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
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
Last edited: