Adhoc - I have the Leupold Yosemite 6x30 which is basically the same binocular. Here is a comparison photo I took of the 6x30 vs the 7x42 Ultravid HD. Conditions were overcast, looking at a hummingbird nest in my yard.
The usual caveats about not judging binoculars from iPhone photos apply. Also the phone clearly focused on the leaves and not the hummingbird, so don’t try to read too much into sharpness there.
But you can see the image is larger on the 7x as expected, with a wider AFOV (since the true FOV is the same and the magnification is higher). They have a similar sized sweet spot, and you can see the curved field allows the leaves closer to you on the sides to stay in focus (which is one of the reasons why I think curved field feels “deeper” than a flat field optic). The Leica seems to have slightly better edges, perhaps the Yosemite has a bit more astigmatism out there. With the Leica the entire FOV is clear and usable, even if the edges aren’t totally sharp.
Subjectively in use the 7x42 Leica feels like it shows a lot more detail, perhaps it’s the narrower AFOV on the little porro but the magnification difference feels larger than it is. When I’m using the 7x42 there is never a moment where I wish it was sharper, even comparing back to back with a top flight 8x42 like Nikon EDG. Whereas with the Leupold it often feels to me like things are “too small”.
And the Leica also has a little more “pop” and contrast, more “sparkle”, although hard to tell from the photos.
But there’s not that much to it. Which I guess does to show how much of a fundamental advantage a porro has as a baseline starting point such that a $100 binocular can be not that far behind a $2000 alpha roof.
Obviously the Leica has vastly better build quality. And I’m sure that red dot has quite a high materials cost, the margin can’t be too big there