james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Good birders are good birders regardless.
-
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 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter dries1
- Start date
As someone who only this year discovered the B&L 7x36 Elite (and original 8x42..), I am happy to hear that I am not alone in thinking they are remarkable some 30+ plus years on. Surely not the best technical specs on paper etc. but the views remain something special.
I still want to try the BL 7x36 and I will also second Jan Van Daalen's praise of the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt. I recently acquired one and find it as comfortable to the eyes/hands as any (including the NL Pure and Fujinon 7x50). It is lacking in edge crispness compared to modern flat fields but it is not a concern to me. It makes panning very nice.
I would have purchased an HDX 7x if they had opted to market one with this recent rollout.
ArchStanton
Well-known member
Hers a short YouTube video on the HDX from a week ago.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I don’t have a Conquest. But I do have two SFL, and now, 8x32SF. Prior to that, I had 8x32FL.
I think the differences are there but they are very small and incremental. Optics are just at such a high level these days, that you are paying -sometimes a lot- for very small improvements.
Ignatius
Inactive member
The Law Of Diminishing Returns strikes again.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I will add, that there are differences. But more and more I find that some of the 'reviews' on BF (when dealing with high end optics) are often nagging about TINY flaws that not even everyone sees. What differentiates bins for me, is very individual and often as nuanced as how they feel in-hand, location of focuser, etc. It's not whether under 2% of viewing conditions I see a little glare or comparing whether 95% vs. 87% of the field is in-focus. It's good to know those things too, but some of the posts which ad nausem rant about perceived flaws, seem pretty ridiculous once I've tried the bins in my hands and with my eyes and in my birding/useage.
I think - based on my experience - that Zeiss is gradually tweaking and improving their products, while trying to keep price competitive. I've looked at HDX specs and they look like small improvements over earlier gen Conquest. Both the 8x SFL's imho, are better than 8x32FL's. And I have found (based on two days use anyway) the SF's to still be better than the SFL's (but not by much!).
Sorry about hijack... at least I did talk about Zeiss bins, lol :->
Ribbon
Being Phyllosophical
When the HDX line is ment to be a successor, I look at it as a replacement of a 'step' rather than the addition of another one.
Now I don't really understand...
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
- I think the 8x30 and 8x42 SFL are an improvement over the 8x32FL.
- So far (admittedly still new-to-me) I still find the 8x32SF to be a tad better than the 8x SFL's.
'Better' for me means overall - FOV, ER, ergos, flat-field, CA, etc. In some cases theres little or no difference and I won't attempt a detailed review here, but overall I would pick the improved/better bin over another. In fact I'm about to make that choice, as I see no reason to keep my 8x40's now that I have 8x32SF's, even if the SFL's are a little better in one or two categories. OVERALL the SF's are 'better'.
I should also add that I got the SF's at a very reasonable price. If someone asked me (someone with not unlimited $$) which bin to recommend - 8x40SFL or 8x32SF - I could easily say the SFL! They are that good imho. The Conquest question might be similar - a $500 Conquest vs a $1000 HDX might suggest the upgrade is not 'worth it'. Different checkbooks might think otherwise...
It's almost as though the real reason for some folks to post on BF was to show off their amazing powers of discernment!
BRAVO!!
I think the criticism which irks me the most is “a $3000 binocular is not three times as good as a $1000 binocular.”
There is no objective (or measurable) way to define “three times as good”.
This strikes me nothing more than a rather grudging admission that the $3000 glass is indeed “better” than the $1000 glass.
There is no objective (or measurable) way to define “three times as good”.
This strikes me nothing more than a rather grudging admission that the $3000 glass is indeed “better” than the $1000 glass.
ArchStanton
Well-known member
Here’s another Conquest HDX video, which is rather disappointing in my opinion because it appears the field flatteners are the only significant improvement to the glass.
"glass package, we improve that a little bit"....Uhmmm
Few twitches here and there, few improvements over all. I am sure is worth it but the glass still the same, not much difference to previous model. But HEY If the conquest HD was good enough.....
I will check them whenever possible when the come near me.
Few twitches here and there, few improvements over all. I am sure is worth it but the glass still the same, not much difference to previous model. But HEY If the conquest HD was good enough.....
I will check them whenever possible when the come near me.
ArchStanton
Well-known member
Good post. A thought. Though its been promoted here, is the choice between a $500.00 Conquest HD and the new $1000.00 HDX a real choice, especially ongoing? The 500 dollar price (of the Conquest HD now exiting the stage at a fairly rapid rate) was a temporary price adjustment to clear inventory from the channel of distribution so that bringing out the new and improved (to what degree we really dont know yet) HDX would have more clear sailing. This is classic Product Life Cycle theory. It seems a good guess the thousand dollar price point is an important one and one Zeiss wants to dominate. The HD was getting a little long in the tooth, not getting quite the attention it used to perhaps. There was room for a bit of this and that to make it seem upgraded for the much larger than us, audience that buys lots of units at $1000.00.
I bought a close out HD, was and am surprised how good it is, how close it comes to my NLs, and agree completely with Chuck Hill "does anybody need more than this to go bird?" Now then, rather than compare the temporary but departing discounted HD to the new emerging HDX why not compare, when we actually can, the HDX to the SFL? Its roughly the same price difference if in the other direction. 1K for HDX vs 1.5K for the SFL. How much better can the SFL be? I look forward to that comparison.
Dennis I believe you’re promoting this idea in error. The HDX should not be thought of as a replacement for a $500.00 HD. Rather the HDX at $1000. Is replacing the HD that also sold for $1000. Please read that above again, think about it.
Ignatius
Inactive member
Especially since the HD is only $500 on sale. Regular price used to be $930 about two years ago.
