Caty on the Bay
Active member
Are the 10x25 Leica Ultravids one of the best binocular buys for the price? They seem to be perfoming better than expected by some guys around here for the size.
I think even their competitors, if pushed, would say "Doh... yes...". Leica have the very highest tech coatings for brightness and the 25mm objectives just give the extra size to keep them still genuinely compact and light but make them very "holdable" as well as adding to the brightness. The oversize focusing wheel is also a very fine piece of design indeed, falling naturally into place for rapid (and supremely smooth) focusing. Another feature is the razor edge to edge sharpness.Caty on the Bay said:Are the 10x25 Leica Ultravids one of the best binocular buys for the price? They seem to be perfoming better than expected by some guys around here for the size.
scampo said:I think even their competitors, if pushed, would say "Doh... yes...". The Leica have the very highest tech coatings for brightness and the 25mm objectives just give the extra size to keep them still genuinely compact and light but make them very "holdable" as well as adding to the brightness. The oversize focusing wheel is also a very fine piece of design indeed, falling naturally into place for rapid (and supremely smooth) focusing. Another feature is the razor edge to edge sharpness.
Well put!Swissboy said:I can only second Steve here! But then, we have both said it all before, here on BF. These compact Ultravids (both the 8x20 and the 10x25) are certainly by far the best buy among the high-end binoculars currently on the market. And to make it clear, we both have no affiliation with Leica; Steve has his Swaro ELs and I have my Zeiss FLs that we both cherish as "full size" glasses.
My only 'complaint' (too strong a word--make that 'wish') would be a bit wider FOV, but the view, ergomatics, feel of my 10x25 Ultravid BCRs is unbeatable! After sampling Zeiss 10x25 Classics (nice view, but rubber eyecups) and 10x25 Brunton Epochs (wider FOV, but heavy & overpriced) the best value was the Leica! :bounce:scampo said:I think even their competitors, if pushed, would say "Doh... yes...". Leica have the very highest tech coatings for brightness and the 25mm objectives just give the extra size to keep them still genuinely compact and light but make them very "holdable" as well as adding to the brightness. The oversize focusing wheel is also a very fine piece of design indeed, falling naturally into place for rapid (and supremely smooth) focusing. Another feature is the razor edge to edge sharpness.
I'm in agreement with you. It tends to be more noticeable if you own a pair with a much wider fov. If I leave my Swaros at home, no probs - I just am amazed at the Ultravids every time I put them to my eyes. But... if I have my Swaros with me to compare directly... then, yes, you are correct. But what else can we expect from such a fine lightweight compact binocular, really?karmantra said:My only 'complaint' (too strong a word--make that 'wish') would be a bit wider FOV, but the view, ergomatics, feel of my 10x25 Ultravid BCRs is unbeatable! After sampling Zeiss 10x25 Classics (nice view, but rubber eyecups) and 10x25 Brunton Epochs (wider FOV, but heavy & overpriced) the best value was the Leica! :bounce:
Caty on the Bay said:It is said that a top of the line 32mm binocular is a better choice than a middle priced 42mm. Does this hold true for comparing a compact model like the 10x25 Ultravids compared to middle priced mid-sized binoculars?
Caty on the Bay said:Have any compact roofs equalled or bested the Bausch and Lomb 7x26 yet? A few years back when I was looking for a new pair of something to play with they were talked up and down as being the epitome of compact binoculars. Are the Ultravids the new epitome?
Caty on the Bay said:It is said that a top of the line 32mm binocular is a better choice than a middle priced 42mm. Does this hold true for comparing a compact model like the 10x25 Ultravids compared to middle priced mid-sized binoculars?
Caty on the Bay said:Are the 10x25 Leica Ultravids one of the best binocular buys for the price? They seem to be perfoming better than expected by some guys around here for the size.
lucznik said:(Ergonomics are a different thing altogether and only you can decide if the oft lauded oversized focus knob on the Leica (rather than the somewhat unfamiliar styling of the Nikon's focus knob) is worth the extra $$$$$.
I would beg to differ a little. Not being a physicist but thinking about the light loss on its circuitous path through the lenses, mirrors and prisms is surely what the people at Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and co know all about - and I suspect that is what we are paying for when all said and done.lucznik said:I have read this same sentiment in another string and I'm not sure I would accept it as factual without first seeing some very careful and detailed comparisons. My experience has been that mid-priced glass often compares very, very favorably to equally sized premium glass. So much so that aside from optics fanatics (and you know who we are) the vast majority of people often physically can't see the differences. It thus strains the limits of reason and credulity to suggest that a premium glass can drop 24% of its objective lens size and still be equal or better than a full sized mid-priced glass.
Similarly, the claim that the Leica Ultravid (or any mini binocular) is the equal of a high quality, mid-priced 32-36mm binocular does not stand up to the test of objective reasoning (pun intended.) Don't get me wrong, I LOVE mini binoculars and I think they perform better than most people give them credit for under almost any circumstances but, one does have to be willing to accept their inherent limitations.
Remember, it was once said that the world was flat but, that didn't make it so.
scampo said:I have a pair of mid-priced nitrogen filled 10x42 Minolta roof prisms. They're good. The Leica 10x25s, however, are clearly brighter and sharper.
scampo said:I would beg to differ a little. Not being a physicist but thinking about the light loss on its circuitous path through the lenses, mirrors and prisms is surely what the people at Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and co know all about - and I suspect that is what we are paying for when all said and done.
There will be mid priced bins that break the rule, that is objectively true, but generally, you get what you pay for.
I have a pair of mid-priced nitrogen filled 10x42 Minolta roof prisms. They're good. The Leica 10x25s, however, are clearly brighter and sharper.
That is so - but I think that contrast (the extremes of bright and dark) add to the sharpness in important ways. This seems to me to begin to separate out even the leading makes. For example, I find Nikons and Ultravids are outstanding with regard to contrast.Caty on the Bay said:Very intersting. I have found that improvement in my ability to identify birds comes more from sharpness (resolution I guess you call it) than from absolute brightness.
And I think you are right. The ability to resolve depends upon objective lens size - it must. But there are so many more factors involved, too, I suppose - quality of glass and so on. Presumably that's why Nikon make their own glass, for example.lucznik said:...The very laws of physics would seem to contradict such an assertion. If I'm wrong about this and someone can demonstrate it using objective data, I welcome that information.
scampo said:Now. I tested a whole range of mini-bins until I chose the Ultravid. I would say I would have loved to pay half what I ended paying. But, the Ultravids were better - brighter, easier and quicker to use and so on. Interestingly, my wife does not agree - she finds them less easy to use than I do! We are all different.