Leica 7x42 Ultravid HD+ owners thoughts. (1 Viewer)

brocknroller · Jan 13, 2016

Gilmore Girl said:
Yep, it will be my primary bin for bird watching.
I still have the Opticron 8x42 which I may sell now since
I just dropped 2400 smackers on the UV. I still like the little
Opticron so not quite sure if I should keep it as a back up or not.
And I still have my 6x30 porro which I use once in a while for low weight
like when I want to go to the park during lunch hour during the work week.
It's easier to bring the little porro ... only 16 or 17 ounces.
Someday down the road a 10x may be a nice option for big fields or the reservoir/lake. But the 7x42 will be pretty much doing it all going forward.

That's quite a bargain considering the favorable exchange rate of 1 smacker = $.50. No savings with Sawbucks - 240, or Fivers - 480, or Tenners - 240 (less with Pavarotti since he ate his profits), or Yards - 24. I haven't checked the exchange rate today, because I had to wait in line an hour to purchase PowerBall tickets, so I don't know how the dollar currently stands against simoleons, ducats, and spondulix. The dollar is pretty strong (like the state of the union outside of my neighborhood), so I'm guessing well.

A 7x42 does seem to be the best all-arounder. While 8x or 8.5x can show you more detail, that's only true if you have steady hands and don't suffer from the DTs like me, or unless you are under dressed and standing in the cold shivering with the sparrows and Cardinals.

Baby, It's Cold Outside

Brock

Pileatus · Jan 13, 2016

james holdsworth said:
This is just silly - your go-to bin was an 8 for most of the years you have posted here, with no complaints. Most of this is just you backing your recent purchase of a ten power bin and your constant craving for vindication. [not only the best bin., but the best mag. as well...LOL]

No, he just discovered the 10X50 SV. For many years I told myself the 7X42 UV would be it. Then I discovered the 8.5X42 SV; the 7X was gifted to a relative. When the 10X50 SV appeared on my doorstep I was gobsmacked. :t:

ceasar · Jan 13, 2016

[email protected] said:
Which one do you use as the chaser?

You don't; you mix the 2 in parts suitable to your taste and sip it. Half and half is a good ratio but that was also a pipe tobacco. The cans it came in are collectibles and can be found at flea markets.

The best libation to tote around in your flask along with a 7x binocular is, of course, a 7 and 7. Which is Seagrams 7 and 7 Up.

Now with your 10x50 SV the preferred drink is a Ten High (by Walker's--one of the cheapest bourbons on the market) and Upper 10 which is-or was-a 7 Up like drink. It is one of the most sought after soda bottles that bottle collectors seek. It was marketed by Royal Crown as their version of 7 Up. No doubt your 10x50 SV, a fine binocular, will be a collectors item in the future.:t:

Geo. G. · Jan 14, 2016

I've got an 8x32 (Conquest HD) and 10x42 (newly acquired Leica UVHD), and I'm very happy...for now! Both of those have apparent fields near 64 degrees. While I am intrigued by the idea of a good 7-power binocular, it's not something I would pursue unless it offered a little more field than my 8x32 (420 ft per 1000 yd, i.e., 8 degrees). I guess I'm a bit of a widefield junky--anything less than 60 degrees feels claustrophobic. That's a personal preference. For others, for whom a widest field is not a big deal, I can understand the desire for the steady view. And Leica delivers a beautiful view.

I congratulate GG on her purchase.

-geo.

A2GG · Jan 14, 2016

Geo. G. said:
I've got an 8x32 (Conquest HD) and 10x42 (newly acquired Leica UVHD), and I'm very happy...for now! Both of those have apparent fields near 64 degrees. While I am intrigued by the idea of a good 7-power binocular, it's not something I would pursue unless it offered a little more field than my 8x32 (420 ft per 1000 yd, i.e., 8 degrees). I guess I'm a bit of a widefield junky--anything less than 60 degrees feels claustrophobic. That's a personal preference. For others, for whom a widest field is not a big deal, I can understand the desire for the steady view. And Leica delivers a beautiful view.

I congratulate GG on her purchase.

-geo.

Thanks Geo

The 7x42 has a true fov of 420ft@1000yds, so I should be able to track
birds a little better than with my Opticron 8x42 (366ft). The narrower apparent view is something I'm just not noticing. I wonder if this is something that some people notice more than others. When i first looked through the Ultravid what I noticed right away was that the top to bottom image , the circle, seemed big.
Looking through it , the image looks open and due to the bigger EP, like I'm stepping into a big , comfortable view which, to me, feels quite the opposite of a claustrophobic view.

Towards Spring I'll probably get a 10x42 for special use like big fields and the reservoir I go to. I think a 7x and 10x could be a good combo with the 7x seeing more use and the 10x for when I need it.
Like Dennis, I don't want to drag a scope around or anything I have to put on a tripod.

Tarsiger · Jan 14, 2016

[email protected] said:
I hate 7x. They are to WEAK! I want some magnification! Out here in the west we have a lot of big open country. Maybe back east in dense woods 7x would be alright on close in birds. You look across a mountain valley in the Rocky Mountains and you can't see anything with a 7x. If you are searching for birds in the Hayden Valley in Yellowstone,Wyoming 7x is useless. I think people that like 7x are birding in dense woods at short distances.

I think you mean TOO weak and of course the old US is the only country with panoramic landscapes. The difference berween 7, 8 and 10 is pretty minimal. If you can't id a bird with 7 then 10 won't do either; youll need a scope to make any difference. But each to their own, although changing opinion every posting becomes wearing.
Russ

dalat · Jan 14, 2016

Pileatus said:
No, he just discovered the 10X50 SV.

Sure. But sometime later this year he will discover the 8x42 SF and its bigger field and he will rave about it in the Leica forum.

FrankD · Jan 14, 2016

Gilmore Girl said:
Thanks Geo

The 7x42 has a true fov of 420ft@1000yds, so I should be able to track
birds a little better than with my Opticron 8x42 (366ft). The narrower apparent view is something I'm just not noticing. I wonder if this is something that some people notice more than others.

GG,

Actually, using the simple method for determining apparent field of view, your 8x42 and 7x42 have the same amount.

7x times 8 degrees (420 feet) = 56 degrees apparent.

8x times 7 degrees (367 feet) - 56 degrees apparent.

Again, that is the simple method without relying on arctangents and the other mathematical equation. The actual equation seems to coincide more with the simple method when used with more magnification than the 7x/8x that we are talking about here.

As for some people noticing it more, I think you are correct in a sense. I also think it just depends on what you are accustomed to. When using an 8x42 with 7 degree field of view for a couple of days I become accustomed to it and my brain forgets what a larger apparent field of view at that magnification looks like. But, when I pick up the 8 degree 8x42 then the I notice the difference immediately.

ceasar · Jan 14, 2016

FrankD said:
GG,

Actually, using the simple method for determining apparent field of view, your 8x42 and 7x42 have the same amount.........................................

.................................................

When using an 8x42 with 7 degree field of view for a couple of days I become accustomed to it and my brain forgets what a larger apparent field of view at that magnification looks like. But, when I pick up the 8 degree 8x42 then the I notice the difference immediately.

What if you pick up an 8 degree 7x42 instead? Do you notice it immediately then?

I do.

Bob

denco@comcast.n · Jan 14, 2016

james holdsworth said:
This is just silly - your go-to bin was an 8 for most of the years you have posted here, with no complaints. Most of this is just you backing your recent purchase of a ten power bin and your constant craving for vindication. [not only the best bin., but the best mag. as well...LOL]

I just discovered the 10x50 SV. I never liked 10x much until I tried the big SV. Now I really appreciate the extra detail of 10x with the huge easy FOV and the sharp edges. It is like Pileatus says the 10x50 SV is a game changer. I tried it because of Pileatus's review and he was right. It is a great binocular. I really like it.

Troubador · Jan 14, 2016

FrankD said:
GG,

Actually, using the simple method for determining apparent field of view, your 8x42 and 7x42 have the same amount.

7x times 8 degrees (420 feet) = 56 degrees apparent.

8x times 7 degrees (367 feet) - 56 degrees apparent.

Again, that is the simple method without relying on arctangents and the other mathematical equation. The actual equation seems to coincide more with the simple method when used with more magnification than the 7x/8x that we are talking about here.

As for some people noticing it more, I think you are correct in a sense. I also think it just depends on what you are accustomed to. When using an 8x42 with 7 degree field of view for a couple of days I become accustomed to it and my brain forgets what a larger apparent field of view at that magnification looks like. But, when I pick up the 8 degree 8x42 then the I notice the difference immediately.

But if you calculate the area of the field of view at 1,000 yds you find that the 7x42 has a FOV 31% larger. For scanning skies for hawks or eagles or waters for ducks, isn't this a more usable advantage than the impression that may or not be perceived from the apparent FOV?

Lee

A2GG · Jan 14, 2016

FrankD said:
GG,

Actually, using the simple method for determining apparent field of view, your 8x42 and 7x42 have the same amount.

7x times 8 degrees (420 feet) = 56 degrees apparent.

8x times 7 degrees (367 feet) - 56 degrees apparent.

Again, that is the simple method without relying on arctangents and the other mathematical equation. The actual equation seems to coincide more with the simple method when used with more magnification than the 7x/8x that we are talking about here.

As for some people noticing it more, I think you are correct in a sense. I also think it just depends on what you are accustomed to. When using an 8x42 with 7 degree field of view for a couple of days I become accustomed to it and my brain forgets what a larger apparent field of view at that magnification looks like. But, when I pick up the 8 degree 8x42 then the I notice the difference immediately.

Despite the equal apparent FOV, what I notice is the image looks more open/large in the UV and the opposite of a claustrophic view as Geo's experiences when he looks through the 7x42. But, then he is comparing to his binoculars. But, I do wonder if perhaps some people may notice the difference in apparent view more than others ...sort of like CA...I dunno...just guessing at that. One thing is certain...the true FOV of the UV should fit more info into the view and hopefully this will help with tracking birds. I was never one for requiring a wide FOV however, but if it helps with birding that's cool. The big EP is more important to me and I do notice it. The larger EP makes the image appear big and more comfortable...maybe this is why the view has an open feel to it.

A2GG · Jan 14, 2016

ceasar said:
What if you pick up an 8 degree 7x42 instead? Do you notice it immediately then?

I do.

Bob

This is my feeling too so far going from the Opticron 8x42 (7 degree FOV) to 7x42 Ultravid (8 degrees). But, I do need more time with it and I'll get it in the next few days.

denco@comcast.n · Jan 14, 2016

I feel AFOV is more important to the WOW factor than FOV. My Swarovski 8x32 SV's have an AFOV of 64 degrees and my 10x50 SV's have an AFOV of 66 degrees. Of course the 8x32 SV has a bigger FOV than the 10x50 SV but still the 10x50's have more WOW factor when you use them. A bigger AFOV is more impressive than a bigger FOV.

Troubador · Jan 14, 2016

[email protected] said:
I feel AFOV is more important to the WOW factor than FOV. My Swarovski 8x32 SV's have an AFOV of 64 degrees and my 10x50 SV's have an AFOV of 66 degrees. Of course the 8x32 SV has a bigger FOV than the 10x50 SV but still the 10x50's have more WOW factor when you use them. A bigger AFOV is more impressive than a bigger FOV.

HI Dennis

Thats great for you and long may you continue to enjoy it.

But what if you are searching the sky for birds not a WOW factor?

Lee

denco@comcast.n · Jan 14, 2016

Troubador said:
HI Dennis

Thats great for you and long may you continue to enjoy it.

But what if you are searching the sky for birds not a WOW factor?

Lee

True the 7x or 8x gives you a bigger FOV but the birds are smaller and harder to see in that FOV. Sometimes I pick up a small bird in my 10x that I wouldn't have seen in a 7x or 8x especially at distance. I was scanning for Elk in Hayden Valley in Yellowstone this summer and I had both my 8x and 10x SV's. I was using my 8x first and I couldn't see any Elk at all and then I tried my 10x and could just make out some movement at the base of a distant mountain and upon closer inspection I saw antlers moving. Sure enough there was a large herd of Elk moving along slowly at the base of the mountain. 10x will especially at distance reveal birds and animals that you will never see in a 7x or 8x. For your close in birding in the UK 7x or 8x is probably fine but out here in open country or say on an African Safari 10x is going to find you more animals and birds. That is why most hunters and guides use 10x.

Vespobuteo · Jan 14, 2016

[email protected] said:
I feel AFOV is more important to the WOW factor than FOV. My Swarovski 8x32 SV's have an AFOV of 64 degrees and my 10x50 SV's have an AFOV of 66 degrees. Of course the 8x32 SV has a bigger FOV than the 10x50 SV but still the 10x50's have more WOW factor when you use them. A bigger AFOV is more impressive than a bigger FOV.

No, you are delirious Dennis,
it's actually 62° AFOV for the 10x50 Swaro,
but the Zeiss SF 10x42 have 65° AFOV,
THAT is impressive.
I think you should get one, right now!
If you are ready to be impressed, that is.

denco@comcast.n · Jan 14, 2016

ceasar said:
You don't; you mix the 2 in parts suitable to your taste and sip it. Half and half is a good ratio but that was also a pipe tobacco. The cans it came in are collectibles and can be found at flea markets.

The best libation to tote around in your flask along with a 7x binocular is, of course, a 7 and 7. Which is Seagrams 7 and 7 Up.

Now with your 10x50 SV the preferred drink is a Ten High (by Walker's--one of the cheapest bourbons on the market) and Upper 10 which is-or was-a 7 Up like drink. It is one of the most sought after soda bottles that bottle collectors seek. It was marketed by Royal Crown as their version of 7 Up. No doubt your 10x50 SV, a fine binocular, will be a collectors item in the future.:t:

I will bet with any of those libations you could hold your binoculars as steady as any tripod.

denco@comcast.n · Jan 14, 2016

Vespobuteo said:
No, you are delirious Dennis,
it's actually 62° AFOV for the 10x50 Swaro,
but the Zeiss SF 10x42 have 65° AFOV,
THAT is impressive.
I think you should get one, right now!
If you are ready to be impressed, that is.

10x times 6.6 degrees= 66 degrees apparent (Swarovski 10x50 SV)

10x times 6.5 degrees= 65 degrees apparent (Zeiss 10x42 SF)

(That is using Frank's equations. Apparent field of view = Magnification x Real field of view)

Torview · Jan 14, 2016

K

[email protected] said:
True the 7x or 8x gives you a bigger FOV but the birds are smaller and harder to see in that FOV. Sometimes I pick up a small bird in my 10x that I wouldn't have seen in a 7x or 8x especially at distance. I was scanning for Elk in Hayden Valley in Yellowstone this summer and I had both my 8x and 10x SV's. I was using my 8x first and I couldn't see any Elk at all and then I tried my 10x and could just make out some movement at the base of a distant mountain and upon closer inspection I saw antlers moving. Sure enough there was a large herd of Elk moving along slowly at the base of the mountain. 10x will especially at distance reveal birds and animals that you will never see in a 7x or 8x. For your close in birding in the UK 7x or 8x is probably fine but out here in open country or say on an African Safari 10x is going to find you more animals and birds. That is why most hunters and guides use 10x.

I've been birding this week, both in woods and on the coast where the birds are a great distance, my mates have their 10's and I have my 7, I'm always first to pick up whats around because I have a larger rock steady fov, and I don't know how far away a bird would need to be for a 10x to see it and a 7x not !, has'nt happened to me yet.

Leica 7x42 Ultravid HD+ owners thoughts. (1 Viewer)

porromaniac

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

Well-known member

Beth

Well-known member

...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Beth

Beth

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread