New Leica HD Ultravid PLUS (1 Viewer)

brocknroller said:

There's a .001% chance that I misremembered what he said, but if true, and I see no reference to an A-K prism update in Leica's PR, just a follow-the-leader HT glass upgrade, which means that HT glass can be used to make S-P prisms. There's some 'splainin' someone needs to do.

Click to expand...

Nobody said that HT *can't* be used for SP prisms. Only that it doesn't make much sense.

brocknroller said:

Zeiss has come out with two different lines of bins - the 56 Conquest HDs and the 54 HTs - while neglecting to update their 32mm FLs, which surely would lead in sales vs. the oversized HDs and HTs.

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't lead in sales vs. the large HDs and HTs. You underestimate the market for 56mm and 54mm bins in Europe. Most hunters here go for the big boys.

brocknroller said:

Users and reviewers have been moaning about the UV's light transmission being behind the other top bananas, so this might quell those complaints.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But on the other hand, it might not, now that so many people seem to find sharpness at the edge important.

Hermann

Vespobuteo said:

wow! quite a revolution, ten years ago...

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Nikon EDG I. :smoke:

Johnny Come Lately

Brock

Hermann,
I think that customers will be attracted to a fairly large increase in brightness as a consequence of the higher light transmission and edge sharpness in the Leica's was not so much a problem I think. It will of course if compared with binoculars having flatfield lenses. I am curious how customers will receive the new Leica's.
Gijs

Brock,

As Hermann said, BAK-4 HT can be substituted for BAK-4 in a Schmidt-Pechan prism. It just doesn't increase the light transmission very much.

The Schott transmission chart below shows no difference at all in the catalogue curves between BAK-4 and Bak-4 HT at wavelengths longer than 400nm and only about 0.4% (for a 25mm glass thickness) at wavelengths shorter than 400nm. The prisms in the Leicas probably have a total internal light path of 75mm or less, so the gain in throughput would be no more than about 1.2%, and that confined entirely to blue and violet.

Henry

Holger Merlitz wrote something similar as well, he guessed about 1 % increase with HT glass alone in SP-prisms. So if Leica really get's to 92%, there are probably more improvements... But why shouldn't they manage to do that, if Zeiss can do it with the SF and Swaro with SLC and SV...

Hermann said:

Nobody said that HT *can't* be used for SP prisms. Only that it doesn't make much sense.

Click to expand...

Ron said it, See above, and he told two friends, and they told two friends, and pretty soon the rumor mill was that's why Zeiss hadn't made a 32mm HT. Now that that myth has been debunked, I'm wondering why they haven't upgraded the 32 FL? Is the HT body design too difficult to "mini-me?"

No, it wouldn't lead in sales vs. the large HDs and HTs. You underestimate the market for 56mm and 54mm bins in Europe. Most hunters here go for the big boys.

Click to expand...

Not in Europe, but I think a 32 HT would outsell the overized models in the U.S. The 8x32 FL is very popular with birders, and Swaro won't even sell the 8x56 SLC in the US for lack of buyers.

Perhaps. But on the other hand, it might not, now that so many people seem to find sharpness at the edge important.

Hermann

Click to expand...

True, it's all the rage, but it would look a bit embarrassing for Leica to follow Nikon, Swaro and Zeiss in making a premium open bridge roof at this point. As Vasputin suggested above with his remark about "a revolution in the making, 10 years late"....unless it was a Perger prism open bridge roof. That would be just different enough to be distinctive. I and others have suggested this, but the consensus seems to be they would be too bulky and heavy, and Leica bins are known for their compactness.

However, after seeing the GIANT SF, you have to wonder if Zeiss would make an alpha plus for giants, why not Leica (aside from the fact that they usurped my term -- "plus" -- for the top range of alphas in the $2,500+ bracket and used it for their current top of the line). They could keep the UV + as their HT, as someone suggested, and then add a higher priced, more "bells and whistles" model like Swaro and Zeiss.

Even then, where would the customers come from? After the SF is released, will there be any open bridge fans with deep pockets left who do not already own an EDG or SV EL or SF? Those are hard acts to follow.

By coming last, Leica has to do something truly out of the box to attract buyers other than the usual Leica fanboys. With their experience in digital cameras, perhaps they will be the first alpha company to go digital with sports optics. Though I have a feeling they will be run over by the other Big Three by the time they get it out the door.

Brock

Wasn't the conventional thinking here that the Ultravid still had silver-coated prisms? - that's why they lagged so far behind the Zeiss and Swaro.

No way just HT glass would boost transmission 5 - 8 %, without further improvements in prism design etc.

brocknroller said:

....Ron said it, See above, and he told two friends, and they told two friends, and pretty soon the rumor mill was that's why Zeiss hadn't made a 32mm HT. Now that that myth has been debunked, I'm wondering why they haven't upgraded the 32 FL? Is the HT body design too difficult to "mini-me?"....

Click to expand...

Whoa! Hold up there boys .... not everyone said HT glass in S-P prisms was a no go .....

It is a real goer, and the concomitant benefits make it quadruply so! In fact if you'll remember correctly, that's exactly what I said waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when !

Just remember - you heard it Down Under first !! ..... :smoke:

No need for a "mini-me" HT body --- just shove the glass in the existing FL body along with the other changes I suggested and get on with it already ! :brains:

Now if the bean counters at Wetzlar World would kindly make the cheque payable to Ms. C. Juan ........ :king:



Chosun :gh:

james holdsworth said:

Wasn't the conventional thinking here that the Ultravid still had silver-coated prisms?...

Click to expand...

The Ultravid have always been dielectric coated. Their brightness was competitive with the Swarovski EL, Zeiss Classic, and Zeiss Victory of the time, and was quite a bit better than the silver-coated Nikon LX/HG and the (silver coated) Trinovid BN predecessors.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

The Ultravid have always been dielectric coated. Their brightness was competitive with the Swarovski EL, Zeiss Classic, and Zeiss Victory of the time, and was quite a bit better than the silver-coated Nikon LX/HG and the (silver coated) Trinovid BN predecessors.

--AP

Click to expand...

Gijs graphs show the HD's to be as much as 10% below the FL, SV, HT's.....

henry link said:

Brock,

As Hermann said, BAK-4 HT can be substituted for BAK-4 in a Schmidt-Pechan prism. It just doesn't increase the light transmission very much.

The Schott transmission chart below shows no difference at all in the catalogue curves between BAK-4 and Bak-4 HT at wavelengths longer than 400nm and only about 0.4% (for a 25mm glass thickness) at wavelengths shorter than 400nm. The prisms in the Leicas probably have a total internal light path of 75mm or less, so the gain in throughput would be no more than about 1.2%, and that confined entirely to blue and violet.

Henry

Click to expand...

Henry,

I missed your original reply to Ron, so I'm only getting half the story here. I was wondering where he got the idea that HT glass wouldn't (but apparently not "couldn't") be used in the 32mm model?

By showing the small gain in using HT glass in SP prisms, are you implying that HT glass works better (that is, boosts transmission more) in A/K prisms than in SP prisms, and therefore, it wouldn't be worth using HT glass in a new 32 mm Zeiss model because the gain is so small, and only in the violet and blue?

If that's true, then Zeiss would need to use A/K prisms in a new 32 model, and that would make them too bulky. I think that was the gist of the conservation about this, wasn't it? Tried looking for the thread, but couldn't find it.

Since the gain in transmission is so small, this implies that using HT glass in the UV Plus is more of a marketing ploy than anything else since no-one is going to notice a 1.2% difference in the blue and violet. True?

The lion's share of boosted light transmission in the UV Plus is coming from the "high-temperature plasma" coatings and not the glass type. From the press release, you get the impression a significant portion of the light transmission boost is from the HT glass used in the prisms.

"In addition to this (new coatings), the prisms of the new binoculars are manufactured from glass SCHOTT HT special formulation, with exceptional characteristics of light transmission. The significant improvement of the transmission of light, especially in the blue-violet band, not only ensures a brighter image, but also a perfect color balance."

A bit of slight of hand?

Brock

FWIW the HDs came out in 2007.

The following info is from Allbinos review of it in May 2012, 5 years after it was introduced.

"Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD

The Ultravid HD binoculars’ series was launched in 2007 substituting the Ultravid devices. It consists of roof prism binoculars with the objective lens’s diameter from 20 to 50 mm. All the binoculars from this series feature the Schmidt-Pechan prisms. To ensure high transmission they were covered by dielectric HighLux (HLS) coatings and, additionally, P40 phase coatings.

Compared to the previous version, the producer used some fluorite glass in the objective lenses and better antireflection coatings which are supposed to assure the transmission level higher by 3%. What’s more, the outer optical surfaces were covered by AquaDura coatings which task is to make the water roll off very quickly. These coatings also make the cleaning of optical elements easier – the traces of damp, mud or fingerprints are supposed to be very easy to remove."

The transmission graph in the review shows 92% transmission level in most of the 600 to 700 range after sloping evenly upward starting at below 80% at 400 and going up to 90% at 599.

brocknroller said:

Henry,

I missed your original reply to Ron, so I'm only getting half the story here. I was wondering where he got the idea that HT glass wouldn't (but apparently not "couldn't") be used in the 32mm model?

By showing the small gain in using HT glass in SP prisms, are you implying that HT glass works better (that is, boosts transmission more) in A/K prisms than in SP prisms, and therefore, it wouldn't be worth using HT glass in a new 32 mm Zeiss model because the gain is so small, and only in the violet and blue?

If that's true, then Zeiss would need to use A/K prisms in a new 32 model, and that would make them too bulky. I think that was the gist of the conservation about this, wasn't it? Tried looking for the thread, but couldn't find it.

Since the gain in transmission is so small, this implies that using HT glass in the UV Plus is more of a marketing ploy than anything else since no-one is going to notice a 1.2% difference in the blue and violet. True?

The lion's share of boosted light transmission in the UV Plus is coming from the "high-temperature plasma" coatings and not the glass type. From the press release, you get the impression a significant portion of the light transmission boost is from the HT glass used in the prisms.

"In addition to this (new coatings), the prisms of the new binoculars are manufactured from glass SCHOTT HT special formulation, with exceptional characteristics of light transmission. The significant improvement of the transmission of light, especially in the blue-violet band, not only ensures a brighter image, but also a perfect color balance."

A bit of slight of hand?

Brock

Click to expand...

No Brock!

Listen to the gospel from Down Under :brains:
(you may need to run it through google translate, as you don't seem to get it

The original discussion was in the HT thread .....

Yes, HT glass shows more gains with AK prisms, and No, that does not mean it is of no value in S-P prisms ..... ~1.2%+ is ~1.2%+ ! Who's gonna notice that? a new owner that's who!

Apart from increased transmission, a whole host of other benefits are detailed in concert with indexing the coatings (your penance for being so recalcitrant is to dig them up in the original thread! ..... upshot is a visibly detectable better image !! :smoke:

Your suggestion that the Zeiss 32 needs to go to A-K prisms is an oxymoron .... The transmission according to Allbino's is already at 94.6%, and shoving whacking great A-K prisms in there would thoroughly ruin the one thing the little FL has going for it - it's size ! |^|

Making the other changes I suggested would at least allow it to compete both ways against the SV at one end, and the UVHD+ at the other. Will the Zeiss32mmHT be perfect? No. But it will be a pretty damn fine compact 32mm. It would also buy valuable time until the monstrously bigger 32mm SF can be developed into a real SV slayer ....... Thus Zeiss can have a two pronged 32mm approach - a proper littlie FL->HT, and a larger top dawg flat field SF ...... :cat:

Amen o


Chosun :gh:

PS. Mike - still waiting on that cheque ...... :king:

Chosun Juan said:

No Brock!

Listen to the gospel from Down Under :brains:
(you may need to run it through google translate, as you don't seem to get it

The original discussion was in the HT thread .....

Yes, HT glass shows more gains with AK prisms, and No, that does not mean it is of no value in S-P prisms ..... ~1.2%+ is ~1.2%+ ! Who's gonna notice that? a new owner that's who!

Apart from increased transmission, a whole host of other benefits are detailed in concert with indexing the coatings (your penance for being so recalcitrant is to dig them up in the original thread! ..... upshot is a visibly detectable better image !! :smoke:

Your suggestion that the Zeiss 32 needs to go to A-K prisms is an oxymoron .... The transmission according to Allbino's is already at 94.6%, and shoving whacking great A-K prisms in there would thoroughly ruin the one thing the little FL has going for it - it's size ! |^|

Making the other changes I suggested would at least allow it to compete both ways against the SV at one end, and the UVHD+ at the other. Will the Zeiss32mmHT be perfect? No. But it will be a pretty damn fine compact 32mm. It would also buy valuable time until the monstrously bigger 32mm SF can be developed into a real SV slayer ....... Thus Zeiss can have a two pronged 32mm approach - a proper littlie FL->HT, and a larger top dawg flat field SF ...... :cat:

Amen o


Chosun :gh:

PS. Mike - still waiting on that cheque ...... :king:

Click to expand...

In your case, I would drop the "oxy."

Most people can't detect a difference of less than 3% brightness, so 1.2% is invisible except perhaps to nocturnal animals. My point was that if Leica hadn't also boosted transmission with its new coatings, the UV would only have a 1.2% difference, which nobody would even see, but reading the language of the press release, you're led to believe that the HT glass contributes a "significant" amount of boost to the light transmission, which according to Henry's post, it does not. Only 1.2%, which is less than the "margin of error" in most of allbino's light transmission numbers!

I did not suggest that Zeiss shove A/K prisms in the FL, only that in order to bring up the light transmission to that of what Zeiss claims (not Arek, he hasn't reviewed the HT yet) for the HT (95%), the 32mm HT would need a boost in light transmission. Capeesh?

But is that number even meaningful? Would anyone be able to see the difference of 1.2%? And more importantly, is it worth paying $300-$600 or whatever Zeiss might charge extra for the difference?

Zeiss would have to come up with some newfangled, hi-tech coatings like Leica said it did to boost transmission to "95% or better" in a new 8x32 model if it can't make it to that number w/out the A/K prisms. But why bother, if Arek's numbers are correct for the 8x32 FL, it's already close enough.

OTOH, I can see why Leica would want to come up to at least 90% to catch up with Zeiss (Swaro and Nikon still lag below 90% by comparison, using the same yardstick you did - allbinos - but not by much).

But is all this squabbling and fervor over a few percentage points really matter? The proper question to ask is HOW MUCH LIGHT TRANSMISSION DOES ONE REALLY NEED IN A BIRDING BIN????

85% 90%? 92%? 95% And that overall figure is then broken down into day and evening values.

Are the Big Three trying to get people fired up over something that is inconsequential? Apparently, you think not, since you say you can see a 1.2% difference in brightness. If your eyes are truly that good and you can open your pupils to 7mm, then forget about small format bins, buy a Doctor 8x56 Porro, which according to allbinos, has a whopping 98% light transmission! You can study birds by moonlight!

Seriously, I would like someone to address the question -- HOW MUCH light transmission is enough for most birding situations? Only then will we be able to tell the difference between marketing mumbo jumbo and meaningful specs.

Brock

brocknroller said:

Seriously, I would like someone to address the question -- HOW MUCH light transmission is enough for most birding situations? Only then will we be able to tell the difference between marketing mumbo jumbo and meaningful specs.

Brock

Click to expand...

I can't answer your question Brock as I'm not a birder, however, as an avid hunter I can throw in my 2c worth. I can see no tangible difference in light gathering going from an HT 10x42 to an 8x32 SV. I'm sure there is a measurable difference but my eyes can't detect it.

HOW MUCH light transmission is enough for MOST birding situations and in WHAT PART of the spectrum is it most useful throughout the year.

And why?

Bob

brocknroller said:

Most people can't detect a difference of less than 3% brightness, so 1.2% is invisible except perhaps to nocturnal animals. My point was that if Leica hadn't also boosted transmission with its new coatings, the UV would only have a 1.2% difference, which nobody would even see, but reading the language of the press release, you're led to believe that the HT glass contributes a "significant" amount of boost to the light transmission, which according to Henry's post, it does not. Only 1.2%, which is less than the "margin of error" in most of allbino's light transmission numbers!

I did not suggest that Zeiss shove A/K prisms in the FL, only that in order to bring up the light transmission to that of what Zeiss claims (not Arek, he hasn't reviewed the HT yet) for the HT (95%), the 32mm HT would need a boost in light transmission. Capeesh?

But is that number even meaningful? Would anyone be able to see the difference of 1.2%? And more importantly, is it worth paying $300-$600 or whatever Zeiss might charge extra for the difference?

Zeiss would have to come up with some newfangled, hi-tech coatings like Leica said it did to boost transmission to "95% or better" in a new 8x32 model if it can't make it to that number w/out the A/K prisms. But why bother, if Arek's numbers are correct for the 8x32 FL, it's already close enough.

OTOH, I can see why Leica would want to come up to at least 90% to catch up with Zeiss (Swaro and Nikon still lag below 90% by comparison, using the same yardstick you did - allbinos - but not by much).

But is all this squabbling and fervor over a few percentage points really matter? The proper question to ask is HOW MUCH LIGHT TRANSMISSION DOES ONE REALLY NEED IN A BIRDING BIN????

85% 90%? 92%? 95% And that overall figure is then broken down into day and evening values.

Are the Big Three trying to get people fired up over something that is inconsequential? Apparently, you think not, since you say you can see a 1.2% difference in brightness. If your eyes are truly that good and you can open your pupils to 7mm, then forget about small format bins, buy a Doctor 8x56 Porro, which according to allbinos, has a whopping 98% light transmission! You can study birds by moonlight!

Seriously, I would like someone to address the question -- HOW MUCH light transmission is enough for most birding situations? Only then will we be able to tell the difference between marketing mumbo jumbo and meaningful specs.

Brock

Click to expand...

Brock!

Son, ya just ain't listenin' ....... :brains:

ANY increases in transmission brings about an associated reduction in reflected and stray light bouncin' around, and associated mush etc. A cleaner pic for ya eyeballs.

As Bob already posted, the Leica HD already reaches 92% in the red zone. We don't know the shape of the new +model's curves, and so can't say for sure where the most significant increases will be. If you were paying attention to a single thing written, you'd also realize that the changes work in concert together - ie. glass and coatings - Leica even refers to it as an indexing system. One allows the other.

As far as what You've written about turning the Zeiss 32FL into a 32HT goes, it's about as logical as a duck with antlers !

Maybe your mathematical ability can stretch to the following equation: 94.6% + 1.2% = ?
(provided Arek's tested tr% value is correct ..... :h? which admittedly doesn't seem that likely ......

As far as to what value is desirable - easy! 100% !!
(otherwise why did we bother going from 50 - 80% in the first place?! ...... :smoke:
Seriously, if you've been payin' attention son, you'll be able to rattle off all the related beneficial reasons for yerself!

If the big Alpha dawgs continue to seemingly play fast and loose with their market power ..... quasi-cartel-like behaviour ?(uncanny pricing parity donchathink?? ;-) then that just leaves a mile of room for China or whoever to offer 97.5% of the performance for 1/5th the price and make a killing. :cat:


Chosun :gh:

Brock

How much transmission do we need? What kind of question is that?
How much horsepower does a car need? And in which direction is car horsepower going? Up, up, up.

Same with transmission and same with FOV.

One can say its all marketing hype to get us to buy stuff we don't need and on one level that is correct. There are several people in this world who will tell us that we don't need bins at all, whether dim or bright.

But on another level, there is the good old American saying: If enough is enough, then more is better and too much is just right. :-O

Chosun

Meanwhile back with the question of future Zeiss 32s, I wouldn't sign off two top level alpha 32 models for production and sale. My gut tells me that there is too much cost and not enough pay-back in splitting sales between too 32s. So as a product manager I would put my money on one: an SF 32.

Lee

ticl2184 said:

Hardly anyone in the Uk stocks Leica bins anymore,,,,,,so the Plus is goin be a difficult cookie to get ur hands on for testing

Click to expand...

Tim

You need to get out more or at least off the Isle of Wight.

A quick look shows Cleyspy, Focus Optics (Coventry), Clifton Cameras (Dursley Gloucs), Ace Optics, Kay Optical all stock Leica bins.

And don't neglect gun shops: Sportsman Gun Centre in Dorset, who carry Leica is the nearest to you I found but I bet there are more.

Lee

Easy does it. Leica is giving its customers 30 seconds of additional viewing time. OK, maybe 60 seconds.