Do you ignore Leica ? (1 Viewer)

[Hermann]

The exception to his argument was the Ultravid 7x42 HD as the other two alphas do not offer comparable models--thus, he keeps it in stock. His objections were related to: a) the minimum focusing distance for Leica is inferior to the other two alphas, and b) light transmission for Leica is not at the same level as in Swarovski and top tier Zeiss.

The minimum focusing distance of the Leica may be important to some. For others it isn't. And the price you have to pay for a short focusing distance is a more complex optical construction (like stronger focusing lenses) and a more complex focuser. There's been quite a bit of talk about problems with focusers with short-focusing bins, like differences between the barrels. Leica doesn't seem to have this problem at all.

Light transmission .... Well, the light transmission of the Leica HD Plus is IMO quite a bit closer to Swarovski and Zeiss, so that argument may not be as important as it used to be.

Hermann

 

[brocknroller]

Yet another is Leica lagging behind thread.... They seem to be be timed to each "latest and greatest" release by the competition... a spate when the SV ELs came out and again with the SFs.

The opinions fall into two sharply divided camps, those who feel Leica is being "Left Behind" like some apocalyptic movie, and those who think the incremental changes Leica has made to the UV's - first HD glass and now HT glass - puts them on par or at least not too far behind to be "Left Behind."

Perhaps what Leica needs is not an SV EL or SF KILLER, but a better marketing slogan. Something simple that sticks like glue. How about "I Like Leica?" Worked for Ike. Let's see those complimentary "I Like Leica" T-shirts, ball caps, coffee mugs and pens!

Get the message out there -- Leica is no more behind than Eisenhower!

<B>

 

[jan van daalen]

Yet another is Leica lagging behind thread.... They seem to be be timed to each "latest and greatest" release by the competition... a spate when the SV ELs came out and again with the SFs.

The opinions fall into two sharply divided camps, those who feel Leica is being "Left Behind" like some apocalyptic movie, and those who think the incremental changes Leica has made to the UV's - first HD glass and now HT glass - puts them on par or at least not too far behind to be "Left Behind."

Perhaps what Leica needs is not an SV EL or SF KILLER, but a better marketing slogan. Something simple that sticks like glue. How about "I Like Leica?" Worked for Ike. Let's see those complimentary "I Like Leica" T-shirts, ball caps, coffee mugs and pens!

Get the message out there -- Leica is no more behind than Eisenhower!

<B>

Nice try Brock, but it won't work because the current Leica owners don't own the copyrights of the name Leica. Everytime they use it they have to ask permission from the nameholder AND pay a fee for it.

Jan...

 

[Omid]

The opinions fall into two sharply divided camps, those who feel Leica is being "Left Behind" like some apocalyptic movie, and those who think the incremental changes Leica has made to the UV's - first HD glass and now HT glass - puts them on par or at least not too far behind to be "Left Behind."

I agree. Leica is behind in "marketing" not in usable optical quality. HT glass doesn't make any useful difference nor does a few more feet filed of view in 1000 yards. A slight misplacement of your eye at the exit pupil or a tiny rain drop on the objective has more "theoretical effect" on brightness than HT glass and the practical effect of all these is zero.

Anyway, if anyone here cares for a true classic super high quality Leica at a very good price, I just put my Trinovid 10X50 BA on eBay for sale. They are like new and come with the rare Leica hard leather case (starting price $999). I am also going to put my Duvid 8-12X42 up for sale in a couple weeks. They are with the Leica service department for cleaning and maintenance right now. If any body is interested, please PM me and I will reserve them for you.

I am a big fan of Leica and I have very good relationship with their sporting optics product manager (Herr Albrecht). I am not selling my Leica's because I want to buy something better (there is nothing better), but because I just bought a Perazzi MX2000

Cheers

 

[jgraider]

I agree. Leica is behind in "marketing" not in usable optical quality. HT glass doesn't make any useful difference nor does a few more feet filed of view in 1000 yards. A slight misplacement of your eye at the exit pupil or a tiny rain drop on the objective has more "theoretical effect" on brightness than HT glass and the practical effect of all these is zero.

Anyway, if anyone here cares for a true classic super high quality Leica at a very good price, I just put my Trinovid 10X50 BA on eBay for sale. They are like new and come with the rare Leica hard leather case (starting price $999). I am also going to put my Duvid 8-12X42 up for sale in a couple weeks. They are with the Leica service department for cleaning and maintenance right now. If any body is interested, please PM me and I will reserve them for you.

I am a big fan of Leica and I have very good relationship with their sporting optics product manager (Herr Albrecht). I am not selling my Leica's because I want to buy something better (there is nothing better), but because I just bought a Perazzi MX2000

Cheers

So how do you explain the fact that leica is the only alpha that offers a warranty to the original owner only, and is non transferrable?

 

[HighNorth]

HT glass doesn't make any useful difference nor does a few more feet filed of view in 1000 yards.

Well, I disagree that the difference between a [email protected] FOV and a [email protected] FOV is trivial.

 

[brocknroller]

I agree. Leica is behind in "marketing" not in usable optical quality. HT glass doesn't make any useful difference nor does a few more feet filed of view in 1000 yards. A slight misplacement of your eye at the exit pupil or a tiny rain drop on the objective has more "theoretical effect" on brightness than HT glass and the practical effect of all these is zero.

Anyway, if anyone here cares for a true classic super high quality Leica at a very good price, I just put my Trinovid 10X50 BA on eBay for sale. They are like new and come with the rare Leica hard leather case (starting price $999). I am also going to put my Duvid 8-12X42 up for sale in a couple weeks. They are with the Leica service department for cleaning and maintenance right now. If any body is interested, please PM me and I will reserve them for you.

I am a big fan of Leica and I have very good relationship with their sporting optics product manager (Herr Albrecht). I am not selling my Leica's because I want to buy something better (there is nothing better), but because I just bought a Perazzi MX2000

Cheers

I had to look that one up. I thought a Perazzi MX-2000 might be an Italian roadster similar to the Honda S2000 and the Mazda Miata MX-5 but three times the price and four times less reliable.

MX-2000?

Brock, contributor, Monkey Magazine

 

[Troubador]

Well, I disagree that the difference between a [email protected] FOV and a [email protected] FOV is trivial.

It absolutely is not trivial.
Whether it is important for individuals is a matter for them, but make no mistake this is a significant difference.

Lee

 

[edwincjones]

to address the initial question of this thread

I have three older alphas
-duovid 10+15x50
-8.5x42 EL, not SV
-8x32 victory FL

optics, mechanical, they are equal and all great
the duovid is my favorite and most useful
but
SW has had the excitement over SV optics
Zeiss has had the excitement over the SF
Leica has had no excitement-that I have been aware of

edj

 

[Omid]

SW has had the excitement over SV optics
Zeiss has had the excitement over the SF
Leica has had no excitement-that I have been aware of

You summarized it well. Yes, everybody seem to agree that Leica has not made a big "announcement" as did Swarovski and Zeiss.

Let's think like a creative Marketing Manager and help them with this issue: The key to any "next big thing" announcement in binoculars marketing is picking a new two-letter abbreviation. HT, SF, HD, ED, SV and FL are already used. I suggest Leica announce the "all new Leica 8X42 4K". These revolutionary binoculars will have higher resolution (more pixels, more seeing!). They will be windproof and will have a special focusing mechanism that can satisfy everybody on bird forum: it will be slow at low range, then a bit faster, then slows again and then makes a full turn before going fast or slow again. (The user can choose between five different focusing profiles). After two years, a special edition will also be released, in ostrich leather and with a case made of organic Egyptian bamboo.

3

 

[HighNorth]

I have three older alphas
-duovid 10+15x50
-8.5x42 EL, not SV
-8x32 victory FL

optics, mechanical, they are equal and all great
the duovid is my favorite and most useful
but
SW has had the excitement over SV optics
Zeiss has had the excitement over the SF
Leica has had no excitement-that I have been aware of

edj

Nobody has to the right to argue with people's personal preferences. You love the Leica, and that I do not have a right to criticise.

However, I object to the insinuation that we who criticise what we perceive as shortcomings of Leica, or tout the advantages of other bins, are somehow beholden to marketing hype, or are morally deficient as customers, or are unable to properly appreciate Leica bins in some way.

 

[Torview]

Not that I have any control as to where posters take this thread, but I had not intended it to be a " mine is best " discussion.

Going with HN`s last paragraph in post 71, I think potential Leica customers may in fact be being swayed not to look at them by "marketing hype" from staff in optics outlets, which was kind of my original point, for what ever reason I think they are being done a disservice by being steered towards Zeiss or Swaro`s latest offerings rather than being left to try all three and make up their own minds.

 

[brocknroller]

Since Torview is bringing it back home, I will, too. Going back to ye olde theme of Incremental Change$ for Diminishing Return$, I think due to the ultra high cost of alphas today, incremental changes are no longer acceptable to many buyers. They aren't going to trade in or sell their "old" models for what's being marketed as the "latest and greatest" unless there's a clear advance in the binoculars that's obvious to their eyes and to their hands.

For a long time, it was about higher transmission coatings, more reflective prisms, and closer focus. Now that those traits have trickled down to the affordable roof prism bin market segment, binoculars need more than a new acronym and a prestigious logo to get buyers to pull out their Mastercard. They need a giant leap forward, not small steps.

After an embarrassing and costly fumble, Nikon delivered with the EDG II; Swaro delivered with the SV EL; and Zeiss with the HT and eventually the SF. Yes, birders are willing to pay obscene amounts of money IF and ONLY IF the new bins deliver actual rather than perceptual advantages over what they are currently using.

Even though Lecia added two different types of new glass to its UV, it's still a UV, and for many birders, that's enough. But for the optics aficionado, Leica needs to deliver something unique, something to set apart the next gen Leica bin not only from its competitors but from the UV.

What that might be, I don't know. They have Perger prisms, so why not use them for their top tier? Perhaps they add some length, but what they hey, they can boast having the only alphas with Porro prisms, and if they are shaped like the range finder, that will definitely set it apart from the more traditional body UV. Some have said they would be too big, well, what about the SF? They are BIG.

I think that's what all the fuss is about, the expectation that for whatever comes next that's going to cost more $, it had better be worth it this time.

Meanwhile, Trinny BN owners are busy watching birds and not paying attention to the latest "mine is best" pissing match. In our heart of hearts, I think we all envy them.

Brock

 

[ceasar]

It absolutely is not trivial.
Whether it is important for individuals is a matter for them, but make no mistake this is a significant difference.

Lee

Lee,

Comparing the 8x SF's FOV and the 8x HD Plus's FOV while looking at a bird 50' away works out to about 1' more width in the FOV for the SF. (or about 2' @100' and about 6' @ 100 yards) Without the SF's flat field you still have to move the binocular to take advantage of it. It is the flat field of the SF that makes it viable, otherwise both views are not sharp out at the edge.

Bob

 

[CloseFocus]

I don't know how many binoculars Leica can manufacture, but its a fact that they aren't being churned out in nearly the numbers as other alpha brands, unless they're being stockpiled in a warehouse, which is unlikely. So for whatever reason, Leica has chosen to maintain a low profile at the retail end of the market. I think its because they can only sell what they make, and it takes a while for them to make what they have to sell. As long as they're making enough of a profit to maintain their high standards, I don't think it matters that they are not being pushed at the optics counter.

 

[dalat]

Comparing the 8x SF's FOV and the 8x HD Plus's FOV while looking at a bird 50' away works out to about 1' more width in the FOV for the SF. (or about 2' @100' and about 6' @ 100 yards) Without the SF's flat field you still have to move the binocular to take advantage of it. It is the flat field of the SF that makes it viable, otherwise both views are not sharp out at the edge.

This 1' or 2'' more translate into 29.6% more area when looking for birds in trees or bushes or 29.6% more volume of sky when looking for raptors. I think this is indeed a significant difference. And the edges don't need to be sharpt to take advantage of this difference, at least when using the bins for birding.

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

Comparing the 8x SF's FOV and the 8x HD Plus's FOV while looking at a bird 50' away works out to about 1' more width in the FOV for the SF. (or about 2' @100' and about 6' @ 100 yards) Without the SF's flat field you still have to move the binocular to take advantage of it. It is the flat field of the SF that makes it viable, otherwise both views are not sharp out at the edge.

Bob

Hya Bob

I calculated that the FOV difference between an SF and a Uvid at 20m (22 yds) would be a bit more than 40cm (16"), enough for say 10 Willow Warblers side-by-side, more than enough for a Golden Oriole sideways-on, and, considered as a 20cm annulus around the edge of a FOV would give more than enough area to be useful to give extra help to catch a warbler or dragonfly in sight.

I admit maths is not my strong point so I am open to correction.

I always centre the subject anyway but catching sight of objects out near the limit of the FOV in peripheral vision is key to spotting lots of stuff in the habitats that I frequent.

And actually I really didn't mean to turn the discussion into SF versus Ultravid just to counter Samandag who seemed to say that FOV at 1,000 yds or metres is irrelevant.

Lee

 

[SteveTS]

just to counter Samandag who seemed to say that FOV at 1,000 yds or metres is irrelevant. Lee

That's typical self-aggrandising post counter BS, Lee.

Close up and at 'average' birding distances the differences in field of view are really quite small. It is nice to have a wide field but let's be realistic !

My only point was that close to the differences are comparatively small

:t:

All the best,

 

[gulf1263]

Leica still makes some excellent glass, I prefer the handling of the Leica 8x20 Ultravid and the 7x42 Ultravid HD.
Most other manufactures could care less about the highend 7x42 market (except for Nikon).
Leica North America seems not to care about advertising their products and is content to sit on their hands.
Eventually Meopta may come up to their quality level and take away their market here in the US and Canada.
Evolve or perish.
Art

 

[Uhu74]

Not that I have any control as to where posters take this thread, but I had not intended it to be a " mine is best " discussion.

Going with HN`s last paragraph in post 71, I think potential Leica customers may in fact be being swayed not to look at them by "marketing hype" from staff in optics outlets, which was kind of my original point, for what ever reason I think they are being done a disservice by being steered towards Zeiss or Swaro`s latest offerings rather than being left to try all three and make up their own minds.

My optics dealer still sells Leica a lot. He told me that it often is the people who don't give other brands a fair chance, and tend to grab directly towards Swaro or Zeiss.
When I bought my first binos, I was asked to try all of the big 3. And that's how it should be in my opinion.