-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nothing Leica nice week of birding.... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter chill6x6
- Start date
Mike F
Well-known member
Thanks Binastro. True!
By the way, I'm an expat living in a predominantly Swedish speaking part of Finland, so my Finnish is...... err...... sparse, shall we say! I understood what you wrote though
.
Last edited:
Hmmm.....I don't see that with the NV....it may very well be true that the SF handled that particular light condition better... What do you think?
You're welcome and yeah it is hard to keep various things straight from time to time....I guess i just better quit right there....
Well that's TRUE in most cases...but for me it all adds up(the weight). I knew from the get-go this outing was going to involve a lot of walking. So I tried to save weight when possible. We did a lot of glassing....and of course I carried the spotting scope....swapping shoulders...it got old I'll tell you. I believe I can hold a lighter binocular steadier for a longer period of time especially if a little winded. If this were not a Leica trip, I would have had the SV 8X32 and saved more weight with little optic compromise.
Honestly, you don't need it. I think that's the perfect outfit! If I were going to add ANYTHING to those two it would be a quality 8x32 and or 12X50. i'd be happy to recommend a couple!
dwever
Well-known member
With the 7x42 UVHD+ Leica hit a magical sweet spot where everything came together exquisitely to the point where that sample's usability, image, and industrial design just about gave the 7x42 a soul.
Having said that, the NV 8x42 is technically a bit of a superior image, awesome to use, but maybe somehow just not as fun/satisfying to own, and I can't really say why. I would be fully satisfied either way.
A 7x42 UVHD+ an 8x42 NVD would be too redundant for me to justify, although in my case I already owned a 7x42 and therefore wished I'd kept both. A 7x42 UVHD+ with a NVD 10x42 would seem to be a nice pair to own together.
Attachments
Last edited:
Torview
Well-known member
Thanks Chuck, I think the more time I spend with various binoculars it becomes clear how important individual responses to a particular model are, I think the NV may just have the most startling contrast I`v ever seen, the more time I spend with it the more I admire it except for a few personal issues.
Mike F
Well-known member
Honestly, you don't need it. I think that's the perfect outfit! If I were going to add ANYTHING to those two it would be a quality 8x32 and or 12X50. i'd be happy to recommend a couple!
Thank you, guys, from saving me from myself! I have to say that the fact I have a 10x42 NV and a 7x42 UVHD+ is no accident. They were very carefully chosen as being a great combination and because they are arguably two of Leica's best. I had no plans to get the 8x42 NV, but when you see one at a great price........ well, you know how it is......! 8-P
Chuck, look out for a PM from me soon!
tenex
reality-based
A remark like this prompts a question that's been lurking in the back of my mind for a while now. Is a binocular meant to show what you would see standing 8-10x closer to something, with as little degradation as possible, or have we actually begun to expect it to make things look even better than in real life? In which case it's no surprise Leica is about to start making eyeglasses.
Mike F
Well-known member
Is that what eyeglasses do?
Loud Green Man
Well-known member
"I'm giving up bird watching before I've really got started as I simply see no way to enjoy my time in the woods & meadows this side of a circa $6,000.00 outlay that is way, way beyond my means as of writing and no doubt until I o
disappointedly towards the heavens and our great Leica Maker."
tenex
reality-based
If you're willing to follow the suggested hypothesis, it's what I imagine Leica eyeglasses might do. (Otherwise the world has plenty of them already)
Mike F
Well-known member
OK, now I follow you (it was a bit late!). This is a huge topic, which I know has been discussed here before by members with far more technical knowledge than me, but it seems clear (
) that as soon as you look through any binocular the view which you experience is not going to be the same as the one you would experience by standing an appropriate number of times closer to the subject - on multiple levels. Given that, the view through a binocular is never going to be truly natural or neutral, and is, at the end of the day, always going to be subjective and personal. Personally, contrast is high on my list of preferences!
This is true and for me, especially when looking at subjects at 1.5 - 2.0 metres, if find the view better than the naked eye. By 'better' I mean that I am able to examine the detail and content of the view more easily and more thoroughly than simply getting my naked eye that much closer to the object. I cannot easily explain this except to say that on some tv nature programmes there have been close-ups of for example bees or butterflies on flowers and friends and family have said that those views are fantastic and impossible in real life. But actually those views are easily obtained using the close focus of modern binos.
Lee
Mike F
Well-known member
tenex
reality-based
I had in mind distant objects, for which I naturally think in terms of equivalent distances. But I think you're totally right about near views, which of course binoculars couldn't deliver decades ago. From experience with longer camera lenses I'd guess it has something to do with perspective and apparent field of view. Maybe the eye/brain appreciate detail better when not also trying to work out spatial relationships?
Mike F
Well-known member
That's surely one of the (perhaps the main) reasons why looking at a distant subject will not be the same (give the same view) as standing and appropriate number of times closer to the subject. You know from your experience with long lenses that things can look better (more impressive at least) through some good glass than they do through the naked eye!
That's surely one of the (perhaps the main) reasons why looking at a distant subject will not be the same (give the same view) as standing and appropriate number of times closer to the subject. You know from your experience with long lenses that things can look better (more impressive at least) through some good glass than they do through the naked eye!
I think this is exactly why I find these views easier to examine: it takes one visual variable almost out of the picture, so to speak, and of course the field of view of the bino reduces peripheral distractions as well.
Lee
Mike F
Well-known member
Again, I agree! This is also why I don't think I'm as bothered as many here are about FOV. I understand the attraction of a wide FOV, and certainly for birding at short to medium distances is must be a positive asset, but at long distances I often appreciate the relative lack of distraction and focus that a narrower FOV affords. And as you say, any binocular will greatly restrict FOV compared to the naked eye.
This is also true and one of the reasons that there is not a bino model that is perfect for every job.
When watching Otters in the sea off the west of Scotland, and indeed all manner of diving things from birds to seals, a wide field of view is a fantastic asset to find where an Otter has re-surfaced or climbed out onto sea-weed covered rocks.
And a super wide FOV can be great for capturing in-flight views of dragonflies, but when it comes to examining them perched, a narrower fov assists concentrating on the central subject.
Lee
That is interesting.
Jerry Liguori who wrote a couple of popular books about identifying "HAWKS AT A DISTANCE" and "HAWKS FROM EVERY ANGLE" recommended that beginning birders equip themselves with high quality binoculars.
He said the magnification should be based on what is most comfortable but he said he used 7x binoculars for watching hawks because he preferred "an extra wide field of view" even though others preferred the added power of 8x and 10x binoculars. In "Hawks at a Distance" he said he used Zeiss 7x45 Night Owls since 1994 because of their very wide FOV until 2008 when he got a Zeiss Victory FL. (The Zeiss 7x42 FL also has the same very wide FOV.)
Most top quality 7x42 roof prism binoculars have an 8º FOV or 420'@1000 yards. The Zeiss's had 450'@1000Yds.
Bob
Last edited:
