• 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.

ultravid non HD s. HD (8x42) (1 Viewer)

I have had both and the difference is almost imperceptible. The only reason I went with the HD over the BR (non HD as you say) is the AquaDura coating... it works.
 
Hermann said:
From what I've seen the difference between the HD and the HD Plus is more easily visible in the field.

Hermann
Click to expand...

Hermann

This is what I have heard too, but the OP was asking about the model before HD compared with the first HDs (not the HD Plus at all).

Lee
 
I haven't compared them, but I own the non-HD (BR) and I'll say it has quite a bit of chromatic aberration, especially off-axis, compared to the Zeiss FL, Swarovski 8.5x EL Swarovision, and some others. The CA in that bin is not subtle. In Birdforum discussions, reviewers still found plenty of CA in the HD version, and it seemed it wasn't an update that successfully brought the performance up to the standard for CA control set by the FL (and later, others).

--AP
 
I believe the main difference between the original Ultravid and the HD was the improved focus mechanism. The originals were prone to significant free play in the focus wheel (a defect widely criticised by many owners at the time and resulting in reputational damage to the brand) which was corrected in the HD. Optically they were the same. I had an original model with the focus free play but after the introduction of the HD , Leica, to their credit, would under warranty, fix the focus problem and make the original Ultravid become an HD by modifying the focus assembly, which they did for mine.
 
Troubador said:
Hermann

This is what I have heard too, but the OP was asking about the model before HD compared with the first HDs (not the HD Plus at all).
Click to expand...

I know. What I implied was that the difference between the non-HD and the HD isn't really all that large ... :king:

If you want to get a Leica that's clearly better than the non-HD, you need to get a HD Plus.

Hermann
 
Hermann said:
I know. What I implied was that the difference between the non-HD and the HD isn't really all that large ... :king:

If you want to get a Leica that's clearly better than the non-HD, you need to get a HD Plus.

Hermann
Click to expand...

OK gotcha.

Lee
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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.

Similar threads

N
Ultravid 7x42 HD+ vs Noctivid 8x42
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
8K
Scott98
S
Allen
Leica Ultravid HD 10x32 - user opinions
Replies
18
Views
3K
Allen
Allen
A
Leica trinovid HD 8x42 question
Replies
5
Views
1K
asr3510
A
etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
R
Leica Bins
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Bentley03
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top