• 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 7x/8x 42 pre-HD, HD, HDplus transmission figures (1 Viewer)

My point wasn't that there is no difference between 7x and 8x, it was only that after comparing a borrowed 7x42 Ultravid to my 8x42 Ultravids for a couple weeks, the difference was too small for me to justify spending $2000.00 to own both. I'll admit to being surprised the difference was so small, detectable, but way less than the difference between 8 and 10 for example.

I actually do want to add another 7x to my stable, but it will probably either be a new Trinovid 7x35, or used Zeiss Classic 7x42. I'm not a birding specialist, more an outdoor generalist. I live in the mountains of NW Montana and spend a lot of time hiking in the woods and mountains. Close focus is of no importance to me, I'm typically looking at deer, bear, elk, mountain goats from a hundred yards to miles away.
 
Last edited:
adhoc said:
Thank you Tom.
Many others on here have much more experience than I, but from my limited involvement and what I have read I should think it is the 7x magnification.
This is also relevant in this way: You have not been walking on uneven ground, mountain trekking, swinging from vine to vine...so the hold is relatively steady (if it is assumed: ceteris paribus, by a Latin scholar like you, or, by us, no hangover).
Unknown in these pages to date, I think. We grow wise quietly.
Indeed it will (in regard to FOV and x). But it is too pricey and too large for me. And there is some disagreement on here about its color rendition. My choice will likely be between the Ultravid-Plus 7x42 and Nikon Monarch-HG 8x42, which has a similar FOV to the SF.

Adhoc
Click to expand...

I did wonder about the colour rendition myself but wasn't sure if it was the colour or more a lack of saturation as a result of the high brightness. For that reason I'd love to try the HT as well but I'm not sure I'll get a chance at present. Thank you for your answers - interesting and amusing to read.

Tom
 
John M Robinson said:
My point wasn't that there is no difference between 7x and 8x, it was only that after comparing a borrowed 7x42 Ultravid to my 8x42 Ultravids for a couple weeks, the difference was too small for me to justify spending $2000.00 to own both. I'll admit to being surprised the difference was so small, detectable, but way less than the difference between 8 and 10 for example.

I actually do want to add another 7x to my stable, but it will probably either be a new Trinovid 7x35, or used Zeiss Classic 7x42. I'm not a birding specialist, more an outdoor generalist. I live in the mountains of NW Montana and spend a lot of time hiking in the woods and mountains. Close focus is of no importance to me, I'm typically looking at deer, bear, elk, mountain goats from a hundred yards to miles away.
Click to expand...

John, where you live and observe sounds wonderful. I agree about the expense of having the luxury of 7x and 8x. I justified my own outlay through its being split over 3 years (i.e. 8x three years ago and 7x three weeks ago) and the 7x being a pre-owned purchase, if still not exactly cheap. I didn't know there was a 7x35 Trinovid; that sounds like an ideal daytime format. Out of interest were your Ultravids pre/non-HD, HD, or HD plus? And did either one seem any more impressive than the other apart from the difference in magnification?
 
Last edited:
Hi Andreas,

Actually, I have a great preference for small size and the Leica Uv. is best for that reason--unless some other very good, small 7x42 model has been launched when/if I decide on the purchase!

On this page [link] and the one before in another thread I explain my situation (this was 1-2 weeks ago).
 
Tom, at least one competent critic has said (in this forum) that the SF has a green(?ish) cast. Whether this can be caused by high brightness I cannot yet understand. Been reading a bit on color perception through binoculars. Complex! Not only is it determined, inter alia (ha!), by the spectrum sensitivity also of the user (his/her optical-neural system), but this fascinating factor: [link]. Historically (right until modern times), in my own first language, as in Japanese, blue and green were one. To pre-empt a natural question on that last statement may I please refer you to post #23 of the thread I link in my last post above here!
 
Adhoc,

I have the Leica UV HD 8X42 and the MHG 8X42. If I I were to choose today I would bite the bullet i.e. $$ and get the leica 7X42, hands down.

Just my 2 cents,

Andy W.
 
adhoc said:
Tom, at least one competent critic has said (in this forum) that the SF has a green(?ish) cast. Whether this can be caused by high brightness I cannot yet understand. Been reading a bit on color perception through binoculars. Complex! Not only is it determined, inter alia (ha!), by the spectrum sensitivity also of the user (his/her optical-neural system), but this fascinating factor: [link]. Historically (right until modern times), in my own first language, as in Japanese, blue and green were one. To pre-empt a natural question on that last statement may I please refer you to post #23 of the thread I link in my last post above here!
Click to expand...

adhoc, my thinking before answering was lazy. I think I meant that to me the overall pictorial effect looked a bit unsaturated perhaps because of the brightness. That's all I can safely say: any colour effects I noticed were only as a result of comparing with another make, which as Troubador pointed out, has its own cooler colour bias. All in all I thought the SF was magnificent and if I were given one I'd take it like a shot. The handling was fantastic. Unless constantly comparing with other bins for colour saturation I think I'd be very happy with the SF.

About blue/green, I find this interesting. Certain shades of blue/green do elicit different responses from people. I tried out various types of blue-black ink in fountain pens and the modern formulations generally dry to a greenish shade to many users' eyes. Asking people about the colour of the dried inks some insisted they were simply blue; others saw a greenish or teal shade. The colour known as Cambridge blue is more green than blue to me - until I hold it against a stronger green. A lot of fountain pen inks by different manufacturers, those that have a name including the word 'blue', are noticeably greenish.

Back to binoculars, I really am a layman but have posted quite a lot - partly because i am interested, partly because I like writing. But I should be more careful writing about colour on here because fine differentiation isn't my strong point.

Tom
 
Hello,


My opinion about the coloring of binoculars ...

All three major manufacturers (Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica) have a slightly different color philosophy, while the Swarovskis are slightly higher in blue, the Zeiss dominate the green parts, while Leica shines with beautiful red / brown.

I also see the green in the Zeiss 8x42 SF slightly higher, especially in poor visibility, in bright light it is very good, maybe just a "fair weather glass"?

Andreas
 
Andy: On your reckoning it would actually tot up to about 4 cents now because you helped me out on this recently in that other thread, thanks!

Tom: "...my thinking before answering was lazy. I think I meant that to me the overall pictorial effect looked a bit unsaturated perhaps because of the brightness." What you wrote did convey to me what you say here, so the self-criticism may be unjust.

"A lot of fountain pen inks"! "by different manufacturers"! Today. I never even knew.

"...I really am a layman but have posted quite a lot - partly because i am interested, partly because I like writing. But I should be more careful writing about colour on here because fine differentiation isn't my strong point." I hope all this does not drive you from English to Piraha (see at my last link). But the point of all that is difficulty in differentiation.

Andreas: "...the Swarovskis are slightly higher in blue, the Zeiss dominate the green parts, while Leica shines with beautiful red / brown." I reckon that this is how everyone's perceptions of the images of these three makes will average out, except that some will disagree about "beautiful" for Leica!
 
adhoc said:
Tom, at least one competent critic has said (in this forum) that the SF has a green(?ish) cast. Whether this can be caused by high brightness I cannot yet understand.!
Click to expand...

Prof. Gijs van Ginkel who has measured the light transmission of SF (and whose test results have been verified by the major European brands) has stated several times on Bird Forum that his results do not support the perception of such a cast. It therefore seems likely this perception stems from the observer's personal colour 'processing'.

Lee
 
Lee I did remember something like that.

I would like to know others' ideas on this, copied from my last post, stressing the word "perceptions":
"...the Swarovskis are slightly higher in blue, the Zeiss dominate the green parts, while Leica shines with...red / brown." I reckon that this is how everyone's perceptions of the images of these three makes will average out...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
My perception is that Leica displays reds slightly stronger than I see the reds with the naked eye, Swaro does the same with blue but to a lesser extent (we really are splitting very thin hairs at this point) and to an even lesser extent Zeiss shows green a tiny bit stronger.

But sometimes members refer to a colour cast which I interpret as a thin wash of the culprit colour over the whole view and not just a slightly strong rendering of the colour concerned, so a red colour cast in my interpretation would mean a faint red 'mist' over the whole view even when there are no red objects in the field of view. In support of this interpretation I quote the Oxford On-line Dictionary:
"an unwanted colour affecting the whole of an image evenly" To see the rest of the definition go to: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/colour_cast

So to clarify, I do not perceive a colour cast in the sense defined above in either Leica, Swarovski or Zeiss binos.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
My perception is that Leica displays reds slightly stronger than I see the reds with the naked eye, Swaro does the same with blue but to a lesser extent (we really are splitting very thin hairs at this point) and to an even lesser extent Zeiss shows green a tiny bit stronger.

But sometimes members refer to a colour cast which I interpret as a thin wash of the culprit colour over the whole view and not just a slightly strong rendering of the colour concerned, so a red colour cast in my interpretation would mean a faint red 'mist' over the whole view even when there are no red objects in the field of view. In support of this interpretation I quote the Oxford On-line Dictionary:
"an unwanted colour affecting the whole of an image evenly" To see the rest of the definition go to: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/colour_cast

So to clarify, I do not perceive a colour cast in the sense defined above in either Leica, Swarovski or Zeiss binos.

