Best Binos for $1000

[Newtosavage]

I’ve had both the 10x42’s and 8x32’s in the Zeiss Conquest HD, money well spent and I personally think the 8x32’s are better then the 10x42’s.

Better in what way?

 

[Newtosavage]

I get your prostaff but a guy just sold his Swaro’s and picked up the Nikon HG and Leica Trinovid HD, the Leicas for him blew the Nikons away, look for the thread on downgrading optics.

I'd be curious to know why he felt the Trinovid's "blew away" the Nikon HG's. I briefly owned the new Trinovids, and I've handled the HG's enough now that I probably should have bought them. They are two very different instruments. The pure image quality of the Trinovids is exceptional, yes, but the narrow field of view (very narrow compared to the super-wide Nikon HG's) and the annoying fact that the eyecups don't extend far enough to match the eye relief, was enough to make me return them. Like I said, the IQ was indeed stellar but if a person prefers a wider field of view (like me) and is annoyed by poorly designed eyecups (also like me) then the Nikon HG's might actually be the better purchase.

Fortunately, for the same price, you can get the Conquest HD's which largely solve both of those issues. Only downside I can see to the Zeiss is they are a few oz. heavier and a hair longer, but for a pair of 10X that may not even be a downside as you can hold them a bit steadier.

 

[bmanb940]

At the end of the day, $1000 bino's really should be looked through so that you can make sure what you are buying is the best for your eyes. I can only tell you about the experiences I have had with mine and watching deer after sunset is a huge plus for me. The clarity and what the field flattener bring to the HG are also winning features. I do own an expensive pait of Euro bino's and to my eyes the HG's are the clear winner. I don't do any sales so I can only pass along my experiences. New., Thanks for passing on the great price at Bean's. Best price I have seen thus far.

 

[tdhanses]

I'd be curious to know why he felt the Trinovid's "blew away" the Nikon HG's. I briefly owned the new Trinovids, and I've handled the HG's enough now that I probably should have bought them. They are two very different instruments. The pure image quality of the Trinovids is exceptional, yes, but the narrow field of view (very narrow compared to the super-wide Nikon HG's) and the annoying fact that the eyecups don't extend far enough to match the eye relief, was enough to make me return them. Like I said, the IQ was indeed stellar but if a person prefers a wider field of view (like me) and is annoyed by poorly designed eyecups (also like me) then the Nikon HG's might actually be the better purchase.

Fortunately, for the same price, you can get the Conquest HD's which largely solve both of those issues. Only downside I can see to the Zeiss is they are a few oz. heavier and a hair longer, but for a pair of 10X that may not even be a downside as you can hold them a bit steadier.

He said the last light image was much better in the post he made.

What is interesting is many people didn’t like the conquest hd’s because of the eyecup’s, just goes to show how different each person is in what they like.

I haven’t tried the trinovid but my Leica HD-B 2200 have great fov.

 

[tdhanses]

Better in what way?

I didn’t think the 10x42’s had great edge to edge performance, the 8x32’s do.

 

[Newtosavage]

I didn’t think the 10x42’s had great edge to edge performance, the 8x32’s do.

Oh, okay. I'll have to give them a look although I don't carry many x32's anymore.

What is interesting is many people didn’t like the conquest hd’s because of the eyecup’s, just goes to show how different each person is in what they like.

I agree. Folks really need to spend some time with the different bins and see what works best for them. Nobody else can tell them. At $1k, the image quality is all so good that it really comes down more to things like size, weight, eyecup design, field of view, image color, warranty, etc.

 

[wannakillabigbull]

At $1k, the image quality is all so good that it really comes down more to things like size, weight, eyecup design, field of view, image color, warranty, etc.

I agree, but I also find this statement to be pretty ironic because the features you listed I think are why so many people choose Vortex Razor HDs. Yet many people on Rokslide state how they don't understand why anyone would buy them.

People harp all the time how the new Razor HDs have a terrible image quality and may break over time, but the features you listed I think Vortex largely got right. I think it goes to show that many people care less about the finer details of the image they're looking at and care more about some of the other features that a binocular has.

 

[hunt1up]

I'd be curious to know why he felt the Trinovid's "blew away" the Nikon HG's. I briefly owned the new Trinovids, and I've handled the HG's enough now that I probably should have bought them. They are two very different instruments. The pure image quality of the Trinovids is exceptional, yes, but the narrow field of view (very narrow compared to the super-wide Nikon HG's) and the annoying fact that the eyecups don't extend far enough to match the eye relief, was enough to make me return them. Like I said, the IQ was indeed stellar but if a person prefers a wider field of view (like me) and is annoyed by poorly designed eyecups (also like me) then the Nikon HG's might actually be the better purchase.

Fortunately, for the same price, you can get the Conquest HD's which largely solve both of those issues. Only downside I can see to the Zeiss is they are a few oz. heavier and a hair longer, but for a pair of 10X that may not even be a downside as you can hold them a bit steadier.

I was the one that make the post about the Trinovids being substantially better than the Nikons. After some constant use with the Trinovids I still stand by my statement. The picture is better and the low light performance is substantial, which was my biggest observation. As I mentioned in the other thread, it took me a matter of minutes to make the decision to put the Nikons back in the box. It was that apparent.

As for the eye relief, I haven't noticed any disadvantage with either one. The Nikon has a crisp 3 position adjustment and the Trinovids 6-7 positions. The Nikon adjustment is a little cleaner but no more functional that the Trinovid.

With regard to FOV, I didn't try either pair on a tripod. I can see how the wider FOV would be better on a tripod. For freehand glassing I don't really notice that difference.

 

[Newtosavage]

I agree, but I also find this statement to be pretty ironic because the features you listed I think are why so many people choose Vortex Razor HDs. Yet many people on Rokslide state how they don't understand why anyone would buy them.

People harp all the time how the new Razor HDs have a terrible image quality and may break over time, but the features you listed I think Vortex largely got right. I think it goes to show that many people care less about the finer details of the image they're looking at and care more about some of the other features that a binocular has.

I agree that ergonomically, the Razors stack up well. I think the point some folks are making is that the primary job for binoculars is to deliver an image. Once that job has been met, then other things become important but until the job of delivering the image is met, those things don't really matter. IMO, of the four big players at the $1K level, the Razors deliver the weakest image (measured in terms of brightness, resolution and edge-to-edge sharpness). For pure image quality, I'd rate them Leica Trinovid HD, Zeiss Conquest HD, Nikon Monarch HG and finally the Razors.

YMMV

 

[tdhanses]

I agree that ergonomically, the Razors stack up well. I think the point some folks are making is that the primary job for binoculars is to deliver an image. Once that job has been met, then other things become important but until the job of delivering the image is met, those things don't really matter. IMO, of the four big players at the $1K level, the Razors deliver the weakest image (measured in terms of brightness, resolution and edge-to-edge sharpness). For pure image quality, I'd rate them Leica Trinovid HD, Zeiss Conquest HD, Nikon Monarch HG and finally the Razors.

YMMV

I would also add after optimal imiage performance is durability, I don’t care what the warranty is, I want the least likely to fail optic. Warranty does me no good if I travel 800+ miles and take 2 weeks of vacation only to have it need warranty work half way through a hunt.

 

[Newtosavage]

I would also add after optimal imiage performance is durability, I don’t care what the warranty is, I want the least likely to fail optic. Warranty does me no good if I travel 800+ miles and take 2 weeks of vacation only to have it need warranty work half way through a hunt.

I think a lot of folks who use their bins hard, would agree.