8x32 UVHD+ vs 7x35 Retrovid (1 Viewer)

[eitanaltman]

Hi Don & eitanaltman

What can you tell us/me about the differences between the 8x32 and the 7x42 UV HD's ?
How do they compliment each other?
What application is there for the 7x42 that the 8 doesn't fill? Other than a few minutes of viewing time late afternoon or early morning ?

Is one more pleasurable to use because of larger oculars and bigger eyeball?

The “raw optical quality” is basically the same, the differences are more about personal taste. More depth of field vs wider apparent FOV is the only significant difference outside of those related to the exit pupil / aperture.

For me, it’s all about viewing comfort / ease of use.

The 8x32 is wonderful but I find the eye positioning a bit finicky, even for an 8x32. I don’t wear glasses and I find the eyecups a bit too small, not just the diameter but they also don’t extend far enough for the eye relief (this will probably surprise eyeglass wearers who have ruled out the 8x32 due to the short eye relief haha); if I just plop them in my eye sockets I get blackouts. So I have to do the little jig where I try to find the perfect spot under my brow to tuck them in so they are positioned a bit further from the eyeball. With extended field use it begins to get fatiguing, especially when my eyes are tired (early morning).

The 7x42 on the other hand is easy peasy. I can still induce blackouts more easily than some other more modern alphas — the EDG 8x42 that I also own currently for example is far more forgiving in terms of eye position. But the enormous exit pupil and generous eye relief means there’s plenty of margin for error. I also find the eyecups of the 42mm Ultravids to be the best, exactly the proper shape, thickness, texture and feel for my preferences. I just slap them up to my face and I nearly always get a perfect view. Combined with the huge DOF it feels like I can be on the bird and in focus faster with the 7x42 than almost any other binocular.

Switching from the 8x32 (or, honestly, most smaller exit pupil binoculars) to the 7x42 to me feels like my eyeballs just got home and kicked off those dress shoes after a long day at work and put on the soft warm fuzzy slippers. I never, ever get eye fatigue with the 7x42. I also find the 7x42 to be utterly impervious to different lighting conditions, more than any other binocular I’ve owned the view is equally good in any situation. Murky post-sunset gloom, heavy overcast with harsh diffused glare, blinding mid-day sun on a cloudless day, doesn’t matter. The view is always great. I don’t even have to think about it, they just deliver with no fuss.

In total, the difference in ease and consistency of the view is hard to describe but (for me) it’s far more significant than the theoretical “a few minutes at dawn and dusk” that people mention when discussing exit pupil. I feel the difference in many lighting / viewing situations — especially overcast / gloom / haze.

Unfortunately it’s something that only gets REALLY noticeable when actually using them in the field. If you do the A/B side by side quick comparison in normal daylight it’s not so obvious. Again the more comfortable shoe analogy — might not feel like a big difference trying them on for a few minutes in the store, but go walk 4-5 miles and it’s glaringly obvious.

Subjectively, I also prefer the ergonomics of the 7x42 for extended field use. The 8x32 is just a touch too small, so I’m not totally sure where to put all my fingers. Not a huge thing but it’s one of the little things (like the slightly fussy eye placement) which adds up when you’re using them in field for hours on end. The 7x42 (for me) is no fuss, I can grab it any number of ways and it works. The compact size, light weight, and the smooth taper of the barrels makes them feel smaller in the hand, more like a meaty 8x32 (eg Zeiss Conquest HD) than a 42mm in terms of handling.

Finally, also on the subjective side of things, I have become addicted to the enormous DOF of the 7x42 and how it feels like everything is clear and in focus. It’s just such a pleasing and relaxing view overall, just some magical alchemy the 7x42 UV has that makes the package greater than the sum of the parts. I never ever miss the incremental magnification difference compared to an 8x. The only advantage of the 8x32 (for me) is the size/weight reduction, I prefer the 7x42 in all other respects.

Apologies if I just complicated things lol

 

[Paultricounty]

The “raw optical quality” is basically the same, the differences are more about personal taste. More depth of field vs wider apparent FOV is the only significant difference outside of those related to the exit pupil / aperture.

For me, it’s all about viewing comfort / ease of use.

The 8x32 is wonderful but I find the eye positioning a bit finicky, even for an 8x32. I don’t wear glasses and I find the eyecups a bit too small, not just the diameter but they also don’t extend far enough for the eye relief (this will probably surprise eyeglass wearers who have ruled out the 8x32 due to the short eye relief haha); if I just plop them in my eye sockets I get blackouts. So I have to do the little jig where I try to find the perfect spot under my brow to tuck them in so they are positioned a bit further from the eyeball. With extended field use it begins to get fatiguing, especially when my eyes are tired (early morning).

The 7x42 on the other hand is easy peasy. I can still induce blackouts more easily than some other more modern alphas — the EDG 8x42 that I also own currently for example is far more forgiving in terms of eye position. But the enormous exit pupil and generous eye relief means there’s plenty of margin for error. I also find the eyecups of the 42mm Ultravids to be the best, exactly the proper shape, thickness, texture and feel for my preferences. I just slap them up to my face and I nearly always get a perfect view. Combined with the huge DOF it feels like I can be on the bird and in focus faster with the 7x42 than almost any other binocular.

Switching from the 8x32 (or, honestly, most smaller exit pupil binoculars) to the 7x42 to me feels like my eyeballs just got home and kicked off those dress shoes after a long day at work and put on the soft warm fuzzy slippers. I never, ever get eye fatigue with the 7x42. I also find the 7x42 to be utterly impervious to different lighting conditions, more than any other binocular I’ve owned the view is equally good in any situation. Murky post-sunset gloom, heavy overcast with harsh diffused glare, blinding mid-day sun on a cloudless day, doesn’t matter. The view is always great. I don’t even have to think about it, they just deliver with no fuss.

In total, the difference in ease and consistency of the view is hard to describe but (for me) it’s far more significant than the theoretical “a few minutes at dawn and dusk” that people mention when discussing exit pupil. I feel the difference in many lighting / viewing situations — especially overcast / gloom / haze.

Unfortunately it’s something that only gets REALLY noticeable when actually using them in the field. If you do the A/B side by side quick comparison in normal daylight it’s not so obvious. Again the more comfortable shoe analogy — might not feel like a big difference trying them on for a few minutes in the store, but go walk 4-5 miles and it’s glaringly obvious.

Subjectively, I also prefer the ergonomics of the 7x42 for extended field use. The 8x32 is just a touch too small, so I’m not totally sure where to put all my fingers. Not a huge thing but it’s one of the little things (like the slightly fussy eye placement) which adds up when you’re using them in field for hours on end. The 7x42 (for me) is no fuss, I can grab it any number of ways and it works. The compact size, light weight, and the smooth taper of the barrels makes them feel smaller in the hand, more like a meaty 8x32 (eg Zeiss Conquest HD) than a 42mm in terms of handling.

Finally, also on the subjective side of things, I have become addicted to the enormous DOF of the 7x42 and how it feels like everything is clear and in focus. It’s just such a pleasing and relaxing view overall, just some magical alchemy the 7x42 UV has that makes the package greater than the sum of the parts. I never ever miss the incremental magnification difference compared to an 8x. The only advantage of the 8x32 (for me) is the size/weight reduction, I prefer the 7x42 in all other respects.

Apologies if I just complicated things lol

Excellent in depth description. Thank you. It does help a great deal in the decision process. I didn’t want to duplicate everything. I want to see a difference, if not in an optics bump, which I wasn’t expecting, but I want more user benefits. I really like the the 8x32’s. I also feel the eye box is a little finicky , but very usable. Just as you described not the most comfortable as the hours pass.

I figured the 7 is like another bird, (no pun intended, well maybe a little) different in good ways, just like you described, the DOF, eye relief comfort, larger oculars and a little more substantial feel in size. The Noctivids 8x42, UV 8x32 and the 742 should all compliment each other with differences to make them all enjoyable in there own way.

How is the focuser on your 7 UVHD? My 8x32 are ok, there nice but not beautifully smooth. A lot of guys seem to have a few issues with the UV ‘s In that area.

You didn’t complicate things at all , you helped the decision making. There was a EDG 10x42 that I could have picked up as well, new about same price as a 742UV. But that’s a different animal as well. And I’m not sure anything will impress me more than my NL 10’s.

Paul

 

[Boogieshrew]

The 7x42 to me feels like my eyeballs just got home and kicked off those dress shoes after a long day at work and put on the soft warm fuzzy slippers. I never, ever get eye fatigue with the 7x42. I also find the 7x42 to be utterly impervious to different lighting conditions, more than any other binocular I’ve owned the view is equally good in any situation. Murky post-sunset gloom, heavy overcast with harsh diffused glare, blinding mid-day sun on a cloudless day, doesn’t matter. The view is always great. I don’t even have to think about it, they just deliver with no fuss.

Fantastic description of how I too find the UV+ 7x42.
👍👍👍

 

[dorubird]

For binoculars ease of viewing is one of the most important aspects. Only pocket binoculars are forgiven for this important aspect because they will only be used in an emergency situations, only temporarily. Exactly as suggested eitanaltam, for a pair of binoculars that are supposed to be used intensely every day, Ultravid 8x32 is more pretentious and tiring than Ultravid 7x42 (or even Trinovid 8x42). I'm sure that Ultravid 8x32 it is better in comfort than most pocket binoculars but not by much (We have a forum colleague who gave up 8x32 Ultravid to get a more comfortable 8x25, with a larger eyerelief but at the same time more compact and more pocketable than 8x32). The compromise of eye relief and very compact size is too great in Ultravid 8x32 and I think this it is felt in the comfort of viewing...this important aspect is the only one that kept me away from this otherwise wonderful binoculars (especially form me that I wear glasses for astigmatism)

In general, people get used to the binoculars they use most often over time. I imagine that someone who only has Ultravid 7x42 and Ultravid 8x32 will rarely use 8x32, or at least look for opportunities to use 7x42 as often as possible. Ultravid 7x42, even if it is more voluminous, you will get used to it size, and will be the most comfortable choice, for its extraordinary comfort and ease of viewing (and in addition it is brighter)

 

[Thotmosis]

The UV 10x25 as a true pocket binocular has great value for me and lives in my "man purse" always ready for action, the
UV 8x32 -as the nice allround compact binocular that it is- works fine for hikes when weight and size has to be minimal. For intensive use for many hours and for the comfort of viewing I wouldn't mind to put on the soft warm fuzzy slippers of a UV 7x42.

 

[Mike F]

Thanks everyone for the great input on this thread so far! I’ve decided that I will just keep my present lineup for now. It’s hard to justify adding either the 8x32 UV+ or the 7x35 Retrovid when I already have a 7x42 UV+. My trusty 10x25 BCA’s fulfil the role of something (truly) small and compact when needed, and I think the 7x42’s are small and light enough not to need anything in between.

I’d still be interested in a direct comparison of the 8x32 UV and 8x42 Trinovid (2011-15) if anybody can provide one.

 

[Mac308]

It’s hard to justify adding either the 8x32 UV+ or the 7x35 Retrovid when I already have a 7x42 UV

All I've ever used is 7x30/8x32 glass. I just don't like the bulk and weight of a 42mm binocular. But I'm not just a birder and wildlife viewer, I also backpack high into our mountain wilderness in pursuit of game (North American elk). I will backpack in the mountains for many days, carrying all my gear, so small, robust, bright bin's w/ exceptional resolution are at a premium for me. I've used the Swaro 7x30 and 8x30 SLC's, the Leica 8x32BN, BR and now HD. I've found the 8x32 all the binocular I need (though would prefer a 7x32 or 35). But if I were considering a 42mm pair to add to my 8x20 and 8x32 Ultravid's, it would more than likely be the 7x42 HD.

