Leica’s design sense… (1 Viewer)

[Thotmosis]

 

[Rotherbirder]

Thanks for the note!

I'm considering upgrading my Vortex Razor (from 'alpha minus' to alpha, you might say). I'm still juggling the options, including an ATX, Harpia, Kowa 88/99, etc., but I still fancy taking a look at the 82 Televid.

Optics aside, I was a little surprised by the build quality of the ATX and Harpia models that I have tested. The ATX certainly doesn't have the same sense of quality you get with the NLs, for example. Strangely, I think the Razor is a nicer piece of kit than the ATX and Harpia, physically speaking (but the glass is another matter, of course). The Kowa seems to have a good balance of qualities.

If the Televid 82 is as nice as a Noctivid to hold and use, and the AFOV is not restrictive, to my eyes, then I'd be interested to try one.

Zeiss build quality - cosmetically at least - is poorest of the three. They have a very 'plasticky' look/feel to me and don't instill confidence in a long & trouble-free life; Swarovski second and Leica top place design & build-wise.

RB

 

[Nethero]

Thanks for the note!

I'm considering upgrading my Vortex Razor (from 'alpha minus' to alpha, you might say). I'm still juggling the options, including an ATX, Harpia, Kowa 88/99, etc., but I still fancy taking a look at the 82 Televid.

Optics aside, I was a little surprised by the build quality of the ATX and Harpia models that I have tested. The ATX certainly doesn't have the same sense of quality you get with the NLs, for example. Strangely, I think the Razor is a nicer piece of kit than the ATX and Harpia, physically speaking (but the glass is another matter, of course). The Kowa seems to have a good balance of qualities.

If the Televid 82 is as nice as a Noctivid to hold and use, and the AFOV is not restrictive, to my eyes, then I'd be interested to try one.

I have recommended Meopta products many times, but please do not oversee their optics! If anything, look at their spotting scope. The S2, with either a 20-70 eyepiece or 30-60 wide angle are phenomenal options.

A few have mentioned that Meopta used to produce Leica spotters. Look at the attached photos of the Zeiss Victory Diascope produced until 2016(?). This was one I had two years ago. I didn't notice it said made in Czech until I was taking the photos!

 

[Tim S]

Does anyone know whether they're still made by Meopta? (Scope body at least; surely Leica makes the highly regarded wide zoom eyepiece themselves.) I would think some people might still prefer a classic coarse/fine zoom to the now trendy single collar.

I have a 65 Televid about three years old which was made in Portugal. Best 'scope I've ever had, never had a Zeiss but Kowa, Swarovski (ATX, ATS)

 

[Troubador]

Zeiss certainly isn't about pure function; they actually hired an outside firm to design the HT and SF exteriors which naturally wound up full of pointless overwrought details. (I don't know whether that was also true of the weird Design Selection models of the 1990s where one could hardly operate the focuser, does anyone?) So I suppose taste is one thing, design another...

The company that Zeiss hired was KISKA and of course you are entitled to your opinion but I think they did a fine job. It is hard for me to see how the KISKA designs were any more overwrought than the Dialyt 7x42 with its blocky armour and naked hinges.

Here is what I posted about the HT at the time:
Victory HT 8x42
Zeiss’s HT was a radical mixture of both modernity and an echo of past glories. The smooth and elegant optical tubes were joined together by a highly visible twin-bridge. This was the first model since the Dialyt 7x42 to unselfconsciously display the bridges, and the fact that they played a prominent role in the HT’s aesthetics is confirmed by the styling study image produced during the model’s development. Notice too how the strap attachment lugs are artfully integrated into the design with a pronounced curve on their under-side. The HT was a masterclass in aesthetic design.

 

[Scott98]

overwrought details? You mean like malignant nodules growing out the sides like you-know-who? Or weird grooves and ridges instead of smooth barrels. I thought the SF's were sleek and minimalist. They seem highly refined to me. Not everybody prefers a thick, quilt-like blanket of rubber, Zeiss and Nikon like a thinner, less obtrusive armoring which suits me.

Even better is the flat surface Zeiss gives you underneath the bridge. So simple, yet no one else has done it. This is where the weight of the binos rests on my bony fingers, all the others have some kind of protruding knob under the bridge. The only weakness I see is the eyecups.

 

[lmans66]

A think Lee's description is on target. The ergonomics and design of the HT is remarkable. The minute you pick it up you know you have something special. I have not seen that quality, that 'feel' ...ever. Great binocular. I had my reservations on the tight focus depth as I was always fiddling to get my 10x42 in focus but once it did, extremely sharp. I wish the design had more depth of focus built into it. Otherwise, the outer of the HT is the absolute best.

 

[tenex]

I wasn't talking about functionality on HTs; this thread is about "design sense". And actually some of it is just fine, I realize now that I was thinking of all the busy edges of the armor. Why have it slope at the top? (OK, the last Swaro EL had the whole body slope there which I considered even uglier.) And most of all, what's going on with these lines that don't quite meet the end of the objective tubes? Just weird and unnecessary... As the OP said, Leica keeps it simpler. (I notice no one is defending the Design Selections...)

Scott, I don't understand what you're saying about the underside of the bridge. It actually looks busier to me than the usual H-shaped bin (which feels very natural to me) because the focus wheel is there where my thumbs might want to go -- though unfortunately I've never held an HT.

 

[lmans66]

I owned an Ht for years and don’t have it to refer to any more but my recollection of in terms of design is nothing but positive… slope of barrels or lines, focus wheel etc. my remembrance is simply if ‘one perfect fit’…,a glove. And surpassing any binocular, Leica or others.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Interestingly, the SFL's seem to follow similar lines and I also find them very comfortable. I prefer the cleaner Leica look but I have not bones to pick with the Zeiss.

 

[Scott98]

Scott, I don't understand what you're saying about the underside of the bridge. It actually looks busier to me than the usual H-shaped bin (which feels very natural to me) because the focus wheel is there where my thumbs might want to go -- though unfortunately I've never held an HT.

OK, I get it, you're talking about the little seams & moldings on the Zeiss. Yes, I see your point, it's not totally minimalist from a cosmetic viewpoint. Leica favors what I would call the "Dove Bar" look - a smooth, unbroken expense of rubber. I think I agree with you! Get that busy stuff off of there.

And looking at the pictures of the Noctivid, it does appear to have a flat surface under the upper bridge as well - easy on the knuckles. I don't think I could fit my hand in between the bridges like I can on the 8x42 SF though. I've not had a chance to try a Noctivid in person yet.

 

[tenex]

And looking at the pictures of the Noctivid, it does appear to have a flat surface under the upper bridge as well - easy on the knuckles. I don't think I could fit my hand in between the bridges like I can on the 8x42 SF though.

Now I see what you mean by "under". This matters even more when carrying bins in one hand than using them. My Swaros have a raised logo knob there but it's rounded enough not to feel like a problem.

 

[lmans66]

I wasn't talking about functionality on HTs; this thread is about "design sense". And actually some of it is just fine, I realize now that I was thinking of all the busy edges of the armor. Why have it slope at the top? (OK, the last Swaro EL had the whole body slope there which I considered even uglier.) And most of all, what's going on with these lines that don't quite meet the end of the objective tubes? Just weird and unnecessary... As the OP said, Leica keeps it simpler. (I notice no one is defending the Design Selections...)

Scott, I don't understand what you're saying about the underside of the bridge. It actually looks busier to me than the usual H-shaped bin (which feels very natural to me) because the focus wheel is there where my thumbs might want to go -- though unfortunately I've never held an HT.

The closest I find ergonomically to the HT is the GPO brand. Makes sense since the CEO is former Zeiss. Sadly the GPO suffers from terrible ‘play’ in the focus wheel, otherwise I would pick one up.

 

[A2GG]

The closest I find ergonomically to the HT is the GPO brand. Makes sense since the CEO is former Zeiss. Sadly the GPO suffers from terrible ‘play’ in the focus wheel, otherwise I would pick one up.

I wish GPO would make a 32mm of their HD. I’d be interested in that.

 

[SeldomPerched]

... ... ... but it was ONLY apparent when switching bins side by side.
If we don't do this direct comparison, other than when we purchase, we would probably all be a lot happier with what we've got.

Ain't that the truth? (And I wish you'd told me a few years ago. ) Tom

 

[SeldomPerched]

Hello. I have a question for you. I have a 10x42 BA Trinovid (about 15 years old) which I needed to have service. I got them back and they are bright and clear. IIt is hard for me to imagine better image optics. However, I assume (?) that Swarovski and Zeiss, at their high end, make binoculars that are superior in this regard.

But what is the difference, do you know? Will what I see be 2-3 times better? Or is it something like better imaging in the dusk? Or do the higher cost binoculars focus more close? (that would be a plus certainly).

Since I got these Leica's back and have been using them I do not feel I'd need anything else -- certainly for the time being.

What are your thoughts? And anyone else's thoughts . . .

You've got yourself some binoculars you really like and it sounds like close focus limitations if there are any and other drawbacks you could think up aren't detracting from the pleasure and success you are finding with them.

So - and I think some others here will agree, even though we are 'binocaholics', the worst possible thing you could do is start comparing your revived, newly serviced BA with anything newer. Forget it until such a time when you really find you need a newer feature.

One reason I say this is that every binocular has good and bad points; so even if you get a newer, more advanced item it is likely to disappoint in some other aspect: handling, eyecups, character of view, and so on. In particular I get the feeling that many users who love Leica do so for objectively hard reasons to explain, about three-dimensionality perhaps and also in particular they love the colour signature — things that they find missing in the technically more advanced Zeisses and Swarovskis.

To sum up: the usual advice is 'try before you buy' but I'm suggesting 'you won't miss what you haven't had, so don't buy — and better still don't try either'. You have been warned.

Tom

 

[lmans66]

I think Tom is spot on.... it is easy to look at the 'greener grass' on the other side of the pasture and forget that what we have now is actually pretty green. We have all been there.

Good binoculars are expensive and what is 'expensive' is relative to each one of us to a different degree. So prior to really putting down hard money, don't ask 'us' what your benefit will be but ask yourself. Make a trip to go to a physical outlet and try different bins and see if the difference is really what you might feel it is. If you yourself don't feel like you need anything, don't worry about it. The 10x42 Trini's you have are superb binoculars and odds are you can 'talk yourself into anything' but maybe no reason to either, jim

 

[John M Robinson]

Or…., Just forget about it and enjoy your binoculars. You’ll read things on here comparing the best of the best, and finding tiny differences and blowing them way out of proportion. I replaced my old, worn out Leitz Trinovids with Ultravids back in 2008. The store let me take them and a Swaro 8.5x42 home for the weekend. They were both absolutely top notch, but I was drawn to that signature Leica image and kept them over the ELs. Then I got on this forum, big mistake. For the next four or five years I obsessed over every little detail, it seemed like I spent most of my time looking for defects. I bought some 8x32 BNs, then sold them, bought 8x32 and 10x42 Nikon SEs which I still have.

I finally just started using them, weened myself off this forum and just enjoyed them since. I only started posting again when Leica reintroduced the 7x35 Trinovid Classic. Now I have to be careful to avoid falling in over my head again. Just use your wonderful bins, show them off to friends who will be blown away at how good they are.

That’s my advice lol.

 

[lmans66]

I only started posting again when Leica reintroduced the 7x35 Trinovid Classic. Now I have to be careful to avoid falling in over my head again. Just use your wonderful bins, show them off to friends who will be blown away at how good they are.

That’s my advice lol.

Oh oh...... ...jim

 

[OspreyZB]

Here's a nice one for a collector... Serial number 001/100.

NIB Leica Ultravid 8x32 HD-Plus Ltd Ed. Safari 2017 Binocular Serial #1 of 100 | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for NIB Leica Ultravid 8x32 HD-Plus Ltd Ed. Safari 2017 Binocular Serial #1 of 100 at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com