Is the premium ~200 g binocular dying? (8x20) (1 Viewer)

Zeiss and Swarovski have dropped their 8x20 models, notionally replacing them with 8x25 models of much greater weight and bulk.

If recent history is any guide, where these two go, the entire industry follows (sometimes gasping for breath).

For now, Leica does offer the Trinovid and Ultravid in 8x20. I had a Trinovid 8x20 BCA for a few years. I found it optically disappointing in that it lacked bite and contrast – so much so that I occasionally wondered if they’d forgot to give mine the phase-correcting goodness. Eventually I looked through someone else’s and saw the same lacklustre image.

This convinced me that it would be worth paying a premium for any binocular in the 8x20 format, but I’ve never quite had the gall to pay over 500 currency units for such a tiny device. And who knows, maybe even the best are not much better. The Trinovid 8x20 BCA is well-reviewed by people who should know.

Kowa and some others have recently introduced premium models with fractionally larger objectives than 20 mm (e.g. 21–22 mm). A cynic might think this nominal difference was designed to avoid direct weight comparisons, for these new instruments are porky indeed, usually weighing over 300 g.

I find it peculiar that this shift away from the tiny 8x20 is happening today, just as technology has finally permitted essentially total light transmission. Consider that makers once offered even smaller 6x18 models, before today’s impressive coatings had been invented.

What does the future hold for tiny, good binoculars?

You are probably right in your observations. They seem to fall into the same bucket as the 6 & 7 power. It's a shame because they all have a place and are greatly under appreciated. Most people not knowing any better would probably be better off with one of these so they would always have a pair with them.

I think you can either have small objectives, or nice crisp bright images. (for a given magnification)

Choose one only.

But that's just my opinion.

why would one want an 8x20 when you can get an 8x25 at about the same size/weight?
a 5-6-7x20 would seem to make more sense

edj

I would be surprised if Leica dropped its 8x20 Ultravid model, which many regard as the best 8x20 available. I imagine it does well against its competition at the same price point. Maybe that is why the competition is disappearing. I especially like the BL version, which I use quite a lot. I think many users don't know how to use these bins properly. With glasses and a hat (or without glasses, but with custom larger eyecups), and with the proper grip, they work extremely well for most types of birding and butterflying. They also work well at the theater.

In my experience, the pocket Ultravid is far superior to the pocket Trinovid, both optically and ergonomically. The now discontinued Zeiss 8x20 Victory, once updated with dielectric coatings, is also quite good optically, but the focus knob is not as good as that of the Ultravid.

--AP

Leica's 8x20 Ultravid is truly excellent, in my view also the best 8x20 available. That said, at least for me a binocular with only 2.5 mm of exit pupil diameter simply does not work well enough to be enjoyable to use. If I have my Leica on a tripod and stand absolutely still behind it, the image is beautiful, but in normal hand-held viewing I cannot make them work. The binocular simply has no margin of error for pupil alignment, requiring perfect placement of the eyecups relative to my eye sockets and additionally almost zero eye movement relative to the optical axis.

So I can easily see the rationale behind going for the 8x25 format instead. It is a pity, since as far as its size, weight, style, design and overall quality the little Leica is a true gem.

Kimmo

I have both the Ultravid 8x20BL and the new Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25 (and also the Trinovid 8x20 BC).

The Zeiss is significantly bulkier than the Leica, and is not what I would really call pocketable (coat/jacket pocketable at best). It really competes with the Leica Ultravid HD+ 8x32, though. Almost the same FOV, slightly darker, half the weight, same comfortable view (specially with glasses) vs. the finicky eye placement of the 8x20.

Another pocket binocular worth investigating is the Kowa Genesis 8x22, but there are very few reviews of it, possibly due to its high price (Kowa can't really command Leica pricing outside its Prominar spotting scopes).

I really think birder's are realizing you can buy a $200.00 8x32 like the Leopold Mojave that has superior optics to an 8x20 Utravid which sells for $700.00. I tried the Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25 and I still don't think it competes with and alpha 8x32 like the Leica Ultravid HD 8x32. In fact I think an alpha 8x25 like the Zeiss Victory or Swarovski CL-P has a hard time just competing with any good quality 8x32 even a Leupold Mojave 8x32. There is a big difference in eye placement comfort going from 3mm to 4mm and brightness especially at dawn and dusk or looking into shadows. After trying a lot of compacts I just can't tolerate their finickiness. Even the 8x30's are too small for me personally. It depends upon what you are willing to sacrifice optically for that smaller size.

[email protected] said:

I really think birder's are realizing you can buy a $200.00 8x32 like the Leopold Mojave that has superior optics to an 8x20 Utravid which sells for $700.00. I tried the Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25 and I still don't think it competes with and alpha 8x32 like the Leica Ultravid HD 8x32. In fact I think an alpha 8x25 like the Zeiss Victory or Swarovski CL-P has a hard time just competing with any good quality 8x32 even a Leupold Mojave 8x32. There is a big difference in eye placement comfort going from 3mm to 4mm and brightness especially at dawn and dusk or looking into shadows. After trying a lot of compacts I just can't tolerate their finickiness. Even the 8x30's are too small for me personally. It depends upon what you are willing to sacrifice optically for that smaller size.

Click to expand...

I don't think any of this is relevant to the market for premium 8x20 binoculars. It's not about superior optics. It's about the best optics possible in the smallest possible size that reach a level of performance that works for most birding situations. Case in point: I know that I can buy a ~$2000 binocular that has superior optics to an 8x20 Ultravid. In fact, I did buy that binocular (e.g. Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV). But that didn't stop me from buying and using the 8x20 Ultravid too!

--AP

I think Zeiss and Swarovski dropped their 8x20 models because they don't sell that many. I think the finicky nature of the 8x20's have doomed them to extinction. Even the people that can afford an alpha 8x20 and want one for the size has decided they are just not usable enough for normal birding hence the shift to 8x25"s. It is kind of like 7x. Not that many people buy them so they are dead no matter what virtues they had. The manufacturers make what they can sell. I think Leica will follow suite and the drop the Ultravid 8x20 and come out with an 8x25 compact. If you notice Swarovski comes out with a new binocular first followed by Zeiss and then Leica.

[email protected] said:

I think Zeiss and Swarovski dropped their 8x20 models because they don't sell that many. I think the finicky nature of the 8x20's have doomed them to extinction. Even the people that can afford an alpha 8x20 and want one for the size has decided they are just not usable enough for normal birding hence the shift to 8x25"s. It is kind of like 7x. Not that many people buy them so they are dead no matter what virtues they had. The manufacuteres make what they can sell. I think Leica will follow suite and the drop the Ultravid 8x20 and come out with an 8x25 compact.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense to me. 8x20 binoculars have never been easy to use. They have never been popular with birders (or hunters, or anyone, except maybe hikers). Only recently have optics become good enough to make the format work well enough for serious birding, so there's never been more opportunity for sales than there is now (and that's not saying there's much of one now!). In any case, if Swarovski and Zeiss really aren't making 8x20 any more, that premium market falls to Leica, so they'd be foolish to give up their near monopoly.

--AP

kabsetz said:

...If I have my Leica on a tripod and stand absolutely still behind it, the image is beautiful, but in normal hand-held viewing I cannot make them work. The binocular simply has no margin of error for pupil alignment, requiring perfect placement of the eyecups relative to my eye sockets and additionally almost zero eye movement relative to the optical axis...

Click to expand...

I wonder if you have them too close to your eyes. The eyecups on the 8x20 Ultravid appear to be much too short with respect to the apparent location of the exit pupil. Strange to say, but I am convinced that 8x20 binoculars work best while wearing glasses (and a hat to block light). The eyecups on these sort of bins are simply too small in diameter to properly work with human eye sockets. When using the 8x20 Ultravids with my glasses (correction for modest myopia and astigmatism), I have no trouble holding them steady, or in looking off-axis to the edges of the (modest) field of view without blackouts or other problems. Very comfortable, really! I know I am in the minority, but I can't be alone.

--AP

[email protected] said:

I think Zeiss and Swarovski dropped their 8x20 models because they don't sell that many. I think the finicky nature of the 8x20's have doomed them to extinction. Even the people that can afford an alpha 8x20 and want one for the size has decided they are just not usable enough for normal birding hence the shift to 8x25"s. It is kind of like 7x. Not that many people buy them so they are dead no matter what virtues they had. The manufacturers make what they can sell. I think Leica will follow suite and the drop the Ultravid 8x20 and come out with an 8x25 compact. If you notice Swarovski comes out with a new binocular first followed by Zeiss and then Leica.

Click to expand...

Yes... but I am surprised that the other alpha brands haven't followed suit with their best offering in an 8.5x42!! I wonder if the EL 8.5x42 would be as popular if it was just plain ol' 8x? I did notice an off brand with an 8.5x42 recently... think it was called an Athlon Cronus.

CG

I had the Zeiss Victory pockets some time ago. Liked them better than other pockets at the time. Decided I really didn't care to have a bunch of money tied up in a pocket glass so sold them and went with a Japanese made pocket for about half the money. Eventually decided I didn't care to have that amount of money tied up in a pocket glass. Sold them. Now I use a $40 bushnell porro for my small/lightweight binoculars. Don't feel the same about larger binoculars... them I prefer mid or top level optics.

CG

Alexis Powell said:

This doesn't make sense to me. 8x20 binoculars have never been easy to use. They have never been popular with birders (or hunters, or anyone, except maybe hikers). Only recently have optics become good enough to make the format work well enough for serious birding, so there's never been more opportunity for sales than there is now (and that's not saying there's much of one now!). In any case, if Swarovski and Zeiss really aren't making 8x20 any more, that premium market falls to Leica, so they'd be foolish to give up their near monopoly.

--AP

Click to expand...

I think Leica will follow Zeiss and Swarovski. Watch for a new 8x25 Leica Ultravid HD within 6 months.

fazalmajid said:

I have both the Ultravid 8x20BL and the new Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25...The Zeiss is significantly bulkier than the Leica, and is not what I would really call pocketable (coat/jacket pocketable at best)...

Click to expand...

Fazalmajid,
Have you handled the Ultravid 10x25 and if so would you call it "pocketable"? I ask because I have found that it can be managed (though just) in a pocket of regular (not outdoor) pants and would like to know how the new Zeiss, which is the same in length, compares with it in that respect. (Actually I have committed myself to this Zeiss but it will be 1 1/2 months from now when I receive it and am impatient to know this!) Thanks.

edwincjones said:

why would one want an 8x20 when you can get an 8x25 at about the same size/weight?

Click to expand...

So far, unsurprisingly, the 8x25 models have been much larger and heavier than the 8x20 models. Otherwise I might ask the same question!

Alexis Powell said:

In my experience, the pocket Ultravid is far superior to the pocket Trinovid, both optically and ergonomically.

Click to expand...

Sounds promising. Do you do anything special to centre the Ultravid’s exit pupils with your own pupils? For example, centring one eye at a time with the other briefly closed?

kabsetz said:

The binocular simply has no margin of error for pupil alignment, requiring perfect placement of the eyecups relative to my eye sockets and additionally almost zero eye movement relative to the optical axis.

Click to expand...

On the latter point, I have found flexible eyecups, such as the simple rubber tubes on the Nikon 8x32 SE, to be useful. When you look to the edge of the field, you can simultaneously push the binocular in the same direction, bending the rubber against your eye socket.

With solid, click-stop eyecups, this doesn’t work as well, since the flesh of your eye socket has to move instead of the eyecup. There is only limited movement available on my bony face.

There may be room for innovation here. Laterally spring-loaded eyecups? Marketing this feature may be difficult (user education).

fazalmajid said:

Another pocket binocular worth investigating is the Kowa Genesis 8x22, but there are very few reviews of it, possibly due to its high price (Kowa can't really command Leica pricing outside its Prominar spotting scopes).

Click to expand...

You’re right: it’s too expensive for something that looks like it was designed in a factory. I am sure the optics and mechanics are great at that price, but you’d never guess from looking at the generic industrial design. This is what Leica got so right with the entire Ultravid range.

More importantly to me, the Kowa is 315 g and bulky with it.

I often kept my Trinovid 8x20 BCA in the front pocket of a Billingham Hadley day bag. There were times it felt too big and heavy to be worth taking. Nowadays I’d like a compact binocular to carry in a jersey pocket while riding a bicycle. Something the size of the Kowa would be unworkable. Maybe I should be looking at monoculars instead.

I understand what denco is saying, but the sentiment reminds me of cars. When reviewing a class of cars, dim-witted reviewers unconditionally give points for the longest wheelbase, the most powerful engine, the biggest boot, the most leg-space, the greatest shoulder room, etc. When the packaging innovation runs out, you’re left with the largest car winning, as if a larger car is always desirable. The truth is that a small car is useful precisely for its smallness and efficiency.

And so it is with binoculars. Bigger is obviously better in some ways, but competing considerations may take precedence if you carry a binocular all day to use it for five minutes.

Dorian Gray said:

...Sounds promising. Do you do anything special to centre the Ultravid’s exit pupils with your own pupils? For example, centring one eye at a time with the other briefly closed?...

Click to expand...

I don't feel like I do anything particularly special that I haven't mentioned above or previously on Birdforum. Wearing glasses (ones with a stout metal frame) and a hat, as mentioned above, gets rid of problems with proper eye relief, eyecup fit, lateral light, and stability. The bins are stable when pressed firmly against my glasses.

An important difference between the Trinovid and Ultravid is that the latter has positive stops in the hinges. Consequently, you can simply open one side all the way (I open the right side all the way since I focus with the fingers on my right hand) and then do all interpupillary adjustment with the other side. This is a much quicker procedure than trying to unfold each side symmetrically. Also, unfolding it asymmetrically in that fashion means the binocular will have a consistent shape in the hand, allowing you to become familiar over time with how best to hold it for yourself. Unfolding asymmetrically also has the benefit of positioning its big focus knob under the preferred finger for rapid focus operation. Otherwise, the grip on pocket bins can feel awkwardly cramped or, if fingertips are used, insecure.

For images of my grip, see this post:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2439175&highlight=solidarity+clasp#post2439175

--AP

My preferred pocket binocular configuration is actually a 10x25, but once eyeglasses became necessary for me, eye relief also became critical. So my original Swaro 10x25 SLC was upgraded to a Leica 8x20 BR a few years ago. As Kimmo suggested earlier in Post #6, it's an amazing optical instrument, however, when used with close-fitting eyeglasses I have no problem with eye placement and it is an enjoyable view. I'd say more, but Alexis stole my thunder in post #18. Next step up for me in size and weight is my 8x42 SLC-HD.

I'm not sure if this is correct, but I wouldn't be too surprised if the manufacturing tolerances on a tiny binocular like the 8x20 BR make it relatively expensive to produce, and possibly have a lower profit margin that it's big sisters.

Ed

elkcub said:

My preferred pocket binocular configuration is actually a 10x25 …

Click to expand...

Why do you prefer the 10x25 to the 8x20? Just curious.