• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

I tried a slug of $1K roof-prism binoculars and I think the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 is still the best for the money! (1 Viewer)

KevinL

Well-known member
I'll just add my two cents on this thread. My uses include both birding and hunting, plus I'm a wildlife biologist who uses optics in my job often. I currently own the Conquest HD in 10x42 and I think they are very good. They don't stack up to the alphas and no one should expect that they do as they are less than half the price of the top end optics. Previously, I owned the older version of the vortex viper in a 10x50 model. The 10x50's had a very narrow field of view which is why I don't own them anymore, but my gosh they were good in low light and the resolution was outstanding. I feel like with the Conquest HD, I have similar performance but in a lighter package and with a wider field of view. But I will admit that they are not as good as the 10x50 vipers in low light. When the new Vortex Vipers came out, I actually think they took a step back. The older vipers were made in Japan, whereas the newer versions were made in China. They did have a wider field of view but I thought they sacrificed more distortion on the edges, and I don't think glass quality measured up. I found the brightness less and the resolution worse. It seems the Allbinos website agrees with me as they report the view got less bright as well, going from 89% transmission in the older version down to 81% in the new (comparing the two 10x42 models). When I purchased my viper 10x50s, I compared them for about an hour in the store with the Nikon M7 and I thought the vortex had an ever so slight edge on optical properties, but I almost went with the Nikon's because of the field of view. In the end I felt optical performance meant more to me than field of view. While they were very good for looking for animals at long distances, the narrow field though did bother me enough that I upgraded. And I never felt that they competed very well against that $1000 class of binoculars. They are almost as good, and for some may not be worth the money to make the jump, but there is a noticeable drop in optical performance. They really arn't in the same class with $1000 glass but they get you almost there at half the price. The narrow field of view bothered me enough on birding trips that I sold them and went shopping for a $1000 class binocular. As I wildlife bio with a large family I don't have the funds to be frivolous and reaching up to the $1000 class was a stretch for me. So I spent the time really comparing many of the options in that price range. I ordered the Tract Toric UHD 8x42's, and took them over to the local sporting goods store and compared them side by side with the Vortex Razor, the Zeiss Conquest HD, and the Leica Trinovid. I quickly realized that the Zeiss, Tracts and Razor were slightly better than the Trinovid so I eliminated them first. I really could not see a difference in the Tracts compared to the Zeiss Conquests HD's except that the Tracts seemed they did not magnify as much as they claimed. Objects were noticeably smaller in the Tracts vs 8x bins in the Conquest and the Razor. They were very good though and I would have been happy to keep them but I found very quickly that I prefer the 10x compared to 8x binoculars and returned them. I thought the Vortex Razors are a very competitive binocular at that price point with the Zeiss Conquests. I found the brightness ever so slightly better in the Conquest, but preferred the feel and build of the Razor and the color in the Razor I thought was more preferable. I liked the diopter in the Razors better too. The Zeiss had a bit more of a cooler color profile vs the warmer vortex razor. That's just personal preference in my opinion and not really a performance issue. I thought CA was a little better in the Razor also for what its worth, just barely. I do like a brighter binocular so was leaning towards the Zeiss. I almost did go with the Tract's because like, why pay for a $999 binocular when one that costs $694 can do the same thing? What ultimately drove my decision is that I caught a pair of Zeiss Conquest HD's on sale for $649 and at that price why not go with the known name? I never could find the Razors for less than about $1200 at the time, otherwise I would have owned the Razors. After a few years of use now, my thoughts are that the Zeiss Conquests have really, and I mean really good resolution when they are on a tripod. They are so good, I prefer them to my budget spotting scopes even at far distances. I can see incredible detail with them. It's only when I get out past about a 1000 yards do I prefer the spotters. They are breathtaking in early morning and late evening light, but they don't pop for me in full sun conditions. A coworker wildlife bio had a pair of Meopta Meopros one day in the field when we were looking at bighorn sheep. I thought the Meopros were very competitive with the conquests. I would have taken a closer look at those had I been able to test them. The Meopros have since increased in price from what he got his for. I also had a chance on a hunt to test out a pair of Nikon HG's. I liked the flat field and the wider field of veiw alot, but I thought low light performance was just a little better in the conquest. I thought they were very good also and had they been available at a lower price I would have strongly considered them. Really those in the $1000 price class are all really excellent, and so close performance wise one must split hairs to find true differences. So which ever one you can find on sale is a good bet. They are all better than the vortex vipers, no question. I have looked through several pairs of alphas and compared them to the Conquests. Alphas are definitely noticeably better and should be, as they sometimes cost almost three times more. Swarovski's in my opinion are the best of the alphas, no question for me. I recently looked through the NL pure binoculars and thought my gosh how do they do that!!!!??? Those are the cats meow in my opinion! If I had monopoly money or somehow left the wildlife biology profession for more pay, I might own a swaro, but I would rather have a new truck first. Cheers all and happy birding.
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I have always thought that folks who say that a $1000 binocular is “the same as” a $3000 binocular need to visit am ophthalmologist, but I get into trouble for saying it.
You know as well as I do that you get what you pay for. But I would say a $1000 binocular is 95% as good as a $3000 binocular. You have to decide for yourself if the extra $2000 is worth the 5% improvement. Don't get me wrong, I like alpha's, especially Leica's because they are so delicious, but a lot of times I really question if that extra 5% is worth it for the normal birder. For most people, probably not. You are not missing much with a $1000 binocular that would see in a $3000 alpha.
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I'll just add my two cents on this thread. My uses include both birding and hunting, plus I'm a wildlife biologist who uses optics in my job often. I currently own the Conquest HD in 10x42 and I think they are very good. They don't stack up to the alphas and no one should expect that they do as they are less than half the price of the top end optics. Previously, I owned the older version of the vortex viper in a 10x50 model. The 10x50's had a very narrow field of view which is why I don't own them anymore, but my gosh they were good in low light and the resolution was outstanding. I feel like with the Conquest HD, I have similar performance but in a lighter package and with a wider field of view. But I will admit that they are not as good as the 10x50 vipers in low light. When the new Vortex Vipers came out, I actually think they took a step back. The older vipers were made in Japan, whereas the newer versions were made in China. They did have a wider field of view but I thought they sacrificed more distortion on the edges, and I don't think glass quality measured up. I found the brightness less and the resolution worse. It seems the Allbinos website agrees with me as they report the view got less bright as well, going from 89% transmission in the older version down to 81% in the new (comparing the two 10x42 models). When I purchased my viper 10x50s, I compared them for about an hour in the store with the Nikon M7 and I thought the vortex had an ever so slight edge on optical properties, but I almost went with the Nikon's because of the field of view. In the end I felt optical performance meant more to me than field of view. While they were very good for looking for animals at long distances, the narrow field though did bother me enough that I upgraded. And I never felt that they competed very well against that $1000 class of binoculars. They are almost as good, and for some may not be worth the money to make the jump, but there is a noticeable drop in optical performance. They really arn't in the same class with $1000 glass but they get you almost there at half the price. The narrow field of view bothered me enough on birding trips that I sold them and went shopping for a $1000 class binocular. As I wildlife bio with a large family I don't have the funds to be frivolous and reaching up to the $1000 class was a stretch for me. So I spent the time really comparing many of the options in that price range. I ordered the Tract Toric UHD 8x42's, and took them over to the local sporting goods store and compared them side by side with the Vortex Razor, the Zeiss Conquest HD, and the Leica Trinovid. I quickly realized that the Zeiss, Tracts and Razor were slightly better than the Trinovid so I eliminated them first. I really could not see a difference in the Tracts compared to the Zeiss Conquests HD's except that the Tracts seemed they did not magnify as much as they claimed. Objects were noticeably smaller in the Tracts vs 8x bins in the Conquest and the Razor. They were very good though and I would have been happy to keep them but I found very quickly that I prefer the 10x compared to 8x binoculars and returned them. I thought the Vortex Razors are a very competitive binocular at that price point with the Zeiss Conquests. I found the brightness ever so slightly better in the Conquest, but preferred the feel and build of the Razor and the color in the Razor I thought was more preferable. I liked the diopter in the Razors better too. The Zeiss had a bit more of a cooler color profile vs the warmer vortex razor. That's just personal preference in my opinion and not really a performance issue. I thought CA was a little better in the Razor also for what its worth, just barely. I do like a brighter binocular so was leaning towards the Zeiss. I almost did go with the Tract's because like, why pay for a $999 binocular when one that costs $694 can do the same thing? What ultimately drove my decision is that I caught a pair of Zeiss Conquest HD's on sale for $649 and at that price why not go with the known name? I never could find the Razors for less than about $1200 at the time, otherwise I would have owned the Razors. After a few years of use now, my thoughts are that the Zeiss Conquests have really, and I mean really good resolution when they are on a tripod. They are so good, I prefer them to my budget spotting scopes even at far distances. I can see incredible detail with them. It's only when I get out past about a 1000 yards do I prefer the spotters. They are breathtaking in early morning and late evening light, but they don't pop for me in full sun conditions. A coworker wildlife bio had a pair of Meopta Meopros one day in the field when we were looking at bighorn sheep. I thought the Meopros were very competitive with the conquests. I would have taken a closer look at those had I been able to test them. The Meopros have since increased in price from what he got his for. I also had a chance on a hunt to test out a pair of Nikon HG's. I liked the flat field and the wider field of veiw alot, but I thought low light performance was just a little better in the conquest. I thought they were very good also and had they been available at a lower price I would have strongly considered them. Really those in the $1000 price class are all really excellent, and so close performance wise one must split hairs to find true differences. So which ever one you can find on sale is a good bet. They are all better than the vortex vipers, no question. I have looked through several pairs of alphas and compared them to the Conquests. Alphas are definitely noticeably better and should be, as they sometimes cost almost three times more. Swarovski's in my opinion are the best of the alphas, no question for me. I recently looked through the NL pure binoculars and thought my gosh how do they do that!!!!??? Those are the cats meow in my opinion! If I had monopoly money or somehow left the wildlife biology profession for more pay, I might own a swaro, but I would rather have a new truck first. Cheers all and happy birding.
That is at least "Ten Cents!" As you point out, a lot of binocular selection is just personal preference. It sounds like you went on a long journey to find the best binoculars for you, which is probably a similar journey for most of us. I agree that most of the binoculars in the $1000 class are better than the Vortex Viper HD's, but I think the Vipers are a good value at $500. Very interesting to hear from someone that uses binoculars professionally in their trade and relies on them for game and wildlife observation. Most of here on Bird Forum are just birders using binoculars for our hobby. I am pleased that you like my choice of the Zeiss Conquest HD's, but as you say any of these binoculars at the $1000 price point would work well for a lot of people and in the end it comes down to personal preference which one is best for you.
 

KevinL

Well-known member
I totally agree the vortex vipers are pretty good and I recommend them if someone has that budget. I think they are certainly better than anything below that price point and I agree that they are almost as good as the $1000 priced bins. The Zeiss Conquest probably aren't my end game binocular but they are good for now. They have their drawbacks just like their advantages. They are heavy, and I dont love them when every once counts in the back country. Im constantly fiddling with that diopter to get it perfect and it moves from time to time when I take them out of the bino harness. The lens caps are terrible. The focus is a little too loose for my taste. If I actually had a $1000 when I bought them, I might have chosen a different binocular. Nevertheless I like them a lot and are a fine choice like many of the binoculars in that price class.
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
You know as well as I do that you get what you pay for. But I would say a $1000 binocular is 95% as good as a $3000 binocular. You have to decide for yourself if the extra $2000 is worth the 5% improvement. Don't get me wrong, I like alpha's, especially Leica's because they are so delicious, but a lot of times I really question if that extra 5% is worth it for the normal birder. For most people, probably not. You are not missing much with a $1000 binocular that would see in a $3000 alpha.
It’s all about what you can afford, what are you comfortable spending, what you think it’s worth. So you found your price point. You finding your comfort price is a fact, it’s not a fact there 95% as good as the $2-3k alphas. Theres more to it than just a little better optics. its a little better at everything. Theres a separation in these price points because the $1000 binoculars are good, the 2-3k binoculars are the best that current Technology can offer, and you pay for that.

Its like the optics are 5% better, the build quality is 5% better, the materials and coatings are 5% better etc. etc. All of that adds up to a finer piece of optical equipment. And I think that’s way more than a 5% difference.

Paul
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I totally agree the vortex vipers are pretty good and I recommend them if someone has that budget. I think they are certainly better than anything below that price point and I agree that they are almost as good as the $1000 priced bins. The Zeiss Conquest probably aren't my end game binocular but they are good for now. They have their drawbacks just like their advantages. They are heavy, and I dont love them when every once counts in the back country. Im constantly fiddling with that diopter to get it perfect and it moves from time to time when I take them out of the bino harness. The lens caps are terrible. The focus is a little too loose for my taste. If I actually had a $1000 when I bought them, I might have chosen a different binocular. Nevertheless I like them a lot and are a fine choice like many of the binoculars in that price class.
No binocular is perfect. For the way you are using them, the focus is probably a little loose. The objective covers are different, that is for sure. You either like them or you don't. You're correct in that there are a lot of nice binoculars in the $1K class. It all depends on how you use them and what you like.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
It’s all about what you can afford, what are you comfortable spending, what you think it’s worth. So you found your price point. You finding your comfort price is a fact, it’s not a fact there 95% as good as the $2-3k alphas. Theres more to it than just a little better optics. its a little better at everything. Theres a separation in these price points because the $1000 binoculars are good, the 2-3k binoculars are the best that current Technology can offer, and you pay for that.

Its like the optics are 5% better, the build quality is 5% better, the materials and coatings are 5% better etc. etc. All of that adds up to a finer piece of optical equipment. And I think that’s way more than a 5% difference.

Paul
I agree. The better build quality of the alphas are a major attraction, although the $1K class of binoculars aren't too shabby. The Zeiss Conquest HD and the Nikon Monarch HG are pretty durable.
 

Hermann

Well-known member
It’s all about what you can afford, what are you comfortable spending, what you think it’s worth. So you found your price point. You finding your comfort price is a fact, it’s not a fact there 95% as good as the $2-3k alphas. Theres more to it than just a little better optics. its a little better at everything. Theres a separation in these price points because the $1000 binoculars are good, the 2-3k binoculars are the best that current Technology can offer, and you pay for that.
They are the best current technology can offer? Really? After all, these alphas are all roofs, SP to be precise, and that's plainly NOT the best prism system available. Porro prisms and AK prisms are technically superior because they don't need dielectric coatings. Porro prisms also don't need phase coatings.
Its like the optics are 5% better, the build quality is 5% better, the materials and coatings are 5% better etc. etc. All of that adds up to a finer piece of optical equipment. And I think that’s way more than a 5% difference.
Cheaper binoculars are often also less complex than the current alphas, for instance the diopter adjustment. That may actually be an advantage because it's less likely to go wrong. And the build quality ... Well, most people here would agree e.g. the Conquests or the Trinovids are about as tough as modern binoculars get. What more do you expect? Better coatings? Perhaps. But not necessarily so. Or do you think it's cheaper for the manufacturers to have extra coating machines making inferior coatings on their cheaper product lines? And the optical quality? I don't think there's all that much in it. 5%? Perhaps. But certainly not more.

And so on.

Hermann
 
Last edited:

Hermann

Well-known member
Glare questions don't always have to come down to disagreements over subjective impressions. There are objective ways to observe the presence of the internal reflections that cause glare. If those reflections are totally baffled no one will see any glare even under the worst lighting conditions. If those reflections are present, unbaffled and allowed to enter the eye everyone will see glare. <snip>

The binocular on the left is a Swarovski 8x30 W Habicht and the one on the right is a Canon 10x32 IS. When I look through the eyepieces I see exactly what the photos predict; a wash of unfocused veiling glare that almost completely obscures bottom half of the view of the dark wall in the Habicht image and a clean glare free image of wall in the Canon.
Thank you for posting this again, like so many times in the past. Differences between different binoculars with regard to internal reflections and glare are definitely NOT subjective as you explained and demonstrated time and time again.

That's an forum legend perpetuated by far too many people here.

Hermann
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
I don't think anyone questions the fact that internal reflections and off-axis light can and do exist in contemporary binoculars. These things can be seen, measured, and photographed.

What people see, with their individual brain will forever be unknowable and un-measurable.

All the retina does is fire nerve pulses, and it is therefor the brain which sees. The brain processes those pulses and turns them into something we call "sight" but it uses considerable imagination and creativity in the process.

Just another opinion from just another unqualified guy running on in an internet forum.
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
I agree. The better build quality of the alphas are a major attraction, although the $1K class of binoculars aren't too shabby. The Zeiss Conquest HD and the Nikon Monarch HG are pretty durable.
They really are nice. There is a lot to say for that $1000 price point. No doubt we’re getting a serious piece of optical equipment. It truly is a happy medium. I was out today with my 8x42HG, 8x32UVHD+. & 8x30 Habicht‘s. The HG never fails to impress and feels so good in the hands. You could say as a birding or hunting tool you might never miss the true Alphas with a $1000 bino. But for us optics enthusiasts the view in breathtaking in the alphas.

When looking through the Leica or the Habicht’s, you just notice it immediately. Theres a clarity in detail on objects that you don’t know you’re missing with the lower-priced ones until you look through them.

I love them all. I got my eye on a Tinovid Classic in 7x35. I’m musing the possibilities. Im reading that optically these are better than the Trinovid HD.

merry Christmas
 

AlphaFan

Well-known member
United States
Porro prisms and AK prisms are technically superior because they don't need dielectric coatings. Porro prisms also don't need phase coatings.
While both porro and Abbe-Koenig prisms have inherent advantage over SP, the market has certainly dictated the SP direction = the desire for increasingly more compact/lighter physical form than porros or AKs can easily accommodate, while chasing ever-higher light transmission, flatter fields, and FOV (the current holy grail of specs). This does result in a great deal of gimmickry.

I would love see one (or all) of the Big 3 come out with a newly designed porro using all of the best materials and components currently available. It would be spectacular. There are just a few alpha AKs still in production, like the 56mms from Swarovski and Zeiss.
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
They are the best current technology can offer? Really? After all, these alphas are all roofs, SP to be precise, and that's plainly NOT the best prism system available. Porro prisms and AK prisms are technically superior because they don't need dielectric coatings. Porro prisms also don't need phase coatings.

Cheaper binoculars are often also less complex than the current alphas, for instance the diopter adjustment. That may actually be an advantage because it's less likely to go wrong. And the build quality ... Well, most people here would agree e.g. the Conquests or the Trinovids are about as tough as modern binoculars get. What more do you expect? Better coatings? Perhaps. But not necessarily so. Or do you think it's cheaper for the manufacturers to have extra coating machines making inferior coatings on their cheaper product lines? And the optical quality? I don't think there's all that much in it. 5%? Perhaps. But certainly not more.

And so on.

Hermann
I was speaking generally about the whole package. It’s optical quality, size, weight, light transmission, color rendition, CA control, build quality and so on, All in a package. Not just pick and choose what’s better hear and there. I don’t believe the conquests or Trinovids are built better than Swaro EL, NL Zeiss FL and so on.

Conquest suffers from the cheapest eye cups I almost ever seen on a binocular and the Trinovids are horrible with CA. But then, as we been saying you pay for what you get.

it’s obvious that the manufactures in most part are giving what the consumer is asking for, mostly. If more consumers wanted Porros, there would be more porros , I love them. If they could sell more roofs with AK prisms, there would be more options for them.

Theres no denying the quality difference in a UVHD to a Tinovid or a Nikon HG, or a SF to a conquest. Good is good, excellent is excellent. When I look through many of the Alphas, I go wow. That to me is worth money, I don’t know if it’s worth double or triple. Although I have been paying for it. But the difference to my eye and how it feels is way more than 5%.

I think those improvements across the board, the fit and finish of most of them and the wow factor looking through them is substantially more than 5% boost. But again that’s only an opinion of one man. Possibly thousands of others as well. 😏


Merry Christmas
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
Ultimately it all comes down to physics, materials, and manufacturing capabilities.

The laws of optics permit certain things, and forbid others, materials can only be used within their own limitations, and tolerances, when you are playing with light are pretty stringent.

As much as we may wish for a "somehow" binocular, there are probably pretty good reasons why it doesn't exist, not the least of which is that the manufacturer still has to design and build the instrument at a price that folks will pay.

We humans have to spend fairly large sums of money in order to be able to see as well as a mountain sheep, or an eagle can see with its bare eyeballs.
 

KevinL

Well-known member
You know, those Abbe-Koenig prism binoculars are becoming more available within that $1000 price class. Take the Maven B2. It comes in 7x45, 9x45, and 11x45. Maven claims 93.7% light transmission. It has field flatteners too. Plus you get that extra couple millimeters of aperture and the field of view is 377' at a 1000 yards in the 9x. Not bad. I'd love to get my hands on one of those just to have a look. The drawback though is they come in at 33 oz. I suspect for a $1000 they outperform the Schmidt-Pechan prism binoculars. The optical design is just better to begin with, just heavier because of the big prism. The vortex razor UHDs are also AK prisms, so are the Sig Sauer Zulu9s. The sig and mavens look like they might even be the same optics in a different body. Pretty sure they are made in the same factory. At least the specs are identical. In comparing the Vortex Razor hd vs the UHD, the UHD is better optically. If I were getting another $1000 class binocular, I would take a hard look at the Mavens and would have to weigh that extra weight vs performance trade off.
 
Last edited:

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
You know, those Abbe-Koenig prism binoculars are becoming more available within that $1000 price class. Take the Maven B2. It comes in 7x45, 9x45, and 11x45. Maven claims 93.7% light transmission. It has field flatteners too. Plus you get that extra couple millimeters of aperture and the field of view is 377' at a 1000 yards in the 9x. Not bad. I'd love to get my hands on one of those just to have a look. The drawback though is they come in at 33 oz. I suspect for a $1000 they outperform the Schmidt-Pechan prism binoculars. The optical design is just better to begin with, just heavier because of the big prism. The vortex razor UHDs are also AK prisms, so are the Sig Sauer Zulu9s. The sig and mavens look like they might even be the same optics in a different body. Pretty sure they are made in the same factory. At least the specs are identical. In comparing the Vortex Razor hd vs the UHD, the UHD is better optically. If I were getting another $1000 class binocular, I would take a hard look at the Mavens and would have to weigh that extra weight vs performance trade off.
Im not sure how I feel about about having the AK for the sake of having AK prisms. they’re heavier and longer. I compared the vortex HD, UHD and almost undetectable difference until you get into very low light conditions. Sig Zulu a tank from the future, lots of CA. The Mavens I haven’t tried. The Zeiss 56 also use AK, but are over $1000.

I wonder if some manufacturers are using the AK to squeeze out a little more light transmission to cover or compensate for some other shortcomings of the optical train. I have compared so many good and excellent binoculars over the last year, so many are wonderful and enjoyable Binoculars. it’s really becomes difficult to choose sometimes, but overall the differences are small in each price point.

I am of the opinion that it’s the whole package of glass choice, optical design, coatings, and build materials that make the difference from a good binocular to an excellent binocular.

I see and enjoy these differences in quality (don’t like paying for it, but that’s relative I guess) from a quality usable tool to a work of art. Everybody has their opinions about the level of difference on the high priced alphas. But I’m pretty certain that if people had the choice and it was handed to them they would choose the alpha every time.

We all like to use the car analogies, it’s like a Chevy cobalt will get you from point A to point B. Same as a Mercedes S550 or a BMW M5, but there’s more than A 5% increase in quality and performance there. Some feel that, others don’t. We could debate the facts about if someone agrees there’s a difference or not, but you can’t debate the fact that one is a much higher quality machine.

PS, the GPO ED in 56 series also uses the AK and they’re under $1000.

Paul
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
They are the best current technology can offer? Really? After all, these alphas are all roofs, SP to be precise, and that's plainly NOT the best prism system available. Porro prisms and AK prisms are technically superior because they don't need dielectric coatings. Porro prisms also don't need phase coatings.

Cheaper binoculars are often also less complex than the current alphas, for instance the diopter adjustment. That may actually be an advantage because it's less likely to go wrong. And the build quality ... Well, most people here would agree e.g. the Conquests or the Trinovids are about as tough as modern binoculars get. What more do you expect? Better coatings? Perhaps. But not necessarily so. Or do you think it's cheaper for the manufacturers to have extra coating machines making inferior coatings on their cheaper product lines? And the optical quality? I don't think there's all that much in it. 5%? Perhaps. But certainly not more.

And so on.

Hermann
I think the manufacturers have closed the gap on the advantages of porro prisms and AK prisms. Certainly, the new NL and SF SP prisms are fully competitive with them in most ways outside of 3D dimensionality. Conquests and Trinovids are built quite well, but they are not quite as luxurious as an SF or UVHD nor as delicious.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Thank you for posting this again, like so many times in the past. Differences between different binoculars with regard to internal reflections and glare are definitely NOT subjective as you explained and demonstrated time and time again.

That's an forum legend perpetuated by far too many people here.

Hermann
Very good point! I agree fully with you. Although, people differ on how much glare they are willing to tolerate. I personally hate glare, and I would rather have a smaller FOV and less glare than a larger FOV and more glare.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I don't think anyone questions the fact that internal reflections and off-axis light can and do exist in contemporary binoculars. These things can be seen, measured, and photographed.

What people see, with their individual brain will forever be unknowable and un-measurable.

All the retina does is fire nerve pulses, and it is therefor the brain which sees. The brain processes those pulses and turns them into something we call "sight" but it uses considerable imagination and creativity in the process.

Just another opinion from just another unqualified guy running on in an internet forum.
"What people see, with their individual brain, will forever be unknowable and unmeasurable."

Good point! Everybody differs on what they see because the brain differs in how it interprets the incoming information. One reason why we argue so much on Bird Forum!:)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top