Nothing Leica nice week of birding.... (1 Viewer)

Hi Folks!

I got back from a great week of birding down around Mobile Bay, Dauphin Island, and Gulf Shores area. No migration to speak of. A few going both south and north I suppose but overall pretty static. This isn't to say the birding wasn't really good!

One goal I had on this trip was to use nothing but Leica binoculars. One other main goal was to use the Noctivid 8X42 mostly but it didn't turn out that way. At any rate I packed up a Trinvoid HD 8X42, Noctivid 8X42 and 10X42, and a Swarovison 12X50 FP(I have no other binocular close to this one).

One of the areas we birded was Blakeley Island in the Mobile area. LOTS of walking here. Basically one walks along dikes that hold material from dredging the channel. Birds LOVE this place. One of the best hotspots in Alabama. Lots of varieties. Outside of a wooded walk up the side of the dike, a spotting scope is an absolutely necessity....EVERYWHERE you go.

So morning came and I had to decide which binocular. Let's see....lots of walking, spotting scope, Sony RX-10 III, and well...I chose the lightest binocular I had....the Trinovid HD 8X42! So that's what I carried this day. Probably an easy four mile walk. Birds of note this day are roseate spoonbill, glossy ibis, white ibis, and black-necked stilt.

Next day....back to Blakeley Island... Only difference...I made myself take the Noctivid 8X42. A little heavier and a little larger footprint. Notable birds....black-bellied whistling duck, American avocet, and clapper rail.

Day three and four was at Dauphin Island mainly at Pelican Island which isn't an island anymore. Hurricanes have washed so much sand to the south side of Dauphin Island the fishing pier is landlocked and Pelican Island is nothing more than a long walk. Again....my equipment list would be very similar except today I would be taking the 10X42 Noctivid. Not a tree in sight so this was a proper choice as was the spotting scope. The afternoon we were to move by ferry from Dauphin Island to Ft Morgan/Gulf Shores area. In saying this...the Conquest HD 8X32s got some good use while touring Ft Gaines and during the ferry ride across Mobile Bay. Birds of note included the reddish egret, bald eagle, snowy plover, and brown booby :eek!:!

Day five was at Fort Morgan. This was the most "normal' day of birding on the trip. By normal I mean normal to ME. Trees and such. I picked the Noctivid 8X42 and it was the only thing I carried! Notable birds included the same brown boogie, brown pelican, and loggerhead shrike.

Days six, seven, and eight were basically all the same terrain just different spots. Beach, surf, channels, passes, etc. Birds of note were American avocet, ruddy turnstone, savannah sparrow, Henslow's sparrow, and froster's tern.

Binocular review to follow.....

Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32
This is the binocular I keep in the glovebox in my vehicle. It has gotten a lot of use and got an unexpected good bit of use on this trip. It's a great binocular when all your gear is packed up or when you want something smaller while taking a tour. It's just gotten better with time. The focus has lightened up to be really nice. Lots of FOV helped around the confines of the fort. I really like this binocular. Really, it's without fault.

Leica Noctivid 8X42/10X42
Truly a premium binocular. I suppose I've had the 10X since about Jan/Feb of this year. I got the 8X a couple of months ago at the start of Eagle Optics liquidation. The 10X42 has by now gotten a lot of use. The 8X42 not so much. All I can say is I've had absolutely zero issues with either. Nada. Everything WORKS and/or FUNCTIONS perfectly! On both. Dare I say it but no binocular I've ever owned has a more buttery-smooth focus adjustment. IF anything beats a Nikon EDG II this is it. Hinge tension-perfect. Eyecups-perfect. Diopter adjustment- half a notch down from the best in the business, a Leica HD Plus. Case- great compromise between space and compactness. I haven't owned it long enough to recommend without reservation but the odds are in your favor!

Leica Trinovid HD 8X42
Was the workhorse of the trip. I didn't expect it to be and I didn't expect to use it as much as I did! I used it because it mainly because was light/compact. I used it on long jaunts. I used with with shorts/t-shirt along the beach. It seemed to always be handy so I used it. I've had this one for two years plus a few months. I come away with a new respect for this binocular. Focus adjustment has excellent feel and it slack-free. Eyecups function and adjust perfectly. Optically it is a joy to use. Using the Trinovid HD was the surprise of the trip. Even thought I've owned it quit a while I was really surprised how much I like it and how well it represented itself in the face of strong competition! Great binocular!

So far I've done nothing but work since the trip. I guess that's the way it goes..:smoke:

It's amusing how your 8x42 Trinovid is smaller than a 8x32 Zeiss...

So you now have an 8x42 as well as the 10x42 Noctivid? Chuck, you just ruined my day!

Great to hear that you got so much use from the Trinovid HD 8x42. Have your thoughts about how it compares with the 2012-2015 Trinovid 8x42 changed at all? I know the HD is smaller and lighter, and given what you say above, that is probably the most important factor here, but how about optically and mechanically?

And did your 7x42 UVHD+ stay at home, or has that gone in favour of the 8x42 Noctivid?

chill6x6 said:

Leica Trinovid HD 8X42
Was the workhorse of the trip. I didn't expect it to be and I didn't expect to use it as much as I did! I used it because it mainly because was light/compact. I used it on long jaunts. I used with with shorts/t-shirt along the beach. It seemed to always be handy so I used it.

Click to expand...

Interesting stuff, Chuck. After all, the Trinovid HD is "supposed" to be nowhere near the Noctivid - the optics are good but not outstanding, the field of view is relatively small and so on. In other words: The Noctivid is a true Alpha, the Trinovid HD isn't.

But in the real world things may well be rather different. The difference in weight (even if it's only 130 gr) can make a real difference if you use your bins all day, the difference in size may also be important. I, for instance, find that I'm somewhat faster "on the draw" with shorter binoculars. That's one of the reasons why I didn't keep the Zeiss 7x42 BGATP many, many years ago.

It seems to me that as soon as the quality of the optics reaches a certain level, other qualities become very important. And for some people - myself included! - the lower weight and smaller size of a binocular may well outweigh the better optical performance of a heavier and/or larger binocular.

BTW, it's also interesting you didn't switch to the Conquest HD which is even lighter than the Trinovid. I believe that may well be because of the larger exit pupil of the Trinovid. 5mm is almost always better than 4mm, even in bright daylight. At least IME.

Hermann

Good write up as always Chuck, sounds like a pleasant trip with some good birds -
The weather looks a lot better than over here at present - very few birds in the snow! Is that the Meopta/Cabela's scope in one of your images? I'm sure that others would be interested in your opinion on that scope as well.

fazalmajid said:

It's amusing how your 8x42 Trinovid is smaller than a 8x32 Zeiss...

Click to expand...

It would be if that was true.

Surely that is a 42mm Conquest model in the picture.

Maybe Chuck has so many binoculars it's hard for him to keep track of them all

dipped said:

It would be if that was true.

Surely that is a 42mm Conquest model in the picture.

Maybe Chuck has so many binoculars it's hard for him to keep track of them all

Click to expand...

yep, barrels are too long for the 32.

james holdsworth said:

yep, barrels are too long for the 32.

Click to expand...

Yep, James is dead right. See the pic below, copied from elsewhere on Bird Forum, showing Conquest HD 8x32 alongside Kowa's 8x33 Genesis.
Notice how short the barrels are on the wee Conquest.

Lee

fazalmajid said:

It's amusing how your 8x42 Trinovid is smaller than a 8x32 Zeiss...

Click to expand...

No... I suppose I wasn't clear on this. I intended to use only Leica binoculars on this trip...Sooooo I had kinda packed up the others. So instead of digging out one of the Leica's I just reached into the glove box...easily accessible! I ended up using the Conquest HD 8X32 longer than I expected this day as the birding was pretty good all the way thru the ferry trip.

Mike F said:

So you now have an 8x42 as well as the 10x42 Noctivid? Chuck, you just ruined my day!

Great to hear that you got so much use from the Trinovid HD 8x42. Have your thoughts about how it compares with the 2012-2015 Trinovid 8x42 changed at all? I know the HD is smaller and lighter, and given what you say above, that is probably the most important factor here, but how about optically and mechanically?

Click to expand...

I'd still RATHER have the older Trinovid. Optically you'll probably never tell the difference. I do appreciate the way the Trinovid is put together and it's more traditional Leica styling although the HD wins the focus adjustment war!

Mike F said:

And did your 7x42 UVHD+ stay at home, or has that gone in favour of the 8x42 Noctivid?

Click to expand...

It stayed at home simply because I didn't think in this instance it was the best binocular for the job. It will come back into favor when spring arrives!

Hermann said:

Interesting stuff, Chuck. After all, the Trinovid HD is "supposed" to be nowhere near the Noctivid - the optics are good but not outstanding, the field of view is relatively small and so on. In other words: The Noctivid is a true Alpha, the Trinovid HD isn't.

But in the real world things may well be rather different. The difference in weight (even if it's only 130 gr) can make a real difference if you use your bins all day, the difference in size may also be important. I, for instance, find that I'm somewhat faster "on the draw" with shorter binoculars. That's one of the reasons why I didn't keep the Zeiss 7x42 BGATP many, many years ago.

It seems to me that as soon as the quality of the optics reaches a certain level, other qualities become very important. And for some people - myself included! - the lower weight and smaller size of a binocular may well outweigh the better optical performance of a heavier and/or larger binocular.

BTW, it's also interesting you didn't switch to the Conquest HD which is even lighter than the Trinovid. I believe that may well be because of the larger exit pupil of the Trinovid. 5mm is almost always better than 4mm, even in bright daylight. At least IME.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Yep I agree.... This was a Leica outing and true be told, I'd RATHER have a 42mm in practically every instance. The last time I was at Blakeley Island I used the SV 8X32 which of course served me well. Camera, binoculars, spotting scope, insect repellant, water.....it all adds up.

dwatsonbirder said:

Good write up as always Chuck, sounds like a pleasant trip with some good birds -
The weather looks a lot better than over here at present - very few birds in the snow! Is that the Meopta/Cabela's scope in one of your images? I'm sure that others would be interested in your opinion on that scope as well.

Click to expand...

Good eye! Yep that's a Meopta S2 this go around using the 30-60 WA eyepiece....it's a nice scope of course! I'm planning on going into more detail on it at some point and comparing it to another scope or two...

dipped said:

It would be if that was true.

Surely that is a 42mm Conquest model in the picture.

Maybe Chuck has so many binoculars it's hard for him to keep track of them all

Click to expand...

It is! That is Ashlee's Conquest HD 10X42. Just kinda stuck it there for size reference. I wasn't clear and that's my fault.

Troubador said:

Yep, James is dead right. See the pic below, copied from elsewhere on Bird Forum, showing Conquest HD 8x32 alongside Kowa's 8x33 Genesis.
Notice how short the barrels are on the wee Conquest.

Lee

Click to expand...

Yep that's a 42mm...

chill6x6 said:

I'd still RATHER have the older Trinovid. Optically you'll probably never tell the difference. I do appreciate the way the Trinovid is put together and it's more traditional Leica styling although the HD wins the focus adjustment war!

It stayed at home simply because I didn't think in this instance it was the best binocular for the job. It will come back into favor when spring arrives!

Click to expand...

Thanks, Chuck. Good to know on both counts! A 7x42 UVHD+ Noctivid 8x42 comparison would be interesting at some point! Pretty please?

Great read Chuck, as you`ve such a wide range of premium binoculars I`d be interested in your opinion about the contrast on the NV.

I got the chance to try one again recently alongside an SF and SV, the contrast on the NV was noticeably higher than the other two, (I know at this level we are`nt supposed to see any difference) but I found this very high contrast reduced the detail I could see in certain circumstances.

For example looking at a Herring Gull on the ridge of a roof with fairly bright clouds behind on the NV and to a lesser extent the SV the outline of the Gull was very hard to observe, for me a bit like the highlights in a photo being "blown out" if thats the right term, I found the much lower contrast of the SF allowed me to clearly see the outline of the Gull and whereas the legs almost disappeared on the other two the colour and shape of the legs was all there in the SF, its given me a whole new take on the SF and I can`t stop thinking about how appealing I found it.

Of course I may have weird eyes !

chill6x6 said:

Yep that's a 42mm...

Click to expand...

Chuck

Forgetting which bino you went out with is OK, we all do that sort of thing. But don't forget whether you went out with your wife or your girlfriend. Doom lies down that road :eek!:.

Nice write-up Chuck as always. Thanks for posting.

Lee

Hermann said:

Interesting stuff, Chuck. After all, the Trinovid HD is "supposed" to be nowhere near the Noctivid - the optics are good but not outstanding, the field of view is relatively small and so on. In other words: The Noctivid is a true Alpha, the Trinovid HD isn't.

But in the real world things may well be rather different. The difference in weight (even if it's only 130 gr) can make a real difference if you use your bins all day, the difference in size may also be important. I, for instance, find that I'm somewhat faster "on the draw" with shorter binoculars. That's one of the reasons why I didn't keep the Zeiss 7x42 BGATP many, many years ago.

It seems to me that as soon as the quality of the optics reaches a certain level, other qualities become very important. And for some people - myself included! - the lower weight and smaller size of a binocular may well outweigh the better optical performance of a heavier and/or larger binocular.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Respectfully, not sure how 4.6 ounces (130Gr) makes any real difference; but then for years I was in awe of a pair of 7X50 1200 gr. Zeiss Marines happily used for hours and hours at a time in LE. I don’t know if my taste simply isn’t as refined, or we’re straining at gnats here. Probably the former.

Among the samples Chuck reviews so well here, from a size perspective, they’re pretty much interchangeable making optical performance preeminent, and why my Noctivid 8x42 is about all I use. Although my stupidly sold 7X42 UVHD+ were just wonderful.

dwever said:

Respectfully, not sure how 4.6 ounces (130Gr) makes any real difference; but then for years I was in awe of a pair of 7X50 1200 gr. Zeiss Marines used for hours at a time in LE.

Click to expand...

I never used to take any notice bino weight either and most the time I don't now I am retired either. But note I said most of the time. Sometimes after some hours in the field I begin to wish I had picked up a 32mm instead of a 42mm to hang around my neck. It isn't so much to do with holding the binos up (although SFs make this easier) or with carrying the weight as such, but sometimes my neck says 'can't you hang them some place else, you dummy?'

Of course a harness would deal with this but with a backpack having shoulder straps, a breast strap and a waist strap carrying a camera holster and a lens pouch, I feel trussed up as it is without adding a bino harness.

Lee

Troubador said:

I never used to take any notice bino weight either and most the time I don't now I am retired either. But note I said most of the time. Sometimes after some hours in the field I begin to wish I had picked up a 32mm instead of a 42mm to hang around my neck. It isn't so much to do with holding the binos up (although SFs make this easier) or with carrying the weight as such, but sometimes my neck says 'can't you hang them some place else, you dummy?'

Of course a harness would deal with this but with a backpack having shoulder straps, a breast strap and a waist strap carrying a camera holster and a lens pouch, I feel trussed up as it is without adding a bino harness.

Lee

Click to expand...

Have you tried a bandoleer style carry? A good long shoulder strap takes the load off the neck without the extra fuss of a harness.

Troubador said:

I never used to take any notice bino weight either and most the time I don't now I am retired either. But note I said most of the time. Sometimes after some hours in the field I begin to wish I had picked up a 32mm instead of a 42mm to hang around my neck. It isn't so much to do with holding the binos up (although SFs make this easier) or with carrying the weight as such, but sometimes my neck says 'can't you hang them some place else, you dummy?'

Of course a harness would deal with this but with a backpack having shoulder straps, a breast strap and a waist strap carrying a camera holster and a lens pouch, I feel trussed up as it is without adding a bino harness.

Lee

Click to expand...

I had the same problem.
Solution: http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-archers-binocular-strap
It has a long padded section that slides effortlessly over clothing.
No more neck strain with my 10X50 SV! B

etudiant said:

Have you tried a bandoleer style carry? A good long shoulder strap takes the load off the neck without the extra fuss of a harness.

Click to expand...

Pileatus said:

I had the same problem.
Solution: http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-archers-binocular-strap
It has a long padded section that slides effortlessly over clothing.
No more neck strain with my 10X50 SV! B

Click to expand...

Thank you my friends for this suggestion. I will have to try it out but I can foresee a possible problem. I often carry a camera holster on my waist belt on the RHS and another pouch containing two lenses on the left. To avoid my bandoleered bino interfereing with access to these two containers I might have to make the bino strap quite short and then I am not sure if I will be able to get the binos up to my eyes as quickly as required in some circumstances.

Nevertheless, this is a solution I haven't considered so I will look into it. Thanks again for your suggestion.

Lee

dwever said:

Respectfully, not sure how 4.6 ounces (130Gr) makes any real difference; but then for years I was in awe of a pair of 7X50 1200 gr. Zeiss Marines happily used for hours and hours at a time in LE. I don’t know if my taste simply isn’t as refined, or we’re straining at gnats here. Probably the former.

Among the samples Chuck reviews so well here, from a size perspective, they’re pretty much interchangeable making optical performance preeminent, and why my Noctivid 8x42 is about all I use. Although my stupidly sold 7X42 UVHD+ were just wonderful.

Click to expand...

Dwever, I have a Noctivid 10x42 and an UVHD+ 7x42. I'm currently being sorely tempted by an ex-dem Noctivid 8x42. Please, please talk me out of this (can't rely on Chuck to do it because he already has all three!), or tell me why and how I can justify having both the NV 8x42 and the UV 7x42....

Regards, Michael.