-
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.
Leica Standard Ultravid Vs. HD (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Dialyt
- Start date
That really is tough. Sounds like a story of "The Girl I Let Walk Away". You're so heartless, Dialyt!
Good thing the binoculars don't really care. So it's - at least - a one-sided sorrow
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
That really is tough. Sounds like a story of "The Girl I Let Walk Away". You're so heartless, Dialyt!
I'd do anything to get her, I mean it, back. Actually, I wouldn't, I'm pretty happy with my new model!
Steve Jones
Well-known member
I own a pair of 10 x 42 Ultravids (old style) and have been sceptical about the new HD product - basically paying £400 fmore or a better focus knob that wasn't really an issue in the first place and for the anti rain coating.
However, whilst trying to read colour rings on feeding crossbills in driving rain on sunday my objectives covered with drops of water that made looking at objects against the sky very difficult due to distortion of the image. Maybe the Aquadura would prevent this.
I don't think it is worth an existing Ultravid owner upgrading but they may be a good option for someone going from mid to high when the prices drop.
Lindsay
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
If Leica had done the decent thing, they would have applied the AquaDura coating to all Ultravids whenever they had the technology available. Swarovski did this and didn't charge extra for it.
black lark
Registered User
why, they didn't change only the coating but also the lenses are different and the focusing !!!
In what way are the lenses different? Give us some technical specifications.
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
Leica KNEW they had AquaDura technology available - I'd guess they could have used it on the Ultravids from day one. Of course this is just an intelligent guess.
Swarovski brought out their EL range without easy-to-clean coating. When they had the technology, they used it to the consumer's gain. They didn't make a song and a dance about it, nor did they charge a premium for it.
Leica, on the other hand, withheld AquaDura from all Ultravid owners, using it as a stick to try and make people go for the new Ultravid HD line. I'm guessing that they felt the 3% increase in brightness with the new HD line wasn't enough to get most sane users to be drawn to upgrade, so used something that was actually useful (AquaDura coating) to try and get people to upgrade, paying way more than they should, for a small feature that could very easily, and should have been, applied to at least the later produced Ultravid models. Instead, we now have the insane situation where essentially the only difference, in field use, between HD and non-HD Ultravid, is a useful rain repellent coating. This is my opinion. I've seen both HD and non-HD side-by-side, and I've owned 2 non-HD Ultravids. The only thing that is appealing about the new HD is the AquaDura coating, and I just couldn't justify spending £400 for a coating. The guy at the dealership agreed with me on this. You are ppaying for a coating that repells rain. As another wise member said to me, for £400, I'll wipe my own lenses thank you very much.
black lark
Registered User
take a look in the brochure of leica, !!
Jeff Bouton
Well-known member
Hey Gang,
Not qualified to comment on some of this, but I can add definitively that there are indeed noticeable differences in image quality between the Ultravid BR and the new Ultravid HD binoculars. In direct comparison, I and all others who have compared the two here in the US noted that better control of stray light and increased fluoride combine to offer better color resolution in the new HD's. Granted it is a slight difference as the Ultravid BR were (and still are) already excellent, but if you go to a shop that has both test this and see for yourself. Again check for vibrant colors, nearly all agree that the difference is easily noticeable. I've heard some describe this as, "the colors pop on the HD", that they are more "3 dimensional", "better color saturation", and more "vivid" and/or more "vibrant". Don't take my word for it though, go and see.
Regarding the Aqua Dura coating, I can say definitively that it is a wonderful addition that works magnificently in adverse weather. With a purposeful snap of my wrist as I raise my bins, I can send all water droplets sailing so there is no need for wiping the lenses. As far as whether it's worth the price or not will be a personal issue naturally!
Fortunately, for those in the US, the price difference is not as extreme as in the UK. The 8x42 Ultravid HD for example, is at $1995 US in the marketplace, and the price ranges I found for 8x42 Ultravid BR ranged from a low of $1459 - $1699 US (for a difference ranging from about 216-148 British pounds). For whatever reason the Ultravid BR seems to be holding its value here in the US.
Regarding other manufacturer's claims of adding the same without any fanfare, I'd ask, "Has anyone tested this coating and does it work"? Some manufacturers have a history of producing new specs overnight on their sites, when it was noted their performance wasn't as high as competitors (take operating temperatures for example). ;p
At any rate, the proof is in the pudding as they say. So anyone have any comments regarding this? Has anyone tested this new coating compared to Lotu Tec (Zeiss) and Aqua Dura (Leica)? On their site they only refer to "easy cleaning" and mention nothing about moisture resistance that I see.
Best,
Jeff Bouton, USA
Not qualified to comment on some of this, but I can add definitively that there are indeed noticeable differences in image quality between the Ultravid BR and the new Ultravid HD binoculars. In direct comparison, I and all others who have compared the two here in the US noted that better control of stray light and increased fluoride combine to offer better color resolution in the new HD's. Granted it is a slight difference as the Ultravid BR were (and still are) already excellent, but if you go to a shop that has both test this and see for yourself. Again check for vibrant colors, nearly all agree that the difference is easily noticeable. I've heard some describe this as, "the colors pop on the HD", that they are more "3 dimensional", "better color saturation", and more "vivid" and/or more "vibrant". Don't take my word for it though, go and see.
Regarding the Aqua Dura coating, I can say definitively that it is a wonderful addition that works magnificently in adverse weather. With a purposeful snap of my wrist as I raise my bins, I can send all water droplets sailing so there is no need for wiping the lenses. As far as whether it's worth the price or not will be a personal issue naturally!
Fortunately, for those in the US, the price difference is not as extreme as in the UK. The 8x42 Ultravid HD for example, is at $1995 US in the marketplace, and the price ranges I found for 8x42 Ultravid BR ranged from a low of $1459 - $1699 US (for a difference ranging from about 216-148 British pounds). For whatever reason the Ultravid BR seems to be holding its value here in the US.
Regarding other manufacturer's claims of adding the same without any fanfare, I'd ask, "Has anyone tested this coating and does it work"? Some manufacturers have a history of producing new specs overnight on their sites, when it was noted their performance wasn't as high as competitors (take operating temperatures for example). ;p
At any rate, the proof is in the pudding as they say. So anyone have any comments regarding this? Has anyone tested this new coating compared to Lotu Tec (Zeiss) and Aqua Dura (Leica)? On their site they only refer to "easy cleaning" and mention nothing about moisture resistance that I see.
Best,
Jeff Bouton, USA
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
The optics dealer I spoke to, I think he said the coatings were the same. Or else I imagined it. But I believe they are. Different names for the same hydrophobic coating.
jalethbridge
I like sea-watching
i bought the old ones
My 2c. I had the misfortune to get mugged, losing my old 8x42 ultravids in the process. This happened just as the HDs hit the shops, and just as retailers started offering remaining stocks of old ultravids at a significant discount. Wonderful, almost worth getting mugged. I had no hesitation. I contributed some of my own money to add to the insurance money, and bought a pair of old 7x42s (in green = more money off, a whole 200 pounds in fact, for something which makes no difference at all. You look through them, not at them.) and a pair of old 10x42s. I never even tried the HD, the old ones are so good that you can't possibly double that kind of quality, and I very nearly got 2 old ultravids for the price of 1 new HD model, and both the old ones have the better guarantee as far as I can make out. No contest, the well documented changes could not result in any improvement that would be worth paying that much more money for.
BTW I had never used 7x bins before, I now find myself using them about 70% of the time, which is roughly the split of time I spend in wooded areas vs open areas. They are excellent, I cannot recommend them enough.
I also use the 10x on holiday where I do not carry a scope, and I find that when you're using them day in day out, you become very accustomed to the narrower FOV, and can find birds easily. I find switching to them after having used the 7x more difficult.
I also find that the 10x sometimes have purple fringing when looking up at birds perched in trees with the sky for background. I don't see that in the 7x. Viewing in non-contrast situations is flawless in both. This was my experience with the 8x as well.
I don't use the objective covers - I found that when the bins were on my chest, no matter what angle I had them at, they tended to close themselves slightly as I was walking along, resulting in frustrating one-handed misses when carrying a tripod. I do use the rain guard though, which can also result in misses.
Anyway, as to old vs new, I respect people's opinions but I cannot believe that people would contemplate swapping if they already owned a pair. Or even if they didn't, the discounts should point them in the right direction. Of course another argument is that they should forget Leica altogether and go for the 8.5x42 ELs or Ziess FLs, but its a personal choice, and I love the leica image. I never tried the Zeiss, but I did pick up another birders ELs. I found them brilliant to hold, wonderfully sharp etc, what put me off was the length believe it or not. That extra cm or so made them feel too big. Plus they weren't on sale of course.
My 2c. I had the misfortune to get mugged, losing my old 8x42 ultravids in the process. This happened just as the HDs hit the shops, and just as retailers started offering remaining stocks of old ultravids at a significant discount. Wonderful, almost worth getting mugged. I had no hesitation. I contributed some of my own money to add to the insurance money, and bought a pair of old 7x42s (in green = more money off, a whole 200 pounds in fact, for something which makes no difference at all. You look through them, not at them.) and a pair of old 10x42s. I never even tried the HD, the old ones are so good that you can't possibly double that kind of quality, and I very nearly got 2 old ultravids for the price of 1 new HD model, and both the old ones have the better guarantee as far as I can make out. No contest, the well documented changes could not result in any improvement that would be worth paying that much more money for.
BTW I had never used 7x bins before, I now find myself using them about 70% of the time, which is roughly the split of time I spend in wooded areas vs open areas. They are excellent, I cannot recommend them enough.
I also use the 10x on holiday where I do not carry a scope, and I find that when you're using them day in day out, you become very accustomed to the narrower FOV, and can find birds easily. I find switching to them after having used the 7x more difficult.
I also find that the 10x sometimes have purple fringing when looking up at birds perched in trees with the sky for background. I don't see that in the 7x. Viewing in non-contrast situations is flawless in both. This was my experience with the 8x as well.
I don't use the objective covers - I found that when the bins were on my chest, no matter what angle I had them at, they tended to close themselves slightly as I was walking along, resulting in frustrating one-handed misses when carrying a tripod. I do use the rain guard though, which can also result in misses.
Anyway, as to old vs new, I respect people's opinions but I cannot believe that people would contemplate swapping if they already owned a pair. Or even if they didn't, the discounts should point them in the right direction. Of course another argument is that they should forget Leica altogether and go for the 8.5x42 ELs or Ziess FLs, but its a personal choice, and I love the leica image. I never tried the Zeiss, but I did pick up another birders ELs. I found them brilliant to hold, wonderfully sharp etc, what put me off was the length believe it or not. That extra cm or so made them feel too big. Plus they weren't on sale of course.
Thanks for the account, Jalethbridge, and sorry to hear about the mugging, hope you weren't injured. It's depressing to hear of things like this, I hope all you lost was your bins! But congratulations on your new bins, and also on having the philosophical detachment to turn a bad experience into a good one...two Leicas in place of one! Happy Birding (carry a big stick with those bins in future...)
)OMG! I'm sure it benefits somebody, but not the consumer.....does this apply to all manufacturers' long-term warranties from now on?
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
I assume it apples to all European manufacturers or all products sold in Europe, regardless of where they are made. A quick look on Google and it seems the idea of the EU Product Warranty Directive is to harmonise product warranties, and to protect the seller from unreasonable liabilities. I guess 30 years is considered unreasonable. Beyond this I am not sure, but the point is, it wasn't the case that Leica decided to short-change their customers. I'm sure they would still be offering their 30 year warranty if they were allowed to. Or maybe not, who knows. I'm glad my pre-HD Ultravid has the full warranty.
Also copied this from a Leica fan forum:
From here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...59-no-more-leica-passport-warranty-after.html
Last edited:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
It all sounds bogus to me. Let's say that EU agreements don't allow for the promise of warranty service beyond 10 years, why reduce the warranty outside the EU? Never mind that, here's the real test. Surely, there is nothing to stop a company from covering repairs and service for free past the promised warranty period (i.e. to be more generous than promised? e.g. Currently, Swarovski in the USA seems to cover nearly all repairs, even when the user is not the original owner or if the damage was due to accident, even though such service is not described in their warranty). So that will be the test of whether a company is truly a premium brand--whether in the future it covers repairs and service for decades even though only ten years (or 2 years or whatever) is promised.
--AP
--AP
Similar threads
