Hi Mayomike...I have skills; I will find you....and I will Make you try my Canon IS 10x42!!!
PERSONALLY.... I see no real good reason for you NOT to get the 8X32. The ONLY reason I don't have the 8X32 is eye relief. I've used a friend of mine some...I like it. The 8X32 will be lighter and handier. I sure can't recommend the Leica 42mms highly enough but if I could I certainly would have the 8X32. I don't know of a single 8X32 user that isn't crazy about it.
A few years ago our Mountain Rescue team coordinated a protracted search for a man lost in the mountain. The search lasted several days and expended literally hundreds of voluntary manhours. In hindsight I felt that the role of optics was underutilized in that search so I began to look into this in more detail.
- That said... the optical differences between the 8x32 and 7x42 are SO SMALL that I think you will make a better decision for yourself by holding that variable constant and making the decision on everything else!
Yes, the 7x42 is a bit brighter and has that enormous exit pupil. But in daylight use I find the difference so small that it’s not worth worrying about, as it’s only visible in direct comparison. I have NEVER used the 8x32 and thought “this isn’t bright enough” (other than murky dawn/dusk situations). I’ve bought and sold like a dozen high end binoculars the past few months, with my wife’s 8x32 UVHD serving as the constant reference standard, and the view from that little marvel holds its own with anything. You will drive yourself nuts dwelling on this tiny difference when the differences in size, weight, eye relief etc are much more significant.
Field of view is a wash - the 7x42 is a bit wider in true FOV but the 8x32 has a wider apparent FOV. Chromatic aberration is a wash - both are very good, with barely any in the center and a bit off axis. Both have world class saturation and contrast. Both are so crazy sharp that you barely miss the higher magnification. Both have deep, immersive views. The only (small) differences I can see (leaving aside exit pupil and eye relief):
1. The 7x42 is a bit brighter and more “transparent”. Just a beautiful view.
2. The 7x42 has more pincushion, combined with the wider AFOV it makes panning more natural in the 8x32 to my eyes. The 7x42 often gives me a reverse rolling ball (rolling bowl!) with the extra pincushion.
3. The 7x42 however has a slightly larger sweet spot and feels a bit sharper at the edges (less field curvature).
4. The 8x32 has slightly better glare control. It really is amazing how they packed such a wide field, with such good correction of aberrations and so little glare into such a tiny package without massive oculars. The 7x42 has good glare control in the center, but it is more prone to crescent flares on the periphery in harsh conditions.
That’s basically it. Both have otherwise outstanding correction of optical aberrations yielding a clean, transparent, vivid view. Both have the same build quality, the same awesome eyecup mechanism, the same focus knob and diopter adjustment. Both will be a lovely complement to the 10x50.
So I would recommend you put all that aside, and make it a much simpler decision where the differences are significant:
1. The 7x42 has quite good eye relief (in fact slightly too much for the eyecup extension for me), the 8x32 is has fairly short eye relief. Combined with the larger exit pupil, the 7x42 has easier eye placement whereas the 8x32 is more touchy. But if you had no issues with an 8x20, I doubt this will be a problem. I will note that I find the 7x42 more prone to shadows / blackouts if my eye position moves from the ideal point.
2. The 7x42 is very compact and feels notably lighter and slightly slimmer in the hand than the 10x42 Trinovid. The 8x42 is actually slightly heavier so the difference will be even more apparent. The 7x42 UVHD is 750g naked, whereas there 10x42 TV is around 800g. The 7x42 is also about 1cm shorter. It’s not a lot, but it adds up and I find the 7x42 more pleasant to hold. HOWEVER, the 8x32 is TINY, weighing only ~530g and very slim and short. If you have large hands it may even feel a bit too small.
So to me, it all comes down to simple priorities: do you want something tiny and super light at the expense of some exit pupil and eye relief? Or are you ok with something a bit bigger and heavier (but still quite compact) for the extra eye relief and low light performance?
Then the decision becomes much easier
This is all good, except having seen what an Ultravid HD+ can offer I’m no longer satisfied with the Trinovid 8x42...
Obviously I don't understand what you want, but good hunting.I have not ruled out anything, but the Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD+ would be very similar to the Trinovid 8x42 that I already have...
I'm going to see what it would cost to exchange my (beloved) Trinovid 8x42 for an Ultravid 8x42 HD+...
I have been using (and loving) the 7x42 UVHD since I got it last week, and I love it more every time I use it. I have compared to the 8x42 Monarch HG and the 8x32 UVHD and you absolutely do not miss the small difference in magnification, the 7x42 is SO sharp and transparent that you don't even notice.
And as I said before, and to reaffirm Mike, the size/weight reduction is significant in the hand, even if it doesn't look like it on paper. My wife liked the view through my Trinovid 10x42, but always commented on how bulky and heavy they were. But when she tried the 7x42 UVHD, she thought they felt great and she couldn't stop looking through them. She ended up taking them on a walk to try them in the field because she liked them so much instead of her 8x32's.
After her walk she ended up concluding she preferred the 8x32 for the size/weight (she started to notice the weight of the 7x42 after an hour walking and birding). But this is the first time I was ever concerned she might want to steal my binoculars to replace hers!
The price I could get for my Trinovid 8x42 is about the same as the price difference between the Ultravid 8x32 HD+ and Ultravid 7x42 HD+ so my options are keep my Trinovid 8x42 and get a Ultravid 8x32 HD+ as well, or get a Ultravid 7x42 HD+. The Trinovid 8x42 and Ultravid 8x32 HD+ seems like a better option...
It will be quite a while before I can afford either
Hi Gilmore Girl (or should I say Beth?)
Actually it was one of your comments on a previous post about how much liked the Ultravid 7x42 that made me consider it in the first place. When I looked into it I found a general consensus that the Ultravid 7x42 is more enjoyable to use than the Ultravid 8x42. I'm not sure if this is real or if I was just finding what I wanted to find, but it seems to me that most people who have tried both prefer the Ultravid 7x42.
It would be great to hear what you think of he Ultravid 8x32 HD+ after you have a chance to use it for a bit. The price I could get for my Trinovid 8x42 is about the same as the price difference between the Ultravid 8x32 HD+ and Ultravid 7x42 HD+ so my options are keep my Trinovid 8x42 and get a Ultravid 8x32 HD+ as well, or get a Ultravid 7x42 HD+. The Trinovid 8x42 and Ultravid 8x32 HD+ seems like a better option...
It will be quite a while before I can afford either
GG or Beth is fine ... doesn't matter. I do miss the 7x42 and that distinct Leica view. I'm unsure if the 8x32 will work with my eyeglasses, so I'll test that first. If the ER is too short I'll send it back. I'm hoping it works. I tried the 8x32 right before I ordered the 7x42 several years ago, but the 8x32 didn't work with my glasses. I had thicker frames back then, so I decided to go with the bigger 42mm which has longer ER and worked great with my glasses. Now I have really thin titanium eyeglass frames and I'm hoping this makes a difference. This is my last try for the little 8x32, a bino I've always wanted.
I like the Trinovid 42 and the Ultravid 8x32 combo. I think that's a nice balance...just my 2 cents if that helps