New Zeiss 56mm Conquest HD's (2 Viewers)

[kabsetz]

Vespo, Troubador,

I have tested the 8x42 Victory HT, and also weighed it with a digital scale which I trust. That sample weighed at 839 g "naked" 882 g with eyepiece & objective covers, and 939 g with covers + strap. So exactly like Troubador's results.

Overly optimistic weight specifications are not at all uncommon.

Kimmo

 

[etudiant]

Vespo, Troubador,

I have tested the 8x42 Victory HT, and also weighed it with a digital scale which I trust. That sample weighed at 839 g "naked" 882 g with eyepiece & objective covers, and 939 g with covers + strap. So exactly like Troubador's results.

Overly optimistic weight specifications are not at all uncommon.

Kimmo

Very surprising to have such a big deviation on something so easy to check.
Does marketing not see how that reduces the credibility of all the other quoted performance measurements?

 

[Troubador]

Very surprising to have such a big deviation on something so easy to check.
Does marketing not see how that reduces the credibility of all the other quoted performance measurements?

HTs are also 5mm longer than the official spec.

These inaccuracies are well over a year old and as much as I love Zeiss this does them no credit at all.

Lee

 

[Hermann]

These inaccuracies are well over a year old and as much as I love Zeiss this does them no credit at all.

It's not just Zeiss. Check some binoculars (and scopes) from the other manufacturers. You'll find most of them are cheating to some extent.

Hermann

 

[etudiant]

It's not just Zeiss. Check some binoculars (and scopes) from the other manufacturers. You'll find most of them are cheating to some extent.

Hermann

We expect more from Zeiss.
A company whose founder used a hammer as an optical quality control tool should not publish slipshod specifications.

 

[Binastro]

. I calibrate my scales using a 1 kg weight that I weighed on multiple Post Office scales which give an accuracy to I think 0.5 of a gram.
I then calibrate my electronic scales using the 1 kg weight so I think that when I weigh binoculars they are probably accurate to about 1 g or at most 2 g error.
However, moving to different countries such as Sweden or the equator may produce larger areas. Because of the rotation of the Earth and the fact that the Earth is approximately an oblate spheroid. But the inaccuracies are nothing like as much as those often quoted by manufacturers.
Also it is important to measure field sizes although Zeiss binoculars seem to be accurate here.
magnifications seem to be more or less accurate although I think a Nikon 10×40 was measured as being near to 11 times magnification.


What may be interesting is that AA batteries vary quite a lot in weight.
I use lithium batteries in the Canon IS binoculars and they are quite a bit lighter weight than alkaline batteries. Also alkaline batteries vary quite a bit in weight from make to make. And rechargeable batteries are different again.
With two AAs there's not much difference but it is probably noticeable.
However, with Fujinon IS binoculars which use 4 AAs there could be quite a difference.

 

[Vespobuteo]

I've recently learned that the competition watches every pen stroke of mine on BF. Sorry but I simply can not validate or invalidate the rumor. We have a lot of great stuff coming this year so I hope whatever we bring to market (some of which will launch in 6 weeks) will be liked by all of you.

sounds great,
Looking forward to IWA in March!

 

[Troubador]

We expect more from Zeiss.
A company whose founder used a hammer as an optical quality control tool should not publish slipshod specifications.

LOL

Are you sure it was used for QC?
Or was it used against impertinent and critical customers? :-O

Lee

 

[james holdsworth]

I would bet that the HT specs are for ''version 1'', as we are pretty confident Zeiss retooled the HT [with longer barrel shrouds] to improve stray light control.

The new shrouding would add those extra grams as well as the extra length. Whatever the specs, I'm glad they saw fit to make these changes, as stray light performance is now the trump card for this model.

Still, low weight is an attribute that many look for when buying, and it is inexcusable for the spec. to remain incorrect for so long.

 

[Troubador]

I would bet that the HT specs are for ''version 1'', as we are pretty confident Zeiss retooled the HT [with longer barrel shrouds] to improve stray light control.

The new shrouding would add those extra grams as well as the extra length. Whatever the specs, I'm glad they saw fit to make these changes, as stray light performance is now the trump card for this model.

Still, low weight is an attribute that many look for when buying, and it is inexcusable for the spec. to remain incorrect for so long.

And James I think it was Henry that spotted a baffle inside HT that FL didn't have. Perhaps this was added late in the day too.

But you are right about the delay in correcting the specs.

Mike, please get together with Stefan Buehring and whomever looks after West / South Europe and badger the folks who manage the websites. Get those specs cleaned up :t:

Lee

 

[eddy the eagle]

With the ergo's of the HT's they could weigh over 1000g and it would not matter.I don't feel the weight at all when observing with them and can hold them steady with one hand at times.Those long barrels are perfect for me with my large hands and the texture of the barrels makes it non slip and super confortable to hold.I notice that in the pics of the big Conquests that the finish looks on a par with the HT"s so if I get a chance to hold them myself this year I will be looking at the 12x56 in earnest.Regards ...Eddy

 

[brocknroller]

Now I hear indirectly, from the same source as before, that there are no "birder friendly" Zeiss models coming this year. So, either that was always untrue or plans have changed or someone at Zeiss is yanking our chains now. No more rumors for me!

Indeed! I was surprised that a scientific sort like yourself would start rumors of birder friendly 56mm Zeiss roofs, particularly since only birders with Popeye arms like you and Ron would find them "birder friendly."

I followed your argument in your 8x56 FL review about why a 56mm bin would be superior to an 8x42, and if I birded at a sanctuary where I could sit down and watch birds, I might be able to lift them enough times to deal with the extra weight, but for walking out and about, 56m is too much weight for my Olive Oil arms.

"I'm strong to the finish, 'cause I eats me spinach, I'm Popeye the sailor man!" (toot, toot!).

Popeye today

<B>

 

[ronh]

Brock,

You oughta' see me man. I went to the doc today for an ear pain and I weighed 134 with my boots on. I have to punch an extra hole in leather watchbands to make them small enough. I have been called "wiry"--what else could you call me and still be nice?

I guess the only conclusion is, I'm even crazier than you thought. Getting up at 5 tomorrow for a trip to a NWR (a no hunt day), and that 10x56 is spiffed and ready!
Gonna find my first Canvasback of the year.

Ron

 

[Troubador]

With the ergo's of the HT's they could weigh over 1000g and it would not matter.I don't feel the weight at all when observing with them and can hold them steady with one hand at times.Those long barrels are perfect for me with my large hands and the texture of the barrels makes it non slip and super confortable to hold.I notice that in the pics of the big Conquests that the finish looks on a par with the HT"s so if I get a chance to hold them myself this year I will be looking at the 12x56 in earnest.Regards ...Eddy

Eddie

You are right about HTs ergos, they just balance so well.
But for goodness sake the specs on the website have been wrong for over a year.
Looking forward to trying the new Conqs myself.

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

For the price of one Swarovski 10x42 SV
you could buy one 42mm Conquest HD
AND one 10x56 mm Conquest HD.

2 Zeiss binoculars for 1 Swarovski,
pretty aggressive pricing by Zeiss I think..

(Prices from Sweden, guess it differs where you are)

 

[mjensen6577]

And James I think it was Henry that spotted a baffle inside HT that FL didn't have. Perhaps this was added late in the day too.

But you are right about the delay in correcting the specs.

Mike, please get together with Stefan Buehring and whomever looks after West / South Europe and badger the folks who manage the websites. Get those specs cleaned up :t:

Lee

Lee, my apologies for not keeping up with the thread that specifies what is wrong with our specs on line. If it's not too much trouble, please drop me a PM defining what spec is out, and I'll take it to the product managers to validate, then work on a web change. I don't have much control over the global site, but can probably make correction on the USA site. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Sagittarius]

My 10x42 HT feels well balanced and light in the hand, despite whether the advertised weight is correct or not. :t:

 

[Troubador]

My 10x42 HT feels well balanced and light in the hand, despite whether the advertised weight is correct or not. :t:

Saggi

I actually just sent this same comment in my PM to Mike....

Lee

 

[NDhunter]

Lee, my apologies for not keeping up with the thread that specifies what is wrong with our specs on line. If it's not too much trouble, please drop me a PM defining what spec is out, and I'll take it to the product managers to validate, then work on a web change. I don't have much control over the global site, but can probably make correction on the USA site. Thanks for the heads up.

Mike:

Don't be troubled about some small things that some report on
website specs. You have others that can deal with those menial tasks.

This is a tough crowd here, but Lee is a Zeiss fanboy, so he
seems to be keeping track.

I do like what Zeiss is doing with the new models, and I am not
a fanboy of any make.

Just keep up what you are doing. I like what I see.

Jerry

 

[brocknroller]

Brock,

You oughta' see me man. I went to the doc today for an ear pain and I weighed 134 with my boots on. I have to punch an extra hole in leather watchbands to make them small enough. I have been called "wiry"--what else could you call me and still be nice?

I guess the only conclusion is, I'm even crazier than you thought. Getting up at 5 tomorrow for a trip to a NWR (a no hunt day), and that 10x56 is spiffed and ready!
Gonna find my first Canvasback of the year.

Ron

You must be joking or you're wearing anti-gravity boots. I weigh nearly a 100 lbs. more,and I'm not fat. Well, a little pot belly, maybe, but not overweight. Of course, I'm 6'4" so there's a lot of room to distribute the weight. That was also true of my 8x50 Octarem, which didn't feel heavy because it was 7' by 8" and perfectly balanced.

I might be able to handle an 8x56 Doctor Nobilem for the same reason, but to me, roofs feel their weight more because the weight is more concentrated.

The Vixen 7x50 works fine for me in the winter, and it's not too heavy. 50mm is as large as I care to go. Sad to see the 8x50 format join the 7x42 in Fan Tao's Binocular Relic Museum.

Oh well, in another decade or so, my entrance pupil will probably shrink to 3mm, and then I'll be using compacts year round, and I'll be complaining about my binoculars being too lightweight!

I hope all the hunters remember its NWD (btw, why "W" instead of "H"? No Whitetail Deer?). Ah, you don't have to worry, if you're so thin, you will disappear behind a tree the way Frankie used to disappear behind his microphone stand.

Young Frankie

Big Boy Brock