I might be crazy, but.... (1 Viewer)

Greetings!

Trying to make a decision between the Zeiss FL 7x42 and Leica Ultravid 7x42, I went optics shopping today.

I evaluated a pair of Ultravid 7x42, and as an amusing sideline I compared them to a pair of Trinovid BN 7x42. This rapidly took on a "life of it's own", and I ended up spending over 30 minutes comparing the two. After a bit of further comparison with the Zeiss, I came to a decision. I felt that although the brightness and color rendition of the Ultravid was SLIGHTLY better than the Trinovid, the Trinovid seemed to have an edge in overall image sharpness and clarity. I liked the lighter weight of the Ultravid, but in the end the Trinovid's $789.00 closeout price and better image sharpness completely won me over. I liked them better than the Zeiss FL 7x42, even though the Leica have a bit narrower field of view.

I placed a deposit on the last pair of 7x42 Trinovid BN's the dealer had in stock, I will pay off the balance on Tues. of next week and take possession of them. The Trinovid BN 7x42 could very well be the finest currently available 7x binoculars... very impressive!

Best wishes,
Bawko

Interesting about the Ultravid - Trinovid sharpness. I found the same thing, my 8x32BAs were a touch sharper than my new Ultravid 8x42s.

Congratulations Bawko on your cost-effective purchase.

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

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

Click to expand...

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

There is definitely sample variation in Leica binoculars. In my first post to this forum (one year ago; comparing Ultravid to SE), I described the sample of the 8x42 Ultravid I handled as less than perfect. It was not as sharp as the SE and was definitely not brighter. The 7x42 I handled was an entirely different story, and I ended up buying one. The one I bought is at least as good as the one I originally tested. I have since handled two more 8x42 Ultravids, and they were as sharp and contrasty as my SE and my 7x42 Ultravid.

I have also compared my 7x42 Ultravid to two 7x42 Trinovid BN Ultras, and the Ultravid is definitely more contrasty, lending it higher apparent resolution. So I wonder if Atomic Chicken tried an Ultravid that was less than perfect. Don't get me wrong: at under $800 a 7x42 Trinovid is a steal. IMO it is surpassed optically only slightly by Ultravid; it is a bit heavy and clunky but is optically excellent. The same is true of 7x42 SLC--a bit heavy, and having a slightly distant close focus of 13 feet, but optically outstanding.

A quick comment to John.

What I meant when used the word "maintained" concerning Leica is that they have CLAIMED that their tolerances are so tight that the human eye cannot tell two specimen apart. Every optical company has to accept tolerances, whereby they all must decide what those tolerances are for any given model, and none of the companies are particularly willing to share what their tolerances are - for understandable reasons.

What you say about Trinovid vs Ultravid is quite correct overall, although different viewers might have different opinions about how dramatic the differences are. However, if we happen to have a sharp specimen of the Tri and a soft specimen of the Ultra, the Tri will be seen as better by almost all vieweres, since sharpness and contrast as well as how the image "snaps" to focus will be better.

Kimmo

One trick I've found that works pretty well to determine if two sets of optics (like the Ultravid and the Trinovid) are the same is to compare the pattern of reflections between the two as you look down through the eyepiece elements and also from the objective end. I use a simple light source like a single light bulb or the sun positioned behind me. With the proper angle of tilt you can usually see the reflections of the light source from all the eyepiece elements from the back and all the objective elements to the first prism surface from the front. With the eyepieces or objectives of the two binoculars next to each other and using only one eye an angle of tilt can be found that will produce an identical pattern of reflections in each if the optics are the same.

May an optics novice intrude and ask....

often people talk about "scientific measurements" now I know that in hi-fi people measure the sound BUT two people can realate totally differently to the same piece of music on two different pieces of "top" equipment,

Now can the same thing happen with bins. Two bins may be set up perfectly BUT viewer A may just relate better to one of the bins than viewer B. They just prefer or dislike one of the bins for reasons that aren't apparent to other observers. Their preferences for contrast, brightness, colour balance etc is different.

Does that make sense?

Hence I know some North American members find it hard to get to stores to test BUT they get a nasty shock when they pick up a well reviewed bin and find it not for them.

pduxon said:

May an optics novice intrude and ask

Click to expand...

Pete,

How dare you intrude. Actually, I have often thought the same thing, and I may have even ventured so far as to say it on the forum, though I don't recall for certain whether I did. I too think that some people may respond to different optical formulae differently, so that one person's ultimate binocular will simply not work for somebody else. I have no idea if there is a scientific basis for it, but judging from comments on the forum it seems possible.

pduxon said:

May an optics novice intrude and ask....

often people talk about "scientific measurements" now I know that in hi-fi people measure the sound BUT two people can realate totally differently to the same piece of music on two different pieces of "top" equipment,

Now can the same thing happen with bins. Two bins may be set up perfectly BUT viewer A may just relate better to one of the bins than viewer B. They just prefer or dislike one of the bins for reasons that aren't apparent to other observers. Their preferences for contrast, brightness, colour balance etc is different.

Does that make sense?

Hence I know some North American members find it hard to get to stores to test BUT they get a nasty shock when they pick up a well reviewed bin and find it not for them.

Click to expand...

What he said! Absolutely spot on Pete.

Tony.

I may have written this before but contrast, resolution, eye relief, colour, CA, and field of view, both actual and apparent, are all measurable. How it feels and fits your hand, the balance, the eyecups are rather personal. As Pete, Anthony and Jonathan B. write, the manufacturers' design decisions and compromises have to be analysed by the potential user.
Should we be able to get past brand loyalties, we should understand Bawko's choice. He does not immediately appreciate any improvement in the FL's or Ultravids to warrant their purchase. I was not excited enough by the FL's to replace my two year old Victory. After all it's our money. Having written that, the top end binoculars seem to be very good with few differences and no major improvements in the last year.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:

i remember the first time i went and tried out a few pairs of leica binos at my local optics store. i had my eye on them ever since i saw bill oddie and other birders on t.v. using them in all the wildlife programmes i watched. i wasnt too taken aback by the performance at first, but to me they were still a 'must have' bino!. sad i know. anyway i eventually decided to invest in a pair this year, some 5 or 6 year after i first went to buy a pair, hoping that my cheaper binos that had been doing me fine were'nt going to show them up the first time i took them out!. but no, i have to say, even though they cost 10 times as much as my other binos! i still find them to be my perfect bino. no regrets. i have never used my other 3 or 4 pairs of binos since getting the leicas, so have since donated them to family members.

pduxon said:

May an optics novice intrude and ask....

often people talk about "scientific measurements" now I know that in hi-fi people measure the sound BUT two people can realate totally differently to the same piece of music on two different pieces of "top" equipment,

Now can the same thing happen with bins. Two bins may be set up perfectly BUT viewer A may just relate better to one of the bins than viewer B. They just prefer or dislike one of the bins for reasons that aren't apparent to other observers. Their preferences for contrast, brightness, colour balance etc is different.

Does that make sense?

Hence I know some North American members find it hard to get to stores to test BUT they get a nasty shock when they pick up a well reviewed bin and find it not for them.

Click to expand...

Of course it makes sense. Let's considerable a few variables affecting the view AFTER the light exits the binocular.

Curvature of each eye
Time of day (eyes get tired too)
Differences between the eyes
Cataracts (early ones are hard to notice but they significantly affect the view)
General health (cold, asthmatic, allergies, etc.)
Age
Medications in system (many affect eyesight)
Recently consumed foods and drinks
Atmospheric conditions (barometric pressure, external fogging, pollen, high humidity, etc.)
Eyeglasses (clean or dirty, properly fitted)
The list goes on...

The point is that the eye/brain mechanism is a living organism operating in a dynamic environment and we're all going to see things differently. A great bin gives us a fighting chance at a great view, but it does not guarantee it. Some days my SE doesn't get the job done; other days the view is so pleasurable I feel l should be sending Nikon a user fee. The best anyone can say about a particular bin is "Try this one, I think you'll like it."

John

Pete,

just to echo the chorus of approval for your observations: a mate of mine - new to birding - bought a pair of the £99 Nikons from Warehouse Express.

He actually likes them better than the Nikon HGs he'd intend to replace them with.

Now, objectively, that can't happen. But it did.

It's not as if he hasn't got a fine pair of "reference" bins to compare with (my wonderful Leica 8x32 BAs are always on hand, which as Bill suggests, are pin-sharp and fine in every way we want them to be) yet - to Alan (my mate) - the HGs just didn't match up with my bins or the "cheap" bins he had round his neck!

Strange but true - and proof that cold science and objective (no pun intended) statistics aren't the full story...

Greetings!

I paid off the balance today and picked up my new Trinovid BN 7x42's. I immediately took them to another optics shop that had a different pair of Ultravid 7x42's in stock, and once again I was amazed to see the Trinovid beat them in sharpness. The Ultravid 7x42, as with the first pair, had a slightly brighter image and better color saturation... if there wasn't so much price difference I would have a very difficult time deciding which is the better binocular.

After I got home, it was too late to go birding, so I took them to the back yard and watched the moon and stars for a while. I was completely blown away... these are the best astronomical binoculars of all the optics I own. I can't wait to go birding with them tomorrow!

Once again... truly impressive.

Best wishes,
Bawko

pduxon said:

May an optics novice intrude and ask....

often people talk about "scientific measurements" now I know that in hi-fi people measure the sound BUT two people can realate totally differently to the same piece of music on two different pieces of "top" equipment,

Now can the same thing happen with bins. Two bins may be set up perfectly BUT viewer A may just relate better to one of the bins than viewer B. They just prefer or dislike one of the bins for reasons that aren't apparent to other observers. Their preferences for contrast, brightness, colour balance etc is different.

Does that make sense?

Hence I know some North American members find it hard to get to stores to test BUT they get a nasty shock when they pick up a well reviewed bin and find it not for them.

Click to expand...

To take your analogy one stage further Pete, consider the following. Your discription of sound preference on different equipment is often influenced by listener fatigue caused by sound "colouration", a factor of the distortion in the reproduction.
I use Nikon HGs but I also have Leica BNs and my wife uses Swarovski ELs. The reason I use the Nikons is not for the absolute quality of the image, I know they suffer slightly with C.A. and a less wide field of view, but because after any extended use, I suffer practically no "viewer fatigue" or eye strain when using the Nikons, but always do when using the Leicas or ELs.
I put it down mainly to depth of field, the Nikons always seam easier to focus to me, but I suppose eye relief could also play a part.
Regarding the sound, I use a valve amp and valve CD player and I know harmonic distortion is measured higher on such equipment, but there is an almost total lack of listener fitigue as their design produces no crossover distortion, the main cause of the phenomenon.

Tony.

Anthony Martin said:

Regarding the sound, I use a valve amp and valve CD player...

Tony.

Click to expand...

We call them "tubes" in the USA. I think the British term is actually better, but you're unlikely to hear anyone call them "valves" here. Of course, the general public doesn't even know that tubes/valves exist anymore.