[lvwally]

Not sure where to post this so I will post in both Leica and Nikon forums.

In my opinion there is a clear winner here. The two binoculars are very similar, both with a double-hinged design. They both fold down the same way and appear to be almost exactly the same width and length when folded down, with the Nikons being a bit thicker when folded because of the design of the hinge. The Nikon is about an ounce heavier, which is not a bad thing in a bin this small and light.

My resolution test was to focus on a small sign about 50 or 60 feet away, which had medium and small writing on it. It was at a distance where I could barely make out the small print and both bins seemed to resolve equally, at least I could tell no difference.

I could also tell little if any difference in field of view, though the Nikon is rated at 282 ft vs 273 for the Leica. Both were adequate for a bin this size.

Depth of field was very similar between the two, with maybe a tiny edge to the Leica. An unscientific judgment call however.

Both bins are rated as 15mm of eye relief. I wear glasses and had no trouble with either, achieving what looked to be a full FOV.

I like the case for the Leica a bit better only because it seems a little more secure. It had a locking clasp vs a snap closure for the Nikon. Both cases were about the same size, with the Leica case slightly longer and the Nikon case slightly thicker. The Leica however fits a bit too snugly in the case and the Nikon is easier to remove without fumbling.

Close focus is about the same for both, just over 10 feet.

Optically I could not favor one over the other, both are excellent. Mechanically, I slightly favored the Leica -- the focus wheel is in the normal position, whereas the Nikon is at the far end, you have to use your pinky to operate it. For me this necessitated a grip which tended to change the IPD if I was not careful. However the focus wheel was smoother on the Nikon so with a little practice it may not be a problem. I have owned the Leica for some time and just received the Nikon.

I love my Leica and never thought I would meet its equal in a 10x25. Truth is, I found the Nikon to be easier to use in some respects. In bins with such a small exit pupil, for me it seems to take less fiddling with the Nikons to adjust them to my eyes properly, at least with my glasses on. The extra ounce of weight seems to help steady them just a bit.

I think I would reach for the Nikons first. Considering that they cost about $250 less than the Leicas, I would recommend the same to others.

Wally

[Lewie]

Wally:

Have you compared the 8X20 Leica to the 8X20 Nikon LXL? If so, I would be interested in hearing what you thought.

Lew

[lvwally]

Lew,

I don't own an 8x20 Nikon LXL but I do have an 8x20 Ultravid and an 8x20 Victory B T*. I find both of these to be similar in optical quality and I could be just as happy carrying one as the other on a trip when packing light. I would give a small edge to the Leica between these two, it is just a bit more compact (though both are pocket), it has a little better eye relief (though I have no problem with glasses on either), and is a bit heavier. However there are days when I prefer the Zeiss.

After using the Nikon 10x25 LXL I suspect the 8x20 would be a quality instrument. I purchased the 10x25 because I already own a number of 8x, and I did read another opinion recommending the 10x.

One recommendation I will give is to consider a 10x25 over an 8x20 in the pocket bins. The reason for this is that I think you will get better clarity and sharpness with the 10's. If I had to recommend just one pocket bin (though I haven't tried the Swaros), I would say you can't go wrong with the Nikon LXL 10x25 for price and performance, and they are built like a tank for their size.

Wally

[Lewie]

Wally:

Thank you very much for your input!

Lew