-
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.
Leica Ultravid 8x32 HD Plus review (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Tobias Mennle
- Start date
I will gladly put up with a bit of glare in the Swarovski 8x32 SV's as a trade off for all the other positive attributes of the binocular. And Tobias saying an 8x32 SV "simply flares horribly" is a huge exaggeration. Your reviews are attractive with all the pretty pictures but you are completely off base on the SV. I have looked through hundreds of binoculars and the SV's don't flare horribly! Too many people the open bridge design of the SV is way more comfortable than the closed bridge of the Ultravid HD Plus also. I also love the tack sharp edges in the Swarovision. Why not have sharp edges? There is no other binocular that is sharp to the edge like a Swarovision and has the easy view when you put them up to your eyes. It is like you are coming home when you look through a Swarovision. No binocular even an alpha is perfect but I believe the 8x32 SV is the best available 8x32 binocular right now. If you can's stand glare get the 10x50 SV. It is like an 8x32 SV except you can see more detail and there is no glare.Calling the design "fatally flawed" is a bit over the top, I think. It is sharp, has good ergonomics and is very easy to use due to its large eyepiece lenses. But unfortunately it has that (to me) pretty obvious glare problem.
But in principle you're right, of course. I think people liked the easy, wide view and the sharp edges so much that they sort of "overlooked" the glare problems the binocular undoubtedly has. In addition, there were hundreds of posts by one particular poster here who wrote time and time again, even in threads that had nothing at all to do with the SV 8x32 (or indeed any other Swarovski binocular), how fantastic the SV 8x32 is, that everyone needed to buy one and all the rest of it. When you read the same nonsense day in and day out, no matter which thread you're looking at, you may well start to believe it's true. Interestingly that particular poster has switched his loyaties to a different binocular recently ...
Also, nowadys more people seem to have realized they don't really *need* sharp edges, and that other characteristics of a binocular may be more important - such as glare resistance.
Hermann
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
CF, The brightness per se' should not be affected by the baffling, unless as Mark says the truncating of the exit pupil is due to that and the eye's pupil is at 4mm and thus the transmitted area is affected. The truncation is rather more likely in concert with other causes like prisms, field stops, alignment, etc, which should not affect the absolute centre say 2mm. I think it's always hard to get an accurate photograph of both exit pupils at the same time unless using a powerful telephoto set-up at great distance to approximate the parallel lightpaths. |8.| One at a time might give a better representation of any truncation the eye would see in actual use.
Certainly if the eye's pupil is at 4mm then the truncation shown (due to whatever cause) would indeed reduce the brightness. Contrast and colour reproduction will be independent of brightness on a transmitted level (user perceptions and preference might be another matter though). I was not aware that the x42mm UVHD+ colour reproduction needed 'improving'? in the the 32mm - in fact from all reports the 42mm has done quite nicely having a lively 'sparkle' to the view. I also think it's a bit OTT to describe Swarovski's design compromise choices as "horrible" "mistakes", especially given the ER and ease of view benefits which the little Leica can't even get close to looking at (just ask Beth! :-C ).
What interested me was Tobias's comment that "The 8x32 Ultravid at daylight used with closed pupil is visibly darker than the 8x42 Ultravid" ..... once the eye's pupil is constricted below say 3.5mm to cut out any truncation effects then the brightness should be pretty similar if not greater in the smaller 32mm. His observations seem to be backed up by the grey scale photographs comparing the two formats. :h?:
Thoughts people, on this brightness thingo ?? ....... :cat:
Chosun :gh:
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
What a shock |8||
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Since there is no ISO standard for measuring glare,
testimonies will vary with user, usage and environmental factors.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Chosun,
Looking at Tobias' comparison chart, shown below, it's evident that there is a systematic difference in brightness based on objective size alone. The x42 instruments are brighter than the x32s and those somewhat brighter than the x30s. So, my guess is that the photographic procedure didn't establish a standard effective aperture or common exit pupil size. Larger aperture, brighter image, ... no surprise.
Anyway, that's how it appears to me.
Ed
Attachments
Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
Thanks for all your interesting input.
My mantra is: Find the right binocular for your needs. This is trivial but so true. I will check the Zeiss and EDG 32s and then decide which one to keep, but my bet is on the Ultravid. And maybe Zeiss will make a huge step forward with the 32 SFs. The 8x32 Swarovision is so much easier to dethrone than the 8.5x42 IMO.
About my criticism of the 8x32 Swarovision, I had one for almost a year parallel to a Habicht 8x30 and a Nikon SE 8x32. Small wonder I was underimpressed with the Swarovision. Flare in the SV seemed almost as bad as in the stone age Habicht, at 2.5x the price and at slightly lower sharpness. I then got a 8x42 SLC, and suddenly the contrast and flare suppression were what I expected from a premium glass (though in the end all other premium 8x42s I tested were sharper than the SV sample I had).
I think the 8.5x42 Swarovision is a really great design with totally acceptable flare levels, but I already spent a lot of time with, and came to prefer the Ultravid and HT for my use. I am not interested in 10x and will have much less time for hobbies next year, so I don´t plan to review the 10x50 SV any time soon.
About the brightness in the Ultravid 8x32, two more thoughts.
1. Leica was deliberately going for that crisp, high contrast look and did not want to boost brightness as in the 8x42. Plus, the lower brightness definitely comes in handy on sunny days.
2. Leica was simply pragmatic about the use of HT glass and so ended up not using it in the 8x32, but unfortunately forgot to mention that in the PR/manuals.
Again, the brightness and images of the Ultravid look so similar to the Nikon EDG 8x42... or vice versa, as the Ultravid is the older design... and both have a very tight baffling.
My mantra is: Find the right binocular for your needs. This is trivial but so true. I will check the Zeiss and EDG 32s and then decide which one to keep, but my bet is on the Ultravid. And maybe Zeiss will make a huge step forward with the 32 SFs. The 8x32 Swarovision is so much easier to dethrone than the 8.5x42 IMO.
About my criticism of the 8x32 Swarovision, I had one for almost a year parallel to a Habicht 8x30 and a Nikon SE 8x32. Small wonder I was underimpressed with the Swarovision. Flare in the SV seemed almost as bad as in the stone age Habicht, at 2.5x the price and at slightly lower sharpness. I then got a 8x42 SLC, and suddenly the contrast and flare suppression were what I expected from a premium glass (though in the end all other premium 8x42s I tested were sharper than the SV sample I had).
I think the 8.5x42 Swarovision is a really great design with totally acceptable flare levels, but I already spent a lot of time with, and came to prefer the Ultravid and HT for my use. I am not interested in 10x and will have much less time for hobbies next year, so I don´t plan to review the 10x50 SV any time soon.
About the brightness in the Ultravid 8x32, two more thoughts.
1. Leica was deliberately going for that crisp, high contrast look and did not want to boost brightness as in the 8x42. Plus, the lower brightness definitely comes in handy on sunny days.
2. Leica was simply pragmatic about the use of HT glass and so ended up not using it in the 8x32, but unfortunately forgot to mention that in the PR/manuals.
Again, the brightness and images of the Ultravid look so similar to the Nikon EDG 8x42... or vice versa, as the Ultravid is the older design... and both have a very tight baffling.
David in NC
Well-known member
I FIRMLY believe this is a factor in most binocs-regardless of what science says if otherwise...
hgalbraith
Well-known member
Maybe so, but I used the SV 8x32 in Colombia at about 10 degrees north, and in the northeast US and had there same veiling glare problem in both areas. I kept the SVs for over a year, trying to make them work for me but felt that the advantages were outweighed by the optical issue.
You could have something Torview. I am at 40 N and they are not that bad but it sounds like you are doing a lot of ocean and water viewing. It could be the reflection off the water that makes them worse.
Dennis
You are right to point out that light reflecting off water is a very difficult thing to deal with and most bins / scopes I have tried out suffer from glare in this situation to a greater or lesser extent.
Lee
hgalbraith
Well-known member
veiling glare
the problems that I had with the 8x32 SVs were nothing to do with water or sun angle. They manifested when I was standing in a well-lit area trying to look into a darker area (like trying to see tapaculos in a dark forest hole). I think that this was the trouble that most folks had with this instrument. All the rest - glare from water, glare from a direct bright light source, etc. are problems with all bins and not specific to the SVs. I am glad to say that my 8.5x42 SVs do not have the veiling glare issue, neither do my 7x42 UVHD+ bins. Seems to be a problem for the SV 8x32.
the problems that I had with the 8x32 SVs were nothing to do with water or sun angle. They manifested when I was standing in a well-lit area trying to look into a darker area (like trying to see tapaculos in a dark forest hole). I think that this was the trouble that most folks had with this instrument. All the rest - glare from water, glare from a direct bright light source, etc. are problems with all bins and not specific to the SVs. I am glad to say that my 8.5x42 SVs do not have the veiling glare issue, neither do my 7x42 UVHD+ bins. Seems to be a problem for the SV 8x32.
My 10x50 SV's don't have it either but I don't find the glare a deal breaker for the 8x32 SV's. In most situations they work better than any 8x32 I have tried but I have not tried the new 8x32 Leica UVD + yet. After this review by Tobias I think I would go with the 8x42 UVD + though.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Tobias,
I have a few comments about the brightness assessment procedure. According to your web article (below), pictures were taken of white light reflecting from a wall ~15" behind the ocular's eye lens and emerging through the objectives. Assuming the light sources and camera settings were all done accurately, and so forth, I don't see how you could expect any other result than that the larger aperture instruments would produce brighter camera images. Also, these brighter images do not necessarily suggest an increased brightness perception for someone using the binoculars, except under dark conditions when his/her eye pupils equal or exceed the largest exit pupil size. They will not necessarily appear brighter under daylight conditions when the eye's pupils are equal to or less than the smallest instrument exit pupil.
A way to control for this experimentally might be to mask the binocular objectives so as to produce a standard exit pupil size, e.g., 2.5 mm. Under these conditions, the camera images would allow quasi-valid brightness comparisons; quasi-valid because the eye-brain system has it's own photopic sensitivity function that weights the light spectrum to produce brightness percepts.
Ed
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Yes, thanks Ed, I agree. I meant that perhaps Tobias (inadvertently, or by omission) overly adjusted the photographs to reflect what he saw? (although the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 with it's reported ~96% transmission is still out of whack there).
Your later suggestion to Tobias to mask the objectives down to a common exit pupil size of 2.5mm should do the trick along with calibrated lighting and manual camera settings, getting rid of any truncation and aperture effects.
That taken care of, it still doesn't explain what he reported he saw visually ??? {"The 8x32 Ultravid at daylight used with closed pupil is visibly darker than the 8x42 Ultravid" .....}
I find the first of his following two suggestions does not make sense :h?: .... and the second may just indeed be plausible. :cat:
Chosun :gh:
Hermann
Well-known member
Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
Ed,Chosun, Hermann, last posts regarding photographing through objectives and brightness.
Post processing of the images was identical for each image of course, otherwise the whole thing would be quite pointless. All the camera settings were constant and manual, as described.
Generally there is only one "point" in each binocular to focus upon to get a sharp edge of the image. Seems to be the baffle below the ocular to me. I guess the biggest mistake in my series comes from a slightly different focus distance in my photography lens depending on the binoculars light path and ocular baffle position. I generally had a focus distance of about 0.5m, that is macro mode, and the same lens focused at at 0.35m for example would have less light hitting the camera sensor. In fact, this would explain why the 8x32/30s appear darker, as their light paths should be a bit shorter than in the 8x42s, so I needed to focus closer. The thing is getting more complicated as the porros should have a different light path length than the roofs, so my focus points would differ slightly.
For the 8x42s, I see much less of a problem, as they are similar in length and flightpath probably, so my focus point was similar enough. Anyway, I started the whole thing because I wanted to check how far the SF8x42 is off in colour...
In fact, as Chosun pointed out, the Habicht appears way too dark, and with it the whole 8x30/32 series. I need to amend this in the discussion. It does not contradict my visual experience though, within the 8x30 series and elsewhere, and no matter how much I like the Ultravid 8x32 HD Plus otherwise, it is darker than expected, if compared to the state-of-the-art 8x42s.
Gijs van Ginkel seems to plan to do transmission measurements comparing HDs to HD Pluses...
A 8x32 should have the same light density in the image as an 8x42 at full aperture, otherwise we could not reasonably use them, they would always be much darker than the 8x42s - which is only the case when our pupil size becomes bigger than the exit pupil. Or am I missing something here. I don´t see yet what stopping down to 2.5mm would improve.
Chosun, about darker images appearing more contrasty, I am confident this is a perceptual principle, I will post a comparison soon, image at same contrast ratio in different brightness levels, and what appears most crisp. Nikon SE, E2 and 8x42 EDG are all pretty dark binoculars compared to the more updated competition, but have a reputation of being very crisp and high contrast, and they might in fact be more pleasing to use in very bright conditions like South Africa or California, compared to often dull middle and northern Europe or Alaska.
Post processing of the images was identical for each image of course, otherwise the whole thing would be quite pointless. All the camera settings were constant and manual, as described.
Generally there is only one "point" in each binocular to focus upon to get a sharp edge of the image. Seems to be the baffle below the ocular to me. I guess the biggest mistake in my series comes from a slightly different focus distance in my photography lens depending on the binoculars light path and ocular baffle position. I generally had a focus distance of about 0.5m, that is macro mode, and the same lens focused at at 0.35m for example would have less light hitting the camera sensor. In fact, this would explain why the 8x32/30s appear darker, as their light paths should be a bit shorter than in the 8x42s, so I needed to focus closer. The thing is getting more complicated as the porros should have a different light path length than the roofs, so my focus points would differ slightly.
For the 8x42s, I see much less of a problem, as they are similar in length and flightpath probably, so my focus point was similar enough. Anyway, I started the whole thing because I wanted to check how far the SF8x42 is off in colour...
In fact, as Chosun pointed out, the Habicht appears way too dark, and with it the whole 8x30/32 series. I need to amend this in the discussion. It does not contradict my visual experience though, within the 8x30 series and elsewhere, and no matter how much I like the Ultravid 8x32 HD Plus otherwise, it is darker than expected, if compared to the state-of-the-art 8x42s.
Gijs van Ginkel seems to plan to do transmission measurements comparing HDs to HD Pluses...
A 8x32 should have the same light density in the image as an 8x42 at full aperture, otherwise we could not reasonably use them, they would always be much darker than the 8x42s - which is only the case when our pupil size becomes bigger than the exit pupil. Or am I missing something here. I don´t see yet what stopping down to 2.5mm would improve.
Chosun, about darker images appearing more contrasty, I am confident this is a perceptual principle, I will post a comparison soon, image at same contrast ratio in different brightness levels, and what appears most crisp. Nikon SE, E2 and 8x42 EDG are all pretty dark binoculars compared to the more updated competition, but have a reputation of being very crisp and high contrast, and they might in fact be more pleasing to use in very bright conditions like South Africa or California, compared to often dull middle and northern Europe or Alaska.
Last edited:
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Tobias, post 38,
I not only planned measuring transmission spectra of the 42 mm-plus Leica's, I already did, but I will only publish them when I have the opportunity to check them again, but I can only do that when the laboratory is open and it is closed until January 4. But one thing is for sure: from all Leitz-Leica instruments I have investigated Leica never was at the front line of high transmissions as compared to other top producers and I suspect that this will also be the case for the plus-models. That does not mean that they do not make solid and beautiful instruments, but you obviously can not or do not want to have everything.
Gijs
I not only planned measuring transmission spectra of the 42 mm-plus Leica's, I already did, but I will only publish them when I have the opportunity to check them again, but I can only do that when the laboratory is open and it is closed until January 4. But one thing is for sure: from all Leitz-Leica instruments I have investigated Leica never was at the front line of high transmissions as compared to other top producers and I suspect that this will also be the case for the plus-models. That does not mean that they do not make solid and beautiful instruments, but you obviously can not or do not want to have everything.
Gijs
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Tobias, post 38,
I not only planned measuring transmission spectra of the 42 mm-plus Leica's, I already did, but I will only publish them when I have the opportunity to check them again, but I can only do that when the laboratory is open and it is closed until January 4. But one thing is for sure: from all Leitz-Leica instruments I have investigated Leica never was at the front line of high transmissions as compared to other top producers and I suspect that this will also be the case for the plus-models. That does not mean that they do not make solid and beautiful instruments, but you obviously can not or do not want to have everything.
Gijs
I not only planned measuring transmission spectra of the 42 mm-plus Leica's, I already did, but I will only publish them when I have the opportunity to check them again, but I can only do that when the laboratory is open and it is closed until January 4. But one thing is for sure: from all Leitz-Leica instruments I have investigated Leica never was at the front line of high transmissions as compared to other top producers and I suspect that this will also be the case for the plus-models. That does not mean that they do not make solid and beautiful instruments, but you obviously can not or do not want to have everything.
Gijs
