Finally clicked into place with UVHD Pluses (and still love SLC) (3 Viewers)

[Scott98]

I have to admit I did have the EDG 7 as well but though it was great in many ways the image, to paraphrase Canip was bright but dull. I liked the focuser and the glass in general and had I nothing else to compare with would have been very happy, I'm sure. As it was I sold that and some other items as I didn't want to feel like a collector more than a user. I felt I didn't deserve to have them all actually.

I have heard at least two very experienced people say that while the 7x42 EDG is good the 8x is better! I did like the lack of glare with those EDGs.

I meant to ask: did you say you have the EDGs yourself? I can't quite keep up with all the posts at the moment!

Tom

Yes, I've got the 7x42 EDG, purchased new from Japan last fall. I may not be as picky as some people, the EDG, SFs, UVHD's, Swaros, they all look incredibly sharp to me. I tend to value other aspects like the focuser, ease of eye placement, lack of rectilinear distortion/globe effect more that minute differences in color balance, sharpness, FOV, etc.

Compared to my 8x42 SF and the 10x42 EDG I had, the 7x42 EDG has virtually no rolling ball or warping effect while panning. Reducing the magnification allows a wider field with easier eye placement and less distortion than a bigger-AFOV 8x, I think that's one of the reasons to like 7x.

The EDG and UVHD 7x42's have an 8 degree FOV, the SF 8x42 has 8.4, but it's got difficult eye placement and lots of warping while panning. So you do make some sacrifices to get a wide-field 8x. And of course 8x is shaking a little more than 7x.

 

[gwlee]

Just random outpourings really, but with a dangerous follow-up question at the end... ... dangerous to me, that is!

Finally, finally after years of faff everything has — literally — clicked into place for me with both the Ultravid HD Pluses I now feel very lucky to have still in my possession. The 7x42 has bothered me for ages as, no matter what, it just hasn't quite had the snap and crispness of the competition of similar format and vintage i.e. T*FL, a fantastically great bin and with AK prisms as an added bonus for high transmission. The 8x32 even less so till I changed units at quite a loss after coming to the conclusion that the first one I bought felt like a Friday night job; the new replacement I bought nearly two years ago (at a guess; I forget time these days) has been absolutely great by comparison.

Three days ago I was all ready to pack up the 7x42 and take it into the dealer where I bought it in 2018 or 19 and be ready to lose heavily on it. "No demand for sevens these days"; that sort of thing. The bin was leaving me very disappointed after finding it trailed some way behind even the Dialyt BGAT*P* that I was reunited with about a month ago, itself a legend but an ageing one. On the day planned for trading in the Leica 7x42 some instinct or paranormal message from the Leica forum here made me forget the pot of hot tea and the cake I had readied for a break before setting out; the tea went cold as I decided to unpack the bin back out of its box and have a last stab at tweaking the dioptre setting — something last done months ago when I was convinced it couldn't be improved on (but still wasn't exactly Swaro- or Zeiss-clarity convincing). I pulled out the stop and moved the dial round by half a space between the lines from minus, closer towards centre (whatever that represents in numerical terms), pushed it back in, remade the tea so as to give myself a chance to 'regroup', drank a cup, ate a slice, went outside, and almost didn't dare lift the bin to my eyes, so sure was I that the experiment would fail.

It didn't fail. For the first time I could agree immediately with all the superlatives uttered about the 7x42 UVHD Plus or non-Plus. Not just about the colour or three-dimensionality or easy view, all of which I had experienced all along, but finally the resolution matched the other alphas though in a more aesthetic way (to me anyway). Goodness knows how I had failed to get the setting right originally or to realize it wasn't really right even when I had got closer to it.

So long had the jinx lasted that I didn't dare trust my findings till I had used the bin again a few times over the next 48 hours. The double-checking did reassure me though, as the view continued to excel each time I looked.

That's about it; no longer do I feel jealous when reading the lyrical-waxing posts about Leica UVs or NVs, nor do I need to worry any more that I have a dud. The 8x32 and the 7x42 are both excellent; each lends a slightly different feel to the imagery apart from the obvious physics of the different magnification and objective sizes. Something is a bit different between the two in terms of contrast and colour, and of course the viewing is a little easier with the 42 than the 32 which is famous for compact size at the expense of viewing comfort, but both give a lovely image and now with excellent definition as well.

Someone remind me please: moving now to a different UVHD Plus model what would I find different in the 8x42 UVHD plus version as regards the look of the image? Colours, ease of view, definition, contrast, crescent flares, eyecups. Not worried about CA and astigmatism and GE (rolling ball). I wonder if I'd find that one as good as the 8x42 SLC... perhaps just a little nicer in its colours and, I'm guessing, a touch lower in contrast, but now that the two Leicas I have are set just right I'd wouldn't be heartbroken to hear the SLC might remain top of the 8x42s for me. Canip, if you are reading this, what do you think as I am pretty sure you have or have used both UVHD+ and SLC in 8x42? My feeling is to stick with what I have but it's tempting just to try that other UVHD Plus.

Tom

Tom,

I am not surprised that you initially had problems correctly setting the diopter for your 7x42 UVHD+. There‘s a significant typo in the English language instructions that came with mine. Following the instructions didn’t seem to work, so I experimented with the binocular to find out what did work, which made it easy to spot the typo.

Gary

 

[John M Robinson]

Yes, I've got the 7x42 EDG, purchased new from Japan last fall. I may not be as picky as some people, the EDG, SFs, UVHD's, Swaros, they all look incredibly sharp to me. I tend to value other aspects like the focuser, ease of eye placement, lack of rectilinear distortion/globe effect more that minute differences in color balance, sharpness, FOV, etc.

Compared to my 8x42 SF and the 10x42 EDG I had, the 7x42 EDG has virtually no rolling ball or warping effect while panning. Reducing the magnification allows a wider field with easier eye placement and less distortion than a bigger-AFOV 8x, I think that's one of the reasons to like 7x.

The EDG and UVHD 7x42's have an 8 degree FOV, the SF 8x42 has 8.4, but it's got difficult eye placement and lots of warping while panning. So you do make some sacrifices to get a wide-field 8x. And of course 8x is shaking a little more than 7x.

I agree 100%! I think all these top of the line binoculars have awesome optics so that’s the least thing I worry about. For me it comes down to ease of view, feel in hand, vivid colors-contrast, mostly ease of view.

 

[tenex]

Well, going back a month to the OP...

I decided to unpack the bin back out of its box and have a last stab at tweaking the dioptre setting — something last done months ago when I was convinced it couldn't be improved on (but still wasn't exactly Swaro- or Zeiss-clarity convincing). I pulled out the stop and moved the dial round by half a space between the lines from minus, closer towards centre... finally the resolution matched the other alphas though in a more aesthetic way (to me anyway). Goodness knows how I had failed to get the setting right originally or to realize it wasn't really right even when I had got closer to it.

Congratulations. I wish I could experiment now with the diopter on our BN but it's in New Jersey getting recalibrated after being knocked well off.

I just got the BN 10x32 back from Leica (it took six weeks), set the diopter which is now nearly centered again (though slightly "+" when others go a bit "-") and took it out to view my usual test targets. When I did this previously BN's central sharpness, while good, clearly lagged FL and SLC HD; now it's so close that I wouldn't complain about it anymore. This was my everyday bin for 16 years and it's nice to have it returned better than ever, at no cost.

This isn't a parallel experience of diopter tweaking (which I didn't even have to fiddle with as planned), rather somehow a result of servicing, and the useless receipt doesn't itemize what was done for "1.5 hrs". Could they have improved how the diopter tracks changes in focus, as well as its calibration? But the result is similar: this BN is now nicely sharp. FL is still slightly sharper though with less contrast (which suggests impressive resolution), and of the three my favorite remains SLC which seems to combine the best of both. (FL still has the advantage in CA suppression, where of course BN still lags.)

 

[Thotmosis]

I just got the BN 10x32 back from Leica (it took six weeks), set the diopter which is now nearly centered again (though slightly "+" when others go a bit "-") and took it out to view my usual test targets. When I did this previously BN's central sharpness, while good, clearly lagged FL and SLC HD; now it's so close that I wouldn't complain about it anymore. This was my everyday bin for 16 years and it's nice to have it returned better than ever, at no cost.

That‘s really good news tenex. I‘m wondering if i would like the 10x32 from Leica more then the Zeis. Probably would like them both as i do like both the 7x42‘s (FL and BN) for different reasons. Anyway another good Leica experience!

This isn't a parallel experience of diopter tweaking (which I didn't even have to fiddle with as planned), rather somehow a result of servicing, and the useless receipt doesn't itemize what was done for "1.5 hrs". Could they have improved how the diopter tracks changes in focus, as well as its calibration? But the result is similar: this BN is now nicely sharp. FL is still slightly sharper though with less contrast (which suggests impressive resolution), and of the three my favorite remains SLC which seems to combine the best of both. (FL still has the advantage in CA suppression, where of course BN still lags.)

For my eyes the Leica BN has more contrast and the FL is brighter which btw is not always better. But for my eye sockets the Leica are slightly better so this might influence my opinion a bit. The other day i compared the two in sunny weather and the Zeiss FL really gave such a beautiful “sparkly” view that I didn’t see before (I just have both binoculars a few months). Still a lot to discover, will be a nice journey

 

[Thotmosis]

Don’t forget us 7x35 guys.😊 It’s probably the best, easy viewing compromise binocular ever.

I have got an old Trinovid 7x35 B on the way…

 

[Mike F]

Hello Tom, been away for a while, but so pleased to hear that you sorted out your problem with the 7x42. As you probably remember, I’m also a big fan!

Returning to your original post, FWIW I personally feel that a 10x bin compliments a 7x very well. I really see no reason to even consider the 8x42UV when you have the 7x42. If you are interested in a 10x Leica I would highly recommend checking out the Noctivid. More expensive than an UV of course, but speaking personally I love having both and thoroughly enjoy the differences. The NV is undoubtedly Leica’s best glass IMO.

Now, if only I could get completely happy with the diopter setting on my 12x50 UVHD+……….!

 

[tenex]

Now, if only I could get completely happy with the diopter setting on my 12x50 UVHD+……….!

What do you think is going on, and has it ever been serviced? Some here say they fiddle with diopters all the time, others never do. What I find is that a diopter is set and forget on most bins (like SLC 56, FL 32, BN 32) while my SLC HD 42 occasionally requires tweaking. So much for that pesky little spring Swaro thought solved the problem.

 

[Mike F]

What do you think is going on, and has it ever been serviced? Some here say they fiddle with diopters all the time, others never do. What I find is that a diopter is set and forget on most bins (like SLC 56, FL 32, BN 32) while my SLC HD 42 occasionally requires tweaking. So much for that pesky little spring Swaro thought solved the problem.

I think it’s probably a combination of a number of factors. This is the 12x50 which (you might recall) has a diopter which doesn’t seem to be correctly zeroed from the factory. My eyes are the same as each other, diopter wise, and I have the diopter set to ‘zero’ on all of my other Leica bins. I just normally set the diopter to zero and forget about it. Of course that’s exactly what I did when I first got these 12x50’s a few years ago. It actually took me quite a while (surprisingly enough) to work out that the reason that I couldn’t get comfortable with the view was that the diopter setting was off. I actually need to dial it 1.75 to 2 segments to the + side for it to be correct. I can get a totally sharp image this way. However, either because I’ve had to do that and have spent ages fiddling with the diopter to try to get it just right and I’m never quite sure if it’s really in the right place, partly because one’s eyes can change slightly from day to day (or even during the day), or because it’s a 12x50 and the DOF is so shallow, or because of some other factor, I hardly ever feel that it has the ease of view that my other Leicas have. Even my lowly 10x25 BCA never gives me the feeling that something isn’t quite right. As I said, I think it’s probably a combination of reasons and is most likely largely psychological.

To answer answer your question, I haven’t ever had them serviced. They’re only a few years old so I can easily send them back under warranty. In fact I nearly did that last July and had contacted the service department in Portugal and was ready to pack them off but then I went on holiday and when I came back started an extremely busy period of work which has just finished. The problem now is that this is the time of year in Finland when there’s lots of light again and plenty of opportunity to use them so I’m unsure as to whether to send them off now or weather to wait until the end of the summer. I’m extremely sensitive to collimation as well, so I’m pretty sure that isn’t the problem as it would be obvious, and it seems a little silly to send them back just to have them adjust the diopter dial……..

Any advice gratefully received!

 

[Trinovid]

…wait until the end of the summer.

Any advice gratefully received!

This sounds like the perfect plan, and you might as well ask them to check collimation as well while they’ve got it.

 

[tenex]

and it seems a little silly to send them back just to have them adjust the diopter dial……..

That is exactly what I just did, and the results were beyond my expectations. Our 10x32 BN had suffered a fall and while it showed no visible damage, the diopter had to be maxed out (to "-", is that predictable?) to get a neutral setting. Not only is that now recalibrated, the overall performance is better than ever, though I can't tell why as the work order didn't list what they did. Perhaps there had previously been a bit of play in the diopter as focus was changed, now fixed? (Like you I don't suspect a collimation issue.) Anyway, yes, I'd encourage you to do this as soon as convenient, and be sure to post the outcome.