-
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.
Review: ZEN Prime HD (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Steve C
- Start date
All of our 8x PRIME are gone. 10x is just barely hanging there as inventory dwindles. Please "blame" your fellow BF members for that. 
Actually, I really want to express our gratitute to all of you for your encouragement and feedback throughout the process. We should have more coming in the mid of August.
Charles
Actually, I really want to express our gratitute to all of you for your encouragement and feedback throughout the process. We should have more coming in the mid of August. Charles
bh46118
Well-known member
I hope all goes well.
Bruce
Bruce
She seems eager enough. She Went over the risks with me but if they were dangerous then she isn't deterred. She was more concerned with having to wear glasses in public again.
She seems eager enough. She Went over the risks with me but if they were dangerous then she isn't deterred. She was more concerned with having to wear glasses in public again.
Frank, I wish her the best. The doctor typically leaves plenty of safety margin depending on individual's prescription. Maybe pick Friday for the procedure so she does not have to drive for the weekend.
Charles
Steve C
Well-known member
Frank,
I wish her the best too. But you know what they say about getting stuff made on Friday when the weekend is on everybody's mind! :eek!:
BTW, I can see why the 8x are gone already...those are seriously fine binoculars. I wanted to like the 10x best, but that is proving hard. But maybe it is just my liking for 7-8x asserting itself.
Last edited:
Stet
Well-known member
I like the 10's so much I've been seriously considering getting the 8 also.
Moon was out above the treeline, and WOW. I started with handholding the 8x and thought it was great. Then I put the 10x on the tripod, it was spectacular. Due to an awkward setup, they viewing angle was a bit weird so I put the eye cups in and let my body do the correct adjustment to get a good picture. I was easily able to see the sweetspot, but careful placement led to a spectacular view. Now, I know it's a crummy thing to do, but all I had on hand was my iphone so I snapped a pic through the bins. Given the (lack of) quality of the iphone camera, I'm actually pretty impressed with this 100% crop. What should be pretty apparent is the lack of color fringing in to the right side of the moon, and the slight CA on the trees at the bottom. In reality, there was very slight yellow fringing to the right of the moon, but not much, or distracting at all. The CA towards the edges is there in regular viewing during certain conditions. Particularly, I can see it even in the center pretty strongly if I am looking at a dark, shadowed target with open or brighter sky in the background (like if looking through tree branches). I'm pretty anal about CA, but I don't really find it intrusive. Please be sure to view the attachment at native resolution!
(edit: I recropped to get full 1x1 pixel resolution and the bit of tree you can see is pretty much in the center frame rather than showing any of the CA)
Next I put the 8x on the tripod and got my first real "WOW". The detail was just incredible. I find the sweet spot on the 8xs to be much larger, it wasn't that noticeable on hand-held nature scenes (due to depth of field and natural motion washing the effects out), but on the tripod it was night and day and confirmed my observations.
So my real dilemma is that my wife seems to prefer the 10x while I am happy with the 8s (though the focus slop is still present). Next stop is hopefully to a store to do some more side-by-side comparisons. My original pair I was lusting after was the Canon 10x42L IS so would really appreciate any comparisons from owners, as well as some of the other comparisons in the same price range and to other alphas. The Bushnell Elite EDs and Monarch 7s were also on my short list so I'm really looking forward to that comparison. OK, time for the bug spray and to head back outside!
And just for comparison to highlight how good the 10x image is, I've attached a 1:1 crop of the moon I took years ago with a Canon 30D behind a 70-200 F4 L wide open and hand held at 1/500s. Both are processed for web so should be comparable there. The iPhone was at an awful ISO 400 compared to the ISO 100 on the 30D which is a huge advantage. The point really is to show the amount of detail that's STILL LEFT in the iPhone image. To the eye, everything was razor sharp. I've seen worse images out of very expensive tracking telescopes, for what it's worth.
(edit: I recropped to get full 1x1 pixel resolution and the bit of tree you can see is pretty much in the center frame rather than showing any of the CA)
Next I put the 8x on the tripod and got my first real "WOW". The detail was just incredible. I find the sweet spot on the 8xs to be much larger, it wasn't that noticeable on hand-held nature scenes (due to depth of field and natural motion washing the effects out), but on the tripod it was night and day and confirmed my observations.
So my real dilemma is that my wife seems to prefer the 10x while I am happy with the 8s (though the focus slop is still present). Next stop is hopefully to a store to do some more side-by-side comparisons. My original pair I was lusting after was the Canon 10x42L IS so would really appreciate any comparisons from owners, as well as some of the other comparisons in the same price range and to other alphas. The Bushnell Elite EDs and Monarch 7s were also on my short list so I'm really looking forward to that comparison. OK, time for the bug spray and to head back outside!
And just for comparison to highlight how good the 10x image is, I've attached a 1:1 crop of the moon I took years ago with a Canon 30D behind a 70-200 F4 L wide open and hand held at 1/500s. Both are processed for web so should be comparable there. The iPhone was at an awful ISO 400 compared to the ISO 100 on the 30D which is a huge advantage. The point really is to show the amount of detail that's STILL LEFT in the iPhone image. To the eye, everything was razor sharp. I've seen worse images out of very expensive tracking telescopes, for what it's worth.
brocknroller
porromaniac
If 12x42 is your pleasure, try looking for a pair of Nikon 12x40 WF binoculars. They are similar to the "E" series and are about the size of the 10x35 EII and handle well. The optics are sharp, and the edges quite good for a bin w/out field flatteners and for a WF bin -- 5.5* FOV.
They are not FMC, but they have the last gen. blue-purple MCs that Nikon had on the "E" series, which were quite good. They have a narrow focus wheel near the EPs like the Es and SEs.
The latest 050xxx 10x42 SE is better, of course, because of its more advanced FMCs, rubber armoring, and field flatteners. But a 12x40 WF VG condition can be had for less than $100. I bought mine as new "old stock" from a NYC camera dealer for $99.
If you're patient, you can probably find a 10x42 SE for about $550-$600 on the used market. The serial #s go up to 008xxx and then skip to 050 on the newest model with Eco-Glass and the latest Nikon AR coatings.
The SEs are not, however, waterproof or even "weatherproof" so if that's a major consideration, go with a WP roof like the Prime ED.
Also, Steiner makes a 12x42 roof in the Predator series. I don't know much about that, but perhaps worth checking out.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Steiner-Binoculars-Predator-C5-12x42-252-LIKE-NEW-MINT-CONDITION-/230829065683?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35be7c05d3
<B>
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
Thank you sir for the detailed reply.
"But a 12x40 WF VG condition can be had for less than $100."
The price is right and some of my old glass has none or first generation coatings. Somewhat akin to the telly w/720 resolution. Looks good to me/price was right at the time and I'm not sure that I could see a difference in 1080. As well the old 12x36 D.CF looks fairly decent to me in bright light. The view is tack sharp after vainly attempting to hand hold 3 1/2 lbs of old mid-late '60s 22x80.
"probably find a 10x42 SE for about $550-$600 on the used market."
I've found them new at $699/12x50 SE $799 and thought/wished perhaps as the holidays roll around later in the year that maybe the price would dip. I've also noted some deals after X-mas/before new year.
"Steiner makes a 12x42 roof in the Predator series."
As I recall they make some claim of pulling brown/game colours out of the foliage though I've never look through any. I'm not sure how much is hype, yet the claim doesn't boost confidence within me.
Then along comes ZR Prime 10x42. Hearing some good reviews on the new line. I don't require WP, but it would be nice I suppose. In all actuality I need more glass like I need another cable channel, but that hasn't stopped me before from purchasing.
My budget is stretched thin and I do need, or think I do, a fluid head w/at least a 16 lbs cap which puts the tripod at 21 lbs cap. Geeze Louise the cheaper ones that use two fluid drives are around a grand and up.
I found a discontinued NOS head w/tripod combo platter for around 8 bills, but naturally the tripod is only rated for the 16 lbs of glass & not the additional 5 lbs of head. I have heavy metal/monster pods, so I could mix and match.
Quite the pickle as I'd like to have glass w/field flatteners, and now thanks to you a 12x40 WF, and I need a quality fluid head to enjoy the bigger glass and pods that I've already invested in for other than "stationary" star/moon/planet view.
I don't have to have a six grade education to cipher all four wants comes in over two grand that I can't spend. I've poured hours into researching fluid heads to only come up w/same conclusion. I'd rather spend a little more and be sure than come up short.
Guys I thank you again for your reviews of the Prime. Sounds as if Charles has a winner on his hands if you enjoy a bit of rolling ball. Appears to be slight in the 8X as some see, some don't and some that did don't any more. I seem to prefer that over the heavy PC especially in scanning close canopy/foliage. Sounds as if the Prime will compare favorably to more established/expensive offerings.
So much glass, so little money.
"But a 12x40 WF VG condition can be had for less than $100."