Lee
Click to expand...

Useful new knowledge to me there, Lee: i.e. the difference between a colour cast that affects the whole image and a colour bias that affects only a particular colour.

You mentioned Leica and its rendering of reds to me in a recent post and so I went looking for this in my own observation with Leica UVHD and compared it against the Zeiss Dialyt. Because there had been mention by others of colours going greenish in their perception of the SF's rendering -- for example grey/brown bark, as mentioned in a review -- I was looking for a reddish cast from the Leica to the greens and grey-browns of my garden foliage and fencing. I couldn't see it, but a pink rose in the same lighting does look too rich; it gave me a touch of how I'd feel if I ate too many over-ripe apricots! So if this is right, that certain colours can come out strongly without involving an overall cast, that is a useful piece of knowledge. Presumably I saw the overrich effect in the pink because pink involves red. That must be what you meant by Leica's colour looking a bit cartoon-like in your perception. Good forum this; always good to learn new things. :)

Please correct me if the science goes against my understanding of your post. The more I learn the more I realize I don't know. Happy to be at one with Plato in that!
 
Conndomat said:
Hello,


My opinion about the coloring of binoculars ...

All three major manufacturers (Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica) have a slightly different color philosophy, while the Swarovskis are slightly higher in blue, the Zeiss dominate the green parts, while Leica shines with beautiful red / brown.

I also see the green in the Zeiss 8x42 SF slightly higher, especially in poor visibility, in bright light it is very good, maybe just a "fair weather glass"?

Andreas
Click to expand...

Is what I am about to say a red herring? I read recently that traditionally Zeiss were stronger on green -- possibly stronger than now? -- because this made animals stand out more clearly against a brighter than natural background.

I'm not commenting on how SF does render greens as you and others have more expertise in this sort of thing!

Tom
 
SeldomPerched said:
Presumably I saw the overrich effect in the pink because pink involves red. That must be what you meant by Leica's colour looking a bit cartoon-like in your perception. Good forum this; always good to learn new things. :)
Click to expand...

My use of the phrase 'cartoon-like' was probably over-emphasising the point to get it across. Leicas do not really deliver a cartoon-like view.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
My use of the phrase 'cartoon-like' was probably over-emphasising the point to get it across. Leicas do not really deliver a cartoon-like view.

Lee
Click to expand...

Of course. But the rose did somehow look too warm; I don't know if that is to do with the slight extra redness you mention. It just struck me as it stood there behind a big green hydrangea that hasn't come into flower yet.

Tom
 
Troubador said:
Prof. Gijs van Ginkel who has measured the light transmission of SF (and whose test results have been verified by the major European brands) has stated several times on Bird Forum that his results do not support the perception of such a cast. It therefore seems likely this perception stems from the observer's personal colour 'processing'.

Lee
Click to expand...

difficult, difficult,

Lee, I can only say so much, I look through the Zeiss SF 8x42 and through the Zeiss Victory 7x42, 8x32 or Zeiss Conquest 8x32 / 10x32 I feel the "green parts" in the SF most clearly.
The SF has the best contrast of all binoculars, but that's another question.

Andreas
 
SeldomPerched said:
Of course. But the rose did somehow look too warm; I don't know if that is to do with the slight extra redness you mention. It just struck me as it stood there behind a big green hydrangea that hasn't come into flower yet.

Tom
Click to expand...

Just to emphasize amidst discussion of colour differences that overall I still think the Leica colour effect is superb, as is the Zeiss, and it is a pleasure using these fine instruments. :t:
 
Conndomat said:
difficult, difficult,

Lee, I can only say so much, I look through the Zeiss SF 8x42 and through the Zeiss Victory 7x42, 8x32 or Zeiss Conquest 8x32 / 10x32 I feel the "green parts" in the SF most clearly.
The SF has the best contrast of all binoculars, but that's another question.

Andreas
Click to expand...

Andreas

To help us understand what you see are we correct that you mean any green parts in the view seem 'stronger' than other colours and that you do not mean that the whole image looks a little green? This is what I understand from you saying you feel the green parts most clearly.

Lee
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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.

Similar threads

R
Transmission Ultravid HD plus
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
SeldomPerched
S
N
Ultravid 7x42 HD+ vs Noctivid 8x42
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
8K
Scott98
S
M
Leica Trinovid 10x32 BN vs HD
Replies
5
Views
667
tenex
tenex
etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
S
Leica view comparison idea...
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
LucaPCP
L

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top