Hello,
Yesterday in late evening I made some quick tests between these Binoculars looking at far buildings. My findings and a friend with me were:
Zeiss 10x42 FL non-Locutec: Best overall performance. No question: Best resolution, best CA control, perfect collimation in this unite, largest field of view. A pleasure to use and look throught it!
Nikon 10x42 SE and Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W GA almost identical performance with a slight advantage (between these two examples...) for the Habicht in resolution and CA control. And the famous (or infamous) Sweet Spot very simmilar. Both very well collimated. We found the collimation in these two Porro binoculars is rather different than the other two, roof: There is some lateral convergence, almost the same in the SE and the Swaro Hab. Anyway perfect vertical collimation. No problem with prolongued viewing.
Nikon 10x42 HGL: The worst performance: Worst resolution and a high CA present. We didnīt like this unite. Perfect collimation, anyway.
The colours were natural in all. Slight differences but not great. Like the yellow tint present in the older Swarovski Habicht I have had.
I donīt know if this test means anything. But the differences at late evening were absolutely clear for the two of us. At least between those examples.
Regards
PHA
[QUOTE=PHA;1921168]Hello,
Yesterday in late evening I made some quick tests between these Binoculars looking at far buildings. My findings and a friend with me were:
Zeiss 10x42 FL non-Locutec: Best overall performance. No question: Best resolution, best CA control, perfect collimation in this unite, largest field of view. A pleasure to use and look throught it!
Nikon 10x42 SE and Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W GA almost identical performance with a slight advantage (between these two examples...) for the Habicht in resolution and CA control. And the famous (or infamous) Sweet Spot very simmilar. Both very well collimated. We found the collimation in these two Porro binoculars is rather different than the other two, roof: There is some lateral convergence, almost the same in the SE and the Swaro Hab. Anyway perfect vertical collimation. No problem with prolongued viewing.
Nikon 10x42 HGL: The worst performance: Worst resolution and a high CA present. We didnīt like this unite. Perfect collimation, anyway.
The colours were natural in all. Slight differences but not great. Like the yellow tint present in the older Swarovski Habicht I have had.
I donīt know if this test means anything. But the differences at late evening were absolutely clear for the two of us. At least between those examples.
Regards
PHA[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that four-way shoot out. Try doing a daytime comparison. I'm surprised the HGL was last. Probably first in edge performance. My sample was sharp to 95%+ on the horizontal edges. Only the very, very edge had astigmatism.
I had an 10x HGL briefly, but didn't like the way the coatings made colors overly warm (reds were orangey) and how on brightly lit objects, contrast and detail was overwhelmed by the apparent brightness (though I've read this same criticism about the FLs).
Too bad you didn't have an earlier HG on hand to compare. I compared a 10x42 HG to the 10x42 SE and it matched it in terms of resolution and blew it away in terms of color saturation and contrast. I later bought a 10x42 HG myself, but unfortunately it was defective so I returned it.
Of course, I should mention that the SE was an older 00 serial # model. So the coatings were behind.
I was very impressed with the resolution, contrast, and color depth of the 10x42 HG. If it weren't for the "rolling ball" I would have one in my small stable of bins and bite the bullet on the CA. My only other beef was the 36 oz. weight.
Brock