10x50 BR (1 Viewer)

Hi ya'll,
I've had this 10x50 BR only two days, but have inflicted almost every conceivable viewing cruelty upon it, and I am delighted. Not much new here, but I feel duty bound to share my findings/brag.

The sun is low these days and the moon is high, and by day and night resistance to scattered light is excellent. Like with most binoculars, it seems to help ward off inscattered glare a bit if the eyecups are lowered a little, although this starts to flirt with blackouts.

It was brilliantly fair this afternoon and I took a long walk on a mesa top where a few tall burned stumps from a 1976 fire are still standing, providing good CA targets. I tried and tried but could not see a trace of fringing in the normal central viewing area. I didn't carefully center the object or my eyes, just threw it up to my face and no fringes in relaxed normal viewing. For sure, fringes would show up better against bright clouds, and that remains to be seen. But this is a case where ED glass couldn't add much. According to most reports comparing the BR and HD, in fact it doesn't.

Perceived sharpness is as good as I have seen in any binocular, over the central one third of the field which is critically sharp. The edges would surely be beat the crap out of by a Swarovision, but I honestly didn't think to look at them (probably smart).

Brightness, transparency and contrast are noticeably improved from my BN 12x50 (recently stolen, which is why I have this 10x50 in the first place). I haven't actually A/Bd it vs my Zeiss FL, which I don't see how anything could beat, but it's so close that I didn't notice a deficiency.

As the sun sets, there are no flickery vignetting effects like I get with a 4mm exit pupil. As twilight deepens, the view holds up quite well.

The physical form is very nice. 36 oz is light for a 10x50, and it is slim and quick to handle, point, and focus. The rubber cover is grippier than the Zeiss FL, and although I had my doubts about them, the protruding thumbrests fit me fine, making it easier to pick up and stabilize.

I am rather up about the 10x50 as an all around configuration. I'm not carrying a camera or double elephant rifle or anything, so why not honor the birds and carry a big binocular? But hey, a titanium/magnesium bodied one if you please. I enjoyed my time with a 12x50, and I think that improved my skills, but it's sort of nice to come down out of the ionosphere into the stratosphere, magnification wise.

The 66 degree apparent field of view is satisfying. Pincushion is moderate, and while straight edges in the outfield appear to bend inward, shapes of circular objects are not stretched or compressed, and panning is without any woozy effects. Field curvature dominates as the edge blurring aberration, bokeh fiends.

The rubber covering on the eyecups is very comfortable, but are also a peeve. The raised and folded over lip of rubber yields very comfortably to touch, but sticks up over a mm more above the inner rigid cylinder than necessary, taking up valuable eye relief for the glasses wearer or me in sunglasses. I have read the newer HD eyecups sit lower, and will seek some out.

The Leica focus, what can I say? Oomph, you know. I like them, but to each his own. I measure 10 feet closest focus, and 1 1/8 turns from there to infinity.

The big 10x Swarovision and Zeiss may be better, what do I know. But it would be almost strange, I think, not to like this Leica. Maybe I'm not the most easily dissatisfied guy out there, though, so take this with a grain of salt.
Ron

Ron,

Thank you for the write-up. After reading it I have to admit that I have the urge to start looking at 10x50s once again. Out of any of the 10x configurations it is the one that I can "live with" because of the larger exit pupil. I can't afford something of the caliber of the Ultravid but maybe I could find a demo Meostar...probably my favorite 10x50 from what I have tried.

Frank,
This is not so much a demonstration of wealth, as of an advantageous insurance settlement after our binoculars were ripped off in Atlanta GA on a recent trip to visit my brother in law. This used BR cost about twice what I paid for the BN it replaces.

It gets worse, much worse. My wife's prized EL is much the same deal. It is going to be replaced with a new, well, I am too embarrassed to say it, but it starts with "S"!

The funny thing is, my bro-in-law's 10x42 SE was laying out in plain view and they didn't take it. "Everybody wants roofs nowadays."

It's cloudy bright today. Fringes or bust! Out the door I go...
Ron

The funny thing is, my bro-in-law's 10x42 SE was laying out in plain view and they didn't take it. "Everybody wants roofs nowadays."

Click to expand...

It is that stinkin' red dot and silver eagle I'd wager!

Seriously Ron, I do remember reading about the theft previously. You have my condolensces. I know how I would feel if something like that would happen to me and my intended. I am happy to see you replacing them with some excellent optics though and that you are happy with them. I would love to look at the 10x50 Ultravids some day. For now I will settle for those 10x50 SLCs I just bid on ebay.

You really meant it about 10x50 didn't you? The SLC is bound to be good, I've see glowing reviews. Heavier, with better eye relief than the Leica, and otherwise similar. Good luck with that.

Indeed, the cloudy bright conditions today brought out some color fringing with the BR, but what I find well tolerable. Actually I am happier having seen the fringes because
1)The laws of physics did not change just because I got a new binocular.(Some bigger wizards than myself do actually have this power. At least I tried.)
2)I can still see.

I tore the birds up this morning down by the Rio Grande. If the BR is not only good, but going to bring me luck too, we'll get along just fine.
Ron

Congrats on the new binos, delighted to hear you're happy with them, especially after losing your previous ones to car-looters. I hope Mrs. Ronh is equally happy with her new acquisition!
It's really funny that they didn't touch the SE's - these bino-thieves obviously don't know their optics!

ronh said:

Hi ya'll,
I've had this 10x50 BR only two days, but have inflicted almost every conceivable viewing cruelty upon it, and I am delighted. Not much new here, but I feel duty bound to share my findings/brag.

The sun is low these days and the moon is high, and by day and night resistance to scattered light is excellent. Like with most binoculars, it seems to help ward off inscattered glare a bit if the eyecups are lowered a little, although this starts to flirt with blackouts.

It was brilliantly fair this afternoon and I took a long walk on a mesa top where a few tall burned stumps from a 1976 fire are still standing, providing good CA targets. I tried and tried but could not see a trace of fringing in the normal central viewing area. I didn't carefully center the object or my eyes, just threw it up to my face and no fringes in relaxed normal viewing. For sure, fringes would show up better against bright clouds, and that remains to be seen. But this is a case where ED glass couldn't add much. According to most reports comparing the BR and HD, in fact it doesn't.

Perceived sharpness is as good as I have seen in any binocular, over the central one third of the field which is critically sharp. The edges would surely be beat the crap out of by a Swarovision, but I honestly didn't think to look at them (probably smart).

Brightness, transparency and contrast are noticeably improved from my BN 12x50 (recently stolen, which is why I have this 10x50 in the first place). I haven't actually A/Bd it vs my Zeiss FL, which I don't see how anything could beat, but it's so close that I didn't notice a deficiency.

As the sun sets, there are no flickery vignetting effects like I get with a 4mm exit pupil. As twilight deepens, the view holds up quite well.

The physical form is very nice. 36 oz is light for a 10x50, and it is slim and quick to handle, point, and focus. The rubber cover is grippier than the Zeiss FL, and although I had my doubts about them, the protruding thumbrests fit me fine, making it easier to pick up and stabilize.

I am rather up about the 10x50 as an all around configuration. I'm not carrying a camera or double elephant rifle or anything, so why not honor the birds and carry a big binocular? But hey, a titanium/magnesium bodied one if you please. I enjoyed my time with a 12x50, and I think that improved my skills, but it's sort of nice to come down out of the ionosphere into the stratosphere, magnification wise.

The 66 degree apparent field of view is satisfying. Pincushion is moderate, and while straight edges in the outfield appear to bend inward, shapes of circular objects are not stretched or compressed, and panning is without any woozy effects. Field curvature dominates as the edge blurring aberration, bokeh fiends.

The rubber covering on the eyecups is very comfortable, but are also a peeve. The raised and folded over lip of rubber yields very comfortably to touch, but sticks up over a mm more above the inner rigid cylinder than necessary, taking up valuable eye relief for the glasses wearer or me in sunglasses. I have read the newer HD eyecups sit lower, and will seek some out.

The Leica focus, what can I say? Oomph, you know. I like them, but to each his own. I measure 10 feet closest focus, and 1 1/8 turns from there to infinity.

The big 10x Swarovision and Zeiss may be better, what do I know. But it would be almost strange, I think, not to like this Leica. Maybe I'm not the most easily dissatisfied guy out there, though, so take this with a grain of salt.
Ron

Click to expand...

Ron,

Congrats! I've read some rave reviews of the 12x50 BN, so the 10x50 Ubervid must be really something special to fill the void.

I didn't know you could insure binoculars. I asked about it myself, and my insurance agent said that my bins would only be covered if they were stolen from home. If I'm on the road and somebody steals them, tough noogies.

I suggest you hide the "red dot" on your new Leica with some black tape an print out the logo for "Bushnell" and tape it on. It won't give you as much "cachet in the field with other birders," but it might keep them from getting ripped off.

Did you read allbinos' review of the 10x50 UV? It's ranked #1 in the 10x50 category. That says something considering how they dislike distortion. They found the first curved line forming at 39% out.

Considering how wide the FOV is for a 10x50, I figured the pincushion must get wicked at the edges, but your report of no "woozy effects" is encouraging.

I too prefer 10x50s to 10x42s for the reasons you stated plus in porros, the 50s have a wider wing span and show a better 3-D effect and perception of depth, at least to me, but then again, I've been known to defy the laws of physics. -

The Celestron 10x50 ED I had weighed 10 oz. less than the Ubervid. It was too light and not well balanced. With only 5* FOV, the prisms were small and the objectives were BIG, which made it front heavy. Not a problem for stargazing, but for birding, I had to place one hand forward toward the objectives to get steady images.

The Leica's 6.7* FOV is appealing for birding, though I'd still want an ample sweet spot and a gradual fall off at the edges not a "zone of unknowingness" like the FLs.

According to Allbinos, the first blur in the 10x50 UV occurs "in the distance of 95% +\- 3% from the field centre." That sounds like good "bokeh" to me! Or did they get a "cherry" sample?

As far as CA, they wrote "Very low in the centre, significant at the edge" and wrote i the "Pros" column at the end the CA was "very well corrected".

http://www.allbinos.com/194-binoculars_review-Leica_Ultravid_10x50_HD.html

Not sure I like that Ooomph! with the focuser. Here's where the HD version might excel. The HD glass might also improve the CA at the edges.

I had these bins on my Secret Santa Wish List for about a year. Saw a minty pair on the bay for $1,499, but like Frank, I couldn't decide whether to give up an arm or a leg, so off they went to somebody with deeper pockets (or a better insurance policy), and I "settled" for the 10x42 SE. Oh well, at least they won't get stolen! -

Brock

Sharp to 95% is baloney. It's a typical Leica is all it is, good and sharp over about a third of the field and getting steadily worse, but never horrible, outside that. Jupiter, about 40arcsec diameter real, and 7arcmin apparent, is stretched axially to twice that at the very edge, ie, optical imperfection contributes about 7 arcmin of blur at the very edge. Not horrible for the very edge of a very wide field, but not worth looking at. And not even in the same ballpark with SV and EDG.

Allbinos if very useful, but contains ringers like that. One review of a Leica BN (may have to go to the Dutch version of the website for that one) gives it a measured 98% transmission!!

Everything else in the Allbinos review of the 10x50 is, however, pretty much in line with what I experience.

I appreciate your congrats. I am still big eyed with one tear about the 12x50 chunkster, but took this chance to blaze trails with something different. Can't get set in my ways quite yet!
Ron

brocknroller said:

Ron,

IThe Leica's 6.7* FOV is appealing for birding, though I'd still want an ample sweet spot and a gradual fall off at the edges not a "zone of unknowingness" like the FLs.

Brock

Click to expand...

Brock, so you finally got your hands on a pair of FL's..........I think we would all be fascinated with your findings.

ronh said:

I am still big eyed with one tear about the 12x50 chunkster, but took this chance to blaze trails with something different. Can't get set in my ways quite yet!
Ron

Click to expand...

The 12x50 HD is one binocular that's tugging at my good reason. Don't need it, wouldn't get a great amount use, but I sure would like one!

Something about that amount of optical horsepower in such an elegant and compact design.

james holdsworth said:

Brock, so you finally got your hands on a pair of FL's..........I think we would all be fascinated with your findings.

Click to expand...

Dear Missourian,

Ah, the "Show Me State" argument rears its ugly head once again.

I don't need to get my hands on an FL anymore than I need to get my hands on a rock of "crack" to know it's not something I want.

Zeiss rep. Stephen Ingraham, the reviewer formerly known as BVD, dedicated two lengthy threads on his FL launch site, zbirding, answering FL owners' questions about why Zeiss FLs have such a sharp fall off at the edges. This was a design departure from the 7x42 B/GA and Victory I, which faded more gradually at the edges with field curvature. So inquiring minds with deep pockets needed to know why the change? I asked too.

Ingraham admitted that the FLs did indeed fall off sharply at the edges, but defended Zeiss's design decision because, he said, it increased resolution in the "zone of critical sharpness" (from center to about 60% out). (hence where I got the idea for the phrase "zone of unknowningness"- that and Zen Buddhism).

Given that Ingraham had been critical of the Leica 8x32 Trinny's fuzzy edges, I had to wonder if he had lost his objectivity now that he was no longer an independent reviewer or if he actually believed in what he was saying, particularly since he had criticized the Victory I's on-axis resolution as being less than other alphas.

Some experts have argued against the need for astigmatism at the edges in order to achieve high centerfield resolution in binoculars, and gave examples of bins that are very sharp on-axis and still fairly sharp off-axis, but Ingraham's explanation was the Zeiss "party line" on this issue.

I've been around binoculars long enough to know what I like and don't like, and what I don't like are bins with fuzzy edges particularly when they charge $2K for them!

There is a plenitude (perhaps even a plethora) of comments about the FLs fuzzy edges from FL owners and those who have tried FLs.

Some didn't like it and bought other bins, but most FL owners who see the "zone of unknowningness" seem to be able to ignore it. What did one say? "You simply center the bird, my dear boy".

However, there is small cadre of FL owners, which you may belong to, that I call the "FLuzz Deniers," who despite all the comments on the FL's "fuzzy edges" claim their FLs are "sharp to the edge".

I can understand how some people might accommodate field curvature better than others (although allbinos' measurement of 95% edge sharpness in the 10x50 UV is beyond the pale, or as ronh called it "baloney"), but how some people cannot see astigmatism is keenly beyond my ken. I will defer the mystery to our resident visual specialist.

However, you do make a point. Until I get an FL in my hands and up to my eyes, I won't know just how distracting the fuzzy edges really are! -

The rumor mill reports that Zeiss has a new bin in the works. With the popularity of the SV EL (Dennis says they are selling like "hot cakes" on eBay or at least his was -, I'm curious to see if Zeiss sticks to the FL design parameters or sharpens the edges.

While the long A/K prisms would lend themselves well to an open bridge design, I don't think they will do that for fear of being called "copycats".

My solicited advice to them was to drop the ribs. Ribs are okay for Texans, but more sophisticated buyers want smooth lines and a less "plasticy" feel. (FYI, I have handled polycarbonate binoculars).

My other advice to them was to bring "backa" the CF premium porro, which they were famous for making and update them with an internal focuser.

If they were as sharp to the edges as the Zeiss porros of yesteryear, and sharp on axis, with their latest T* coatings, I might finally be willing to sell the lower 40 to buy an alpha.

Brock, president, Porro Anti-Defamation League

I think any comments made about a product that one hasn't tried, or has no personal experience, is completely useless and meritless.

That's it.

You add much to this forum with comments on bins you have owned or have tried, but you do nothing but muddy the waters with all the pseudo-factual statements regarding bins in which [really] you don't have a clue.

james holdsworth said:

I think any comments made about a product that one hasn't tried, or has no personal experience, is completely useless and meritless.

That's it.

You add much to this forum with comments on bins you have owned or have tried, but you do nothing but muddy the waters with all the pseudo-factual statements regarding bins in which [really] you don't have a clue.

Click to expand...

To me what's really "useless and without merit" is ignoring the posts of many reviewers/users of the same bin that you have and repeatedly criticizing someone for mentioning those comments (even from Ingraham - "the horse's mouth") simply because he hasn't actually looked through the bin.

I bet if I looked back in the archives I would find that you have only commented on bins you've owned or have tried, right? I doubt it.

On my "Mertiless" Snob List you go. That's it.

B.

brocknroller said:

To me what's really "useless and without merit" is ignoring the posts of many reviewers/users of the same bin that you have and repeatedly criticizing someone for mentioning those comments (even from Ingraham - "the horse's mouth") simply because he hasn't actually looked through the bin.

I bet if I looked back in the archives I would find that you have only commented on bins you've owned or have tried, right? I doubt it.

On my "Mertiless" Snob List you go. That's it.

B.

Click to expand...

Brock:

It seems James does like the Zeiss, and is quick to defend them. That is
alright, many here have their favorites. And I suppose if he has only handled
the Zeiss, he is missing out on the better qualities of other binoculars.

And so he is speaking from his experience, and may be overlooking others.

Jerry

Brock, I hope you will not take too much offense if I lay into with what little malevolence I can muster. We love you dude, but the above is a trifle over the top, outside the bounds of reasonable binocular criticism. Are you just trying to get our dander up by acting a fool? Whatever, we are bound by duty to take note of such.

There's nothing wrong with synthesizing a tentative opinion of a binocular from many experienced peoples' comments. I do it when I am contemplating a purchase, binoculars being few and far between in my neck of the woods. I will even hazard an answer to a newbie question sometimes, on the basis of what I have read. But it is weird to become obsessed with flaws like you have with the FL's outfield blurring. True enough, if you critique the outfield, it is a weak point. But consider, there may be good things about the FL that few others offer. I just don't see why ignore the good.

I try to be honest and point out the weakness of all my binoculars, all which have a glaring one of, it would seem. I have honestly estimated that if you look at the FL REALLY critically, like hurting your eyes critically, the zone of best focus occupies only 10% of the field. I think I may hold the record for an actual owner/fan estimating a small sweet spot! Yet, it gives an image of illumination, transparency, and purity that I have not seen in any other. I am not alone in this finding. You have read these positive comments, as well as about the edge sharpness issue. What gives?

But it's not just the FL. It's anything but Nikon. The Swarovision, it might have rolling ball despite the compound field correction. The Leica HD, it might have too much distortion, and maybe a juddery focuser too. The Trinovid, too heavy. The original EL, I don't actually recall, but I would guess excessive CA. I suppose the Kowa Prominar is simply not yet worth hating? Lucky it.

I read the same stuff, but I could tell you good reasons I would like to have every single alpha binocular made. Lord knows, the pros beat the cons, all those that I've seen are just smokin good! Maybe I am kind of gullible...

Oh well. Viva la difference. Loving Nikons, that's something, at least. Some poor lost souls go through their whole lives and never love a binocular. Or hate one, for that matter. (Shakespeare would have said something pithy about that, had he lived later, and been a member of our forum.)
Ron

NDhunter said:

Brock:

It seems James does like the Zeiss, and is quick to defend them. That is
alright, many here have their favorites. And I suppose if he has only handled
the Zeiss, he is missing out on the better qualities of other binoculars.

And so he is speaking from his experience, and may be overlooking others.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

As a journalist, I write about a variety of subjects, from supply chain and logistics to biomedical engineering, from financial reforms to hydrofracturing, from nanotechnology to Aunt Mimi's Spaghetti Sauce.

Have I ever built a supply chain "pipeline"? Have I designed a biomedical device? Did I draft the legislation for financial reforms? Do I run a rig for Chesapeake Energy? Have I engineered microscopic machines? Have I ever made spaghetti sauce from scratch and then modified my recipe to meet shelf life requirements?

"No" to all of the above, but I do interview experts in each field and combine their quotes with research by other experts and institutions and weave them together into a narrative that any educated person can understand.

By James' standards, I would need to actually have "hands on" experience in all those fields to write about them. I don't think even George Plimpton ever designed a nanobot!

If I had made some wild claim about the FLs that hasn't been substantiated by many users and experts alike, I could understand such criticism, but that's certainly not the case.

I had planned to visit Grice's Gun Shop to try an FL and whatever other bins they have on hand before the really cold weather arrives, but I developed bursitis in my shoulder (probably from sitting at this computer on deadline weeks for 10-12 hours a day and moving the mouse back and forth a gazillion times). The trip will have to wait until the spring.

Even before my shoulder hurt, I've had no burning desire to make the trip. When I do have a weekend off, I'd rather travel to the "best places to bird" in my county and use my porros rather than A/B them against alphas, mid-tiers or cheapos. I find myself more interested in birding than testing these days.

