I sold my Ultravid HD+ 7x42 and realize now I shouldn't have let it go. My thinking was also to go with a lighter alternative. I still want to go light weight and compact most of the time, but I should have kept the Ultravid for occasional use and for pure enjoyment.
Am I alone in preferring the black armour over the green editions?
They are great optics, I may have preffered the older BN's, and the new Ultras are better, and so they should be.that's what keeps me interested ... plus it's more affordable.
Have you tried the Retrovids? Optically and ergonomically I like them as much as my Ultravids, even better in my hand.
I have the 8x42 Noctivid in green and it is and awesome binocular to look at and through.The green noctivid looks very attractive but I prefer the classic black on Leica binos.
Hello. I have a question for you. I have a 10x42 BA Trinovid (about 15 years old) which I needed to have service. I got them back and they are bright and clear. IIt is hard for me to imagine better image optics. However, I assume (?) that Swarovski and Zeiss, at their high end, make binoculars that are superior in this regard.Agreed. Leica makes the best looking binoculars by a long shot. And the images through them are also the best looking. Just gorgeous products. Technically worse than Swarovski or Zeiss in most cases, but I like them better anyway.
They are fine. You will pay a fortune for a slight improvement. Enjoy what you have, they are classics.Hello. I have a question for you. I have a 10x42 BA Trinovid (about 15 years old) which I needed to have service. I got them back and they are bright and clear. IIt is hard for me to imagine better image optics. However, I assume (?) that Swarovski and Zeiss, at their high end, make binoculars that are superior in this regard.
But what is the difference, do you know? Will what I see be 2-3 times better? Or is it something like better imaging in the dusk? Or do the higher cost binoculars focus more close? (that would be a plus certainly).
Since I got these Leica's back and have been using them I do not feel I'd need anything else -- certainly for the time being.
What are your thoughts? And anyone else's thoughts . . .
Go with the UVHD+ 8x32, phenomenal glass in a compact package. Almost nothing on the market compares. A little tight on eye relief not terrible and I still can use them with sunglasses.that's what keeps me interested ... plus it's more affordable.
I'm very familiar with it. I've given it a try several times. There's not enough eye relief for me unfortunately.Go with the UVHD+ 8x32, phenomenal glass in a compact package. Almost nothing on the market compares. A little tight on eye relief not terrible and I still can use them with sunglasses.
Paul
Swoptics currently have a pair of the 10x25 at a great price usedAm I alone in preferring the black armour over the green editions?
I've never owned a Leica, but if I do treat myself, it might be an Ultravid 10x25 (that's if the Zeiss Victory Pocket doesn't suit me better).
I'm also curious to see if the excellent physical quality of their binos translates to the Televid scopes.
Too bad the trini is so heavy or seemingly so I should sayThey are fine. You will pay a fortune for a slight improvement. Enjoy what you have, they are classics.
The classic 7x35 is right there next to the UV32, but not water proof. It does have 16mm eye releif. The MHG in 42 is nice and light and less blackout issues than the 30. The Trinovid 8x32 is nice , but the 10’s are CA monsters.I'm very familiar with it. I've given it a try several times. There's not enough eye relief for me unfortunately.
Nikon MHG 8x30 vs Leica Ultravid HD+ 8x32
Recently, I acquired a 'refurbished' HG 8x30 direct from Nikon for a great price. I also ordered a 'used' Ultravid HD+ 8x32 to compare with the Nikon. I wanted to select one of these as my primary birding binocular and keep my 1st gen Swarovski CL 8x30 as my backup bino. I returned the Ultravid...www.birdforum.net
I tried the MHG 8x42 recently and thought it was great. I only had a brief moment with it in the store but already I liked it.The classic 7x35 is right there next to the UV32, but not water proof. It does have 16mm eye releif. The MHG in 42 is nice and light and less blackout issues than the 30. The Trinovid 8x32 is nice , but the 10’s are CA monsters.
Perhaps the MHG 8x30 is just fine...? I know I bird 90% of the time with my 7x35 Leica and unless I am on a hawk watch or perhaps at the ocean shore I take out the 10x42.... So, use the 8x30...it is 90% of your bird watching I bet... jimI tried the MHG 8x42 recently and thought it was great. I only had a brief moment with it in the store but already I liked it.
Sometime this year I'll figure it out and buy something to go along with my MHG 8x30.
I have never looked at the Trini 10x32... Wasn't aware of that issue.... But the 8x32 Trini is wonderful and I love the close focus.The classic 7x35 is right there next to the UV32, but not water proof. It does have 16mm eye releif. The MHG in 42 is nice and light and less blackout issues than the 30. The Trinovid 8x32 is nice , but the 10’s are CA monsters.
I was going to say my 7x35s work super with glasses. I mostly take my glasses off when I use my Ultravids, they work ok with the eye cups down, but definitely easier with the cups out and no glasses. With my 7x35 Retrovids it doesn’t matter a bit, glasses on-off, eye cups one-out, easy either way. I have very deep set eyes btw.The classic 7x35 is right there next to the UV32, but not water proof. It does have 16mm eye releif. The MHG in 42 is nice and light and less blackout issues than the 30. The Trinovid 8x32 is nice , but the 10’s are CA monsters.