Question regarding focus issues with the Conquest HD 8x32 (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

Lee,

well, I think the optical calculation is still at 1.5m for the 8.5x42. Accordingly, a lock only shortened the optical focus, whether this makes the focuser more stable is questionable ?!
Of course, I cannot answer the question clearly either.

Andreas

Andreas, this is puzzling. Are you suggesting Swarovski is now installing some kind of lock to reduce the movement of the focusing lens and that his is how they have increased the close focus to 3.3m?
If so how is it possible if Swarovski have added a component (the lock) that Swarovski have been able to reduce the cost of the focusing mechanism and so reduce the price?
Lee

 

[Conndomat]

Andreas, this is puzzling. Are you suggesting Swarovski is now installing some kind of lock to reduce the movement of the focusing lens and that his is how they have increased the close focus to 3.3m?
If so how is it possible if Swarovski have added a component (the lock) that Swarovski have been able to reduce the cost of the focusing mechanism and so reduce the price?
Lee

I have to quote Holger again!

"With the new top dog NL, its predecessor SV and the SLC, Swaro now has to thin out the range a little.

The first alternative would be to simply let the SV run out and replace it with the NL.

The second alternative: Get rid of the SLC and instead use the SV as the second row. This would mean that the competition for the premium class and the upper middle class would be under control at the same time.

The only problem is: the SV is too expensive to be offered as an upper middle class, so the price has to go down, and down a lot. Now comes the next problem: How can you teach the customer that the SV, previously advertised as an absolute highlight with state of the art technology, suddenly costs 500 euros less (and apparently continues to cover costs)?

Well, you have to slim down a little where it hurts the least. Quickly a small modification of the focusing unit, so that one can pretend a cost saving to justify the low price of the SV. I am sure that Swaro will not be able to save much with this intervention, but it serves as a fig leaf for being able to put the SV in its position in the second row."

Lee do you really think Swarovski would have made a completely new optical calculation for the 8.5x42 and adjusted the focus to it?
What would that have cost?

Andreas

 

[CSG]

So all threads now turn into Swaro threads, even on the Zeiss forum?

 

[Troubador]

I have to quote Holger again!

"With the new top dog NL, its predecessor SV and the SLC, Swaro now has to thin out the range a little.

The first alternative would be to simply let the SV run out and replace it with the NL.

The second alternative: Get rid of the SLC and instead use the SV as the second row. This would mean that the competition for the premium class and the upper middle class would be under control at the same time.

The only problem is: the SV is too expensive to be offered as an upper middle class, so the price has to go down, and down a lot. Now comes the next problem: How can you teach the customer that the SV, previously advertised as an absolute highlight with state of the art technology, suddenly costs 500 euros less (and apparently continues to cover costs)?

Well, you have to slim down a little where it hurts the least. Quickly a small modification of the focusing unit, so that one can pretend a cost saving to justify the low price of the SV. I am sure that Swaro will not be able to save much with this intervention, but it serves as a fig leaf for being able to put the SV in its position in the second row."

Lee do you really think Swarovski would have made a completely new optical calculation for the 8.5x42 and adjusted the focus to it?
What would that have cost?

Andreas

OK now you have made it clear what you mean, I agree.

Lee

 

[Conndomat]

OK now you have made it clear what you mean, I agree.

Lee

With a little help from my "friend" ...
Thanks Holger!

Andreas

 

[tenex]

[Holger:] "Well, you have to slim down a little where it hurts the least. Quickly a small modification of the focusing unit, so that one can pretend a cost saving to justify the low price of the SV. I am sure that Swaro will not be able to save much with this intervention, but it serves as a fig leaf for being able to put the SV in its position in the second row."

Interesting argument but I'm a bit confused. When SLC 42 was similarly downgraded some years ago, it's been stated here that it wasn't only a mechanical change, but omission of an accessory lens involved in close focus. Is the EL case different now?

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi tenex,

Continuing off topic vs the Zeiss Conquest . . .

Although I’ve seen references both on BF and elsewhere, to a change to the optical construction of the x42 SLC with the 2013 revision:
• I’ve not seen any official indication that's the case, and
• There's strong evidence to the contrary

See both:
a) My comments about the published detail of the optical construction, in post #4 at:
https://www.birdforum.net/threads/slc-wb-hd-vs-wb.403732/#post-4132286 , and

b) Perhaps more definitively, a quote from from Clay Taylor of SONA back in 2013:
‘As for the newest version of the SLC vs. the SLC HD binocular, the optical path is unchanged. Period. The change in the focusing mechanism
from 7’ minimum to 10.5’ minimum costs less to manufacture and assemble, and Quality Control is easier to manage. That saves money, too.
There are cosmetic changes and a new style of rubber armoring. That’s it.’
see the post of 9th Oct 2013 at: http://www.opticstalk.com/differences-between-swarovski-slc-and-el-binocular_topic38579_page1.html

- - - -

Likewise, there's no indication of an optical change to the x42 Legend version of the EL SV
Both the specification sheet for the Legend and the previous version list 24 optical elements (so 12 per side: 10 lenses and 2 prisms)

And Clay's comments regarding the SLC focuser - may apply even more so to the Legend - considering the much greater complexity
of the original EL SV focuser mechanism
e.g. see post #14 and 18 at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/swarovski-odd-business-policy-near-point.391737/#post-4027395


John

 

[LucaPCP]

I have the Conquest 8x32 HD and the focuser has considerable play. I dislike this, and in this regard, they are the worst binoculars I have. I have been wondering whether to send them in for repair or whether to relegate them to the (useful!) role of car-binoculars, the pair you always keep in the car, and for the moment for me it’s the latter. A pity as the optics are otherwise very good.

 

[Conndomat]

Hello Luca,

send the binocular to Zeiss, that is the most sensible thing you can do!
The focuser on my Conquest 10x32 was also well repaired, no play and very tight!

Andreas

 

[eitanaltman]

I have the Conquest 8x32 HD and the focuser has considerable play. I dislike this, and in this regard, they are the worst binoculars I have. I have been wondering whether to send them in for repair or whether to relegate them to the (useful!) role of car-binoculars, the pair you always keep in the car, and for the moment for me it’s the latter. A pity as the optics are otherwise very good.

Oh I would definitely get them serviced. The Conquest HD that I’ve handled all had nice, precise focusers (even the 10x32 that I mentioned with the differential focus depending on direction was sharp and precise going in the “right” direction).

Considering how fast the Conquest HD focusing is, free play would be a nightmare for usability.

 

[LucaPCP]

Oh I would definitely get them serviced. The Conquest HD that I’ve handled all had nice, precise focusers (even the 10x32 that I mentioned with the differential focus depending on direction was sharp and precise going in the “right” direction).

Considering how fast the Conquest HD focusing is, free play would be a nightmare for usability.

It's not all that bad -- maybe 1-2mm of play. And in the car, they can be very useful. And I am using them rarely otherwise, as I prefer my Leica UV 8x32 HD+ otherwise. So I have sort of decided that as a car bin, they are very well good enough as they are, and it will be very handy to have them available at all times, even when one did not expect to go birding.

 

[eitanaltman]

Well, when you describe it as "considerable" and "the worst you have", forgive me for thinking it's worse than "not all that bad"

Out of curiosity, have you checked to see if they focus the same in both directions? Or is there a slight difference?

 

[LucaPCP]

Yes, they seem to focus the same in both directions.

Yes, 1-2mm of play is not much, but all other binoculars I have, including very cheap Olympus 8x25 porros, Vortex Diamondbacks 8x28, and others, have virtually no play. Why do I have play in a $1000 pair of binoculars, when much cheaper pairs are flawless in this respect?

In any case, always in the car, they will give me great views and likely new birds for a very good time to come!

-Luca