• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Choosing a 7x42 between UVHD+ and EDG (3 Viewers)

I'm following this thread with great interest. The dodgy focus movement on Hopster's 7x42 UVHD+ aside, I'm actually in the process of doing the reverse, in terms of binocular preference.
For daytime use, I'm not sure there's a roof prism binocular pertaining to be flat field which has been better executed by the manufacturer than the 7x42 Noctivid (edit: should read 8x42 Noctivid, of course). There is a magic about the optics of this binocular which is present in the Retrovids, but somehow even more extreme, in terms of contrast, resolution and saturated colours. It is verging on hypnotic, in use. But it's finicky with or without glasses, which detracts from the overall.
Hopster wears glasses. I used to, but now don't. Whilst my favourite Leica binocular was the 7x42 Ultravid when I was wearing glasses, I now (much) prefer the 8x42 Noctivid, now that I'm no longer wearing glasses. Yet the Noctivid is renowned for having oodles of eye relief for glasses wearers, but I truly believe it works better without glasses. The Ultravid range is renowned for its lack of eye relief, but for short sighted glasses wearers I'm convinced it works better with glasses than without.
 
Last edited:
Bentley03 said:
I'm following this thread with great interest. The dodgy focus movement on Hopster's 7x42 UVHD+ aside, I'm actually in the process of doing the reverse, in terms of binocular preference.
For daytime use, I'm not sure there's a roof prism binocular pertaining to be flat field which has been better executed by the manufacturer than the 7x42 Noctivid. There is a magic about the optics of this binocular which is present in the Retrovids, but somehow even more extreme, in terms of contrast, resolution and saturated colours. It is verging on hypnotic, in use. But it's finicky with or without glasses, which detracts from the overall.
Hopster wears glasses. I used to, but now don't. Whilst my favourite Leica binocular was the 7x42 Ultravid when I was wearing glasses, I now (much) prefer the 8x42 Noctivid, now that I'm no longer wearing glasses. Yet the Noctivid is renowned for having oodles of eye relief for glasses wearers, but I truly believe it works better without glasses. The Ultravid range is renowned for its lack of eye relief, but for short sighted glasses wearers I'm convinced it works better with glasses than without.
Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts. I'm assuming a typo in the 3rd sentence and you mean "8x42 Noctivid"?

My image quality reference for an 8x roof is also the NV, both in terms of accuracy and beauty. I can hardly imagine it being improved very much as I am not someone who needs a bigger FOV than what it already has. Maybe a touch less lateral CA outside the sweet spot on high-contrast edges during very bright conditions? There is a subtlety to the image that is difficult to describe but it is most easy to say when it can be observed even when compared against other top glass: (1) retaining colour and feature detail and graduations of tone when the light is dull or overcast (2) a reality to the image solidity e.g. looking at a tree trunk and you sense that it is an actual round object not just a 2D impression of one. It all sounds a bit mystical but I have consistently observed both on many occasions.

What I was hoping to achieve was a NV but in 7x42 to get the benefits of better DOF, larger exit pupil, less image shake, wider FOV - and if it was lighter then that would be great too for handheld use. Hence my experiment with the UV 7x42 which is a highly respected optic. I got all of these technical benefits (forgetting the focuser for the moment) and the ER is enough for my glasses, but having now spent many hours comparing them directly I think the UV image is not quite at the level of the NV, albeit close and with a similar colour balance. The difference is most easily seen in dull conditions. Would I still like one if I could find an example with a great focuser? Difficult to say - I would like to see the EDG before answering that I think! A brief look through the EDG 8x42 a few years ago impressed me immediately but we all know that you need time to know for sure.

I usually use glasses when observing but my astigmatism is pretty mild so I am OK without, and all my optics allow me to just reach infinity within their focus range. I can't say that I prefer the NV without glasses myself and for the ultimate in sharpness I think having the astigmatism corrected does give an improvement, but you do need to get the ER exactly right to get the best out of it and having a wide brimmed hat to keep stray light out of the oculars also helps.
 
Scott98 said:
I did say the UVHD focuser was the worst I ever used - but I've only used high-end binoculars! :) There has to be a "best" and a "worst" even at the high end. For consolation, I also thought the Swaro EL focuser was really bad. I didn't like the Kowa Genesis focusers either, nor the Nikon Monarch HG series....I'm obviously fussy.
Click to expand...

You did, and my sample of 1 concurs!

Scott98 said:
The sharpness on the Noctivid sounds good. The Zeiss SF's do seem like some of the sharpest binos I've used (tightest star points during astronomy). I've never had a chance to use the Noctivid or NL Pures for astronomy, I'd love to see if they can match the Zeiss.
Click to expand...

For astronomy I think the wider and flatter field of the SF, EL and NL might be a better option.
 
hopster said:
Interesting thoughts. I'm assuming a typo in the 3rd sentence and you mean "8x42 Noctivid"?
Click to expand...
Yes, not my best written post. I had formulated several lines of thinking which I struggled to convey coherently, probably due to the effect of the claret which followed one too many west coast IPA's while the Sunday roast was resting...

Just finally, for me, on the Noctivid, and I've undoubtedly said this elsewhere on BF; in certain conditions, and I do think the Noctivid reveals this best under an overcast sky, it has an ability to perfectly define and place separately/individually every object in the field of view, just a staggering amount of 3D pop across a relatively flat field. This, for me, gives a feeling of augmented DOF, even if it's just an illusion. I'm not saying it isn't there, but I don't get the same feel from the optics of an SF or NL. It is an almost painfully sharp binocular which, if it weren't for the beautiful rendition of colour, some might even consider unpleasant. There are threads on BF lauding the central sharpness of Zeiss binoculars in general, but I'm not aware of one that feels quite as sharp as the Noctivid (although I've never spent much time with an HT, if that's the Zeiss central sharpness reference). All this love for the optical flavour of the Noctivid does, however, need to be offset with the fussy eyebox, which makes the view feel nervous. You've questioned on here people's ability to allow their eyes to roam around the field of view without getting some blackouts. Certainly careful set up and careful eye placement helps, but I don't think I've ever been able to eliminate them completely, without incorrectly setting IPD or losing some of the FOV. Optically, you do sense you're looking through better glass than is provided in the 7x42 UVHD+, regardless of the difference in flatness across the FOV.

I have shifted my 7x42 allegiance from Ultravid to EDG, because whilst I was unable to get comfortable with the EDG when I wore glasses, it works better for me than the Ultravid now that I don't. But, I still have reservations regarding my perception of the brightness of the optics. Scotty and others will maybe shout me down on this, but whilst I find the EDG optics peerless in very bright, reflective, difficult light conditions, they somehow (for me) make a dull, overcast, grey day appear even gloomier. Given that I'm most likely to carry a low mag binocular on woodland walks in shady conditions, I'm not convinced the optical nature of the 7x42 EDG is as optimal as the Ultravid in that setting. An EDG is the first binocular in my bag on a trip to the coast on a sunny day, however.

Hope my Monday morning waffle makes some sort of sense.
 
Y
Bentley03 said:
Yes, not my best written post. I had formulated several lines of thinking which I struggled to convey coherently, probably due to the effect of the claret which followed one too many west coast IPA's while the Sunday roast was resting...

Just finally, for me, on the Noctivid, and I've undoubtedly said this elsewhere on BF; in certain conditions, and I do think the Noctivid reveals this best under an overcast sky, it has an ability to perfectly define and place separately/individually every object in the field of view, just a staggering amount of 3D pop across a relatively flat field. This, for me, gives a feeling of augmented DOF, even if it's just an illusion. I'm not saying it isn't there, but I don't get the same feel from the optics of an SF or NL. It is an almost painfully sharp binocular which, if it weren't for the beautiful rendition of colour, some might even consider unpleasant. There are threads on BF lauding the central sharpness of Zeiss binoculars in general, but I'm not aware of one that feels quite as sharp as the Noctivid (although I've never spent much time with an HT, if that's the Zeiss central sharpness reference). All this love for the optical flavour of the Noctivid does, however, need to be offset with the fussy eyebox, which makes the view feel nervous. You've questioned on here people's ability to allow their eyes to roam around the field of view without getting some blackouts. Certainly careful set up and careful eye placement helps, but I don't think I've ever been able to eliminate them completely, without incorrectly setting IPD or losing some of the FOV. Optically, you do sense you're looking through better glass than is provided in the 7x42 UVHD+, regardless of the difference in flatness across the FOV.

I have shifted my 7x42 allegiance from Ultravid to EDG, because whilst I was unable to get comfortable with the EDG when I wore glasses, it works better for me than the Ultravid now that I don't. But, I still have reservations regarding my perception of the brightness of the optics. Scotty and others will maybe shout me down on this, but whilst I find the EDG optics peerless in very bright, reflective, difficult light conditions, they somehow (for me) make a dull, overcast, grey day appear even gloomier. Given that I'm most likely to carry a low mag binocular on woodland walks in shady conditions, I'm not convinced the optical nature of the 7x42 EDG is as optimal as the Ultravid in that setting. An EDG is the first binocular in my bag on a trip to the coast on a sunny day, however.

Hope my Monday morning waffle makes some sort of sense.
Click to expand...

Your post-claret writing also made sense!

Our perceptions seem to agree exactly on the NV. I also have not seen that level of what we both think of as '3D separation' from the SF or NL 8x's yet (and never had a chance to test the EDG for long enough). Trying not to be too much of a fanboy because nothing is perfect; do you ever get troubled by CA outside the sweet spot on high-contrast edges in very bright conditions? I have seen some pretty fierce purple-green fringes in two cases, both in strong sunshine: (1) in the mediterranean a white yacht hull against the darker backgrounds of deck on one side and sea surface in the shade on the other (2) in the Alps a bright snow-covered mountain peak in the distance with a ridge closer in the shade. Moving the eye fractionally makes them disappear and I never get these in duller light.

I'm going to need to scratch that 7x itch and have a look through the EDG I think.
 
Bentley03 said:
I have shifted my 7x42 allegiance from Ultravid to EDG, because whilst I was unable to get comfortable with the EDG when I wore glasses, it works better for me than the Ultravid now that I don't. But, I still have reservations regarding my perception of the brightness of the optics. Scotty and others will maybe shout me down on this, but whilst I find the EDG optics peerless in very bright, reflective, difficult light conditions, they somehow (for me) make a dull, overcast, grey day appear even gloomier. Given that I'm most likely to carry a low mag binocular on woodland walks in shady conditions, I'm not convinced the optical nature of the 7x42 EDG is as optimal as the Ultravid in that setting. An EDG is the first binocular in my bag on a trip to the coast on a sunny day, however.
Click to expand...

Bentley

Thanks for this. Based on a brief look outdoors in bright light through a NV back when they first came out the same thing occurred to me in reading here - that the EDG would not likely out perform the UV HD + in the comparison with the NV 8x42 in the specific conditions described by @hopster in his post #89.

As good as good as they are IMO, all the currently available high end 7x42s roofs are previous generation such that, even if only in certain conditions, they will lag a bit behind e.g. NV, NL and SF in terms of the latest optical improvements. So whether to add a 7x42 will depend on whether any given user finds the inherent advantages of 7x magnification sufficient compensation for some loss of optical performance in certain conditions.

Mike
 
mwhogue said:
Bentley

Thanks for this. Based on a brief look outdoors in bright light through a NV back when they first came out the same thing occurred to me in reading here - that the EDG would not likely out perform the UV HD + in the comparison with the NV 8x42 in the specific conditions described by @hopster in his post #89.

As good as good as they are IMO, all the currently available high end 7x42s roofs are previous generation such that, even if only in certain conditions, they will lag a bit behind e.g. NV, NL and SF in terms of the latest optical improvements. So whether to add a 7x42 will depend on whether any given user finds the inherent advantages of 7x magnification sufficient compensation for some loss of optical performance in certain conditions.

Mike
Click to expand...

That's interesting. So if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the EDG is also likely to be a step below the NV in terms of absolute image quality like the UV; notwithstanding the flatter field, lower CA and better focuser. That suggests that there is no modern 7x42 roof that will be competitive. If so, at least I know where I stand and what I would have to give up to get the benefits of 7x.
 
hopster said:
That's interesting. So if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the EDG is also likely to be a step below the NV in terms of absolute image quality like the UV; notwithstanding the flatter field, lower CA and better focuser. That suggests that there is no modern 7x42 roof that will be competitive. If so, at least I know where I stand and what I would have to give up to get the benefits of 7x.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly. Unless and until that is SW, Leica, Zeiss and /or EDG (least likely of course) upgrade the optics in a 7x42 format -- "tis a consummation devoutly to be wished."

That said, based on reading your experiences and observations I do think you will prefer the overall performance of the EDG versus the UV HD +.

Mike
 
Ah, yes, the eternal pipe dream of Birdforum: us binowranglers pining for that perfect 7X binocular that does everything the best 8X does, but at 7X. Less is more... :)

It would be nice to see a fairly compact true modern alpha 7x appear on the market. But I am not so certain it will ever happen.
Perhaps there is an optical engineer at Leica/Swaro/Zeiss/Meopta with the aspiration but he keeps getting shot down by the bean counters at the board meeting.

I could settle for a Noctivid 7x42. Exactly in the gestalt of the Ultravid, but updated optics and focuser.
 
HenRun said:
Ah, yes, the eternal pipe dream of Birdforum: us binowranglers pining for that perfect 7X binocular that does everything the best 8X does, but at 7X. Less is more... :)

It would be nice to see a fairly compact true modern alpha 7x appear on the market. But I am not so certain it will ever happen.
Perhaps there is an optical engineer at Leica/Swaro/Zeiss/Meopta with the aspiration but he keeps getting shot down by the bean counters at the board meeting.

I could settle for a Noctivid 7x42. Exactly in the gestalt of the Ultravid, but updated optics and focuser.
Click to expand...

"Settle"? That would be perfect, especially if they manage a bigger FOV! But are there enough of us out there who think that?
 
Don't ignore the Swaro SLC 7x42 Neu (with the green armour and black centre) if you can find a good used pair they have the Swarobright coatings and apart from being on the heavier side favourably compare with any of the better 7xs from the last few years.
 
hopster said:
Trying not to be too much of a fanboy because nothing is perfect; do you ever get troubled by CA outside the sweet spot on high-contrast edges in very bright conditions?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but not to the same extent as several others in the Leica range. CA in the 8x42 Noctivid view has never bothered me though, I find it's easily controlled with a small adjustment. I really want to spend some time with a 10x42 NV again, now that I'm no longer wearing glasses. I've a hunch it might work better for me without glasses than it did with glasses. That's my own current itch I'd like to scratch.

hopster said:
That's interesting. So if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the EDG is also likely to be a step below the NV in terms of absolute image quality like the UV; notwithstanding the flatter field, lower CA and better focuser. That suggests that there is no modern 7x42 roof that will be competitive. If so, at least I know where I stand and what I would have to give up to get the benefits of 7x.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd define it as a step below necessarily, it's just different. 8x42 Noc wows us both, so any deviation from what we see through a Noc risks feeling slightly disappointing. An EDG should please you as far as the focus movement is concerned, and the flattish field is not dissimilar to what you get at 8x42 in the Noctivid, contrast and resolution are outstanding and the rendition of colour should please you, so my personal gut feeling is that the only slight compromise you are making is the slight lack of brightness (which I perceive, but which not everyone perceives).

Honestly, there's simply no way of knowing how you'll feel about the EDG until you try it. I adore my 10x EDG, it's my best binocular when I know bright sunshine, water and lots of reflections will be involved, but on a dull grey day, I reach for something else...almost anything else. But please take what I say with a pinch of salt, my musings are all based on personal perceptions and preferences, there's nothing scientific or conclusive...and I frequently find I'm wrong and change my mind, although I'm not alone on here in that regard...😉😇
 
Well the seller has been true to his word and refunded me immediately on the UV, and he agrees with me that the focuser is not up to scratch so they are going to Leica in Portugal for a good look at. Who knows, when they come back perhaps they will be much nicer to use and I might reconsider them because in many ways they are a very good glass and a lot lighter to hold than the NV. Perhaps still a good choice for brighter conditions and more casual/handheld/close-up viewing days? That is unless an EDG tickles my fancy before they return...
 
hopster said:
For astronomy I think the wider and flatter field of the SF, EL and NL might be a better option.
Click to expand...
Maybe.....but the Noctivid is expensive, and good, and I want to try it! :) Leica is the only brand not carried at the local bird store, which adds an element of intrigue. To check out some Noctivids I have to go into downtown Boston and visit the Leica store....it's been on my to-do list for a while. Zeiss 50mm SFL's are similar, I don't think the local store is going to stock them, they don't go above 42mm.
 
Scott98 said:
Maybe.....but the Noctivid is expensive, and good, and I want to try it! :) Leica is the only brand not carried at the local bird store, which adds an element of intrigue. To check out some Noctivids I have to go into downtown Boston and visit the Leica store....it's been on my to-do list for a while. Zeiss 50mm SFL's are similar, I don't think the local store is going to stock them, they don't go above 42mm.
Click to expand...

If there is one binocular that thrives on the colours and tones of daylight in the natural world then the Noctivid is probably it! See what other people say but I think you'll get a general agreement on that. Also, some of the benefits are subtle and creep up on you over time - though the sharpness, contrast and colours should be apparent immediately. For instance, its performance on duller days and how objects appear solid rather than just a 2D image. It's also built to last more than any other optic I have held in my hand.

Anyway, give it a go and let us know.
 
So, in the end, a thread which was established to garner opinion on which of two alpha 7x42's might be the better choice for Mr H has turned into an 8x42 Noctivid appreciation thread. There's a message in there somewhere, I believe. 😉

Now, how am I going to fund the acquisition of a 10x42 Noctivid...whilst avoiding the wrath of 'er indoors...? 🤔 😇
 
Bentley03 said:
So, in the end, a thread which was established to garner opinion on which of two alpha 7x42's might be the better choice for Mr H has turned into an 8x42 Noctivid appreciation thread. There's a message in there somewhere, I believe. 😉

Now, how am I going to fund the acquisition of a 10x42 Noctivid...whilst avoiding the wrath of 'er indoors...? 🤔 😇
Click to expand...
hey, it's BF! :rolleyes:
 
Bentley03 said:
So, in the end, a thread which was established to garner opinion on which of two alpha 7x42's might be the better choice for Mr H has turned into an 8x42 Noctivid appreciation thread. There's a message in there somewhere, I believe. 😉

Now, how am I going to fund the acquisition of a 10x42 Noctivid...whilst avoiding the wrath of 'er indoors...? 🤔 😇
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that happened!

Anyway, it has all been very informative.
 

Similar threads

D
Can a 30-year-old porro compete with a new alpha? Really!
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
D
  • Locked
NL's are simply the best!
6 7 8
Replies
140
Views
18K
Jos Stratford
Jos Stratford
hopster
Best current 7x42 roof option?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
9K
Paultricounty
P
A
Contrast in binoculars
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
hopster
hopster
P
Upgrade from Nikon 8x30 EII to Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL?
Replies
10
Views
3K
PedroP
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top