-
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.
leica ultravid 12x50 - old arguments still valid? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter anorak
- Start date
thanks for the input scampo and CDK.
but is the fov for the ultravid 12x50 binocular really that narrow (leica quote 300ft), and are they really that heavy (leica quote 1050g) in comparison to lower magnification alternatives? it seems to me that technological advances are slowly whittling away at the old objections against 12x binoculars.
but is the fov for the ultravid 12x50 binocular really that narrow (leica quote 300ft), and are they really that heavy (leica quote 1050g) in comparison to lower magnification alternatives? it seems to me that technological advances are slowly whittling away at the old objections against 12x binoculars.
dogfish
Well-known member
anorak said:
I'd say the field of view was not bad and the weight possibly bearable; they're only 70g heavier than the Nikon 8x 42HGs. But for me 12x magnification is a step too far in terms of keeping the image steady. That's where things haven't changed, and won't until we get really first rate stabilised bins.
Sean
Anorak - Like you, I thought that as long as you could hold it steady, larger magnification must surely be much better - and I fancied my abilities at holding bins steadier than others. What I found out in practice over the years is that it's fatiguing to hold bins that steady (and btw - every gram counts when they are at your eyes!), and although the magnification is greater, I somehow see less because of the shake and the limited time I can hold the bins to my eyes comfortably. When you overcome "higher magnification = better" thinking and try an 8x (and i'm even considering a 7x) extensively in the field, you suddenly have a very relaxed view that doesnt fatigue you, and you want to keep on looking. I suppose that ultimately, viewing comfort is more critical to me than larger magnification because it allows me to view for longer and pick out more detail and capture more action. I currently have the choice of taking a high quality 10x and a light weight 8x every time I go out. I invariably pick the 8x. I now want to sell my 10x and get another lightweight 8x or 7x.
Grousemore
Senior Member
scampo said:
As you are a confirmed Nikon fan,Steve,it's worth noting that the 8x42 HG have the lowest FOV of the premium 8x bins.(122m@1000)
The Zeiss V2's,8x40 give you an extra 10% FOV over the Nikons,apart from a weight saving of some 25%!
Grousemore
Senior Member
Sorry,I was talking about Field of View,in response to your statement that..."every metre of extra view is vital..."
FOV is measureable ,whereas brightness is subjective and on which point I found the Leica Ultravids noticeably brighter than the Nikons.
FOV is measureable ,whereas brightness is subjective and on which point I found the Leica Ultravids noticeably brighter than the Nikons.
scampo
Steve Campsall
Yes - I thought you were and that's why I responded about the Swaros. I haven't yet looked through Ultravids. I doubt they are in actuality much brighter than the Nikons as if that is so, then the Swaros are way down the list of brightness as they are not as bright as the Nikons. But perhaps each person has a subjective response (although I have to say that when I have ever checked people's responses to optics that simply never proves to be the case!).
thanks for the input so far everyone.
i'm yet to hear though, if anyone has actually looked through the 12x50 duovids. ...anyone?
meantime, looking at the specs for them again and again, i can't help concluding that they really do measure up well to other configurations in all the key parameters. all this "too shaky" and "not enough fov" stuff is starting to sound a bit old-fashioned, and sounds like harking back to the days when all 12x binoculars were hulking great brutes with a poor fov and a dim image. this is less-and-less true nowadays:-
the ultravid 12x50's:
the fov's pretty good compared to the average of all binoculars.
the brightness compares well to the average for all binoculars
the weight of 1050g compares well the average of all binoculars.
AND they magnify 12x which is above the average of all binoculars. i accept all the previous counsel, maybe i'm being naive here, but isn't magnification the fundamental purpose of binoculars, and now that we can have it with minimal sacrifice in other departments... well, why not?
so if i decide upon a nice, cosy pair of 8x32's or suchlike, how often will i stare through them at something i can't quite identify, and think to myself: "if only i could see that bird at almost the same fov, almost the same brightness, but with 4x more magnification - damn, i wish i'd gone for more magnification and got the 12x50's"?
has anyone ever had that thought?
i'm yet to hear though, if anyone has actually looked through the 12x50 duovids. ...anyone?
meantime, looking at the specs for them again and again, i can't help concluding that they really do measure up well to other configurations in all the key parameters. all this "too shaky" and "not enough fov" stuff is starting to sound a bit old-fashioned, and sounds like harking back to the days when all 12x binoculars were hulking great brutes with a poor fov and a dim image. this is less-and-less true nowadays:-
the ultravid 12x50's:
the fov's pretty good compared to the average of all binoculars.
the brightness compares well to the average for all binoculars
the weight of 1050g compares well the average of all binoculars.
AND they magnify 12x which is above the average of all binoculars. i accept all the previous counsel, maybe i'm being naive here, but isn't magnification the fundamental purpose of binoculars, and now that we can have it with minimal sacrifice in other departments... well, why not?
so if i decide upon a nice, cosy pair of 8x32's or suchlike, how often will i stare through them at something i can't quite identify, and think to myself: "if only i could see that bird at almost the same fov, almost the same brightness, but with 4x more magnification - damn, i wish i'd gone for more magnification and got the 12x50's"?
has anyone ever had that thought?
Last edited:
anorak-
Have you given any consideration to the Duovids from Leica? Have your cake and eat it too? I have only looked through them inside a sporting goods store, but they seemed pretty good and the zoom from 8x to 12x did not require refocusing, at least for me. In the end I settled on ultravid 8x42, but if You truly desire the higher magnification the extra $$$ may be worth it for you.
Paul
Have you given any consideration to the Duovids from Leica? Have your cake and eat it too? I have only looked through them inside a sporting goods store, but they seemed pretty good and the zoom from 8x to 12x did not require refocusing, at least for me. In the end I settled on ultravid 8x42, but if You truly desire the higher magnification the extra $$$ may be worth it for you.
Paul
anorak said:
I consider the most important feature of any binocular is the ability to get an id. Usually this means being able to find the bird, maintain the bird in the FOV once found, and see features on the bird. That's why I go for an 8x. That darting Kingfisher can be located and seen with ease due to the large FOV and bright image. I have used 10x binoculars before and I struggled to find anything. The only time I have wished for more power is when in a hide, and I have been resting my arms.
Instead of spending ~£1K on one binocular, why not buy a Nikon 8x32 SE (or 10x42) and a decent small scope such as the Kowa 613?
However, some people DO prefer high power. See here:
http://birds.cornell.edu/publications/livingbird/spring99/binos.html
There is also the Nikon 12x50 SE which is cheaper, lighter and, if user comments are anything to go by, optically better, though the FOV is less, and not waterproof, with horrible rubber eye tubes.
william j clive
Well-known member
anorak said:
Thanks for the input everyone.
In the end I dreamt up what i believe is a somewhat novel setup. . I bought:
The Ultravid 12x50's with Leica "sandal" tripod adapter.
The Manfrotto 449 carbon fibre monopod + Manfrotto 484RC2 "mini" ball-head with rapid connect system.
I'm loving this setup which gives me total flexibility to use the binocular "hand-held" or snap them onto the top of the monopod in seconds.
I must say that the more I use the monopod/binocular combo and develop good technique (and there most definitely is a a technique), the less i understand why monopods aren't more widely used by birders to dramatically enhance the performance and "face-time" of ANY binocular, regardless of whether they're 12x,10x, 8x or whatever.. it's just such a relaxed way of birding from a static spot - seated or standing..
look at all those photographers with their long lenses on the 18th green at The Open - monopods galore!
In the end I dreamt up what i believe is a somewhat novel setup. . I bought:
The Ultravid 12x50's with Leica "sandal" tripod adapter.
The Manfrotto 449 carbon fibre monopod + Manfrotto 484RC2 "mini" ball-head with rapid connect system.
I'm loving this setup which gives me total flexibility to use the binocular "hand-held" or snap them onto the top of the monopod in seconds.
I must say that the more I use the monopod/binocular combo and develop good technique (and there most definitely is a a technique), the less i understand why monopods aren't more widely used by birders to dramatically enhance the performance and "face-time" of ANY binocular, regardless of whether they're 12x,10x, 8x or whatever.. it's just such a relaxed way of birding from a static spot - seated or standing..
look at all those photographers with their long lenses on the 18th green at The Open - monopods galore!
John Cantelo
Well-known member
anorak said:
Similar threads
