-
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.
Conquest HDX (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dries1
- Start date
jan van daalen
Well-known member
NatureLover123
Well-known member
Hello, I doubt that the SF is inferior to an HD, HDX or SFL. Please verify and calibrate your SF by using also the diopter setting. (Well I noticed a small intolerance of my SF 10x32 of 0.5 dioptre. After calibrating it, it has the same clarity and sharpness as my SF 10x42, whose diopter is at zero position).
By my own experience the coatings of the SF’s are optimized for clarity, contrast, resolution and natural colors under a broad band of different light situations, I think with a preference to keep high as possible detail recognition, also at bad light. So the coatings do actually differ from SFL and HD/HDX, of course. There is probably a good reason for the SF‘s transmission curves.
I can speak only for SF 10x32 and SF 10x42, which I own. I will try an HDX and SFL too, eventually.
If the SF‘s would be inferior to HD/HDX/SFL then Zeiss would kill their premium line itself, long term. But maybe they will change the requirements for future SF’s, but I don’t know.
Just my cents.
In my opinion about 8x42 SF, it has inferior central sharpness, color fidelity and CA at the edge.
but it leads in FOV, edge sharpness, central CA correction, brightness, color contrast.
higer range bino doesn't mean it is better at EVERYTHING then the bino that palced right below.
such as, in comparison of EDG and MHG, MHG deliver better central sharpness and FOV but EDG leads in overall optics.
also, EL & NL.
EL have better color fidelity, central sharpness, distortion and glare surpressed then NL
I'm only talking SF 8x42's inferiorness central sharpness and color fidelity
and that doesn't make SF a totally inferior bino becasue people don't judge bino only by those two strengths.
(and SF 10x42 is better then CHD in terms of Central sharpness and inferior of color fidelity)
guess there is something about 8x42 SF.... much higher edge CA then 10x42 and two of the model in Korea both have central sharpness issue in every tubes.
and for the diopter setting, it is indeed bit finicky in SF but I also do comparison between each tubes before I madeup my opinion.
in order to minimize the QC influencing the review.
(also both with one eyes closed or both eyes opened with one objective lens sealed by objective cap)
Last edited:
In The Netherlands no problem but in the UK and Austria it would appear to be firmly on the 'Too Difficult shelf which roughly translates to 'Couldn't be Arsed'
PM on its way Jan, bedankt.
binomania
Well-known member
Hi, here's my impression. Full article: Recensione del nuovo binocolo Zeiss Conquest HDX 8x42
Please, use the automatic system of YouTube to generate subtitles in English, you must activate the subtitles and then use "automatic translation".
Youtube video:
Please, use the automatic system of YouTube to generate subtitles in English, you must activate the subtitles and then use "automatic translation".
Youtube video:
regarding the added ff lenses of the hdx, this will likely please astronomers. the addition of field flatteners should be readily discernable in a star field - a pretty major plus for many who take their binos out at night. granted, this is not the typical application here.
i currently own the 15x 56 conquest hd and my wife uses the 10x 42 hd. I'm not running out to replace them (good value imo), but i expect the 15x 56 hdx might well be considerably closer to the 15x 56 slc. i have to rely on sightings of deep sky objects. their call is barely audible so i can't tell if I'm expert or not.
i currently own the 15x 56 conquest hd and my wife uses the 10x 42 hd. I'm not running out to replace them (good value imo), but i expect the 15x 56 hdx might well be considerably closer to the 15x 56 slc. i have to rely on sightings of deep sky objects. their call is barely audible so i can't tell if I'm expert or not.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
There seems to be something wrong with your SF 8x42 IMO!
"Pinac" did a dissolution test with different boosters and tested the SF against a Noctivid and NL, the SF was before the Noctivid and the NL.
I made the same comparison but without the booster, I had the same order, but all three binoculars were so close to each other that in the end there is a certain uncertainty. But the SF 8x42 is certainly a very sharp binocular and belongs to the absolute top group IMO.
Andreas
there seem to be a few binos out these days with ff's that don't seem to result in terribly flat fields. not in the same way the 7x nikon prostar or the 10x astroluxe ff's do. but i imagine the design challenge is different given the modest afov of the nikons.
in terms of the slc/hd(x) comparison, the $800 difference just shrunk to $500 at retail prices. agreed that the slc is superb, but the hd was a cost effective alternative. now that the 15x 56 hdx approaches $2000 i'd need to spend some time with both of em - if i was in the market.
tenex
reality-based
Denco's post #148 is once again lengthy and irrelevant. I presume that when jackjack says "same methods as everyone" he means he has a test chart too, and no one here is talking about the "actual"(?) resolution of the binocular as measured with a booster, only use of the instrument itself.
Diopter problems appear to be ruled out as he has observed each barrel individually. How then are we to explain divergent evaluations of SF's sharpness: is the problem that "sharpness" involves multiple factors (like contrast) that need disentangling, or can it be a language problem? (I for one don't understand how better "color fidelity" would lead to higher "brightness", unless that's becoming another subjective construction.)
Diopter problems appear to be ruled out as he has observed each barrel individually. How then are we to explain divergent evaluations of SF's sharpness: is the problem that "sharpness" involves multiple factors (like contrast) that need disentangling, or can it be a language problem? (I for one don't understand how better "color fidelity" would lead to higher "brightness", unless that's becoming another subjective construction.)
Chotacabras
Well-known member
This is very useful to know, thank you!
Please note that adding a "field flattener" (an actual glass optical element) completely changes the optical formula. That means, the entire chain of glass elements that comprise the optical formula, will need to be re-done in some way, to get to the targeted end-result.
So if they have actually added or changed a glass element within the binocular, it is not a minor change by any measure, even if the FOV or AFOV has remained the same as the prior version.
ArchStanton
Well-known member
I briefly looked through a pair of Conquest HDX 8x42’s this past weekend, and there’s not enough improvement over the old HD IMHO that would make me want to buy the new HDX model. YMWV.
forent
Well-known member
Thanks for these good news, but could you please go into detail? Because unfortunately Zeiss does not confirm this:
Yes please, me to...
Thanks Jan
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.
Thanks for doing the research Denco! I was curious if you were going to try out the Chdx. I always liked the chds. I owned some 10x42s briefly. Nice binoculars.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.
You must have owned a pair of chds before this recent eBay pair? Are you going to hang on to them or pass them along?
I have had CHD's in the past. I am keeping these new CHD 8x32's because they will be hard to replace as the remaining inventory dwindles and I only have $550 invested in them. It surprised me how much better quality the older CHD's are compared to the new CHDX's. Here is another opinion below which supports my opinion.
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."
"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."
Similar threads
