a few years ago, but it should give some idea... http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/59154
no sign of them yet, hopefully not too much longer.
-
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.
New Ultravids coming (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter hinnark
- Start date
a few years ago, but it should give some idea... http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/59154
no sign of them yet, hopefully not too much longer.
black lark
Registered User
The HD has just minor improvements i think , only the outher shell and the new anti dirt (rain) lens coating, and the improvement from the focussing , is that it, is that it, i don't find that enough to justify a increase of the price with 15- 20% .
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Black Lark,
No changes to the outer shell at all. The three stated improvements are:
1. HD glass, resulting in brighter images with enhanced contrast.
2. Improvements to the focus mechanism, supposedly eliminating the tendency for "notchy" performance in some previous Ultravids.
3. AquaPhobic, dirt and water resistant coatings.
All three goals seem to have been achieved, though #s 1 and 2 have quite a marginal effect overall (it's hard to imagine dramatic improvements on an already outstanding instrument). This, combined with what many believe to be an unacceptable Warranty reduction over previous models is what one must consider when contemplating purchase. Either way, it's good to have a choice.
Robert
Last edited:
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
*****************
Well folks, the replacement 10x32 unit arrived and it is, indeed, a cherry specimen. Tack sharp in both barrels (the first unit exhibited less than perfect focus in the left barrel), and an even better feel to the focus drive. So, my first ammended conclusion is that variability between individuals of a kind may exceed variation between kinds, i.e., between a given pre-HD and a given HD of the same configuration.
Following is my edited summary, ammended as noted from post #196 (this thread, above):
10x32 HD vs. 10x32 pre-HD:
Focus Knob: I never had a focus mechanism issues with my original Ultravids except that after a long period of use in very warm weather there might be a touch of play in the knob before engaging the gear drive. This would invariably go away after the binoculars returned to more normal working temperatures, and was never more than a theoretical annoyance as function was never impaired. So it remains to be seen whether or not the HD will perform better under those conditions, or if it may prove to be more durable over time (My 8x42 Ultravid BLs went in for a focus knob tune-up and all is now well. My 8/12x42 Duovids have always been smooth as silk and totally responsive). Suffice it to say, the HD focus is fine, even great, but I was fortunate enough to find the older version equally fine, so no real gains or losses there for me except for the as yet undetermined durability-over-time factor.
Addendum: The 2nd HD Unit has a clearly superior feel to the focus, more apt of the "improvement descriptions" cited in the Leica literature.
Brightness: Here's the greater surprise - I can tell no difference whatsover. Both are outstanding, but one would have expected the HD to be visibly more so. It is not.
Addendum: Once again, the 2nd unit is noticeably, though marginally, brighter under extreme conditions. Colors are a touch more brilliant as well - they seem to "pop", as Arthur Pinewood suggested they might in post #200, above (thanks for the "heads-up" tip, Arthur).
CA: Under extreme conditions (strong hazy backlight) both the HD and pre-HD models exhibit an insignificant (to me) amount of CA. When visible, it is limited to the extreme edges of the view and manifested as a thin violet profile behind the subject. There was no discernible difference between the HD and pre-HD models to my eye.
AquaDura Coatings: I suspect this may be the single most significant "improvement". I'm not about to splatter mud and grease on either to see which one cleans up faster - but there is some real peace of mind knowing that the HD will require cleaning less often, and therefore be less prone to the wear and tear of routine cleaning.
Addendum: I had an unintentional chance to check out this feature late yesterday. In a successful pursuit of a life tick, (a Bohemian Waxwing in Seattle), I was caught in a mid-winter squall. Making little attempt to shield the waterproof instrument from a good test-soaking I returned to the comfort of my vehicle and was happy to discover that a quick flick of my bins was all that was necessary to remove almost all of the water droplets from lens surfaces. A few good blasts with the rocket blower accomplished the rest, without ever having to resort to physically wiping the lenses dry. There was some momentary fogging on the outside objective lens surface (normal even in "anti-fogging" bins), but nothing internally. All glass surfaces dried clean, without spotting or streaking.
The new HDs are slick, make no mistake about it. I just wish the "wow factor" was demonstrably higher in comparison with my older model. I'm happy to have replaced my favorite and most heavilly used configuration, but will not be replacing any of the remaining sizes in my possession.
Addendum: OK, I admit it, there is a bit of a "wow factor" in the second HD unit. Still, only when tripod mounted and compared side-by-side in same time scrutiny.
All in all -- well worth the money, at least the US prices. But if you've already got a working pair of "older" Ultravids there is absolutely no reason to "trade up". In fact, for those of you who would like a new Leica my advice to you would be to get one of the remaining pre-HD models from existing (and dwindling) inventory, and save yourself a few hundred dollars for what is, performance-wise, essentially the same binocular.
Addendum: I'd hold with that conclusion, especially considering that the remaining preHDs will be delivered with Leica's previous, and far superior, Lifetime Passport Warranty. The new HD warranty is for a scant 10 years, although it does seem to be a good risk on such a well-built tool.
In closing, I hope this was helpful to any and all considering an HD purchase, particularly those of you in possesion of the already superb pre-HD Ultravids. I'll be keeping my pre-HDs as a back-up, and because of the superior lifetime warranty, so if any of you have specific comparative questions then don't hesitate to inquire.
Cheers,
Robert / Seattle
Last edited:
Patriot222
Well-known member
You're last few posts made me raise a brow, but after reading this post, I can tell that you've clearly been misinformed. Perhaps you should read this tread from the beginning.
black lark
Registered User
the other so cald improvements are not what a human eye can see , an already pefect view in the ultravids , how can we see if this true , !!!
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Not precisely true, Black Lark ...
Ready the "Addendum" under "Brightness" in post #224, above. Differences are slight, but are noticeable to the human eye in side by side comparisons with the NEAR perfect view in preHD Ultravids.
Cheers,
Robert
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Hi Robert,
Thank you very much for your extensive evaluation of the Ultravid HD.
However, I'm still waiting for others to join in, especially with regard to the aspect of CA suppression.
This is because I have the feeling that you may not be the right person to evaluate this most important aspect. It's a well known fact that the sensivity to CA differs quite strongly between individuals: some are very sensitive to it, seeing it all the time, while others have to look very hard to see any colour fringing at all. My impression is that you probably belong to the happy lot unable to observe something really significant.
For instance, you own an Ultravid 8x42 BL. Just like I do. Well, how about CA in this binocular? Would you call its amount of colour fringing just moderate or, like I do, a serious problem waiting to be addressed?
I have compared my Ultravid 8x42 BL to Zeiss Fl, Swift Audubon 804ED and Kowa 8.5x44 Genesis and the difference is unmistakable, at least to me.
Question is, how about you?
cheers,
Renze
Thank you very much for your extensive evaluation of the Ultravid HD.
However, I'm still waiting for others to join in, especially with regard to the aspect of CA suppression.
This is because I have the feeling that you may not be the right person to evaluate this most important aspect. It's a well known fact that the sensivity to CA differs quite strongly between individuals: some are very sensitive to it, seeing it all the time, while others have to look very hard to see any colour fringing at all. My impression is that you probably belong to the happy lot unable to observe something really significant.
For instance, you own an Ultravid 8x42 BL. Just like I do. Well, how about CA in this binocular? Would you call its amount of colour fringing just moderate or, like I do, a serious problem waiting to be addressed?
I have compared my Ultravid 8x42 BL to Zeiss Fl, Swift Audubon 804ED and Kowa 8.5x44 Genesis and the difference is unmistakable, at least to me.
Question is, how about you?
cheers,
Renze
Last edited:
soareyes
Active member
new Leica HD's are still not available (heard some 10x42 & 32's rubber have crept in)in the UK even though the release date was Nov. 2007!! the high cost is probably something to do with getting the R&D investment back ASAP. iv'e yet to compare against my Ultravid's. will there be £400 quids worth of better???
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Hi Renze,
You raise a good point. But not seeing and not noticing CA are, of course, two different things. The fact that I see it only at the edge of the field, and then only when pushed to use in extreme lighting situations, suggest that I may be among the lucky chaps who just don't see it under less stringent and more common conditions of daily use. If that is indeed the case then the optics of the observer's eyes and not his/her bins would then present itself as a topic worthy of discussion. Thoughts on this anyone?
Remember, too, that there was a slight but noticeable performance difference between the first and second HD units I received. I would not underestimate the role that variability between manufactured units may present when making these evaluations (I posted an earlier thread posing this question and received some highly enlightening responses here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=104496).
I did re-check my 8x42 BLs, and saw no CA at all, but conditions for revealing it were not ideal. Even so, in 2 years of use I have to say that it has not been a problem for me that I have a nagging awareness or recollection of. Lucky indeed.
I now await, like you, the HD review of others. Individual preferences and sensitivities play a huge role in the evaluation process. I trust my analysis at the empirical level and hope it was useful to some of the readership, but it will be revealing to learn what other members discover with their eyes and their HDs.
Cheers,
Robert
Last edited:
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Robert,
Although I have been aware of the quite strong CA in my Ultravid BL's from the moment I bought them (and subsequently learned how to avoid being aggravated by it...) I have become more aware of the phenomenon since I've been using other, ED-treated, binoculars alongside it. My experience is that once you've seen what a low-CA binocular can do for the view, and so for you, it's hard to forget about it. Luckily my Ultravid BL has some qualities which are unique to the design - and I happen to like very much - so I don't have the slightest intention of selling it, but I'm also well aware of the superiority of the Kowa's view when it comes to ease of use in unfavorable conditions.
As the Kowa and the Swift 804ED, as well as the Zeiss FL, have thus far set the standard, I think that Leica should at least match their level.
Renze
Although I have been aware of the quite strong CA in my Ultravid BL's from the moment I bought them (and subsequently learned how to avoid being aggravated by it...) I have become more aware of the phenomenon since I've been using other, ED-treated, binoculars alongside it. My experience is that once you've seen what a low-CA binocular can do for the view, and so for you, it's hard to forget about it. Luckily my Ultravid BL has some qualities which are unique to the design - and I happen to like very much - so I don't have the slightest intention of selling it, but I'm also well aware of the superiority of the Kowa's view when it comes to ease of use in unfavorable conditions.
As the Kowa and the Swift 804ED, as well as the Zeiss FL, have thus far set the standard, I think that Leica should at least match their level.
Renze
Last edited:
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Hi Renze,
I guess we each must choose among a compromise of preferred features. As an example I, for one, find the FL's tendency to flare intolerable - effectively "fogging" up and softening the view whenever the objective lenses are hit by bright sidelight. Not so with the Leicas. Your comments intrigue me though, so rest assured that when I get the chance I will submit all my bins to strict CA comparisons. That may also help to understand how much of the CA is perceived (eye/brain) and how much is actual (the instrument).
Cheers,
Robert
nope, still waiting...
The 8x42 HDs have finally arrived in the UK... I tried them at the weekend and was very impressed. To my eyes they seem to be the best of the Ultravid HD's (though I've not tested the 7x42s yet).
black lark
Registered User
i don't understand that !! , if its a 8x or 10x 42 or 50 or 12x50, ultravid is ultravid, every ultravid will be the same for viewing performance .
You should consider the remote possibility that your eyes are simply not good enough to see it.
Other people's viewing performance seems simply to be better.
that's simply not the case - I have tested 8x42, 10x42, 8x32, 10x32 and 8x50 Ultravid HDs in the last couple of weeks and can see differences model to model. The 8x42s showed much less CA than the 10x42s and seemed slightly sharper with both showing beautifully neutral colour.
black lark
Registered User
Maybe the ones who can not see trough every good binoculair have bad eyes !!!:king:
Jeff Bouton
Well-known member
Trust me you will find the 7x42's an absolute joy to look through as well. I've used 7x42's as my default preferred though for ~20 years. I'm a sucker for that wide field of view, massive exit pupil, and increased eye comfort provided by this glass. I've been using the 7x42 Ultravid HD since the first of the year and love them. As I've mentioned in other posts there is a notable improvement over the former Ultravid albeit slight.
Best,
Jeff Bouton
Birder/Naturalist Rep
Leica USA
Best,
Jeff Bouton
Birder/Naturalist Rep
Leica USA
Similar threads
