Do you ignore Leica ? (1 Viewer)

breydon said:

Yes my friend. The search is over :t:

Click to expand...

Yes it is, but the searching is 99% of the fun!!! It was great to have an excuse to try out all the other binoculars though.

I'll be honest, it was a very close between the Ultravid and the Swarovision for me. The views through both are simply amazing to me- I have an exceedingly hard time with binoculars at times due to my glasses and astigmatism, and both brands had a nice, easy view. No struggles with sweet spots, etc... I really, really, really love the Swarovski 8.5x42. But the Leica size, not to mention the colors and brightness, really sold me.

The funny thing is- I never considered Leica when I first started birding. But after using the Zen-Ray 7x43 for a few years, 7x42 was on the top of my list. Leica makes them, the others don't (SLC being the exception), so it was kind of given that I would try them out.

I gave the Zeiss SF 8x42 and 10x42 a try. I wanted to like them, I really, really did. I spent more time trying out Zeiss glass than any others. I thought something must be wrong with my eyes, because I wasn't experiencing the clarity and brightness that people described. And I found myself constantly fiddling around with the diopter adjustment. In the end, I just couldn't get the binocular sweet spot lined up with my glasses sweet spot to get a good view. So the left side would have a nice view, but the right was always just a bit fuzzy, or dark, or askew. Perhaps I'd get used to it. However, my first test for 'my binoculars' is, can I put it up to my face and see? Meaning, once I dial in the diopter, do they simply work? If not, then they aren't for me. Despite trying to get the Zeiss dialed in, they just didn't pass the 'toss them up to my face' test.

The Swarovision definitely passes the toss them up to my face test, by the way.

The Leicas, well, they definitely passed the test. Actually, all the Ultravids did for me, which is odd given the short eye relief. However, the 7x42 was the only model with that 'magical' view. The 8x50 was nice, but big. 10x42 was too shaky. I'm not giving up coffee.

In the end, I do a lot of my birding in the city and around parks during the school year. Having some binoculars that I can carry incognito is actually a consideration- I know from experience that I get a lot of skeptical looks walking around Berlin with binoculars hanging around my neck. People think I'm either a tourist or the NSA. Regardless, Berlin is a great place to see Kestrels and Goshawks. Yep, Goshawks nest in Berlin- we have a lot of parks. No, I don't go anywhere near the nests, I don't have a death wish.

Hi xbted52,

Nikon also has a 7x42 EDG. It has eye relief of 22.1mm and a FOV of 8º. It weighs 27.7 ounces. Swarovski's 7x42 Neu SLC B has been discontinued.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/....html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs

I think you will be very pleased with your choice!

I have the earlier Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN (often called "The Brick") which was replaced by the Ultravid in 2004. It is still an excellent binocular if you have no problems with CA but it is heavier because of its aluminum rather than magnesium frame. It has the same ER and FOV as the Ultravid.

Bob

xbted52 I also have a pair of Swarovski 8.5 x 42s the original older model easy on the eye and a lovely binocular. Have not looked through the new model. the price is to frightening there would be trouble if I spent that kind of money on binoculars the leica's 7x42s I have cost £750 second hand

Hermann said:

Interesting. Here we have a poster who's got a total of 4 postings and who uses the nick "Swarovski man". That poster uses his third (or fourth) posting to attack one of the major competitors of Swarovski.

Great stuff.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Indeed. In addition to the above, from a sample of 1 he disparages a brand. Imagine if we all did this?

fazalmajid said:

Rockwell is a troll who will make outlandish claims to drive affiliate marketing commissions from Adorama (well in the 6 figures). There's nothing wrong with the M9 or M240 colors (the M8, on the other hand, was a disaster due to IR sensitivity, specially with synthetic fabrics).

Click to expand...

Rockwell is a hack IMO. He often draws hard and fast conclusions mostly based on his ignorance. His photographic "expertise" seems to be mediocre snapshots of his family and often reveals his lack of complete understanding of the equipment he is "reviewing".

I hate to say it, but I ended up not buying the Ultravids. I went to the store today; they got them in stock and I could try out the HD plus. I start out by stating that the Leicas are lovely binoculars, and the view is everything that I could want. They are everything that I could personally want in binoculars.

But... I took my Zen-Rays along with me this time. Of course the Leicas were better in that the view seemed wider, and the binoculars were lighter and smaller. But I realized, my Zen-Rays are actually quite close in terms of image quality to the Leicas, at least to my eyes. In the limited amount of testing that I was able to do down a side street in Berlin, the Zen Rays were very close to the Leica in terms of color and brightness. They were close enough that I just could not justify spending nearly 2000 Euros on the Leicas. When my Zen-Rays finally bite the dust, I'll look at Leica again. But today just wasn't the day.

Let me just say though, if someone gave me 2000 euros to spend on binoculars, the 7x42 Ultravids would be what I'd get.

A nice big relaxing view

I have no particular brand bias (I do have a few old Leitz which I love) but I do really enjoy getting out the last of the Zeiss 7x42 bgatp Dialyt. Just sooo easy and relaxing on the eye and a rich enjoyable view.

It has me wondering about the 7x42 Ultravids, obviously without leaded glass. I note that their apfov is a few deg less than the zeiss, so it loses out here slightly.

I don't use this specification of glass for technical viewing, but for the relaxing and immersing joy of it all. How does the latest Leica 7x42 compare to that Classic zeiss in this regard?

Ps. Like I said, I'm referring to a big satisfying and enjoyable easy relaxing view...not splitting double stars at the edge etc or reading resolution charts.

Cheers
Rathaus

Leica 7x42HD+ vs. Zeiss 7x42B/GAT

Rathaus said:

How does the latest Leica 7x42 compare to that Classic zeiss in this regard?

Click to expand...

A late-model Zeiss 7x42B/GAT had been my favorite do-everything glass for quite a while. Very recently I spent some quality time comparing it to a 7x42HD+ and I discovered the Leica could pull more detail out of the shadows, even against the light. The view through the Leica, though it felt different from the Zeiss, was still quite easy and relaxed. I kept the Zeiss because it's an old friend, but I bought the Leica on the spot. I had a non-HD Ultravid 7x42 and liked it a lot, but it couldn't beat the Zeiss; but the HD+ did the trick. Really a superb 7x42, in my opinion.

I`v just asked SWoptics to supply me a pair (7x42 HD+), I was so close to buying a pair earlier this year when I chickened out and plumped for the 8x32 SV thinking it would be a more rounded choice. However the poor handling of stray light and veiling glare have chipped away at my admiration of the Swaro.

Torview said:

I`v just asked SWoptics to supply me a pair (7x42 HD+), I was so close to buying a pair earlier this year when I chickened out and plumped for the 8x32 SV thinking it would be a more rounded choice. However the poor handling of stray light and veiling glare have chipped away at my admiration of the Swaro.

Click to expand...

... then let´s hope your admiration for the Ultravid Plus will not vanish once you see flare suppression in the Nikon EDG - at least the 8x42 EDG is phenomenal and beats all competitors by a safe margin in that respect.

Tobias Mennle said:

... then let´s hope your admiration for the Ultravid Plus will not vanish once you see flare suppression in the Nikon EDG - at least the 8x42 EDG is phenomenal and beats all competitors by a safe margin in that respect.

Click to expand...

I know the 8x42EDG, a wonderful instrument, but I`v never been able to try the 7x42, I know some fans on here have declared it possibly the finest 7x42 made, but that was before the UV was updated to plus spec.

Yes, I always ignored Leica...until I discovered Leitz :t:

I love Leica. I've spent enough money on their cameras and lenses to prove it, too. So much that I can't afford their binoculars. My maximum (with one proviso I'm still working on) cuts in way before their minimum in terms of binoculars. Lenses, too, really - though I've been able to track down some bargains. I've even been able to be clever about Leica film cameras. But there's that one digital camera...

...Mike

My 10x32 Ultravid with the leather strap that came with my Silverline, and soft leather case that came with my old 8x32 Trinovid, is the perfect travel binocular. I don't think it's possible to pack more optical performance into that small a package, unless Leica comes out with a leather version of the 32 HD. If I could only have one binocular, that would be the one I would choose. BTW, the leather case has formed into a glove for the binocular, even contouring itself to the focus knob. Not bad for a leather case that's almost 20 years old.

That soft leather case came with my 7x42 Trinovid BN. I've kept it in good shape with regular applications of a good leather paste. The case is a bit too large for my 8x42 Ultravid Blackline.

Bob

ceasar said:

That soft leather case came with my 7x42 Trinovid BN. I've kept it in good shape with regular applications of a good leather paste. The case is a bit too large for my 8x42 Ultravid Blackline.

Bob

Click to expand...

That's good to know. Now I don't feel so bad about including the soft leather case that came with my 8x42 Trinovid when I sold it.

Torview said:

I know the 8x42EDG, a wonderful instrument, but I`v never been able to try the 7x42, I know some fans on here have declared it possibly the finest 7x42 made, but that was before the UV was updated to plus spec.

Click to expand...

yeah, you´re right, I have only compared the 8x42 models, but the Ultravid is the finest for my taste, too. If Nikon only showed some ambition to upgrade their line, both the EDG and E2 sadly and clearly lack the beautiful sparkle of their high transmission competitors (Ultravid, HT, Habicht). It´s really bad because the EDG is such a flawless design otherwise, outperforming the others in most aspects.

mfunnell said:

I love Leica. I've spent enough money on their cameras and lenses to prove it, too. So much that I can't afford their binoculars. My maximum (with one proviso I'm still working on) cuts in way before their minimum in terms of binoculars. Lenses, too, really - though I've been able to track down some bargains. I've even been able to be clever about Leica film cameras. But there's that one digital camera...

...Mike

Click to expand...

Mike, why not put your Leica lenses on a Sony (until Canon delivers in mirrorless) and invest the difference into an Ultravid

Tobias Mennle said:

yeah, you´re right, I have only compared the 8x42 models, but the Ultravid is the finest for my taste, too. If Nikon only showed some ambition to upgrade their line, both the EDG and E2 sadly and clearly lack the beautiful sparkle of their high transmission competitors (Ultravid, HT, Habicht). It´s really bad because the EDG is such a flawless design otherwise, outperforming the others in most aspects.

Click to expand...

Nikon has always made their binoculars to have their highest transmission in the Red end of the spectrum. I rather like them that way.:t:

Bob

Tobias Mennle said:

Mike, why not put your Leica lenses on a Sony (until Canon delivers in mirrorless) and invest the difference into an Ultravid

Click to expand...

Because it would be sacrilege! Well, not really: I'm happy enough using them on a Konica Hexar RF. It's more that (a) I often prefer rangefinders for some types of photography; (b) I really can't get on with electronic viewfinders; and (c) I really, really, like my M type 240 :flowers:

...Mike

oetzi said:

Leica first and foremost earns their money by selling very succeful last decades digital cameras for ridiculos money.

Whether or not binoculars amount for anything at Leica, I dont know. But which of the other great Alpha makers would ignore the Perger prisma the way Leica does?

Click to expand...

The last time I googled Leica was third behind Swaro and Zeiss in the premium sports optics segment, and no matter what the exact number, it is still a lot of money that amounts to something.

The Perger prism will deviate from Leica´s philosophy to build compact premium binoculars. Sure, I would love to have the option of a perger, too, but then, the latest Ultravid is so good and so bright, so what will be the improvement... More 3D, but that needs wider spaced objectives, so less compact designs, who will care about it apart from you, me, Holger and a couple of other guys...

The closer I look, the more the 8x42 Ultravid impresses me. Also, it must be great for a company to not have to spend large sums on marketing - obviously the brand is still so strong they can save a part of the money.

One of the Leica guys once told me that "wide fields of view are off our priority list since the Amplivid". I was shocked to hear this, but the more I use binoculars, the more I see their point. Both the Nikon E2 and the SF are not exactly what I want in viewing comfort...