• 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.

Leica 7x42 Ultravid HD+ owners thoughts. (1 Viewer)

[email protected] said:
10x times 6.6 degrees= 66 degrees apparent (Swarovski 10x50 SV)

10x times 6.5 degrees= 65 degrees apparent (Zeiss 10x42 SF)
Click to expand...

The simple 10 times formula works as an approximative only. Look up the specs of Swaro and Zeiss. Both the SF 8x42 and 10x42 have a bigger AFOV and bigger real FOV than the SV 10x50. ;)

But my Swaro scope has 70 ° AFOV and 50 x magnification!!! Now that is impressive! :-O
 
[email protected] said:
10x times 6.6 degrees= 66 degrees apparent (Swarovski 10x50 SV)

10x times 6.5 degrees= 65 degrees apparent (Zeiss 10x42 SF)

(That is using Frank's equations. Apparent field of view = Magnification x Real field of view)
Click to expand...

it's an approximative formula,
not the REAL value...

check the specs at swaro

http://aa.swarovskioptik.com/nature/el-c21011003/el-10x50-p5222918

I did compare them, no way the swaro have a larger AFOV

and by the way, SF 10x42 have a LARGER FOV than the Swaro 10x50...
so your figures can't be correct..
 
Torview said:
K

I've been birding this week, both in woods and on the coast where the birds are a great distance, my mates have their 10's and I have my 7, I'm always first to pick up whats around because I have a larger rock steady fov, and I don't know how far away a bird would need to be for a 10x to see it and a 7x not !, has'nt happened to me yet.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you are still going to see more detail with the 10x. Sometimes it makes a difference when you are trying to ID a bird. 10x is a definite advantage when trying to ID hawks at distance unless you are a better birder than me. Especially when two species are close in appearance.
 
Last edited:
Torview said:
I thought the 10x42 SF was 6.9deg.
Click to expand...

10x42 SF - 6.84 °
10x50 SV - 6.56 °

(I won't go into meters or yards, that will only confuse...)

according to ISO 14132-1:2002 standard* the AFOV:s are
10x42 SF - 61.7 °
10x50 SV - 59.6 °

*An AFOV more than 60° is considered wide angle
 
Vespobuteo said:
it's an approximative formula,
not the REAL value...

check the specs at swaro

http://aa.swarovskioptik.com/nature/el-c21011003/el-10x50-p5222918

I did compare them, no way the swaro have a larger AFOV

and by the way, SF 10x42 have a LARGER FOV than the Swaro 10x50...
so your figures can't be correct..
Click to expand...
The specifications on the Zeiss website say the Zeiss 10x42 SF has a 6.5 degree FOV.
http://www.zeiss.com/sports-optics/...-binoculars/victory-sf-binoculars.html#models

The specifications on the Swarovski website say the Swarovski 10x50 SV has a 6.6 degree FOV.
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...a.swarovskioptik.com/nature/...10x50-p5222918

6.6 degrees is wider than 6.5 degrees isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Torview said:
I thought the 10x42 SF was 6.9deg.
Click to expand...

That is something I have been wondering about. The Zeiss USA website specs for the 10X42 SF are 360 ft FOV at 1,000 yards (Zeiss England shows 120m at 1,000 m) yet the USA specs go on to say it has a "subjective" viewing angle of 6.5* (degrees). I am not sure what they mean by "subjective" when listing the viewing angle. The England site says 65* (degrees) apparent field of view. Looks like Zeiss USA backed into the "subjective" number using a more precise (ISO?, Measured?) apparent field of view vs the simple AFOV calculation of power times viewing angle.

With one angular degree equating to 52.5 feet (17.5 meters), 360 feet FOV divided by 52.5 gives an angle of view equal to 6.9 degrees (rounded). Going with that number and the simple formula stated by Frank, the apparent FOV for the 10X42 SF equals 69 degrees. This may be a more apples to apples comparison to the other models discussed above.

http://www.zeiss.com/sports-optics/...-binoculars/victory-sf-binoculars.html#models

http://www.zeiss.co.uk/sports-optic...-binoculars/victory-sf-binoculars.html#models
 
Vespobuteo said:
10x42 SF - 6.84 °
10x50 SV - 6.56 °

(I won't go into meters or yards, that will only confuse...)

according to ISO 14132-1:2002 standard* the AFOV:s are
10x42 SF - 61.7 °
10x50 SV - 59.6 °

*An AFOV more than 60° is considered wide angle
Click to expand...
Where did you get 6.84 degrees for Zeiss 10x42 SF? The Zeiss website says 6.5 degrees. My figures are correct. I think the 360 FOV for the Zeiss 10x42 SF is what is incorrect. It doesn't correlate with 6.5 degrees. Also, the Zeiss UK website says the Zeiss 10x42 SF has a 65 degree AFOV which is just what I calculated.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...ww.zeiss.com/sports-optics/e...rs.html#models

http://www.zeiss.co.uk/sports-optic...-binoculars/victory-sf-binoculars.html#models
 
Last edited:
Just a few quick comments as I only check the forums in the evenings on my phone.

1. I don't have a 7x42 on hand at the moment for comparison so I can't comment.

2. My experience is that the impressions we are left with when evaluating apparent field of view can be influenced by things such as the ocular diameter, exit pupil, eye relief level and most notably the type of distortion off axis. I haven't really spent much time trying to explain the latter but it is an impression I have gotten when using binoculars with equal overall specs but different levels/types of edge performance.
 
Dennis ..... It looks like I was writing my note when you posted.

Here is how the numbers compare on the SF 10X42 and the Swaro SV EL 10X50 when calculated using the same method.

Swaro 10X50:
FOV at 1,000 per Swaro is 345 feet
Calculated Angle of View is 345 feet divided by 52.5 feet, giving a 6.6 (rounded) degee viewing angle.
Calculated Apparent Field of View using the simple method is 10 power times 6.6* view angle giving 66 degrees.

Zeis 10X42 SF:
FOV at 1,000 per Zeiss is 360 feet
Calculated Angle of View is 360 feet divided by 52.5 feet, giving a 6.9 (rounded) degee viewing angle.
Calculated Apparent Field of View using the simple method is 10 power times 6.9* view angle giving 69 degrees.

This is a 69 degree AFOV for the SF and 66 degree AFOV for the SV using the simple method.


Follow-up on seeing the last post from Dennis:

Dennis, note that the Swaro USA site lists a 62 degree AFOV for the SV EL 10X50. It looks like that is a more precise number (as also used by Zeiss England) than the 66 degrees using the simple method. If you were to back into the Angle of View like it appears Zeiss USA did, then the Swaro Angle of View would be 6.2 degrees, not 6.6 degrees.

http://www.swarovskioptik.com/nature/el-50-c21011003/el-10x50-p5222918

Method 1 comparison AFOV as stated on the web sites:
Zeiss SF AFOV - 65 degrees, Swaro SV - 62 degrees.

Method 2 comparison AFOV using the simple calculation:
Zeiss SF AFOV - 69 degrees, Swaro SV - 66 degrees.
 
Last edited:
BruceH said:
Dennis ..... It looks like I was writing my note when you posted.

Here is how the numbers compare on the SF 10X42 and the Swaro SV EL 10X50 when calculated using the same method.

Swaro 10X50:
FOV at 1,000 per Swaro is 345 feet
Calculated Angle of View is 345 feet divided by 52.5 feet, giving a 6.6 (rounded) degee viewing angle.
Calculated Apparent Field of View using the simple method is 10 power times 6.6* view angle giving 66 degrees.

Zeis 10X42 SF:
FOV at 1,000 per Zeiss is 360 feet
Calculated Angle of View is 360 feet divided by 52.5 feet, giving a 6.9 (rounded) degee viewing angle.
Calculated Apparent Field of View using the simple method is 10 power times 6.9* view angle giving 69 degrees.

This is a 69 degree AFOV for the SF and 66 degree AFOV for the SV using the simple method.

Follow up on seeing Dennis' last post:

Dennis, note that the Swaro USA site lists a 62 degree AFOV for the SV EL 10X50. It looks like that is a more precise number (as also used by Zeiss England) than the 66 degrees using the simple method. If you were to back into the Angle of View like it appears Zeiss did, then the Swaro Angle of View would be 6.2 degrees, not 6.6 degrees.

Method 1 comparision:
Zeiss SF AFOV - 65 degrees, Swaro SV - 62 degrees.

Method 2
Zeiss SF AFOV - 69 degrees, Swaro SV - 66 degrees.
Click to expand...
Yes ,but both Zeiss websites SAY the FOV is 6.5 degrees. I don't think the 360 foot figure is correct so you can't use it in your calculations. You are telling me that Zeiss doesn't know how to calculate their own AFOV on their own binoculars. Zeiss doesn't say any where that the 10x42 SF has a 6.9 degree FOV. If Zeiss gives an incorrect FOV number of 6.5 degrees how can you assume that the 360 foot FOV figure is correct? If the 6.5 degree FOV is incorrect on the Zeiss SF what makes you so sure the 360 foot FOV specification is correct?
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Yes ,but both Zeiss websites SAY the FOV is 6.5 degrees. I don't think the 360 foot figure is correct so you can't use it in your calculations. You are telling me that Zeiss doesn't know how to calculate their own AFOV on their own binoculars. Zeiss doesn't say any where that the 10x42 SF has a 6.9 degree FOV. If Zeiss gives an incorrect FOV number of 6.5 degrees how can you assume that the 360 foot FOV figure is correct? If the 6.5 degree FOV is incorrect on the Zeiss SF what makes you so sure the 360 foot FOV specification is correct?
Click to expand...

[email protected] said:
Yes ,but both Zeiss websites SAY the FOV is 6.5 degrees. .......
Click to expand...

No, the Zeiss USA web site does not say the FOV is 6.5 degrees. It says the " Subjective" Viewing Angle is 6.5 degrees. They do not define what they mean by adding the "Subjective" term.


[email protected] said:
........ I don't think the 360 foot figure is correct so you can't use it in your calculations.......
Click to expand...

What is the basis for that conclusion? I believe this was discussed several months ago and the FOV was confirmed. I could not find the 10X discussion, but here is a post where the 8X was measured and it was right on. If Zeiss did not fudge the 8X, there is no reason to think they fudged the 10X. I have directly compared the 10X SF to other 10X models with a spec of about 340 ft (Nikon 10X42 EDG, Canon 10X42 IS, Vanguard EDII, etc) and the SF has a noticeably larger FOV. The stated 360 ft FOV appears valid to me.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3277154&postcount=3008

[email protected] said:
..... You are telling me that Zeiss doesn't know how to calculate their own AFOV on their own binoculars. .......
Click to expand...

No, I am not saying that. I am saying they are using a different method to arrive at a viewing angle specification.


[email protected] said:
.....Zeiss doesn't say any where that the 10x42 SF has a 6.9 degree FOV. ......
Click to expand...

That is correct, Zeiss does not state 6.9 degrees because they apparently used some other method when originally stating the apparent field of view. Also let me point out that Swaro never said the apparent FOV of the 10X50 was 66 degrees. They said it was 62 degrees. You said it was 66 degrees because you used a different approach.

[email protected] said:
........ If Zeiss gives an incorrect FOV number of 6.5 degrees how can you assume that the 360 foot FOV figure is correct? ......
Click to expand...

As already mentioned, Zeiss appears to have arrived at the "subjective" viewing angle (not FOV) by using an AFOV calculated using a different method than the simple method. As explained above, I feel comfortable with the stated 360 FOV.

[email protected] said:
........If the 6.5 degree FOV is incorrect on the Zeiss SF what makes you so sure the 360 foot FOV specification is correct?
Click to expand...

I think the above covers this already.

Even if you want to reject all of this, please go back and re-read my previous post and absorb the numbers. The point is both Zeiss and Swaro came up with the specs based on something other than the simple method. As pointed out under the Method 2 heading in my above post, Swaro explicitly states the AFOV of the SV EL 10X50 is 62 degrees and Zeiss explicitly states the AFOV of the SF 10X42 is 65 degrees. There is a bottom line if you want one.

Dennis, in an above post you asked "6.6 degrees is wider than 6.5 degrees isn't it?". I thought it was a sincere question and I was just trying to offer an explanation for what appears to be a discrepancy. I am not trying to knock the Swaro 10X50. It is a fine binocular.
 
Why is it OK for the same guy, time and time again, to hijack threads to push his newest optical bromance?

When does someone say this is just not OK any more?
 
In an attempt to tie all of the FOV stuff into the topic of the Leica 7X42 HD Plus, here are the numbers.

Per Leica, FOV is 420 ft or 140 m at 1,000 yds or 1,000 m.
Per Leica, the angle of view is 8 degrees.
The calculated angle of view is the same, 420 ft divided by 52.5 ft per angular degree, gives 8 degrees.
The metric calculation is 140 m divided by 17.5 meters giving 8 degrees.
Apparent FOV using the simple method is 7 power times the 8 degrees angle of view giving 56 degrees AFOV.

Nikon has the 7X42 EDG with the same field of view. They calculate the apparent FOV using an ISO standard so using their number is a way to see how the simple method result compares to what may be a more precise method. The Nikon site lists the apparent FOV at 52.2 degrees compared to 56 degrees using the simple method.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/....html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs

The Leica Download page is one way to view the 42 mm HD Plus brochure ......

https://us.leica-camera.com/Service-Support/Support/Downloads

Here is a link that may bring up the brochure PDF directly....

https://us.leica-camera.com/content...Leica_SO_Pi_Ultravid HD-PLUS_42er_1114_en.pdf
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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

N
Ultravid 7x42 HD+ vs Noctivid 8x42
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
8K
Scott98
S
B
Choosing 8x32 vs 7x42 vs 8x25
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
TheBlackGrouse
TheBlackGrouse
M
Accessories for Ultravid 8x32 HD+
Replies
12
Views
1K
limonabe
L
R
Leica Bins
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Bentley03
B
etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R

Users who are viewing this thread

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