I think not only weight itself but the balance, focuser position, shape/grip, hand size also play significant roles to the shake of the binoculars. I have small hands and can keep all the small pocket binoculars steady. In that regard Curios are very easy to use. All of my mid sized binoculars including UV 10x32 HD, NL 10x32 and Monarch 7 8x30 are very stable in my hands. However, NL 8x42, SFL 10x40, Habicht 7x42 and 10x40, all the full sized binoculars are not very stable in the use. Funny thing is DDOptics nighteagle 8x56 which are the heaviest are very stable in my hands.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Conquest HDX (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dries1
- Start date
I also prefer 10x or 12x. But the WOW PENG I get the most with larger exit pupils. A reason I cannot part with my SLC 8x42. The 5.25mm exit pupil gives a certain comfort and immersiveness. Together with a larger dept of field it give my some WOW PENG as well.
The NL 10x52 gives me more WOW PENG than my NL 10x32, especially at longer ranges. Hard to describe what is is. Only the larger exit pupil?
A large apparent field of view also contributes to a WOW PENG feeling imo. That's why I like the NL's so much.
The NL 10x52 gives me more WOW PENG than my NL 10x32, especially at longer ranges. Hard to describe what is is. Only the larger exit pupil?
A large apparent field of view also contributes to a WOW PENG feeling imo. That's why I like the NL's so much.
Last edited:
Maybe... just maybe its not what we normally think, but the opposite. The added weight of those 52s steadies the attainable view of it over the 1032.. makes it better, while the brain struggles to answer why. It must be EP right... Ha! I dont know. Im playing here.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Yes Dennis, but have you spoken to them and if so, with who?
A question to a robot doesn't mean much.
It's sibling to that baby pygmy hippo in Thailand...
Reinier,
If B&H listed specs are correct the FOV is 396' for the 32 and 390' for the 52 so as a real world matter FOV and AFOV are identical. As a non expert I tend to think noticeable differences are usually the result of a synergistic combination of two (or more) factors. In addition to the much larger EP the 52 also has much more light gathering ability than the 32. Maybe that combination results in what you are experiencing at longer ranges?
Mike
That is a response personally answered by Zeiss. It is not a robot. Here is a post by Spiral Horn on Rockslide concerning where the Zeiss Conquest HD's are made, and he personally talked to a Zeiss representative.
Maven vs Zeiss
Hey guys I think I’ve narrowed my search on my next set of binos to the maven B110x42 or the Zeiss conquest 10x42. Still deciding but just seeing what everyone thinks of these 2 thanks
rokslide.com
"With the explosion of Asian manufacturing and competition driving companies to often change where things are made, there is a plethora of misinformation all over the internet. It is always best to do some research to confirm.
Example:
- Vortex Razor was first made in Japan, then moved to China, then the UHD was manufactured in Japan.
- German Precision Optics are designed by GPO, outsourced OEM components that are assembled and QA’d in Germany, but they DO NOT carry a “Made in Germany” label when sold in the USA.
- Leica Ultravid HD+ and Noctivid are made in Germany, but the Trinovid and their rangefinders are made in Portugal (some of the electronic components may be further outsourced).
- Zeiss Victory and Conquest HDs are made in Germany, but the budget Terra line are outsourced and made in China and Japan.
I called Zeiss Consumer Products today and confirmed that the current line of Conquest HD Binoculars are made in Germany. The rep was very specific when asked if the Conquest HD was fabricated by Kamakura and assembled in Germany, with a very firm “no.” He went on to say that all the Conquest HD’s critical components were made in Germany. I asked if all the lenses were German, to which he responded that the Conquest has 16 lenses and a host of optical components, most of which are engineered and manufactured in Germany, but that a few do come from Schott Glass facilities in Asia. In addition, he added that some of the Conquest HD’s housing components are outsourced from Japan. So, it is a German designed/engineered and a mainly German manufactured binocular that is built, QA’d, and serviced by Zeiss in Germany (in contrast, the Maven is outsourced manufacture). He finally added that Victory Series Binoculars are made completely in-house, in Germany. Bottom line is the Conquest HDs are a true Zeiss Optic and in my personal comparisons with the FL and SF series, it shows. Their optical quality in the $1K and under category is exceptional. Today, it is the optical quality standard that almost every other glass in that category is compared to."
Dennis
Last edited:
forent
Well-known member
These are rhetorically completely inadequate terms that my stomach chooses from the limited vocabulary of its poor school English to express its enthusiasm for a large, sharp, detailed picture. 😉
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Same post on the other HDX thread and my remarks are over there.That is a response personally answered by Zeiss. It is not a robot. Here is a post by Spiral Horn on Rockslide concerning where the Zeiss Conquest HD's are made, and he personally talked to a Zeiss representative.
Maven vs Zeiss
Hey guys I think I’ve narrowed my search on my next set of binos to the maven B110x42 or the Zeiss conquest 10x42. Still deciding but just seeing what everyone thinks of these 2 thanks
"With the explosion of Asian manufacturing and competition driving companies to often change where things are made, there is a plethora of misinformation all over the internet. It is always best to do some research to confirm.
Example:
Although I’ve seen continued and often varied speculation on bird forums about Conquest HD’s place of manufacture, I’ve never witnessed any Industry PRO or Zeiss Rep clearly state that the Conquest’s optical system is made by Kamakuru or anywhere other than Zeiss in Germany (as declared by Zeiss). US law is very different from the EU in this regard. For a product sold in the USA, it must have received the majority of its fabrication value where it claims to have been made.
- Vortex Razor was first made in Japan, then moved to China, then the UHD was manufactured in Japan.
- German Precision Optics are designed by GPO, outsourced OEM components that are assembled and QA’d in Germany, but they DO NOT carry a “Made in Germany” label when sold in the USA.
- Leica Ultravid HD+ and Noctivid are made in Germany, but the Trinovid and their rangefinders are made in Portugal (some of the electronic components may be further outsourced).
- Zeiss Victory and Conquest HDs are made in Germany, but the budget Terra line are outsourced and made in China and Japan.
I called Zeiss Consumer Products today and confirmed that the current line of Conquest HD Binoculars are made in Germany. The rep was very specific when asked if the Conquest HD was fabricated by Kamakura and assembled in Germany, with a very firm “no.” He went on to say that all the Conquest HD’s critical components were made in Germany. I asked if all the lenses were German, to which he responded that the Conquest has 16 lenses and a host of optical components, most of which are engineered and manufactured in Germany, but that a few do come from Schott Glass facilities in Asia. In addition, he added that some of the Conquest HD’s housing components are outsourced from Japan. So, it is a German designed/engineered and a mainly German manufactured binocular that is built, QA’d, and serviced by Zeiss in Germany (in contrast, the Maven is outsourced manufacture). He finally added that Victory Series Binoculars are made completely in-house, in Germany. Bottom line is the Conquest HDs are a true Zeiss Optic and in my personal comparisons with the FL and SF series, it shows. Their optical quality in the $1K and under category is exceptional. Today, it is the optical quality standard that almost every other glass in that category is compared to."
Dennis
I think the weight plays a role as well, you might be right.
With the 10x32 I get a bit more blackouts. Eye placement is more finicky with the smaller exit pupil and I think it might play a bigger role at longer ranges as well. Probably even more on clowdy days.
I think you are right!
Some reviewers on Youtube say that 50/52mm has more resolution than 32mm, but I know that cannot be true, although I sometimes have that feeling as well.
Maybe another theory: when my own eye pupil is 3mm, I use almost the whole lens diameter of the 10x32 (with exit pupil 3.2mm) and only 3/5.2mm part of the lens diameter of the 10x52. The middle part of the lens could be the better part of the glass? Or am I talking nonsense?
I know the 52mm has less glare than the 32mm. That is a fact (I think
). So maybe there are other parameters that are a bit better when the lens diameter/exit pupil is larger?I find that rather curious. You think your NL 10x32 is more stable than your NL 8x42?
I think my SLC 8x42 is very stable! My NL 12x42 feels really steady in the hands, although it is 12 power. I can imagine the NL 8x42 is the moste steady of the whole NL series. But maybe the size of the hands (and the sixe of the muscles
) do play a role as you said.But even the Habicht 7x42 is not really stable in your experience?
Yes, that is my experience. But I am sure most people disagree on that.
I don’t have any experience with NL 12x42. Possibly I will have difficulties to stabilize is well in my hands. I can keep the NL 8x42 very steady with the help of the forehead rest but NL 10x32 gives me a very relaxed feeling when use due to its lower weight.My NL 12x42 feels really steady in the hands, although it is 12 power. I can imagine the NL 8x42 is the moste steady of the whole NL series. But maybe the size of the hands (and the sixe of the muscles
Unfortunately, that is the case. Perhaps rather low use it getting caused for difficulties for me to adapt to it’s learning curve. Even though in the beginning I considered the EP size as a major decision making factor, experience says I should give more priority to the size and weight.
More weight (more mass) means greater inertia. (more difficult to set in motion) Therefor the heavier glass will be “steadier”.
The converse is that once in motion, it’s harder to stop.
Some Englishman named Isaac Something-or-other figured it all out a couple of hundred years ago. (along with a few other things)
The converse is that once in motion, it’s harder to stop.
Some Englishman named Isaac Something-or-other figured it all out a couple of hundred years ago. (along with a few other things)
Last edited:
Peter.home
Mr Peter Home
This is all correct in terms of rolling boulders down hills, and spinning on office chairs with your feet tucked in etc., but I'm not sure it can be applied to binoculars held still against your eye sockets, with arms locked against your body.
A lot of the "shake" is more like a micro movement of your nerves or muscles, twitching, or heartbeat related tiny movements.
Heavier optics, you presumably get tired quicker resulting in more shake.
Smaller and lighter can be harder to grip comfortably resulting in more shaking.
Maybe heavy binoculars for the morning, lighter for the afternoon. I'm joking.
That is, of course, the other side of the discussion.
We really can’t assume spherical cows moving in a frictionless pasture.
I agree with what your are saying and believe has to do with the exit pupil. NL 10x32 image is clear, light weight too but I enjoy much more the ease of EL 10x42 or the SF 10x42. With the NL 10x32 I have to place the bino on the right spot of the eye socket and once I get it then I enjoy the view. With the other 2 it is just much easier, no worries. I see a moving bird in the trees, quickly get the binos, right to my eyes and enjoy. The NLs in the same scenario ... place one, re-place second time maybe again 3rd time for perfect no black outs and then being careful not to move them much and enjoy.
henry link
Well-known member
I think you are right!
Some reviewers on Youtube say that 50/52mm has more resolution than 32mm, but I know that cannot be true, although I sometimes have that feeling as well.
Maybe another theory: when my own eye pupil is 3mm, I use almost the whole lens diameter of the 10x32 (with exit pupil 3.2mm) and only 3/5.2mm part of the lens diameter of the 10x52. The middle part of the lens could be the better part of the glass? Or am I talking nonsense?
I know the 52mm has less glare than the 32mm. That is a fact (I think
Not talking nonsense at all. A binocular objective lens stopped down by the eye's pupil should have lower chromatic and spherical aberrations than the same lens at full aperture and should also have lower aberrations than an equally good shorter focal length lens matching the stepped down aperture. The bigger the difference between full aperture the stopped down aperture the lower the aberrations. That can make the image quality seen through a good 8x56 stopped down to 32mm noticeably better than any actual 8x32 because the eye can detect a softened high aberration image even at low spacial frequencies large enough to be easily resolved on a resolution chart.
FWIW, I can also hand hold my massive front heavy 8x56 FL steadier than any smaller, lighter binocular. I find the current fashion of intentionally moving mass toward the eyepiece to be particularly shaky.
Last edited:
Thanks for your explanation! Very interesting. Now I see the appeal of the 8x56 format.
I hold the NL 10x32 also at the front (both the tubes are pretty much covered with my hands), but then without the headrest.
But still, the EL 50 was also very steady in the hands. I am not sure I really like the wasp waist of the NL 52. It is a bit too pronounced for the NL 52 and that is also why one of my hands moves to the front (more flesh to hold). I think the wasp waist is more in proportion at the NL 42 imo.
I am sorry, off topic. It must be about Zeiss here...
That's where the headrest of the NL pure may help imo. With my NL 10x52 (although more front heavy than the NL 42) I move one of my hands more to the front. I put the other hand where the focuser is placed. Then I press the binoculars a bit against my forehead. It provides me a very stable image.
I hold the NL 10x32 also at the front (both the tubes are pretty much covered with my hands), but then without the headrest.
But still, the EL 50 was also very steady in the hands. I am not sure I really like the wasp waist of the NL 52. It is a bit too pronounced for the NL 52 and that is also why one of my hands moves to the front (more flesh to hold). I think the wasp waist is more in proportion at the NL 42 imo.
I am sorry, off topic. It must be about Zeiss here...
