• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Calling all Leica 10x32 owners!! (1 Viewer)

Adam C

Latest Lifer: Far Eastern Curlew: 11-2-07
Hi there.

I own the 10x25 ultravids (which i love) and a pair of Swaro 8x30 Bins.

I really like the swaros but still cant really claim to be an 8x fan. It just dosent make me go oooh...arrrr like a 10x.

I can pin birds pretty quick with my ultravid 25s so I'm not hugely concerned with FOV.

It just seems interesting that their are so many rave reviews of Ultravid 8x32s and 7x42s etc yet the 10x32s hardly get a look in.

As a big 10x fan looking at splashing out and wanting to keep the weight down, what do you 10x32 owners really think of your bins versus other models you have tried and is the so called sweet spot really that much smaller in the 10x versus the 8x?

Any help appreciated.

Adam~
 
Last edited:
Adam C said:
Hi there.

I own the 10x25 ultravids (which i love) and a pair of Swaro 8x30 Bins.

I really like the swaros but still cant really claim to be an 8x fan. It just dosent make me go oooh...arrrr like a 10x.

I can pin birds pretty quick with my ultravid 25s so I'm not hugely concerned with FOV.

It just seems interesting that their are so many rave reviews of Ultravid 8x32s and 7x42s etc yet the 10x32s hardly get a look in.

As a big 10x fan looking at splashing out and wanting to keep the weight down can what to you 10x32 owners really think of your bins versus other models you have tried and is the so called sweet spot really that much smaller in the 10x versus the 8x?

Any help appreciated.

Adam~

My all purpose travel binocular is a 10 x 32 Leica BA and I am always amazed at its capabilities, especially its wonderful ergonomics, impression of solidity and precision, and remarkable close focus. No doubt that there are now brighter, sharper versions of this configuration available, but I can't imagine any which would measurably increase my pleasure of use.
 
I am seriously considering chagning from a 8x32 Nikon LXl to a 10x32 myself. I am leaning towards the Zeiss (view) or Swaro (ergonomics). If I were a Leica man like yourself, and there is nothing wrong with that, I'd give the 10x32 Ultravids a serious look. Their 10x42 and 8x32 versions get rave reviews.
 
I had a look through a pair at a local store today and was really impressed! Felt like the perfect size in hand and the view was stunning! maybe the perfect bin!

I know what you are thinking. If you like them so much just go and buy them!

I probably will ;) but it's always nice to hear the opinions of others who own a pair.
 
Adam C said:
Hi there.

I own the 10x25 ultravids (which i love) and a pair of Swaro 8x30 Bins.

I really like the swaros but still cant really claim to be an 8x fan. It just dosent make me go oooh...arrrr like a 10x.

I can pin birds pretty quick with my ultravid 25s so I'm not hugely concerned with FOV.

It just seems interesting that their are so many rave reviews of Ultravid 8x32s and 7x42s etc yet the 10x32s hardly get a look in.

As a big 10x fan looking at splashing out and wanting to keep the weight down, what do you 10x32 owners really think of your bins versus other models you have tried and is the so called sweet spot really that much smaller in the 10x versus the 8x?

Any help appreciated.

Adam~

Adam,

the sweet spot in 10x32 bins is mostly wider than in 8x32s. So it is with the 32 mm Leicas. Another advantage of the 10x32 configuartion compared with other (e.g. 10x42) ones is the wide FOV. The optics of the 10x32 Ultravid are due to very good contrast und comfortable view one of the best available. They are also the lightest bins of their class. The only shortcoming is their short eye relief if you have to wear bigger eye glasses. If you need more eye relief the Nikon or the Zeiss is the way to go. But if the 10x32 Leica worked good for you you really can´t go wrong with them.

Steve
 
What is the "sweet spot"? I have seen it mentioned here often but I have never seen a description of what is actually is.

Thanks



hinnark said:
Adam,

the sweet spot in 10x32 bins is mostly wider than in 8x32s.
Steve
 
Last edited:
Tvc15_2000 said:
What is the "sweet spot"? I have seen it mentioned here often but I have never seen a description of what is actually is.

Thanks

The sweet spot is the part or the inner circle within the field of view of binoculars or scopes where the image is entirely sharp. A lot of birding binoculars even among high class brands are entirely sharp only at 50 % or so with a increasing lost of sharpness towards the edge. This is best noticable by watching stars at the night sky. The phenomenon of a small sweet spot with high class optics is often associated with leightweight constructions. The use of small prisms together with small eyepieces seems to play a decisive role here.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Tvc15_2000 said:
What is the "sweet spot"? I have seen it mentioned here often but I have never seen a description of what is actually is.

Thanks

To oversimplify; the "sweet spot" is the undistorted percentage of the FOV you see, edge to edge, through the binocular, unaffected by lack of sharpness, astigmatism, chromatic aberation, difference in brightness, contrast etc. To be sure, in comparing binoculars of similar quality, there is a subjective factor to deal with. The difference, however, is more readily discerned when comparing a top quality binocular with a lesser quality one. Although they both in reality have the same FOV the quality binocular's view will give the impression of being wider, and overall sharper and brighter. The best example I have found is in comparing the Nikon 10 x 42 SE Porro prism against any other 10 x 42 I've gotten my hands on.

Cordially,
Bob
"I came, I saw, I compared."
 
Thanks for the info on the sweet spot. I will have to take note on my binocs.

About the 10X, I love mine.

I have them in 25, 32 and 42.

The 25s are so portable it’s hard to leave them home.

I use the 42 when it’s a very over cast day or dim light.

The 10x32 is clearly my favorite. It’s very portable and light weight and travels well. Image is outstanding into dusk. I am willing to trade some of the brightness and comfort of the 8x for the extra magnification of the 10x.

My girlfriend started with 8x and after borrowing my 10s for a closer looks many times, she is now moving to 10s. I have no problem finding the birds with a 10 and I enjoy the extra detail they afford. But that is my preference and everyone will find what’s right for them. This time of year, when the fresh water ponds are not frozen there are lots of visitors from up north to view at a distance and the 10s are great for that.

I do admire the quality of the 8x view but I am staying with 10x.

I have read several articles about 10x offering no advantage over 8x for identification. That may well be true. For me there is more to birding than identification. I enjoy watching them and viewing the spectacular detail of each bird and its behavior.

Stability is not an issue for me. I seem to always find something to lean on or a way to stabilize the image without much of a problem.

Enjoy your 10s.
 
Thanks for the replys everyone. Interesting about the sweetspot being better in the 10x32 than the 8x32 and the FOV being better than the 42. I'm sold!!

I have to say after having another look today I have totally fallen in love with the 10x32 Ultravid. Just feels like the perfect size in hand and the view just sizzles with crispness and contrast. It is a wicked bin!! Now just to find the cash! Yikes!

I also love being in close to the bird and picking up all the crisp little feather details and twinkles in the eye that 10x tends to do. I also have never had a problem with image shake. You younger guys n girls out there must be having to many coffees in the morning!!

No seriously though, I do prefer 8x for close forest birding and still admit its a nice relaxed view (as is 7x for long sessions viewing bird behaviour at medium distance etc) but for everything else 10x wins hands down for me.
 
Sorry all.

Just realized I turned this thread into 'yet another' 10x versus 8x rant instead of a 'whats wrong with 10x32 Ultravids' one.

Apologies~
 
Based on my own personal observations (admittedly limited--one can't try EVERY binocular in the world! Although Frank and Tero might take issue with that observation!) the binoculars with the most generous "sweet spots," other than the Nikon 10 x 42 SE Porro prism, are the quality European 7 x 42 roof prisms. The big exit pupil might be a factor here but I also own an inexpensive late 1980's Fujinon 4000 7 x 42 roof prism with a fairly narrow 370' FOV and a narrow "sweet spot," so clearly, the design of the ocular lens is critical to the efficiency of it's view. Overall, the worst I've seen are 10x and higher binoculars with objective lenses of 32mm diameter or less.

Other observations on this rather mysterious binocular phenomenon are welcome.
Bob
 
Last edited:
I would like to see what the knowledgeable optics people say about this.

My guess is that it is a relation between FOV and lens curvature. Compared to binoculars, surveying instruments have relatively flat objectives.

I have noticed that in the surveying instruments, that I have spent a great deal of time looking through for the last 40 years, are just about all “sweet spot”. They only have about 1.5 degree FOV but, even when close focused, you see almost no pincushion or barrel distortion. In my Topcon I can just discern a little pincushion right at the edges. In my Leica and Leitz instruments, I can detect no apparent pincushion or barrel distortion, even in my 1950’s vintage Wild T2. They all are focused from edge to edge, even at minimum distance.

CA is also not apparent in any of these. Since we spend a lot of time shooting building edges, rooflines, prism rods and other edges that define locations, CA would be bothersome. I have never been bothered by it nor have any of my instrument persons ever mentioned it. Admittedly, I had looked for it in the past and just recently started paying attention again, but not something we look for during work.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top