• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

A growing addiction.... (1 Viewer)

Sancho

Registered User
Supporter
Hi Mayomike...I have skills; I will find you....and I will Make you try my Canon IS 10x42!!!;)
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Mayomike. I am thinking for search and rescue you want the binocular with the biggest FOV because you could scan bigger areas at one time and it would you take you less time to find what you are looking for which could prove to be a lifesaver and I would think under low light you are going to want at least a 42 mm. The binocular that comes to my mind is the Swarovski NL 8x42 with 477 foot FOV. The NL 8x42 has a 33% bigger FOV than the Leica Ultravid HD 8x42 so in 10 views through the binocular you are going to cover almost 600,000 more square feet of forest looking for your survivor. Hunters know this that a bigger FOV helps them find game faster.
 
Last edited:

Binastro

Well-known member
Flir Scion PTM thermal hand held imager up to 30 degree field.

Day or night or in between.

About £3,000.

For search and rescue.

There are also drones.

B.
 

LucaPCP

Well-known member
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.

I have the 8x32, and somehow I kind of _like_ the smaller eye relief. I find I can hold the binoculars steady and explore the field moving my eye better, without getting much blackout when I stare into the sides of the field of view.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Here is what you need for search and rescue.

Accolade 2 LRF XP50 2.5-20 Thermal Binocular

Built-in precise laser rangefinder (up to 1000 m)
Comfortable for long observation
Variable interpupillary distance
High refresh rate 50 Hz
Built-in video recorder
Built-in Wi-Fi module
Wi-Fi video transmission
Live internet video sharing
Frost resistant AMOLED display
Quick-change long-life rechargeable Battery Packs
Fully waterproof IPX7
 

Attachments

  • Pulsar_Accolade_2_LRF_XP50_Thermal_Binocular.jpg
    Pulsar_Accolade_2_LRF_XP50_Thermal_Binocular.jpg
    80.9 KB · Views: 21

CharleyBird

Well-known member
If you are a walker, also consider your heartbeat, the wind factor, and the more steady 7x magnification.
The UV+ is compact and light for a 7x.

I really like the UV+ and have the 7x42, 10x32 and 12x50. The latter two require some effort to use.
The thing with the 7x42 is it's an easy piece of kit.

On the other hand you have an 8x42 already, so unless you think the difference of a 7x42 worth it, the 8x32 might better complement your Trinovid.
 

Patudo

Well-known member
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.

This is really interesting stuff, far more serious than the jobs that most of us use our binoculars for, and unless my memory of the Irish weather no longer reflects the reality (I doubt it!), conditions where serious waterproofing is a must.

Some years ago I came across an info-sheet for the Zeiss West 10x50 porro I have, which listed mountain rescue as one of a number of fairly hairy-chested activities it was suited for. I hope never to need to use mine for that purpose, but I've often wondered how often binoculars are used for search and rescue, the typical conditions under which they are used, and what magnifications have proven to be the most useful over decades of experience.

I'd say both 7x42 or 8x32 will be fine for general observation when dog-walking, with 8x32 the better general purpose choice, especially if light weight/compactness is desired. For more serious work, a lot would depend on what his team would normally take along with them on a typical mountain rescue job, and to some extent what the typical conditions are? I feel 7x mag is somewhat outmatched by the immense distances of places like the Mayo hills, and there's a good argument for 10x50 being the most useful format, even if the scope and tripod was at your disposal. If a 10x50 is usually available, an 8x32 would probably be a better second binocular for another member of the team to use - it's small, light and less trouble to carry around. That's just my opinion though - feel free to correct any misconceptions.
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Hi Mayomike,

I have both the 8x32 and 7x42 Ultravids in HD Plus format. They are both stunning (though my 32 is as far as I can trust myself very slightly out of adjustment) and as has been mentioned by most posters above in daylight I don't see a difference in brightness.

Though I have both, my instinct is to caution you against buying both. I wish I hadn't got both and just concentrated on the one. As you listed there are pros to each and a few cons. But if you get both you may find each time you use one that you'll think negatively: 'should have brought the 32 because I'm experiencing crescent flares' or 'I would have an easier more immersive view with the 42'.

I think both are great. the 42 has all the usual 7x advantages and for its format is compact and light. I recently got a second hand Swarovski 7x42 SLC. It's another excellent bin but that is on the heavy side. The Leica is much handier. The only drawback I can see is the crescent flaring but after testing about a dozen different bins in the last few days of sunny weather flare/glare/reflections appear in everything alpha even the Nikon EDG which is often praised for absence of them.

Everyone is different and so you have to see for yourself (obviously, as you know). So I'll just say that in my case I will as likely as not end up keeping the 7x42 and consider parting with the 8x32. Influential in this decision is that I have an 8x32 EL latest version (Field Pro) and though it is sometimes derided for glare problems, in overcast rainy conditions such as this morning its definition in the areas where you usually look (i.e. fairly straight ahead) is as good as a 50mm or 56mm glass in my opinion, whatever one's opinion on flat field or pincushion may be.

If of course the dinky size of the 8x32 is the overriding factor, get that and enjoy it if your hands and face make friends with it. Mine did but they like the 7x even more.

Hope this helps at least a little bit.

Tom
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
- 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 :)

Since my post (no.28) here a minute or two ago, I read this by Eitan (post no.7) through again more carefully and would agree with everything here, from my UVHD+ experience with the two models you are considering. The only TV I have used is the one you had, in my case a green 8x20 Trinovid BCA that was the best thing I had ever looked through, till I got full sizers; since then I find them incredibly fiddly!

Tom
 

Mayomike

Member
Hi Tenex,

Obviously I don't understand what I want either... :)

Thats why I asked for advice. I really got a lot of great feedback. I don't want to thank everyone individually because that would be a bit boring for other people reviewing this, but I really do appreciate the feedback from everyone!

You made a very good point however. I'm going to see what it would cost to exchange my (beloved) Trinovid 8x42 for an Ultravid 8x42 HD+...
 

Mike F

Well-known member
I'm going to see what it would cost to exchange my (beloved) Trinovid 8x42 for an Ultravid 8x42 HD+...

Mike, at the end of the day it's all just a matter of personal preferences and which binoculars give you enjoyment.

My personal opinion and approach to the above has been that in practice there is very little difference between the 7x42 and 8x42 UVHD+ in terms of magnification (will you really notice any difference in the field without direct comparison?), but the advantages of the 7x42 are more significant - lighter weight, brighter image (it has fewer glass elements as well as the larger exit pupil) larger FOV, greater eye relief, and by all accounts a generally superior image.

I personally feel that having the 8x42 2012 Trinovid (which is a lovely bin in it's own right) and the 7x42 UVHD+ is a good combination, and as you obviously have a (very understandable and justified) soft spot for the Trinovid, it might be something you could consider.
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
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!
 

Gilmore Girl

Beth
Supporter
United States
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!

I sold my 7x42 HD+ after almost 4 years. The weight caught up to me.
It's a beautiful bino and a great image. I just ordered an 8x32 HD+ to give it one more try to see if it will work with my newer/thinner glasses. It's hard to give up the Ultravid. I always compare it to anything else I try and miss its special view.
 

Mayomike

Member
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 :)
 

Mayomike

Member
With regard to waiting for the Noctivd 8x32 to be released....

I'm not convinced that it ever will be. I was waiting for a Trinovid 8x32 to match my Trinovid 8x42 but they never released it. Instead they released the Trinovid 8x32 HD.

If Leica do release a Noctivid 8x32 it will need to be quite a bit longer than the Ultravid 8x32, and will most likely have a flatter field. To be honest, aside from using some Zeiss Conquest 8x42 bins I have never tried other brands so I don't know if I would prefer them or not, but I do like the view through my Leica bins :)
 

Mike F

Well-known member
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 :)

Mike, I would say that it all depends on whether having the smaller x32 is important to you or not. Personally I decided to keep my 8x42 Trinovid and 7x42 UVHD+, instead of changing the Trinovid for the 8x32 UVHD+. If I want/need a smaller bin I have my 10x25 BCA's. In the end, and with your financial position changing with the passage of time, your best option would be to have both 8x32 and 7x42 UVHD+! ;)
 

Gilmore Girl

Beth
Supporter
United States
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 :)
 

eronald

Well-known member
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 :)

Try the 7x25 Retrovid.

Edmund
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top