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.

Hello, just bought a pair of HDX and they are superb. They were made in Japan. Regards, Peter Carnall.

 

[ArchStanton]

Hello, just bought a pair of HDX and they are superb. They were made in Japan. Regards, Peter Carnall.

If you could elaborate a little on your thoughts about the CHDX it would be appreciated. I'm considering the CHDX 8x32 and the Kowa Genesis 8x33. Cheers from across the pond!

 

[ArchStanton]

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.

I tried the CHDX 8x42 at a local birding shop and one of the eyecups was defective because it kept spinning and couldn't be extended. I didn't want to try to tighten down myself and break it because as they say "you break it, you buy it." The salesperson didn't want to risk it either and went back inside and brought out a NIB pair that had no issues extending the eyecups.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I tried the CHDX 8x42 at a local birding shop and one of the eyecups was defective because it kept spinning and couldn't be extended. I didn't want to try to tighten down myself and break it because as they say "you break it, you buy it." The salesperson didn't want to risk it either and went back inside and brought out a NIB pair that had no issues extending the eyecups.

If the eyecups are built like the SFL, it's a rubber termination ring on a plastic sleeve. One of our 8x30's has a rubber portion that spins on the plastic. You just need to press on it a little. One of these days I'll pop it off and apply some contact adhesive or something. No big deal, tho admittedly a little annoying.

 

[ArchStanton]

If the eyecups are built like the SFL, it's a rubber termination ring on a plastic sleeve. One of our 8x30's has a rubber portion that spins on the plastic. YOu just need to press on it a little. One of these days I'll pop it off and apply some contact adhesive or something. No big deal, tho admittedly a little annoying.

If I remember correctly, they looked very similar to the old CHD eyecups. Applying adhesive might be a good idea to keep them from spinning. Thanks for the reply and have a good one!

 

[Peter Carnall]

If you could elaborate a little on your thoughts about the CHDX it would be appreciated. I'm considering the CHDX 8x32 and the Kowa Genesis 8x33. Cheers from across the pond!

Hello Arch, i bought the HDX 10x42 so can't comment on the 8x32. I tried the Zeiss 10x42 along with the Leica Trinovid and Swarovski EL WB equivalents. The sharpest and brightest images were from the Conquest & Trinovids, this was a surprise as the Swarovski bins were about £500 more. I can see there have been there have been previous threads regarding the eyecups, at least you can replace these on the Conquest & Swarovski's , apparently you can't on the Trinovids, so that was a deciding factor for me. Other factors that won me over were there weight, feel and balance of the Conquests, they just felt good and right for me. The Conquests focus quickly and i prefer the focusing ring to my old Swarovski 10x40 SLR's as my fingers used to slip on it in hot & humid weather in the Tropics. Hope this helps ?

 

[ArchStanton]

Hello Arch, i bought the HDX 10x42 so can't comment on the 8x32. I tried the Zeiss 10x42 along with the Leica Trinovid and Swarovski EL WB equivalents. The sharpest and brightest images were from the Conquest & Trinovids, this was a surprise as the Swarovski bins were about £500 more. I can see there have been there have been previous threads regarding the eyecups, at least you can replace these on the Conquest & Swarovski's , apparently you can't on the Trinovids, so that was a deciding factor for me. Other factors that won me over were there weight, feel and balance of the Conquests, they just felt good and right for me. The Conquests focus quickly and i prefer the focusing ring to my old Swarovski 10x40 SLR's as my fingers used to slip on it in hot & humid weather in the Tropics. Hope this helps ?

That’s surprising that the Conquest HDX and Leica Trinovid outperformed the in the areas of sharpness a

Hello Arch, i bought the HDX 10x42 so can't comment on the 8x32. I tried the Zeiss 10x42 along with the Leica Trinovid and Swarovski EL WB equivalents. The sharpest and brightest images were from the Conquest & Trinovids, this was a surprise as the Swarovski bins were about £500 more. I can see there have been there have been previous threads regarding the eyecups, at least you can replace these on the Conquest & Swarovski's , apparently you can't on the Trinovids, so that was a deciding factor for me. Other factors that won me over were there weight, feel and balance of the Conquests, they just felt good and right for me. The Conquests focus quickly and i prefer the focusing ring to my old Swarovski 10x40 SLR's as my fingers used to slip on it in hot & humid weather in the Tropics. Hope this helps ?

That's surprising that the CHDX and Trinovid were sharper and brighter than the EL but good to know. Do you use your binoculars with or without eyeglasses? I don't use eyeglasses with binoculars and have found that I get a better quality image with the eyecups extended a little as possible. I've noticed that the binoculars with less eye relief are worked better for me, and that's why I'm considering the CHDX 8x32 or Kowa Genesis 8x33's. I appreciate the information. Cheers from across the pond!

 

[Viraj]

I recently acquired a HDX 8x32 and so far I am impressed with it. Even though, I don’t have much experience with HD model or the Kowa Genesis, I compared the HDX with my Monarch 7 8x32 and NL 8x42.

The HDX is very sharp. IMHO the center sharpness of it is almost similar to that of NL and much better than the Monarch 7. However, NL has a bit more contrast and better colors. According to my memory , pervious SFL 10x40 had better contrast and better color reproduction. The CA control of HDX is very good for me. It is much better than the not ok experience I had with the SFL 10x40. When comparison with NL and Monarch 7, the AFOV of HDX was small. But it is not bothering me during birding scenarios.

The HDX fits my hands better than the Monarch 7. The focus wheel of HDX was very smooth as well. The fast and accurate focus makes it very easier to use in forest habitats. Also eyecups are fine and nothing to complain about with them. The armor has a bit of plastic feeling but it was fine with me. Only the objective covers are a bit difficult to put on.

Overall, I find HDX is a very capable birding binoculars. Certainly, it is not in the alpha league but it checks all the boxes as a birding pair of binoculars.

 

[Peter Carnall]

That’s surprising that the Conquest HDX and Leica Trinovid outperformed the in the areas of sharpness a

That's surprising that the CHDX and Trinovid were sharper and brighter than the EL but good to know. Do you use your binoculars with or without eyeglasses? I don't use eyeglasses with binoculars and have found that I get a better quality image with the eyecups extended a little as possible. I've noticed that the binoculars with less eye relief are worked better for me, and that's why I'm considering the CHDX 8x32 or Kowa Genesis 8x33's. I appreciate the information. Cheers from across the pond!

Hello Arch, it should be noted that the EL bins were the WB Swarovision, not the more expensive EL Range, i'm sure they would be superb. I did have the old Swarovski SLR bins which are quite heavy but they were superb binoculars. I normally wear contact lenses when birding, though do bird wearing glasses sometimes.

 

[ArchStanton]

I recently acquired a HDX 8x32 and so far I am impressed with it. Even though, I don’t have much experience with HD model or the Kowa Genesis, I compared the HDX with my Monarch 7 8x32 and NL 8x42.

The HDX is very sharp. IMHO the center sharpness of it is almost similar to that of NL and much better than the Monarch 7. However, NL has a bit more contrast and better colors. According to my memory , pervious SFL 10x40 had better contrast and better color reproduction. The CA control of HDX is very good for me. It is much better than the not ok experience I had with the SFL 10x40. When comparison with NL and Monarch 7, the AFOV of HDX was small. But it is not bothering me during birding scenarios.

The HDX fits my hands better than the Monarch 7. The focus wheel of HDX was very smooth as well. The fast and accurate focus makes it very easier to use in forest habitats. Also eyecups are fine and nothing to complain about with them. The armor has a bit of plastic feeling but it was fine with me. Only the objective covers are a bit difficult to put on.

Overall, I find HDX is a very capable birding binoculars. Certainly, it is not in the alpha league but it checks all the boxes as a birding pair of binoculars.

It sounds like the CHDX 8x32's are a pretty good value compared to much more expensive binoculars. It also seems like it will be more durable than the SLF that costs almost twice as much. I've spoken to a couple of SFL 10x40 owners who had to send their binoculars back to Zeiss for repair due to accidental damage. One person said Zeiss replaced their SFL with a brand new pair and the other said they received an estimate for a $500 repair. The CHDX has the no fault warranty within the first five years. I'm waiting for it to come back in stock at the local nature shop. I appreciate you sharing your experience with your CHDX 8x32's. Have a good one!

 

[ArchStanton]

Hello Arch, it should be noted that the EL bins were the WB Swarovision, not the more expensive EL Range, i'm sure they would be superb. I did have the old Swarovski SLR bins which are quite heavy but they were superb binoculars. I normally wear contact lenses when birding, though do bird wearing glasses sometimes.

It still sounds like the optics are pretty darn good compared to the ones that cost twice as much. I to use the same vision correction, and less eye relief seems to work better for me without using eyeglasses. Cheers!