Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special ‚Äď Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Noctivid 10x42 vs Ultravid HD+ 10x50

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 16th October 2018, 18:03   #26
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
One needs to remember that flat field designs do come with their own, built-in draw backs as well. I find most flat fields to possess some degree of rolling-ball, or at least unusual bending of lines while panning, as well as AMD at the edge. Also, to me at least, these flat fields lack some of the dynamic perception of depth that a curved design shows and gives me the impression of looking at a screen image, rather than something from life.

To each his own.
Yes, to each his or her own. I've experienced rolling ball in the Nikon 10x42 Venturer LX, but I think it is something that I adjust to quickly. As for the 3D thing from curved designs that many comment on, I do not experience that at all. In fact, I don't even appreciate the analogy to movie screens because I don't perceive (conventional) movies as flat. Probably that's why 3D movies do nothing for me other than irritate me with the extra glasses and due to the dim image.

--AP
Alexis Powell is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 16th October 2018, 18:06   #27
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
One needs to remember that flat field designs do come with their own, built-in draw backs as well. I find most flat fields to possess some degree of rolling-ball, or at least unusual bending of lines while panning, as well as AMD at the edge. Also, to me at least, these flat fields lack some of the dynamic perception of depth that a curved design shows and gives me the impression of looking at a screen image, rather than something from life.

To each his own.
James, that describes why I find curved fields more natural and enjoyable. Thank you!
Mike F is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 16th October 2018, 23:32   #28
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
As I understand things, one difference is that you feel the bins as extensions of your eyes, whereas I feel them as a windows that I look through with my eyes.

--AP
Good comment, exactly my point!
A diffracted window is only partially usable.
The 3D effect is good with Porro's, here are "Dachkantglšser" (what was the English term, roof edge ?) very modest, whether conventional or flat field design, there are much more important aspects in this group from binoculars.

Andreas

Last edited by Conndomat : Tuesday 16th October 2018 at 23:36.
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 17th October 2018, 07:22   #29
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
Glad to know we understand each other, because I think we do. As I understand things, one difference is that you feel the bins as extensions of your eyes, whereas I feel them as a windows that I look through with my eyes.

--AP
Alexis, yes, I would say that is a fairly good analogy, although I do look around in the 'sweet spot', not just exactly through the middle of the bin. But in general, yes, I consider bins as an extension of my eyes, rather than a window.
Mike F is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 16:30   #30
razor6
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 49
I have a more specific question for anyone who has looked through both the 10x42NV and the 10x50HD+ (or even the 10x42HD+, for that matter). Chromatic aberration (CA).

I have not had the opportunity to test the 10x50HD+ in person, although I have tested the NV. I did detect a little CA in the NV, and didn’t have to go all the way to the edge of the field of view to see it. I am susceptible to two things, CA and rolling ball. So, no flat field bins for me, which knocks out the SV and SF for me (too much distortion in both of those when panning, and I’ve looked extensively through both). But I also am no fan of CA, as I can see it pretty clearly when present.

My favorite bin is the 7x42HD+ (No CA, except at the very edge and only during less then perfect atmospheric conditions). I live on the Texas Gulf Coast, and a 10x is useful, particularly at the shore and during winter while viewing raptors when the vegetation has died out over the marshes. Looking for a 10x to compliment my 7x for these situations.

I owned the 10x50SV for a while, and it handled beautifully. No real CA, but over time I still could not get over the RB. The one 10x42NV I looked through had noticeable CA, and I didn’t like the ergonomics as much as my 7x HD+.

Can anyone comment on their experience with CA in either the 10x42 or 10x50 HD+? Is it more, less or the same as the NV (if you’ve had the chance to look through both - or all three)?

Last edited by razor6 : Saturday 16th March 2019 at 16:32.
razor6 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 17:29   #31
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by razor6 View Post
I have a more specific question for anyone who has looked through both the 10x42NV and the 10x50HD+ (or even the 10x42HD+, for that matter). Chromatic aberration (CA).

I have not had the opportunity to test the 10x50HD+ in person, although I have tested the NV. I did detect a little CA in the NV, and didnít have to go all the way to the edge of the field of view to see it. I am susceptible to two things, CA and rolling ball. So, no flat field bins for me, which knocks out the SV and SF for me (too much distortion in both of those when panning, and Iíve looked extensively through both). But I also am no fan of CA, as I can see it pretty clearly when present.

My favorite bin is the 7x42HD+ (No CA, except at the very edge and only during less then perfect atmospheric conditions). I live on the Texas Gulf Coast, and a 10x is useful, particularly at the shore and during winter while viewing raptors when the vegetation has died out over the marshes. Looking for a 10x to compliment my 7x for these situations.

I owned the 10x50SV for a while, and it handled beautifully. No real CA, but over time I still could not get over the RB. The one 10x42NV I looked through had noticeable CA, and I didnít like the ergonomics as much as my 7x HD+.

Can anyone comment on their experience with CA in either the 10x42 or 10x50 HD+? Is it more, less or the same as the NV (if youíve had the chance to look through both - or all three)?
Zeiss 10x42 HT - ''no CA for you!''
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 17:58   #32
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,679
I would try the HD+ 10X50, it is the one glass that provides SV views with out the flat field/panning/RB issues, but I would try before you buy, at these $$$, highly necessary. Personally I get much more pleasure viewing with 10X50+ than any 10X42 especially for long distance viewing sessions, so much more comfortable on the eyes.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 18:10   #33
razor6
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
Zeiss 10x42 HT - ''no CA for you!''
Hi James,
I will admit, I had a chance to look through a 8x42HT several years back, and I remember it being extremely bright and with a form factor that fit me nicely. Seemed to be pinnacle of the evolution of the old Zeiss 7x42GBAT (the first binocular I ever looked through that made me say, ďWow!Ē out loud).

I moved to the Leica after having the Zeiss 7x42FL because I like the color saturation of the Leica over the Zeiss in a side-by-side comparison (although I do remember the FL as having almost zero CA, which I assumed would be true with the HT). Not having done a side-by-side of the HT and my Leica HD+, I donít want to assume the same holds true relative to color rendition between the two.

However, I know I would choose the HT over the SF and SV, as I canít get along with the distortion pattern of the two latter bins. With the HT now discontinued, Iím not sure how much of an opportunity Iím going to have to find a 10x42 to test.

The Leica 10x42NV I tested had the same color saturation of my 7x42HD+, which is why I hope to get my hands on the HD+ in x42 or x50 to test for CA.
razor6 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 18:13   #34
razor6
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
I would try the HD+ 10X50, it is the one glass that provides SV views with out the flat field/panning/RB issues, but I would try before you buy, at these $$$, highly necessary. Personally I get much more pleasure viewing with 10X50+ than any 10X42 especially for long distance viewing sessions, so much more comfortable on the eyes.

Andy W.
Thanks for the reply, Andy. My experience with 10x bins has shown me that, in general, I have enjoyed the 10x50 over the 10x42 as well. I agree, that I need to try before buying one. That’s the one I’m leaning towards if the CA is acceptable. Do you have any opinion on CA with the 10x50?
razor6 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 19:16   #35
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,679
Razor6,

I have the 10X50 BA, UV BR, and the UV HD+, the BR 10X50 has about the same as the BA, but the HD+ to me CA is negligible. Another person who has the HD+10X50 is Canip, perhaps he can provide some insight. I think in relation to CA, the HD and HD+ models were improved in the handling of CA over the BR.
However I am not that susceptible to CA, I can induce it, but overall in the 10X50 glass I notice it the least.
That said, I am still enjoying the BR 10X50s today, love the handling and the contrast.
I would try to view the HD+10X50 if you can, alongside the EL SV, they are really the best 10X50 there is hands down, and I have many.

I still have the SV 10X50.

Regards,

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 19:20   #36
razor6
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 49
Thanks Andy, good to know!
I am looking for one to try before buying.

Last edited by razor6 : Saturday 16th March 2019 at 22:30.
razor6 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 18th March 2019, 02:36   #37
AlbertoJ
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
the HD and HD+ models were improved in the handling of CA over the BR.
HD+ yes, HD not. HD has the same CA as BR.
AlbertoJ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 18th March 2019, 07:42   #38
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,679
I own the HD in 8X42 and 12X50 new after comparing them to the HD+, no CA for me, MY EYES, so over $1500 in savings. Could not be more happy with them.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 20th March 2019, 14:42   #39
tenex
Registered User
 
tenex's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields.
That is exactly my feeling also. I find actual distortion at field edges distracting (think Zeiss) but am usually not looking for perfect sharpness there, though it's nice for astronomy. It's the central sweet spot (area of sharpness really) that matters most to me, and is improved by flat(ter) field designs. And then on the other hand they tend to have a smaller AFOV, which is less appealing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
I would try the HD+ 10X50, it is the one glass that provides SV views with out the flat field/panning/RB issues...
Not sure what you mean in this context by "SV views"... I'm not sure I ever tried the HD+ 10x50, and if not I probably should have. But no one stocks it in my area. Does it not have the traditional optical design like other Leica UVs? (Which I like very much in my 10x32 by the way, but less so in the 42...) How does the eye relief feel, not for eyeglasses but just viewing ease and comfort?
tenex is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 20th March 2019, 17:04   #40
dwever
African Fish Eagle Rwanda
BF Supporter 2019
 
dwever's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 360
I had the 10x50 UVHD+. Phenomenal image but a humongous set of bins for Leica. Class leading in some ways. I borrowed a set of NVD 10x42’s from Chili6x6, and as nice as they were, bought the NVD 8x42.

Between the two 10x bins you mention the UVHD+ if image is the big issue although it could just be my personal taste. If resale is of concern, then the NVD.
__________________
Leica NTV 8X42; UVHD+ 8x42; Zeiss Marines 7x50; Zeiss 8X42 Victory RF

Last edited by dwever : Thursday 21st March 2019 at 05:27.
dwever is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 20th March 2019, 18:16   #41
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwever View Post
Between the two 10x bins you mention the UVHD+ if image is the big issue.
I'd be interested to know why and in what way you thought the image of the 10x50 UVHD+ was better than the 10x42 NV?
Mike F is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st March 2019, 05:22   #42
dwever
African Fish Eagle Rwanda
BF Supporter 2019
 
dwever's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
I'd be interested to know why and in what way you thought the image of the 10x50 UVHD+ was better than the 10x42 NV?
Probably less about better and more about personal taste.

Like the UVHD+ 7x42, Leica hit a sweet spot with the 10x50 being very bright with almost the same color signature as the 7’s, great contrast and saturated colors. The NVD in 8X42 surpasses/measures up, but for me not so much the NVD 10x42. As Globetrotter noted in 2015, the 10x50’s have amazing if not class leading resolution, sharpness, while somehow keeping the easy Leica view. Their saturation and contrast is perhaps like a 10X version of the 7x42’s. I gave the 10x50’s up due to their seemingly massive size and a hitch in the focusing mechanism in my sample, only to find myself eventually with the huge NVD 8X42’s.

I should’ve kept the 7x42 and a repaired 10x50 UVHD+, they are for me the Kodachrome of binoculars, warm and wonderful, but I succumbed to the hype of the new Noctivid buying the 8x42’s shortly after their release. I think my NVD’s are truly great, but I was probably fine where I was. I have wondered though if the UVHD+ would have held up to the subzero winters in Alaska the way the Noctivid have.

Top three modern Leica’s to me in order: 7x42 UVHD+, NVD 8x42, 10x50 UVHD+.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	6CF7C8E9-935C-4E1A-9C76-03DC2BE25804.jpg
Views:	30
Size:	100.2 KB
ID:	690232  
__________________
Leica NTV 8X42; UVHD+ 8x42; Zeiss Marines 7x50; Zeiss 8X42 Victory RF

Last edited by dwever : Thursday 21st March 2019 at 05:26.
dwever is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 21st March 2019, 11:56   #43
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwever View Post
Probably less about better and more about personal taste.

Like the UVHD+ 7x42, Leica hit a sweet spot with the 10x50 being very bright with almost the same color signature as the 7ís, great contrast and saturated colors. The NVD in 8X42 surpasses/measures up, but for me not so much the NVD 10x42. As Globetrotter noted in 2015, the 10x50ís have amazing if not class leading resolution, sharpness, while somehow keeping the easy Leica view. Their saturation and contrast is perhaps like a 10X version of the 7x42ís. I gave the 10x50ís up due to their seemingly massive size and a hitch in the focusing mechanism in my sample, only to find myself eventually with the huge NVD 8X42ís.

I shouldíve kept the 7x42 and a repaired 10x50 UVHD+, they are for me the Kodachrome of binoculars, warm and wonderful, but I succumbed to the hype of the new Noctivid buying the 8x42ís shortly after their release. I think my NVDís are truly great, but I was probably fine where I was. I have wondered though if the UVHD+ would have held up to the subzero winters in Alaska the way the Noctivid have.

Top three modern Leicaís to me in order: 7x42 UVHD+, NVD 8x42, 10x50 UVHD+.
dwever, thanks for your reply. I think the highlighted part of your post would be good reason for anyone to consider the NV 10x42 over the UVHD+ 10x50, given that their optical performance must at least be close.

However, I'd still be interested in a direct detailed comparison if someone is able to give one........
Mike F is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st March 2019, 12:14   #44
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,679
Massive size is a subjective opinion for the 10X50HD+, this glass is why I have so little use for 10X42s, they are the easiest/lightest premium 10X50 made today along with the EL SV 10X50. I think years ago a large objective view glass (10X50s) during the day were dim and really heavy, not with them today, the UVHD+ 10X50 always gives me the WOW with the 6.7 degree FOV. For me I would have use for NVD 8X42 not the 10X42, but this all subjective anyway.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 24th March 2019, 01:49   #45
razor6
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 49
Thanks for the detailed replies dwever and Andy,

I had the 10x50SV and didn’t have a problem with the size and weight. My primary bin will be the 7x42HD+, and the 10x will be used in the winter, and for days on the coast when I’m not carrying a scope and/or long and heavy camera lenses. The brighter image and (usually) wider field of view of the x50 over the x42 makes up for the added weight in my experience. Just looking for a companion to the 7x Leica with the same warm, contrasty and saturated view.

Good to hear of the experience of less CA in the 10x50HD+. Now, I just need to find one to test (particularly for the eye relief with glasses). The 10x50 specs show 2mm less eye relief than on my 7x, but I pull those out one click stop for my glasses, so hopefully the 10x50 will work.

Rob

Last edited by razor6 : Sunday 24th March 2019 at 01:55.
razor6 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 24th March 2019, 12:35   #46
mwhogue
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Friendswood
Posts: 115
Rob,

Based on what you say above the 10 may work with your glasses and anatomy. For me the 7x42 HD+ has an acceptable FOV when using glasses with eye cups fully down. But the 10 loses too much FOV with glasses, maybe as much as 30%.

Hope the 10s work out for you.

Mike
mwhogue is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 24th March 2019, 12:58   #47
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by razor6 View Post
Thanks for the detailed replies dwever and Andy,

I had the 10x50SV and didnít have a problem with the size and weight. My primary bin will be the 7x42HD+, and the 10x will be used in the winter, and for days on the coast when Iím not carrying a scope and/or long and heavy camera lenses. The brighter image and (usually) wider field of view of the x50 over the x42 makes up for the added weight in my experience. Just looking for a companion to the 7x Leica with the same warm, contrasty and saturated view.

Good to hear of the experience of less CA in the 10x50HD+. Now, I just need to find one to test (particularly for the eye relief with glasses). The 10x50 specs show 2mm less eye relief than on my 7x, but I pull those out one click stop for my glasses, so hopefully the 10x50 will work.

Rob
Rob, I have the 7x42 UVHD+ and compliment them with the 10x42 NV. Each to his own, and this is only a matter of passing interest to me, but I wonder whether the the 10x50 UVHD+ would really give you any advantage over the 10x42 NV.
As I've said, I would love someone with both, or at least first hand experience of both, to give me their opinion of a direct comparison, but on the points you mention I really wonder if you (or I) would notice a difference in brightness, or experience a wider field of view on the 10x50 vs the 10x42?

The difference in brightness between a 50 and 42 is pretty hard to notice in all but the most extreme lighting conditions anyway, but given the greater transmission due to the new optical design and better coatings of the NV, I would have thought that the difference is negligible. As regards the FOV, it's 117m on the 10x50 UV+ compared to 112m on the 10x42 NV, which isn't that much. Additionally, it's been noted here many times that a larger 'sweet spot' (or flatter field) gives the impression of a larger FOV, so again, I would have though that any advantage on paper to the UV+ would be negated.
The weight difference, however, is 1000g compared to 860g!

As I say, I have no axe to grind and I'd love to hear some first hand reports (I'd certainly add a UVHD+ 10x50 to my bin drawer if I could find some justification! ), but these are my reservations.

PS the NV has less CA generally that the UVHD+ range as I understand, and the eye relief is 19mm on the 10x42!
Mike F is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 24th March 2019, 17:35   #48
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,679
Mike,

Some like the UV HD+ 10X50 as I do. It seems that you are trying to rationalize that the Noctivid is better, and it likely is better FOR YOU, however some who are comfortable with a bit more weight prefer a premium 10X50 for the views it provides for THEM. There is not one better than the other here, they are both premium glass.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 24th March 2019, 18:26   #49
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
Mike,

Some like the UV HD+ 10X50 as I do. It seems that you are trying to rationalize that the Noctivid is better, and it likely is better FOR YOU, however some who are comfortable with a bit more weight prefer a premium 10X50 for the views it provides for THEM. There is not one better than the other here, they are both premium glass.

Andy W.
I appreciate that Andy. However, although I do own the NV I’m not trying to rationalise that it’s better, I would just like to hear some first-hand opinions and experiences of the objective differences between it and the 10x50 UV+ in order, if anything, to rationalise owning both! I understand the fact though that ultimately they are both excellent but different. I’m just trying not to cross that line (without good justification) of having ‘more than one of the same’, because I fear it’s a dreadfully slippery and excessively expensive slope! (So to that extent you’re right )

Last edited by Mike F : Sunday 24th March 2019 at 18:39.
Mike F is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 25th March 2019, 02:24   #50
razor6
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 49
Mike,
Good points all. When I compared the 10x42SV to the 10x50SV, the 10x50 won hands down. I can only describe it as a more immersive view. I THINK it was due to the wider FOV and brighter image (although, I would agree, in sunny daylight the difference is not really detectable).
Now, I know the NV and UV+ are different from the SV, so I can’t conclude that the same results will hold for the Leicas.

But, if the 10x50UV+ shows WORSE CA than the 10x42NV, then it won’t work for me. I did induce CA in my quick test of the NV on a bright overcast day. And in a 10x bin I do think the FOV difference of 353’ vs. 336’ to be noticeable. I’m a sucker for wider views (although I do think you make a good point about the larger sweet spot of the NV).
However, the only thing that could make my 7x42UV+ better would be for it to have the FOV of the 7x42FL, but it’s not enough of a knock against it to make me reject it.
AND, I didn’t like the handling of the NV after using the UV+ for so long (although I’d probably get used to it).

The best thing is for me to get my hands on BOTH the 10x42NV and the 10x50UV+ at the same time to test the CA and compare the handling.

Great comments from everyone!
razor6 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swarovski SV 10x50 vs Leica ultravid HD PLUS 10x50 bockos Leica 22 Monday 14th December 2015 14:47
Leica Ultravid 10X50 HD Plus VS Swarovski SV 10X42. GLOBETROTTER Leica 8 Thursday 27th August 2015 18:02
Ultravid 10x42 or 10x50 Dr. Amnon Duvdevany Leica 13 Monday 27th October 2008 05:29
Swarovski SLC 10x50 VS Leica Ultravid 10x50 szybszy Swarovski 19 Sunday 6th July 2008 09:46
Leica Ultravid 10x50 or 10x42 Birding michaelboustead Leica 11 Saturday 31st January 2004 18:13

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.18270111 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27.