I think the gap tolerances in the body is very indicative of the quality of the overall assembly. Similarly, sloppiness in the body assembly, is very indicative of sloppiness all around. The engine is not the only aspect in a car that can fail !
-
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.
On the occasion of the HDX, thinking about it … (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Canip
- Start date
This is really interesting, thanks for taking your time and putting this info together. I'm really looking forward to a more detailed comparison between the old HD and the new HDX, but your first impressions sound very promising. I've been surprised by your comment about the finish on the HDX. I still haven't seen one "on the flesh", but just going by the pictures my perception was that it seemed not as well made or finished as the HD. I actually really like the finish on the HD, its industrial and minimalist shape/look really appeal to me, more so than the SFL or even the SF. The pure lines of the HD have always reminded me of good German design like the famous designs for Braun by Dieter Rams or the Lamy Safari fountain pen. On pictures I get the impression that the rubber of the HDX is of inferior quality, so it's great to read that it can actually be the other way round.
Looking forward to Jan's and other sellers' experience regarding the figure sales of each member of the Zeiss family. Keep it coming, please
OK ...
I think Jan is right.
In my view, no extensive new test, review or comparison is necessary, the new HDX is in essence the same as the previous HD, at least as far as the 8x42 and 8x32 models are concerned (but I believe this will also be true for the x56 models). So read whatever reviews of the HD models you can get hold of and you should get a good impression what to expect from the HDX. Same very fast focus mechanism, class leading sharpness etc. etc.
Biggest differences are the lockable diopter adjustment ring, slightly modified focus, slightly improved eyepieces with 1 mm less eye relief (which helps with the blackouts that the HD, esp. 8x42, was famous for), minimally modified AR coatings, and new body armour which give an excellent grip and probably will not as be prone to become covered in that white powdery stuff after sitting in the cupboard for a while (a nuisance for me really with the HD models), but as Jan wrote, some may like the old armour better.
The AFOV figures Zeiss provides seem quite optimistic according to my measurements (and yes, I re-measured several times to be sure), I get 60.5 degrees in the 8x32 (vs. 64 degrees acc. to specs.), and 55.5 degrees in the 8x42 (vs. 59 degrees acc. to specs.). A brief "plausibility check" confirms my findings, the SFL 8x30 has definitely a wider AFOV than the HDX 8x32, but Zeiss only claims 63 degrees for the SFL (which my measurement confirms).
Since all of this puzzled me a bit, I went back and measured the AFOV in all my Zeiss models (except the older ones), only to find that I fully concur with Zeiss specs in all models other than the various Conquest HD models (exception to the exception: the specs of the 10x42 HD are in line with my measurement) and the Victory HT 10x54. See attached list.
For me, the narrow FOV in the 8x42 is the only slightly negative thing I could say about the HDX. Other than that, both the 8x42 and 8x32 are a great pleasure to use for me. Moreover, I find the build quality superb.
fwiw Canip
Attachments
Last edited:
Color fidelity for my eyes is good and almost identical between HD and HDX in size 8x32 and 8x42. Differences appear marginal (again, for my eyes), and I could only „imagine“ differences by looking very hard for them. I might as well say any actual difference is irrelevant.
So the CHD 10x42's AFOV is actually wider than the Nikon MHG 10x42, despite of the latter having a wider FOV.
tenex
reality-based
Is it possible that Zeiss merely calculated AFOV for the Conquest models? (No idea why since even the Terra data seem correct.)
Does MHG have less pincushioning? That would mean more AMD which reduces AFOV.
A "field flattener" can improve the view in various ways, so I too am puzzled by repeated failure to notice anything different.
Thinking about it some more... Was there room to do some "new and improved" optics (other than FF), between the HD and SFL? How much improvement might we have thought there could be, with a bino priced a bit over $500.00, hovering just above the HDX price? Make the HDX optically "better" and it cannibalizes the SFL - as the SFL is doing to the SF. The Terra, HD/HDX, SFL, SF covers the water pretty well, as Jan describes. Till someone invents some new way of creating a better image for humans to discern stuff out and about, that resets these, aren't we sort of locked in to the optical quality that exists given these price points?
forent
Well-known member
I'm sure you're right.
But I - as a German - liked the thrust of this little mockery: Instead of repeating the well-known and hence boring indicator function of the gap torerances on the bodywork for the overall quality of the car, he claims (cheekily and unproven, of course) that the German car makers, unlike the French, care too much about unimportant things.
Surprisingly questioning supposed certainties - that's what makes a good joke for me.
And now enough with the off-topic!
Last edited:
Please still excuse 2 cts further on this particular Off topic. The fantastic, eccentric, British, make Bristol, no more, was partly "hand made." Refined and all that, but a riddle among garage folk went, what are the two man-made things on Earth you can see from the Moon, and the answer, the Great Wall of China and the gaps in Bristol bodywork.
I don't know. Edge sharpness is actually quite good in both the HDX 8x32 and 8x42, but it‘s not different from the HD version. So either there was a field flattener lens already in the HD, or what they call "FieldFlattener" technology in the HDX works without such lens. In my eyes, the result is very satisfactory either way.
Last edited:
I'm still baffled by the miserly FOV in the 8x42 HD/X model. I know some people feel it's to avoid competition with the SFL but this is basically an old model that long pre-dates that range. And besides, when the original 8x32 HD came out it had almost class leading FOV, so it would probably have competed with the then top tier of the Zeiss range. So why let one 8x model compete but handicap the other?
Maybe there is something inherent to the optical design that constraints this single variant but not the others in the HD/X range?
Regardless of the explanation, it feels very short-sighted of Zeiss not to put up the best possible contender in the c. £1,000 8x42 class. I'm sure it's a very good binocular, but then so are many others in this class. But other than robustness, I'm really not sure what makes this model stand out from the competition.
Thank you, Canip. I don't think the Zeiss website text for HD had referred to a flattened field: I found a way to get to the texts for the individual HD models in their site even now but not for the HD range. Also, I don't recall any reviews, or descriptions by other parties, of the HD, mentioning such a design.
I picked up a new Zeiss CHD 8x32 on eBay for $550, and I much prefer it over the CHDX 8x32, which I returned. The CHD has a bigger FOV than the CHDX, the focuser is much smoother, the armor is higher quality than the CHDX which feels cheaper in comparison, and it seems sharper on-axis than the CHDX. The build quality of the German made CHD is without a doubt superior to the Japanese made CHDX. If you're wise, you will pick up a CHD before they are all gone before ordering the CHDX. Don't believe the bogus reviews on the CHDX because many are just trying to sell the binocular. Many reviewers get free binoculars to review a particular binocular, which taints the review IMO. This is one time when the old model is better than the new model! I think Zeiss is obviously making the new CHDX in Japan to save money at the expense of quality.
Last edited:
Here is another opinion on the CHD versus the CHDX by ArchStanton who also compared them to the SFL 8x40. He also preferred the CHD.
"That was a great binocular comparison and review. I visited a local nature shop and briefly tried the CHD 8x32, CHDX 8x42, and SFL 8x40, and liked the view of the CHD better. I might have been swayed by the lower price of the CHD, and I may go back and spend more time trying these binoculars and look for some of the things you pointed out regarding the CHD and SFL. Keep up the great work, Jackjack."
"First, I like the price of just under $700 compared to $1000 and $1800 respectively. I like the armor of the CHD better than the armor of the CHDX because the latter felt almost plastic like, providing a less secure purchase. The focus on the CHD was also smoother than the CHDX and about the same as the SFL. The CHD 8x32’s were easier to get behind of and seemed to be clearer when looking at birds in a palm tree and on telephone poles with the blue sky in the background. I am by no means an optics expert and this is just my personal observation, so you’ll have to take it with a grain of salt."
Last edited:
I sometimes wonder: is Dennis‘ fund of completely random statements unlimited, or are there limits?
They are more accurate than your statements, for sure, my friend. From jackjacks post and pictures.
Canip
"The HDX has a lot for it to become a success in my eyes. Looking at its outside, this is one of the best finished binos I have ever had I hand, better even than my samples of SFL and SF. The haptics of the new armour are a pleasure, the eyepieces are improved against the HD, the mechanics appear solid and sturdy, the focuser is fast, smooth but with a certain resistance that many might like."
Really! The only thing that is true in that statement is the eyepieces are improved. The armor is cheaper and plasticky on the HDX, the build quality is not near as good as the original German made HD and the focuser of the original HD is way smoother and better than the HDX. The focuser of the HDX has a certain resistance for sure. You can barely turn it.
"CHD is the widest, followed by SFL and EL. I have said many times that CHD 8x32 is not 8 degrees as Zeiss declared. It is around 8.2 to 8.3 degrees. EL is declared 8.05 and SFL is 8.1, so I think those two have accurate FOV measurements."
4. Field Of View
(Top : CHD / Middle : SFL / Bottom : EL)
Last edited:
Seems the Zeiss people carefully designed the HDX to produce maximum entertainment on this forum.
Looks like it's not being much of a success in other ways.
Seriously, though, the OP in the first post does sum it up by that word success, and NDHunter/Jerry nicely in post #35 above with a few words more.
Seems Zeiss's new models in recent years have impressed us so much that that we expect something mystical when they add a letter X to an existing model!
Looks like it's not being much of a success in other ways.
Seriously, though, the OP in the first post does sum it up by that word success, and NDHunter/Jerry nicely in post #35 above with a few words more.
Seems Zeiss's new models in recent years have impressed us so much that that we expect something mystical when they add a letter X to an existing model!
Last edited:
