leica ultravid 12x50 - old arguments still valid?

[anorak]

does the birding fraternity still by-and-large dismiss a 12x magnification binocular as being "too shaky to hold still" or "too dim", even though leica are now on the market with this model of comparable/lighter weight and superior optical performance to many current 10x models?

[scampo]

The idea of a 12x is appealing in some ways, but:

a) narrow fov makes them less useful for woodland viewing

b) they will be difficult to hold still

c) their weight would make them difficult to hold for any length of time.

[CDK]

I would have thought that no matter how good Leica binoculars are, 12x is still too much to hold still. Just because a red badge appears or for that matter any other leading optical manufacturer, the laws of optical physics will take over.

[anorak]

thanks for the input scampo and CDK.

but is the fov for the ultravid 12x50 binocular really that narrow (leica quote 300ft), and are they really that heavy (leica quote 1050g) in comparison to lower magnification alternatives? it seems to me that technological advances are slowly whittling away at the old objections against 12x binoculars.

[dogfish]

but is the fov for the ultravid 12x50 binocular really that narrow (leica quote 300ft), and are they really that heavy (leica quote 1050g) in comparison to lower magnification alternatives? it seems to me that technological advances are slowly whittling away at the old objections against 12x binoculars.

I'd say the field of view was not bad and the weight possibly bearable; they're only 70g heavier than the Nikon 8x 42HGs. But for me 12x magnification is a step too far in terms of keeping the image steady. That's where things haven't changed, and won't until we get really first rate stabilised bins.

Sean

[Leif]

does the birding fraternity still by-and-large dismiss a 12x magnification binocular as being "too shaky to hold still" or "too dim", even though leica are now on the market with this model of comparable/lighter weight and superior optical performance to many current 10x models?

The FOV is surprisingly good, but don't forget that depth of field will also be markedly reduced, possibly leading to eye strain. I can't hold 12x steady but it does very much depend on the user.

[scampo]

thanks for the input scampo and CDK.

but is the fov for the ultravid 12x50 binocular really that narrow (leica quote 300ft), and are they really that heavy (leica quote 1050g) in comparison to lower magnification alternatives? it seems to me that technological advances are slowly whittling away at the old objections against 12x binoculars.
I hadn't looked at the figures - but the fov is 1/5 less than 8x bins and that would put me off. Looking into woodland to locate a bird with a 100m fov would be a hard job.

[anorak]

I hadn't looked at the figures - but the fov is 1/5 less than 8x bins and that would put me off. Looking into woodland to locate a bird with a 100m fov would be a hard job.

hmm, i'm not sure. 1/5th less fov doesn't seem a very heavy a price to pay for an extra 4x magnification, especially at a weight (1050g) that is surely light enough to minimise "shakiness"..

has anybody out there tried them?

[mike60]

Anorak - Like you, I thought that as long as you could hold it steady, larger magnification must surely be much better - and I fancied my abilities at holding bins steadier than others. What I found out in practice over the years is that it's fatiguing to hold bins that steady (and btw - every gram counts when they are at your eyes!), and although the magnification is greater, I somehow see less because of the shake and the limited time I can hold the bins to my eyes comfortably. When you overcome "higher magnification = better" thinking and try an 8x (and i'm even considering a 7x) extensively in the field, you suddenly have a very relaxed view that doesnt fatigue you, and you want to keep on looking. I suppose that ultimately, viewing comfort is more critical to me than larger magnification because it allows me to view for longer and pick out more detail and capture more action. I currently have the choice of taking a high quality 10x and a light weight 8x every time I go out. I invariably pick the 8x. I now want to sell my 10x and get another lightweight 8x or 7x.

[scampo]

I agree with all of your comments, Mike - but also add that every metre of extra view is vital in woodland viewing. I would like to borrow a pair of ultra-wide 7x bins. myself to see how I like them.

[Grousemore]

I agree with all of your comments, Mike - but also add that every metre of extra view is vital in woodland viewing. I would like to borrow a pair of ultra-wide 7x bins. myself to see how I like them.

As you are a confirmed Nikon fan,Steve,it's worth noting that the 8x42 HG have the lowest FOV of the premium 8x bins.(122m@1000)
The Zeiss V2's,8x40 give you an extra 10% FOV over the Nikons,apart from a weight saving of some 25%!

[scampo]

Ah-ha - but I have Swaro bins... and I don't even have a Nikon scope at present as it's still being repaired. Doh.

My brother has the Nikon 8x42HG - yes a shade narrower than the Swaros but the view through them is easily the brightest I have seen of any 8x binocular.

[Grousemore]

Sorry,I was talking about Field of View,in response to your statement that..."every metre of extra view is vital..."
FOV is measureable ,whereas brightness is subjective and on which point I found the Leica Ultravids noticeably brighter than the Nikons.

[scampo]

Yes - I thought you were and that's why I responded about the Swaros. I haven't yet looked through Ultravids. I doubt they are in actuality much brighter than the Nikons as if that is so, then the Swaros are way down the list of brightness as they are not as bright as the Nikons. But perhaps each person has a subjective response (although I have to say that when I have ever checked people's responses to optics that simply never proves to be the case!).

[anorak]

thanks for the input so far everyone.

i'm yet to hear though, if anyone has actually looked through the 12x50 duovids. ...anyone?

meantime, looking at the specs for them again and again, i can't help concluding that they really do measure up well to other configurations in all the key parameters. all this "too shaky" and "not enough fov" stuff is starting to sound a bit old-fashioned, and sounds like harking back to the days when all 12x binoculars were hulking great brutes with a poor fov and a dim image. this is less-and-less true nowadays:-

the ultravid 12x50's:

the fov's pretty good compared to the average of all binoculars.

the brightness compares well to the average for all binoculars

the weight of 1050g compares well the average of all binoculars.

AND they magnify 12x which is above the average of all binoculars. i accept all the previous counsel, maybe i'm being naive here, but isn't magnification the fundamental purpose of binoculars, and now that we can have it with minimal sacrifice in other departments... well, why not?

so if i decide upon a nice, cosy pair of 8x32's or suchlike, how often will i stare through them at something i can't quite identify, and think to myself: "if only i could see that bird at almost the same fov, almost the same brightness, but with 4x more magnification - damn, i wish i'd gone for more magnification and got the 12x50's"?

has anyone ever had that thought?

[pburgers]

anorak-
Have you given any consideration to the Duovids from Leica? Have your cake and eat it too? I have only looked through them inside a sporting goods store, but they seemed pretty good and the zoom from 8x to 12x did not require refocusing, at least for me. In the end I settled on ultravid 8x42, but if You truly desire the higher magnification the extra $$$ may be worth it for you.
Paul

[Leif]

maybe i'm being naive here, but isn't magnification the fundamental purpose of binoculars, and now that we can have it with minimal sacrifice in other departments... well, why not?

damn, i wish i'd gone for more magnification and got the 12x50's"?

has anyone ever had that thought?

I consider the most important feature of any binocular is the ability to get an id. Usually this means being able to find the bird, maintain the bird in the FOV once found, and see features on the bird. That's why I go for an 8x. That darting Kingfisher can be located and seen with ease due to the large FOV and bright image. I have used 10x binoculars before and I struggled to find anything. The only time I have wished for more power is when in a hide, and I have been resting my arms.

Instead of spending ~£1K on one binocular, why not buy a Nikon 8x32 SE (or 10x42) and a decent small scope such as the Kowa 613?

However, some people DO prefer high power. See here:

http://birds.cornell.edu/publications/livingbird/spring99/binos.html

There is also the Nikon 12x50 SE which is cheaper, lighter and, if user comments are anything to go by, optically better, though the FOV is less, and not waterproof, with horrible rubber eye tubes.

[william j clive]

[QUOTE=anorak]

i'm yet to hear though, if anyone has actually looked through the 12x50 duovids. ...anyone?


Hi anorak

A friend of mine has the 8-12x42 Duovid and I have been fortunate enough to try them on a couple of occasions. I was surprised to find that the weight stabilised them to some degree at 12x.

However, I was unable to maintain the stability for more than about 30 seconds. We are all different in this respect and you may be able to maintain stability for longer. This instrument offers great versatility and a high quality image.

I am not a Leica fan but do find the versatility aspect very appealing.

As far as FOV goes, you have 120m/360ft at 8x so if you were looking for a warbler in the bushes and needed the FOV, you can always revert to 8x. My friend is very pleased with his purchase. You can also get 10x by setting the adjusters in the centre.


Clive

[anorak]

Thanks for the input everyone.

In the end I dreamt up what i believe is a somewhat novel setup. . I bought:

The Ultravid 12x50's with Leica "sandal" tripod adapter.
The Manfrotto 449 carbon fibre monopod + Manfrotto 484RC2 "mini" ball-head with rapid connect system.

I'm loving this setup which gives me total flexibility to use the binocular "hand-held" or snap them onto the top of the monopod in seconds.

I must say that the more I use the monopod/binocular combo and develop good technique (and there most definitely is a a technique), the less i understand why monopods aren't more widely used by birders to dramatically enhance the performance and "face-time" of ANY binocular, regardless of whether they're 12x,10x, 8x or whatever.. it's just such a relaxed way of birding from a static spot - seated or standing..



look at all those photographers with their long lenses on the 18th green at The Open - monopods galore!

[John Cantelo]

[QUOTE=anorak]
I must say that the more I use the monopod/binocular combo and develop good technique (and there most definitely is a a technique), the less i understand why monopods aren't more widely used by birders

Aninteresting set up ... have you tried a "Finn Stick" style arrangement?

John

[mike60]

Anorak, sounds like it may be an interesting way to look for sea birds, which i find is always an extreme compromise between fov, stability, brightness and physical/mental fatigue - in terms of binocular choice (since i dont own a scope).
How do they perform with respect to CA?
I was also wondering - If you adopt a monopod for your bins, why not go for even higher magnification, or is there still some image shake?

[anorak]

... have you tried a "Finn Stick" style arrangement?

John

i'm not sure what that is john, can you point me at some details and/or a picture?


I was also wondering - If you adopt a monopod for your bins, why not go for even higher magnification, or is there still some image shake?

yes mike60, the more i use this setup, the more it runs through my mind that it would be a very flexilbe way of managing higher magnifications of up to say 20x without lugging a tripod around. of course there is always going to be a tiny amount of shake with a monopod as opposed to a tripod, but at binocular-type magnifictions it is negligible. the main point i was making however is that i believe a lightweight monopod/ballhead arrangement would enhance enjoyment of virtually any binocular in many, many situations. having said that though, the beauty of the ultravid 12x's is their stunning view as normal hand-held, but then whip out the monopod, snap them on things get really breathtaking - you find yourself able to gaze into a rock-steady view for as long as you want without any fatigue whatsoever, and then move on with no fuss.

yes folks, i've gone monopod-mental!

[iporali]

i'm not sure what that is john, can you point me at some details and/or a picture?

Hi anorak,
A Finnstick is always worth trying: it is easy to make, it is cheap/free, lightweight and often does the job - ie. stabilizing the vibration and reducing the muscle strain. It does not work so well in forests or in situations, when you watch rapid targets at close distances. Of course Finns don't call it a Finnstick - officially it is a "seipiö" :) . A few versions of Finnsticks can be spotted in http://www.vironlintuseura.fi/valokuvat/vaindloo/Staijarit_1.jpg or (a deluxe-model) http://www.vironlintuseura.fi/kuvat/hannu.jpg

A fine description is here http://home.att.net/~plastereddragon/opticfaq.txt

Cheers,
Ilkka

[anorak]

Hi anorak,
A Finnstick is always worth trying: it is easy to make, it is cheap/free, lightweight and often does the job - ie. stabilizing the vibration and reducing the muscle strain. It does not work so well in forests or in situations, when you watch rapid targets at close distances. Of course Finns don't call it a Finnstick - officially it is a "seipiö" :) . A few versions of Finnsticks can be spotted in http://www.vironlintuseura.fi/valokuvat/vaindloo/Staijarit_1.jpg or (a deluxe-model) http://www.vironlintuseura.fi/kuvat/hannu.jpg

A fine description is here http://home.att.net/~plastereddragon/opticfaq.txt

Cheers,
Ilkka

thanks for that ilklka - so it looks like the concept of holding binoculars in a very steady, relaxed and stable way by simply attaching them to a "stick" has been around for ages, and is not frowned upon in Finland. it seems that for some reason it's just not fashionable here and i can't understand why. perhaps it breaks with convention too much or just isn't currently de rigeur! I for one though am a complete convert as you can tell!

btw, the "deluxe model" picture you posted - i recognised that is actually a four-section monopod in it's "collapsed" state very similar to the one i am using with the Ultravid 12x50's and loving the setup more day-by-day.

kippis!

-=anorak.

[iporali]

it looks like the concept of holding binoculars in a very steady, relaxed and stable way by simply attaching them to a "stick" has been around for ages, and is not frowned upon in Finland.
Precisely - the name "Finnstick" is a little amusing, considering that it can be just about any branch or stick you can grab. OTOH these sticks may become valuable personal items during the years of birdwatching.

btw, the "deluxe model" picture you posted - i recognised that is actually a four-section monopod in it's "collapsed" state very similar to the one i am using with the Ultravid 12x50's and loving the setup more day-by-day.
Yes, you are right - I forgot to mention that the use of monopod as a seipiö is gaining popularity here. Maybe this kind of setup is more easily accepted also in civilized world ;) Anyway, I'm glad to hear that you have seen the advantages of the monopod with your super-bins.

Ilkka

[jorob]

steve before you rate the altravid in any power range you need to compare them side x side as I have you will soon change your mind abought the brightness and the weight the nikons dont come close the only bins that do come close are the sawor. power for power you will see the ulrtavid are the better also they are the strongest made from magnesium with a titanium axle and as for eye strain the (HDC) coating on the lens and the (HLS)coating on the prisms along with the phase correction coating P40 make these bins the easiest on the eyes. I have carried these bins everywere with no problems and have held them for hours. maybe you need to exersize more (just kidding) john

[John Finnan]

I've had a paid of 12 x 50 Ultravids for about 10 months now. They seem very bright for a glass of this high a power and they're very sharp across most of the field with a little softening towards the edge. They have an extremely wide 69 degree apparent field and a 5.73 degree true field and can focus as close as 11 feet. Their eye relief is 13.8mm which would be a little short for people who must wear glasses. However, I don't have to so that isn't a problem for me.

I used to have a pair of the 12 x 50 Nikon SEs. Those are also excellent but I like the Leica's better for several reasons. First, their true and apparent fields are almost 15% wider and their total field area is 30% larger. The Ultravids give you more of a picture-window wide field of view. Second, they're rugged, waterproof, and their compact size makes them easier to pack in a backpack than the porro prism Nikons are. Third, even thought they weigh 5 ounces more than the Nikons, I find that I can hold the Ultravids steadier for longer periods of time than I could with the Nikons. Even though the Nikons have great ergonomics for a porro, I find the ergonomics of the Ultravids to be even better.

While I think that the 12 x 50 Ultravids are easier to hand hold than the Nikon 12 x 50 SEs, that doesn't mean that they're easy to hand hold. When I use them I always try to find somthing to sit on, or a tree/post to lean against, or a car roof that I can brace my elbows against. When I have support like that I find that I can hold them reasonably steady for long enough periods of time to make the viewing experience worthwhile. However, even with aids like those the shakiness will become noticable much more quickly than it will with a pair of say 7 x 42s or 8 x 32s.

I would not recommend a 12 x 50 as one's primary binocular. The pair I have nicely compliments my 8.5 x 42 ELs. And if prefer having those two binoculars (each of which excel in their own way) to having a single 10 x 42 or a 10 x 50. However, if I could only have one binocular my first choice would be the 8.5 x 42 ELs and my second choice would be a high-end 10 x 42 roof prism binocular.

One earlier poster mentioned using the 12 x 50s with a monopod. I will have to look into that. If I could find one that worked well, was not too heavy, and that packed easily, it would be nice to take one along on some of my nature hikes. I have used the 12 x 50 Ultravids with a larger binocular mount and they really do perform very well on one, but the downside is that they're not as portable or easy-to-use when mounted as they are when hand held.

[kabsetz]

Leica has a pretty well designed, lightweight and quick-to-use tripod adaptor for roof-prism binoculars which a friend of mine has and I have tried. That fitted to a lightweight monopod (ideally, Bogen/Manfrotto carbon fiber) would give you excellent support and also doubles as a great finnstick which will make handheld viewing somewhat steadier and much less tiring when you don't have the time to set the pod up. The binocular attaches with a solid and strong rubber strap, which holds on tight enough that you can let the gizmo and the lightweight pod hang from the binocular while you carry it.

Kimmo

[Pinewood]

A good deal of the stability depends on the adaptor. There is an inexpensive adaptor, made by Cardoza in the States, which is rather inferiour to the Leica adaptor. The Leica adaptor on a Monostat steadies a twelve power glass quite well. The Cardoza did not work as well with a ten power glass. The "sandal strap" on the Leica adaptor is very secure, while the adaptors large platform allows the center of gravity of the binocular to placed over the head. I use a Bogen swivel head.

There is something to be said for carrying a both seven or eight power glass and the twelve power glass. If you observe with a partner, this makes eminent sense.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:

[Jane Turner]

I must say that the more I use the monopod/binocular combo and develop good technique (and there most definitely is a a technique), the less i understand why monopods aren't more widely used by birders


I used to do a lot of seawatchng with my bins resting on top of my telescope... it was a straight through Optolyth which meant the bins could straddle the body of the scope and leave the latter pointing in the right direction.... it had the added advantage that you were not tempted to look further away that you could adequately ID birds at... The added stability and comfort meant I could carry on for a few hours without pause

[John Finnan]

Leica has a pretty well designed, lightweight and quick-to-use tripod adaptor for roof-prism binoculars which a friend of mine has and I have tried. That fitted to a lightweight monopod (ideally, Bogen/Manfrotto carbon fiber) would give you excellent support and also doubles as a great finnstick which will make handheld viewing somewhat steadier and much less tiring when you don't have the time to set the pod up. The binocular attaches with a solid and strong rubber strap, which holds on tight enough that you can let the gizmo and the lightweight pod hang from the binocular while you carry it.

Kimmo


Thank you for the tip on the Bogen/Manfrotto carbon fiber monopod. Since it only weighs a little over a pound and compresses to 20 inches it sounds very promising, I will check it out. I already have the Leica tripod adapter that you mentioned and it does work very well (not only for my Leica 12 x 50 Ultravids but also for my 8.5 x 42 ELs).

John