kabsetz said:
Okay, taking the risk of offending some members who do not like to hear this said about high-quality, high-price optics, I'll reiterate what I've said in other contexts: there are visible and sometimes not so subtle differences in optical quality between different specimen of the same model and design.
Now, the Ultravid and ULtra (the BN model, also called Trinovid on some markets, and now surpassed by the Ultravid series) are optically the same design save for improved coatings in the Ultravid series. Consequently, as far as resolution (sharpness) is concerned, they are equally good as a design. Of course, it is always possible that Leica would have tightened their production tolerances for the new series, but I do not think this is likely based on their tradition of maintaining that their tolerances are already so tight that any variance in the final product is beyond the human eyes' ability to perceive. Additionally, what I have seen and measured as well as what others I trust have said and written does not suggest there being noticeable differences in overall optical quality between the two designs, exception being that the new series is brighter and has, on the average, marginally higher contrast. I say "on the average" since contrast is not only a result of good coatings and lack of internal reflections etc. but is also affected by optical aberrations in the system. Thus, if you are comparing two specific units and one happens to have a lower sum total of aberrations by enough of a margin, that one will be sharper and have higher contrast, and the sharper one might just as well be the older version than the newer one. Trust your eyes and buy the sharper one, or wait until you find a new version which is also sharp enough for you.
The reason I'm bringing this up yet again is that otherwise people might interpret Bawko's undoubtedly correct observations about the binoculars he compared as meaning that the Trinovid 7x42 is as a rule sharper than the Ultravid 7x42.
Kimmo
Kimmo,
I have a few comments and one question. You say that "there are visible and sometimes not so subtle differences in optical quality between different specimen of the same model and design", however, in respect to Leica's manufacturing standards, you say Leica's "tradition of maintaining their tolerances are already so tight that any variance in the final product is beyond the human eyes' ability to perceive." Are you saying some top-end manufacturers allow sample variations, but Leica is not among them?
In respect to the Trinovid versus the Ultravid debate, I can assure everyone that there is, in fact, a difference between the two models. As I tested innumerable binoculars I always came away impressed by the Leica image. I took issue with eye relief, eyecups, focus wheels, and Leica's non-responsive nature to inquiries, but for some reason I always enjoyed the crisp, sharp optics of the both the Trinovid and Ultravid lines. Several times I picked up the 7X42 Trinovid and could find nothing wrong with the image or handling.
The Ultravid may be based on the tried and true Trinovid, but they are optically better...something that's easy to see after some simple observations. Brightness is better and so is color and contrast. If you were to pick them up 10 minutes apart you'd probably swear they were the same. A side-by-side examination quickly reveals the differences. Clearly, the Ultravid is optically the better binocular. I seriously considered the 7X Trinovid because I thought it was the equal of the 7X Ultravid and I could save a few dollars. A very knowledgeable salesman showed me the differences by directing me to different targets throughout the store. In short, I could see things with the Ultravid that were either impossible to see or unclear in the Trinovid. For example, colors that I could not discern in the Trinovids, especially in shadowed areas, came to life in the Ultravid. There is no doubt both bins produce a very sharp image, however, there is also no doubt, in my opinion, that the Ultravid produces a better image.
I compared the 7X Ultravid to other models.
The Ultravid 7X is brighter than the EL 8.5 and, to my eye, sharper with better focus snap and contrast. Some of that is undoubtedly due to the 8.5X versus 7X magnification handshake phenomenon. As I’ve said before, instability is a definite image killer for me. The 7X Ultravid is definitely brighter than the SLC 7X, which is a very fine binocular in desperate need of some updating.
The FL may be brighter in extremely low light, but I found no difference in sharpness, contrast, etc. between the FL models and the Ultravids. After all the praise heaped on the FL, I expected to see a dramatic difference between the FL and the Ultravid, but it never materialized. CA is another matter and, to those affected by it, the FL may be a better choice. Others have directly compared the Ultravid/FL and come away with the same conclusion. Clearly, Leica improved their Trinovid line when they produced the Ultravid.
Throughout all our discussions, one bin's image has never been seriously challenged...the SE. Many claim it still offers one of the finest images available, even in direct comparison to the latest crop of roofs. One FL fan said the SE was still optically the best and another proposed selling their SE in favor of the FL. After close examination in different lighting conditions I can say that the image coming out the backend of my 7X Ultravid is about as close as it gets to being a clone of the SE's image. In fact, there are some things about the Ultravid I strongly prefer. I conclude from these observations that Leica and Zeiss have found superior optical recipes that appeal to demanding consumers.
I plan to use my SE in good weather and the Ultravid at all other times. In low light conditions the Ultravid surpasses the SE; in good lighting the SE’s image, extra power, and ease of use will still make it my bin of choice…unless of course I change my mind!
John