That is what I figured, but I had to know! How are the edges on the Meopta 12x50 compared to the UVHD 12x50? Which one do you prefer?
-
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.
Choosing a 7x42 between UVHD+ and EDG (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter hopster
- Start date
FWIW, on the AFOV, I do like that initial "immersive" feeling I get when I hold up my 8x42 SF's versus the tighter feel in the EDG. However, once the actual birding gets going, I seem to feel the FOV more than the AFOV. The FOV of these 7x42's is 8 degrees, the 8x42 SF"s, 8.4 degrees. And the edge of field in the 7x42 EDG is more "accessible" meaning easier to see without blackouts or flashes of CA at the edge.
When it comes to finding and tracking birds, the 8 degree true field works well because it really is quite large for birding IMO. Add in the generous DOF and that's why I use the 7x42 EDG for most birding.
When it comes to finding and tracking birds, the 8 degree true field works well because it really is quite large for birding IMO. Add in the generous DOF and that's why I use the 7x42 EDG for most birding.
I always found the bigger the FOV the better when birding. It is easier to find and follow birds with a bigger FOV IMO. An 8.0 degree FOV might work well, but an 8.6 degree FOV works better. DOF does help, but not as much as a bigger FOV does. The edges and CA on the SF 8x42 are every bit as good as the 7x42 EDG, but I find even a binocular with a bigger FOV and softer edges is still better than one with a smaller FOV and sharper edges because you can still spot the bird on the edge of the FOV and then center them. Besides apparent field of view (AFOV), magnification, objective lens diameter, eye relief, and image quality all contribute to an immersive view in a way.
An immersive view is when it seems that the lenses of the binocular have disappeared, and you simply have moved closer to the bird, and it takes superb optics to do that. IMO, you really can't compare the EDG 7x42 to the SF 8x42. They are two different binoculars. The SF 8x42 has an AFOV of 69 degrees and the EDG 7x42 has an AFOV of 56 degrees, which is a HUGE difference. The SF 8x42 has a huge immersive FOV, whereas, the EDG 7x42 is like looking down a tube in comparison. The EDG 7x42 is not the binocular for somebody that likes a big, immersive FOV with a lot of wow factor. The EDG 7x42 is a comfortable binocular to use in bright daylight though because of its low transmission, good glare control and good CA control.
Last edited:
tenex
reality-based
It does, in the usual way. Zeiss didn't list that in their specs, but calculation suggests around 66° vs 62°. I find 10x32 FL very satisfying, while even the 8x is better than most other 8x, on paper anyway; I haven't tried it.
I wonder why some are mentioning exit pupil here. I don't find that EP affects perceived immersiveness, as long as it's larger than my own pupil, conditions are stable, and once the binocular is at the eyes (neglecting the momentary experience of EP size before that).
It does seem possible that some eyepiece designs may feel more immersive than others at the same AFOV, and I'd be very curious why, although I don't find this effect in any that I own, for which AFOV seems to correspond well to my impression. I haven't tried 8x56 SLC (whose ER would be excessive for me) but my 10x56 definitely does not feel like more than its stated 60° AFOV, if quite that. I wouldn't want less.
I really can't believe that in the 21st century one couldn't achieve more satisfying (A)FOV in a 7x binocular. It has to be only a matter of prioritizing compactness, or economy in combining components with other models. I'm curious to hear reports of the upcoming Banner Cloud 6x32. If I were primarily an 8x user, I would quickly have switched to NLs.
I imagine that the eyecups could change our perception of the AFOV, since it controls how much of the black ring around the image we see. For example, using a binocular with glasses with the eyecups retracted, would look to me more immersive than with them extended all the way.
Tenex: yes, my memory has that the 8x32 FL has a visibly smaller AFOV than the 10x32FL.
I started with a 10x32FL. Many years later I got the 8x32FL and did not have the same success or love affair with it. But I did like it.
Just not as much. Compared to the more recent binos from Zeiss, like the SFL 8x40 I find that AFOV feels definitely more generous in the SFL though the AFOV number seems to be the same.
A good friend has the 10x32FL (I was present when he bought the binocular from a forum member about two years ago) and even though I no longer had the 8x32FL to compare with other than by memory I felt it was very easy to look through - even with my previous glasses which were not the best for binocular viewing. Another good friend actually still has my "original" FL10x32 and will keep it for life. He has had it about ten years now.
Even with the slight green tint in a few circumstances I think the 10x32FL is a phenomenal little pocket rocket. It has withstood the test of time.
I have yet to experience any differences in exit pupil size affecting the view in regards to AFOV.
I started with a 10x32FL. Many years later I got the 8x32FL and did not have the same success or love affair with it. But I did like it.
Just not as much. Compared to the more recent binos from Zeiss, like the SFL 8x40 I find that AFOV feels definitely more generous in the SFL though the AFOV number seems to be the same.
A good friend has the 10x32FL (I was present when he bought the binocular from a forum member about two years ago) and even though I no longer had the 8x32FL to compare with other than by memory I felt it was very easy to look through - even with my previous glasses which were not the best for binocular viewing. Another good friend actually still has my "original" FL10x32 and will keep it for life. He has had it about ten years now.
Even with the slight green tint in a few circumstances I think the 10x32FL is a phenomenal little pocket rocket. It has withstood the test of time.
I have yet to experience any differences in exit pupil size affecting the view in regards to AFOV.
hopster
Well-known member
So thanks to everyone here who contributed to this thread and the earlier one about current 7x42 roof options. I was undecided about whether to get the Nikon or the Leica, but the confidence in build, brightness, water-resistant coatings, warranty and servicing future have won out over the flatter field and potentially better focuser and CA, and so I have just ordered a 2 year old UVHD+ 7x42 from Ace Optics in Bath that is apparently in pristine condition. Arriving tomorrow sometime for a thorough comparison with the Noctivid and to see if it can become my default shorter-range birding glass.
I have 2 weeks to decide or return, so I'll let the thread know how I get on with it!
Very interested to see if:
I have 2 weeks to decide or return, so I'll let the thread know how I get on with it!
Very interested to see if:
- better DOF and slightly better FOV compensates for smaller mag and AFOV
- CA, colour balance and sharpness are the same or different (better or worse?) compared to the NV
- larger exit pupil means easier eye positioning
- focuser is not too much of a downgrade
- lighter weight and steadier view makes hand-held more relaxing
- pincushion 'offends' me after the flatter field of the NV
sounds like a great deal. Maybe there's room for both this and the 8x42 Noctivid. I'd like to have both! Everything will probably feel a little more comfortable and easy with the light weight and 7x of the UVHD, but the higher power of the Noctivid, and hopefully improvements of the Noctivid would make it a good complement I think.
hopster
Well-known member
I'm trying to avoid '+1 syndrome' because of space and financial considerations, but it will take discipline! I'm actually kind of hoping that one of them is obviously better for my needs to complement the 12x.
Took the NV out again this afternoon and had some great views in the bright sunshine of a kestrel hunting and flycatchers, goldfinches, stonechats; along with bees enjoying the tree blossoms high above my head as I lay in the hammock...
Up to about 18 months ago I had the same combination, 8x42 NV & 7x42 UV (not plus, bought second-hand) that for reasons I can't explain exactly I traded in for 10x42 & 8x32 SF's. More recently I traded in both SF's and went back to 8x42 NV & 8x32 UV. Look at the stats and Leica don't blow you away exactly but the NV's in particular seem to work for me. The 7's I had previously had a really noticeable drop in magnification compared to the NV's but were great otherwise. Not knocking the Zeiss by the way, they're all good at that level. Note; consider myself a birder rather than an optics expert, no star or transmission tests here, I just look through them.
hopster
Well-known member
Interesting. If you look back now, why did you trade in the Leica pair and then what made you come back to them from the SFs? Did you choose to use one of the original pair in different circumstances?
Now having my first look though the 7x and I don't want to make snap judgements yet. The focuser is clearly not as smooth but it's arguably in a better place and you can feel the difference in weight and stability of handheld view.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I'm a Leica/Zeiss person. I've owned and still have a good selection of both brands. I've also had opportunity to own or use a couple of others - Nikon, GPO, Kowa...
For me, hands down, the best image is always Leica. Yep, always. Even with a little more CA, narrower FOV, etc., the crispest, most saturated, contrasty presentation is Leica. I'm also a birder and not a collector. In the field, I prefer the Zeiss. The reasons are actually very simple, but for intensive birding, they are critical: ergonomics. The Zeiss have - by far - the best focuser, handling, weight-to-performance ratio.
As example: I've been using an 8x32SF as my go-to glass this past winter. Then on a whim, I snagged an 8x42BL (my second one as the first I had sold and regretted). I started using them on the patio and I'm just blown away by the beautiful, tack-sharp image. I'd love to be able to bird with them. But I've missed birds because the focuser, although smooth and glitch-free, is just not grippy enough nor fast enough etc. They're also on the heavy side for hikes birding in the mountains. The Retrovids are similar in that I love the build and image, but the focuser is not up to hardcore birding.
In the ideal world I'd get an 8x32SF or 40SFL with Leica glass inside
For me, hands down, the best image is always Leica. Yep, always. Even with a little more CA, narrower FOV, etc., the crispest, most saturated, contrasty presentation is Leica. I'm also a birder and not a collector. In the field, I prefer the Zeiss. The reasons are actually very simple, but for intensive birding, they are critical: ergonomics. The Zeiss have - by far - the best focuser, handling, weight-to-performance ratio.
As example: I've been using an 8x32SF as my go-to glass this past winter. Then on a whim, I snagged an 8x42BL (my second one as the first I had sold and regretted). I started using them on the patio and I'm just blown away by the beautiful, tack-sharp image. I'd love to be able to bird with them. But I've missed birds because the focuser, although smooth and glitch-free, is just not grippy enough nor fast enough etc. They're also on the heavy side for hikes birding in the mountains. The Retrovids are similar in that I love the build and image, but the focuser is not up to hardcore birding.
In the ideal world I'd get an 8x32SF or 40SFL with Leica glass inside
Last edited:
hopster
Well-known member
So I went out for a few hours this morning (bright sunshine) with the NV 8x and the UVHD+ 7x and here are my first thoughts. No doubt these will change as I become more used to it and the novelty of using a 7x wears off a bit:
So overall I am pretty impressed by the UVHD+ 7x after my first look and it may do a better job for handheld birding at closer ranges. My only concern at the moment is the focuser which I am not really enjoying. For those that use UVHD+ and particularly the 7x version, does it loosen up with use or can Leica service improve it?
- The 7x is a surprising amount lighter - it really does feel like a smaller binocular. Combined with less shake and better DOF (which is quite noticeable) from the lower magnification, it is quicker to get onto birds and easier to sustain the view. This is a big gain for handheld use.
- There is more pincushion but as I am rarely looking at the edges I am not sure this matters. Panning is fine in both.
- Colour, sharpness and contrast are very similar in both as far as I can currently judge. There may be a tiny bit less CA in the 7x which was a surprise, and perhaps a bit more contrast in the NV unless the mag is fooling me.
- You lose a little detail with the lower mag but there is not much in it.
- The FOV is wider and arguably the useable FOV is even greater because the larger exit pupil means that you can let your eye rove around more without getting kidney beans/blackouts. Although the difference in AFOV is clear, it doesn't bother me.
- There is plenty of ER for my small birding glasses on the 7x, if not quite as much as the NV gives for thick/large glasses.
- Close focus clearly not as good as the NV for insects etc.
- They exhibit glare somewhat differently with low sun near the viewed subject. I'm not sure I could say which is better yet. Perhaps the 7x shows distinct patches of glare whereas the NV gets more of a sheen over the whole image which steals contrast.
- The focuser is significantly worse on the 7x. Luckily the better DOF means you have to use it less but it's not great; quite sticky and tight sometimes. By comparison, the NV focuser is very good if not at the Zeiss SF or HT level.
So overall I am pretty impressed by the UVHD+ 7x after my first look and it may do a better job for handheld birding at closer ranges. My only concern at the moment is the focuser which I am not really enjoying. For those that use UVHD+ and particularly the 7x version, does it loosen up with use or can Leica service improve it?
hopster,
Unfortunately I haven't tracked over time whether the focus on my HD+ 7x42 has loosened up overall with use. However (perhaps sample variation) it does improve noticeably after just a few moments of use, less gritty and more uniform, almost like it has "warmed up". And both my index and middle fingers fall naturally on the focus wheel which also helps.
Hope this may help and looking forward to your further thoughts after more comparison.
Mike
Middleriver:
I concur. Love looking through Leicas, but not always hold the actual user experience in the same regard.
The 12x50 is really great as a general binocular on the monopod. For birds in flight it throws a slight wrench in the machinery as I find I have more trouble nailing focus with it compared to the Meostar 12x50 - which has more of a Zeissy focuser. The similarity in use between the SFL 8x40 and the Meopta 12x50 is a combination that works great and has that sameness about them that makes transitioning between them a breeze. Both focusers work flawlessly - as any bino should - and though they may not be to everyones taste I think they are top notch.
Hopster: Good to hear you have one for evalutation now!
If you are not troubled by the smaller AFOV that is great, that was together with the smaller magnification the dealbreaker for me - but that is in comparison to the two 8x binos I have. I would have loved to have replaced both of them with the 7x42 and if that would have happened I would have had the "happiest" outcome. A compact and light binocular. For general viewing the 7x42 is still in the top three of my most liked binoculars. I also like the size, the "look" if I may be shallow and pretty much everything about it. It is a beautiful binocular.
The focuser is what it is though. My first 7x42 went back to Leica for servicing of the focuser which was sticky around infinity. It came back just as bad, and it was bad, no excuses on that sample. Shop agreed and refunded me without question.
My second 7x42 had a very good focuser (in my opinion the Ultravid focusers are simply not great, but a good one works adequately). It was good enough not to be in the way in daily use - I simply did not think of it. As far as focusers go, that is all I need.
The experience I have with Ultravid focusers is that they usually stay the way they are (once "broken in") if they are used and for the most part don't get worse over time.
The exception would be initial stiffness of new binos which I find have improved after a month or two of regular use and then "settled". It could perhaps have gotten slightly better for some time after that, before it settled to the point of me not noticing a difference.
On my second 7x42 I worked the focuser everyday for the first two weeks and it could be my imagination or sensory accommodation but I thought it got better to the point I did not register it anymore. Was it perfect? No. But very good for an Ultravid.
EDIT: I have to mention that the focuser was good enough to start out with. I am not sure any Ultravid focuser that starts out a bit jerky will ease up to the point of being more than "ok".
My 12x50 also has a good focuser but I find that I have the smoothest experience with it using two fingers. With one finger I can sometimes get that "oval" feeling, like it does not turn with the same resistance during the turn. I would not call it "jerky" but rather uneven.
That uneven resistance (smooth <> smooth, but not binding or sticky) when turning does not get better over time.
One has to get used to it. I might be overly sensitive to it but I am used to great focusers.
It is also a spot of bother for birds in flight for me and that is when I find it does not work as well as the competition.
For all other use I have no problems with it and apart from that specific scenario the Ultravid 12x50 is a joy to use.
With regards to CA and other optical properties of the 7x42 I found it to be very well balanced and not lacking in anything critical. I did get some ocular reflections from my previous glasses but that happens with most binos I have tried (but not all of them are that sensitive).
I concur. Love looking through Leicas, but not always hold the actual user experience in the same regard.
The 12x50 is really great as a general binocular on the monopod. For birds in flight it throws a slight wrench in the machinery as I find I have more trouble nailing focus with it compared to the Meostar 12x50 - which has more of a Zeissy focuser. The similarity in use between the SFL 8x40 and the Meopta 12x50 is a combination that works great and has that sameness about them that makes transitioning between them a breeze. Both focusers work flawlessly - as any bino should - and though they may not be to everyones taste I think they are top notch.
Hopster: Good to hear you have one for evalutation now!
If you are not troubled by the smaller AFOV that is great, that was together with the smaller magnification the dealbreaker for me - but that is in comparison to the two 8x binos I have. I would have loved to have replaced both of them with the 7x42 and if that would have happened I would have had the "happiest" outcome. A compact and light binocular. For general viewing the 7x42 is still in the top three of my most liked binoculars. I also like the size, the "look" if I may be shallow and pretty much everything about it. It is a beautiful binocular.
The focuser is what it is though. My first 7x42 went back to Leica for servicing of the focuser which was sticky around infinity. It came back just as bad, and it was bad, no excuses on that sample. Shop agreed and refunded me without question.
My second 7x42 had a very good focuser (in my opinion the Ultravid focusers are simply not great, but a good one works adequately). It was good enough not to be in the way in daily use - I simply did not think of it. As far as focusers go, that is all I need.
The experience I have with Ultravid focusers is that they usually stay the way they are (once "broken in") if they are used and for the most part don't get worse over time.
The exception would be initial stiffness of new binos which I find have improved after a month or two of regular use and then "settled". It could perhaps have gotten slightly better for some time after that, before it settled to the point of me not noticing a difference.
On my second 7x42 I worked the focuser everyday for the first two weeks and it could be my imagination or sensory accommodation but I thought it got better to the point I did not register it anymore. Was it perfect? No. But very good for an Ultravid.
EDIT: I have to mention that the focuser was good enough to start out with. I am not sure any Ultravid focuser that starts out a bit jerky will ease up to the point of being more than "ok".
My 12x50 also has a good focuser but I find that I have the smoothest experience with it using two fingers. With one finger I can sometimes get that "oval" feeling, like it does not turn with the same resistance during the turn. I would not call it "jerky" but rather uneven.
That uneven resistance (smooth <> smooth, but not binding or sticky) when turning does not get better over time.
One has to get used to it. I might be overly sensitive to it but I am used to great focusers.
It is also a spot of bother for birds in flight for me and that is when I find it does not work as well as the competition.
For all other use I have no problems with it and apart from that specific scenario the Ultravid 12x50 is a joy to use.
With regards to CA and other optical properties of the 7x42 I found it to be very well balanced and not lacking in anything critical. I did get some ocular reflections from my previous glasses but that happens with most binos I have tried (but not all of them are that sensitive).
Last edited:
Short post after long post:
My first 7x42 with the poor focuser took a six weeks return trip to Leica and came back just the same. I would not count on them getting the focuser fixed. Mine clearly wasn't, and the same shop assistant that sent it in agreed it was just as sticky as when sent off.
My first 7x42 with the poor focuser took a six weeks return trip to Leica and came back just the same. I would not count on them getting the focuser fixed. Mine clearly wasn't, and the same shop assistant that sent it in agreed it was just as sticky as when sent off.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
I have been using my UV 7x42 for 4-5 years now, it is my most used binocular.
The focusing was a bit stiff from the start, but runs smoothly in both directions without appearing grainy. This is still the case.
True, it's not as smooth as a Noctivid, EDG, or SF, but I consider it to be extremely consistent and very robust. Additionally, the close focus isn't as pronounced, which in turn means less travel and thus minimizes potential malfunctions.
For me, a robust focuser is now more important than a smooth one that might be more prone to malfunctions, as I've experienced a few times with other binoculars.
The UV focuser does its job flawlessly—that's the most important thing.
Andreas
The focusing was a bit stiff from the start, but runs smoothly in both directions without appearing grainy. This is still the case.
True, it's not as smooth as a Noctivid, EDG, or SF, but I consider it to be extremely consistent and very robust. Additionally, the close focus isn't as pronounced, which in turn means less travel and thus minimizes potential malfunctions.
For me, a robust focuser is now more important than a smooth one that might be more prone to malfunctions, as I've experienced a few times with other binoculars.
The UV focuser does its job flawlessly—that's the most important thing.
Andreas
I've owned a considerable number of Ultravids and have found the focus movements to be very, very variable. My 10x42, first 8x32 and one of my several 7x42's have all been excellent, smooth and absolutely even in tension in both directions, but in my opinion, most are a bit sticky and jerky and personally I'm not aware of the focusers on any of mine actually improving over time. I carried my 12x50 Ultravid HD+ today and although the focus movement doesn't bother me unduly (I'm used to it), it's definitely jerky when fine focusing, which is a bit of a pain. The 10x42 did go to Portugal for what amounted to pretty much a complete rebuild, and DEFINITELY came back with better than focus movement than before, but apart from that one, none of my Ultravids have returned from Portugal with better focus movement than before.
Last edited:
I think I thought the Zeiss would be better ergonomically and help me get onto birds quicker (small birds in coastal scrub etc) but the reality is that's difficult whichever binoculars you're using. The 10x42's I liked but struggled with stability, the 8x32's I couldn't get right somehow, always getting a greyish 'shadowing' effect while panning despite trying various eyecup positions. To my eyes the Leica show a more vivid contrasted view, colours true to life-not enhanced. Personally I feel I look at birds more and for longer with the Leica just for the pleasure of it, not purely as a means of identification. The focus on my 8x32 UV is perfect for me, no grainy or notchy feel and just the right resistance. A birding colleague who recently bought a pair of new 8x42 UV got into the habit of rolling the focus back and forth as he walked and said it improved though I don't know if it was tight or whatever to start with.
