-
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.
colorful Leica (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gwsudiro
- Start date
brocknroller
porromaniac
And thus begins anew the battle of the Trinnie vs. the Ultravid owners.... 
I hope not just Trinovid vs Uvid Brock
but just in their color/contrast performance aspect...
The one problem I see here in your question is I think that it will be hard to find an individual who has used all these Leicas often enough to compare them.
Bob
gwsudiro
Well-known member
hi Bob...^_^
I mean, just according to your experience...if you only have 2 Leicas..then, I wanna know between those two...or maybe you dont have any Leica but only have tried them in store...as long its between 2 or more Leica binos,that would do too..
of course its very hard (nearly impossible) to find a person who owns all the Leicas...best regards
Galih
As a completely unbiased Trinnie 8x42 owner I would have to say......... wait for it............. Trinnies 8x42
I also think Wales will win the rugby world cup this year. So basically I'm delusional and totally bias.
Happy birding,
Rich
I also think Wales will win the rugby world cup this year. So basically I'm delusional and totally bias.
Happy birding,
Rich
I have enjoyed 2 Leica Trinovids, an early series 8x42 BA (replaced by a Zeiss FL a couple of years ago) and a late series 12x50 BN that I still use a lot. Trinovids show a bit of color fringing, but are certainly not the worst, and are tolerable if you permit but a small amount of this flaw. The silver prism coatings also hold them back a tad, but I think their other coatings vary in significant ways.
Since I didn't own them both at the same time and they are so different in size, it's hard to compare for sure. But it seems to me the 12x50 BN is actually brighter and clearer than the smaller BA was. I know coatings progress gradually and improvements are sometimes unannounced. The coatings look different on the BN, and I think they must be better. I'm quite happy with the BN, and am not always wishing it was was only a little brighter, like I did with the BA. But, maybe the difference in size overwhelms a valid comparison.
But, why am I even reporting this? Surely an HD would kick a Trinovid's behind coming and going in every way, wouldn't it?
Ron
Since I didn't own them both at the same time and they are so different in size, it's hard to compare for sure. But it seems to me the 12x50 BN is actually brighter and clearer than the smaller BA was. I know coatings progress gradually and improvements are sometimes unannounced. The coatings look different on the BN, and I think they must be better. I'm quite happy with the BN, and am not always wishing it was was only a little brighter, like I did with the BA. But, maybe the difference in size overwhelms a valid comparison.
But, why am I even reporting this? Surely an HD would kick a Trinovid's behind coming and going in every way, wouldn't it?
Ron
Last edited:
gwsudiro
Well-known member
thanks everyone..^_^
so, if its Ultravid HD, what size of Ultravid HD which has the best color performance in daylight?
I read at allbinos.com that 8x32 HD has better score (perfect 5/5) in internal reflection than its bigger brother....does it mean the 8x32 HD have better color performance too (in daylight)?? or the bigger aperture can compensate the internal light loss? what about "washed out" image?
many thanks before..o
Galih
so, if its Ultravid HD, what size of Ultravid HD which has the best color performance in daylight?
I read at allbinos.com that 8x32 HD has better score (perfect 5/5) in internal reflection than its bigger brother....does it mean the 8x32 HD have better color performance too (in daylight)?? or the bigger aperture can compensate the internal light loss? what about "washed out" image?
many thanks before..o
Galih
Last edited:
Hi Galih,
all binoculars of Leica are very good in respect of color-contrast. But if you ask which one is best among the Leicas I would say the 8x32 and the 8x50 Ultravid with and without HD. IMO the 32mm and the 50mm series of Leica Trinovid and Ultravid are a bit better than the 42mm serie because they show less chromatic aberration which is visible as color fringes around objects of high contrast. The Ultravid series probably performs better because they have dielectric coatings instead of silver-made ones at the mirrored area of the roof-prisms.
Steve
all binoculars of Leica are very good in respect of color-contrast. But if you ask which one is best among the Leicas I would say the 8x32 and the 8x50 Ultravid with and without HD. IMO the 32mm and the 50mm series of Leica Trinovid and Ultravid are a bit better than the 42mm serie because they show less chromatic aberration which is visible as color fringes around objects of high contrast. The Ultravid series probably performs better because they have dielectric coatings instead of silver-made ones at the mirrored area of the roof-prisms.
Steve
brocknroller
porromaniac
Galih,
The one Leica bin you might find lacking in color saturation is the Geovid, which due to the laser rangefinder has a different emphasis in the color spectrum.
According to the allbino boyz and other hunting optics reviewers, the Geovid has low transmission in the red spectrum, which is the hallmark of Leica Ultravids as well as the Nikon SE, EII, HG, and EDG. The boost in the red gives the impression of better color saturation.
Allbinos provides a spectrum chart that shows how this looks in the Geovid.
http://www.allbinos.com/171-binoculars_review-Leica_Geovid_8x56_BRF.html
Contrast that with the red boosted spectrum in the 10x50 Ultravid and Ultravid HD.
http://www.allbinos.com/194-binoculars_review-Leica_Ultravid_10x50_HD.html
Notice that the HD is not quite as strong in the red as the BR, perhaps due to the dielectric coatings on the prisms, which boost transmission across the spectrum. You still have the AR coatings on the objectives to emphasize the red so it isn't that far off the mark.
However, this was a surprise (chromatic aberration difference btwn the BR and HD):
"Even the degree of aberration correction, which was supposed to be better because of the fluorite glass, remained the same. If any difference occurred, it was minimal."
They also found that on average, the HD was only 1-2% higher in light transmission than the BR, too low to be noticed by most people's eyes.
If those findings are true, paying hundreds more for the HD may not be worth it.
Steve mentioned above that the 42mm models seem to be worse when it comes to controlling CA, but according to the boyz, the opposite is true.
For the 10x50 HD, they rated the CA as:
"Very low in the centre, significant at the edge."
For the 10x42 BR, they rated the CA as:
"Low in the centre and at the edge." (and that's without the HD glass!)
For the 8x32 HD, they rated the CA as:
"Very low in the centre, medium on the edge. "
According to their methodology article, they do not boost the image to test CA, they just eyeball it, so YMMV (and will probably be less than EPA estimates for city birding). he..he...he..he
Brock
Last edited:
gwsudiro
Well-known member
hi Steve..hi Brock ^_^ thanks for the insight....
but in the center, the 50s indeed have better CA control than 42s...said that not much difference between HD and previous Uvid...I suppose, the 42 HDs are not very much different than that right? or no?
cant wait for the 42 HDs review though...
and Brock, why red boosted spectrum can add to color saturation?
how about yellow or gold color bias? sometimes when I imagine "Leica view" (I wanna know what "Leica view" is...) somehow I remembered the "goldish" view of Nikon EII...cant explain why I think like that though..hahahahahaha!!
but in the center, the 50s indeed have better CA control than 42s...said that not much difference between HD and previous Uvid...I suppose, the 42 HDs are not very much different than that right? or no?
cant wait for the 42 HDs review though...
and Brock, why red boosted spectrum can add to color saturation?
how about yellow or gold color bias? sometimes when I imagine "Leica view" (I wanna know what "Leica view" is...) somehow I remembered the "goldish" view of Nikon EII...cant explain why I think like that though..hahahahahaha!!
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
hi Steve..hi Brock ^_^ thanks for the insight....
but in the center, the 50s indeed have better CA control than 42s...said that not much difference between HD and previous Uvid...I suppose, the 42 HDs are not very much different than that right? or no?
cant wait for the 42 HDs review though...
The 8x32 HD also has a CA rating of "very low in centre" so I would expect the 42mm to follow suit.
But, of course, that doesn't mean it will be CA-free. Under high contrast situations, if you are sensitive to CA, you will still see some, though slight. As per this review this review of the 8x32 HD on Optics Talk:
http://www.opticstalk.com/leica-8x32-ultravid-hd-review_topic11206.html
"Leica upgraded the Ultravid HD’s optics with fluorite lens elements with the aim of reducing chromatic aberration to a low enough level so as not to be a problem in practical, everyday use. Despite the fluorite glass, a slight amount of CA was still visible as a narrow yellow fringe on the edge of dark objects contrasted against a bright sky."
Surprised he only saw yellow, there's usually red-violet on one side of the bird and yellow-green on the other side in high contrast situations for any bin I've tried except two.
Only the 7x36 ED and the Celestron 10x50 ED showed no CA at the center in high contrast situations. Even on a bleak winter's day with a crow on a branch against gray clouds covering the sun, I saw no fringing whatsoever around the crow in either bin. Not too unexpected at 7x, but remarkable at 10x.
and Brock, why red boosted spectrum can add to color saturation?
how about yellow or gold color bias? sometimes when I imagine "Leica view" (I wanna know what "Leica view" is...) somehow I remembered the "goldish" view of Nikon EII...cant explain why I think like that though..hahahahahaha!!
Not sure what the technical explanation is of why red boosts the color saturation, but the EII is also boosted in the red so you'll see good color saturation with that bin too.
I'm not sure what the "goldish" view of the Nikon EI is. The box is gold. Perhaps that's what you remember
Brock
gwsudiro
Well-known member
I'm not sure what the "goldish" view of the Nikon EI is. The box is gold. Perhaps that's what you remember
Brock
I'm not sure too Brock...to my eyes :
-EII, yellow gold bias..
-SE, red copper bias..
-FL, blue ice metal bias..
I think I have metal detector built in my eyes!!! waahahahaha!!! 8-P
best regards
Galih
ps : what on earth is "ice metal" ??!! |8||
Last edited:
To be honest, this kind of exegesis of other people´s reviews or opinions doesn´t make much sense to me. Galih asked for experiences. If someone doesn´t have any experiences with the binoculars asked for, it´s better to keep still IMO.
Steve
"The level of knowledge doesn´t increase with repetition (or should we say parrotry)."
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, though I didn't realize I was committing an "exegesis" by offering my suggestions. Sounds like alpha snobbery to me. "If you don't own a Leica, keep your mouth shut."
Galih wrote "thanks for the insights" so I think he got something out of the diversity of opinions of more than just yours alone. Allbinos is not just one person but a group of Polish optics junkies who regularly evaluate a variety of binoculars, probably more than you and I have have ever seen combined, so I wouldn't brusquely discount their findings as "parrotry".
Plus I did give Galih my personal experiences with bins that I have owned for comparative purposes.
No one else besides you had responded to his query so I thought I'd throw some different views into the mix to help out. In fact, the Allbinos boyz disagree with you when it comes to the differences between the sliver and the dielectric versions, finding that the HD version did not noticeably increase brightness, nor did it reduce CA, and it slightly decreased the red spectrum, as you can see from their review of the 10x50 BR and HD and the accompanying light transmission graphs:
http://www.allbinos.com/194-binoculars_review-Leica_Ultravid_10x50_HD.html
“There never were in the world two opinions alike, no more than two hairs or two grains; the most universal quality is diversity” - Michel de Montaigne
Brock
Brock,
I´m afraid you do confuse a few things here alltogether. I did not comment on Albinos findings. It´s not them who do parrot here. Noone is asking for owning a Leica. But if someone is asking for personal experiences with certain models of binoculars and another one who obviously doesn´t have any, does answer with other people´s findings, almost everybody knows here in Birdforum (Albinos Website) - that is like for me as if someone adorns himself with borrowed plumes. I wouldn´t complain if this would be the first, the 2nd or the 3rd time. But you do repeat this kind of writing ever and ever. Opinions based on nothing mixed up with some links and opinions of other people - do you have any idea how boring this could be?
I think it´s better not to take Albino´s findings out of context because they were not confronted with the question Galih asked. They did not do a comparative test between the different Leica models. That´s why you do a false conclusion when you claim that "Albinos boyz" disagree with me. This conclusion is wrong from another point of view as well. You seem to overlook that I didn´t say "that the HD version did noticeably increase brightness, or it did reduce CA..." . Did you realize that the non-HD Ultravid had already dielectric coatings? Brock, you are really welcome if you have to report something you saw with your own eyes or if there is something based on your own experiences related to topic. But please do yourself and your readers in the forum a favor and stop repeating works from others you haven´t got a chance to prove.
Steve
I´m afraid you do confuse a few things here alltogether. I did not comment on Albinos findings. It´s not them who do parrot here. Noone is asking for owning a Leica. But if someone is asking for personal experiences with certain models of binoculars and another one who obviously doesn´t have any, does answer with other people´s findings, almost everybody knows here in Birdforum (Albinos Website) - that is like for me as if someone adorns himself with borrowed plumes. I wouldn´t complain if this would be the first, the 2nd or the 3rd time. But you do repeat this kind of writing ever and ever. Opinions based on nothing mixed up with some links and opinions of other people - do you have any idea how boring this could be?
I think it´s better not to take Albino´s findings out of context because they were not confronted with the question Galih asked. They did not do a comparative test between the different Leica models. That´s why you do a false conclusion when you claim that "Albinos boyz" disagree with me. This conclusion is wrong from another point of view as well. You seem to overlook that I didn´t say "that the HD version did noticeably increase brightness, or it did reduce CA..." . Did you realize that the non-HD Ultravid had already dielectric coatings? Brock, you are really welcome if you have to report something you saw with your own eyes or if there is something based on your own experiences related to topic. But please do yourself and your readers in the forum a favor and stop repeating works from others you haven´t got a chance to prove.
Steve
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Steve,
Well, if I'm being a "parrot," I'm not the only one since you keep repeating the same criticism again and again, which always comes down to "if you don't have personal experience with a bin, then be quiet." You've said as much above.
Have you ever consulted a map before going someplace? Have you ever quoted someone or a book or a movie, or do you consider yourself the world's end all authority on everything? Was that quote above about "parrotry" your own or were you just parroting someone else without proper attribution?
As a journalist, I'm always interviewing experts in various fields and quoting them. Same with allbinos, or binomania, or BVD, or Alula, or Henry Link on BF. I've referenced Henry many more times than I have allbinos, but I never saw you criticize me or anyone else for that.
Besides, how do you know if Galih has read the allbinos reviews or not? Wasn't this thread about him and not you?
And now you want me to do myself a favor and all readers on these forums by taking your advice?!
Take my advice. Put me on your Ignore List, then you won't be bothered by my "exegesis" of the reviews of allbinos, binomania, BVD, etc., which other people might find helpful or at least interesting. I will do the same with you, so I won't have to read the same old snobbery again and again or the word "exegesis". Good grief!
Meanwhile, here's a parrot you might like to hear talk.
http://anthonylewisbooks.blogspot.com/2009/06/top-ten-famous-parrots.html
Last edited:
gwsudiro
Well-known member
uh...oh....Brock, Steve, come on bros, relax...:'D
chill...chill...:hippy:
about Brock's posts, I'm fine with that...:'D
of course I prefer personal preference, like Steve said:t:
but sometimes different peoples have different perspectives when look at the one same thing (or read the same reference).
so, even if I've already read it, maybe I can get more deeper into matter by listening/reading another person who has gotten the same thing too...maybe he got what I didnt get...maybe I missed something..:-O
and, maybe like Brock said, I haven't read it yet...there are always possibilities to that right? hehehe...
so, (I dont know what to say anymore..|=(|...) I'm so sorry if this thread starts another fire...I hope you two can be in good terms again....peace.. :hippy:
best regards
Galih
chill...chill...:hippy:
about Brock's posts, I'm fine with that...:'D
of course I prefer personal preference, like Steve said:t:
but sometimes different peoples have different perspectives when look at the one same thing (or read the same reference).
so, even if I've already read it, maybe I can get more deeper into matter by listening/reading another person who has gotten the same thing too...maybe he got what I didnt get...maybe I missed something..:-O
and, maybe like Brock said, I haven't read it yet...there are always possibilities to that right? hehehe...
so, (I dont know what to say anymore..|=(|...) I'm so sorry if this thread starts another fire...I hope you two can be in good terms again....peace.. :hippy:
best regards
Galih
Last edited:
Similar threads
