dwever
Well-known member
I have had some time to use my new Leica Ultravid HD Plus 7x42, showing up from CamerLand to join it’s 8x42 fraternal twin in the luggage today for a Friday departure to Kigali, Rwanda for some gorilla viewing.
Our first pair were the 8x42 UV HD Plus. For number two I lobbied for the Zeiss HT 8x42’s. But for travel, the much bigger foot print of the Zeiss matters; and, it’s nice that both my after-market cases, including a customized Pelican (below that has separate inserts for two), will serve the UVHDPlus 7x42’s as is. Now that the 7x42's have arrived, I am very glad we stayed with Leica. More in a minute.
This second Leica was purchased under the new Leica retail price drop effected the first of this month. Suggested retail went from $2,399 to $2,099, so that was very nice. The 8x42 and 10x50 were fully warranted demos from a show, and the 7x42 was bought brand new.
This review will be short in the sense that it will mostly take up the small differences between the twins. This review might also be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Optical hair splitting is an acquired skill, my own are primitive to be generous, and among us amateurs our comments can be skewed by numerous factors including purchase justification. :smoke:
Okay, to the glass. There is just a unique pleasing addictive quality to the Leica UV HD Plus image that I guess is mostly owing to a combination of image brightness, sharpness, and colors. That certainly is equally well represented by both the 7x42’s and 8x42’s. Every difference that will be discussed is not big of course, but I would have to say the 7x42's feel just ever-so-slightly more immersive than the 8x42's. And, the 10x50's seem to have the most drop-dead gorgeous image in sunlight. Again, these are minuscule degrees of difference, and all three look like Leicas.
A few of the differences between the 7x42 and the 8x42 and an occasional 10x50 comment also include:
Focus: The focus on the 7x42 and 8x42 is perfect. A big deal to me since I swapped out my first pair of 8x42's, but to be fair they were show demos. Anyway, the smoothness and evenness are just remarkable for a non-lubricated assembly. On the 10x50 I would say exactly the same thing when focusing down to close-up. But, on your way back to Infiniti, if you pay close enough attention, there is just a little resistance that shows up towards the end of the turn. Hardly worth asking for a shipping label for. In the field it is unnoticeable; if you're paying attention for a review it is definitely there.
Eye relief. I generally wear contacts, but use glasses occasionally. The 8x42 HD Plus are perfectly fine with me with glasses, but other owners have called the 8x42, "right on the edge of usability" while also pointing out they are also fine with it. So almost 2mm additional ER with the 7x42 should make a difference. Enough to recommend the 7x42 over the 8x42 for glasses wearers? No. Because I'm so used to the 8x42's being perfectly fine with glasses, but I'm sure the additional ER is nice.
Exit Pupil. Never had issues with the 8x42's, so the extra is not noticeable in practice in the 7x42. The ease-of-use for both is outstanding. However, I found at dusk what seemed to be just a little nod to the the 7x42's resolution in near darkness.
Brightness. An instrument or shadows would have to highlight any real differences. Side-by-side so far both are, well twins and very very bright.
FOV - okay, if you look for it. But again these are so close in perception I’m not having a Zeiss SF experience here. The extra 10 meters could be why the 7x42 feel a hair more immersive, but I think it may also have to do with the calmer image.
Calm Image: I had not really planned on including this, but I single hand my binoculars a lot, and with that, the 7x42's have a noticeably calmer image that also perhaps contribute to their immersiveness. That difference of course is diminished by using both paws.
Depth of field: Didn't really notice a difference until I was looking at a bird on a roof and focused on the grain of the roof.
Weight. I kept thinking the 7x42's felt just lighter. So I looked it up and it is 765 Grams to 790. Didn't know that difference was even perceptible.
Water. We'll see. Kigali is in the rainy season and getting hammered all next week, which is good as that tends to bring the gorillas to lower elevations, but I'll be a walking advertisement for Gore-Tex.
I'd do it again. It is worth mentioning that if I were starting over, and given everything that's available today, these HD Plus’ would be my choices all over again. People that are Jonesing for a post 10-year UV redesign maybe don't understand or at least appreciate the evolution of Leica’s industrial design and just what we have in the latest renderings in the HD Plus line. I would not buy the 10x50's again only because they'll probably become inactive now, they're not going to Rwanda. Who knows.
Were I buying something other than the Leica’s, I might actually prefer the 8x42 Zeiss HT’s. To me the HT image is the best out there, while the Leica to me is the most pleasing image available, if one can draw a distinction between best and pleasing (My MDX is my best vehicle, my Mustang GT is my most pleasing). But I do love the Zeiss HT’s.
So who should buy the 7x42's over the 8x42's?
First, maybe glasses wearers who don't want to be right on the edge of usability; but even then, you easily get used to the 8x42's ER with glasses.
Second, whilst ease-of-use between the two is so close for me as to call them equal, for some perhaps all the little nudges in the 7x42 in field-of-view, depth-of-field, eye relief, exit pupil, and maybe brightness will add up. And, the lower magnification is inherently calmer. As Torview said in his review, the sum is more than it's parts.
Third, for some specific applications like LE, I would take the 7x42's, but for various nature applications it just depends.
Given the increases the 7x42 possesses in field-of-view, depth-of-field, eye relief, exit pupil, and maybe brightness, these 7x42’s really could be given an ease-of-use award while delivering a premiere alpha image. As an 8x42 owner, I was just someone who went for more of a good thing for the family arsenal, but three is enough!
The big point is that given the overall similarities of these bins, the differences are merely nuanced at best (with the exception just maybe of ER). Most of all is to know you will be overwhelmingly satisfied with either.
As you can see from other threads, I have spent quit a bit of time with the Zeiss and the Leicas, and a bit less with the Swaros complements of Bass Pro, Cabelas (Swaro Land), Woods and Water (with no less than six SF’s last visit), and Gander Mountain. Of course what one purchases only gives testimony to a person’s affections not necessarily to what is best. I say again, there is just a pleasing addictive quality to the Leica’s image that even as a lay person I can appreciate to the point of choice. So I end with a quote from Tobias Mennle. Whilst I certainly don’t have even close to his evaluation acumen, the parts I understand or have the frame-of-reference to relate to, offer a pretty good summary of my own affections:
“Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD Plus: Most saturated colours, combined with great sharpness and microcontrast in the center yield outstandingly beautiful images. . . . macrocontrast often class leading together with the Nikon EDG. This fits with the high colour saturation, because strangely the Ultravid manages to keep the image center almost free from veiling glare. The view is very easy even with open pupil, and the field of view feels much wider than it actually is. Mechanical quality is good, and industrial design is marvelous. . . . compact and very easy to hold, with warm, saturated, glowing colours and superb contrast, breathtaking in sunshine as well as on a dull day or in the twilight.”
If I could only keep one. Honestly between the 7 and 8 it could easily be either. In a state LE vehicle the 7's, for general use otherwise, the 8's.
Pics: 1. Leica's shot of their 7x42 2. my 7x42 & 8x42 3. My Pelican case with single pair insert. 4. The big 10x50 to the left.
Our first pair were the 8x42 UV HD Plus. For number two I lobbied for the Zeiss HT 8x42’s. But for travel, the much bigger foot print of the Zeiss matters; and, it’s nice that both my after-market cases, including a customized Pelican (below that has separate inserts for two), will serve the UVHDPlus 7x42’s as is. Now that the 7x42's have arrived, I am very glad we stayed with Leica. More in a minute.
This second Leica was purchased under the new Leica retail price drop effected the first of this month. Suggested retail went from $2,399 to $2,099, so that was very nice. The 8x42 and 10x50 were fully warranted demos from a show, and the 7x42 was bought brand new.
This review will be short in the sense that it will mostly take up the small differences between the twins. This review might also be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Optical hair splitting is an acquired skill, my own are primitive to be generous, and among us amateurs our comments can be skewed by numerous factors including purchase justification. :smoke:
Okay, to the glass. There is just a unique pleasing addictive quality to the Leica UV HD Plus image that I guess is mostly owing to a combination of image brightness, sharpness, and colors. That certainly is equally well represented by both the 7x42’s and 8x42’s. Every difference that will be discussed is not big of course, but I would have to say the 7x42's feel just ever-so-slightly more immersive than the 8x42's. And, the 10x50's seem to have the most drop-dead gorgeous image in sunlight. Again, these are minuscule degrees of difference, and all three look like Leicas.
A few of the differences between the 7x42 and the 8x42 and an occasional 10x50 comment also include:
Focus: The focus on the 7x42 and 8x42 is perfect. A big deal to me since I swapped out my first pair of 8x42's, but to be fair they were show demos. Anyway, the smoothness and evenness are just remarkable for a non-lubricated assembly. On the 10x50 I would say exactly the same thing when focusing down to close-up. But, on your way back to Infiniti, if you pay close enough attention, there is just a little resistance that shows up towards the end of the turn. Hardly worth asking for a shipping label for. In the field it is unnoticeable; if you're paying attention for a review it is definitely there.
Eye relief. I generally wear contacts, but use glasses occasionally. The 8x42 HD Plus are perfectly fine with me with glasses, but other owners have called the 8x42, "right on the edge of usability" while also pointing out they are also fine with it. So almost 2mm additional ER with the 7x42 should make a difference. Enough to recommend the 7x42 over the 8x42 for glasses wearers? No. Because I'm so used to the 8x42's being perfectly fine with glasses, but I'm sure the additional ER is nice.
Exit Pupil. Never had issues with the 8x42's, so the extra is not noticeable in practice in the 7x42. The ease-of-use for both is outstanding. However, I found at dusk what seemed to be just a little nod to the the 7x42's resolution in near darkness.
Brightness. An instrument or shadows would have to highlight any real differences. Side-by-side so far both are, well twins and very very bright.
FOV - okay, if you look for it. But again these are so close in perception I’m not having a Zeiss SF experience here. The extra 10 meters could be why the 7x42 feel a hair more immersive, but I think it may also have to do with the calmer image.
Calm Image: I had not really planned on including this, but I single hand my binoculars a lot, and with that, the 7x42's have a noticeably calmer image that also perhaps contribute to their immersiveness. That difference of course is diminished by using both paws.
Depth of field: Didn't really notice a difference until I was looking at a bird on a roof and focused on the grain of the roof.
Weight. I kept thinking the 7x42's felt just lighter. So I looked it up and it is 765 Grams to 790. Didn't know that difference was even perceptible.
Water. We'll see. Kigali is in the rainy season and getting hammered all next week, which is good as that tends to bring the gorillas to lower elevations, but I'll be a walking advertisement for Gore-Tex.
I'd do it again. It is worth mentioning that if I were starting over, and given everything that's available today, these HD Plus’ would be my choices all over again. People that are Jonesing for a post 10-year UV redesign maybe don't understand or at least appreciate the evolution of Leica’s industrial design and just what we have in the latest renderings in the HD Plus line. I would not buy the 10x50's again only because they'll probably become inactive now, they're not going to Rwanda. Who knows.
Were I buying something other than the Leica’s, I might actually prefer the 8x42 Zeiss HT’s. To me the HT image is the best out there, while the Leica to me is the most pleasing image available, if one can draw a distinction between best and pleasing (My MDX is my best vehicle, my Mustang GT is my most pleasing). But I do love the Zeiss HT’s.
So who should buy the 7x42's over the 8x42's?
First, maybe glasses wearers who don't want to be right on the edge of usability; but even then, you easily get used to the 8x42's ER with glasses.
Second, whilst ease-of-use between the two is so close for me as to call them equal, for some perhaps all the little nudges in the 7x42 in field-of-view, depth-of-field, eye relief, exit pupil, and maybe brightness will add up. And, the lower magnification is inherently calmer. As Torview said in his review, the sum is more than it's parts.
Third, for some specific applications like LE, I would take the 7x42's, but for various nature applications it just depends.
Given the increases the 7x42 possesses in field-of-view, depth-of-field, eye relief, exit pupil, and maybe brightness, these 7x42’s really could be given an ease-of-use award while delivering a premiere alpha image. As an 8x42 owner, I was just someone who went for more of a good thing for the family arsenal, but three is enough!
The big point is that given the overall similarities of these bins, the differences are merely nuanced at best (with the exception just maybe of ER). Most of all is to know you will be overwhelmingly satisfied with either.
As you can see from other threads, I have spent quit a bit of time with the Zeiss and the Leicas, and a bit less with the Swaros complements of Bass Pro, Cabelas (Swaro Land), Woods and Water (with no less than six SF’s last visit), and Gander Mountain. Of course what one purchases only gives testimony to a person’s affections not necessarily to what is best. I say again, there is just a pleasing addictive quality to the Leica’s image that even as a lay person I can appreciate to the point of choice. So I end with a quote from Tobias Mennle. Whilst I certainly don’t have even close to his evaluation acumen, the parts I understand or have the frame-of-reference to relate to, offer a pretty good summary of my own affections:
“Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD Plus: Most saturated colours, combined with great sharpness and microcontrast in the center yield outstandingly beautiful images. . . . macrocontrast often class leading together with the Nikon EDG. This fits with the high colour saturation, because strangely the Ultravid manages to keep the image center almost free from veiling glare. The view is very easy even with open pupil, and the field of view feels much wider than it actually is. Mechanical quality is good, and industrial design is marvelous. . . . compact and very easy to hold, with warm, saturated, glowing colours and superb contrast, breathtaking in sunshine as well as on a dull day or in the twilight.”
If I could only keep one. Honestly between the 7 and 8 it could easily be either. In a state LE vehicle the 7's, for general use otherwise, the 8's.
Pics: 1. Leica's shot of their 7x42 2. my 7x42 & 8x42 3. My Pelican case with single pair insert. 4. The big 10x50 to the left.
Attachments
Last edited:
