What’s your favorite 7x42 binoculars (1 Viewer)

Dennis

Although I only addressed the 7x42’s . . .

Both the BA/ BN series and the Ultravid series were/ are offered in the same combinations: 8x32, 10x32, 7x42, 8x42, 10x42, 8x50, 10x50 and 12x50
And the respective models have the same number of lenses per side (from Leica’s catalogues):
- 8 for the 7x42 and 8x50
- 9 for 8x32, 8x42, 10x42 and 10x50
- 11 for the 10x32 and 12x50

In terms of working out what this means, the only cut-aways available are for x42 models (and irritatingly the same photos of BA units are variously described as 7, 8 or 10x42!
- as the portion of the left hand barrels that had the badge indicating the magnification have been removed, there’s no external indication of the magnification)


As far as I’ve been able to sort this out for the BA x42’s, only the eyepiece configurations seem to differ:
- 7x42, 4 elements in 3 groups: 1, 2, 1 (see the image in my previous post - it clearly has 8 lenses per side)
- 8x42, 5 elements in 3 groups: 2, 2, 1 (see below, from: https://pbase.com/g_hawkins/image/87929892 )
- 10x42, 5 elements in 3 groups: 2, 2, 1 (again see below, it’s from Company 7: http://www.company7.com/library/c7journal/leica_10x42cutaway.html )

While the 8x42’s and 10x42’s have the same number of eyepiece lenses in the same groupings, it's clear from the images that the lenses significantly differ in curvature, diameter and thickness


I’ve also attached an image of an Ultravid HD 8x42 cutaway from Foto HH (for other photos from them of Leica units see: https://www.ebay.com/sch/leica-stor...Ke4AAOSwu1VW2sT-&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2562 )
What’s significant, is that while the configuration of the eyepiece lenses/ groups is the same as for the BA counterpart, the lenses visibly differ in some small details
(if for no other reason, this may have been necessitated by the changes to the eyepiece housing and the mounts for the lenses)
So it seems that between the BA and the UV HD lines there was some tweaking of the lenses - at least for the 8x42 - and one would suspect the same happened for the whole Ultravid line


John

John. Could the differences in the eyepiece lenses be due to the differences in the close focus of the BA and the BN? I know the BN's have a closer focus than the BA.

wdc said:

Egad, Chuck you certainly make owning binoculars more fun, and informative to boot! Thanks for sharing all the insights with this impromptu inter-leica comparo.

So.... the 7x42 Ultravid BR, can you elaborate on the differences between it and the HD-plus? Does it come down to improved coatings, and perhaps the Schott glass? Maybe an eyecup upgrade as well... (?)


Speaking of improved eyecups, the new Trinovid HD's also have the 6 position detents on them, which seem to be as much as anyone would ever need. The BR has fewer.

-Bill

Click to expand...

Thanks Bill! Is it ok with you if I post the BR/HD+ comparison later? I've been planning on doing this anyway!

[email protected] said:

"So above is the Trinovid BN and the Ultravid HD+ 7X42s side by side." That is interesting to see how close in size and shape the two binoculars are. The BN's are heavier but that almost makes me think they are built better. The BN's are built like a "Tank" and a lot of the weight is that extra ribbed material across the top of the binocular. A lot of the improvements you mention are convenience and ergonomic which is great but they are not really optical improvements. Almost like the 3rd generation Swarovski Field Pro improvements. The new Leica Ultravid HD-Plus do have Schott Glass which is supposed to give you higher transmission but I have had quite a few Leica Ultravid-Plus, BA's and even BR's and I have never noticed a big difference in brightness. Do you? Allbino's transmission numbers for the Leica 10x42's show higher transmission for the BR's(89%) than the UV HD-Plus(87%). Nice pictures and insight.

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html

Click to expand...

To me, back to back comparisons....the UVHD+ has a little whiter colorcast. The BN kinda reminds me of the Meopta B.1, neither of which is a bad thing.

One thing about the Allbinos percent transmission rating. His margin of error gets lower as reviews get newer. So as the BN 10X42 shows 88% the margin of error is +/- 3%. So the actual results could be as low as 85% or as high of 91%. The UVHD+ 10X42 shows 87% with a margin of error of 1.5% so it actually could be as low as 85.5% or as high as 88.5%. I don't think that's whole story as his and Gijs tests show much of the improvement in the indigo-blue light range.

Anyone ever try the Maven 7x42(5)

Supposedly the FOV are much wider then their specs claim

chill6x6 said:

Thanks Bill! Is it ok with you if I post the BR/HD+ comparison later? I've been planning on doing this anyway!



To me, back to back comparisons....the UVHD+ has a little whiter colorcast. The BN kinda reminds me of the Meopta B.1, neither of which is a bad thing.

One thing about the Allbinos percent transmission rating. His margin of error gets lower as reviews get newer. So as the BN 10X42 shows 88% the margin of error is +/- 3%. So the actual results could be as low as 85% or as high of 91%. The UVHD+ 10X42 shows 87% with a margin of error of 1.5% so it actually could be as low as 85.5% or as high as 88.5%. I don't think that's whole story as his and Gijs tests show much of the improvement in the indigo-blue light range.

Click to expand...

It is just that there is such a slight improvement optically in the Leica UVHD-Plus versus the older models. Leica should have done more IMO. If I was buying a Leica 7x42 I would save the $1500.00 and get a mint BA. You have to decide for yourself if the ergonomic and convenience improvements in the UVHD-Plus are worth $1500.00 to you. From Allbino's.

"Year 2014 saw another Leica launch, this time of the Ultravid HD-Plus series. Still, if you compare these devices to the Ultravid HD binoculars you find out all the numbers remained the same. The producer just boasted of using glass of new type produced by the Schott company, with a better transmission.Why am I writing about it? On our website you can find tests of all 10x42 models, from the Trinovid BN to the Ultravid HD-Plus. It is easy to check what the customers gained throughout all these years. Firstly the results show unanimously that, within the margin of measurement error, the HD-Plus model is practically the same as the HD model. Maybe the transmission level varies a bit but even if you compare the measurements taken with a spectrophotometer the differences remain very slight; it is really difficult to say whether they are an effect of measurement errors, natural differences between two specimens or the actual influence of Schott HT glass. If the spectrophotometer doesn’t show any distinct difference, it won’t be visible to the naked eye either. So we have a situation where the Ultravid HD doesn’t differ markedly from the Ultravid BR and the Ultravid BR is an almost identical copy of the Trinovid but closed in a lighter casing. It seems that for almost 25 years Leica haven’t introduced any innovative optical solutions to its key series of binoculars. Of course the weight reduction and hydrophobic coatings are appreciated, along with a slight transmission increase or a tad wider field of view. Still such a reputable company should have done better, especially if you take into account the length of the period of time we are talking about. As a result of such stagnation Leica devices started to compete with each other: you can still buy second-hand specimen of Trinovids in mint condition for half the price of the new Ultravids HD-Plus."

Alexis Powell said:

I understand what you mean by the continuity from the BA Ultra to the latest Ultravid model, but in criticizing Leica as a whole, I think in you are forgetting their Noctivid.

--AP

Click to expand...

Again, how about those Noctivids?

--AP

[email protected] said:

you can still buy second-hand specimen of Trinovids in mint condition for half the price of the new Ultravids HD-Plus."

Click to expand...

Yes, some some shops still stock some Trinovid 2015, and also there are a lot of new-old-stock UV HD (non plus) floating around, sold at around half the price of a Noct. That's how I got my own 7x42 from a dealer.

Earlier this week, I tried a Trinovid 8x42 in comparison with my UV HD 7x42 and the old glass was super heavy but the view was as good, and on reverse inspection the old glass seemed more transparent. I fail to see any optical upgrade here, exactly as denco says.

Also, my feeling is that the Noct isn't getting as much user love as the UV models, maybe because of ever-increasing price or maybe because the old UVs had a very good view and the Nocts aren't really that much of an upgrade. Faced with sharp competition from the cheaper cased but optically quite interesting Zeiss SF, my impression is the Noct has mainly a very white view and nice compact styling to speak for itself, and the fact that it is sold in Leica Boutiques and airport shops

BTW after buying my "cheap" UV HD, I compared it to the SF. Yes, one can see the difference. Would it be worth double the money? Not for me. Would I take it over a Noct? In a heartbeat.

Edmund

Well, to start with Alexis (post 26), with respect to the title of the thread, they don't come in 7x42!

That said, I have the 10x42 Noctivid, and I think its an excellent binocular. Ergo is not as good as the Zeiss Victory SF, but focus feel, ease of view, and quality of view for me is as good as anything else I have. I think both Zeiss and Leica, to push their product line forward in performance had to sacrifice size and weight to do so with the Victory and the Noctivid lines. The Victory SF was a real effort to make a larger binocular handle well, and it succeeds. The Noctivid didn't focus on the ergonomics as much, but I use it almost every weekend. Once you put it to work, its not an issue.
Would I be interested in seeing those bins in a smaller format? Yes!

With regard to the oft-mentioned Habit forming 7x42, it is admirable of Swarovski to have kept it in production, as it clearly offers a quality view at an affordable price, but the shortcomings, (quirks, some say) of such a purpose-built design are evident to many. In fact, even the most recent verbose and persistent advocate of this product once had this to say about it:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=286547&page=2, post 34

"I had the Habicht 7x42 and the 8x30. The eyecups are small and hard and it takes a vise-grip to turn the focus and they are short on ER. I got rid of them long ago. Get the SV."

And, of course the SV also got the boot at some point, even though both bins are now regularly touted for all their virtues, and forgiven all their faults, real and imagined, by the same individual.

----------------

With 7x42 in general, I'm on the fence. When there are 8x42 binoculars, like the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42, that offer fields as wide, or wider than the 7x42 Ultravid HD Plus, weigh less, and perform optically well, something tells me I have yet to fully appreciate the virtues of that specific format. I do have a 7x42 BR, but it has never captivated me in field use the way certain 8 and 10x bins have. All this discussion though makes me want to give it another go.

Happy Friday folks. I'm going out early tomorrow to bird! (7x42...?) I'll put 3 bins out on the table and pick one..

-Bill

eronald said:

Also, my feeling is that the Noct isn't getting as much user love as the UV models, maybe because of ever-increasing price or maybe because the old UVs had a very good view and the Nocts aren't really that much of an upgrade. Faced with sharp competition from the cheaper cased but optically effective Zeiss SF, my impression is the Noct has mainly a very white view and nice compact styling to speak for itself, and the fact that it is sold in Leica Boutiques and airport shops

Edmund

Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. Tobias Mennie has also pointed out that the Ultravid is a better industrial designed package in terms of size and form than the Noctivid. I tend to agree with him, but the Noctivid has the eye relief I need for a 10x bin.

-Bill

wdc said:

I'm sure you're right. Tobias Mennie has also pointed out that the Ultravid is a better industrial designed package in terms of size and form than the Noctivid. I tend to agree with him, but the Noctivid has the eye relief I need for a 10x bin.

-Bill

Click to expand...

You need the eye relief of the Noct, and in my case apart from not wanting to spend for a first buy, I encountered the interesting problem that I seem to have an IPD of 54mm, which is apparently not acceptable in Austria

It seems most of the makers are producing solid products, and if the buyer gets a model compatible with their eyes then any of the current crop will make the buyer happy.

Even if some regret the slow march of progress, this forum is full of satisfied buyers!

Edmund

So yesterday after work I did a little birding myself... I should have waited a little later but I thought a thunderstorm would have cooled it down enough for the birds to come out. As it turned out it cleared up QUICKLY and turned HOT just as quickly. So bird species count was kinda low, 24.

The binocular I picked was the FL 7X42. Such a great binocular. It hard to find fault with it. For a full sized 42mm binocular it's very lightweight. Focus adjustment is really about as good as it gets. Field curvature really isn't much of an issue in actual use. I suppose I use the UVHD+ more because of it's size advantage. But really, there is not good reason to pick one over the other EXCEPT that the UVHD+ 7X42 is the best 7X42 currently available.

Today I did bring along the SLC 7X42 and the UVHD+ 7X42. Not to actually use today, but to take a few photos. I like the SLC just as well as the other two except....it's heavy, even heavier than the Trinovid BN. 33.9 ounces for a 42mm binocular is no joke! LOL! So the SLC like the Trinovid BN, stays home mostly because I prefer a lighter binocular.

wdc said:

With 7x42 in general, I'm on the fence. When there are 8x42 binoculars, like the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42, that offer fields as wide, or wider than the 7x42 Ultravid HD Plus, weigh less, and perform optically well, something tells me I have yet to fully appreciate the virtues of that specific format. I do have a 7x42 BR, but it has never captivated me in field use the way certain 8 and 10x bins have.

Click to expand...

This is where I am also, with 7x (and even 8x -- haven't tried the HG) compared to 10x. I keep wanting to appreciate them but they don't seem to offer enough additional (real) FOV for the sacrifice in magnification, and I have to wonder why. Perhaps this is why 7x is a vanishing species.

tenex said:

This is where I am also, with 7x (and even 8x -- haven't tried the HG) compared to 10x. I keep wanting to appreciate them but they don't seem to offer enough additional (real) FOV for the sacrifice in magnification, and I have to wonder why. Perhaps this is why 7x is a vanishing species.

Click to expand...

Tenex. I understand where you are coming from. 7x doesn't usually have the big AFOV of an 8x or 10x so they don't have that WOW factor that the bigger AFOV provides. You have to appreciate 7x for the greater DOF with less focusing, comfort and steadiness they provide. Different strokes for different folks.

On the discussion of Leica...with respect to the 7X42 format.
I do not own a Leica 7X42, but I have compared a 10X50 BR and the 10X50 UV HD+, the only obvious difference is that the focus is improved in the HD +; optically the difference is slight CA in the Br, and that is it IMHO. The 10X50 BR is still today, a very good instrument....then again the 10X50 has been heralded as the pinnacle of Leica binoculars starting with the BA 10X50.

I am sure the 7X42 BR is still a very good glass, and if I wanted a 7X42, they would suit me very well.

Andy W.

wdc said:

With 7x42 in general, I'm on the fence. When there are 8x42 binoculars, like the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42, that offer fields as wide, or wider than the 7x42 Ultravid HD Plus, weigh less, and perform optically well, something tells me I have yet to fully appreciate the virtues of that specific format. I do have a 7x42 BR, but it has never captivated me in field use the way certain 8 and 10x bins have. All this discussion though makes me want to give it another go.

-Bill

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I had two pair of 7x42 BRs at different times and as much as I regarded them, I usually took my 8x32 BNs when heading out the door. Conceding that the view was a little better through the 7x42s, everything else steered me toward the 8x32s.

These days 8x42 Monarch HGs have their hooks in me. For me they offer it all, sans the depth of field a 7x bin offers. The ergos, light weight, great focus, good eyecups, eye relief that suits me with and without glasses, wide field, great color, and image sharpness make them my current fave.

I noticed on the classifieds, there is a very nice Swarovski Habicht 7x42 for sale.

A dependable seller.

Jerry

These are the two transmission graphs overlaid. Can anybody comment on the difference at long wavelength?

I think my eyes are crossed up after looking at that graph.

Andy W.

Mark9473 said:

These are the two transmission graphs overlaid. Can anybody comment on the difference at long wavelength?

Click to expand...

I can't make out which is which but the one with the slight hump in the red from 650nm on might be a bit warmer... at least at first glance... the eye tends to adapt quicky...

Joachim

chill6x6 said:

One thing about the Allbinos percent transmission rating. His margin of error gets lower as reviews get newer. So as the BN 10X42 shows 88% the margin of error is +/- 3%. So the actual results could be as low as 85% or as high of 91%. The UVHD+ 10X42 shows 87% with a margin of error of 1.5% so it actually could be as low as 85.5% or as high as 88.5%. I don't think that's whole story as his and Gijs tests show much of the improvement in the indigo-blue light range.

Click to expand...

If you look at their testing methodology (see the section on "TRANSMISSION"), they completely changed their testing method. They now use a spectophotometer. Previously, they used a composite of three methods. They estimate the statistical error around 1% nowadays and 3-5% previously. From the same article, it looks like they are using 1-sigma confidence intervals, which means the true value only has a 68% chance of being in the stated bounds. So for the 3-5% interval, there's a 32% chance that the true value lies above or below the interval.

It is not clear if they are using the same estimate all the time, or if they are repeating the experiment for a certain number of trails and calculating the confidence interval each time. Or if the number comes from the spectophotometer, or from some other estimate.

It seems that some other errors they report are true measurement errors, i.e. it is the inherent measurement error on the tool they use.

Marc