Nikon vs Leica

[hawkeye_oo]

If you had to choose between the Leica Trinovid 8 X 32 BN and the Nikon 8 X 32 SE which would you recommend ? (also taking into consideration that the Leica would cost me almost 40% more but can be afforded)

[pduxon]

If you had to choose between the Leica Trinovid 8 X 32 BN and the Nikon 8 X 32 SE which would you recommend ? (also taking into consideration that the Leica would cost me almost 40% more but can be afforded)

Nikon HG8x32!!

Seriously you need to compare them. As well as the two you mention you should look at the HG8x32 and the Swaro EL8x32.

oh and welcome to the forum

[Grousemore]

Welcome to Birdforum from the Moderators and Admin Staff,Hawkeye...always nice to have new Members from India.
I'm sure you'll get plenty of opinions on your question,but have you tried them both yourself,which is really the best way to choose binoculars?

[Pinewood]

If you had to choose between the Leica Trinovid 8 X 32 BN and the Nikon 8 X 32 SE which would you recommend ? (also taking into consideration that the Leica would cost me almost 40% more but can be afforded)

Dear Hawkeye,

I have both and I am unhappy with the Nikon SE. It has a narrower field, but I find it prone to blackouts. Wearers of spectacles and some others share this problem. I have to hold it in a peculiar fashion to avoid the blackouts. There is a thread on this subject. Search "Nikon blackouts," to find out ways of minimising the problem. The watertight integrity of the Leica is another point in its favour.
I recommend that you try both before purchasing as binoculars are rather personal items and my needs may not match yours.

Happy birding,
Arthur Pinewood

[Jane Turner]

I am a huge fan of Leica and their optical quality. Nikons are great... but I can still see the difference.

[Leif]

If you had to choose between the Leica Trinovid 8 X 32 BN and the Nikon 8 X 32 SE which would you recommend ? (also taking into consideration that the Leica would cost me almost 40% more but can be afforded)

The Nikon does have noticeably better optics IMO and hence for me it wins the competition. BUT your needs might well be quite different from mine. If you are likely to inadvertently take it for a swim, then the Leica wins hands down. The Leica is more compact, and this might be an issue if you are likely to do lots of hiking. For insects the Nikon is not quite so good as it can be hard to focus on nearby objects due to the distance between the objectives. And as others have mentioned, some people have trouble with blackouts. I don't except when viewing the night sky.

However, why not also consider the Nikon 8x32 HG. In the UK it is cheaper than the Leica, and IMO it has better optics: brighter image, less edge distortion, less vignetting. And it is warterproof, compact and as far as I can tell as well made as the Leica, though it is a bit heavier.

[mpedris]

The Nikon 8x32 SE has the most Natural image I have ever seen! It's really unbelievable. Proper handling of the bins can drastically reduce blackouts, if not eliminate them. Good Luck with your search.

BTW, you're in my "Neighbourhood"

[Pinewood]

If you are likely to inadvertently take it for a swim, then the Leica wins hands down.

Leif,

Actually, watertight integrity is good for more than an occasional swim: it might be just the ticket for monsoons, swamps and jungles. I have had difficulties with fungus in optics, without ever visiting the tropics. Did you ever come in from the freezing cold and have your binoculars or specs fog?
What might be going on inside the binocular?

I was very fortunate in purchasing my 8x32 BN. It was a clearance of a model in red, which Leica test marketed and then dropped.

Happy birding,
Arthur Pinewood

[Leif]

Leif,

Actually, watertight integrity is good for more than an occasional swim: it might be just the ticket for monsoons, swamps and jungles. I have had difficulties with fungus in optics, without ever visiting the tropics. Did you ever come in from the freezing cold and have your binoculars or specs fog?
What might be going on inside the binocular?

I was very fortunate in purchasing my 8x32 BN. It was a clearance of a model in red, which Leica test marketed and then dropped.

Happy birding,
Arthur Pinewood

Hi Arthur: I agree with you regarding waterproofing being good in case of monsoons and so on, and indeed that is what I meant by taking it for a swim. (I was talking figuratively, or whatever the correct word is.)

However I am of the opinion that the view through the Nikon 8x32 SE is so superior to any other glass (except perhaps the new waterproof Zeiss FL), that I am willing to enjoy it knowing that I have to take a little bit of care with it. Quite a few people on this forum use the SE and do not report problems with water ingress and fogging. In fact the general opinion seems to be that they are rather tough, as long as you do not immerse them, or expose them to direct heavy rain. Of course others might disagree.

The new Zeiss FL seem to offer a similar quality of view but in a watertight package. Interestingly when I recently tried them, it was raining, and at one point the rain was quite heavy. I was impressed that I could use the binocular without any fear of damage. (I suspect the Zeiss representative had contacts in high places, and had pre-arranged some moisture, since that is clearly one of their selling points.)

Leif

[henry link]

I agree with Leif that there is really no contest between the Nikon 8X32 SE and the Leica 8X32 BN optically.The Nikon is better in every category of optical quality (brightness, contrast, sharpness, etc.) The old Trinovid Ultras are now really a generation behind the best current roof prism bins and probably two generations behind the new Zeiss FL's, if the reactions of those (like Leif) lucky enough to have seen the FL's are accurate. Besides isn't there supposed to be a 8X32 Ultravid in the works sometime soon?

[Vectis Birder]

Leica. Without a doubt. I have owned a pair of Nikons (admittedly not the ones mentioned above), and while they were good, they weren't a patch on my Leicas.

[mpedris]

...(admittedly not the ones mentioned above)...
Probably the most likely reason for your Leica preference.

[Vectis Birder]

No, not really. I have also tried the Swarovski ones that are supposed to be the dog's bits (and are pretty damn good, I'll admit), but I still prefer the Leicas to anything else. As for Nikon "blackouts" mentioned by Pinewood, that is also a feature of Leica BN's, and is mildly irritating. However, binocular choice, like anything else comes down to personal preference in the end.

[Atomic Chicken]

Greetings!

While it is true that the Leica Ultravids are a bit better than the Trinovids in terms of image quality, the Nikon 8X32 HG really does have a better quality image than both of them. When I did my recent binocular comparison to buy the best 8X32 binoculars I could find, I narrowed down my list to 3 final "contenders":

Swarovski EL 8X32
Leica Trinovid 8X32 (because an Ultravid in an 8X32 doesn't yet exist)
Nikon HG 8X32.

While I liked a lot of things about the Leica Trinovid, overall it had the poorest image quality of the 3. I really like the casing of the Liecas, if I was buying a pair of binoculars based purely on ruggedness and looks, I'd probably go for the Leica. The Trinovid 8X32 is one SOLID piece of equipment, and felt quite nice in the hands. Rather light in weight too, but not that much different from the EL's (I think there is only 1 or 2 ounces difference, the EL is the lighter of the two). The Nikon was the heaviest of the three, but in terms of ergonomics it completely wins - it just feels GREAT to hold.

Focus control on the Swarovski really turned me off. I like the focus mechanism of both the Leica and the Nikon better... with the Nikon seeming to be the most responsive and "natural" of the three.

If I were to rate these, here is what I would say:

Image Quality
#1 - Tie: Nikon HG and Swarovski EL, Swarovski slightly brighter - Nikon slightly more accurate
#2 - Leica Trinovid
#3 - N/A

Ergonomics
#1 - Nikon HG
#2 - Leica Trinovid
#3 - Swarovski EL (Like I said, the focus control REALLY turned me off)

Weight
#1 - Swarovski EL
#2 - Leica Trinovid
#3 - Nikon HG

Ruggedness
#1 - Leica Trinovid
#2 - Nikon HG
#3 - Swarovski EL

Overall
#1 - Nikon HG
#2 - Tie: Leica Trinovid and Swarovski EL (this would be a VERY hard decision to make - I'd probably be inclined to go with the Leica because of ruggedness and nicer focus, but the Swarovskis image is SO nice... Very hard decision.)
#3 - N/A

In the end, I purchased the 8X32 HG's - I really do feel that they are the best 8X32 roof prism waterproof glass available, in terms of overall image quality, ergonomics, and cost (although cost was NEVER a consideration in my selection, I had the cash and didn't care how much it cost - I just wanted the best 8X32 glass I could buy).

I don't know if any of this rambling helps, I'm just sharing my impressions and the results of my testing in hopes they might be of use to you.

Best wishes,
Bawko

[Tim Allwood]

sorry if this rehashes anything above - not got time to read everything!

optically you'll be more than pleased with both. Both are excellent and to pick one is splitting hairs.

main concern would be how they'll stand up to hard birding (eg desert or rainforest or high up in mountains)....Leica has a good track record here, I don't know about the Nikons.

Many well-travelled birders have used Leicas - several have bubbled rubber covering due to rainforest heat but are optically fine. At the top end there really is little to pick. I used 7x 42 Zeiss for years due to engineering quality and they never let me down once in over 3 years of rainforest birding. Now got Nikons and they're holding up too. Only horror story i know of is with Swarovskis

[Vectis Birder]

What's the horror story then, Tim?

[Tim Allwood]

Hi Faith

my mate's had three pairs mist up in Peru.

[hinnark]

Besides isn't there supposed to be a 8X32 Ultravid in the works sometime soon?

Hi Henry,

AFAIK Leica is going to introduce new Ultravid x32s (8x20 and 10x25 too?) at the photokina in Cologne 28.9.-03.10. this year.
http://www.koelnmesse.de/wEnglisch/photokina/index.htm
BTW I asked Zeiss if we are going to see a Victory FL 32 line in the future but they didn´t want to tell me. : (

I had also some problems with blackouts within the SE line of Nikon. The reason for that seems to be that I´m wearing glasses and the SE eyerelief (17,4 mm) doesn´t match my individual eyerelief of about 15-16 mm. If you don´t wear glasses this shouldn´t be such a problem. With my sunglasses I didn´t have any problems with the SE. So these kind of things are also a matter of the model of glasses somebody uses. I ask myself why Nikon uses such old fashioned eyecups which aren´t adaptable to the user´s need of eyerelief. But the Leica Trinovid has only 2 positions to use too.

Let´s take a look at the accessories list. I always loved the holster for wearing at the belt Leica provides for their 32 Trinovids, a gift for the birder´s neck.

In my testings Nikons 8x32 SE and HG were on par. The SE is slightly brighter. BTW with the 10x42 HG I saw more resolution power at higher distances than with the 10x42 SE.

Under humid conditions I would always go for a real waterproof binocular such as Leica Trinovid (Ultravid?), Nikon HG or Swarovski EL (if you want to pay the extra money). So as others said: try and compare these three before buy one.

Steve






:C

[Vectis Birder]

Hi Faith

my mate's had three pairs mist up in Peru.

Internally I take it? Not good.

[Tim Allwood]

yes internally

and yes not good!

an one replacement pair had a moving lens!

[Vectis Birder]

an one replacement pair had a moving lens!

:eek!:

I am glad I went for the Leicas then.

Does your mate still use Swarovskis? I'd assume he'd have started using another brand after all that grief.

That does surprise me, given the cost and otherwise good reputation of Swarovski.

[mpedris]

...BTW with the 10x42 HG I saw more resolution power at higher distances than with the 10x42 SE...
Steve
Steve,

Would you say that the 10x42 HG had more CA than the SE counterpart?

[hinnark]

Steve,

Would you say that the 10x42 HG had more CA than the SE counterpart?

No, I didn´t noticed that. In color correction I saw them on the same level.

Steve

[Leif]

No, I didn´t noticed that. In color correction I saw them on the same level.

Steve

In my experience the 8x42 HG has significantly more CA than the 8x32 SE and I found it irritating. However, I know of many people who claim not to see it. Correct alignment of the optical assemblies helps to reduce it in my experience.

I've never used the 10x42 SE so can only speculate. I would expect more in the 10x42 SE than the 8x32 SE due to the larger diameter objectives with presumably same F ratio. IIRC CA goes up as you reduce the F ratio and/or increase the objective diameter.

[hawkeye_oo]

Thanks everyone for your advice and comments ... on the forum and via private email. It is a tough decision to make considering that i have no means of actually trying out the binoculars prior to purchasing ! The dealers here dont stock the high end products and will get them only if ordered and paid for in advance. Going through the various posts on the forum I am veering towards the Nikon 8X32 SE and its cult status ... easier on the pocket also. I have used a pair of japanese Kalimars 8X30 (has anyone heard of them ? ) for over 40 years which have now lost much of the lens coating and shows all kinds of specks and lint over its internals ... no fungus growth though. The image has dimmed no doubt ... or is it my eyes ?!! What I am getting at is that if the japanese could prevent fungus for 40 years with the technology available then, I am sure Nikon could do it today plus keep the lint and specks out ... weatherproofing or no weatherproofing.

[henry link]

Hi Henry,

AFAIK Leica is going to introduce new Ultravid x32s (8x20 and 10x25 too?) at the photokina in Cologne 28.9.-03.10. this year.
http://www.koelnmesse.de/wEnglisch/photokina/index.htm
BTW I asked Zeiss if we are going to see a Victory FL 32 line in the future but they didn´t want to tell me. : (:C

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the information. I tried a search on the photokina site, but couldn't find anything about the new Ultravid X32s. Will they be available in leather as well as rubber armour?

I have my doubts about 32mm FL's. It would be a tight squeeze for Zeiss to fit an AK prism of the required size into a 32mm bin, especially with an internal focusing element. They have never tried to use use AKs in such small binoculars before. If they switched to Pechan prisms for the 32mm size then the extra brightness and contrast they've gained from using AKs in the 42mm's would be lost.

Henry

[Leif]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the information. I tried a search on the photokina site, but couldn't find anything about the new Ultravid X32s. Will they be available in leather as well as rubber armour?

I have my doubts about 32mm FL's. It would be a tight squeeze for Zeiss to fit an AK prism of the required size into a 32mm bin, especially with an internal focusing element. They have never tried to use use AKs in such small binoculars before. If they switched to Pechan prisms for the 32mm size then the extra brightness and contrast they've gained from using AKs in the 42mm's would be lost.

Henry

I also doubt an 8x32 FL will appear. As you know the Zeiss 8x30 BGAT (and the 8x20 Classic) use Schmidt Pechan prisms and so they must have a good reason for not using AK prisms for higher transmission. The only reason I can see is size. I do wonder why Zeiss alone AFAIK have gone with AK prisms. Perhaps their fabrication is tricky?

Another reason not to develop an 8x32 FL or similar is that for most people the 8x42 FL is so light that the 8x30 would have low sales.

There used to be a French site detailing the 8x32 Ultravid. Basically the same spec. as the 8x32 BN.

[henry link]

Leif, I'd be willing to bet that if the FL's are a big success the next generation of Leicas and Swarovskis will have to use AK prisms. Dielectric coatings have taken Schmidt-Pechans about as far as they can go, but they'll never have the light transmission of porros or AKs.

I'm afraid the next Nikon RPs are coming too soon and are likely to be a "catch-up" design to the Ultravid and EL, with dielectric coatings on Schmidt-Pechans. If Nikon have something really innovative coming they should get the word out before everyone in the market for a high priced binocular buys a pair of Zeiss FL's.

[Hermann]

I also doubt an 8x32 FL will appear. As you know the Zeiss 8x30 BGAT (and the 8x20 Classic) use Schmidt Pechan prisms and so they must have a good reason for not using AK prisms for higher transmission. The only reason I can see is size. I do wonder why Zeiss alone AFAIK have gone with AK prisms. Perhaps their fabrication is tricky?

Another reason not to develop an 8x32 FL or similar is that for most people the 8x42 FL is so light that the 8x30 would have low sales.

I'm not sure about that. Last autumn I casually mentioned to a Zeiss representative that the 8x30BGATP was somewhat outdated (it's a construction dating back over 30 years). The reply was something like "Yes, we know that we will have to do something about the 8x30's". He wouldn't say any more, so we'll just have to wait and see.

The reason why the the 8x30BGATP uses Schmidt Pechan prisms ... well, at the time the 8x30 came on the market Zeiss used Schmidt Pechan prisms in all roofs it made, with two exceptions, the 7x42's and the 8x56's. They always had Abbe-König prisms.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Abbe-König prisms have even smaller tolerances than Schmidt Pechan prisms, and the binoculars are larger. That explains IMO why the other manufacturers went for Schmidt Pechan prisms. Making a pair of binoculars as compact as possible has for a long time been high on the list of priorities, simply because most users prefer smallish binoculars. That was the main reason why Zeiss and Leitz replaced their (good) porros with roofs at a time when *no* roof came anywhere close to a half-way decent porro.

A modern 8x30 or 8x32 would be be somewhat longer than a model that has Schmidt Pechan prisms, but it would still be lighter in weight and shorter than an 8x42, so I'm quite sure there would be a market for an 8x30 or 8x32 FL.

Hermann

[hinnark]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the information. I tried a search on the photokina site, but couldn't find anything about the new Ultravid X32s. Will they be available in leather as well as rubber armour?

I have my doubts about 32mm FL's. It would be a tight squeeze for Zeiss to fit an AK prism of the required size into a 32mm bin, especially with an internal focusing element. They have never tried to use use AKs in such small binoculars before. If they switched to Pechan prisms for the 32mm size then the extra brightness and contrast they've gained from using AKs in the 42mm's would be lost.

Henry

Hi Henry,

I gave the link of photokina only for general information of this photo exhibition. There is nothing special about Leica unfortunately on thi site. I also don´t know if there will be a leather as well as a rubber armour version.

Steve

[hinnark]

Another reason not to develop an 8x32 FL or similar is that for most people the 8x42 FL is so light that the 8x30 would have low sales.



Leif,

this not really an argument. 42s of Swarovski and Leica Ultravid have similar weight as Zeiss Victory FL and they developed 8x32 and 10x32 versions nevertheless. I dare say the future of birding is in 32 binoculars.

Steve

[Pinewood]

Leif,

this not really an argument. 42s of Swarovski and Leica Ultravid have similar weight as Zeiss Victory FL and they developed 8x32 and 10x32 versions nevertheless. I dare say the future of birding is in 32 binoculars.

Steve

Steve,

I believe that the problem is that to make proper use of Abbe-Koenig (AK) prisms there are minimum limiting factors of focal length and possibly of objective diameter. That is why the Zeiss 8x42 and 8x56 were so long and perhaps 40mm, as in the Victory was the minimum objective size. There is no question that AK prisms deliver more light than the Pechan arrangement.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[Hermann]

I believe that the problem is that to make proper use of Abbe-Koenig (AK) prisms there are minimum limiting factors of focal length and possibly of objective diameter. That is why the Zeiss 8x42 and 8x56 were so long and perhaps 40mm, as in the Victory was the minimum objective size.

Not really. Hensoldt made roof prism binoculars with Abbe-König prisms with small objective lenses for a very long time. There was for instance a 6x26 (in 1920) and many others. I had a chance to play around with an 8x30 Dialyt made in the 1950's, and even though it was clearly nowwhere near the performance of modern roofs, it was still a decent pair.

Hermann

[Pinewood]

Not really. Hensoldt made roof prism binoculars with Abbe-König prisms with small objective lenses for a very long time. There was for instance a 6x26 (in 1920) and many others. I had a chance to play around with an 8x30 Dialyt made in the 1950's, and even though it was clearly nowwhere near the performance of modern roofs, it was still a decent pair.

Hermann

Hermann,

How about focal length?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[elkcub]

Leif,

I was very fortunate in purchasing my 8x32 BN. It was a clearance of a model in red, which Leica test marketed and then dropped.

Happy birding,
Arthur Pinewood

Arthur,
I just bought a new Red Leica 8x32 BN at a great price. Couldn't resist it. I'm delighted to discover another "red" user to share the social experience with (if you still own yours). From what I understand there were only 1000 produced, although I distincly recall the BA was made in red a few years ago. Let me know what kind of he-haws to expect please. B (:
elkcub