Back to Leica..UVID 7x42 HD part 2 (1 Viewer)

well i owned one of these a couple of years ago and loved it....i sold it because i wanted to put the money towards something else....in the meantime ive tried to like a few other binos as much....

zeiss FL 7x42
vortex viper 6x32
swaro EL 8x32


the zeiss was really bright, but lets be honest, its not like uvid hd's arent??!?! the zeiss image falloff from center was more apparent the more i used them and the eyecups werent as comfortable as i wouldve liked...plus although fractionally lighter, it is bigger than the UVID 7x42. I prefer the leica compactness, sweet spot, build, and eyecups to the FL.

the viper has the same FOV in 6x as leica in 7x...small bino with a good image for sure but the image does degrade faster towards the edge than leica (and it should as cost is immensely different)...the left barrel on my sample was noticeably less sharp than the right

swaro was awesome but sometimes 8x is too shaky for the woods...swarovsison 7x32 would be my dream bino with 450' FOV


I seriously considered the meopta 7x42 this time as i know its great but its a brick and the focuser is nowhere near as smooth as the new uvid HD...it take more effort to turn it... also no click stops for eyecups which i prefer but it does have the field flattener and an awesome, although sometimes yellowish, image.... the meopta might even have an easier view to get on target as it has 20mm of eye relief... but its 32oz and the accessories (caps, strap) are junk for a 950$ bino (vortex viper at $275 has better strap and covers)

the Leica does offer exceptional brightness, sharpness, sweet spot, compactness, the HD has an improved focuser over my friends uvid BR 8x42, the aqua-dura makes lens cleaning easier, and its weight is not prohibitive...

i dont see myself switching to something else for a long time, if ever...

i would like to see meopta upgrade the items i mentioned above and add ED/HD glass combined with their massive sweet spot and field flattener...it might be worth a look for me if it comes....

i just like the 7x42 configuration and i like in the most compact, lightest package possible and right now no one can touch the leica

308CAL said:

...swarovision 7x32 would be my dream bino with 450' FOV...

i would like to see meopta add ED/HD glass combined with their massive sweet spot and field flattener...it might be worth a look for me if it comes....

Click to expand...

I second your wish for a 7x32 swarovision. I use Swaro SLC 7x32. I love them but a flat field, edge to edge view would improve them.

Also, seconded on the Meopta 7x42 HD.
I don't consider them a brick though. I used to have Swaro SLC 7x42. Now that is a brick, for sure. The Meoptas are lighter and, for me, better balanced due to their short barrells. I kept them and sold the SLCs because of this.

Have you tried the Nikon EDG 7x42?

I haven't yet but I'll get round to it one day. It's gotta be great. Hasn't it? Everything the Meopta's got (8* fov, flat field) and lighter and presumably without the yellow in certain conditions of light. Not that the yellow is a big issue for me. It's an occasional distraction, that's all.

Actually, come to think of it the Meopta 7x42 with the hue/tone of the 7x32 SLC would be a great binocular.

Unfortunately "Long live 7x" seems to be the battle cry of the soon to be vanquished :-C

308CAL said:

well i owned one of these a couple of years ago and loved it....i sold it because i wanted to put the money towards something else....in the meantime ive tried to like a few other binos as much....

zeiss FL 7x42
vortex viper 6x32
swaro EL 8x32


the zeiss was really bright, but lets be honest, its not like uvid hd's arent??!?! the zeiss image falloff from center was more apparent the more i used them and the eyecups werent as comfortable as i wouldve liked...plus although fractionally lighter, it is bigger than the UVID 7x42. I prefer the leica compactness, sweet spot, build, and eyecups to the FL.

the viper has the same FOV in 6x as leica in 7x...small bino with a good image for sure but the image does degrade faster towards the edge than leica (and it should as cost is immensely different)...the left barrel on my sample was noticeably less sharp than the right

swaro was awesome but sometimes 8x is too shaky for the woods...swarovsison 7x32 would be my dream bino with 450' FOV


I seriously considered the meopta 7x42 this time as i know its great but its a brick and the focuser is nowhere near as smooth as the new uvid HD...it take more effort to turn it... also no click stops for eyecups which i prefer but it does have the field flattener and an awesome, although sometimes yellowish, image.... the meopta might even have an easier view to get on target as it has 20mm of eye relief... but its 32oz and the accessories (caps, strap) are junk for a 950$ bino (vortex viper at $275 has better strap and covers)

the Leica does offer exceptional brightness, sharpness, sweet spot, compactness, the HD has an improved focuser over my friends uvid BR 8x42, the aqua-dura makes lens cleaning easier, and its weight is not prohibitive...

i dont see myself switching to something else for a long time, if ever...

i would like to see meopta upgrade the items i mentioned above and add ED/HD glass combined with their massive sweet spot and field flattener...it might be worth a look for me if it comes....

i just like the 7x42 configuration and i like in the most compact, lightest package possible and right now no one can touch the leica

Click to expand...

Sounds like you had to "play the field" with other bins to find out that what you had to begin with was "the best". Sometimes "you don't know what you got until you lose it".

One competitor you didn't try was the 7x42 EDG, which from what I read and having tried the 10x42 model is pretty spectacular, having the field flatteners you like, "warm" color bias you like, 8* FOV, same as the Leica. The only downside is that it's not as compact.

According to Meopta Man, the HD version will only be offered in an 8x42 configuration. I'm guessing that means they dropped the 7x42 from the lineup, but he didn't confirm that. The Nikon 7x42 EDG might be the only real competition for the Leica, probably worth checking out before you buy another 7x42 Ultravid.

<B>

Yes the EDG 2 is a worthy contender for sure! My issue is the Leica was a "demo" for 1600, the nikons cost wayyyy more and rarely do I see demos...

I used the Leica for 2 hours today in cloudy weather.... Awesome

Actually I was hunting and in my stand before the sun came up and before I could see much of anything with my eyes I put the leicas up to my eyes just to see if i could see anything...To my surprise it was like night vision.... Very bright in very little light

I'm still looking for a real Flaw these things are legit

I'm sure the edg are as good or better but the leicas are more compact and can be had cheaper.... Also Leica build quality is robust

Yes, the Leica is an excellent package, consider that those few top quality brand binos are optically very close, in fact is not which one is "better" than the next one nowadays, but is about the balance that one maker differs from another maker with different priority or philosophy...

So while optically they are about the "same", Leica has an overall much more compact size which is great for traveling and carrying, for some it is an added advantage over the other binos. :t:

For example, the the Leica 7x42 HD is almost an inch shorter than the 42 EL SV & the 42 FL, and about the same size in height compared with a 8x32 EL SV, but is 42mm of full size.:t: Many times it is very appreciable of the comfort in carrying a "full size" bino that is in such nice compact size. While the Leica 42 HD is able to fit into the Billingham 335 Camera bag front pouch, or the Billingham Packington bag side pouch, the 42 EL or the Zeiss 42 FL would be of no way to fit it in at all...:-C Even hanging a pair of Leica 42 HD on the chest is more "normal" looking than someone hung a pair of 42 EL or 42 FL, because they just look so much bulkier, particularly on a relatively smaller built person...

About the SV edge sharpness issue... it is not that Leica (or Zeiss) can not make the same, it is NOT a new or "advanced technology" at all, it is something all those top makes can do and Leica can do that long time ago - if wanted to. But it is what Leica choses not to do so. It is all about balance in design, it is about Yin & Yang, you take something from the Yin side, you'd have to give up the same amount in the Yang side... in a nutshell it is still a balance .

Most of people when seeing things, they turn to the direction, likely not to use the corner of their eyes to watch something or someone else, unless it is a thief or spy who needs to garner less attention not to let others knowing they are intending or interested in something. In binocular use, I seem have not the need of twisting the eyes to the edge to see things, one naturally seem to move the bino to main targets for observation.

Also those who say that they could not see "rolling ball" effect etc, it is more or less a refusal of admitting that or able to "accepting" this compromise (another form of balance in design). If there is no "side effect" of making this so-called "edge to edge flat image", then Leica would have made it by now, Leica survived till today is for a good reason, not because it could not even make the "flattener" on the bino... the SV's flatterner thing is overblown - it is not an advantage, it is a character. |8(|

Again, if Leica wants to do that "flattener design" Leica can do it and not any worse than EL SV, but it is Leica's philosophy at the moment wanting the balance set at a point Leica and many Leica users want...

There is one very important reason I can think of to twist the eyes unnaturally to the edge of a wide field of view. That is, to see how the image looks out there. Once (at least for my binoculars) is usually enough. Sometimes less!

All the alphas will certainly do to look through. But, each brand has something unique to offer that it does best. With Leica, it is the compact and economic form. They whacked away at it, until there was just enough left to work.
Ron

Economic or ergonomic? I hope you meant the latter because I would argue against the form....especially in this economy.

Form, but surely not price!

spiralcoil said:

Yes, the Leica is an excellent package, consider that those few top quality brand binos are optically very close, in fact is not which one is "better" than the next one nowadays, but is about the balance that one maker differs from another maker with different priority or philosophy...

So while optically they are about the "same", Leica has an overall much more compact size which is great for traveling and carrying, for some it is an added advantage over the other binos. :t:

For example, the the Leica 7x42 HD is almost an inch shorter than the 42 EL SV & the 42 FL, and about the same size in height compared with a 8x32 EL SV, but is 42mm of full size.:t: Many times it is very appreciable of the comfort in carrying a "full size" bino that is in such nice compact size. While the Leica 42 HD is able to fit into the Billingham 335 Camera bag front pouch, or the Billingham Packington bag side pouch, the 42 EL or the Zeiss 42 FL would be of no way to fit it in at all...:-C Even hanging a pair of Leica 42 HD on the chest is more "normal" looking than someone hung a pair of 42 EL or 42 FL, because they just look so much bulkier, particularly on a relatively smaller built person...

About the SV edge sharpness issue... it is not that Leica (or Zeiss) can not make the same, it is NOT a new or "advanced technology" at all, it is something all those top makes can do and Leica can do that long time ago - if wanted to. But it is what Leica choses not to do so. It is all about balance in design, it is about Yin & Yang, you take something from the Yin side, you'd have to give up the same amount in the Yang side... in a nutshell it is still a balance .

Most of people when seeing things, they turn to the direction, likely not to use the corner of their eyes to watch something or someone else, unless it is a thief or spy who needs to garner less attention not to let others knowing they are intending or interested in something. In binocular use, I seem have not the need of twisting the eyes to the edge to see things, one naturally seem to move the bino to main targets for observation.

Also those who say that they could not see "rolling ball" effect etc, it is more or less a refusal of admitting that or able to "accepting" this compromise (another form of balance in design). If there is no "side effect" of making this so-called "edge to edge flat image", then Leica would have made it by now, Leica survived till today is for a good reason, not because it could not even make the "flattener" on the bino... the SV's flatterner thing is overblown - it is not an advantage, it is a character. |8(|

Again, if Leica wants to do that "flattener design" Leica can do it and not any worse than EL SV, but it is Leica's philosophy at the moment wanting the balance set at a point Leica and many Leica users want...

Click to expand...

spiralcoil,

"Rolling ball" is not a direct consequence of adding field flatteners, as the SE and EDG both prove. Yes, if you reduce pincushion in the outer edge, you can get the image sharp to the very, very edge. But what benefit is that if "rolling ball" is the trade-off? Well, to most amateur astronomers, who rank edge sharpness in their top three priorities, the added edge sharpness would make a difference, but for birders, I don't see the point in that combination of low distortion and field flattener design in the SV EL or in the Nikon Premier.

The reason Swaro and Nikon can get away with this design is that most people are either immune to RB or see it and adapt to it. Others still see it but it's not bothersome enough to be of consequence. I'm not sure how small a minority we "rolling ballers" are, but apparently small enough not to worry Swaro and Nikon in regard to the sales of these model. Both companies have other top bins w/out RB for those who are "allergic".

But why go to extremes when giving up only 5-15% of the edge by allowing some pincushion for smoother panning, you can have your cake and eat it too with the SE and EDG?

Would anyone dispute the SE's center sharpness and believe the Zeiss' "yarn" that in order to optimize centerfield sharpness you have to sacrifice edge performance and as a consequence end up with blurry astigmatism at the edge?

While I haven't seen resolution tests comparing the same configuration Zeiss FL to the Ultravid HD or Swaro EL or Nikon EDG, most anecdotal reports from users who compared these bins say that if there is any difference in centerfield sharpness, it's negligible. For sure, there are diehard Zeiss fans who will argue otherwise, but you find those same claims made by users of all the top brands.

Having said that, I do like good edge sharpness in any bin, whether I use it for stargazing or birding. It doesn't have to be sharp to the edges, but the sweet spot must be at least 70% of the field (assuming at least a 60* AFOV, more if lower than that) and a gradual fall off at the edges, with the ability to refocus the edge (field curvature). I don't like bins with astigmatism at the edges unless it's really close to the edge, otherwise, I find it too distracting while panning.

But that's me, others have different preferences, and the top four bin makers offer something for everybody. Well, everybody with deep pockets.

<B>

Hi All...

I'm with you on this one too...

An alpha 7x36 roof prism would be my glass of choice for what I do.

Was going to try the Zeiss Victory 8x32 until recent comparison of 7x and 8x while in the field for 8 days. Now I'm leaning toward trying an alpha 7x42... despite them being physically larger than I prefer.

CG

P.S. I've also migrated to 308.

The astigmatism in the FL 7x42 was one of the reasons I couldn't stay with it....

Did You try the ZenRay 7x43ED3 ? After i've got these ZR i sold my Swar 10x42SLC

Cycleguy
Did you consider the Kite 7x42ED with open bridge? It has alpha bino properties and it is less expensive. Moreover it may be constructed by the same company as the ZENray.

Hey... I've never heard of that one. Had to google; sounds/looks decent but don't think we have it over here...:C

CG

I had two pair of 7x42 Uvids at different times. I sold them both though they were the best full size bins I've ever had. I agree that their various attributes of compactness, robustness, optical quality, etc. are brilliant.

I wound up selling them because I always seemed to reach for my 8x32 Trinovids when heading out the door. Count me in the camp with those who'd love a 7x32/35 Uvid or maybe an EL.

Kevin,
You are one hard case, Trinovid Man. Love conquers all.
Ron

Here's a Swaro owners review of the Leica 7x42 HD. Keep in mind that he's the sales manager at the store at Cape May.

http://featheredgeoptics.com/productreviews_leicahd.htm

He is honest in admitting that there's not much difference between the regular Ultravid and the HD model in most areas, but he claims that under dim light he and Pete Dunne could see better resolution in the HD model, and he concluded that it was due to that 3% light difference.

Let's go to the light graph:

http://www.allbinos.com/194-binoculars_review-Leica_Ultravid_10x50_HD.html

Not the same model, but the only one allbinos had a graph for. Here's what Arek said:

"The transmission, which level was slightly higher, was the only noticeable improvement but the difference was rather symbolic, reaching on average 1-2% for the most of the visual spectrum, only sometimes achieving those promised 3% . In the blue part, both binoculars perform alike, in the middle of the spectrum the new HD model is 1-2% better, on the border of red and infrared the older model fares better than the new one..."

I don't think that most people could see this small difference in light transmission, perhaps not even the trained eye of Pete "Javelin Man" Dunne. However, ED glass adds up to 15% more contrast and also increases color saturation since it brings more of each color to the same part of your eye rather than scattering it through CA.

I suspect with the Cape May review, what the author and Pete Dunne thought were differences in brightness giving "better resolution" in the HD was probably better contrast and color saturation due to the ED glass rather than that 1 to 2% bump in the middle of the spectrum. Of course, it could also have been due to sample variation, but less likely at this price point.

Interesting that the author didn't noitice any difference in the focusers between the Ultravid and HD version except under extreme conditions (after freezing the bin). Others have reported that the HD focuser is smoother under normal conditions due to the added plastic gliding discs. If you read the BF thread on the 7x42 SLC vs 7x42 Ultravid I referenced earlier, you will read complaints from members about the original Ultravids "stiff" focuser.

If I had deep pockets, I would buy the HD version, not because of the slight bump in light transmission or the hydrophobic coatings, but for the smoother focuser and ED glass, which as I've seen from ED bins I've owned or tested, enhance contrast and color saturation and reduce CA.

Of course, I'm more likely to buy a ZR 7x43 than a Leica 7x42, but there too, the ED glass holds an advantage, as I've seen with the 7x36 model. But like all things optical, you will find two people compare a bin with regular glass and ED glass and not notice any difference. So try them both and if it doesn't make a difference, and the regular Ultravid's focuser turns fine for you, and you don't bird in the rain, don't waste your money on those incremental improvements. Or buy a ZR 7x43 and put the cash difference toward an exotic birding trip.

<B>

ronh said:

Kevin,
You are one hard case, Trinovid Man. Love conquers all.
Ron

Click to expand...

I've never held them up as the ne plus ultra. I am however, one who appreciates many aspects of (in this case) a birding binocular. I've also long ago quit trying to split hairs regarding the view through these things. I don't study it, I use bins for birding and these yesteryear Trinovids in 8x32 flavor work exceptionally well for me. I'm happy to not be of those pursuing the proverbial Holy Grail.

Kevin Conville said:

I've never held them up as the ne plus ultra. I am however, one who appreciates many aspects of (in this case) a birding binocular. I've also long ago quit trying to split hairs regarding the view through these things. I don't study it, I use bins for birding and these yesteryear Trinovids in 8x32 flavor work exceptionally well for me. I'm happy to not be of those pursuing the proverbial Holy Grail.

Click to expand...

You are not alone, Kevin. If you recall the Great Trinny Rebellion a few years back when original Trinovid owners came out in droves on the Leica forum to say that they would not be upgrading to Ultravids and planned to stick with their Trinnies, because the incremental improvements in the Ultravids were not worth the money, in their opinion.

Even the pickiest optics fan in the world sold his much lauded EDG and kept his old Trinnies.

I haven't heard a lot of enthusiasm about the new Trinnies, which look a lot like the Ultravids. I'd be interested in seeing an old Trinny vs. new Trinny comparison. No doubt the coatings are improved, but I wonder if the optics are also better?

I am suddenly struck with a strong sense of deja vu.

Good to see you back on the forums.

Brock

308,

Can you compare the image of the 7x42 Ultravid HD to the image of the 8x42 Ultravid HD??? Particularly when the edge blurs from the field center. I thought it was really good on the 8x42 and albinos claims 89% from field center. Also, where distortion commences from field center. Albinos claims 45% for the 8x42 and 74% for the 10x42; that seems to be a large difference so it makes me wonder about the 7x42.

Can only handle an 8x42 around here; 7x42 is non-existent.

Thanks,

CG