-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
SLC 7X42 vs. Ultravid 7X42 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Pileatus
- Start date
angelo225544
Well-known member
Hi John. I have owned both binoculars you mention but at different times. My comments, therefore, are not based on direct comparison. The Ultravid has the finest rendition of color subtleties I have yet seen - clearly a notch above the SLC. The Ultravid also has the best flare protection in difficult backlighting I have yet seen. They have about an equal amount of CA - virtually none in the center of the image at this low magnification. Resolution, too, is a virtual tie. The biggest difference for me is the unacceptable focus mechanism of the Ultravid. It has been overly stiff and notchy in every sample I have tried so far (6 or 7). The SLC focus mechanism has been superb in every sample I have tried (10 or 11). I would strongly recommend trying the Ultravid before buying. I can also tell you that the Zeiss FL 7x42 is the best the lot - huge FOV - 8.6 degrees, silky smooth focus and superior brightness and contrast to the SLC and, of course, zero chromatic abberation. Good luck with your decision...Angelo Todaro.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
angelo225544 said:
Hello Angelo,
Well, probably not zero CA exactly, but close. Would you mind expanding your comments to include the 8x42 FL?
It seems to me that highly improved longitudinal CA would necessarily result in better center resolution for the entire FL series.
Thanks,
Ed
angelo225544
Well-known member
I don't have the means to measure resolution so my comments are subjective. I agree that, in theory, an optic with no chromatic abberation should have superior resolution. However, since the Zeiss FL, Ultravid and SLC exceed the resolution of the eye (mine anyway), I wouldn't be able to choose between these three on the basis of resolution. Brightness, contrast, color saturation and resistance to flare are easier to evaluate subjectively. Here the SLC "Neu" takes a back seat to both Leica Ultravid and Zeiss FL. Only in terms of ergonomics (focusing) and FOV does the Ultravid fall short of the Zeiss FL. The 8x42 Zeiss FL will have superior resolution to any of the above 7x simply because of the higher magnification which is not fully offset by increased image shake.elkcub said:
Angelo,angelo225544 said:
Thanks for your insights!
My real problem is a progressive inability to deal with relatively small sweet spots. To many, the Ultravid might seem sharp across the FOV, but it clearly is not. The FL has the same problem and it distracts me in very short order. I think the FL sweet spot is a smaller than the Ultravid, but that's only what my eyes see. The SLCnew 7X42 image didn't appear to degrade at all off-center and my eyes really enjoy that.
I'm beginning to think that many owners find the centerfields of the Ultravid and FL line so good they are willing to tolerate small sweet spots. The EL, SLC, and Nikon HG's have larger sweet spots, but I always get the impression these models lack the super crisp centers found in the Trinovid/Ultravid and FL lines. I often wonder if a small sacrifice is made in the central portion of an image in order to extend the sweet spot as far as possible. That doesn't appear true in my SE, but in all the roofs I've examined it seems to be a trend. Surely, Leica and Zeiss would extend their wonderful centerfields if it were possible to do so, unless it was prohibitively expensive.
I recently compared my Ultravid to an SLCnew, but it was indoors and I don't think artificial lighting is the best testing environment.
John
solentbirder
Well-known member
John Traynor said:
Hi John
I wonder if you're an astronomer as well as a birder? If so you may have 'trained' your vision through astronomy to take in the whole field rather than just concentrating on the centre. This could explain your preferences (which I happen to share). For astronomy I find a consistent image quality across the field is far more comfortable than a very sharp centre with soft edges.
John
John,solentbirder said:
No, I'm not an astronomer, though I do spend considerable time looking at the night sky.
My right eye has very little accommodation that I believe heightens my sensitivity to any variation in sharpness. It's especially annoying at close distances, when one eye is not looking through the center of the objective. Thankfully, my corrected visual acuity is still excellent.
John
FrankD
Well-known member
John,
My experiences mirror your own.
1. Chromatic abberation is minimal in both binoculars but noticeable along the outside unfocused edge of both bins. I felt they were roughly equal in this regard.
2. The Ultravid has a slightly sharper image in the center of the field but as you made mention to the SLC new has a wider sweet spot making it a more relaxing image to my eyes.
3. The only difference in color that I noticed is that the SLC new still seems to have the ever so slightest hint of warmness. I did not notice it as much between it and the Ultravid but was able to pick up on it more against the Trinovid.
angelo225544 said:
Angelo,the resolution of an optical instrument is defined by D/2.4 where D is the diameter of the objective in mm and has therefore nothing to do with CA.The only thing that will happen with CA is that the smallest details will be 'copied' and shifted according to the frequencies (colours) but they will definitely be there.
Please don't assume that the words sharpness and resolution are equivalent.
Now about the very stiff focus of the Ultravid:
Leica clearly explain that this was done on purpose because these binoculars are meant to be used in EXTREME CONDITIONS.If you don't plan on using your binoculars in EXTREME CONDITIONS then indeed there are others that will be more suited to your needs.
Last edited:
solentbirder
Well-known member
StarGazer said:
Do Leica actually state that the focus on the Ultravids is stiff on purpose ? I've never seen any reference to this on any of their sites or publications. I'd be very surprised if they made a clear statement like that.
solentbirder said:
Yes,they go:"Hey,we've designed a very stiff focus wheel to make the binoculars usable in extreme conditions"
Seriously,if you use the following link you'll see an explanation of what they call
"precision and ruggedness":
http://www.ultravid.co.uk/4.pdf (page 6)
angelo225544
Well-known member
StarGazer said:
Last edited:
Angelo,you could not test the resolution (may it be theoritical or not) of a pair of binoculars,a telescope or a camera lens unless you use a magnification which is M=D (I had the max mag in mind earlier:2.4D--which was a mistake that you should have spotted--).
So for a 40mm glass,it would be around 40x,this is called the resolving power of an instrument
EVEN FOR A VERY BAD BINOCULAR,at 8 or 10x the smallest detail that such an instrument could offer would be absolutely invisble to the human eye.
We are used to these effects in Astronomy (I've polished a 300mm miror at lamda/31) and the smallest detail for a 50mm objective is about 2.2 arcsec.Imagine now a terrible sample which had only 1/3 of that resolving power due to very bad optics,that would be about 7arcsecs of resolution,and this would only be revealed at around 50x.
So for a 40mm glass,it would be around 40x,this is called the resolving power of an instrument
EVEN FOR A VERY BAD BINOCULAR,at 8 or 10x the smallest detail that such an instrument could offer would be absolutely invisble to the human eye.
We are used to these effects in Astronomy (I've polished a 300mm miror at lamda/31) and the smallest detail for a 50mm objective is about 2.2 arcsec.Imagine now a terrible sample which had only 1/3 of that resolving power due to very bad optics,that would be about 7arcsecs of resolution,and this would only be revealed at around 50x.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
I originally interpreted Angelo to mean by resolution the "aided acuity" of the eye. If this is what he meant in post #4 then I'd have to say that any reduction in CA towards zero should translate into greater visual acuity for the reasons he mentioned on post #12. Essentially, longitudinal and lateral CA induce light scatter, which reduces contrast and thereby detracts from measured acuity. The fact that color fringing may not be consciously perceived below a certain point doesn't mean there are no benefits to reducing CA as much as possible for daylight (photopic) viewing.
Ed
PS. Angelo, in post #3 I meant visual resolution or acuity seen at the center, not the physical resolution of the optics itself.
Ed
PS. Angelo, in post #3 I meant visual resolution or acuity seen at the center, not the physical resolution of the optics itself.
Last edited:
high end tradeoffs
This is old, but perhaps worth bringing back up. I first noticed this trend myself when comparing a Zeiss ClassiC 8x30 with Nikon LXL 8x32. I've noticed the same trend in the mid-range options as well. For instance, Conquest is sharper in center than Monarch, but Monarch has wider sweet spot.
This tradeoff does seem to be a roof issue. My EII (as John mentions with the SE) has both qualities: very sharp in center AND large sweet spot. And the sweet spot on my EII is noticeably wider than that of the LXL.
After looking through most top end ROOFS, the Swaro 8x32 EL (to me) has the best all around set of compromises, perhaps followed by the LXL in 8x42. But, with my $300 EIIs serving me so well, I haven't yet been able to justify the $$ just for waterproofing, less bulk and slightly greater eye relief. Incidentally, the EIIs don't seem to have the blackout issues of the SEs, plus a significantly wider FOV than anything else under consideration.
I wonder if others agree with John's statement (??)...
APS
This is old, but perhaps worth bringing back up. I first noticed this trend myself when comparing a Zeiss ClassiC 8x30 with Nikon LXL 8x32. I've noticed the same trend in the mid-range options as well. For instance, Conquest is sharper in center than Monarch, but Monarch has wider sweet spot.
This tradeoff does seem to be a roof issue. My EII (as John mentions with the SE) has both qualities: very sharp in center AND large sweet spot. And the sweet spot on my EII is noticeably wider than that of the LXL.
After looking through most top end ROOFS, the Swaro 8x32 EL (to me) has the best all around set of compromises, perhaps followed by the LXL in 8x42. But, with my $300 EIIs serving me so well, I haven't yet been able to justify the $$ just for waterproofing, less bulk and slightly greater eye relief. Incidentally, the EIIs don't seem to have the blackout issues of the SEs, plus a significantly wider FOV than anything else under consideration.
I wonder if others agree with John's statement (??)...
APS
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
APS,
Have you compared the 8x32 EL with 8x32 FL?
A justification for me spending one more dollar on anything defies plausibility.
Blue skies,
Ed
Ed,
I have not thoroughly compared them side by side. However, I have looked through a few of each (and head to head in a store). I have ALWAYS liked the easy view and large sweet spot of the ELs, along with very good handling/focus; their image didn't show anything objectionable and was really excellent overall (in the stores at least).
In comparison, the Zeiss FLs seem to require more precise eye alignment for the best image. As well, the focus was not consistent from model to model - some were stiff, some had play, etc.(one in particular was quite unacceptable). Going into it, I've always wanted to like the Zeiss, but walk away disappointed. Incidentally, the Leica Trinos and Ultravids have given similar negative impressions. (NOTE: They are both GREAT bins, just not my favorite of the "alphas".)
On a related note, I have found the 8x30 SLCs (new) to be noticeably less than the ELs, particularly concerning handling/focus, ease of view, tunnel effect, and flaring/stray light effects. (Again, a very good bins overall - just not up to the mark of the (mighty) ELs.
And finally, the Nikon LXLs are more like the ELs in terms of ease of view. But, the handling is less for me, including the focus (too finicky). View wise, they are also just not as crisp in the center as the others. This is based on two different units I've been able to test outside in various conditions.
Just my subjective (and picky) impressions, APS
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
APS,
Well, that's what I asked for ... your impressions. Many thanks for your take.
Blue skies,
Ed
Patriot222
Well-known member
Right....I'm not sure that they've ever stated that. Even if a single individual made the statement it doesn't necessarily make it true. Leica would love to have a smooth and reliable focus mechanism on their Ultravid line but unfortunately they dont. It was a design flaw pure and simple. The fact is, that all the top roof bins were made for "extreme" conditions and it isn't a case of Leica making the Ultravid to be more "extreme" than the others. They just missed the mark on that particular area of the line.
John, I've only looked through the 7x42 Ultravids at the store (both inside and outside) and they are very nice except for the focus mechansim and now the cracking clear plastic on the rear of the focus wheel. I've now seen 3 demos with cracking wheels...yet another design weakness.
I do own a set of 2003 7x42 SLCs and they're really nice. I couldn't ask for a nicer focus mechansim either. It's bettered in smoothness only by my 8x42FLs. The 7x42 SLC has never left we thinking..."geee, I wish I had more resolution." If I need more resolution I pull out a higher magnification binocular. I think that you'll find the Swarovski to be the equal of the other 7x bins and maybe even better if you're looking for something with large "sweet spot." Virtually the whole image is crisp unless your trying to look through them in some very unatural way. If you're in the woods often you may prefer the color through the Swarovskis. For a day at the beach while watching kites and sailboats, you may prefer color redition of the Ultravid.
Hope that helps
Last edited:
Well i did an extensive comparison between the SLCnew and the ultravid 7x42 over the last day. Looked at color rendition, flare prevention, ergonomics, feel, focusing, sweet spot, brightness, etc..
Basically the SLCnew is the way to go in 7x42 unless you cannot stand the weight. There is not any other area that I would say isnt equal or favors the SLC. the SLC's sweet spot is the biggest available in a roof prism, in fact to me the whole image is a sweet spot. Not so in the ultravid. Resolution was equal. Low light was equal. I have big hands and they much preferred the feel of the SLC...YMMV plus its a few hundred cheaper!
If we could get swarovski to make an EL 7x42 or just a magnesium chassis SLC 7x42 now that would be perfection!
Basically the SLCnew is the way to go in 7x42 unless you cannot stand the weight. There is not any other area that I would say isnt equal or favors the SLC. the SLC's sweet spot is the biggest available in a roof prism, in fact to me the whole image is a sweet spot. Not so in the ultravid. Resolution was equal. Low light was equal. I have big hands and they much preferred the feel of the SLC...YMMV plus its a few hundred cheaper!
If we could get swarovski to make an EL 7x42 or just a magnesium chassis SLC 7x42 now that would be perfection!
Last edited:
Similar threads
