Ultravid 7x/8x 42 pre-HD, HD, HDplus transmission figures (1 Viewer)

SeldomPerched said:

Lee,

I have tinned air & wdn't use it upside down etc etc; also good optical wet wipes - Zeiss as it happens! No brush though as I never clean camera lenses, just keep a filter on. As the Leica UVHDs are waterproof would it be acceptable to dip the front glass briefly in cool water to loosen anything that might be abrasive then proceed gently with the wipes? Thanks.

Maybe Zeiss wipes contain a virus or worm that attacks Leica glass....

Tom

Click to expand...

At this point I'm sure your bins are clean, and I suspect you either have a lemon that slipped through Leica QC, or for some reason, the Ultravids just don't work for you. Regarding washing them under the faucet, it's been a while, but I remember reading just that advise in the Ultravid owners manual. I would rinse the tap water off with distilled water just to be safe.

John M Robinson said:

At this point I'm sure your bins are clean, and I suspect you either have a lemon that slipped through Leica QC, or for some reason, the Ultravids just don't work for you. Regarding washing them under the faucet, it's been a while, but I remember reading just that advise in the Ultravid owners manual. I would rinse the tap water off with distilled water just to be safe.

Click to expand...

OK, John, thank you. I'll give them a clean now and check them again. It's all been a bit discombobulating! Will post my findings when I've done it.

I wonder if I just had a very bad week, was overtired, overtrained and under-rested last week and Mr Zeiss listened while Miss Leica stamped her feet. Anyway, after a careful clean of the objectives, which was easy with the Zeiss wipes and perhaps helped by the Aquadura coating, all looks fine and dandy with the view now. On the subject of cleaning though, is it common for the eyepiece glass to be a bit more resistant to smear removal? I don't want to be too persistent, for fear of damaging any coatings. As said, the front end was a doddle. And I am getting the views that persuaded me to buy these 8x42 UVHD bins in the first place. Thanks everybody for your patience.

One of the great excitements I am finding in these early (renewed, really) bird-watching days is focusing the binoculars on a particular area or object, like the top of a fence, and all of a sudden seeing something walk or land into view. It happened also last summer: I hate snakes, they have terrified me ever since reading a book about them when far too young but I still felt privileged when, idly viewing the ground near a garden roller, what did I see but a grass snake come completely unexpectedly into view? I had never seen one in the garden before and here was one just the day I got out my binoculars after months of disuse. I nearly dropped the bins, so near did the creature seem, even though I was actually at a first floor window a good 25 yards away!

SeldomPerched said:

On the subject of cleaning though, is it common for the eyepiece glass to be a bit more resistant to smear removal? I don't want to be too persistent, for fear of damaging any coatings.
!

Click to expand...

You are quite right to never rub the optic surfaces, damage to the eye pieces is more bothersome than specks on the objectives.
You're also right that eye pieces are more challenging to clean.
Not only does the metal frame make it difficult to smoothly wipe the surfaces, but also the close proximity with the eyes ensures more crud will get deposited.

I've had pretty decent results using ROR (Residual Oil Remover, a proprietary lens cleaner) for a cleaning step.
The process includes a gentle rinse followed by a soapy scrub with a finger and another rinse, par dry, spray on the ROR, then use an alcohol wipe to take off any leftover ROR, then a final clean water rinse, pat dry with clean microfiber cloth.

etudiant said:

You are quite right to never rub the optic surfaces, damage to the eye pieces is more bothersome than specks on the objectives.
You're also right that eye pieces are more challenging to clean.
Not only does the metal frame make it difficult to smoothly wipe the surfaces, but also the close proximity with the eyes ensures more crud will get deposited.

I've had pretty decent results using ROR (Residual Oil Remover, a proprietary lens cleaner) for a cleaning step.
The process includes a gentle rinse followed by a soapy scrub with a finger and another rinse, par dry, spray on the ROR, then use an alcohol wipe to take off any leftover ROR, then a final clean water rinse, pat dry with clean microfiber cloth.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comprehensive instructions. I will get hold of some ROR and keep a note of these steps.

John Frink said:

Tom,

Three highly subjective points of comparison -
1. I have both 7X and 8X UV HD+, and I can detect no differences between them in terms of sharpness, glare/flare control, etc. Both are superb instruments, in my opinion.
2. I also have a late Dialyt 7X42 T*P*, and while I feel it can still compete with the best, I find that either HD+ can pull just a bit more detail out of the shadows.
3. It was a direct comparison between the HD+, SF, HT, and Dialyt some time ago that convinced me to buy the Leica, primarily because of its ability to work the shadows.

Curiosity question: Have you tried another example of the 8X42 HD for comparison to yours?

John

Click to expand...

John,

When I get another chance to borrow a Victory SF I will try it again with the UVHD. When I first tried an SF alongside the UVHD the front lens of the UVHD was dirtier than I realized - which I know sounds very unobservant of me - and I think in the strong overhead or contre jour lighting of that day the performance of the Leica suffered. Certainly that day the SF was much clearer in the shadows under the trees.

Looking again through the Leica in the last few days, but with more subdued, overcast skies, it is showing the sort of image that first persuaded me to buy it.

It would be interesting to try another sample but that won't be possible for several weeks and I am starting to think there is nothing wrong with mine after all.

Thanks again for your listed points which are still very useful. I have to say I like the slightly different renderings of both the UVHD and the s/h Dialyt I recently bought and not just in terms of the size of image and FOV. Both do the colours in ways I like, whereas I'm not sure I would enjoy the bluer Swarovski colours from the very brief play I had with an 8.5 x 42 EL.


Tom

SeldomPerched said:

I wonder if I just had a very bad week, was overtired, overtrained and under-rested last week and Mr Zeiss listened while Miss Leica stamped her feet... all looks fine and dandy with the view now.

...I hate snakes, they have terrified me ever since reading a book about them when far too young but I still felt privileged when, idly viewing the ground near a garden roller, what did I see but a grass snake come completely unexpectedly into view?

Click to expand...

I have the occasional tired-eye day too, and it seems so natural to first suspect the glass instead. I haven't done an A-B comparison at such a time though, and it would be interesting if one bino did so much better than another. Do you find one gives easier viewing than the other on a better day? Anyway, glad you got this sorted.

You need to spend more time with snakes. I enjoy just hearing one nearby. Gardening has helped me overcome my own (city!) childhood fear of bees, which I love now. There are at least five different species here, though I haven't tried to look them up: ordinary striped, tawny orange, thumb-sized bumbles... (Can't say I've had the same luck with wasps though.)

tenex said:

I have the occasional tired-eye day too, and it seems so natural to first suspect the glass instead. I haven't done an A-B comparison at such a time though, and it would be interesting if one bino did so much better than another. Do you find one gives easier viewing than the other on a better day? Anyway, glad you got this sorted.

You need to spend more time with snakes. I enjoy just hearing one nearby. Gardening has helped me overcome my own (city!) childhood fear of bees, which I love now. There are at least five different species here, though I haven't tried to look them up: ordinary striped, tawny orange, thumb-sized bumbles... (Can't say I've had the same luck with wasps though.)

Click to expand...

About easier viewing, it's too early to say. I just know they are different and each very nice in its own way. I probably find the 7x42 easier than the 8x42 but that is doubtless inherent in the lower magnification. The difference between 7 and 8 is quite apparent, just as in photography a moderate 35mm wide angle lens gives a very different feel from a standard 50mm.

Wasps: I'm OK with them but I know people - including my father - who flail around when they appear. My dad did that when on top of a ladder. (He didn't fall.)

Tom

Snakes are beautiful creatures and the ones we have encountered in the UK and France have been well-behaved as we have taken care not to alarm them.

Lee

Troubador said:

Snakes are beautiful creatures and the ones we have encountered in the UK and France have been well-behaved as we have taken care not to alarm them.

Lee

Click to expand...

Lee,

This is about the first time I've ever mentioned them in print. I have a long way to go for various reasons but that chance sighting of one in the garden through the bins was far less alarming than I imagined. Seeing them for real isn't so bad but when I see one unexpectedly in print or on TV I jump back involuntarily and even bang my head on the wall, so sudden is my reaction. It goes back to a childhood thing. Oddly and much more recently when I was in Dartmoor I thought about the fact it was dry and there could be adders around. I looked down and there was one right next to where I was standing. My reaction was calm and about 90% unruffled. But I still can't face them in print. About the only thing I can't. One step at a time (so to speak). I will have a look at your picture at some point and I believe you but it's not easy... traumatized long ago sounds a bit OTT, but that's probably the word!

Tom

SeldomPerched said:

Lee,

This is about the first time I've ever mentioned them in print. I have a long way to go for various reasons but that chance sighting of one in the garden through the bins was far less alarming than I imagined. Seeing them for real isn't so bad but when I see one unexpectedly in print or on TV I jump back involuntarily and even bang my head on the wall, so sudden is my reaction. It goes back to a childhood thing. Oddly and much more recently when I was in Dartmoor I thought about the fact it was dry and there could be adders around. I looked down and there was one right next to where I was standing. My reaction was calm and about 90% unruffled. But I still can't face them in print. About the only thing I can't. One step at a time (so to speak). I will have a look at your picture at some point and I believe you but it's not easy... traumatized long ago sounds a bit OTT, but that's probably the word!

Tom

Click to expand...

Tom

I can quite understand as I used to be exactly the same about spiders but with a lot of effort during the 1980s I acclimatised to them and now have no problem handling them. This is an instinctive reaction built-in to our psyche for good evolutionary reasons: survival.

Lee

SeldomPerched said:

About easier viewing, it's too early to say. I just know they are different and each very nice in its own way. I probably find the 7x42 easier than the 8x42 but that is doubtless inherent in the lower magnification. The difference between 7 and 8 is quite apparent, just as in photography a moderate 35mm wide angle lens gives a very different feel from a standard 50mm.

Wasps: I'm OK with them but I know people - including my father - who flail around when they appear. My dad did that when on top of a ladder. (He didn't fall.)

Tom

Click to expand...

It's funny you say that. Years ago a forum member generously sent me his 7x42 Ultravids for me to compare to my 8x42's. I noticed a difference, but it was much less than I expected, I decided it wasn't necessary to switch power or add a seven to supplement my eight. I would add a 7x35 Trinovid if they ever come out.

Actually the difference between 7 and 8x binos is a lot less than between a 35 and 50mm camera lens. It's more like 35 vs 40mm... except given such magnification I think we should be comparing longer focal lengths that behave similarly. 7 vs 8x is much like 350 vs 400mm. Not that huge a difference.

Tom, could you eventually please post: Your impressions after using your 7x vs your 8x for a fair length of time, even an hour or two, in the field? Especially with regard to detail absorbed on the whole across that time. In whatever setting you visit: it may differ with that, e.g. woodland, open country. 7x vs 8x is not at all a new subject but the more info. the better. Where I am (Anon. as you see on the left!) it is not possible to try out binoculars and I am thinking about some very good, which means pricey, 7x. Thanks!

tenex said:

Actually the difference between 7 and 8x binos is a lot less than between a 35 and 50mm camera lens. It's more like 35 vs 40mm... except given such magnification I think we should be comparing longer focal lengths that behave similarly. 7 vs 8x is much like 350 vs 400mm. Not that huge a difference.

Click to expand...

John and Tenex, you are both right of course but that was the comparison that sprang to mind. Probably because when taking pictures (usually people in my case) 35 & 50 are what I use almost exclusively (90 & 135 work well when I occasionally use them), whereas binoculars would be a bit pointless with similar framing! The only 40mm pictures I've ever taken where with the old Olympus Trip and looking back at them that was a very good focal length for my style.

Tom

Hello,


Magnification 7x to 8x ... here I see it very differently, the point is, the farther away the object to be observed is, the bigger are the differences between 7x and 8x.

Example:
For a newspaper in 10 m. Distance you only have to go one big step (exactly 1.25 m) with the 7x binoculars on the newspaper to the same magnification as the 8x by 10 m. to have.
For a car at 100m. Distance he needs already a reduction of 12.50m., To have the same magnification as the 8x.
If you want a house at 500m. If you look at the distance, you have to get closer with the 7x already 62,50m and at the windmill in 1km. The distance is already 125 m.

I often sit here on a hill, from where I am about 25 km. from a monument. If I want the same optical perception in a 7x glass distance as in an 8x binoculars, I have to move 3125m. to the monument.
The optical difference between a 7x and 8x binoculars is clearly perceptible to me and mathematically larger than for example. between a 9x and 10x binoculars.
To a 100m. It only takes 10m to see a distant object in 9x and 10x. Path short.
Incidentally, the smaller the magnifications that can be calculated, the more pronounced the difference.

Andreas

Andreas, that is so of course. But, as for myself I was thinking of actual use "in the field": where the person may move about from place to place, the hands are less steady than usual on stopping and raising the binocular to the eyes to immediately take in some detail, near or distant; the birds being viewed may be positioned, and may move, a good distance apart along the person's "y and x" directions...

adhoc said:

Andreas, that is so of course. But, as for myself I was thinking of actual use "in the field": where the person may move about from place to place, the hands are less steady than usual on stopping and raising the binocular to the eyes to immediately take in some detail, near or distant; the birds being viewed may be positioned across, and may move across, the person's "y and x axes"...

Click to expand...

Initial very quick answers to you both, as am currently worked off my feet (but I choose to do so so & like it, so that's OK!)...

I am more or less building up this comparison already. All I can say so far is that after however short a spell using the 8x I do notice a difference with the 7x. Mentioning the first things that come into my head:

1. The view through the 7x feels more relaxed and I don't think about binocular shake (would that be the phrase, like camera shake?); I just think how 'enabling' the binoculars are. No doubt that is part of the classic appeal of the Dialyt; it seems to have quite a status! So it might be the particular binocular as much as the actual magnification.

2. While the detail rendering of my 7x42 is very fine I notice that certain things stand out much better with the greater pulling power of the 8x42. For instance, there is a small label of about 3" x 1" on my fence at the end of my approx. 20 yd long back garden and if I view the label from my back window the name QUINNEYS is that noticeably easier in poorer light to read with the 8x though I can make it out well enough of course with the 7x. Under the name is a phone number 01227 xxxxxx in much fainter writing; again I can make that out OK with the 7x but it really stands out with the 8x. That all sounds pretty obvious but I am just saying that the difference is noticeable. Bear in mind I have done these comparisons first thing in the morning while the kettle is boiling and I am not properly awake, so the test is under laughable conditions as far as my eyes are concerned.

3. Even though the overall impression of the view out in the fields with trees in a line at the far end - say 200 yards away - feels almost wide-angle with the 7x I haven't felt that the details are inaccessible. I am wide awake and very alert, I hasten to say, while outdoors.

4. It's too early quite to make a confident pronouncement. This is all quite tentative but if more occurs to me -- perhaps a blinding flash of revelatory light through the barrels of 7x or 8x -- I'll let you know! It might be easier if both bins were from the same manufacturer and product line, with the same design philosophy. One suggestion if you are unsure about the magnification to choose would be to try the Zeiss Victory SF 8x42 if you want an alpha product. Maybe the wide FOV with 8x gives the best of both worlds. I have wondered that myself as I was lucky enough to have these on loan for a fortnight. (Wish I could have had access to the 8x42 HT also, but that's another matter.)

Feel free to ask anything else; I will answer as soon as I can but be aware I'm not a scientific type so my response will be very dependent on the day. Like the photographer who said his choice of lens for a journalistic assignment was like deciding which tie to wear in the morning!

Hope this helps.

Tom

Hi,

what I just wanted to say, I feel the magnification range between 7x and 8x already clearly!
At least with the Nikon EDG 7x42 and the Nikon EDG 8x32 I can check that at any time.
Of course, both models are excellent...

Andreas

Thank you Tom.

The view through the 7x feels more relaxed...I just think how 'enabling' the binoculars are...it might be the particular binocular as much as the actual magnification.

Click to expand...

Many others on here have much more experience than I, but from my limited involvement and what I have read I should think it is the 7x magnification.

I have done these comparisons [where 8x conveyed more detail than 7x] first thing in the morning while...I am not properly awake...

Click to expand...

This is also relevant in this way: You have not been walking on uneven ground, mountain trekking, swinging from vine to vine...so the hold is relatively steady (if it is assumed: ceteris paribus, by a Latin scholar like you, or, by us, no hangover).

...if more occurs to me -- perhaps a blinding flash of revelatory light through the barrels of 7x or 8x -- I'll let you know!

Click to expand...

Unknown in these pages to date, I think. We grow wise quietly.

One suggestion if you are unsure about the magnification to choose would be to try the Zeiss Victory SF 8x42 if you want an alpha product. Maybe the wide FOV with 8x gives the best of both worlds.

Click to expand...

Indeed it will (in regard to FOV and x). But it is too pricey and too large for me. And there is some disagreement on here about its color rendition. My choice will likely be between the Ultravid-Plus 7x42 and Nikon Monarch-HG 8x42, which has a similar FOV to the SF.

Adhoc