Leica Ultravid BL (1 Viewer)

JMR & WAL nice comparisons. I enjoy the useful details. I am interested in more details about what plasticy focus feels like. Mine is crisp and smooth and improved over the non HDs I had. My non HDs had a dry metal to metal solid feel where as the HDs have a metal to metal smoother solid feel. For instance my non HDs required a slight increase of initial pressure to get the knob moving ( the metal on metal feel) where as the HDs are same pressure from start to finish. No initial increase, easy, yet tight responsive slow focus - just the way I like it. That in itself is not exceptional till you go into the cold.

I would not try and justify the HD over the non HD or the reverse. Nor would I suggest an upgrade or no upgrade from a Non HD to an HD. But in my opinion differences do exist. I owned the non HD and the HD. A productive discussion of the pros and cons help define the differences for others who are curious or trying to decide which to purchase. It is a great practice and the reason why I read this forum and may others on all sorts of subjects.

My issue was (I hope it has passed) with a third party continually reposting cherry picked posts which are negative while totally ignoring the positive in addition to reposting the same inaccurate information. If we need to rehash and vet the lifetime warranty again, I am up for it. This is a different practice than the usual citing of other posts we all do. Citing posts is a valuable practice when used with forethought and retrospect.

For example if 3 individual posters write 3 credible critical posts regarding focus but a 4th person reposts them 7 times. Is the post count 3 negative posts, or 10 or 24? It strikes me as an echo effect continuously re-posted which to me creates an exaggerated negative theme. I find about as many problems reported on all the brands in this forum.

I had the HDs out all weekend and visited 2 different hawk watches and a local old chimney watching Chimney Swifts fly down the chimney at sunset.

The lower CA for me is a plus since at the haw watch we were high up with a 360 view of crystal clear blue sky. The birds appear where they want with no regard for back lighting and high contrast. They were riding the remnants of the hurricane wind which was blowing south along the east coast. At 1 to 2 miles out we were picking out Bald eagles white heads and tails with no CA. I am quite pleased with the performance of the HD. A Merlin flyover at high speed against the bright sky was really great, Everyone saw it but only 2 got to enjoy the dark lines on the face. Could be a coincidence but we both had ED glass. The perfect binocular has not been invented but in my opinion I see improvements. That is not a recommendation to abandon your current bin nor do I think the vendor has a conspiracy rolling out improvements . My view is they are trying to maintain a quality level that can compete with the best. Lets face it the same names pop up all the time on the top four list. They are indeed great binoculars. Far better than I ever imagined they could be.

In the very high contrast situation we had no trouble at all seeing pattern details on high flying Ospreys which were traveling about 70mph on the wind.

I find few faults with the top bins. I would be owning Zeiss FLs if I did not dislike the rubber ribs on the body or Swaros if I did not prefer the closed bridge design, same for the Nikon EDG. All are perfectly acceptable if not greatly desirable and highly cherished.



Good Birding

TV:

No need to justify your liking the Ultravid HD, good to hear you are pleased with them,
and you have justified how they handle CA. You do not need to sell those to others, some may be happy with their choices. It seems most of the improvements with
all mfrs. are incremental and it all comes down to personal preference.

Good to hear your posts.

Jerry

TV, one area where the HD is clearly superior is the Aquadura coating, that would be a very welcome improvement. BTW, my BR was one of those with the really bad, "notchy" metal against metal focus. Probably the main reason this very cherry optic didn't sell, and why I got a great deal on it. I sent it back to Leica and they upgraded the focus to the smoother HD type. Actually I don't know what they did, other than it is nice and smooth now. Enjoy your HD, it is one fine binocular.

John

My issue was (I hope it has passed) with a third party continually reposting cherry picked posts which are negative while totally ignoring the positive in addition to reposting the same inaccurate information. If we need to rehash and vet the lifetime warranty again, I am up for it. This is a different practice than the usual citing of other posts we all do. Citing posts is a valuable practice when used with forethought and retrospect.

Tvc15_2000

Click to expand...

I thought it had passed too after your previous civil and sensible post about the Ultravid HD, following your Hyperbole and a Half, but now I see from your continued criticisms that you want it to pass more slowly and perniciously like a painful kidney stone.

“Third parties” are often brought in disputes as impartial witnesses, because they can be more objective than those who have vested interests.

The “third party” you refer to did not “cherry pick” his posts, but merely brought them to the fore because they were the most recent examples of what he (third parties write in the third person) was writing about (i.e., diminishing return$ for incremental change$), a point that was eloquently made by optics expert Holger Merlitz in his summary at the end of his review of the 8x32 Meopta vs. the 8x30 EII.

You probably missed that link when I posted it, because you were out watching Chimney Swifts with your Übervids, so here it is again (scroll to the bottom):

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/meopta8x32.html

When you have an expert saying the same thing as amateurs, it should be obvious that something is happening well beyond some “cherry picked” posts about one particular bin.

Speaking of which, where are your “usual citings” of posts about all the happy HD owners? (I would like those citations in MLA format, please)

I have no doubt there are happy “HD” owners (Prozac works wonders for some people .

There was never any question about the quality of Leica products, the question was about their relative “value”. Consumers in this economic climate are looking for value, which is why binoculars from companies such as Zen Ray and Vortex are so popular.

I recently wrote about this topic for the business journal. The article was about ad revenues recovering faster in the radio industry than in other media, because radio reaches a larger audience (one radio station in my area reaches 20 counties), and radio can be accessed just about anywhere (over-the-air in a car, on a boat, in the office streaming on the Internet, and even on mobile phones and via auto navigation systems).

So the medium represents a “better bang for the buck” for advertisers. Both consumers and businesses are looking for more value for their dollar, because there are less dollars to go around these days.

Other consumers, such as Omid (not one of my “cherry picked” posts), who is an engineer, can afford an Ultravid HD or SV EL, but he’s sticking with his older alpha optics, because he feels that the upgrades are simply not substantial enough to warrant buying new bins. Again, it comes back to value.

Or as he aptly put it, “We have a technology that has reached its perfection point. There is an upper limit in binocular quality and we are very close to it already (95 - 98%).”

My posts were not directed at you personally or your Ultravid HDs, the new Leicas were merely one example of a growing trend that you apparently refuse to accept as valid, because you don’t fit the paradigm.

Or perhaps, because you missed The Point. So here is The Point in an easier to understand format:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGFlACG6qvI

Good Eating!

Rbp53_2003

You are correct. I spend much more time using my binoculars than questioning the value of binoculars I have not seen. How about you?

Not sure about your kidney stone, but it’s apparent you need much more fiber in your diet.

I did see the Chimney Swifts again last night. There were 2000 of them. There are more every night as they gather for migration. They will be leaving for Peru soon. An amazing event.

Ultravid owners don’t need Prozac - they are happy, not depressed. But you have made them paranoid about the Trinovid owners stalking them with pitchforks and torches. Do keep fanning the flames of controversy. Not that you need any encouragement Ha ha.

If your up to date, posting and reposting current information that Leica has a no fault lifetime warranty and you are up to date on the financials, and other stuff, there is nothing to disagree on. If you need help fact checking in the future you can count on my help.

Good Birding

Dearest Tvc15_2000,

I have no idea what your post above said because I added you to my Ignore List (though I'm sure it was full of your usual snobby sarcasms and pernicious prevarications).

I could have easily replied with another potent salvo since I have no problem matching you wit for dimwit, but I'm sure others on this forum would like to get on with business without the side show.

Thanks to the genius who dreamed up this feature to eliminate pinheads.

Now I think I will try deleting Fox News from my TVc. Nah, where would I get my inspiration from?

Your ignored buddy,
Brock

Darn,
I was just going to add you to my buddy list.

The search for better binocular performance is pretty much at a dead end imo, at least optically. That is a problem for Leica as well as the other alpha glass sellers.
Other than perhaps a more determined assault on CA, presumably with much more extensive use of aspheric optics and exotic lens materials, what is left to improve? A wider field of view and more eye relief might have appeal, but how to offer both is unclear. It is certainly not an area of emphasis.
There has been a push to add new features such as range finding, image stabilization or image capture, with modest success, but none of the European alpha producers have demonstrated the know how internally to really blend optics with electronics.
Meanwhile, the low level of quality control that prevails in the entire sector, which Henry Link highlighted above, does suggest a vulnerability to lower cost Asian competitors. Detroit only learned about quality after a near death experience and needed government help to survive. The binocular producers may not be as fortunate. However, they seem unaware of the problem, even though it would be fairly easy to add an optical quality record to each glass produced. It would at a minimum be a powerful marketing tool.
Having gone through reorganizations recently, Leica might be best positioned to take some radical steps to differentiate itself in the market. Given the incoming flood of good lower cost optics from Asia, business as usual seems an inadequate strategy.

It could be the end of the road. But maybe not. I am not an optics expert (and I know my limitations) so perhaps someone else can help on the applicability and value.

I read last year that carbon nanotubes had the potential to boost optical performance by reducing stray light. I hope it would eliminate internal reflection./stray light providing maximum performance on what exists today. It sounds like a cost effective – easy to adopt technology to me.

I am not sure exactly how this would improve things, Would it lower flare? Or increase contrast on a back lit subject?


“A scientist at Rice University has created the darkest material known to man, a carpet of carbon nanotubes that reflects only 0.045 percent of all light shined upon it. That's four times darker than the previously darkest known substance, and more than 100 times darker than the paint on a black Corvette.”
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/01/carbon_nanotube.html


-

someone says the BL is a fashion thing , but my question is, is it "strong" for use in the field and is it waterproof , and optical the same as the normal ultravid short; can i use it for birding !

Hi pimpelmees, the short answer; Yes you can use it for birding. It is both strong and waterproof.

pimpelmees said:

someone says the BL is a fashion thing , but my question is, is it "strong" for use in the field and is it waterproof , and optical the same as the normal ultravid short; can i use it for birding !

Click to expand...

I believe it is strong and waterproof, plus covered by Leica warranty. I also believe the rubber armoring on the BR and HD Ultravids must offer some additional impact and abrasion protection over the BL finish.

As I posted previously, I used a Leitz 7x35 Trinovid for decades in all types of conditions. I take care of my gear even when using it in harsh conditions and these small leather covered bins held up well over time. I think the Ultravid BL is the closest thing to that wonderful old Leitz Trinovid in size, shape and elegant design. If Leica offered one in 7x35 or maybe even 7x42 I would buy one in a heartbeat.

John

John M Robinson said:

I believe it is strong and waterproof, plus covered by Leica warranty. I also believe the rubber armoring on the BR and HD Ultravids must offer some additional impact and abrasion protection over the BL finish.

As I posted previously, I used a Leitz 7x35 Trinovid for decades in all types of conditions. I take care of my gear even when using it in harsh conditions and these small leather covered bins held up well over time. I think the Ultravid BL is the closest thing to that wonderful old Leitz Trinovid in size, shape and elegant design. If Leica offered one in 7x35 or maybe even 7x42 I would buy one in a heartbeat.

John

Click to expand...

John,

The fundamental difference in ergonomics between the old Leitz and the new BL is the fact that the Leitz had a wide bridge you could grip whereas the there's virtually no bridge on the BL, just that round shaft that looks like a lipstick dispenser. The Leitz also has wider barrels to grip.

Have you handled the BL? How do you hold it?? Looks like a supersized compact bin. Last time I asked this question, someone joked that you wear it as jewelry, but I'm sure birders use them just as they would the BRs. In fact, not sure if it was you or someone else that reported using their BLs in extreme conditions.

But my "beef" is their lack of "beef".

Leica 2-pounder all beef patty standing next to his "slim jim" cousin Leitz:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://kenrockwell.com/leica/images/trinovid/10x40/D3S_9742-1200.jpg&imgrefurl=http://kenrockwell.com/leica/trinovid/10x40.htm&usg=__NDa1yJPAbhVws2x6YIgid_zb9B0=&h=803&w=1200&sz=159&hl=en&start=36&zoom=1&tbnid=wN_zpepevDxkGM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=180&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dleica%2B8x42%2Bbn%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1070%26bih%3D619%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C905&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=758&vpy=124&dur=320&hovh=140&hovw=209&tx=237&ty=68&ei=QtikTIDtDoaBlAeRv83LCw&oei=M9ikTIDKBsL6lwfS-aGuCw&esq=3&page=3&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:36&biw=1070&bih=619

By comparison even to the Leitz, the BL appears to be suffering from anorexia binosa:

http://www.eagleoptics.com/external/files/products/bin-lc-40271-m.jpg

Needs some Bob Hoffman protein powder!

The basic gripe I have with most optics companies is that they feel they have to keep "redesigning" their bins every four or eight years like automakers.

When you come up with a good design, stick with it. You might add leather armoring instead of the pebbly faux leather or add rubber armoring, and update the coatings if necessary, but why redesign the bin for style if the style is already elegant and classic?

I guess it keeps designers employed but consumers end up paying through the nose for the latest and greatest update (and I don't mean optically, I mean with the ergos, and the new ergos are not always better than the old).

My tuppence.

Brock

brocknroller said:

Have you handled the BL? How do you hold it?? Looks like a supersized compact bin.

Click to expand...

The only difference between the BL and the other Ultravids (BR, HD) is 1 or 2 mm rubber around the barrels, instead of the slimer and lighter leather. And the rubber versions have little thumb supports on the backside. Otherwise no difference in design and also no big difference in handling to other Ultravid versions.