New Leica HD Ultravid PLUS (1 Viewer)

Chosun Juan · Sep 17, 2014

dalat said:
Yes, I think it was Holger Merlitz who said that the HT glass only really has advantages in AK prisms, he also commented in a German forum on the Leica plus in the sense that the transmission gains by HT glass alone in the Ultravid will not be very high.....

Florian, yes, Holger was one who was making some informed comment. It's buried in the HT thread somewhere (where IS pompadour when you need him?!

A-K prisms benefit most, but the gains, looking at the Schott catalogue, would still be in the order of 1% for the Zeiss 8x32, maybe a little more once coating indexing is retuned. There are also a whole host of other benefits - color balancing, and enhancement, better contrast, less stray light to degrade the image, and as Ed says 'a cleaner retinal image'. These are no small gains. :smoke: :king:

The Leica will perhaps benefit comparatively more since it should greatly redress the overly warm colour bias. :cat:

Chosun :gh:

dalat · Sep 17, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
since it should greatly redress the overly warm colour bias.

Which is something many people like!

Kammerdiner · Sep 17, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
Gijs,

Market investigations can often be like pulling fairy floss from hen's teeth! (o)< An 8x32HT with the other improvements as I suggested would not be a major development cost, and would extend the life of the model considerably, And, significantly improve the market competitiveness. Importantly it would also buy valuable time for the proper development of the x32 SF range. Makes strategic, economic, and common sense. The only possible drawback might be raising the bar too high for the x32 SF to hurdle, thus giving the engineers too many grey hairs and heart palpitations ! :-O

Chosun :gh:

There won't be an 8x32 HT because it would be a dead end. Wait for the 8x32 SF instead. I'm sure it's in the works. It's going to take some doing to make it better than the 8x32 SV, that's for sure.

Mark

Alexis Powell · Sep 17, 2014

Omid said:
Well, gentlemen, this is it. We have been here for almost a decade now.

A few (may be 2 or 3) percent light transmission is all that this is about...

Much longer than that! My understanding is that the optical formulae of the mid and full-sized roof prism bins from Leica haven't really changed since the introduction of the Trinovid Ultra BA line in ~1990. The only changes in the subsequent BN, Ultravid, Ultravid HD, and now these PLUS bins have been to coatings, glass type, and housing design. But I'm not disappointed--these are excellent bins for birding, and I like to see continuity of tried and true designs.

--AP

Alexis Powell · Sep 17, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
...It would be pretty easy to bung in some HT and Ultra FL glass, some carbon fibre into the polymer resin, and redo and lighten up the armour for a very nice little bin that would take it right to the Swaro 8x32 SV ...... so easy infact that the tea lady could probably do it in her spare time ....

No, making a bin competitive with the SV wouldn't be that easy because the main deficiencies of the 8x32 FL are its sensitivity to eye placement (and related propensity to exhibit much astigmatism) and its misplaced focuser (too close to face relative to hand placement dictated by strap lugs). What the FL gets right is its genuinely 8x32 size--the SV is substantially longer, more like an 8x42 when pack size rather than just weight is the motivation for choosing a mid raher than full-sized bin. With the 8x32 FL, Zeiss currently has no competition for buyers seeking a light-weight top-end compact x32 roof with good eye relief (SV is long, Nikon is long and/or heavy, Leica has poor eye relief).

--AP

Swissboy · Sep 17, 2014

Alexis Powell said:
............... With the 8x32 FL, Zeiss currently has no competition for buyers seeking a light-weight top-end compact x32 roof with good eye relief (SV is long, Nikon is long and/or heavy, Leica has poor eye relief).--AP

I agree, as long as that eye relief issue has not been solved by Leica, their x32's are just not attractive to me. I still have an early "tank" like Trinovid though. Thus no immediate need anyway. But I'm getting older and keep following my options for the time when my x42 FL will become too heavy. So far, it's still the Zeiss 8x32 FL that I would switch to.

Troubador · Sep 17, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
Lee, where's the *hair splitting smilie* when you need one ! :eek!:

Saying someone else said doesn't count. Small gains they may be, but you yourself know and have said it many times of the undeniable and significant step in colour rendition of the HT over the FL .... :smoke:

Chosun :gh:

My little Kookaburra, you still aren't listening.

I (that is me, Troubador) have not said that the Leica has an insignificant uplift in transmission. I don't know whether it has or not. And if Schott has upgraded the HT glasses that Leica have used, they may have made earlier comments by Holger obsolete.

So, I know that you are in emotional turmoil just now due to your errm provocative Ruffled Feathers thread having been terminated, but please refrain from persisting in the view that I am sniping at Uncle Ernst's little company: I am not.

Yours, in puzzled admiration 8-P

Lee

Troubador · Sep 17, 2014

Alexis Powell said:
Much longer than that! My understanding is that the optical formulae of the mid and full-sized roof prism bins from Leica haven't really changed since the introduction of the Trinovid Ultra BA line in ~1990. The only changes in the subsequent BN, Ultravid, Ultravid HD, and no these Plus bins has been to coatings, glass type, and housing design. But I'm not disappointed--these are excellent bins for birding, and I like to see continuity of tried and true designs.

--AP

All true Alex.

Although my personal preference is the Zeiss colour balance, there is no doubt that Leica's long lived, slowly developed family of bins is a modern classic in it's own right.

I have ambivalent feelings about Leica's bins, on the one hand admiring them as expressed above and on the other wondering how long this line can remain a success for Leica.

For sure the biggest compliment I can pay them is to say that if was able to blow a lot of cash on bins other than the brand that I have always come home to after trying out others, then my first choice would be an Ultravid 7x42. And before anyone asks, second choice would be EL SV 8x32.

Lee

Kammerdiner · Sep 17, 2014

Alexis Powell said:
...

What the FL gets right is its genuinely 8x32 size--the SV is substantially longer, more like an 8x42 when pack size rather than just weight is the motivation for choosing a mid raher than full-sized bin. With the 8x32 FL, Zeiss currently has no competition for buyers seeking a light-weight top-end compact x32 roof with good eye relief (SV is long, Nikon is long and/or heavy, Leica has poor eye relief).

--AP

AP, you've mentioned this before but I don't see it. The FL is shorter, yes, but it's bigger in the other two dimensions, especially with that big focus knob sitting up high. I use the same case for both the FL and the SV, the small case for the old 8x30 Conquest ($25 at B&H). The supplied FL case is too big and the Swaro case is practically a carry-on.

Pack size is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable. I'll try to post a comparison photo to show you what I mean. The FL is a chunky monkey, but I still really like the little bugger. :t:

And you're right about the FL eye placement issue. When I got the 8x32 SV, I went "whoa, that's an easier view!"

Mark

michaelboustead · Sep 17, 2014

Troubador said:
For sure the biggest compliment I can pay them is to say that if was able to blow a lot of cash on bins other than the brand that I have always come home to after trying out others, then my first choice would be an Ultravid 7x42. And before anyone asks, second choice would be EL SV 8x32.

Lee

Must agree. All my other bins have ended up on EBay or donated to Birders Exchange. I wear eyeglasses, the Ultravid 7x42 is easy for me to look through, find birds and hold steady.

If I understand the changes impact brightness but little else? I guess just have to wait and see.

Mike

Alexis Powell · Sep 17, 2014

Kammerdiner said:
AP, you've mentioned this before but I don't see it... Pack size is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable. ...

Mark,

Perhaps I make too much of this based on my own situation, but I put the SV in the category of "long" x32 bins, a category that also includes the Nikon EDG, Swarovski EL (non SV), and many cheapies like the Sightron Blue Sky SII and my old Browning 8x32 (= Bushnell Legend). The length of these bins, which is the same as some full-sized bins such as the Leica 8x42 Ultravid and Bushnell 8x42 Legend Ultra HD, prevents me from using the tight-fitting cases that I own and prefer for travel. For example, the Zeiss 8x32 FL, complete with ocular guard and a neoprene neck strap, fits perfectly inside the Leica leather zipper pouch made for the BA/BN series Trinovids. When cased as such, it takes up little more room and weight than the bin itself, with no wasted space (the big focus knob and neck strap fills the space between the barrels of the unfolded bin). But my 8x32 EL (which, I'll grant you, is slightly more bulky though no longer than the SV version) always ends up in a case into which I could squeeze a compact 8x42. When slipped into an outer pocket of a camera bag or similar, it has more room between the barrels than is necessary to stow a neoprene neck strap, and thus ends up with unused space between the barrels. Moreover, although they are larger and certainly heavier, I find that a cased Leica 8x32 or Zeiss FL will just fit comfortably into the same camera bag or backpack accessory zippered pockets in which I used to carry a B&L 7x26, but the Swarovski 8x32 EL and other long 8x32 bins will not, especially when cased. It's kind of like how my Nikon D700 digital SLR is not much larger than my film cameras but is nevertheless just a little too big to fit into _any_ of the many compact camera bags that I acquired over the years for use with various standard-sized Nikon film SLRs (i.e. models smaller than the F4). Drives me crazy. Maybe if I started all over, with new cases, bags, and backpacks, it wouldn't make as much difference.

--AP

Troubador · Sep 17, 2014

michaelboustead said:
Must agree. All my other bins have ended up on EBay or donated to Birders Exchange. I wear eyeglasses, the Ultravid 7x42 is easy for me to look through, find birds and hold steady.

If I understand the changes impact brightness but little else? I guess just have to wait and see.

Mike

Mike there is a cogent argument that although the increased throughput of light may be small and therefore not detectable as increased brightness, the less wayward light you have bouncing around inside your bins, the more crisp should be the image.

This may or may not be a reason to swap your older Ultravids for the new one, but it may keep Uvids on the table for folks considering an alpha.

Lee

Troubador · Sep 17, 2014

Alexis Powell said:
Mark,

But my 8x32 EL ends up with unused space between the barrels.

Drives me crazy.

--AP

Alex

When you go to bed, do you sleep with your legs tightly close together, so that you use the space more efficiently?? :eek!:

Lee

Alexis Powell · Sep 17, 2014

Troubador said:
Alex

When you go to bed, do you sleep with your legs tightly close together, so that you use the space more efficiently?? :eek!:

Lee

Who needs a bed? It's an aweful waste of space. Just swaddle yourself to a board and lean up against a wall. Very space efficient. A hammock can be almost as good though, and is easier to use.

--AP

Chosun Juan · Sep 18, 2014

Troubador said:
My little Kookaburra, you still aren't listening.

I (that is me, Troubador) have not said that the Leica has an insignificant uplift in transmission. I don't know whether it has or not. And if Schott has upgraded the HT glasses that Leica have used, they may have made earlier comments by Holger obsolete.

So, I know that you are in emotional turmoil just now due to your errm provocative Ruffled Feathers thread having been terminated, but please refrain from persisting in the view that I am sniping at Uncle Ernst's little company: I am not.

Yours, in puzzled admiration 8-P

Lee

Lee,

I ain't nobody's little kookaburra @_@_@_@_@
More like a big cranky Powerful Owl ! :storm:

You're becoming an argumentative contrarian hair splitter ! :eek!: :-O

Your position (fearlessly hiding behind Holger!

was that the difference by using the existing HT glass was of no real value. I disagreed way back then (re: the obvious as dog's whatsits 8x32 HT), and I disagree now.

1). A ~1% gain is a ~1% gain. Quite welcome. Better than a loss. Check the Schott catalog for yourself.
2). You yourself have detailed the intangible benefits to colour presentation and contrast of the HT glass in your own bins.
3). Gains in transmission, no matter how small bring gains in image cleanliness in the bin and to the retina, due to reductions in reflected and stray light. A position espoused by at least ronh and Ed, amongst others. It seems you are now belatedly on that bandwagon too with your 'cogent argument' ?!
4). Leica engineers agree with me enough to designate this very improvement as a new model line.
5). So all in all ....... nerr! 8-P

Stop bl**dywell arguing with yourself just for the sake of having the last word! :smoke: You are dangerously close to sounding like a certain BroknRecord!! o

To Alexis, and Mark et al,

What I meant by saying the 8x32 HT could compete with the SV was that it would provide a size alternative as you quite rightly point out. I expect the 8X32 SF will probably be even bigger than the SV, and thus not replace the FL /HT, but rather sit along side it as the x42mm's do. One x32mm to tackle SV /EDG, the other to tackle the Leica's. Having only looked through them at retailer's I had no idea the right size case was such an issue!

Florian,

Good point about the color balance - it may be less of a welcome improvement for some who prefer that warm view ....

Chosun :gh:

sako · Sep 18, 2014

What, no Ultravid HD Plus 8x32? How disappointing for some people. Well, it's early days and the Schott glass may well find its way into the mid sized bins yet. Although as the saying goes, "don't hold your breath".

Troubador · Sep 18, 2014

Alexis Powell said:
Who needs a bed? It's an aweful waste of space. Just swaddle yourself to a board and lean up against a wall. Very space efficient. A hammock can be almost as good though, and is easier to use.

--AP

Nice riposte Alex :t:

Lee

CloseFocus · Sep 18, 2014

sako said:
What, no Ultravid HD Plus 8x32? How disappointing for some people. Well, it's early days and the Schott glass may well find its way into the mid sized bins yet. Although as the saying goes, "don't hold your breath".

Put that new glass in a 32mm binocular and wrap it in leather and I'll buy it. Otherwise, my credit card stays where it is.

Troubador · Sep 18, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
You're becoming an argumentative contrarian hair splitter ! :eek!: :-O

Your position (fearlessly hiding behind Holger! was that the difference by using the existing HT glass was of no real value. I disagreed way back then (re: the obvious as dog's whatsits 8x32 HT), and I disagree now.

Stop bl**dywell arguing with yourself just for the sake of having the last word! :smoke: You are dangerously close to sounding like a certain BroknRecord!! o

Chosun :gh:

Argumentative hair splitter? Me? Probably, but only because you keep putting the same hair on the table. And you say I want the last word while you want the last paragraph or two.

OK. What follows isn't a re-run of the above. Honest.

Zeiss always said no HT 32. Holger and others said this probably due to lack of transmission in the appropriate glasses.

I swallowed that proposition because it made sense to me at the time.

However I have since begun to think that Zeiss wouldn't do an HT 32 because HT's are biased towards hunters in respect of its high transmission and Zeiss was always planning to do a more general purpose birding 32 in the shape of the SF, and since 32s sell fewer than 42s they probably only want one top dog 32. They wouldn't want to split the 32 sales over two models, I think. BTW this is my theory, I don't know if its right or not. But if I am right I then SF 32 will replace FL 32.

Back to Leica, I agree that there seems to be other aspects of increased transmission, of which I wasn't previously aware and which sound quite plausible. As you say, any improvement is a step forward and it is true that several little steps can add up to a stride.

Uvids are lovely bins and this 'tune-up' can only make them better.

OK Barking Owl ? :king:

Lee

Kammerdiner · Sep 18, 2014

Troubador said:
Argumentative hair splitter? Me? Probably, but only because you keep putting the same hair on the table. And you say I want the last word while you want the last paragraph or two.

OK. What follows isn't a re-run of the above. Honest.

Zeiss always said no HT 32. Holger and others said this probably due to lack of transmission in the appropriate glasses.

I swallowed that proposition because it made sense to me at the time.

However I have since begun to think that Zeiss wouldn't do an HT 32 because HT's are biased towards hunters in respect of its high transmission and Zeiss was always planning to do a more general purpose birding 32 in the shape of the SF, and since 32s sell fewer than 42s they probably only want one top dog 32. They wouldn't want to split the 32 sales over two models, I think. BTW this is my theory, I don't know if its right or not. But if I am right I then SF 32 will replace FL 32.

Back to Leica, I agree that there seems to be other aspects of increased transmission, of which I wasn't previously aware and which sound quite plausible. As you say, any improvement is a step forward and it is true that several little steps can add up to a stride.

Uvids are lovely bins and this 'tune-up' can only make them better.

OK Barking Owl ? :king:

Lee

That's my take on it, too, Lee. At 32mm Zeiss has to compete with the SV and the FL can't really do that (IMO), no matter what type of glass is in it. So watch for the 32mm SF, maybe next year?

Current HD prices at B&H:
7x42: $2000
8x42: $2000
10x42: $2050

Projected prices HD Plus at Eagle Optics:
7x42: $2450
8x42: $2450
10x42: $2500

$450 for HT glass? Hmm.

By the way, Leica is giving away a free medium Filson field bag with every full-sized purchase through year's end, probably won't include the HD Plus.

Mark

New Leica HD Ultravid PLUS (1 Viewer)

Given to Fly

...

Well-known member

Natural history enthusiast

Natural history enthusiast

Sempach, Switzerland

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Natural history enthusiast

Moderator

Moderator

Natural history enthusiast

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread