6 January 2022 - New Leica announcement (2 Viewers)

[PYRTLE]

In a flight of fancy, a rangefinder that with Bluetooth or AI talks to the rifle scope when the button is depressed, which then automatically adjusts for the distance, rather than manually clicked = Happy hunters. As suggested in post # 6. Not for birding.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dries, post 179,
The Hensoldt Diagon shown in the picture has IF, I did not have one available with CF.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dries1, in addition to my previous post: the Diagon shown in our report could be a military model with IF.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[John A Roberts]

Hensoldt Diagons

Hi Andy and Gijs,

After WWII Hensoldt offered the Porro prism Diagons in:
• 6x30, 8x30;
• 7x50, 10x50 and 15x50.
There were both CF and IF versions of each (except there was no IF 15x50), see a 1960 specification sheet sourced from below.

The CF’s were always leatherette covered. A 1956 flyer shows the IF versions as also leatherette covered but with the addition of rubber bumper covers,
both at the front over the objectives and at the rear over the prism caps. By the 1960 flyer the IF versions had full rubber coverings.

A set of post-WWII Hensoldt flyers and price lists can be found at Mark’s great resource Miniature Binoculars: https://www.miniaturebinoculars.com/part4/Page1604.htm

And also see a DIY cutaway of a well used IF 8x30. It was listed by martin_nh on eBay in 2020.


John

 

[dries1]

Thanks John, and Gijs. Well I could not find any pics or stat sheets for the 8X30 IF Diagon ( I have never seen one), I guess they were made, I just never knew they used the Diagon name on actual military glass. I must say the CF Diagon models from the 60s were built to a higher standard than the later Dekarems or the Jenoptem models.
The DF 8X30 (green armor) is my truck bino. I used it in the sand box, and it held up very well.

 

[Trinovid]

The advantage of this small Ultravid is only available to people who can use it, many cannot for the reasons mentioned above!
I would rather use a Zeiss 8x25 than a UV 8x32, which is three times as expensive, because I have more of that.

I like your reasoning as completely sensible for one view of the comparison and it seems like you also recognize that some of us are fine with the slightly larger 8x32 HD+ even though there are many serviceable choices for far less. My path to getting the binoculars I have has been arrived at less by my own expertise, but rather through much reading of posts by others like yourself who seem to hold them in fairly high regard, and since having received them, I've decided to keep them despite the fact I could get something for far less that would work for most of my viewing activities. To tell the truth, what I'm looking forward to the most in keeping these is being out on the water and hiking, during which times I hope to also get many great views of my personal favorites, eagles and ravens, not to mention killer whales and harbor porpoises.

Now because of you, I have to start also looking into something even less bulky that I can carry on a daily basis, starting with your Zeiss 8x25 Victory, amongst others, and I'd really like to find more binoculars in lower magnifications, if for no other reason that to still acquire a decent level of twilight brightness in an even more compact package. Now I'm really saving money, as I consider buying even more binoculars.

 

[Conndomat]

Now because of you, I have to start also looking into something even less bulky that I can carry on a daily basis, starting with your Zeiss 8x25 Victory, amongst others, and I'd really like to find more binoculars in lower magnifications, if for no other reason that to still acquire a decent level of twilight brightness in an even more compact package. Now I'm really saving money, as I consider buying even more binoculars.

No please not because of me!

I don't own the Zeiss 8x25 at all, but if I were looking for pocket binoculars it would be my first choice.

Another thing, binoculars have a certain addictive factor that collecting can become endless, sometimes it is better to have 1-2 binoculars and use them regularly, less is often more ... says Andreas, who has a whole cupboard full of binoculars ...

 

[dries1]

"Another thing, binoculars have a certain addictive factor that collecting can become endless"

One should visit some of the watch forums, it makes binocular addiction look small in comparison.

 

[Mike F]

less is often more ...

Less is more, less is more, less is more........ Repeat the mantra as many times and for as long as it takes! 😉

I only have five binoculars and no duplicates or magnification – except for 10x …… Oops! 😂

 

[Paultricounty]

No please not because of me!

I don't own the Zeiss 8x25 at all, but if I were looking for pocket binoculars it would be my first choice.

Another thing, binoculars have a certain addictive factor that collecting can become endless, sometimes it is better to have 1-2 binoculars and use them regularly, less is often more ... says Andreas, who has a whole cupboard full of binoculars ...

You can say that again! 15 and counting since February and that's not counting the three I already owned.

My wife says I have an addictive personality. My response is, doesn’t everybody need 50 guns, over 200 knives and a couple of dozen flashlights? She’s silly sometimes. 😜🤫


Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

Less is more, less is more, less is more........ Repeat the mantra as many times and for as long as it takes! 😉

I only have five binoculars and no duplicates or magnification – except for 10x …… Oops! 😂

I disagree Mike, I think more is more and less is less. 🤭✌🏼

 

[lmans66]

Now because of you, I have to start also looking into something even less bulky that I can carry on a daily basis, starting with your Zeiss 8x25 Victory, amongst others, and I'd really like to find more binoculars in lower magnifications, if for no other reason that to still acquire a decent level of twilight brightness in an even more compact package. Now I'm really saving money, as I consider buying even more binoculars.

Try the Leica Retrovid 7x35..... I prefer it better than the Zeiss 8x25.... Look over the threads that speak to the quality / optics etc of this 7x35. It is easily a walk-about bin, jim

 

[tenex]

My feeling is we might see the NV phased out and replaced before the NV [UV?], especially in the light of the Swaro NL and Zeiss SF competition.

I would love to see a NV II with Perger prisms (and closed bridge) and a significantly wider FOV, with a goldilocks combination of large sweet spot and minimal pincushioning. I think there's room for that to compete against the flat-field NL or SF. And if successful, there could be a 32 also.

 

[eronald]

I would love to see a NV II with Perger prisms (and closed bridge) and a significantly wider FOV, with a goldilocks combination of large sweet spot and minimal pincushioning. I think there's room for that to compete against the flat-field NL or SF. And if successful, there could be a 32 also.

The competition have some seriously good x42 and x32 products now with the SF and NL, while opinions re the Noctivid optics seem to be rather divided, although a lot of people like the styling. The retrovids and Trinovid HT don't cut it in the high end of the birding and hunting markets, and the presence of the Noctivid has damaged the long-established Ultravid brand even though the product itself, especially the x32 is still appreciated by the market.

This seems to be one of those situations where Leica will have to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Maybe they can buy Swaro

One possible way for them to go for the important bird market would be to release a high end x35, based on -but better optically than- the Retrovid and sealed with a fast large focuser. Such a refinement of the Retrovid which could be optically superior to the SF and NL x32 because of its larger objectives. I think such an x35 would find a lot of customers on this forum as a lot of people have been moving to x32. If this is their plan, then the strange low-key x35 Trinovid release makes sense as a market survey.

Edmund

 

[lmans66]

The competition have some seriously good x42 and x32 products now with the SF and NL, while opinions re the Noctivid seem to be rather divided, although everybody likes the compact physical design. The retrovids and Trinovid HT don't cut it in the high end of the birding and hunting markets, and the presence of the Noctivid has damaged the Ultravid brand even though the product itself, especially the x32 is still appreciated by the market.

This seems to be one of those situations where Leica will have to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Maybe they can buy Swaro

One possible way for them to go would be to release a high end x35, based on but better optically than the Retrovid and sealed, which would be competitive with the SF and NL x32 because of its larger objectives.

Edmund

You sound you lean towards Swaro and haven't really tried the Leicas to make that determination. I have had Swaro's, Zeiss....and Leica's of all types. Quality wise, ...no, none of them suffer. The Noctovids are just as good as the SF and NL in my thinking and it comes down to personal taste. The Ultravid is 'just about' an alpha and actually in 90% of the peoples' hands, it is an alpha....just as the EL was.

It isn't Leica that might have the problem, it might be Swaro for they are the ones that goofed up their EL line. Leica is keeping intact the Ultravid line.

 

[eronald]

You sound you lean towards Swaro and haven't really tried the Leicas to make that determination. I have had Swaro's, Zeiss....and Leica's of all types. Quality wise, ...no, none of them suffer. The Noctovids are just as good as the SF and NL in my thinking and it comes down to personal taste. The Ultravid is 'just about' an alpha and actually in 90% of the peoples' hands, it is an alpha....just as the EL was.

It isn't Leica that might have the problem, it might be Swaro for they are the ones that goofed up their EL line. Leica is keeping intact the Ultravid line.

The question isn't whether the UV is an alpha - we agree it is still pretty good and could be even better if updated. - as it has already been several times in the past. The latest version of the 8x42 I tried was very very nice. The question is whether the Ultravid brand is good, and the answer here is it has been damaged by the PR around the Noctivid as the leading product.

As for the Noctivid, my personal opinion is that it is literally painful to use against white skies. I really like the color pop and the look in summer though.

Edmund

 

[Canip]

Hi Paul,

I'm not sure I'm following your point, but as it happens 389ft at 1000 yards is just about the lowest FOV I'm personally willing to accept in an 8x binocular (about 58º true AFOV) and then only of there is something else unusually good about it (and I don't mean that it's unusually delicious).

If the 8x32 Geovid's 7º FOV spec is correct then the resulting 367.5 ft at 1000 yards just wouldn't make the cut. Leica needs to clear up the discrepancy in the FOV specs.

Henry

It's not the first time Leica's specs are inconsistent.

So I don't know whether the "135m / 1000m" or the "7 degrees" FOV spec is correct, both are listed in Leica's brochure.
Idem for the 10x32, "112m" is NOT "5.8 degrees", as Leica states, so which one is it?

In another forum, members seem to assume that for the 8x, the 135m spec is correct, which would be 7.7 degrees.

135m (7.7 degrees) for 8x and 112m for 10x (6.4 degrees) would not be outstanding, but acceptable, whereas a 7 degrees (= 122m) for 8x and 5.8 degrees (= 101m) would not be, as Henry rightfully points out.

Leica, get your act together, this is a 3'000 $ instrument, after all (if Meopta cannot state consistent specs for their 600 $ MeoPro Air line, that's almost excusable ...)

 

[Mike F]

Is it the case that Leica’s specs in meters are correct and it’s their conversation to feet which is incorrect? I seem to remember that from a previous discussion.....

 

[henry link]

Hi Mike,

This time that's not the problem. The conversion from meters to feet is correct, but neither matches the angular FOV.

Henry

 

[Renze de Vries]

The question isn't whether the UV is an alpha - we agree it is still pretty good and could be even better if updated. - as it has already been several times in the past. The latest version of the 8x42 I tried was very very nice. The question is whether the Ultravid brand is good, and the answer here is it has been damaged by the PR around the Noctivid as the leading product.

As for the Noctivid, my personal opinion is that it is literally painful to use against white skies. I really like the color pop and the look in summer though.

Edmund

I don't understand, what exactly are white skies? And why would the Noctivid be painful?

Renze