• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Ultravid 10x42 or 10x50 (1 Viewer)

Would appreciate an advice - wish to purchase a first "big-size" Leica for birding (so far have Pentax 10x50 DCF WP and Leica ultravid 10x25).

My first idea was to buy a "classical birding configuration" of 10x42, which will be lighter then the 10x50.

However, since the price of these two Ultravids are quite high (and similar - around 2000 USD), it make sense to buy the bigger one since it is more versatile and can be used beside birding also for astronomy, for dim light situations etc. Also, usage a pair of Leica's 10x25 and 10x50 makes sense.

Is the extra weight and length of the 10x50 over the 10x42 so noticeable for extended usage?

Thanks in advance
 
Hi Amnon,
For all day birding trips, 8 ounces is a large difference. I am sort of new to this, and am using a Trinovid 8x42, which weighs 31.4 ounces. Several people here have remarked that it was also their first Leica, and that while they were satisfied with the optics, the weight eventually forced them to change to something different. A shoulder harness should make the weight of the 50mm bearable, however.

But the weight issue is very subjective, and I think people are influenced as much by knowing there's something lighter available as by the actual weight of their binocular. For me, currently carrying 31.4 ounces, I would take the 10x50 and 4 more, rather than the 10x42 and 4 less, ounces. My reasoning is totally subjective:
1) The 50mm has a wider true field, and greater eye relief. It gets really bright where I live, and I often wear sunglasses, so eye relief is important to me.
2) I am first an astronomer, and have compared two excellent Porros on the stars, the Nikon 10x42 SE and the Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50. The extra aperture of the Fujinon is obvious, and much appreciated.
3) My daytime bino for almost 3 years was a 7x50 Fujinon FMT-SX, at 50 ounces! I have yet to see any roof bino that can beat it optically, but it was a tad heavy and hard to work. To me the Trinovid is like a feather!
Ron
 
Ron is correct in his observations. I have used in the past, Swarovski SLC (old), Leica Trinovid 8x42, Ultravid 8x42, and am now back to Trinovid 10x42. Both the Trinovids & the SLC were a heavy binocular. For me personally one of the things I detested about the Ultravid was its lack of weight. Personally I find that a heavy binocular is able to be held more steady (for me that is) - which is where it gets subjective as Ron says.
I have found that the Leica strap is very good anyway these days. My first Trinovids had a rubber strap with no stretch at all in it - it wasn't the weight that got me but the strap used to chafe the back of my neck in summer when I had no coat! The new strap is wider & has some stretch in it due to it been impregnated with neoprene - therefore the glasses dont feel as heavy anyway.

I did recently borrow a pair of new SLC 8 x 50, which are quite a heavy binocular, probably more so that the U/Vid. It wasn't the weight that got to me but the length and general size of them, they just seemed massive and constsntly got in my way, but again I am use to a more conventional size binocular. This may not be an issue to you as you are used to having a 10x50 anyway, but personally I found it was a real burden - though it was 'character building' - and it made me appreciate my own smaller ones a bit more!

I can only speak for myself - but I reguarly go out on 6 hour walks and the weight is no issue to me personally (though I should say I weigh 19 stone, and have been a prop forward for the last 20+years which helps!) - Maybe it is what I have just grown used to. At the end of the day what if there were no lightweight binoculars? - we would all have to use heavy ones and lump it!!!! In the final analysis DR Amnon you must buy what you feel comfortable with as that is what you must use. Let us know how you get on though.

Shalom to you in sunny Israel Dr Amnon
Mick.
 
Last edited:
Ultravid 10x42 vs. Ultravid 10x50

Ron, Mick,

Thanks for the advices so far. Will try to compare - maybe the best way. So far could find and compare at the same store the Ultravid 10x42 and the Duovid 8-12X42 (which is close to the weight of the U 10x50, but shorter). Found that the Duovid was really too heavy and bulky for me. Maybe the longer U 10x50 balance's would be better.

Best regards

Amnon
 
Hi Amnon,
After thinking some more about your question, several facts stand out.

Most birders prefer 32mm over 42mm for its size and weight, unless very lowlight viewing is important. Many estimate that 42mm gives only an additional 20 minutes of use into dusk. Very few birders use 50mm, probably almost none for long birding walks.

Size matters. (This pop phrase comes from a recent American giant monster movie, which I hope did not appear in Israel. The monster, however, was covered with a nice grippy rubber cladding.) When I carry my wife's 8.5x42 Swarovski EL, I am annoyed with its additional inch of length over my Trinovid, and fear that an uncapped lens could hit my belt buckle, something in the car, etc. The 10x50 Ultravid is another half inch longer still.

Your Pentax is within 3 ounces and 0.3 inches of the big Leica. You already know almost exactly what you would be in for. Only if you enjoy carrying it all day, will you enjoy carrying the 10x50 Ultravid. And if you don't enjoy that, it won't be worth the money. And, I would bet, you don't.

The Pentax is said to be very good optically, however. It's main shortcoming is its small field of view. This is no handicap for distant birds, but takes some of the fun out of viewing star fields, and makes it harder to find one's way around in the sky. Still it seems like a very useful instrument.

Considering these things, I think you should purchase the 42mm Ultravid. It will be a most enjoyable birding binocular, and still safely on the big side for low-light birding situations. For stars, continue to use the Pentax for the deeper view, although the 42mm wouldn't be bad at all.

No single binocular, regardless of quality, can do very many things well. It is better to have a collection of binos that serve special purposes, even if each one is not of the very highest quality.

Good luck, Dr.
Ron
 
Ultravid 10x42 vs. Ultravid 10x50

Ron,

First of all thank you for the good will and efforts.

Since 10x50 is not available here without a special order, and of course no store will allow 1 day trial to examine the comfortless, trying this with Pentax is a good idea. Will try it for longer bird watching tasks.

The main Pentax shortcoming for me is the Chromatic Aberrations (green-purple) which are quite noticeable, especially when you look at objects/ birds while the skies are the background. Besides the optics is very very sharp, and the ergonomics is fine.

My reason for choosing Leica is the color reproduction which makes the view (for me) pleasing like no other binoculars I have ever used. Also, the light transmittance which yields brighter and crisper image.

Agree with you that choosing L 10x42 for birding and leaving the Pentax for other tasks make more sense. Unless the budget issue (high and close prices of the two Leica's), and the fact that the 10x50 was my first "true" binocular I used to, the choosing was much easier.

If the movie is Incredible Hulk - is is here.

Best regards

Amnon
 
I have a 10x42 u/vid and I can tell you it is excellent for astronomy and birding. The only draw back you'll ever be likely to experience is a higher than expected CA level (to me any way). If I had my time again, I would consider the 8x50 Trinovid over the 10x42 Ultravid, or the new 8x50 HD. 8x is easier to hand hold, larger exit pupil which translates to comfort when viewing. If I was only interested in birding and not astronomy I would obtain a 7x42 Ultravid HD.

Wal. Soto - Melbourne Australia
 
I think you need to try them yourself.

In the view of many here x8 or even x7 is better for birding as you see more due to less shake, and a wider field.

One advantage of a 50mm objective is that in day time on a bright day your iris will be stopped down to ~2mm and you will be using only the centre part of the objective. Most aberrations comes from the edges. And because the 50mm binocular will have longer focal length objectives, you should see less aberrations, so you should get a better view, all else being equal. But only usage will determine if that is indeed the case. And personally I would find 50mm bins too heavy.

Have you thought about the Nikon 10x40 ED? Said to be one of the best astro. bins around and not bad at all for birding? Though some people experience black outs from the eyepieces.
 
Hi Amnon,
After thinking some more about your question, several facts stand out.

Most birders prefer 32mm over 42mm for its size and weight, unless very lowlight viewing is important. Many estimate that 42mm gives only an additional 20 minutes of use into dusk. Very few birders use 50mm, probably almost none for long birding walks.
Is this a fact? And if so, does it stand out? Most people over here (western europe) us 42mm. 32mm is used by people who bird less, or travel. It's not about the 20 minutes into dusk or dawn, but about the extra brightness you will expect EVERY moment looking through the bin. If you have dull light, drizzle, rain, or the bird against the sun, or a flying bird with bright sky, you are allways better of with more brightness. You will allways have a better view with a bin that lets more light go through!
I don't quite understand you are saying a lighter bin is better for long walks, while you have a brick like a trinovid around your neck?
When I carry my wife's 8.5x42 Swarovski EL, I am annoyed with its additional inch of length over my Trinovid, and fear that an uncapped lens could hit my belt buckle, something in the car, etc. The 10x50 Ultravid is another half inch longer still.
If you have your bins properly around your neck, the strap should be short and your bins shouldn't hang that low. I wonder what you want to say with something in the car?

And if you don't enjoy that, it won't be worth the money. And, I would bet, you don't.
A friend of me is birding for the last 7 years with this bin. He has seen 4500 species with this bin, and he is very pleased. If you are a hardcore birdwatcher, the 10x50 has only a weight disadvantage, but this is only small compared to the advantages of wider field and brighter image.

The Pentax ... ...main shortcoming is its small field of view. This is no handicap for distant birds, but takes some of the fun out of viewing star fields, and makes it harder to find one's way around in the sky. Still it seems like a very useful instrument.
A small FOV is allways a handicap. The human mind is focused on about 10 degrees sharp view (the other 150 degrees you see, but not sharp at the same time). If your FOV is 5, you cannot view through that bin the whole day. If it is 6 or more, you can call it good enough. If you have a FOV of more than 8, it's a pleasure to see through.

No single binocular, regardless of quality, can do very many things well. It is better to have a collection of binos that serve special purposes, even if each one is not of the very highest quality.
Whatever you buy, you always want to use the one that is brightest and sharpest. You won't use the ones with inferior quality, even if they have e.g. the quality of being lighter. The only thing that will come up in your mind seeing a distant bird is: I should have brought my other bins.
 
Last edited:
Temmie: the "bigger is always brighter" argument doesn't hold any water during the day. The amount of light entering the eye is limited by the size of the eye's pupil which even in overcast twilight (for the average user - see below) won't exceed 4mm.

So a 5mm or 6mm exit pupil doesn't deliver more light. It does make the bin easier to align with the eye's entrance pupil and more comfortable to use but that's a different (but valid) argument.

The best way to resolve this issue is to measure your own eye's pupil under different lighting conditions. It's easy with a digital camera and a ruler. People generally vary by a mm or so either larger or smaller than the average value. Older people tend to be smaller (but that trend doesn't always hold true either). Use that number (rather than the average) to guide you choice of exit pupil).

Note this doesn't deny the different and difficult lighting conditions in Northern Europe in autumn and winter compared to, say, the Southern US. I grew up in NW England so I know about 4pm sunsets, overcast skies and rain. Heck that sounds almost like the Pacific Northwest of the USA where I live now.

But birding optics is full of a lot of myths that get passed on without too much critical thought: Manly birders need BIG optics. ;)

BTW my best quality bin is also the lightest (a 17oz Zeiss Conquest 8x30). The weight of the bin and the optical quality are not necessarily correlated. And you'll find teh Alpha bin makers doing their best to reduce weight. There is little virtue in carrying an excessively heavy bin with a large aperture that you can't fully use.
 
Last edited:
Temmie,
10x50 definitely shows more than 8x, and is understandably appreciated by the hardcore birder. But for me, it's tiring after a while, mainly because of the increased shake, not the weight. I am a rather casual birdwatcher and sightseer, nothing like your friend, or possibly yourself. I am more interested in a relaxing experience, and an enjoyable view, not so interested in the species tally.

From reading this forum, and other birdwatching resources, I believe the 8x32 to be the most popular size, at least for daytime use. But such forums bring out binocular enthusiasts like myself, so my belief may be wrongly skewed by this effect.

One thing I most enjoy is owls, even though half the time I don't see any, so I feel the need for at least 42mm in the dim twilight. As you point out, the Trinovid that I used is relatively heavy, but it doesn't bother me somehow. (Kevin is lucky) My best quality binocular is a 50-ounce Fujinon 7x50 porro! That's the one I always wish (almost) I had.

The strap on my Trinovid is as short as my nose will allow, and it is a short binocular, but when I lean around in the car, the objectives come close to the seatbelt sockets sometimes.

Thanks for your differing point of view. I truly wish that I could enjoy using a higher powered binocular. I know it has its advantages.
Ron
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top