That's a pretty strong review. Very compelling argument for the Conquest HD. In fact they found it pointless to buy the UV HD +, HT, and SLC. If that is so, wouldn't it be pointless to buy the Conquest HD when one may buy a Vanguard Endeavor ED II for less than half the cost of the Conquest HD? I don't believe it but if one looks at ratings ALONE.... Just saying...
I don't own a Conquest HD and I've never had one. But this review does present a good case. Not just this review but many here on BF as well and for quite a while.
One thing Zeiss does...and they do it better than anyone, and that's % light transmission. When it comes to transmission % they talk the talk but they back it up with some of the best numbers in the market. That's not the whole binocular game, but that DOES make up a HUGE part of it.
Hat's off to Carl Zeiss for three great reviews; the HT, SF, and now the Conquest HD.
I think the Conquest HD, Razor HD, Kowa Genesis, Meostar HD, and Trinovid (even though I wasn't personally a fan of this model) are all at the point that, while you may find minute improvements in the alphas, it is hard to justify their price if you are priceerformance conscious. I've looked through and owned several alpha models as well as the Genesis and Razor and you really have to nitpick to find faults. The one thing that some of the alphas (i.e. SV, EDG, SF) that these do not is flat-field technology, but Nikon appears to be changing that.
I agree with you jremmons, after owning the Genesis, Meostar HD, SLC HD, and GR HD. You can put the new Tract Toric solidly in this lineup as well, as it is a fantastic piece of equipment.
I will say though, after using the 10x50 SV, I am very spoiled by the view.
........ If that is so, wouldn't it be pointless to buy the Conquest HD when one may buy a Vanguard Endeavor ED II for less than half the cost of the Conquest HD? I don't believe it but if one looks at ratings ALONE.... Just saying...
I would add, you could have a Zeiss Conquest HD, as your only binocular.
I've owned the 8x32, 8x42 and 10x42 and I've never been all that impressed with them. Build quality has never really struck me as remarkable and the view is very good, but just about right for the price point. I don't think they are as good as some make out.
Back in the day, I did a bit of resolution testing with the help of Typo - the Conquest HD weren't remarkable. I found other binoculars sharper. The Opticron Countryman HD and Hawke Frontier ED were both sharper. The colour of the Zeiss might be preferable to some, but they weren't sharper.
Back in the day, I did a bit of resolution testing with the help of Typo - the Conquest HD weren't remarkable.
I would be interested to know how you did your resolution testing. Did you get reproducable results, and if yes, what were those?
I like the 10x42 Conquest HD a lot. I've used for a few years.
I make the field 6.65 deg measured on the stars. Allbinos say 6.51 deg +/- 0.4 deg. I don't know how they measure it.
I don't know about the truncated exit pupils.
I don't like the 8x32 HD because of ghosting/ light pillars, whereas the 10x42 HD is excellent here.