Vespobuteo, Thanks for this. I had seen some of those reviews before, but not all in one place. I've read a number of them including the 10x42 NV, 10x50 UV, 12x50 UV, 10x42 SF and 10x42 EL.
I didn't glean any useful or meaningful information with regard to a comparison of the 10x50 UV vs 10x42 NV, but it did become apparent that the reviewer likes flat fields and sharpness to the field stop. He was very complementary in his reviews about nearly every aspect of the three Lieca's except for criticising them for not having flat fields and edge-to-edge sharpness. He consistently gave the nod to Swarovski's for that reason and dismissed Ziess due to poor build quality.
I suppose that one has to read any review with the reviewers bias's in mind. That's fine, but it would have been nice if he had acknowledged, if only once, the fact that many people don't regard curved fields and soft edges as a fault. I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around. I simply move the binocular, and do the same even if it's mounted on a tripod.
Oh well, each their own, but an acknowledgement that field curvature and soft edges are a design choice made by the manufacturer rather than a fault would have been nice in what otherwise are excellent reviews.
Any more opinions regarding the 10x42 NV and 10x50 UV?