Swarovski vs. Leica Compacts?

[eliaszuniga]

Greetings everyone. I've decided to get some compacts, of the 10X25 variety. I'm trying to decide between:

Swarovski Binoculars Pocket 10x25 B
and
Leica Binoculars Ultravid 10x25 BCR Black

These will be my main birding binoculars and plan to keep them around a LONG time. I have a HUGE Nikon Action Owl 7X50 right now that I'm tired of carrying around, (that my sister got me long before I started birdwatching) so I'm looking forward to a decent view in compacts. Recommendations or suggestions are appreciated. For what it's worth, I do wear glasses, but my vision is good enough so that I usually go without glasses. My budget will be $600.00, and unfortunately, I will also probably have to buy these by Internet, sight unseen.
Thanks for the suggestions.

[Steve Jones]

Greetings everyone. I've decided to get some compacts, of the 10X25 variety. I'm trying to decide between:

Swarovski Binoculars Pocket 10x25 B
and
Leica Binoculars Ultravid 10x25 BCR Black

These will be my main birding binoculars and plan to keep them around a LONG time. I have a HUGE Nikon Action Owl 7X50 right now that I'm tired of carrying around, (that my sister got me long before I started birdwatching) so I'm looking forward to a decent view in compacts. Recommendations or suggestions are appreciated. For what it's worth, I do wear glasses, but my vision is good enough so that I usually go without glasses. My budget will be $600.00, and unfortunately, I will also probably have to buy these by Internet, sight unseen.
Thanks for the suggestions.

Hi Elias,

Why compacts? If I were spending the amount that you have stated I'd be looking at something in the 8x32 Roof Prism stable, as that size tend to be quite compact and lightweight anyway. Not to mention the FOV being superior, the image brighter and just better for birding IMO. Plus lots of bins in this class are specs friendly too. I've got compacts for 'in the pocket' use, but would never want to be restricted to using them for 'proper' birding.

Doubtless some will dissagree (I know Scampo was singing the praises of compacts recently).

[Stewart J.]

Hi Elias,

You really need to try them, we have both the Swaro 8 x 20B (mine) and the Leica 8 x 20 (wifes) we both wear spectacles and I find the Leica much more comfortable on the eyes, better eye relief & wider field of view. So without a trial you could end up very disapointed I was after buying the Swaros unseen.

Stewart

[scampo]

Greetings everyone. I've decided to get some compacts, of the 10X25 variety. I'm trying to decide between:

Swarovski Binoculars Pocket 10x25 B
and
Leica Binoculars Ultravid 10x25 BCR Black

These will be my main birding binoculars and plan to keep them around a LONG time. I have a HUGE Nikon Action Owl 7X50 right now that I'm tired of carrying around, (that my sister got me long before I started birdwatching) so I'm looking forward to a decent view in compacts. Recommendations or suggestions are appreciated. For what it's worth, I do wear glasses, but my vision is good enough so that I usually go without glasses. My budget will be $600.00, and unfortunately, I will also probably have to buy these by Internet, sight unseen.
Thanks for the suggestions.We bought a pair of the new Leica Ultravid 10x25s recently after much reading and enquiring. My wife mainly uses them. I bought them partly owing to the incredibly positive comments on this forum and elsewhere. They are utterly outstanding - there's really no other word for them.

They are v-e-r-y bright - astonsihing really. I have Swaro 8.5ELs myself and, well, there's little to choose regarding optical quality. The 32mm suggested elsewhere in the thread are also a delight. My son has a pair of Nikon 10x32s and they are a super binocualr in every way. But... really, you should give the little Ultravids a try and be prepared to be delighted and surprised. You'll wonder, as I have, why people are spending many, many hundreds of pounds more for something far bulkier and far heavier.

[Forest Knights]

My wife has a pair of Leica compacts i bought her one christmas. i am still jealous. Great pair of bins. Good FOV clear image too.

I intend to buy myself a pair when i can afford it.

[Pileatus]

We bought a pair of the new Leica Ultravid 10x25s recently after much reading and enquiring. My wife mainly uses them. I bought them partly owing to the incredibly positive comments on this forum and elsewhere. They are utterly outstanding - there's really no other word for them.

They are v-e-r-y bright - astonsihing really. I have Swaro 8.5ELs myself and, well, there's little to choose regarding optical quality. The 32mm suggested elsewhere in the thread are also a delight. My son has a pair of Nikon 10x32s and they are a super binocualr in every way. But... really, you should give the little Ultravids a try and be prepared to be delighted and surprised. You'll wonder, as I have, why people are spending many, many hundreds of pounds more for something far bulkier and far heavier.


Steve,

Based on field of view alone I could not be happy with the Ultravid 10X25 for daily use. As a compact, I'd buy nothing else.

John

[scampo]

Steve,

Based on field of view alone I could not be happy with the Ultravid 10X25 for daily use. As a compact, I'd buy nothing else.

JohnI agree with you John, but I think the enquiry was for compacts? Having just come back from a pleasant walk using only the Ultravids and my Christmas present of the new Nikon ED50 fieldscope I can say that the combination of two compact pieces of kit is very useful indeed.

That said, I'm coming to the opinion that the best all round choice for a single pair of binoculars would be a 32mm pair of either 8x or 10x. Field of view is very important, as you say, but for a 10x binocular the Ultravids are hardly lacking in that quarter by any standards. The full size bins are easier and quicker to put to the eye, even if by a smidgeon, but that smidgeon counts for comfort and speed at times in the field. I think it depends on the reason why you're out: for birding full size kit every time, for walking compact kit every time.

The new Nikon scope, the ED50, really is very special though - I predict a great future for it once it becomes more easily available.

[eliaszuniga]

Thank you all for the helpful responses and suggestions so far. I realise I should better explain the use of a compact as a main bino. As I stated before, my current main binos are Nikon Owl II that weigh 32 ounces and are just way to heavy for me. When my brother and I go birding, I carry the 100mm Konus Scope (5 lbs!) and he carries a Digital Rebel for digiscoping. I find myself sometimes leaving the large binos at home, wishing for something smaller. As I've never had a decent pair of bins (the best views I've seen are from my brothers Nikon Sporters) I don't think I'd feel as if I'm missing something by not buying (bigger) binos that offer a better view for the buck.

Thanks again for all the suggestions.

[Nick Elliston]

I have been considering buying a decent pair of compacts for some time, and came down to exactly the same choice as "eliaszuniga". I don't want to lump around anything too bulky and really like both the Swarovski and Leica 8 × 20, but as I use binos for horseracing as well as birding I am prepared to sacrifice some FOV for magnification.

I tried both in a local optics shop and could not really detect any difference, but like the "feel" of the Ultravids a bit more and so will go with those.

Thanks for all the useful comments

[FrankD]

I would like to address an issue that has not really been touched upon in comparing a compact to a mid-sized bin....handling. In reference to this I am attempting to address both the ability to hold the binocular steady due to their extreme light weight and the user's actual hand position on the binoculars themselves.

Case in point, I recently bought a pair of Nikon 8x20 LXLs. Absolutely superb image. No complaints whatsoever in that department. However, because of my hand size I had a difficult time obtaining a comfortable hand position. Possibly because of which, and also probably because of their extreme light weight, I had a difficult time holding them anywhere near as steady as either my mid-size or full-sized bins. Now I do realize that the 10x version of most compact bins is a bit longer so hand placement is a bit easier but then one does usually have to deal with a more restricted field of view, slightly dimmer image and less depth of field (in many cases).

It is with these thoughts in mind that I am also suggesting an 8x30-32 mm glass as a full time bin. Some of them are as light as 16-18 ounces and almost as short in length as a set of compact bins. In the same approximate price range as the Zeiss and Nikon compacts would be the Pentax DCF-SP or XP in the 32-33 mm variety as well as the Wind River Katmai (new upgraded version has phase coating). In addition, if weight is the major issue then the Zeiss Conquest 8 or 10x30s should also be considered. They are a mid-sized glass that only weigh around 16 or 17 ounces and are priced still within your budget. All of the ones I mentioned (with possibly the exception of the Katmais) have offered me better handling than any of the roof prism compacts I have handled and yet they are still significantly lighter than those 30 ounce Nikons that you mentioned.

[Swissboy]

I would like to address an issue that has not really been touched upon in comparing a compact to a mid-sized bin....handling. In reference to this I am attempting to address both the ability to hold the binocular steady due to their extreme light weight and the user's actual hand position on the binoculars themselves.

Case in point, I recently bought a pair of Nikon 8x20 LXLs. Absolutely superb image. No complaints whatsoever in that department. However, because of my hand size I had a difficult time obtaining a comfortable hand position. Possibly because of which, and also probably because of their extreme light weight, I had a difficult time holding them anywhere near as steady as either my mid-size or full-sized bins. Now I do realize that the 10x version of most compact bins is a bit longer so hand placement is a bit easier but then one does usually have to deal with a more restricted field of view, slightly dimmer image and less depth of field (in many cases).

It is with these thoughts in mind that I am also suggesting an 8x30-32 mm glass as a full time bin.

I think it is precisely that issue of ergonomics in compacts that make the Ultravid 10x25 stand out. I have rather small hands (short fingers), and those Ultravids really excel in my case. In addition, the Ultravids have by far the most comfortable placement of the focus wheel.

[lucznik]

I would like to address an issue that has not really been touched upon in comparing a compact to a mid-sized bin....handling. In reference to this I am attempting to address both the ability to hold the binocular steady due to their extreme light weight and the user's actual hand position on the binoculars themselves.

Case in point, I recently bought a pair of Nikon 8x20 LXLs. Absolutely superb image. No complaints whatsoever in that department. However, because of my hand size I had a difficult time obtaining a comfortable hand position. Possibly because of which, and also probably because of their extreme light weight, I had a difficult time holding them anywhere near as steady as either my mid-size or full-sized bins. Now I do realize that the 10x version of most compact bins is a bit longer so hand placement is a bit easier but then one does usually have to deal with a more restricted field of view, slightly dimmer image and less depth of field (in many cases).

It is with these thoughts in mind that I am also suggesting an 8x30-32 mm glass as a full time bin. Some of them are as light as 16-18 ounces and almost as short in length as a set of compact bins. In the same approximate price range as the Zeiss and Nikon compacts would be the Pentax DCF-SP or XP in the 32-33 mm variety as well as the Wind River Katmai (new upgraded version has phase coating). In addition, if weight is the major issue then the Zeiss Conquest 8 or 10x30s should also be considered. They are a mid-sized glass that only weigh around 16 or 17 ounces and are priced still within your budget. All of the ones I mentioned (with possibly the exception of the Katmais) have offered me better handling than any of the roof prism compacts I have handled and yet they are still significantly lighter than those 30 ounce Nikons that you mentioned.


While I don't disagree with the validity of anything FrankD has said, I find personally that I am in a different place alltogether in relation to the question of compacts vs. mid-size. I don't feel that the mid-size binocular is sufficiently smaller than a full size to warrant the loss of image quality from its larger brethren. You basically have to treat them like a full size in relation to their portability. This is especially true if you are trying to carry other optical equipment like a spotting scope, camera, etc. Compacts on the other hand, are so much smaller that you can slip them in a shirt pocket and never know they are there. They can be carried all day, everyday, and everywhere without being in the way. This is in fact, exactly what I do. I never go anywhere without a compact binocular slipped into a pocket (unless I am carrying a full size glass.) I also have relatively small hands so I don't have trouble with the ergonomics of the compacts.

I realize that many people will disagree (perhaps even vehemently) with my opinion, but I for one cannot fathom a circumstance where a mid-size would be desirable. If I need optimal optical performance, I take my full size. If I need portability, I take a compact.

[FrankD]

I can definitely see the value of what both of you are saying. Individual physical dimensions play a tremendously large part in making a bin perfect for one person and difficult to manage for another. Admittedly, I have not tried the 10x25s Leicas so my comments in regard to compacts should exclude them. I would consider examining them further but from my current position in terms of binocular use I would have a hard time justifying a compact bin of that price. That is not a knock on the bins or anyone that uses them. Typically, I either have the opportunity to use a full or mid-sized bin or I am unable to bird at all.

I don't feel that the mid-size binocular is sufficiently smaller than a full size to warrant the loss of image quality from its larger brethren. You basically have to treat them like a full size in relation to their portability. This is especially true if you are trying to carry other optical equipment like a spotting scope, camera, etc.

I agree to an extent but then I would think that it would depend on the specific full and mid sized bins being compared. My full sized bins are Nikon Venturers while my mid-sized bins are Zeiss Conquests. Not much difference in overall size (in comparison to a compact) but a huge difference in weight. Yet, in terms of overall portability I would agree. My mid-sized bins take up close to as much space as my full sized model. However an extreme example to the contrary might be comparing something like the Zeiss FLs or Swaro Els to something like the WR Katmais or Pentax XPs. Huge difference there in size and somewhat in weight. In which case the point could be made that there definitely is a difference there in practical portability, almost to the point of compacts.

Again, I tend to agree as much as disagree with the previous statements. My point was more to play Devil's advocate rather than to offer true opposition to the value of compact bins.

[scampo]

I have been considering buying a decent pair of compacts for some time, and came down to exactly the same choice as "eliaszuniga". I don't want to lump around anything too bulky and really like both the Swarovski and Leica 8 × 20, but as I use binos for horseracing as well as birding I am prepared to sacrifice some FOV for magnification.

I tried both in a local optics shop and could not really detect any difference, but like the "feel" of the Ultravids a bit more and so will go with those.

Thanks for all the useful comments
The 10x25s are a better buy in my view - bright as heck and that bit more magnification; also just a bit chunkier to hold at the eye. The superb oversized Ultravid focusing wheel also swings in favour of Leica by a mile for me - they are a beauty to use. I think the Leica have the latest brightest coatings, too (an industry source tells me...).

[scampo]

I can definitely see the value of what both of you are saying. Individual physical dimensions play a tremendously large part in making a bin perfect for one person and difficult to manage for another. Admittedly, I have not tried the 10x25s Leicas so my comments in regard to compacts should exclude them. I would consider examining them further but from my current position in terms of binocular use I would have a hard time justifying a compact bin of that price. That is not a knock on the bins or anyone that uses them. Typically, I either have the opportunity to use a full or mid-sized bin or I am unable to bird at all.



I agree to an extent but then I would think that it would depend on the specific full and mid sized bins being compared. My full sized bins are Nikon Venturers while my mid-sized bins are Zeiss Conquests. Not much difference in overall size (in comparison to a compact) but a huge difference in weight. Yet, in terms of overall portability I would agree. My mid-sized bins take up close to as much space as my full sized model. However an extreme example to the contrary might be comparing something like the Zeiss FLs or Swaro Els to something like the WR Katmais or Pentax XPs. Huge difference there in size and somewhat in weight. In which case the point could be made that there definitely is a difference there in practical portability, almost to the point of compacts.

Again, I tend to agree as much as disagree with the previous statements. My point was more to play Devil's advocate rather than to offer true opposition to the value of compact bins.Anyone who suggests that, say, the 10x25 Ultravid offers a degraded image compared to full size bins is not talking from experience. These latest compacts are quite outstanding - I have met no one yet in the field who hasn't been impressed by how well they stand up next to my Swaro ELs.

If they are to be criticised it cannot be from an optical standpoint in my opinion but from one of personal taste and ergonomics.

[lucznik]

Anyone who suggests that, say, the 10x25 Ultravid offers a degraded image compared to full size bins is not talking from experience. These latest compacts are quite outstanding - I have met no one yet in the field who hasn't been impressed by how well they stand up next to my Swaro ELs.

If they are to be criticised it cannot be from an optical standpoint in my opinion but from one of personal taste and ergonomics.


I definately did not intend to infer that good compact binoculars are anything but astounding in their ability to perform optically. As I mentioned I always carry a compact binocular in my pocket. (Right now that is an 8X25 Pentax DCF MC II, though it will be upgraded (probably to a 10X Zeiss) as soon as I can scrape up enough $$$)

However, it is simply a matter of physics that a compact binocular cannot perform at the same level of a similar quality full size binocular. The small size limits exit pupil which restricts light, except in broad daylight conditions which serves to dim the available image. The smaller size requires greater precision in eye placement, which limits the "walk in" effect and tends to increase the level of eyestrain. Also the small objective lens limits the amount of resolution that the binocular is capable of providing.

I do not know how accurate this is as I am not an optical engineer or anything even remotely resembling one (those who know more than me please, weigh in here) but, I remember reading an article about calculating theoretical resolution in a magazine recently. (Sorry, I don't remember the publication's or author's name, I read FAR too many of them for my own good.) According to the notes I took, the author stated that you can can roughly calculate a figure representing an optic's theoretical resolution limit by dividing 114.3 by the Objective Lens diameter (smaller # = better resolution.)
60mm OL = 1.91
42mm OL = 2.72
40mm OL = 2.86
25mm OL = 4.57
Then to calculate the maximum magnification for a given objective lens diameter's resolving power you divide the OL by the above theoretical limit figure.
60mm/1.91 = 31.41X
42mm/2.72 = 15.44X
40mm/2.86 = 13.99
25mm/4.57 = 5.47X
The author then claimed that the human eye cannot distinguish the initial loss of resolution and inferred that you might get 1.5X the specific maximum resolution in an optic before this loss became apparent.
60mm OL w/ 31.41 max mag X 1.5 = 47.12X ("Coincidentally" this just happens to be right about where a lot of 60mm scopes top out for magnification)
42 mm OL w/ 15.44 max mag X 1.5 = 23.16X
40mm OL w/ 13.99 max mag X 1.5 = 20.99X (Again, "coincidentally" this just happens to be right about where my 10-20X40mm Leupold Gold Ring compact spotter tops out for magnification)
25mm OL w/ 5.47 max mag X 1.5 = 8.2X
Of course these figures would be maximum resolution values and do not take into account an optic's build quality, its type, number, and quality of lens coatings, or any other aspect affecting overall image quality so, they would have to be adjusted down as a specific model's quality contol levels decreased.

Let me reiterate that I don't know how exactingly accurate this information is and I don't want to be seen as trying to seem more intelligent or knowledgeable than I really am. I just thought the article was interesting and so, I took reasonably careful notes on the information as it seemed to quantify what I have always been taught to be true about a small OL's limitations in terms of resolving power.

[scampo]

Thanks for posting that - it's good to read such interesting comment and objective data. That said, the Ultravid 10x25 must be a very good compromise then as they do indeed offer a not far from "walk-in" view - one in which eye placement is less than critical. Well done Leica, I say. Anyone that has not tried the 25mm objective really should before leaping to conclusions that may have been valid years ago but are no longer.

Regarding brightness and sharpness, I think that in actual use in the field the eye must be unable to discern what the physics suggests it might - what else would account for the Ultravid all but equalling the much larger Swaro? Even into dusk the Ultravid offers a bright clear view.

When we bought the binoculars we were astounded by what they offer - and at a quarter the price of the Swaro, which I rate very highly indeed. In everyday use, the Swaro is somewhat easier and quicker to lift to the eye and use, it would be silly to suggest it isn't. But at what cost? Not only financial but in sheer bulk and weight. For any kind of lengthy walk, I have to say that the 10x compacts have been worth their weight in gold and now, joined by my Christmas present of the new baby ED50 Nikon fieldscope, I think we can get a bit more exercise and still enjoy our hobby!

[FrankD]

Anyone who suggests that, say, the 10x25 Ultravid offers a degraded image compared to full size bins is not talking from experience. These latest compacts are quite outstanding - I have met no one yet in the field who hasn't been impressed by how well they stand up next to my Swaro ELs.


Steve,

I take it that you were referring to my comments since it was my quote that you copied and pasted. If you read back through the first few sentences that were quoted I specifically stated that I had not tried the 10x25 Leicas so my comments regarding compact bins should be taken with that thought in mind.

If they are to be criticised it cannot be from an optical standpoint in my opinion but from one of personal taste and ergonomics.


Exactly what I was stating with my comments on the compact LXL. Optically the high end compacts are superb but I find difficulty using them because of their overall small size.

[scampo]

Steve,

I take it that you were referring to my comments since it was my quote that you copied and pasted. If you read back through the first few sentences that were quoted I specifically stated that I had not tried the 10x25 Leicas so my comments regarding compact bins should be taken with that thought in mind.



Exactly what I was stating with my comments on the compact LXL. Optically the high end compacts are superb but I find difficulty using them because of their overall small size.Sorry to cause confusion, Frank - I was replying to two emails in the thread if I recall but clicked on "Reply" to yours.

I've just been using the 10x25 Ultravids and can confirm they are very easy to use quickly - what I thought was a hawk landed in a garden tree a few moments ago was quickly sorted with the Ultravids which are so easy to leave to hand in a drawer or pocket. I think the 10x25 compacts have an important edge over, say, the 8x20 designs in terms of brightness and definition along with being just that bit larger and so, for me, more comfortable in the hand. Specific to the Leica, and very importantly, we have a superbly designed focusing knob which shows careful thought during the product's design stages.

[eliaszuniga]

Thanks all for the informative discussion! I have learned alot from your suggestions (as has Nick Elliston, I'm sure). I am now leaning towards the ultravid 10X25's.....
Best Regards
Elias Zuniga