Kammerdiner
Thursday 17th September 2009, 18:00
On another thread devoted to inexpensive compacts I asked about the Olympus Tracker 8x25 PC I, reverse porro and evidently no one had any experience with them. Curious, I snagged a brand-new pair on Ebay for $27, including shipping. A super deal. So I spent some time comparing them to the Leica 8x20 Ultravid. Yup, the vaunted Ultravid.
Simply put, I'm knocked out. In fact, I'm willing to say that the Olympus is basically the optical equal of the Leica, with minor differences along the way. Incredible. Here's a shakedown:
•Field of View: Tie (Leica 341'; Olympus 344').
• Sharpness: Tie. Both have nice, big sweet spots, too. I think Leica’s sweet spot is a little bigger, though I didn’t quantify it, but in actual use I don’t notice any difference..
•Eye Relief: Leica 16mm; Olympus 16.5mm. The Leica has more usable eye relief thanks to very shallow eyecups, but the Olympus has enough (and I do wear glasses). The Leica eyecups have two click-stop positions and are stiff enough to (more or less) hold intermediate positions if you need it. The Olympus cups have two click-stop positions but are loose in between.
•Exit pupil: Olympus is definitely less fiddly in this department. With glasses the Leica is a little ornery. I sort of bounce them around on the front of my glasses until the tiny exit pupils line up. My guess is it may be easier to use for those without glasses, but in any case Olympus wins here.
•Diopter: Leica is chic, and locking; Olympus conventional, on the right eyepiece, and on my sample at least it turns too easily. Readjustments ensue. Maybe just tape it.
•Color: Olympus is a little warmer, with a slight yellow tint that I’m not fond of. Leica wins here. Leica’s as natural as they come. Still, without A/Bing you might never notice.
•Brightness: Olympus has the advantage here. In daylight it’s not too noticeable, but in low light Olympus leads the tiny Leica, which just doesn’t hold up well in dim light.
•Contrast: Tie, with qualifications. In bright light Leica wins by a hair, but it seems to be dependent, to some extent, on what you're looking at. Backlighting seems to be a factor, with the Leica having a bit less internal flare (or whatever you might call it) so it “opens up” heavily backlit objects a little better. Better coatings maybe?. In even, frontal lighting it’s basically a tie. In low light conditions the Olympus is brighter and takes the lead in contrast as well.
•CA: Tie. They both have a little, but you have to push things well off axis to notice. (An aside here: while checking for CA I looked at a mourning dove dozing on a utility line. Pushed to the right side the dove’s sunlit forehead turned red; pushed to the left it turned green. I only noticed CA on edges before, but of course it must occur everywhere. Both bins were identical in this regard).
•Focus: Tie for speed (I only checked mid to long distances). Leica’s knob has a dry and notchy feel to it and often works best by pinching it between thumb and forefinger. Olympus has a bigger knob, silky smooth, easily one or two-fingered, but with (to my taste) a touch too little resistance. Both work just fine, however. I’m happy with either.
•Close focus: Leica wins by a foot. With my eyes, call it 6-7’ for Leica and 7-8’ for Olympus.
•Weight: Leica 8.5 oz; Olympus 9.9oz. Too little difference to really notice. In fact, the greater density of the little Leica is deceptive, and holding both you’d swear they weigh about the same.
•Size: the Leica is definitely smaller, but I haven’t warmed up to fiddling with double hinges every time it comes out of the case. For me at least, size differences here are less critical than weight, and that’s a wash. They both feel fine in hand, though of course quite different.
•Waterpoof: Leica is; Olympus isn't. You’ll have to weigh that one for yourself.
•Aesthetics: Leica is Sean Connery as James Bond: stealthy, suave, and quite possibly too cool for birders like us. Olympus is Arnold Schwarzenegger as . . . well, whatever it was Schwarzenegger played. It's plastic and flashy (it's painted silver for God's sake, with charcoal rubber swooshes!). It really doesn’t look bad, though, and I don’t think it will scare the birds much. It might even attract jays, crows, bowerbirds, etc. The strap is barely long enough for me, and will be too short for some—a silly mistake. The Olympus feels solid in the hand, though. Doesn’t feel cheap. It should hold up just fine.
•Price: Olympus $57-$80 (shop around). Leica $699 most places. Geez! A $642 difference?!?
Bottom line: The Olympus is a crazy value and optically a top-notch performer. A poor man’s Ultravid.. If I had had a pair in the store while looking at the Leica, I may well have saved my $600+ dollars. Switching between them, I generally can’t detect any meaningful difference. The view is that close. And for all-around use, I have a sinking feeling (Gulp: $642!) I might end up preferring the Olympus.
I bought the Olympus out of curiosity, and I thought if they were any good I’d forward them to my sister, who recently took an interest in birds when a family of green herons camped out in her yard all summer. Plans have changed. I’m keeping this pair and ordering a second pair for her. They are just too sweet.
Mark
Simply put, I'm knocked out. In fact, I'm willing to say that the Olympus is basically the optical equal of the Leica, with minor differences along the way. Incredible. Here's a shakedown:
•Field of View: Tie (Leica 341'; Olympus 344').
• Sharpness: Tie. Both have nice, big sweet spots, too. I think Leica’s sweet spot is a little bigger, though I didn’t quantify it, but in actual use I don’t notice any difference..
•Eye Relief: Leica 16mm; Olympus 16.5mm. The Leica has more usable eye relief thanks to very shallow eyecups, but the Olympus has enough (and I do wear glasses). The Leica eyecups have two click-stop positions and are stiff enough to (more or less) hold intermediate positions if you need it. The Olympus cups have two click-stop positions but are loose in between.
•Exit pupil: Olympus is definitely less fiddly in this department. With glasses the Leica is a little ornery. I sort of bounce them around on the front of my glasses until the tiny exit pupils line up. My guess is it may be easier to use for those without glasses, but in any case Olympus wins here.
•Diopter: Leica is chic, and locking; Olympus conventional, on the right eyepiece, and on my sample at least it turns too easily. Readjustments ensue. Maybe just tape it.
•Color: Olympus is a little warmer, with a slight yellow tint that I’m not fond of. Leica wins here. Leica’s as natural as they come. Still, without A/Bing you might never notice.
•Brightness: Olympus has the advantage here. In daylight it’s not too noticeable, but in low light Olympus leads the tiny Leica, which just doesn’t hold up well in dim light.
•Contrast: Tie, with qualifications. In bright light Leica wins by a hair, but it seems to be dependent, to some extent, on what you're looking at. Backlighting seems to be a factor, with the Leica having a bit less internal flare (or whatever you might call it) so it “opens up” heavily backlit objects a little better. Better coatings maybe?. In even, frontal lighting it’s basically a tie. In low light conditions the Olympus is brighter and takes the lead in contrast as well.
•CA: Tie. They both have a little, but you have to push things well off axis to notice. (An aside here: while checking for CA I looked at a mourning dove dozing on a utility line. Pushed to the right side the dove’s sunlit forehead turned red; pushed to the left it turned green. I only noticed CA on edges before, but of course it must occur everywhere. Both bins were identical in this regard).
•Focus: Tie for speed (I only checked mid to long distances). Leica’s knob has a dry and notchy feel to it and often works best by pinching it between thumb and forefinger. Olympus has a bigger knob, silky smooth, easily one or two-fingered, but with (to my taste) a touch too little resistance. Both work just fine, however. I’m happy with either.
•Close focus: Leica wins by a foot. With my eyes, call it 6-7’ for Leica and 7-8’ for Olympus.
•Weight: Leica 8.5 oz; Olympus 9.9oz. Too little difference to really notice. In fact, the greater density of the little Leica is deceptive, and holding both you’d swear they weigh about the same.
•Size: the Leica is definitely smaller, but I haven’t warmed up to fiddling with double hinges every time it comes out of the case. For me at least, size differences here are less critical than weight, and that’s a wash. They both feel fine in hand, though of course quite different.
•Waterpoof: Leica is; Olympus isn't. You’ll have to weigh that one for yourself.
•Aesthetics: Leica is Sean Connery as James Bond: stealthy, suave, and quite possibly too cool for birders like us. Olympus is Arnold Schwarzenegger as . . . well, whatever it was Schwarzenegger played. It's plastic and flashy (it's painted silver for God's sake, with charcoal rubber swooshes!). It really doesn’t look bad, though, and I don’t think it will scare the birds much. It might even attract jays, crows, bowerbirds, etc. The strap is barely long enough for me, and will be too short for some—a silly mistake. The Olympus feels solid in the hand, though. Doesn’t feel cheap. It should hold up just fine.
•Price: Olympus $57-$80 (shop around). Leica $699 most places. Geez! A $642 difference?!?
Bottom line: The Olympus is a crazy value and optically a top-notch performer. A poor man’s Ultravid.. If I had had a pair in the store while looking at the Leica, I may well have saved my $600+ dollars. Switching between them, I generally can’t detect any meaningful difference. The view is that close. And for all-around use, I have a sinking feeling (Gulp: $642!) I might end up preferring the Olympus.
I bought the Olympus out of curiosity, and I thought if they were any good I’d forward them to my sister, who recently took an interest in birds when a family of green herons camped out in her yard all summer. Plans have changed. I’m keeping this pair and ordering a second pair for her. They are just too sweet.
Mark