Been meaning to finish off my report for some time but work kept intervening!
A quick jaunt around the Big Tent starting at Leica and then going towards Nikon. L had the glitziest stand and the most attractive... birds (OMG did I just say that...?!) so was heaving with people. I only had time to have a reasonable look through the 10x50 Ultravid HD+ and reacquaint myself with the 8x42 Noctivid. The Noctivid was as good as I remembered it - beautiful alpha image with Leica colours, more compact than the other alphas and with great perceived feel of quality. The only difference this time was that the impression of larger exit pupil I had felt the first time I'd tried the 8x42 wasn't as apparent. The big Ultravid was... interesting. It handled excellently, seemed very well made, and did offer what was objectively a very good image as one expects from a 10x50, but actual image quality was bettered (to my eyes anyway) by the Noctivid and also by the 10x50 Swarovision. I thought the Meopta 10x50 I'd just tried was definitely competitive image wise in most respects, except for field of view, which where the Ultravid has a small but noticeable advantage.
Honourable mention: I got to try an old 10x40B/GA Leitz Trinovid (rubber coated version) at the Infocus stand, and just loved the slim elegant design, the old school mechanical quality, how light and easy to handle it was. Alas, the left eyecup on this example had a large split in it that made me chary of folding it down. I therefore had to use it without glasses and upon doing so found that it would not focus enough beyond infinity to compensate for my shortsightedness. I tried it at targets closer in and at those distances, image quality seemed all right for a non-phase coated binocular. I couldn't disagree with the InFocus staff member who graciously allowed me to try them: "A 300 quid Opticron would be much brighter". True enough! But no Opticron ever made, with apologies to that fine company, could hope to match this classic Leitz in history, in feel, or in sheer absolute sexiness... sorry I meant to say "desirability"! If only, if only Leica had pressed on with the updated classic Trinovid project...
Quickly passing through the "S" area. I was less interested in these as I often get the chance to use my brother's 8.5x42 SV, but did make sure to look through the 8x56 SLC again and found myself every bit as impressed as I'd been the last time. This thing is heavy and bulky and would be an absolute pain in the arse to haul around, but offers a quite incredible image - steady (partly due to its heft, partly due to the effortless eye placement allowed by the huge exit pupil), superbly bright, sharp, detailed, stunning in every respect... I can't praise it enough. I made a great mistake not looking through the Nikon WX at the N area as I really ought to have compared the two in the same light and terrain. That's how highly I think of the big SLC. It's just a damn shame a 8x56 is ridiculously large for the birding I do for which I prefer an 8x, and that the spots where a x56 can be used require more magnification... The 10x50 SV was also excellent and comes in a handier package, not as handy as the Ultravid but with a superior image. This in my opinion is the best 10x50 around.
Zeiss - I only handled the 10x42 SF briefly. The combination of balance and design that makes for exceptional handling and light perceived weight continued to impress me, as did the view it offers. This is the alpha that suits my own birding the best, even though apparent build quality was not as impressive as its competitors. The new eyecups... I didn't fiddle around with them a lot, but if I'm not wrong they are the same shape/design as the old ones, but made from a softer more rubbery material. The new material hasn't changed the main thing I disliked about the old ones, the fact that their design/shape allows dust, or worse, to get behind them when extended. This isn't a problem if the eyecups are fully down all the time, but the latest alphas offer so much eye relief I need to wind out the eyecups a little. Lightweight they may be, and I appreciate that most users are likely never to have the issues I think
might happen - but I'd much rather the eyecups be solid, whether plastic coated metal or just solid plastic, as they are in the other alphas, the HTs, the Meostars, even the Conquests. Speaking of the latter, I was actually more interested in the Conquest 10x42 HD, which I did look through/over quite carefully. More later...
Nikon - most of the visitors here were gathered around the photography end so I had the opportunity to closely compare the highly competent Monarch HG 10x42 and the superb 10x42 EDG, which comments were noted in a thread in the Nikon forum
https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3897963&postcount=23.
Meostar 10x42 HD vs Monarch HG 10x42 vs Conquest 10x42 HD vs Canon 10x42 IS L - My main reason for visiting Birdfair this year was to closely compare the sub-alphas, and fortunately I did have the time and opportunity to do this. Regretfully I didn't think to add Kowa's premium range my list (particularly stupid of me given how impressed I'd been by their lowly 6x30 YF plastic porro). I'll resume over the weekend as comparing this group of really excellent binoculars deserves a separate post. Hope others have found my ramblings of some interest!