If a store is on my way, like Sportsman's Liquidation Outlet, I'll stop in and check out what they have, but to make a special trip just to try binoculars at this point, I would need something much more enticing and binoculars I'd actually be interested in purchasing rather than just to satisfy the snobs.

The only roof I've tried that I liked enough to want to buy was the 8x32 EL, and it's way overpriced even at the $1,600 "discount" price. I've compared it to the 8x32 SE, and they aren't worth $1,100 more to me.

However, if Grice's had Swaro Habichts, old stock Zeiss 7x50 B/GAs or catch-me-before-I-faint, a Zeiss 15x60, Fuji FMTs, Miyauchi Binons, or other relics of the Porrosaurus Era that customers have traded in for the latest and greatest roofs, that might be sufficient motivation to take a handful of Tylenol and fight football traffic on a Saturday out to Clearfield and back.

Brock

brocknroller said:

To me what's really "useless and without merit" is ignoring the posts of many reviewers/users of the same bin that you have and repeatedly criticizing someone for mentioning those comments (even from Ingraham - "the horse's mouth") simply because he hasn't actually looked through the bin.

I bet if I looked back in the archives I would find that you have only commented on bins you've owned or have tried, right? I doubt it.

On my "Mertiless" Snob List you go. That's it.

B.

Click to expand...

You have ignored the many opinions of owners and reviewers that don't jive with your imagined opinion of something you haven't actually sampled. How flawed is your reasoning in that you will only accept the negative responses without considering the positive?

I contend your depiction of the bin is off the mark, basically an exaggeration and hyperbole of the actual view, and this comes from one that has used the bin almost everyday for over a year. My job is birding so they tend to be a pretty important tool, day in and day out.

But, as you have not used the bin, and your 'opinion' is just the parroting of [selected] others opinions, I would have to conclude that you have already made up your mind and it seems useless to argue the point any farther.



BTW - sorry for the thread hijack.

Main reason I don't like 10*50 Leica for everyday birding is there center of gravity, far away from the focus knob...

Optically they are better than 10*42, no doubt, because of larger FOV, exit pupil and light transmission.

The weight wouldn't put me off, but having both 8*32 and 7*42 FL, I must say I really value the lower weight of *32 while looking for longer periods or scanning the area. At the end of the day, the *32 are still not giving any neck strain, while the *42 do.

About the *56 FL, they will be my next binocular. They are simply fantastic, and I for once value them higher than any other binocular.

If I would have one binocular however, the Leica 10*50 would be very high on the shortlist.

Hi Ronh, I really enjoyed your thoughts on the use the big Leica. Sounds like you had fun.:t:

Temmie I would like to try the big Zeiss 8 or 10 x 56 FL sometime! I liked both of the smaller 8 FL binoculars.

ronh said:

Frank,
This is not so much a demonstration of wealth, as of an advantageous insurance settlement after our binoculars were ripped off in Atlanta GA on a recent trip to visit my brother in law. This used BR cost about twice what I paid for the BN it replaces.

It gets worse, much worse. My wife's prized EL is much the same deal. It is going to be replaced with a new, well, I am too embarrassed to say it, but it starts with "S"!

The funny thing is, my bro-in-law's 10x42 SE was laying out in plain view and they didn't take it. "Everybody wants roofs nowadays."

It's cloudy bright today. Fringes or bust! Out the door I go...
Ron

Click to expand...

Ron:
This is an interesting post, and I am pleased you had insurance for these
and so will get them replaced. For many watching, this can be an important
consideration, with the investment laying around in an unattended car, or
in your home.
This kind of insurance is special, and does attach to your homeowners policy.
In the US, it is called listed coverage, or Inland Marine, and the value is
stated, and the premium is calculated. Often used by those covering jewelry, and in this case sporting goods, and the like. I am curious about
your EL, and you say it will be replaced with the "S". I have been involved
with insurance in many ways over the years, and did you have a replacement
coverage?
Just curious, and for some of us, we may feel more secure, and do not
bother to think of it. Otherwise, when traveling, you may have a lesser one
to take along, and leave the good ones at home.

Jerry