[JabaliHunter]

Originally Posted by AlbertoJ

We have as alpha binoculars:

-Swarovski Swarovision.
-Swarovski SLC HD.
-Nikon EDG.
-Zeiss HT.

Now Leica should must make a new alpha binocular to compete with them.

If the SLC HD qualifies, in what way doe the Leica Ultravid HD not (apart from not being new)?

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by AlbertoJ

We have as alpha binoculars:

-Swarovski Swarovision.
-Swarovski SLC HD.
-Nikon EDG.
-Zeiss HT.

Now Leica should must make a new alpha binocular to compete with them.

We have as betta binoculars:

-Swarovski CL.
-Nikon HG.
-Zeiss Conquest HD.
-Leica Trinovid.
-Kowa XD.
-Minox HG APO.
-Nikon SE and EII.

Alberto,

I think you're right. Leica probably has its new alpha on the drawing board or maybe there's even a prototype.

Which features would you like to see in a newly designed Leica alpha?

Brock

[vop]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Which features would you like to see in a newly designed Leica alpha?

Brock

A 7x42 with wider FoV.

[Kammerdiner]

Up the ER. I didn't even look at the 8x32mm Ultravid. What is it 13.3mm?

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by vop

A 7x42 with wider FoV.

Good luck! 8 degree fields are probably here to stay in the 7 x 42s. And 8 degrees is rather wide anyway.

There are now only two alpha 7 x 42s being made. Leica and Nikon. Zeiss and Swarovski dropped theirs.

Bob

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Alberto,

I think you're right. Leica probably has its new alpha on the drawing board or maybe there's even a prototype.

Which features would you like to see in a newly designed Leica alpha?

Brock

A 25% drop in price! (hysterical laughter!)

Bob

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by Kammerdiner

Up the ER. I didn't even look at the 8x32mm Ultravid. What is it 13.3mm?

That would be nice. The EDG 8 x 32 has 18.5mm ER.

Bob

[vop]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Good luck! 8 degree fields are probably here to stay in the 7 x 42s. And 8 degrees is rather wide anyway.

There are now only two alpha 7 x 42s being made. Leica and Nikon. Zeiss and Swarovski dropped theirs.

Bob

If there's something you really need in life, it's luck!

Yes, 8° is good in a 8x, but not enough for a decent AFoV in a 7x; I would like at least 9°. The Zeiss FL is acceptable.

I don't have much hope, especially with the recent escape from 7x and focus on sharp edges rather than FoV. But it makes the begging and prayers even more important.

Let's just hope not all the optics companies has to follow the current stream. Does it hurt with some diversity?

[ticl2184]

Sorry to drift away from the last post.
Just wondering if anyone knows if the Duovids are going to be updated any time soon ?
There now over 10 years old and could do with a makeover

Tim

[AlbertoJ]

Originally Posted by JabaliHunter

If the SLC HD qualifies, in what way doe the Leica Ultravid HD not (apart from not being new)?

CA and edge correction.

SLC HD is like Zeiss FL in CA, much better than Leica Ultravid(HD or non HD, is the same).
I had an Ultravid and changed by a FL because of CA.

SLC HD has better edge correction than Ultravid and FL.

Swarovision is even better than SLC HD (and Zeiss FL) in CA and edge correction, and has a better contrast and quality image.
Swarovision now is the Alpha and it´s at least the level to reach by Zeiss and Leica.

[mak]

Originally Posted by AlbertoJ

CA and edge correction.

SLC HD is like Zeiss FL in CA, much better than Leica Ultravid(HD or non HD, is the same).
I had an Ultravid and changed by a FL because of CA.

SLC HD has better edge correction than Ultravid and FL.

Swarovision is even better than SLC HD (and Zeiss FL) in CA and edge correction, and has a better contrast and quality image.
Swarovision now is the Alpha and it´s at least the level to reach by Zeiss and Leica.

Does the SLC not have higher light transmission than the Swarovision and below the FL?
mak

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by vop

If there's something you really need in life, it's luck!

Yes, 8° is good in a 8x, but not enough for a decent AFoV in a 7x; I would like at least 9°. The Zeiss FL is acceptable.

I don't have much hope, especially with the recent escape from 7x and focus on sharp edges rather than FoV. But it makes the begging and prayers even more important.

Let's just hope not all the optics companies has to follow the current stream. Does it hurt with some diversity?

8 degrees is still 420' @ 1000 yards. LFov or AFov.

9 degrees is 472.50' @ 1000 yards. The Zeiss 7 x 42 Victory FL had 450' @ 1000 yards and did not sell enough for Zeiss to continue it and I don't think it was because people did not like the Afov.

Jerry Liquori, the Raptor expert who wrote HAWKS At A Distance and HAWKS At Every Angle stated in both books that he uses 7 power binoculars for their wide fields of view. He used Zeiss 7 x 45 Night Owls from 1994 to 2008 whan he switched to a Zeiss 7 x 42 Victory FL. He also stated that no matter the power, beginners should equip themselves with"high quality binoculars." He did not mention of "AFov." He said "wide field of view."

Too much emphasis is placed on fine technical details like "afov" and not enough on quality and ease of use in the field.

This is a binocular forum so one should expect that but users should not get carried away with technical details when considering the practical matters of binocular usage.

Bob

[vop]

Originally Posted by ceasar

8 degrees is still 420' @ 1000 yards. LFov or AFov.

9 degrees is 472.50' @ 1000 yards. The Zeiss 7 x 42 Victory FL had 450' @ 1000 yards and did not sell enough for Zeiss to continue it and I don't think it was because people did not like the Afov.

Jerry Liquori, the Raptor expert who wrote HAWKS At A Distance and HAWKS At Every Angle stated in both books that he uses 7 power binoculars for their wide fields of view. He used Zeiss 7 x 45 Night Owls from 1994 to 2008 whan he switched to a Zeiss 7 x 42 Victory FL. He also stated that no matter the power, beginners should equip themselves with"high quality binoculars." He did not mention of "AFov." He said "wide field of view."

Too much emphasis is placed on fine technical details like "afov" and not enough on quality and ease of use in the field.

This is a binocular forum so one should expect that but users should not get carried away with technical details when considering the practical matters of binocular usage.

Bob

Ok, you're right; BUT I didn't say that I didn't want quality and ease of use in the field.

I just said that I like a great AFoV, preferably 65°. 60° is ok and I can live with 55°, but I don't like it as much as 65°.

Wasn't the question (the one I answered) what we'd WANT in a new Leica?

[Mulga]

I bought my 8x40 Ultravid HD's after trying all the Alphas, I had no previous bias as this was my first pair of 'quality' binocular. My decision was a compromise. Optical performance is high on the list of criteria, so is weight, size, ruggedness and longterm durability. I rejected the Swaro and Zeiss based on my over all decision making process. All of the Alphas are very good glass but there are horses for courses IMHO.

I have to laugh reading some of the comments and not just in theis thread. I have been reading alot about Myers-Briggs and the like recently. The NT personality types crack me up, they really keep these forums ticking LOL.

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by vop

Ok, you're right; BUT I didn't say that I didn't want quality and ease of use in the field.

I just said that I like a great AFoV, preferably 65°. 60° is ok and I can live with 55°, but I don't like it as much as 65°.

Wasn't the question (the one I answered) what we'd WANT in a new Leica?

Re your question: Yes, it's probably what we would want and probably what Leica would like to build if they were confident that they could sell enough of them at the price they would have to be sold at to be profitable.

[vop]

Originally Posted by Mulga

...I have to laugh reading some of the comments and not just in theis thread. I have been reading alot about Myers-Briggs and the like recently. The NT personality types crack me up, they really keep these forums ticking LOL.

Indeed! :)