The price is right and some of my old glass has none or first generation coatings. Somewhat akin to the telly w/720 resolution. Looks good to me/price was right at the time and I'm not sure that I could see a difference in 1080. As well the old 12x36 D.CF looks fairly decent to me in bright light. The view is tack sharp after vainly attempting to hand hold 3 1/2 lbs of old mid-late '60s 22x80.
"probably find a 10x42 SE for about $550-$600 on the used market."
I've found them new at $699/12x50 SE $799 and thought/wished perhaps as the holidays roll around later in the year that maybe the price would dip. I've also noted some deals after X-mas/before new year.
"Steiner makes a 12x42 roof in the Predator series."
As I recall they make some claim of pulling brown/game colours out of the foliage though I've never look through any. I'm not sure how much is hype, yet the claim doesn't boost confidence within me.
Then along comes ZR Prime 10x42. Hearing some good reviews on the new line. I don't require WP, but it would be nice I suppose. In all actuality I need more glass like I need another cable channel, but that hasn't stopped me before from purchasing.
My budget is stretched thin and I do need, or think I do, a fluid head w/at least a 16 lbs cap which puts the tripod at 21 lbs cap. Geeze Louise the cheaper ones that use two fluid drives are around a grand and up.
I found a discontinued NOS head w/tripod combo platter for around 8 bills, but naturally the tripod is only rated for the 16 lbs of glass & not the additional 5 lbs of head. I have heavy metal/monster pods, so I could mix and match.
Quite the pickle as I'd like to have glass w/field flatteners, and now thanks to you a 12x40 WF, and I need a quality fluid head to enjoy the bigger glass and pods that I've already invested in for other than "stationary" star/moon/planet view.
I don't have to have a six grade education to cipher all four wants comes in over two grand that I can't spend. I've poured hours into researching fluid heads to only come up w/same conclusion. I'd rather spend a little more and be sure than come up short.
Guys I thank you again for your reviews of the Prime. Sounds as if Charles has a winner on his hands if you enjoy a bit of rolling ball. Appears to be slight in the 8X as some see, some don't and some that did don't any more. I seem to prefer that over the heavy PC especially in scanning close canopy/foliage. Sounds as if the Prime will compare favorably to more established/expensive offerings.
So much glass, so little money.
henry link
Well-known member
The 12x40 WF was made be by combining a longer focal length 40mm objective with a 10x35 E body and eyepiece The eye relief is consequently pretty short (12.4m). The "blue" coating is garden variety single-layer MgF, no multi-coating involved.
A way to achieve an almost FMC 12x40 WF would be to pick up a FMC 10x35 E and switch objectives with an 12x40 WF. Ten of the twelve 12x40 surfaces would then be multi-coated.
Other configurations that Nikon never made are possible; an 8x40 by switching objectives with a 7x35 E and a 10x40 by switching objectives with an 8x30 E.
A way to achieve an almost FMC 12x40 WF would be to pick up a FMC 10x35 E and switch objectives with an 12x40 WF. Ten of the twelve 12x40 surfaces would then be multi-coated.
Other configurations that Nikon never made are possible; an 8x40 by switching objectives with a 7x35 E and a 10x40 by switching objectives with an 8x30 E.
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
Thanks Henry. As always I enjoy your technical posts as they're most informative. The short ER wouldn't be an issue. I like the idea, yet curious what the two would set me back as I'm not sure of the going rate for a 10x35 E.
lilcrazy2
Well-known member
Henry
I thought the Nikon E series came in 4 different models, with the earlier E1 MC version and the later E2 FMC version. I always thought this was the later FMC 12x40 E ? Have I been incorrect in my thinking?
Tom
Attachments
henry link
Well-known member
Tom,
I think you have a rare item there. None of my three Nikon catalogues from the 90's, after the E series was multi-coated, lists a 12x40. Your prism cover certainly shows the changes in lettering that came with the multi-coated versions. Are all the reflections from glass surfaces green in your binocular?
Two explanations occur to me. Maybe the multi-coated 12x40 was only officially imported for a short time, so that it doesn't happen to turn up in any of my catalogues, or maybe it was never officially imported, but a few made it to the US as gray market imports. Does yours have Nikon USA paperwork?
I've never seen or heard of any partly multi-coated (MC) E series binoculars. In the US, the single coated E series was discontinued around 1989-90 and then re-introduced around 1991 with full multi-coating. Nikon made some partly multi-coated binoculars during that time. They're easily identifiable from the green exterior reflections combined with brighter blue interior reflections.
FWIW, your 40mm objective could be combined with an EII body to make the world's only specimen of a 10x40 EII.
Henry
I think you have a rare item there. None of my three Nikon catalogues from the 90's, after the E series was multi-coated, lists a 12x40. Your prism cover certainly shows the changes in lettering that came with the multi-coated versions. Are all the reflections from glass surfaces green in your binocular?
Two explanations occur to me. Maybe the multi-coated 12x40 was only officially imported for a short time, so that it doesn't happen to turn up in any of my catalogues, or maybe it was never officially imported, but a few made it to the US as gray market imports. Does yours have Nikon USA paperwork?
I've never seen or heard of any partly multi-coated (MC) E series binoculars. In the US, the single coated E series was discontinued around 1989-90 and then re-introduced around 1991 with full multi-coating. Nikon made some partly multi-coated binoculars during that time. They're easily identifiable from the green exterior reflections combined with brighter blue interior reflections.
FWIW, your 40mm objective could be combined with an EII body to make the world's only specimen of a 10x40 EII.
Henry
Last edited:
mooreorless
Well-known member
Tom that Nikon Criterion series 12x40 looks like it is in excellent shape. Here is the thread on this back in Jan. My search brought up what was supposed to be a Nikon 7x50 Criterion series sold on Amart. The pictures never showed the complete area to see if it was. I guess any more talk on this should go to the link I posted.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=220670
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=220670
Last edited:
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
It's tuesday??? By the sounds of it there out of stock??? Oh well, i was hoping to have them before we left! :-( Bryce...
It is out of stock after we shipped out yours.
It's on its way. Happy PRIM'ing, Bryce!Charles
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
Good news Charles! Hopefully they will be here tomorrow! Bryce...It is out of stock after we shipped out yours.
Charles
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
They were sitting on the porch tonight! I want to clarify something, NO BLACKOUTS!!! didn't matter where i had the eye cups either or ipd! Granted i don't ware specs! Focus is nice, everything about the bin on the outside is nice! Will post some this weekend once i'vee used them!!! Bryce...
idaho john
Well-known member
and...
Bryce: looking forward to your review - good and bad (not hunting for something bad, but value your opinion). John
Bryce: looking forward to your review - good and bad (not hunting for something bad, but value your opinion). John
Last edited:
Comparing against the Monarch 7 and the Bushnell HD
My Prime HD 10x42 arrived Tuesday. In the interim, I'd acquired a Bushnell Legend Ultra HD and Nikon Monarch 7 10x42.
The Bushnell was quickly packed up for return. It's just not as bright as the other two, but is probably a good value at $250-ish. I did like the locking diopter ring, which the others don't have.
I and my optics-loving colleagues carefully compared the Monarch and the Prime. We couldn't see any difference in optical quality other than the Prime was sharp to the edge (essentially). That may matter to some folks; it doesn't to me for my needs.
The Prime was sharp to the edge, no blackouts, plenty of eye relief with or without glasses, felt solidly constructed, no specks, the hinge had appropriate stiffness, and there was no CA visible. I loved the fact that I didn't have to fidget around with positioning to see through it (the reason I sold a Monarch 5 recently).
I would have preferred some "detents" for indexing the eye cups, but that's minor. More seriously, my sample has some grittiness in the focus-- it's not silky smooth. Probably not much of a problem unless you refocus a lot.
I am not a bino expert, so I can't discuss subtleties of performance compared to the "alphas" (which I'm guessing from my lurking are the Leicas, Swarovskis, etc.). But I have no complaints about distortions, resolution, color, contrast, etc.
The Kuduman
My Prime HD 10x42 arrived Tuesday. In the interim, I'd acquired a Bushnell Legend Ultra HD and Nikon Monarch 7 10x42.
The Bushnell was quickly packed up for return. It's just not as bright as the other two, but is probably a good value at $250-ish. I did like the locking diopter ring, which the others don't have.
I and my optics-loving colleagues carefully compared the Monarch and the Prime. We couldn't see any difference in optical quality other than the Prime was sharp to the edge (essentially). That may matter to some folks; it doesn't to me for my needs.
The Prime was sharp to the edge, no blackouts, plenty of eye relief with or without glasses, felt solidly constructed, no specks, the hinge had appropriate stiffness, and there was no CA visible. I loved the fact that I didn't have to fidget around with positioning to see through it (the reason I sold a Monarch 5 recently).
I would have preferred some "detents" for indexing the eye cups, but that's minor. More seriously, my sample has some grittiness in the focus-- it's not silky smooth. Probably not much of a problem unless you refocus a lot.
I am not a bino expert, so I can't discuss subtleties of performance compared to the "alphas" (which I'm guessing from my lurking are the Leicas, Swarovskis, etc.). But I have no complaints about distortions, resolution, color, contrast, etc.
The Kuduman