I said all that to say, if you are happy and not bothered with the size of the 7x42, I doubt the 8x32 will mean much to you. OTOH, if you do get a pair, you may find that you use the 7x42 less and less. I do see you use a 10x25 UV - this is a binocular variation that is probably my least favorite. I'd always rather have less magnification in a 20-25mm binocular, and certainly could see an 8x32 replacing the 10x25 if you lived with both a while.

Regardless, all binoculars are a compromise weighted in one direction or another. The trick is knowing those compromises you can live with, and those features you can't live without, and that's a very personal thing.

 

[Mac308]

As an aside, has anyone tested the 7x35 Retrovid on the USAF Optical Chart, and/or compared them against the 8x32 UV on the chart?

I really like the idea of the 7x35, but top quality resolution is at a premium for me. If I am considering an alternative to any current binocular I always compare them side-by-side on the USAF chart in a variety of lighting conditions over several days. It's quite revealing and removes a lot of the "subjective" nature of appraising a binocular.

About 12 years ago I considered replacing my 8x32 BR's with the Zeiss 8x32 FL. I got the 8x32 FL and compared them to the Leica on the chart over several days. I sent the FL's back. The resolution was not at the same level as the Leica's.

 

[MiddleRiver]

As an aside, has anyone tested the 7x35 Retrovid on the USAF Optical Chart, and/or compared them against the 8x32 UV on the cart?

I really like the idea of the 7x35, but top quality resolution is at a premium for me. If I am considering an alternative to any current binocular I always compare them side-by-side on the USAF chart in a variety of lighting conditions over several days. It's quite revealing and removes a lot of the "subjective" nature of appraising a binocular.

About 12 years ago I considered replacing my 8x32 BR's with the Zeiss 8x32 FL. I got the 8x32 FL and compared them to the Leica on the chart over several days. I sent the FL's back. The resolution was not at the same level as the Leica's.

Would be fun to do with my 7x35. But it looks like charts are upwards of $200US?

 

[Mac308]

Would be fun to do with my 7x35. But it looks like charts are upwards of $200US?

I typically just download one available as a free PDF online like this one:

File:USAF-1951.svg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

 

[MiddleRiver]

I typically just download one available as a free PDF online like this one:

File:USAF-1951.svg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

Thank you! I actually did search around but only found old broken links. Wiki to the rescue!

 

[ZDHart]

I don't see the 8x32 and 7x42 in quite the same "class" of binoculars, owing to size and weight. Rather than compare the 7x42 UVHD+ to the 8x32 UVHD+, perhaps a better comparison might be 7x42 UVHD+ to 8x42 Noctivid?

I do find the ease of view and use a bit easier with the 7x42 vs the 8x32, but not by a large amount, as I find the 8x32 very easy for me to bring to my eyes and use. I very much enjoy the smaller size and lighter weight of the 8x32s.

As I mentioned earlier, the biggest difference for me, here, is size and weight. So for me, I don't view the 8x32 and the 7x42 to really be in the same class - they are different classes of binoculars. And that's why I keep them both, with the 8x32 especially suited to times when I don't want the size and weight of the 7x42.

As for depth of field, it may surprise some to hear that I prefer the slightly shallower DOF of the 8x32, as I find it easier to pop right into focus. With a deeper depth of field, it is less obvious when exact focus is achieved - but then again, that might be a desired quality by some people who are happy if the binoculars quickly appear to be in good, if not the most precise, focus. Different users often prefer different attributes.

For focuser operation - all three of my UVHD+ binoculars have excellent focusers, very smooth and even, with no lag, null, sticky, nor rough spots. No complaints in that regard, though I do enjoy the somewhat lighter tension on my Zeiss focusers.

To my mind, the 7x42 UVHD+ and 8x42 Noctivid are perhaps a better comparison, being somewhat more in the same class, size, weight, and objective size?

 

[ZDHart]

Thank you. I’m looking for excuses to buy another binocular. Was hoping you we’re going to say something like’ the sevens are so much more enjoyable to use, and that’s the one you grab most of the time because of how wonderful they are. 😞

paul

Paul... I think you would very much enjoy the 7x42 UVHD+ and not consider it to be duplicative of the 8x32 UVHD+. They are really fairly different binoculars, especially with regard to form factor, with some similarities. Knowing you a little, as I do, I think you should order up a pair and decide for yourself. They can always be returned if need be. (B&H is awesome!)

 

[ZDHart]

@ZDHart, Is the FOV difference very noticeable in practice?

Hi Mike... yes, the difference in FOV is noticeable - even at the short distance of about 50 feet. Of course at relatively close distances, it's not a dramatic difference to see, but you get a bit wider FOV, and somewhat deeper depth of focus (if that's a quality you might appreciate).

 

[SeldomPerched]

Thanks for your thorough and helpful post @eitanaltman. Much appreciated!

But dang - just as I had satisfied myself that I didn’t need the 8x32 UV after all! 😂

I think that ultimately the question boils down to whether the expense of exchanging my Trinovid 8x42 for the 8x32 UV is justified in terms of ergonomics and convenience, but also most importantly (as size and weight are not the most important consideration for me) optical performance.....

But, maybe I should just have both.....😀

Mike, I know just how you feel but hardly dare to give my instinctive advice against 'maybe just have both' as I have so often not heeded it in my own case and then sometimes ended up trading a new item back in because it was a purchase too many. The 8x32 is an exceptionally dinky and beautifully designed glass and that is as you know a large part of its appeal as it is not nearly as fiddly to use as a x20: I have it in UVHD Plus form, actually my second because the first wasn't that good a sample optically and so after two years trying to pretend it was fine I did something about it and ended up replacing it with another new one. The optical performance is excellent and if it helps at all it is one of very few glasses that Tobias Mennle (who posts excellent photos with his reviews) has kept while changing between EDG 8x42, UVHD Plus 7x42, T*FL 7x42 and SLC 8x42 (most modern versions in each case). Worth noting his findings between 7x42, 8x42 and 8x32 regarding colour and contrast (you will need to see more than one of his articles but they are all easily found on his greatestbinoculars website). He reckons the 8x32 gives the best saturation of colours but I am making a dangerous generalization from longer articles, so please look for yourself.

I view without spectacles but do find the tolerance for viewing much finer with the UVHD Plus 8x32 than with T*FL or EL of the same format; the smaller form factor of the UV, which is so appealing, does bring a trade-off in terms of viewing ease, especially when compared with your 7x42 which must have about the finest viewing ease of anything out there. I don't know about the 8x42 Leicas as I happen to love the SLC in that format for its not too different from Leica colour (probably a bit yellower rather than redder, but still rich), excellent contrast and clarity almost right to the edges without resorting to flat field.

I wonder if the appeal of the Retrovid may be (and why not?) to do with the nostalgia of the good old days and whether faced with a collection of 8x32, 7x35 and 7x40 etc you might not ultimately decide that, leaving aside Trinovids about which I have no experience at all, those three would be a bit 'two's a party; three's a crowd'. In which case you still have to decide which to turn away from the party!

All the best,

Tom

 

[Trinovid]

Ultravid 8x32 is more...

Yes, I agree. Thanks for mentioning my favorite binoculars and pointing out that their excellent design may not be for everyone, but is perfect for those of us who are glad that Leica made them.

 

[Paultricounty]

Mike, I know just how you feel but hardly dare to give my instinctive advice against 'maybe just have both' as I have so often not heeded it in my own case and then sometimes ended up trading a new item back in because it was a purchase too many. The 8x32 is an exceptionally dinky and beautifully designed glass and that is as you know a large part of its appeal as it is not nearly as fiddly to use as a x20: I have it in UVHD Plus form, actually my second because the first wasn't that good a sample optically and so after two years trying to pretend it was fine I did something about it and ended up replacing it with another new one. The optical performance is excellent and if it helps at all it is one of very few glasses that Tobias Mennle (who posts excellent photos with his reviews) has kept while changing between EDG 8x42, UVHD Plus 7x42, T*FL 7x42 and SLC 8x42 (most modern versions in each case). Worth noting his findings between 7x42, 8x42 and 8x32 regarding colour and contrast (you will need to see more than one of his articles but they are all easily found on his greatestbinoculars website). He reckons the 8x32 gives the best saturation of colours but I am making a dangerous generalization from longer articles, so please look for yourself.

I view without spectacles but do find the tolerance for viewing much finer with the UVHD Plus 8x32 than with T*FL or EL of the same format; the smaller form factor of the UV, which is so appealing, does bring a trade-off in terms of viewing ease, especially when compared with your 7x42 which must have about the finest viewing ease of anything out there. I don't know about the 8x42 Leicas as I happen to love the SLC in that format for its not too different from Leica colour (probably a bit yellower rather than redder, but still rich), excellent contrast and clarity almost right to the edges without resorting to flat field.

I wonder if the appeal of the Retrovid may be (and why not?) to do with the nostalgia of the good old days and whether faced with a collection of 8x32, 7x35 and 7x40 etc you might not ultimately decide that, leaving aside Trinovids about which I have no experience at all, those three would be a bit 'two's a party; three's a crowd'. In which case you still have to decide which to turn away from the party!

All the best,

Tom

Hi Tom,

Very well said on the 8x32’s UV’s. I agree with everything you said. They are amazing glass and it’s there form factor that adds to the amazing optics. Form factor is also what makes them a little finicky in use, small box, ocular size and short eye releif. It’s kind of a must have binocular because of how Cool they are. I coin them, the big binoculars in the smallest package. Kind of like a rich person trapped in a poor persons body 🤭.

Tom, what did you mean when you said you pretended your UV’s were fine and then bought another pair. What was wrong?

Paul

 

[eitanaltman]

Excellent in depth description. Thank you. It does help a great deal in the decision process. I didn’t want to duplicate everything. I want to see a difference, if not in an optics bump, which I wasn’t expecting, but I want more user benefits. I really like the the 8x32’s. I also feel the eye box is a little finicky , but very usable. Just as you described not the most comfortable as the hours pass.

I figured the 7 is like another bird, (no pun intended, well maybe a little) different in good ways, just like you described, the DOF, eye relief comfort, larger oculars and a little more substantial feel in size. The Noctivids 8x42, UV 8x32 and the 742 should all compliment each other with differences to make them all enjoyable in there own way.

How is the focuser on your 7 UVHD? My 8x32 are ok, there nice but not beautifully smooth. A lot of guys seem to have a few issues with the UV ‘s In that area.

I find the focusers on all the Ultravids that I've owned to be just fine (I'm including the 2011-15 Trinovid since it's essentially an Ultravid under the hood), but I'm used to them.

None of them are going to win any "buttery smooth focuser" awards like the Nikon EDG, Zeiss SF, Kowa Genesis etc, or even the Noctovid. Sometimes there's a bit of "stiction" or perhaps a rubbing/gritty feel depending how I twirl it, but Leica is intentionally using a greaseless design so I keep my expectations realistic about how they have a "dry" or "mechanical" feel. If you just handed someone a Leica and a "buttery smooth focuser" binocular and asked them which focuser they liked better, I'm sure most would pick the latter just standing there wiggling the knob back and forth.

But in the field, the Leica always gets the job done. It's a utilitarian design, but I never ever have issues snapping into sharp focus with any of the Leicas that I've owned. Sure, it's not "silky" or "buttery" in action, but there's zero slop or squish and once I'm turning the dial I've never thought "something is wrong". It just works, when it matters.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Hi Tom,

Very well said on the 8x32’s UV’s. I agree with everything you said. They are amazing glass and it’s there form factor that adds to the amazing optics. Form factor is also what makes them a little finicky in use, small box, ocular size and short eye releif. It’s kind of a must have binocular because of how Cool they are. I coin them, the big binoculars in the smallest package. Kind of like a rich person trapped in a poor persons body 🤭.

Tom, what did you mean when you said you pretended your UV’s were fine and then bought another pair. What was wrong?

Paul

Hi Paul,

I like your description and analogy!

Addressing your last paragraph: all seemed fine when I first collected the 8x32, alongside the 7x42 — both new, I tried both bins out against a variety of architecture as I was in a busy city for the purchase. Tall buildings, church towers, textured stonework, and also objects on display in the streets; there were no birds around! Before going ahead with the transaction I fine-tuned the dioptre settings and generally played around with viewing at near and far distances on a clear, sunny day. The impression I had of colours, texture etc was exciting and all seemed well defined. These were not the first binoculars I ever had, having used a few Zeiss along the way, all of which have been pre-owned and excellent. Some I still have and I have whittled the keepers down to a very small core selection I hope not to part with. I find the same 8x32 and 7x42 formats in T*FL very fine, in different ways from the Leicas. Each make has its own balance of emphasis on various optical features.

Somehow over the following months I came to think all was not right with the adjustment in either of the two new Leica binoculars. The 7x42 didn't seem to delineate the patterns of foliage as clearly as the Zeiss 7 that I had, that being the sort of viewing that showed the differences at their clearest (Zeiss) and unclearest (Leica), and the 8 was much the same. I was lulled by popular wisdom about 7s that focus would remain sharp without needing pinpoint accuracy. I fiddled with the dioptre control and eventually came to the (incorrect) conclusion I was a square peg with a round hole set of binoculars: for instance perhaps there was something about my eyesight that didn't match the optics of the Leica.

Anyway, to get to the point, I finally found it was to do with the dioptre setting and when I got that absolutely right all was suddenly just as it should be and to my relief has stayed that way (no idea why it eluded me so long; with a Swarovski it takes me about 30 seconds but then they zero the control knob to the correct position for neutral in all their binoculars, so once you know your setting you can apply it without experimentation by using the marks on the dial with almost any of their products - modern ones anyway). So that was the 7x42 taken care of.

With the 8x32 I had become aware when trying to see what the matter was that at very close focusing distances details of objects with texture just would not resolve well enough and that trying a new unit in the shop after messing about for two years on and off with the original item solved that problem immediately. Of course I was very happy to have put the testing period (in both senses of the word: testing me and testing the glass) now finally behind me. In summary the 7x42 was a good unit hindered only by user error; the 8x32 was out of adjustment from new and not user-rectifiable.

Probably of no interest to you but I find that even the slightest mis-setting of the dioptre affects my impression of the image and though I seem to be in a minority here I find even very small differences in focusing also make a noticeable difference, even with a smaller magnification glass such as a 7x.

So to get back to your original question, 'pretended' meant I just couldn't believe that Leica optics could be out of alignment. It is quite rare with their new camera lenses and I have a still excellent lens from fifty years ago that has seen a lot of life and never been serviced. I have since come to see that collimation errors and jolts etc are common with binoculars and that they don't always occur as a result of rough handling.

All the best,

Tom

 

[Mike F]

Anyway, to get to the point, I finally found it was to do with the dioptre setting and when I got that absolutely right all was suddenly just as it should be and to my relief has stayed that way (no idea why it eluded me so long; with a Swarovski it takes me about 30 seconds but then they zero the control knob to the correct position for neutral in all their binoculars, so once you know your setting you can apply it without experimentation by using the marks on the dial with almost any of their products - modern ones anyway). So that was the 7x42 taken care of.

Tom,

I have/had the same problem with my 12x50 HD+ (which is partly why I had two examples to compare at one point). I had just set the diopter to zero and assumed that to be the correct setting (as it is for me on my other four Leica bins). I just couldn't work out what the problem was until I just tried adjusting the diopter one day, out of shear frustration as much as anything else. Bingo! I felt rather stupid I have to say, but I was blaming all sorts of other things and finding all manner of reasons why the view wasn't comfortable. It was just a matter of the diopter gauge being a little off. It should be easy to get that right at the factory, and as I'd never come across the error before it hadn't even occurred to me as a possibility.