7x42 Ultravid (1 Viewer)

F88 · Mar 26, 2019

Mike F said:
Chuck, I was referring to the 2012-15 Trinovid, not the HD. The difference in the focus compared to the UVHD+ is very marginal, but with the nod to the Trinovid (with the stainless steel instead of the titanium rod). However, I totally agree with you that a central locking diopter that doesn't need constant checking is worth trading a little extra smoothness in the focuser for. One gets used to such small differences (given, as you say, that the focuser is very good), but a diopter which moves is a constant PITA!

I may have made it sound worse than it is? While the focus on my 2012-15 Trinovid is much smoother and more fluid, the UV isn't terrible but I definitely prefer the Trinovid in that regard.
My first copy of the EDG (single bridge) had a wandering diopter which was terrible.

james holdsworth · Mar 27, 2019

chill6x6 said:
Matter of taste I suppose. We're NOT talking about a focuser that isn't smooth to start with which an UVHD+ IS which is kind of the implication. The Trinovid HD diopter has a tendency to move. Case closed. The EDG diopter is quirky to set. The HT is harder to set than most central diopter adjustments. A step back from the excellent FL. The FL, UV series, and SV are in a class of their own as far as setting the diopter CORRECTLY and easily.

I own both the Trinovid HD AND a couple of UVHD+s so it's a no-brainer comment for me to make as well as many other binoculars of many different makes. Some diopter adjustments don't say put as well as others.

Horses for courses I suppose. All of my bins have smooth focus and non-wandering, easy to set diopters. Just lucky I guess.

NDhunter · Mar 27, 2019

F88 said:
Well my 7x42HD+ isn't so fortunate as yours. It's focus knob is nowhere near as smooth as my 8x42 Trinovid (2012-15) and not like my 8x32 EDG.
I had a thought about Leica's decision in using a titanium rod on the UV not being a particularly good idea. While titanium is a great material I would think any weight saving would be negligible on this component with no other advantages over stainless steel plus titanium suffers from galling whereby stainless should perform much more smoothly also considering it's a greaseless system.

F88:
I am questioning your use of what metals are used in Leica binoculars.
Your thing about galling between SS and titanium is absurd. Binocular
focus shafts would never suffer galling in this area.

Any difference in focusing has absolutely nothing to do with that. :eek!:

Jerry

F88 · Mar 27, 2019

NDhunter said:
F88:
I am questioning your use of what metals are used in Leica binoculars.
Your thing about galling between SS and titanium is absurd. Binocular
focus shafts would never suffer galling in this area.

Any difference in focusing has absolutely nothing to do with that. :eek!:

Jerry

Jerry,

I agree that in this application it would not gall to any alarming degree. However if you've ever played with titanium, I have, you would note that it very much will gall for example on threaded surfaces both of titanium, it's a property of titanium some may or may not know. I've even seen sparks fly off components being mated or unmated and there's always a nasty feel to it that you'd never get with stainless.
Absurd? You come across quite unusual but I'm certain I'm not the first person to tell you this.
There is zero benefit in Leica using titanium in this component and it could be argued against but once again it does sound cool because they use that stuff on jets and space craft right? Exactly how much insignificant weight benefit or otherwise comes from using this material?
My point was, which I thought I made clear, was that my UV has increased friction (which I can hear and feel) in it's focus over my Trinovid. I put this down to sample variation although I do think that if it were using a stainless shaft under the same slight misalignment or what have you that it may very well run more smoothly. Obviously perfect construction would be the best option regardless of material.
Anyway for the most part my UV is perfectly acceptable.

eronald · Mar 27, 2019

Maybe a drop-in 3d printed nylon bearing -or even a piece of Lego Technics- would be a suitable mate for a titanium rod - just as you can change eyecups the user could replace the bearing if needed.

Edmund

chill6x6 · Mar 27, 2019

Mike F said:
Chuck, I was referring to the 2012-15 Trinovid, not the HD. The difference in the focus compared to the UVHD+ is very marginal, but with the nod to the Trinovid (with the stainless steel instead of the titanium rod). However, I totally agree with you that a central locking diopter that doesn't need constant checking is worth trading a little extra smoothness in the focuser for. One gets used to such small differences (given, as you say, that the focuser is very good), but a diopter which moves is a constant PITA!

:t:

At one time I had all three of Leica's latest models, the Trinovid, UVHD+, and the Trinovid HD. I sure couldn't tell much difference in the focus adjustment between the previous Trinovid and the UVHD+. To me they were practically identical. The main difference I had found was weight with the Trinovid at 29.5oz, UVHD+ at 27oz, and the Trinovid HD at 25.5oz(all 8X). The only reason I got rid of the Trinovids(had both 8X and 10X) is I felt like they were duplications of what I had and I like a little weight savings when I can get it.

Tringa45 · Mar 27, 2019

F88 is absolutely right about the galling potential of Titanium. See 2nd. § of Introduction here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galling. I have even heard of screwed Titanium case backs welding themselves to the Titanium watch case.
Jerry's gut reactions are sometimes a little reminiscent of someone else in his country

.

John

Mike F · Mar 27, 2019

chill6x6 said:
:t:

At one time I had all three of Leica's latest models, the Trinovid, UVHD+, and the Trinovid HD. I sure couldn't tell much difference in the focus adjustment between the previous Trinovid and the UVHD+. To me they were practically identical. The main difference I had found was weight with the Trinovid at 29.5oz, UVHD+ at 27oz, and the Trinovid HD at 25.5oz(all 8X). The only reason I got rid of the Trinovids(had both 8X and 10X) is I felt like they were duplications of what I had and I like a little weight savings when I can get it.

Chuck, like I said in my previous post, the difference in the focus adjustment on the Trinovid and the UVHD+ is very marginal. Very probably most people wouldn't notice going from one to the other unless it was pointed out.

I agree with you about the weight issue. I find the difference between the Trinovid 8x and the UVHD+ 7x (which I think is a bit lighter than the 8x) quite noticeable, so I totally understand that someone might prefer the Trinovid HD over the Trinovid purely on those grounds. However, the weight of the Trinovid 8 x 42 is not an issue for me, and in fact I quite like the fact that it feels very substantial. Also, I can happily keep it and enjoy it as it's my only 8x bin!

NDhunter · Mar 28, 2019

Tringa45 said:
F88 is absolutely right about the galling potential of Titanium. See 2nd. § of Introduction here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galling. I have even heard of screwed Titanium case backs welding themselves to the Titanium watch case.
Jerry's gut reactions are sometimes a little reminiscent of someone else in his country .

John

John: Don't dismiss my comments, you are way out of line, in commenting
about my country.

For the use in binoculars titanium does offer a benefit in a lower weight,
and any corrosion difference is negligible. As in, there is no difference.
I have a watch with a titanium case, I wonder if you do.

Jerry

NDhunter · Mar 28, 2019

F88:

We are talking about binoculars on this web site, and not about airplanes.

Your deep thoughts about differences in focus because of construction materials in the various
Leica models is pointed out above. I am not sure why you carry on with it.

Leica makes some nice binoculars, and I will leave it at that.

Jerry

F88 · Mar 28, 2019

NDhunter said:
F88:

We are talking about binoculars on this web site, and not about airplanes.

Your deep thoughts about differences in focus because of construction materials in the various
Leica models is pointed out above. I am not sure why you carry on with it.

Leica makes some nice binoculars, and I will leave it at that.

Jerry

Jerry,

Go and kick the cat.

F88 · Mar 28, 2019

NDhunter said:
John: Don't dismiss my comments, you are way out of line, in commenting
about my country.

For the use in binoculars titanium does offer a benefit in a lower weight,
and any corrosion difference is negligible. As in, there is no difference.
I have a watch with a titanium case, I wonder if you do.

Jerry

Many dismiss your comments and you wonder why?

NDhunter · Mar 28, 2019

F88 said:
Jerry,

Go and kick the cat.

You are more fun, and deserve it. B

F88 · Mar 28, 2019

NDhunter said:
You are more fun, and deserve it. B

I'd suggest you'd find yourself biting off more than you can chew.

NDhunter · Mar 28, 2019

I will leave it at this, go stick your wing tip where the sun doesn't shine.:t:

eronald · Mar 28, 2019

Is there a reason for the murder of crows descending on this topic?

The 7x42 UV HD seem decent enough binoculars. I'm looking forward to get mine back in good fettle, titanium or no titanium.

Edmund

F88 · Mar 28, 2019

NDhunter said:
I will leave it at this, go stick your wing tip where the sun doesn't shine.:t:

Spoken like a true fool Jerry, once again confirming your status to the forum.
Here's what I'm going to do. Completely ignore your mindless dribble from this point.
Before I go, don't even think about trying it on with that cat as you and I both know that fluffy will get the better of you in the blink of an eye.

ceasar · Mar 28, 2019

The Ultravid was introduced 16 years ago in 2003. AFAIK no problems have shown up with the Titanium rod used in the focusing unit. It does help keep the weight down to about 25 ounces in my 8x42 Blackline Ultravid.

I remember reading a while back about a newly introduced binocular that had a Magnesium casing and a Titanium focus rod to "keep the weight down." I can't remember what binocular it was though. It might have even been when the Ultravid replaced the Trinovid? Does anyone know what metal is used in the casing of the Ultravid?

Bob

F88 · Mar 28, 2019

eronald said:
Is there a reason for the murder of crows descending on this topic?

The 7x42 UV HD seem decent enough binoculars. I'm looking forward to get mine back in good fettle, titanium or no titanium.

Edmund

Ha ha yes, we're a gentlemanly lot aren't we. I'm much to blame for provoking Jerry out of his reclining chair.

They are quite decent and I hope you enjoy them.

JabaliHunter · Mar 29, 2019

NDhunter said:
F88:
I am questioning your use of what metals are used in Leica binoculars.
Your thing about galling between SS and titanium is absurd. Binocular
focus shafts would never suffer galling in this area.

Any difference in focusing has absolutely nothing to do with that. :eek!:

Jerry

Well I don’t know about the specifics of binocular focus mechanisms, but a titanium rifle action will generally use stainless steel for the bolt locking lugs to prevent galling; and the ultra smooth gears in my custom Japanese spinning reels use C6191 marine bronze for the gears when other components are titanium, so it may not be so far-fetched...

7x42 Ultravid (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Consulting Biologist

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread