What are the best Compacts? Leica or Nikon? (1 Viewer)

denco@comcast.n · Jan 1, 2007

What do you think are the best compacts. Nikon LX L(HG) or Leica Ultravid's. What do you think are the best magnifications? 8x20 or 10x25. Consumer Guide recently rated the Nikon HG 10x25 the best over the Leica Utravid compact. Usually the magazine does a pretty good job on testing binoculars. Also, there is a thread here on Bird Forum which says the Nikon LX L 10x25 compacts have the best resolution that he has ever tested at 4 arc seconds. What do you all think?

Dennis

Tero · Jan 1, 2007

Depends on what you want to do with them. My best ones I have are Nikon Trailblazer 10x25. Field of View 342 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 10 mm Close Focus 8.2 ft.
I see more birds with them, wider FOV than my other pocket bins. They are not phase coated and a bit dim, but fine for casual birding. Suppose I am on a business or vacation trip and end up on a boat trip, as I did last year in Seattle. I had a wind breaker and in my pocket was a pair of 8x25 reverse porros. It was enough for a few gulls and a Caspian Tern.

The expensive ones still have a fairly narrow FOV other than the Nikons you mentioned. I have looked at them and they are indeed fine. But the FOV is only 282 in feet.

If compacts were my only binoculars I would also look at some 8x models such as
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=3301
the 8x28 Pentax. Looks like sturdy and should be fairly bright.

For my routine winter time casual bin I usea 9x25 reverse porro, but Bushnell does carry a 9x25 Legend roof prism.

Adam C · Jan 1, 2007

No competition, Leica 10x25 Ultravids!!

scampo · Jan 1, 2007

[email protected] said:
What do you think are the best compacts. Nikon LX L(HG) or Leica Ultravid's. What do you think are the best magnifications? 8x20 or 10x25. Consumer Guide recently rated the Nikon HG 10x25 the best over the Leica Utravid compact. Usually the magazine does a pretty good job on testing binoculars. Also, there is a thread here on Bird Forum which says the Nikon LX L 10x25 compacts have the best resolution that he has ever tested at 4 arc seconds. What do you all think?

Dennis

We have the Ultravid 10x25 and find them excellent - the view is superb and the oversized focusing wheel is an excellent piece of practical design. That said, all small bins take a little bit more getting used to than larger bins so I would say it's a very good idea to try before you buy.

Stewart J. · Jan 1, 2007

We have both Swaro and Leica 8 x 20's both are superb but as a spectacle wearer the leica are the most comfortable and easy to use for lengthy periods.

As said try before you buy to avoid disapointment as happened to me with the Swaro's

Stewart

Tero · Jan 1, 2007

The Travelites-ProStaffs work well with glasses, the eye cups are not tiny
http://www.eagleoptics.com/images/Binoculars/prostaff_atb_200px.jpg
The fov is on the small side, that is why I use 9x. Also much brighter than 10x.

Swissboy · Jan 1, 2007

[email protected] said:
What do you think are the best compacts. Nikon LX L(HG) or Leica Ultravid's. What do you think are the best magnifications? 8x20 or 10x25. Consumer Guide recently rated the Nikon HG 10x25 the best over the Leica Utravid compact. Usually the magazine does a pretty good job on testing binoculars. Also, there is a thread here on Bird Forum which says the Nikon LX L 10x25 compacts have the best resolution that he has ever tested at 4 arc seconds. What do you all think?

Dennis

Can't comment on the optics of the Nikon very much. But two things are certain:
1: Those Leica Ultravids are stunning. Whatever Nikon might be better (if they are), you'd have a hard time noticing.
2: The Leicas are sure to be ergonomically superior. It takes a bit of getting used to with that Nikon focus on the front side. I don't naturally have my index finger and thumb in that area.

So it's definitely LEICA for me.

ceasar · Jan 2, 2007

It depends on what you define as "compact." I have the Leica 8 x 20 Trinovid and it fits into a shirt pocket. It has a nice wide 335' FOV and a huge sweet spot of about 85 to 90% of the FOV and good ER too. Like all double hinged binoculars it's a bit time consuming setting it up to your correct IPD and you are adjusting it often while you use it, but it's a great binocular anyway and I can't see why anyone would spend 100 bucks more for an Ultravid, even though it is waterproof. When I'm around water I prefer a larger binocular that can be handled more instinctively. The Trinovid, with it's small size and unobtrusiveness, is great for the theater, opera and sporting events, but is a bit of a handicap for birding,

And why 10 x rather than 8 x? Unless, of course, one regularly birds with 10 x while using normally sized binoculars. Why take that 50' to 100' or more penalty in FOV to get 2x more power over the normal 8 x you are used to getting.

I normally use a Leica 7 x 42 BN Trinovid. If these are too big for me to take along, I put a Bushnell Custom Compact 7 x 26 reverse porro in my jacket pocket and (sometimes) the Leica 8 x 20's in the glove compartment or luggage for a backup. I use the Bushnell's because of their ease of use and wider FOV.
Cordially,
Bob

denco@comcast.n · Jan 2, 2007

Why do you prefer the 10x25 over the 8x20's?

Adam C said:
No competition, Leica 10x25 Ultravids!!

Why do you prefer the 10x25's over the 8x20's? They have a smaller FOV by at least 80 feet. Is it the added detail you can see and the increased resolution of the 10x25's? Do you think with advances in optics that compact binoculars will eventually increase their market share over the standard size binoculars or will the laws of physics always give the bigger aperture the advantage. After all smaller is better when considering handling the binocular if the view is the same right? With these new compacts especially the Nikon HG's and the Leica's Ultravids they truly offer a very similar view to full size binoculars in daylight conditions and can produce better resolution than the bigger binocular across the whole FOV. It is just at darkness that the bigger aperture has an advantage. I feel future advances in compact binoculars are going to change the type of binoculars we buy for birding.

Dennis

Tero · Jan 2, 2007

...and can produce better resolution than the bigger binocular across the whole FOV.

I have some doubts about that. Some 8x32s are very good, but 25mm is very difficult to achieve. Last pair I looked through was a Swarovski, and it certainly fooled me, very close to the look of a full size, but I think I could still pick them out as compacts.

The compactness really does not offer that much more other than it is "neat" that there is such technology.

I toyed with the idea of a 10x25 Zeiss, but I have wasted enought time with binoculars with about 260ft fov so mostly gave up on that. The plan was that my "minimal" kit would work as well as my full size binos.

Get 280ft fov at least if you can, whatever brand. With 8x, 315ft should be easy to get.

Atomic Chicken · Jan 2, 2007

Greetings!

Optically, you'll find there is no difference between the two. For me, it boils down to:

Leica Ultravid: Better ergonomics
Nikon HGL: Sturdier construction, lower cost

P.S. The thread you referenced is mine, based on the results of my resolutions tests. I found the Leica Ultravid 10x25 to be identical to the Nikon HG 10x25 with respect to resolution, chromatic abberation, edge performance, color rendition, and brightness. Again, no difference between the two optically (at least by any amount that I could detect!) They are both fantastic binoculars, I think you will be happy regardless of which one you choose.

Best wishes,
Bawko

denco@comcast.n · Jan 2, 2007

Tero said:
I have some doubts about that. Some 8x32s are very good, but 25mm is very difficult to achieve. Last pair I looked through was a Swarovski, and it certainly fooled me, very close to the look of a full size, but I think I could still pick them out as compacts.

The compactness really does not offer that much more other than it is "neat" that there is such technology.

I toyed with the idea of a 10x25 Zeiss, but I have wasted enought time with binoculars with about 260ft fov so mostly gave up on that. The plan was that my "minimal" kit would work as well as my full size binos.

Get 280ft fov at least if you can, whatever brand. With 8x, 315ft should be easy to get.

I think the "compactness" is a big advantage. It can really be an advantage to be able to put a pair of binoculars in your pocket and I think you are more likely to carry them with you all the time and have them when you unexpectedly encounter that Ivory Billed Woodpecker in your hedge. I think you can take them to places you would not normally carry your full size binoculars.

denco@comcast.n · Jan 2, 2007

Atomic Chicken said:
Greetings!

Optically, you'll find there is no difference between the two. For me, it boils down to:

Leica Ultravid: Better ergonomics
Nikon HGL: Sturdier construction, lower cost

P.S. The thread you referenced is mine, based on the results of my resolutions tests. I found the Leica Ultravid 10x25 to be identical to the Nikon HG 10x25 with respect to resolution, chromatic abberation, edge performance, color rendition, and brightness. Again, no difference between the two optically (at least by any amount that I could detect!) They are both fantastic binoculars, I think you will be happy regardless of which one you choose.

Best wishes,
Bawko

In your resolution tests did you really find the compacts to have better resolution across the FOV than the full size binoculars? If so why do you feel that is so? Why do you think the consumer guide testers rated the Nikon 10x25 HG optically better than the Leica Ultravid 10x25. How did the Nikon compare to the Ultravid in terms of contrast? Thanks!

Dennis

Dennis

pduxon · Jan 2, 2007

[email protected] said:
In your resolution tests did you really find the compacts to have better resolution across the FOV than the full size binoculars? If so why do you feel that is so? Why do you think the consumer guide testers rated the Nikon 10x25 HG optically better than the Leica Ultravid 10x25. How did the Nikon compare to the Ultravid in terms of contrast? Thanks!

Dennis

Dennis

Dennis there is a review of the top compacts on the Alula website

http://www.alula.fi/GB/index.htm

you want the PDF file saying corrected reviews (just under optics).

Probably not a lot in it optically. BUT do try them. People can continually tell me how wonderful there are Ultravids are (and they are good) BUT I found the eyecups really irriated my eyes. Others are put off by the focus wheel position of the Nikons. Make sure you try them first.

Tero · Jan 2, 2007

Sure, if compactness is the main criterion, then get the double hinged kind. I have two pairs, 8x and 10x. However, I can leave mine in my jacket pocket, you have to carry yours with you at all times.

Atomic Chicken · Jan 3, 2007

Greetings!

[email protected] said:
In your resolution tests did you really find the compacts to have better resolution across the FOV than the full size binoculars? If so why do you feel that is so? Why do you think the consumer guide testers rated the Nikon 10x25 HG optically better than the Leica Ultravid 10x25. How did the Nikon compare to the Ultravid in terms of contrast? Thanks!

Dennis

Yes... during my resolution tests, I found the 10x25 compacts to have better resolution across the FOV than full-size x42 and x50 binoculars. Counterintuitive, I know, but I can't argue with the results. They were also sharper from edge-to-edge than the full-size... in fact the 10x25's have THE sharpest edge performance I've ever seen in ANY binoculars. I don't have a reasonable explanation, other than perhaps less light-path curvature due to the smaller lenses? Just guessing.

As for the consumer guide testers rating the Nikon 10x25 better optically than the Leica, I have no idea. Perhaps user bias or sample variations? I know that when I went to buy a pair of Leica 10x25 Ultravids, I brought my Nikon HG 10x25's along and there was absolutely ZERO difference in ANY test I could devise - and I did take my resolution test chart along. I was so impressed that two different binoculars were so optically similar, that I even briefly entertained the idea that maybe the designs had been stolen!

I found contrast to be identical between the two as well... in answer to your final question.

I would strongly suggest that you find some way to compare the two side-by-side yourself, especially if you are considering a purchase sometime in the near future.

Best wishes,
Bawko

denco@comcast.n · Jan 3, 2007

Compact search update.

Atomic Chicken said:
Greetings!

Yes... during my resolution tests, I found the 10x25 compacts to have better resolution across the FOV than full-size x42 and x50 binoculars. Counterintuitive, I know, but I can't argue with the results. They were also sharper from edge-to-edge than the full-size... in fact the 10x25's have THE sharpest edge performance I've ever seen in ANY binoculars. I don't have a reasonable explanation, other than perhaps less light-path curvature due to the smaller lenses? Just guessing.

As for the consumer guide testers rating the Nikon 10x25 better optically than the Leica, I have no idea. Perhaps user bias or sample variations? I know that when I went to buy a pair of Leica 10x25 Ultravids, I brought my Nikon HG 10x25's along and there was absolutely ZERO difference in ANY test I could devise - and I did take my resolution test chart along. I was so impressed that two different binoculars were so optically similar, that I even briefly entertained the idea that maybe the designs had been stolen!

I found contrast to be identical between the two as well... in answer to your final question.

I would strongly suggest that you find some way to compare the two side-by-side yourself, especially if you are considering a purchase sometime in the near future.

Best wishes,
Bawko

Ok. I went to Sportsman's Warehouse and looked at the Leica Ultravid 8x20 and 10x25 and the Trinovid 10x25. They did not have the Nikon HG 10x25 or 8x20 in stock. After comparing these three Leica's side by side I concluded I liked the 10x25 Trinovid the best of the three. The two Ultravid's had that really tight focus so common to Leicas because I have heard they use no grease in their gears because it gums up at cold temperatures. The Trinovid was much easier to focus and I preferred the ergonomics of it over the Ultravid's. The Ultravid's were SLIGHTLY brighter than the Trinovid. Also, for some reason I experienced more blackouts with the two Ultravids than I did with the Trinovid. I know the eye relief is similar but I think it could have been the way the eye cups fit my face that produced the blackouts. None the less they were there. So between these three binoculars I preferred the Trinovids 10 x25. I ordered the Nikon HG 8x20 from Amazon.com and I should get it tomorrow so I will write a review of it tomorrow and rate how I think it compares to the two Leica's. If I prefer the Leica Trinovid 10x25 I will return the Nikon HG to Amazon.com and buy the Leica Trinovids 10x25 at Sportsman's Warehouse. I will keep everybody posted on my search.

Dennis

Adam C · Jan 3, 2007

Ok I admit i'm no technician when it comes to optics but I just love the way the 10x ultravids look and feel...They are wickedly sharp and just suit me down to the ground as far as ergonomics go. Also how can you go past the full waterproofing and the full rubber armour!!

I Dropped mine in a river crossing while trout fishing in about 6 feet of fast flowing water! I finally pulled them out after about 10 minutes of groveling around and they were sweet!

Also dropped them on to a concrete path from about 6 feet up directly on the front lenses! Again just a small mark in the rubber armouring the only evidence they had been dropped.

One thing that bothers me with bins is the bump bump bump on your front as you walk and the constant reminder they are there. With compacts you basically forget they are even there until you need them.

These bins are just so easy to carry and will last! As for the 8x versus 10x I think it just comes down to personal pref~

Im sure there is very little in the optics between the Nikons and Leicas but I think the ultravids feel and look better. Also I think they will hold their value longer as they will be classics in a few years time~

scampo · Jan 3, 2007

Adam C said:
...Also I think they will hold their value longer as they will be classics in a few years time~

I wonder? I'd certainly like to think so but maybe the leather covered Ultravids are more likely to reach "classic" status?

We eventually went for the 10x25 Ultravids a year ago on the strength of their, at the time, unquestioned class leading brightness, sharpness and contrast. I suspect, now, though that the new Zeiss and Nikon compacts have caught up with but not beaten the Leicas.

Another point we liked about the 10x model was that, having the slightly larger 25mm objective, they are that bit easier to hold and use. The slight downside of 10x is in its inherent somewhat narrower fov but this is compensated for by the extra detail produced by the higher magnification.

A weakness, such as it is, of all compacts, is to do with their smaller exit pupil. This definitely makes it a shade more difficult to adjust your eyes to them when first used. The many recent glowing comments in this forum for 7x50 binoculars serves as a reminder that for sheer "walk-in-view comfort" then lower magnification and larger objective size are the way to go - but at the cost of massively increased bulk, weight and discomfort in carrying them.

denco@comcast.n · Jan 3, 2007

Why more blackouts with the Ultravids?

scampo said:
I wonder? I'd certainly like to think so but maybe the leather covered Ultravids are more likely to reach "classic" status?

We eventually went for the 10x25 Ultravids a year ago on the strength of their, at the time, unquestioned class leading brightness, sharpness and contrast. I suspect, now, though that the new Zeiss and Nikon compacts have caught up with but not beaten the Leicas.

Another point we liked about the 10x model was that, having the slightly larger 25mm objective, they are that bit easier to hold and use. The slight downside of 10x is in its inherent somewhat narrower fov but this is compensated for by the extra detail produced by the higher magnification.

A weakness, such as it is, of all compacts, is to do with their smaller exit pupil. This definitely makes it a shade more difficult to adjust your eyes to them when first used. The many recent glowing comments in this forum for 7x50 binoculars serves as a reminder that for sheer "walk-in-view comfort" then lower magnification and larger objective size are the way to go - but at the cost of massively increased bulk, weight and discomfort in carrying them.

Why do you think I would get more blackouts with the Ultravids than the Trinovids and why is there focusing so damn tight. I could hardly focus either pair of Ultravids at Sportsman Warehouse with one finger! It almost took two fingers and I am not weak. That just bugs me and it was the same way on both pair of Ultravids. Well ,I should get the Nikon HG's 8x20 tonite after work. I will report on what I think of them. So far I like the Leica Trinovids 10x25's even without the waterproofing. The focus is easier and they do not give me as many blackouts. I can not stand BLACKOUTS! Report tonite.

Dennis

What are the best Compacts? Leica or Nikon? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Retired

Latest Lifer: Far Eastern Curlew: 11-2-07

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Retired

Sempach, Switzerland

Well-known member

Well-known member

Retired

Registered with the D.O.E.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Retired

Registered with the D.O.E.

Well-known member

Latest Lifer: Far Eastern Curlew: 11-2-07

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread