New Ultravids coming (1 Viewer)

Paul Godolphin · Aug 8, 2007

Swissboy said:
Paul, I don't always agree with your harsh criticism, but this one is so very much to the point! Congratulations.
It's so terrible that I had a good laugh about your fitting wording! But only because I managed to avoid those unsatisfactory models.

Thanks Robert, good to hear from you. Yes, it's sad when a company can make such a brilliant product, but spoil it with an unneccessary small fault like this. The Ultravids are great glasses, but for the sake of a 5 cent teflon washer, they're no good. I guess it is MORE upsetting when a really good product has a fault - just because it is potentially so very good. If a rotten pair of $50 chinese binocs were faulty, I wouldn't care. It's rather like seeing a beautiful woman with a big wart on her face, it seems more tragic than if she'd been ugly anyhow! That's life.....
good luck Paul

Pileatus · Aug 8, 2007

Paul Godolphin said:
Thanks Robert, good to hear from you. Yes, it's sad when a company can make such a brilliant product, but spoil it with an unneccessary small fault like this. The Ultravids are great glasses, but for the sake of a 5 cent teflon washer, they're no good. I guess it is MORE upsetting when a really good product has a fault - just because it is potentially so very good. If a rotten pair of $50 chinese binocs were faulty, I wouldn't care. It's rather like seeing a beautiful woman with a big wart on her face, it seems more tragic than if she'd been ugly anyhow! That's life.....
good luck Paul

Paul,

I own an Ultravid 7X42 and your conclusion that "they're no good" because Leica omitted a 5 cent washer is simply ridiculous. The focus mechanism on mine is not “silky smooth”, but it’s good enough to use the binocular one-handed…including adjusting the focus.

I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating: The centerfield view through my Ultravid 7X42 is as good as it gets and the binocular is obviously designed to withstand extreme hardship.

John

PYRTLE · Aug 8, 2007

It's rather like seeing a beautiful woman with a big wart on her face, it seems more tragic than if she'd been ugly anyhow! That's life.....

Yeah....I get your point in a sort of way that the blemish spoils something from being perfect to the eye of the beholder. vALID POINT portrayed in an odd sort of way...LOLs.
However, beauty should be more than skin deep and with most of us we love our beloveds because of who and what they are not if they look like Angelina Jolie! I wish.

I love my girlfriend almost as much as my FLs.

Pinewood · Aug 8, 2007

The first time I used a Zeiss FL, I thought that the colour was spectacular, extraordinarily vibrant. I am not one to notice Chromatic Aberration but I still think that the FL glass added to the resolution of the image and may have reduced color bleeding. Many users find that the FL increases the gradations of colour. The contrast was high and shadow detail was second to none, in my experience. I should add that the 8x32 FL has replaced my Leica BN, even though the Leica's slightly narrower field had a little less edge fall off.

Regarding the durability of Leicas vs. Zeiss, please see the following thread:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=89950&page=2 posts 42-45.

Finally, Leica's alleged jerky focussing may be either sample variation or a product of the users' accustomed focussing. I know fully well how particular bird watchers are in their own proclivities but my Leica BN caused me no concern in focussing.

In sum, should Leica add FL and Lotutech, there may be many who will see the difference.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :brains:

matt green · Aug 8, 2007

Tried a few ultravids since they first came out and never handled a dudd yet, last one was an absolute gem and I want a pair badly!!

Am tempted to whore myself to secure an 8x42!!!

Matt

308CAL · Aug 8, 2007

matt sent you a pm

Patriot222 · Aug 9, 2007

Grandad Too said:
Is it HD glass, which does not say anything about the glass type or is it Fluorite, which is CaF2 (which would be too expensive), Is it ED glass, which has similar properties to FL glass, but does not contain fluorine ions.

Um, why would FL (CaF2) be too expensive for Leica to use in a binocular? Ziess is doing it and selling them just fine.

Grandad Too · Aug 9, 2007

Patriot222 said:
Um, why would FL (CaF2) be too expensive for Leica to use in a binocular? Ziess is doing it and selling them just fine.

CaF2 is pure crystal fluorite, I have seen this lens made for semi conductor business and it costs, thousands of Euros and if used as the outside lens would degrade in moisture. The glass used in the FL's is FluorIDE, glass containing fluorine ions. There are other posts on Bird Forum, where the glass abbreviations have been explained (HD, ED, FL (Flouride), CaF2 (Fluorite).

Grandad Too (retired optical engineer).

Paul Godolphin · Aug 9, 2007

John Traynor said:
Paul, your conclusion that "they're no good" because Leica omitted a 5 cent washer is simply ridiculous. John

That's not fair, John
I agree that ALL Ultravids are silky smooth when they come from the shop, or else we wouldn't buy them, would we? But there's been post-after-post here on Birdforum for the last four years where owners have found that they go 'juddery' in the months AFTER purchase, and stay that way. Some pairs like yours, don't. Lucky you.
But Leica themselves admit that the binoculars are supplied with a leaning towards this fault, and their service departments routinely fit a Teflon washer to the focus machanism to cure the fault. This is well documented in four years of owner's Birdforum postings.
My own pair cannot be focussed sharply because they vibration from the sticky focus wheel fault blurs the image, so that I can't tell if I've arrived at the correct focus point until I stop moving the knob. That's the fault the Leica KNOW ABOUT and yet are happy to continue putting out in the shops for us to buy. How can we trust them after this?
If you say you've been lucky and got a smooth pair then I'm happy for you. But I'm not knocking you because you're lucky. There's plenty of users out here that continue to suffer, and it's our duty to make this situation known.
This is not a personal attack on your own pair of binoculars, and you don't need to defend yourself. I wish I had yours too. Wanna swap? Bet you don't! (and I won't call you ridiculous for saying 'no'!)
all the best Paul

Pileatus · Aug 9, 2007

Paul Godolphin said:
That's not fair, John
I agree that ALL Ultravids are silky smooth when they come from the shop, or else we wouldn't buy them, would we? But there's been post-after-post here on Birdforum for the last four years where owners have found that they go 'juddery' in the months AFTER purchase, and stay that way. Some pairs like yours, don't. Lucky you.
But Leica themselves admit that the binoculars are supplied with a leaning towards this fault, and their service departments routinely fit a Teflon washer to the focus machanism to cure the fault. This is well documented in four years of owner's Birdforum postings.
My own pair cannot be focussed sharply because they vibration from the sticky focus wheel fault blurs the image, so that I can't tell if I've arrived at the correct focus point until I stop moving the knob. That's the fault the Leica KNOW ABOUT and yet are happy to continue putting out in the shops for us to buy. How can we trust them after this?
If you say you've been lucky and got a smooth pair then I'm happy for you. But I'm not knocking you because you're lucky. There's plenty of users out here that continue to suffer, and it's our duty to make this situation known.
This is not a personal attack on your own pair of binoculars, and you don't need to defend yourself. I wish I had yours too. Wanna swap? Bet you don't! (and I won't call you ridiculous for saying 'no'!)
all the best Paul

Paul,

I know exactly what you’re talking about and I sympathize with your inability to reach sharp focus. I’m sure Leica will correct the problem, if you give them the opportunity. Please keep us updated.

John

elkcub · Aug 9, 2007

I do not believe for a minute that Leica admitted to a design fault. What they have done is try to accommodate people like yourself who have a problem adapting to the design. Given that they make this accommodation, therefore, it's quite fair to point out that you've not taken advantage of it. Some might even say it's ridiculous that you haven't. I'm one of those.

Patriot222 · Aug 9, 2007

Grandad Too said:
CaF2 is pure crystal fluorite, I have seen this lens made for semi conductor business and it costs, thousands of Euros and if used as the outside lens would degrade in moisture. The glass used in the FL's is FluorIDE, glass containing fluorine ions. There are other posts on Bird Forum, where the glass abbreviations have been explained (HD, ED, FL (Flouride), CaF2 (Fluorite).

Grandad Too (retired optical engineer).

Oh, ok. I understand now. The Zeiss FL is not CaF2, it's FL or (Fluoride)

Thank you for the good info.

So your original question about what kind of glass the new Leicas will have was rhetorical with regards to whether it was CaF2 (Fluorite) glass?

Does this mean that we can assume that the new Leica will be either ED or FL glass?

Thanks

Swissboy · Aug 9, 2007

matt green said:
Tried a few ultravids since they first came out and never handled a dudd yet, last one was an absolute gem .....Matt

I have handled a few too, and I found every variation from silky smooth to so ratchety that a precise focus was not possible (kind of what Paul describes for his sample). I am not sure whether they come in this variation as they leave the factory, but all the ones I tried were new ones in stores. Though some may have been used more than others for demo purposes.
I should add that this whole discussion excludes the compacts which are of a different design, I would think. At least, I have not seen any there that were not silky smooth. And my own 10x25 Ultravids are still as smooth as they were when I bought them.

elkcub · Aug 10, 2007

I actually owned two 10x42 BLs and found their focus mechanisms to be excellent. They were returned because of eyecup issues and the fact that the leather covered tubes hurt my delicate paws. I've also examined at least a dozen BRs over various counter tops, the most recent being the outstanding 8x32. I would have bought it but for the 8x32 LX L that showed up at less than half the price. At one of those countertops another fellow and I were trading floor samples. He felt the focus mechanism was rough, and I thought the very same ones were sweet. Yes, there is a tactile sensation but that's a far cry from declaring that it compromises focusing accuracy. It might, it might not. There are a lot of factors to consider with focusing accuracy.

The comparison with the LX L is worth mention, since Nikon and Leica took diametrically opposite approaches. The LX L has virtually no stiction, whereas the BR has quite a bit. If you're used to the BR, the LX will seem like a runaway. However, once adapted to it they are exquisite. Couldn't say I prefer one design to the other, though.

Vive le difference !
Ed

henry link · Aug 10, 2007

ED and FL (and SD, HD, UD, XD, etc.) are are not glass types. They are marketing terms that seem to be designed to imply high quality without actually telling us anything.

Since Schott is part of Zeiss, "FL' is probably one of the fluor-crowns (FK56, FK54 or FK51) from the Schott catalogue. Leica could buy one of those from Schott or they could choose to buy glass with similar characterisics from Ohara (FPL53 or FPL51) or others. The performance of the final product will depend just as much on the matching glass types in the objective and we haven't got the slightest idea what they are. In the end we'll just have to look through the things.

FWIW, FPL53 glass has optical characteristics so similar to CaF2 that it has largely replaced genuine Fluorite in astronomical APO's. FK56 is also very similar to CaF2, but I don't think it's used very widely in consumer optics.

Paul Godolphin · Aug 10, 2007

elkcub said:
I do not believe for a minute that Leica admitted to a design fault. What they have done is try to accommodate people like yourself who have a problem adapting to the design. Given that they make this accommodation, therefore, it's quite fair to point out that you've not taken advantage of it. Some might even say it's ridiculous that you haven't. I'm one of those.

Elkcub, mate we've agreed and disagreed on various discussions before, and I've got the greatest of respect for your well-reasoned and logical points of view. But you can't be serious over this, surely? These Ultravids are sold in working order, and go faulty within a few months of sale. and yes, their service department HAVE confimed to me that this is an acknowledged fault, for which they offer a standard fix. This is not "accommodating people like myself", it's repairing a built-in fault that thay KNOW exists, and they continue to sell the binoculars in the faulty condition. Surely, that is cynical profiteering, to sell a known faulty product, and pocket the profits, without re-investing in the permanent re-design of the item for the benefit of the user? (cf. the Lockheed Starfighter aircraft. Same situation. Known as the "Widow Maker", this plane had known handling deficiencies, but continued to be sold to unsuspecting consumers in other countries long after it's shortcomings were revealed).
Yes, I can confirm that Leica DID admit to a design fault to me. Fact. Do you think I've posted this information for fun? I'm simply passing-on the facts, straight from the 'horse's mouth' for the benefit of potential buyers. If I'd had the opportunity to see the postings on Birdforum BEFORE I bought them, then I would have been saved getting a duff pair of bins. How can you possibly say that's ridiculous?
Yeh, you're right. It's my fault. I can't adapt to the design. I also can't adapt to the design of my faulty bicycle, which arrived in the box with it's handlebars missing so I can't steer it and keep falling off. Rotten old me, eh? What an unreasonable customer I must be. Faulty Leica bins like dozens of other Birdforum posters, and it's MY fault??? NOW who's being ridiculous?
Paul

PYRTLE · Aug 10, 2007

Oops - it was all going so well and I did agree with Paul a ccouple of days ago!

Paul Godolphin · Aug 10, 2007

PYRTLE said:
Oops - it was all going so well and I did agree with Paul a ccouple of days ago!

Hi Pyrtle

Well, thanks for agreeing with me a couple of days ago, it's most appreciated. I guess from this posting that you don't any more? I'd also guess that you've seen the strength of my reply to the last writer, and this has changed your mind? I'm sorry about that. I'm very aware that my very direct way of offering my findings tends to alienate people. I apologise if that's what's happened. But I tend to focus very closely on the matter in hand, and forget that others might take offence. Hope I haven't added you to the list.
But the whole reason for this is that these binoculars are duff. Many postings before me since 2003 said the same. I can't understand why guys just have to argue and call blokes liars when they state the facts. Blimey, I've got £1000 worth of facts wasting in my cupboard at home. If the fella says he doesn't beleive me, then surely he deserves a 'broadside'? I'm not a liar, and I wasn't looking for an arguement.
all the best
Paul

PYRTLE · Aug 10, 2007

PM on its way to you.......still agree with you, haven't changed my mind either

hinnark · Aug 10, 2007

Paul Godolphin said:
That's not fair, John
I agree that ALL Ultravids are silky smooth when they come from the shop, or else we wouldn't buy them, would we? But there's been post-after-post here on Birdforum for the last four years where owners have found that they go 'juddery' in the months AFTER purchase, Paul

Maybe I missed something, but I never read about cases like this, besides yours. There were Ultravids with focus problems at the beginning of the Ultravid production but these problems have been fixed long ago. A sample of those jerky focus issue Ultravids could be identified from the beginning. Either it has slip stick from the beginning or not.

Paul, your trip to the Pacific Islands seems to be pretty boring since you spend so much time at the internet. Didn´t know that you can go online there at any place.

Steve

New Ultravids coming (1 Viewer)

Member

"Experientia Docet”

Old Berkshire Boy

New York correspondent

Norfolkman gone walkabout

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Member

"Experientia Docet”

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Sempach, Switzerland

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Member

Old Berkshire Boy

Member

Old Berkshire Boy

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread