• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Anyone using Ultravid 10x50? (1 Viewer)

tenex

reality-based
I don't hear much about the 50mm Ultravids, especially compared to Swaros. Does anyone have experience with the UV 10x50? I've never seen one. I generally like Leicas but had three issues with the UV 10x42 (presumably in any of its three incarnations):

1. The oculars wouldn't work for me, too much eye relief for the cups, or cups too short for the ER, whichever is politically correct. 15mm shouldn't be a problem on the 50.

2. I found a 330 ft FOV (however standard in that size) restrictive. The 10x50 does better. (So does the SF 42, I know, as any 42 could if they all weren't trying to stay so petite.)

3. The field seemed sharp only about halfway from the center, at most. I presume the 50 would still be like that, perhaps even worse? (The 32s I'm accustomed to do much better, without field flatteners. Would an expert care to explain why?)
 
I have a 10x50 Ultravid (in the „HD Plus“ incarnation) and still find it a fabulous instrument (see below re EL SV).

ad 1. I am observing without glasses, so the 15mm eye relief is just fine for me, and I find the eyecups quite comfortable.

ad 2. With its 6.7 degree (= 117m) field of view, the UV is actually the (by a small margin) leader of its field, at least as far as the major and especially all the top 10x50 binos ar concerned. Except, of course, when it comes to the Nikon WX, but that is an entirely different story.

ad 3. I would estimate that the field stays sharp at least 65-70%, so clearly more than halfway from the center. Again, I like the image in the UV quite a bit. Of course, it is not flat field, but I like it for its Leica typical color saturation in combination with good sharpness/contrast.

And then the EL SV came along.

Now there are people who hate the flat field image of the Swaros. But if you don‘t, the Swaro can easily steal the show from the UV.
If I see all these wonderful new binos with their field flatteners come onto the market, I sometimes wonder whether the trend would be stoppable (although Leica did an excellent job in that regard with the Noctivids, thereby basically splitting the field in pro and contra flat field enthusiasts).

Comparing the 10x50 versions of the UV and the EL SV side by side, I prefer the image of the EL SV. The crisp sharpness of the image sometimes almost „hurts the eyes“, and I find the EL SV also brighter than the UV. I understand why some people, especially those using their binos also at night, consider the 10x50 Swaro one of the very best binos available today. On the other hand, some of my colleagues prefer the daytime image in the UV as more „natural“.

Mechanically, the UV wins (or at least my sample of the UV), except for the eyecups, which are more robust in the EL SV.

In size and weight, both are almost identical.

For what it‘s worth.
 
Thanks! (I don't wear glasses either.) I might like the UV, since in 50mm a bino seems to be allowed the size it needs to be.

Regarding the EL SV, I'm not a fan of the open bridge; why should I have to curl my fingers around more? Optically there's the aesthetic debate about flatness, and then the infamous "rolling ball" issue. Is that mainly a matter of lower pincushion distortion (as Holger Merlitz explained), or of irregular effects near the edge (the "Absam ring"?), and does the 10x50 suffer from that?
 
Thanks! (I don't wear glasses either.) I might like the UV, since in 50mm a bino seems to be allowed the size it needs to be.

Regarding the EL SV, I'm not a fan of the open bridge; why should I have to curl my fingers around more? Optically there's the aesthetic debate about flatness, and then the infamous "rolling ball" issue. Is that mainly a matter of lower pincushion distortion (as Holger Merlitz explained), or of irregular effects near the edge (the "Absam ring"?), and does the 10x50 suffer from that?

Re EL SV: for my eyes, the rolling ball effect caused by the low amount of pincushion distortion is much less pronounced in the 10x50 than e.g. in the 8.5x42. However, I have to say that the rolling ball effect is not really something that disturbs me much, not even when it is very present such as in the 8x42 SF, so others may disagree.

Moreover, I have never been able to see the infamous „Absam-Ring“ in the 10x50, and the same is true for many people I know with 10x50s. But I may again not be a good reference on this, since I have barely been able to imagine something that could be the Absam-Ring in the 8x32 EL SV, and I am not even sure that this was a reliable observation.

Coming back to the UV (your initial question): yes, I agree that the 50mm UV is a very nice size bino, and I have no doubt you might like it, esp. if you are not a fan of the open bridge design ... :)
 
The Ultravid 10X50 HD Plus is a fantastic binocular, i had one time ago but it lack the optical transparency and cristal view that you can find on the NV, HT AND SV.
 
I have one on order this week, and am looking forward to it, I do not wear glasses so the 15mm eye-relief should be OK.

A.W.
 
Congratulations!! Enjoy and have much fun with it!!
I would be interested to hear how you find it once you have been able to use it.
Canip
 
Yes, let us know what you think of it. Despite my history with Leica I wound up going another direction myself: SLC 10x56.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top