Finally clicked into place with UVHD Pluses (and still love SLC) (2 Viewers)

[SeldomPerched]

There are many great binoculars out there. And some are admittedly "better" in one respect or the other. But I love my Ultravids best. I'm in the right club here, it seems.


That's true. And it is also true for other configurations. I can understand Tom's curiosity to know the differences between the various configurations. I'd like to add that all the Ultravids I know also differ when it comes to panning or distortion. Still, they are clearly one "family".


I find the 10x42 is very easy to hold steady if you hold them like this (a quote from another thread):

... I rest my thumbs on the opposite barrel, respectively. And my right pinkie is pressed against the cap at the end of the hinge (where it reads Leica Camera Made in Germany). Holding the UV 10x42 this way tremble and jitter are drastically reduced. Body shake is still there, naturally. This technique works better with the 42 models than the shorter (and lighter) 32 models. If you play around with this, you'll see that it is also possible to place a finger on the focuser, at least with the 32 models. Naturally, it all depends on your hands and what you think is comfortable.

I also own the 8x20 BR but these are my most used ones:
View attachment 1500520

...and beauties they are, arent't they?

Great post, jafritten, and informative too. I remember reading that advice from Canip and must try it and yours also. Very nice pictures. Personally I shall resist the 10x42 and see if I can use those steady hold tips to get the best out of my own 10x42 (the SLC which has a heck of a lot going for it and has a view 'signature' not too far from Leica's). By the way, did I mention that's a great photo?!

Tom

And yes about the various configurations curiosity.

 

[jafritten]

I shall resist the 10x42 and see if I can use those steady hold tips to get the best out of my own 10x42

I used to own a pair of 10x42 SLCs and, yes, being very similar in size (and other respects) to the x42 Ultravids, those can be held very steadily, too. I'd like to add that in addition to the placement of my thumbs and my pinkie, unlike Canip, I twist up the eyecups and rest them against my brows, which adds to the stability. It is true, though, that with eyecups not twisted up the view is nicer; it's more immersive. Either way, the visor technique is a game changer IMO.

By the way, did I mention that's a great photo?!

Thanks. I thought, I'd portray them as something like a rock combo

 

[SeldomPerched]

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. (Still I always set a diopter visually, never by its scale.)

So now we have to ask: (1) what's different about Leicas that you've only had this difficulty with them?
and (2) can this also be the case for everyone else who finds Leicas (possibly excluding NV) less than tack sharp, including me? I rather doubt it...

Tenex, I don't know. It's puzzling since some users do find the UVs tack sharp. Views on contrast seem to vary; I had an interesting and very informative message conversation with Canip on these Leica matters in May 2021 and — if a brief summary doesn't distort the gist of his findings — he felt that the Ultravid HD Plus's strength was image brightness and 'presence' as well as immediate ease of view, whereas the FL seemed a touch sharper. He also suggested that he did not get the same immediate ease of view with the FL.

Presence seemed a good way of characterizing the UV and summing up its appeal but we still are left wondering what the answers are to your two questions. What do you think they could be?

 

[SeldomPerched]

I used to own a pair of 10x42 SLCs and, yes, being very similar in size (and other respects) to the x42 Ultravids, those can be held very steadily, too. I'd like to add that in addition to the placement of my thumbs and my pinkie, unlike Canip, I twist up the eyecups and rest them against my brows, which adds to the stability. It is true, though, that with eyecups not twisted up the view is nicer; it's more immersive. Either way, the visor technique is a game changer IMO.

Thanks. I thought, I'd portray them as something like a rock combo

The photo gallery of birds is very good too.

 

[Trinovid]

Using a star is going to calibrate it for all viewing, near and far, the star image represents an infinitely small point of light. I slowly bring the blob of the star into focus and look for a disparity, one dot becoming a sharp point while the other side is still blurry. Once I see something is amiss, I close my right eye and focus the star to a point in the left eye. Then, you close your left eye and see how the star looks on the right side. If it's not a point, you use the diopter adjustment to focus it to a point as well.

I need to give this method a try sometime and it kind of helps understand (maybe) my experience today when using my friend's 8x25 Victory. Looking at a rock in the river about a mile away from up above I noticed that there was a bit of a problem with the image, but once I ran through the optimization process, it seemed to easy to get a razor sharp image. Now after reading your post, it has me fairly convinced that I need to stop doing diopter adjustments on whatever I see, but rather at least something as far away as possible, and I suppose that by default, that would mean stars.

 

[Troubador]

I need to give this method a try sometime and it kind of helps understand (maybe) my experience today when using my friend's 8x25 Victory. Looking at a rock in the river about a mile away from up above I noticed that there was a bit of a problem with the image, but once I ran through the optimization process, it seemed to easy to get a razor sharp image. Now after reading your post, it has me fairly convinced that I need to stop doing diopter adjustments on whatever I see, but rather at least something as far away as possible, and I suppose that by default, that would mean stars.

I don't think its the distance to the stars that is important here but rather the fact that using a star means you have a very simple image to assess: a single point of light against a background of darkness. The only problem with this is that to assess the sharpness of the image across the whole area of the image you need to re-position the star several times and remember how sharp it was in all the other positions. In coastal habitats where I most often use binos I find that using a large-ish patch of lichen on a rock a medium distance away works well for me.

 

[Thotmosis]

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

Welcome back to The Brotherhood Tom 👁️

 

[SeldomPerched]

Hi Tom
Thank you for your good wishes and your kind words about my bino-pics. Here are two of the MeoStar as requested.

Blackbirds are a big favourite of ours and through this winter up to mid-March we have had upto 9 Blackies in our back garden and they have been eating their way through suet cake like crazy and enjoying bathing in our garden pond. They have dispersed somewhat now and we see only 4-5 at a time and in the evening their lovely song echoes around our neighbourhood.

Aileen does have a Leica Ultravid HD (not Plus) but she by far prefers the Trinovid for its friendlier feel and handling and that close focus of only 1 metre.

Lee

View attachment 1500521View attachment 1500522

Lee,

Thank you for your post and these excellent photos. From the quality you must almost certainly have used a tripod. Tom

 

[OspreyZB]

Very interesting topic. I have binoculars (like my 7x42 UVHD) that have given me flawless, effortless views since the first time I lifted them to my eyes. Others have required a lot of time and effort for me to have things "click" just right. Interestingly enough, with all of my Ultravids the diopter scales are zeroed perfectly. With both of the Noctivids I have owned, the neutral position on the diopter scale was around -1 and +1 respectively, and I didn't get the "extreme sharpness" they're known for until I had them set perfectly. The scale on my 8x56 SLC is even farther off, with the neutral setting being at around +2.5 on the scale, but once it is set correctly, the views are nothing short of incredible...

 

[Trinovid]

I don't think its the distance to the stars that is important here but rather the fact that using a star means you have a very simple image to assess: a single point of light against a background of darkness. The only problem with this is that to assess the sharpness of the image across the whole area of the image you need to re-position the star several times and remember how sharp it was in all the other positions. In coastal habitats where I most often use binos I find that using a large-ish patch of lichen on a rock a medium distance away works well for me.

By "medium distance" would that be like 10 meters or 50? I guess you're also saying then that focusing on that rock yesterday, it was mostly that I had very sharp edges and excellent contrast that helped me out and not the distance.

 

[John M Robinson]

Regarding diopter settings, hardly anyone has both eyes exactly the same. I get my eyes checked once a year, I’m far sighted and used to be a +1.75 left +2.25 right, over the years they’ve grown closer and closer so that now they’re both about 2.00. I assumed both barrels on my binoculars were equal coming out of the factory and any different between the settings was due to my eyes. So I start by setting the diopters to my eyes and then check the setting out of curiosity. Basically using my binos as an eye test.

 

[tenex]

... he felt that the Ultravid HD Plus's strength was image brightness and 'presence' as well as immediate ease of view, whereas the FL seemed a touch sharper. He also suggested that he did not get the same immediate ease of view with the FL.

I have experience with only one FL now (10x32, but a good direct comparison to the BN) and agree that it seems sharper centrally. It also shows considerably less CA. As to overall image, it seems a bit less warm and contrast/saturation is a bit lower, which can actually look more natural in some cases and even more "transparent", which is why I don't wax lyrical about the unique Leica look. SLC 56 is also a lot like that, while SLC 42 retains more contrast and seems to fall somewhere in the middle. At least among these, I enjoy the differences rather than having a strong preference. After years of using BN it seems nice to have a little change.

I do not notice a difference in "ease of view". I wonder which actually prompts more visual effort, maximum sharpness or suboptimal? (And whether Leica may have investigated this.)

But none of this gets at your diopter issue. I will investigate that when I get the BN back.

 

[Tringa45]

The scale on my 8x56 SLC is even farther off, with the neutral setting being at around +2.5 on the scale, but once it is set correctly, the views are nothing short of incredible...

Have you seen that little arrow on the rubber armouring (left side)? That's the zero setting.

John

 

[brocknroller]

Tom, over the months your frustration/difficulties with getting the very best out of the 7x has had me thoroughly confused. Certainly it was unlikely that any suggestions I might have had would have been to try things that you would undoubtedly have tried already. Anyway, you're sorted now, which is terrific.

My eye relief comments are based on the fact that I'm a glasses wearer, so theoretically the 8x42, with more usable eye relief than the 8x32, should be less marginal and more comfortable, but it's not, it's equally marginal and no more comfortable. I expect/want more comfort from an 8x42. 8x32's I use with the eyecups screwed all the way down, the 7x42 I find best set at the first click stop up. The 7x35 Retrovid I prefer with eyecups all the way down, but the 8x40 Retrovid works best for me at first click stop up. Identical eye relief according to Leica specs (Retrovids), but quite different in real world use.

I'm familiar with Tobias' work and very much enjoy reading his reviews/articles. I don't, however, always agree with his findings/perceptions, and sometimes completely disagree. Part of that, I believe, is the fact that I wear glasses and he doesn't, but there are definitely differences in our tolerances of various characteristics in binoculars. That said, he is most definitely the expert, but what he sees with his eyes will always be quite different to what I see with my own, and I allow for that when reading his articles.

The 10x50 Ultravid I have spent time with, and found that, for me, they were the mother and father of all CA generators, extraordinary levels. I honestly don't believe it was just the binoculars, or that they were a bad copy, but the combination of them, me, and my glasses, which was responsible. Beautiful binoculars though, apart from the CA I generated while using them.

There, my morning BF ramble over coffee (which is now rather cold).

James

Eyeglasses add two additional elements to the optical train, and in your case, it could be the weakest link. So, you need to upgrade your 10x50 UV to a 10x50 UV HD to help offset the next to last elements (your eye lenses being the last).

I searched to see if any manufacturer made ED glass for eyeglasses but didn't find any. When I get my cataract out, I'm going to ask for an upgrade to Shott HD glass. When I eventually get the second one done, I will do the same, and then I won't need to buy a top alpha glass since my eyes have been upgraded to HD and because I won't have the money since I'm sure my insurance won't cover the upgrades.

Brock

 

[brocknroller]

Regarding diopter settings, hardly anyone has both eyes exactly the same. I get my eyes checked once a year, I’m far sighted and used to be a +1.75 left +2.25 right, over the years they’ve grown closer and closer so that now they’re both about 2.00. I assumed both barrels on my binoculars were equal coming out of the factory and any different between the settings was due to my eyes. So I start by setting the diopters to my eyes and then check the setting out of curiosity. Basically using my binos as an eye test.

You just saved yourself a trip to the optometrist

 

[OspreyZB]

Have you seen that little arrow on the rubber armouring (left side)? That's the zero setting.

John

Thank you John. I feel a little silly not having noticed that myself, but it makes me feel a little better knowing it isn't "off"!

Zach

 

[Troubador]

By "medium distance" would that be like 10 meters or 50? I guess you're also saying then that focusing on that rock yesterday, it was mostly that I had very sharp edges and excellent contrast that helped me out and not the distance.

Around 20m.

 

[Thotmosis]

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.

Tom, I’m really happy for you that you got the diopter settings right and enjoy the 7x42’s! It started a very interesting thread. The only downside of your story is that right now I have a very strong appetite for cake and the bakery is closed on Sunday…

As i have both the UVHD (non-plus) 8x32 and 7x42 i would like to comment shortly on the difference in “focus behavior” i noticed when using both in a forest. WIth the 7x i get a very relaxed view and i see all the trees in one perfect image but with the 8x it‘s a totally different story. I have to use the focusser all the time and for that reason i don’t take it with me anymore when i go walking in the forest. I have also a Duovid 8-12x42 but i can’t remember if it has the same behavior.

 

[Scott98]

As i have both the UVHD (non-plus) 8x32 and 7x42 i would like to comment shortly on the difference in “focus behavior” i noticed when using both in a forest. WIth the 7x i get a very relaxed view and i see all the trees in one perfect image but with the 8x it‘s a totally different story. I have to use the focusser all the time and for that reason i don’t take it with me anymore when i go walking in the forest. I have also a Duovid 8-12x42 but i can’t remember if it has the same behavior.

Every time I use my 7x42 for extended periods I get this thought in my head "why do I need any other binoculars?" Everything seems big enough and the relaxation factor is high. No distortion needed for the 8 degree FOV to be well corrected and less need for focusing. No shaking in the views! It's possible one day I may sell off all the other magnifications Maybe keep a token pair of 10x35's for high power. 8x42 is especially hard to justify when you have 7x42.

 

[Thotmosis]

Every time I use my 7x42 for extended periods I get this thought in my head "why do I need any other binoculars?" Everything seems big enough and the relaxation factor is high. No distortion needed for the 8 degree FOV to be well corrected and less need for focusing. No shaking in the views! It's possible one day I may sell off all the other magnifications Maybe keep a token pair of 10x35's for high power. 8x42 is especially hard to justify when you have 7x42.

The 7x42 are soo relaxed, i can use them for hours without getting eye fatigue. A 7x42 binocular in combination with a high power 12x42/50 or 15x56/50 could be all you need basically. Ok and a pocket binocular. I have too much binoculars but it’s great fun and though i don’t need it, i really enjoy my growing collection