[matt green]

anyone care to give any insight on these two.hopefully by the end of june i will be able to choose between either of these or similar priced roofs.the only binocular in this price range i have definitly excluded from my list is the nikon se porroprism.i was put off these within a second of attempting to focus,being very stiff and uncomfortable.my shortlist as follows
[1] leica bn 8,42
[2] leica bn 8,32
[3]swarovski slc 7,42
[4]nikon 8,32 hgl
[5]nikon 8,42 hg[old model from warehouse express]
it is not that easy for me to visit optical showrooms to try all these together and past experiance tells me that the dealer rarely has all the items in stock you wish to try,any advice welcomed.matt

[Leif]

Originally Posted by matt green

anyone care to give any insight on these two.hopefully by the end of june i will be able to choose between either of these or similar priced roofs.the only binocular in this price range i have definitly excluded from my list is the nikon se porroprism.i was put off these within a second of attempting to focus,being very stiff and uncomfortable.my shortlist as follows
[1] leica bn 8,42
[2] leica bn 8,32
[3]swarovski slc 7,42
[4]nikon 8,32 hgl
[5]nikon 8,42 hg[old model from warehouse express]
it is not that easy for me to visit optical showrooms to try all these together and past experiance tells me that the dealer rarely has all the items in stock you wish to try,any advice welcomed.matt

Surely you are within yomping distance of Cley Spy? I thought they had a wide range in stock.

Leif

[matt green]

been to cley a couple of times leif,though at the time never though to have a fumble with the swarovski's.i recall i came to the conclusion to buy the very nice opticron verano's and still lust for something highend at the end of the year but now i am thinking of waiting a little longer till after the summer and going for one of the binoculars in my list.i am not a driver[saving the world] so visits to cley etc are restricted

[Rob Smallwood]

I'd ignore most of the advice that you get - the bottom line with optics (especially when comparing items in a similar price category such as these) is that it will be down to how they feel and perform for you.

[RCMann]

Originally Posted by matt green

anyone care to give any insight on these two.hopefully by the end of june i will be able to choose between either of these or similar priced roofs.the only binocular in this price range i have definitly excluded from my list is the nikon se porroprism.i was put off these within a second of attempting to focus,being very stiff and uncomfortable.my shortlist as follows
[1] leica bn 8,42
[2] leica bn 8,32
[3]swarovski slc 7,42
[4]nikon 8,32 hgl
[5]nikon 8,42 hg[old model from warehouse express]
it is not that easy for me to visit optical showrooms to try all these together and past experiance tells me that the dealer rarely has all the items in stock you wish to try,any advice welcomed.matt

Why not put the 7x42 FL on your short list?
It would very likely rise to the top!

Rod

[Atomic Chicken]

Greetings!

I've looked through all of these except for the Swarovski SLC 7x42, but I've looked through the SLC 8x42 which I would assume would be pretty close. I've also evaluated the 7x42 FL that Rod suggests.

After all of this, I would HIGHLY recommend that you choose none of them, and instead go with the Leica Trinovid BN 7x42. It's what I ended up buying when I was in the market for a 7x42 or 8x42 high-end model. A lot of my reason was personal preference, I was deciding between the Trinovid, Ultravid, and Zeiss FL's in 7x and 8x, and the 7x42 Trinovid just seemed to have the best overall image of all the models I looked at. It was a nice bonus that they were on closeout sale at the same time!

Your own preferences might be different, when buying such expensive optics make sure you at least look through the model you settle on before buying - it would be a shame to make such an expensive mistake!

Best wishes,
Bawko

[Jonathan B.]

Originally Posted by matt green

anyone care to give any insight on these two.

Hi, Matt

You are on the right track. In the US there are currently great buys on Leica Trinovid 8x42 and 7x42, so I wonder if Leica is going to discontinue them. Bawko recommends the 7x42, but they are both very fine. I have tried SLC 7x42 and consider it great. In all three cases, weight is a consideration, but with a harness it should not be a problem. I own Ultravid 7x42 and have become addicted to the big field of view, the great depth of focus, and the brightness.

There are also bargain prices right now on the original Nikon HGs, recently almost giveaway prices on both 8x32 and 8x42, though I think many of them are factory refurbished and some eBay dealers are dishonestly separating them from their packaging and/or documentation. I think the 8x42 is superb (and think the new, lighter 8x42 LXL is even better), but as many people on the forum point out, it exhibits more chromatic aberration than the other bins under consideration.

I cannot stand the HG 8x32. I don't know why; perhaps its the rapid focus, but for me it seems to have extremely shallow depth of focus, and the image simply doesn't feel right. This impression has not been based on a single, potentially defective bin, but on the handling of four different ones over the past few years.

On the other hand I consider the SE nearly perfect and have owned it and used it heavily for five years, in all conditions except rain or snow. The only time the focus is tight on mine is in cold weather; otherwise it is wonderfully smooth and precise.

If you were to make a choice without being able to handle all of the bins, the SLC 7x42 will provide an image practically identical to Trinovid 7x42, but the SLC (to me) feels much better in the hand. The difference in weights is trivial. SLC 7x42 is the only bin that I came within a hair's breadth of buying before trying Ultravid 7x42, which I consider sharper and more contrasty than the Trinovid (Bawko would not agree).

I almost forgot Trinovid 8x32. Another fine, compact bin. The SE outperforms it, but I would be happy if somebody gave me one. I would buy a 7x42 instead.

[Atomic Chicken]

Jonathan,

Originally Posted by Jonathan B.

before trying Ultravid 7x42, which I consider sharper and more contrasty than the Trinovid (Bawko would not agree).

Actually, I partially agree with what you are stating. When I did comparisons between the Ultravid 7x42 and Trinovid BN 7x42, I found a few interesting things. The Ultravid was unquestionably brighter, and a touch better in contrast under low light conditions. In terms of "color contrast", the difference between adjacent areas of differing color, the Trinovid seemed more "pure" and vivid somehow... if that makes any sense.

The Ultravid and Trinovid were equally sharp in the center of the image (perhaps the Ultravid was SLIGHTLY sharper, but the difference was so miniscule that I cannot say for certain!). However, there was a DEFINITE and very noticeable difference between the two when it came to edge sharpeness, I found the Trinovid to be at least 50% sharper at the edges than the Ultravid.

Overall, I preferred the Trinovid image to the Ultravid, even though the Ultravid had some clearcut improvements in certain image qualities. Looking through the Trinovids felt more like "naked-eye" viewing to me, like there was no glass between - whereas the Ultravid seemed almost artificially "enhanced" - like the image was too contrasty and bright somehow. Again, this is purely a matter of personal preference, many people will argue that you can't have too much of a good thing and that the Ultravid is closer to perfection... ultimately it is up to YOU which binocular will be better for your needs and preferences.

Best wishes,
Bawko

[elkcub]

Bawko,

I know what you're saying about the Ultravids seeming "enhanced," having used them for a day or so last November. I just wrote a quick evaluation of the new Bushnell 10x43 Elite, on a different thread, but used the word "harsh" to describe it. I was thinking about the Ultravids that gave me the same feeling. I'm reasonably sure it has to do with the high transmission and color balance achieved with 60 layer coatings. Anyway, it's not "natural" to me either, but maybe it's something people would get used to. Personally, I'm adapted to the Swarovski view, although so far I find Zeiss to be equally natural.

Regards,
Elkcub

[Pileatus]

Bawko and Jonathan et al,

After using my 7X42 Ultravid in all sorts of weather and locales, I've come to the conclusion that it is a perfect low light binocular. On days that begin with sunshine and end in gloom, the Ultravid's contrast factor (if it can be called that) improves as the weather worsens. Sometimes it’s so good I see birds and colors I don’t think I should be seeing, given the weather conditions. In bright light, however, the Ultravid does not have the same stunning level of contrast as my SE and that bothered me for a few months. It's extremely close, but not equal and the challenge is in the comparison. The SE seems to be perfectly tuned for bright light and, under those conditions, it always delivers high contrast, pinpoint sharp images. As the light fades, the SE is still excellent, but it just doesn't deliver the same relaxing twilight images of the Ultravid. Yes, I know, 32mm versus 42mm, but there's more to it than a simple difference in objective size.

I think the Trinovid 7X42 is a tad darker to start with resulting in slightly more contrast under normal lighting. I can "make" my Ultravid darker by repositioning the eyepiece and, though the contrast is slightly enhanced, it's done so at the expense of CA. Get out of direct, bright sunlight and the Ultravid really comes to life. To be fair, most bins I’ve used get “washed out” to one degree or another in bright light.

I always liked the Trinovid 7X42 and no one should conclude by my comparison that either bin is "better". I almost purchased the Trinovid 7X42 but I preferred the weight and handling of the Ultravid. In any case, the Trinovid 7X is being discontinued, so they will soon be hard to find.

My conclusion is that the Trinovid transmits less light and, therefore, initially appears to have slightly better contrast than the Ultravid. The Ultravid, however, delivers brilliant colors under all conditions, is extremely sharp, and is simply fantastic in low light conditions. All things considered, I would still choose the Ultravid over everything else I looked at.

As an aside…
Those who think you need high power to view raptors have never enjoyed a stable 7X image. I regularly observe Red Tails, Harriers, Turkey Vultures, Broadwings, etc. and, though the images are smaller, the birds are clearly identifiable and the comfort factor is off the charts. The concern I have is not distance; it’s stability. If I’m observing shorebirds from a stationary position larger powers are desirable. If I’m scanning the sky, as I often do, then lower power is my only choice. The comfort factor of lower power has to be experienced to be believed.

John

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Atomic Chicken

In terms of "color contrast", the difference between adjacent areas of differing color, the Trinovid seemed more "pure" and vivid somehow... if that makes any sense.

I suspect that is due to the Trinovid having slightly better colour correction than the Ultravid i.e. less CA. The Ultravid does have a fair bit of CA. I guess this is because it has fast objectives to keep the length down? I've recently noticed, to my surprise, that my Zeiss 8x42 FL gives colours that are noticeably clearer and more vivid than my Nikon 8x32 SE. I think it is due to less 'bleeding' of one colour into another. I recall someone saying that the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED version also produced more vivid colours than the non ED version.

Anyway, back to the original question. The Leica 8x32 BN is in many respect very nice, but not so bright in low light e.g. dark woods. The Nikon 8x32 HG IMO has noticeably more contrast and this makes a difference. (I once viewed shadow detail with both, and the Nikon showed detail not visible with the Leica.) Both have very noticeable CA to my eyes. Some people see it. Most don't. Try them for yourself is all I can suggest. The Nikon 8x42 HG is rather nice with wonderful contrast, excellent sharpness, but noticeable CA (though less than the small version). I always found the Leica 8x42 BN a bit bulky though still a rather nice binocular and a very natural view.

I know this isn't helpful, but you really do need to try them for yourself. Maybe even borrow from friends to at least see how you get on with a given make and model. It's a lot of money to pay to find out that you hate your new purchase.

Leif

[steverowe]

I'd be interested in your opinions on the Leica Ultravid BR 8x32. I recently bought a pair when back in the UK on leave, without any proper research or comparisons with other bins. I was in a buying frenzy. I had to leave them at home because carrying bins in Saudi Arabia is likely to get you banged up as a spy. I'm very impressed with the feel and handling, and the image is excellent, but they all are in this price range, really.

Steve

[pduxon]

hi Matt

fwiw I found the x42 Leica Trins and Nikon HG too bulky - but hey thats me.

Personally I'd look at the Nikon x32 and Leica Trin x32 but you may want to look at the Swaro SLC 8x30 - it has an usual focus position but I'm told you soon get used to it.

[henry link]

Please excuse this somewhat off topic post, but I am intrigued by several posts on this thread that indicate a rejection of binoculars with state of the art light transmission and contrast in preference to those with "mellower" and darker images. Since no binocular has 100% light transmission or is completely free of light scatter I don't think there are any that are brighter or higher contrast than reality ("reality" being looking at something with unaided eyes at a close enough distance to produce the same apparent size as through the binoculars). Daylight, after all can actually be "harsh" which is why people wear sunglasses.

I prefer the brightest highest contrast optics possible, come what may, but I have a suggestion for those who don't: filters. I have several pairs of old Tasco "Binocular Filters". These were stretch to fit rubber things that fit over the binocular objective trim rings. They came with cheap plastic yellow filters which I tossed and replaced with glass UV filters. I only use them for protection under harsh conditions like blowing sand or salt spray. A product like this could be incorporated into tethered objective covers and could provide neutral darkening of various degrees or specialized effects like polarizing or color casts. It makes sense to me to go for the highest possible light transmission in the optics, then reduce it to your comfort level with an add on filter according to the conditions.

[elkcub]

Originally Posted by henry link

Please excuse this somewhat off topic post, but I am intrigued by several posts on this thread that indicate a rejection of binoculars with state of the art light transmission and contrast in preference to those with "mellower" and darker images. Since no binocular has 100% light transmission or is completely free of light scatter I don't think there are any that are brighter or higher contrast than reality ("reality" being looking at something with unaided eyes at a close enough distance to produce the same apparent size as through the binoculars). Daylight, after all can actually be "harsh" which is why people wear sunglasses.

I prefer the brightest highest contrast optics possible, come what may, but I have a suggestion for those who don't: filters. I have several pairs of old Tasco "Binocular Filters". These were stretch to fit rubber things that fit over the binocular objective trim rings. They came with cheap plastic yellow filters which I tossed and replaced with glass UV filters. I only use them for protection under harsh conditions like blowing sand or salt spray. A product like this could be incorporated into tethered objective covers and could provide neutral darkening of various degrees or specialized effects like polarizing or color casts. It makes sense to me to go for the highest possible light transmission in the optics, then reduce it to your comfort level with an add on filter according to the conditions.

Hi Henry,

I suspect you are referring to some of my recent outrageous posts, but not interpreted quite as I had intended (IMO). To me, subjective responses such as "unnatural," "harsh," or "mellow" relate to what one internally anticipates or desires and not necessarily to measurable physical "reality." So, if there were a departure from what one expected or anticipated, it might be called unnatural. Or, if there were a quality being sought or desired like mellow, a departure from it might be called harsh. It's the perceptual experience I'm referring to; and I readily admit that I'm hard put to describe it, and harder put to explain it. Nonetheless, there it is.

Personally I'm sure there is a physical explanation for these experiences, which lies in the realized transfer function of the optics relative to the visible spectrum. The psychophysics of that staggers the imagination, so I'm content to simply accept what my brain tells me is "pleasant."

There is a practical aspect to this, however, which might be worth considering. Increasingly, I've seen BF discussions involving folks needing to adapt to, or get used to, the newer optics, rather than them being easy (i.e., natural) to use at the outset. In several instances it would appear that acceptance was gained reluctantly, with a residual yearning for the older products. (I'm talking here about the visual image and not the mechanics.)

As always, I look forward to your thoughts.
-elk

[Jonathan B.]

Originally Posted by steverowe

I'd be interested in your opinions on the Leica Ultravid BR 8x32. I recently bought a pair when back in the UK on leave, without any proper research or comparisons with other bins. I was in a buying frenzy. I had to leave them at home because carrying bins in Saudi Arabia is likely to get you banged up as a spy. I'm very impressed with the feel and handling, and the image is excellent, but they all are in this price range, really. Steve

I handled a pair about two weeks ago and was blown away. I was able to compare it to 8x30 or 8x32 SLC, HG, and Trinovid, but not to SE or FL. The center-field resolution, edge sharpness, brightness, contrast, and field of view were all amazing. It is quite compact and light, and for its size I think it delivers the most beautiful image I have seen. However I am anxious to handle the 8x32 FL and to compare FL and Ultravid to SE. So far I think the little Ultravid gives the SE a run for the money. If anybody has had a chance to compare 8x32 FL to 8x32 SE I would like to hear their impressions.