Do you ignore Leica ? (1 Viewer)

Troubador · May 6, 2015

Samandag said:
How much birding do you, or anyone else here, do at 1000m ??

Best wishes,

The above quote is what you opened with Sam.
Seems to me like you are saying birding at 1,000m is irrelevant.

And maybe it is for you and there is nothing wrong with that.
For me it is not irrelevant but rather than just stating I thought you were mistaken I gave examples of the circumstances in which wide FOVs are useful to me.

Self-aggrandizing BS? Its a shame that you felt the need to lower the discussion on BF to the level of personal insults.

Lee

ceasar · May 6, 2015

dalat said:
This 1' or 2'' more translate into 29.6% more area when looking for birds in trees or bushes or 29.6% more volume of sky when looking for raptors. I think this is indeed a significant difference. And the edges don't need to be sharpt to take advantage of this difference, at least when using the bins for birding.

Florian,

Lots of things can make a difference when birding and some are more practical than others.

For instance when you are looking for birds in trees or bushes, all things being equal, you will be better off with a 7x DOF than with an 8x DOF.

Bob

brocknroller · May 6, 2015

ceasar said:
Florian,

Lots of things can make a difference when birding and some are more practical than others.

For instance when you are looking for birds in trees or bushes, all things being equal, you will be better off with a 7x DOF than with an 8x DOF.

Bob

I find the same applies in comparing an 8x roof vs an 8x Porro. I prefer the Porro for looking at birds in trees or bushes because the enhanced 3-D representation makes the birds "pop out" from the background. This advantage is lost on Flatlanders who can't perceive the 3-D effect in Porros.

<B>

dalat · May 6, 2015

ceasar said:
For instance when you are looking for birds in trees or bushes, all things being equal, you will be better off with a 7x DOF than with an 8x DOF.

Agree. Also, usually not all things are actually equal, but 7x have wider FOV as well compared to 8x

brocknroller said:
I find the same applies in comparing an 8x roof vs an 8x Porro. I prefer the Porro for looking at birds in trees or bushes because the enhanced 3-D representation makes the birds "pop out" from the background.

Perhaps. I can see the stronger 3-D effect in porros, but to me, it does not make a real difference. Also I prefer my Ultravid over the Nikon EII in such situations, because of the easier view and easier focussing (and this despite the larger FOV of the EII).

CloseFocus · May 6, 2015

gulf1263 said:
Leica still makes some excellent glass, I prefer the handling of the Leica 8x20 Ultravid and the 7x42 Ultravid HD.
Most other manufactures could care less about the highend 7x42 market (except for Nikon).
Leica North America seems not to care about advertising their products and is content to sit on their hands.
Eventually Meopta may come up to their quality level and take away their market here in the US and Canada.
Evolve or perish.
Art

Leica is also the only brand I know of that offers leather on their binoculars.

brocknroller · May 6, 2015

CloseFocus said:
Leica is also the only brand I know of that offers leather on their binoculars.

The Vixen Genoma series (formerly Ultima) offers rich, "Corinthian leather" coverings. Okay, for $300 it's probably "leatherette," but it's very smooth and soft to the touch, and no animals (or ostriches) had to be harmed to make the coverings. I had a pair, and I don't think even Ricardo Montalban could tell the difference.

<B>

ceasar · May 6, 2015

brocknroller said:
The Vixen Genoma series (formerly Ultima) offers rich, "Corinthian leather" coverings. Okay, for $300 it's probably "leatherette," but it's very smooth and soft to the touch, and no animals (or ostriches) had to be harmed to make the coverings. I had a pair, and I don't think even Ricardo Montalban could tell the difference.

<B>

Be warned! Ricardo's "rich Corinthian leather" will cause the binocular to have rolling Rs when it one pans with it!

Roberto:king:

Craig H · May 7, 2015

Struggling to see where people want to take this thread. Personally I think if you are shopping for a 'top end' binocular then only a fool would ignore Leica. FOV, brightness, weight, handling, warranty, service etc etc are all personal considerations and you are a fool if you let a salesman push you one way or another (give advice yes, push no) and never let them tell you what you should or shouldn't consider. They are your eyes. I bought Swaro's last time because I liked all of the above over the Leica model on offer at the time. It was as simple as that.

Omid · May 8, 2015

dalat said:
This 1' or 2'' more translate into 29.6% more area when looking for birds in trees or bushes or 29.6% more volume of sky when looking for raptors. I think this is indeed a significant difference. And the edges don't need to be sharpt to take advantage of this difference, at least when using the bins for birding.

I love wide-field binoculars and I am impressed with Zeiss SF 8X42 having a field of view of 140m at 1000m (8 degree). My lovely Nikon 8x32 HG which is one of my favorites has 7.8 degree real field of view, so Zeiss SF even exceeds that.

However, while it is visually nice to have a wide field like that, we should note that the field of view of Leica 8X42 is not narrow either. It is 130m at 1000m or 7.4 degree. So, the difference between Zeiss and Leica is only 0.5 degree or 1m at 100 m. To me, this is negligible for most practical purposes including hunting. (I am not a bird watcher, so I would not comment on how many birds fit in 13m vs 14m).

If one uses binoculars on a tripod to monitor a fixed area, then a little bit more field view might matter. If you use it hand-held and scan a large field then .5 degree more or less real field of view doesn't matter.

AlbertoJ · May 8, 2015

We can rank best binoculars:

At second level:
-Leica Trinovid.
-Zeiss Conquest HD.
-Swarovski CL Companion.
-Nikon HG (LX).
-Kowa XD Prominar.

At first level - Alpha binoculars(no field flattener):
-Leica Ultravid HD Plus.
-Zeiss HT.
-Swarovski SLC HD.

At first level - Alpha binoculars(field flattener):
-Zeiss SF.
-Swarovski Swarovision.
-Nikon EDG.

Leica Ultravid HD Plus is a different binocular concept that Swarovision or Zeiss SF. And it doesn't need change or upgrade to compete in optical quality or ergonomics with HT and SLC.
Anyway, there's a Leica field flattener vacuum to compete with SW and SF. I think, in a nearly future, Leica will make something that won't disappoint us.

BruceH · May 8, 2015

AlbertoJ ...... The Nikon EDG should be moved from the no field flattener section to the field flattener section.

Per the Nikon website:

Sharp, clear images to the lens periphery, thanks to Nikon's field flattener lens system

http://nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/binoculars/edg/7x42edg/index.htm

Nice summary!

Tobias Mennle · May 8, 2015

It would be stupid to ignore Leica if you take out your cash for an alpha bin. At least for me. I have five 8/8.5x42s here (SV, SLC, HT, SF, Ultravid) to compare for a couple of weeks, and the Ultravid almost instantly proved irresistable. Any of these binos has a personality, if you like it or not depends on your taste. If the designer pushes one spec, others suffer. It´s really about happy watching, and the Ultravid delivers.

The Leica has a bit more CA and smaller FOV than all the others, both probably a trade off for the small size. But it fits best in my hands, the mechanics is the only perfect one, colour saturation is the highest, and ease of view is very good. Then there is this really beautiful imagery - the contrast, the colors... the Leica Glow, you know :king: Leica knows what they are doing. I´d love to see 136m FOV, less CA and a bit less flare in the next generation, that´s about it, but all that would tend to make the glass bigger and I think that would not fit the Leica policy - which is a respectable position. Personally I almost admire their stubbornness to deal with flat field.

Excellence is about consistently delivering very high quality, not about marketing waffle and overstretched specs with severe trade offs.

Moreover, the Leica is easily the best looking glass of the whole lot, actually designed by a grown up with taste.

Prices in Europa are very low at the moment, 1600 EUR is very adequate, the SV is 1950.- and the SF still 2400.-.

Arthur Pinewood mentioned the Binuxit, which has a unique view. If I could have one free wish regarding binoculars - this would be it. A 21st century Binuxit.

CloseFocus · May 8, 2015

It's impossible to ignore my 8x42 Silverlines. Love em or hate em, they usually get as many stares as the birds they're looking at.

brocknroller · May 8, 2015

CloseFocus said:
It's impossible to ignore my 8x42 Silverlines. Love em or hate em, they usually get as many stares as the birds they're looking at.

You must have steady hands to use your 8x Silverlines on your yacht while cruising on the Detroit River, which can be choppy. Perhaps it's best to use them to watch shore birds while you're docked. This way, people walking on the pier can also be impressed at the glinting gaudiness of your Leicas.

Yacht on Detroit River

Good Luck! at the Detroit Regional Yacht-Racing Association's 2015 regatta. :t:

Brock

HighNorth · May 8, 2015

Omid said:
I love wide-field binoculars and I am impressed with Zeiss SF 8X42 having a field of view of 140m at 1000m (8 degree).

Ahem, the Zeiss SF has a 148m@1000m FOV, so it's greater than 8 degrees.

brocknroller · May 8, 2015

HighNorth said:
Ahem, the Zeiss SF has a 148m@1000m FOV, so it's greater than 8 degrees.

8.45* -- let's round it off to 8.5*. For an 8x42 that's W-I-D-E.

As Nonnon, my great grandfather, the tightrope walker, was fond of saying: Wider is Bedder.

I think one's preference for wide field views is directly proportional to one's sensitivity to claustrophobia.

Don'tFenceMeIn

ceasar · May 8, 2015

HighNorth said:
Ahem, the Zeiss SF has a 148m@1000m FOV, so it's greater than 8 degrees.

It used to have 150m@1000m prior to it's major surgery when it was a 7x Victory with Abbe/Konig prisms.

Bob

Torview · May 8, 2015

Tobias Mennle said:
.......... the Ultravid almost instantly proved irresistable.

I remember reading something similar from Piergiovanni at Binomania.

I find I choose the Leica more often than not.

HighNorth · May 8, 2015

ceasar said:
It used to have 150m@1000m prior to it's major surgery when it was a 7x Victory with Abbe/Konig prisms.
Bob

I thought you used feet in the US, not metres! Have you finally come to your senses?

HighNorth · May 8, 2015

Torview said:
I remember reading something similar from Piergiovanni at Binomania.

I find I choose the Leica more often than not.

Well, I find the Zeiss SF irresistable, so I guess the "Leica magic" doesn't work on me!

Do you ignore Leica ? (1 Viewer)

Moderator

Well-known member

porromaniac

...

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Avatar: Harris Hawk

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread