Leica 8x32 BN versus 7x42 BN. (4 Viewers)

[Kevin Conville]

Officially Bob, I live in California.

Hey, don't wait for the lotto to buy those 7x42 EDGs. I want to read your review! I've heard precious little about them.

Regards,
Kevin

 

[[email protected]]

Try them! Try them next to your 8x32's. I know I like the 8x32's size too. Try the 7x42's and you will be converted.

Dennis

 

[[email protected]]

I tried a Leica Ultravid at the store the other day in 8x42 and it was a wonderful binocular. I can ony imagine it in 7x42. But it was $2000.00! You can get the Trinovid 7x42 BN for about $1100.00 to $1200.00. I personally prefer the feel of the Trinovid in my hands though but that is just preference.

Dennis

 

[[email protected]]

Here is an interesting comparison of the Leica Ultravid 7x42 to the Leica 7x42 BN from another thread:

When I bought my Leica 7x42's, I had an opportunity to buy either the Trinovid BN 7x42's, or the Leica Ultravid 7x42's. I found that I actually preferred the handling and image quality of the Trinovids. The Ultravids are undeniably brighter, but not by enough to set them apart as the clear "across-the-board" winner. The Trinovids, on the otherhand, were sharper over a larger area of the FOV, and seemed to have more "vibrant" color rendition. The view through the Trinovid BN's just seemed "livelier", more "electric", and more "vivid" to me, so they're the ones I ended up buying.

Aside from the image quality, the Trinovid BN's just seem more rugged and solidly built than the Ultravids, and I absolutely HATE thumb indents on binoculars which really soured me on the Ultravid body. I personally don't mind that the Trinovids weigh a little more - their body construction really inspires confidence that they are binoculars that will LAST... something the Ultravid construction fails to do for me.

Even if the Ultravids had been the same or lower cost, I still would have chosen the Trinovid BN's.

I agree with that "electric quality" statement. I have never tried any other binoculars that could match this quality in the Trinovids. I think it is their excellent contrast.

Dennis

 

[John M Robinson]

Denco, this is a great thread as seven power was my favorite format for years and seemed to be the standard format here in the US from the 60's through the 1970's, actually it probably still is my favorite, but our local market is dominated by hunters who much prefer ten power, so eight is as low as I can get locally. I know I could mail order a pair of high quality 7x42 but that would require a credit card purchase and resulting problems with the wife, I need to buy locally with a layaway plan. My first good binocs were 7x35 Leitz and a pair of Fujinon 7x50 MTRC I used as a sailboat captain, and if today somebody built an Alpha 7x32 or 35 that would absolutely be my use everyday bin, but alas they don't. So for the last decade or so I have gotten used to the eight power format with an 8x42 Pentax DCF, the Leitz 7x35 died a long time ago and the Fujinons were way too heavy to carry in the field, actually the 8x42 Pentax are optically better than my 1985 Fujinons.

Then last year I hunted with a guy who had a Swarovski 10x42 SLC, one look showed me what I had been missing with my ten year old Pentax DCF, thats when I went into my local optics store (Leica, Nikon, Leopold, pentax and Swaro dealer), and joined this forum to better educate myself. I came to realize that even at the highest level, binoculars are all about compromises in design and utility. Otherwise we would have binocs that were as compact as the little 8x20 glorified opera glasses, as easy on the eye as that 7x42BN or Zeiss FL, as bright as a 7x50, any mignification you wanted, totally weatherproof, impact resistant and steady as the Canon IS. Unfortunately all of that is physically impossible and we all have to decide what perameters are imortant to us. My buddy swears by his 31 oz 10x42 SLCs, but they are way too big and heavy for me, and I don't like ten power that much.

Denco really likes the 7x42 BN aka Brick, but it is way too large for my small hands and too bulky and heavy to carry miles in the mountains, while the small, lighter 8x32 BN is just perfect in that regard. Would I prefer the view of the 7x42? I absolutely have no doubt that I would, and after reading glowing reviews of all of the various Alpha 7x42s, I'm thinking about trading my 8x42 Ultravids in for a 7x42 Zeiss FL to use in the truck, home and shorter hikes. So for me compactness and light weight are huge factors. Trying them in the store I thought I could live with the 27 oz Ultravids on the trail but they are just too heavy, so my dilemma is trying to find a light weight package that offers the best view at a price I can afford. Like I said, if they built a 7x32BN, HD, FL or EL, that would be the ultimate bin for me, but since they don't the 8x32BN works for me as a compromise. I actually prefered the 8x32 EL by quite a bit but it is too expensive for me right now.

This seems to be a case of to each his own, Denco doesn't mind the extra weight and bulk of the BN brick, to me thats a deal breaker, I have seen some guys post that they liked the tiny 10x25s, to me they are impossible to look through, and some really like the light gathering 7x50s. I really do like to read everyones opinion on this subject, this is a wonderful forum.

 

[[email protected]]

Denco, this is a great thread as seven power was my favorite format for years and seemed to be the standard format here in the US from the 60's through the 1970's, actually it probably still is my favorite, but our local market is ted by hunters who much prefer ten power, so eight is as low as I can get locally. I know I could mail order a pair of high quality 7x42 but that would require a credit card purchase and resulting problems with the wife, I need to buy locally with a layaway plan. My first good binocs were 7x35 Leitz and a pair of Fujinon 7x50 MTRC I used as a sailboat captain, and if today somebody built an Alpha 7x32 or 35 that would absolutely be my use everyday bin, but alas they don't. So for the last decade or so I have gotten used to the eight power format with an 8x42 Pentax DCF, the Leitz 7x35 died a long time ago and the Fujinons were way too heavy to carry in the field, actually the 8x42 Pentax are optically better than my 1985 Fujinons.

Then last year I hunted with a guy who had a Swarovski 10x42 SLC, one look showed me what I had been missing with my ten year old Pentax DCF, thats when I went into my local optics store (Leica, Nikon, Leopold, pentax and Swaro dealer), and joined this forum to better educate myself. I came to realize that even at the highest level, binoculars are all about compromises in design and utility. Otherwise we would have binocs that were as compact as the little 8x20 glorified opera glasses, as easy on the eye as that 7x42BN or Zeiss FL, as bright as a 7x50, any mignification you wanted, totally weatherproof, impact resistant and steady as the Canon IS. Unfortunately all of that is physically impossible and we all have to decide what perameters are imortant to us. My buddy swears by his 31 oz 10x42 SLCs, but they are way too big and heavy for me, and I don't like ten power that much.

Denco really likes the 7x42 BN aka Brick, but it is way too large for my small hands and too bulky and heavy to carry miles in the mountains, while the small, lighter 8x32 BN is just perfect in that regard. Would I prefer the view of the 7x42? I absolutely have no doubt that I would, and after reading glowing reviews of all of the various Alpha 7x42s, I'm thinking about trading my 8x42 Ultravids in for a 7x42 Zeiss FL to use in the truck, home and shorter hikes. So for me compactness and light weight are huge factors. Trying them in the store I thought I could live with the 27 oz Ultravids on the trail but they are just too heavy, so my dilemma is trying to find a light weight package that offers the best view at a price I can afford. Like I said, if they built a 7x32BN, HD, FL or EL, that would be the ultimate bin for me, but since they don't the 8x32BN works for me as a compromise. I actually prefered the 8x32 EL by quite a bit but it is too expensive for me right now.

This seems to be a case of to each his own, Denco doesn't mind the extra weight and bulk of the BN brick, to me thats a deal breaker, I have seen some guys post that they liked the tiny 10x25s, to me they are impossible to look through, and some really like the light gathering 7x50s. I really do like to read everyones opinion on this subject, this is a wonderful forum.

Have you tried any of the various binocular straps like "Bino Buddy" that distribute the weight of the binocular more like a backpack instead of it just hanging around your neck. It seems that the extra weight of 10 ounces for a 42mm versus a 32mm aperture or so shouldn't have to be a deal breaker. I understand though if you are hiking or hunting and walking for miles the extra weight does get heavy.

Dennis

 

[John M Robinson]

Hi,
Thanks for the reply. I do have one of those harneses and it definitely helps distribute the weight. I think the bulk is even more an issue than the weight. I remember my old 7x35 Leitz, they were compact enough to fit in my hunting coat pocket as can the 8x32 BNs. Plus I have very small hands which don't fit very well around the larger Trinovid or the SLCs, they fit the 42 size Ultravids and ELs fine though.

Your review of the 7x42 format has me intrigued though, I might consider selling my 8x42 BR and look to buy a similar quality 7x42. It just seems that as you go down in power you could go down in lens size, hense the wish for a 7x32 bin.

 

[[email protected]]

Wouldn't a 7x32 compared to 7x42 be similar to 8x32 compared to an 8x42? Sure it would be lighter but the bigger aperture would still have those inherent advantages of easier eye placement and a brighter image. My hands fit the 7x42 better and I decided I like the weight because it helps with the shakes. I would rather have a 7x32 than an 8x32 any day though.

Dennis

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Dennis: a bigger exit pupil does not give a brighter image if the entrance pupil of the eye is smaller than the exit pupil of the bin i.e. in daylight, all three of these bins are identically bright (assuming the same coatings) for people with an entrance pupil of 4mm or less (i.e. all of the population except a few at twilight).

In order of "relaxed" alignment. Again in daylight with a 3mm (plus or minus) pupil it doesn't make a huge difference to me though the bigger exit pupils just make life a little easier. I find going below 4mm exit pupil starts to get annoying.

I own all the sizes below and find that beyond the top one they all seem about equal in relaxation, even more so for 4.5mm exit pupils and up.

8x32 == 4.0mm
7x32 == 4.5mm
8x42 == 5.125mm
7x42 == 6.0mm

So one thing you might do is measure you own entrance pupil ... perhaps you have bigger than usual pupils. That explain your choice.

You can always get extra weight with a bean bag I prefer not to tote it around with me.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis: a bigger exit pupil does not give a brighter image if the entrance pupil of the eye is smaller than the exit pupil of the bin i.e. in daylight, all three of these bins are identically bright (assuming the same coatings) for people with an entrance pupil of 4mm or less (i.e. all of the population except a few at twilight).

In order of "relaxed" alignment. Again in daylight with a 3mm (plus or minus) pupil it doesn't make a huge difference to me though the bigger exit pupils just make life a little easier. I find going below 4mm exit pupil starts to get annoying.

I own all the sizes below and find that beyond the top one they all seem about equal in relaxation, even more so for 4.5mm exit pupils and up.

8x32 == 4.0mm
7x32 == 4.5mm
8x42 == 5.125mm
7x42 == 6.0mm

So one thing you might do is measure you own entrance pupil ... perhaps you have bigger than usual pupils. That explain your choice.

You can always get extra weight with a bean bag I prefer not to tote it around with me.

I must have a bigger entrance pupil than most people because when I compared the Leica 8x32 BN's to my Leica 7x42 BN's at dusk the 7x42's were WAY brighter! Especially in the shadows. I feel for most people unless I am unusual an 8x42 or 7x42 is going to be brighter than an 8x32 or 7x32 under low light conditions. I do not buy into that theory because I can see a big difference with my own eyes and I am fifty years old. Let me tell you after seeing the difference in optical performance between the 8x32 and 7x42 and observing the difference in how much more RELAXED the view through the 7x42 is and how much MORE you can see because the lower magnification does not magnify the shakes as much and how the extra weight of the 7x42 helps you hold the binocular steady I will gladly carry the extra weight. After making this comparison I really feel the difference between an 8x32 and 7x42 in performance is like the difference between an 8x20 and 8x32. If lack of weight and bulk is your primary goal why not buy an 8x20? Because they are a pain to use compared to a bigger aperture binocular. I have had Leica 8x20 Trinovids and although they are pretty good optically they were a pain to use compared to a full size binocular. I sold them and I will never go back to them. I have just decided If I am going to do a lot of viewing I will carry the weight of a 7x42 for it's superior optics, more comfortable eye placement, steadier view because of the lower magnification and better low light performance. My point is 7x42's are way superior to 8x32's even in bright daylight conditions no matter what anybody tells you! The only reason to carry an 8x32 is less weight and bulk BUT you are not going to get the comfortable view of a 7x42 . That is the point of my thread.I want to dispel the notion that 8x32's are as good as 7x42's or even 8x42's in daylight conditions. They are not!

Dennis

 

[Pileatus]

My SE 8X32 is just as bright as my Ultravid 7X42 in normal daylight conditions. Even at dusk it takes awhile for the Ultravid to "beat" the SE. When it does, the Ultravid 7X42 is like the energizer bunny...it keeps going and going and going.

John

 

[[email protected]]

7x42's are amazing aren't they! Almost like they have a battery inside and they are self illuminating in low light conditions. Great for Owling and hunters! You can see horns on deer and spot owls AFTER dark. Almost like "Night Vision"!

Dennis

 

[John M Robinson]

I must have a bigger entrance pupil than most people because when I compared the Leica 8x32 BN's to my Leica 7x42 BN's at dusk the 7x42's were WAY brighter! Especially in the shadows. I feel for most people unless I am unusual an 8x42 or 7x42 is going to be brighter than an 8x32 or 7x32 under low light conditions. I do not buy into that theory because I can see a big difference with my own eyes and I am fifty years old. Let me tell you after seeing the difference in optical performance between the 8x32 and 7x42 and observing the difference in how much more RELAXED the view through the 7x42 is and how much MORE you can see because the lower magnification does not magnify the shakes as much and how the extra weight of the 7x42 helps you hold the binocular steady I will gladly carry the extra weight. After making this comparison I really feel the difference between an 8x32 and 7x42 in performance is like the difference between an 8x20 and 8x32. If lack of weight and bulk is your primary goal why not buy an 8x20? Because they are a pain to use compared to a bigger aperture binocular. I have had Leica 8x20 Trinovids and although they are pretty good optically they were a pain to use compared to a full size binocular. I sold them and I will never go back to them. I have just decided If I am going to do a lot of viewing I will carry the weight of a 7x42 for it's superior optics, more comfortable eye placement, steadier view because of the lower magnification and better low light performance. My point is 7x42's are way superior to 8x32's even in bright daylight conditions no matter what anybody tells you! The only reason to carry an 8x32 is less weight and bulk BUT you are not going to get the comfortable view of a 7x42 . That is the point of my thread.I want to dispel the notion that 8x32's are as good as 7x42's or even 8x42's in daylight conditions. They are not!

Dennis

Dennis, I'm not argueing with you on this, except comparing 8x32s to those unuseable 8x20 "opera glasses". To me the 8x32 is very usable and for most conditions the best compromise of ergonomics and optics, but you are correct the larger exit pupil of the 7x42 extends your twilight viewing a quarter hour or so and even in full daylight the view is easier as there is so much room for your eye to move around in. I notice these differences with my 8x42 Ultravid which is also brighter due to better coatings. Personally I hate those tiny 8x20s or 10x25s, I could see them for bike riding or some other use where you need a shirt pocket bin, but to me they are way too extreme.

I'm glad that you have found the ultimate binocular for you, but that doesn't mean it's the best for everyone. One thing though, your happyness with this one bin will save you a lot of money compared to me. I seem to never be satisfied with compromises and have ended up with one of everything to handle different uses, a 6x30 Yosemite for tight woods walking, the 8x32BN for general use hiking and mountaineering, the 8x42 Ultravid for shorter hikes, and overall everyday use and a 10x42 Nikon SE for big open country. Now after your rave review of the 7x42, I'm considering replacing the 8x42BR with a 7x42BR or FL.

John

 

[Pinewood]

Hello John,

7x42 binoculars are terrific, but you are quite right that one binocular may not suit all. I am also of your opinion, that one binocular may not suit all one's needs. If pressed, I would recommend either an 8x32 or a 7x42 to someone who needed just one binocular for bird watching. In fact, I favor the 8x32 for general use, but I could live with either a BN or a Zeiss FL. However, I generally carry a 7x42 Zeiss ClassiC and a 10x32 FL but there are many who find carrying two binoculars rather excessive.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[APSmith]

I don't get it. It seems like the obvious compromise would be the 8x42. And I have developed a new-found hankering for an Ultravid version. But, noone seems to be particularly wild about them. Is the logic as follows? If you're looking to gain the advantages of larger EP (42 mm), then 7x is better than 8x for the previously discussed reasons; 32mm is not alpha-available at 7x, so to gain the portability, etc, you have to concede 8x. Maybe that explains why so many laud the 8x32s and the 7x42s, but not so much the 8x42s.

 

[John M Robinson]

I would bet that the 8x42 format is more popular than either the 7x42 or 8x32, maybe the 8x32 is more popular. I love my 8x42 Ultravids, they are just a little heavy and bulky for the kind of trail work I do. So if I'm getting an 8x32 for trail use, that might cover my eight power needs, that's why I would consider a 7x42, just to have something different.

 

[dalat]

Hi!
here's my 8x32 vs 7x42 problem: I have an Ultravid HD 8x42 as my only real bin at the moment, but I am considering to buy a second one, for my wife or friends when they go out with me (so i don't need to give them my Ultravids ) and of course to complement my 8x42. I found a dealer who still has unused Trinovids BN 8x32 and 7x42. Main use is rain forest birding.

What would you do?

Thanks for your opinion, Florian

PS: the 8x32 come in red and the 7x42 are 100 Euro cheaper

 

[Alexis Powell]

I'd think the better complement to you 8x42 would be the 8x32, if by complement you mean something with different handling qualities (smaller, easier to pack, lighter weight). But if you want the most comparable performance, especially in dim lighting, and if you need eye-relief for glasses, the 7x42 would be the better option. Unless light weight and small size are your primary concerns, I'd go 7x42.

--AP

 

[John M Robinson]

Hi!
here's my 8x32 vs 7x42 problem: I have an Ultravid HD 8x42 as my only real bin at the moment, but I am considering to buy a second one, for my wife or friends when they go out with me (so i don't need to give them my Ultravids ) and of course to complement my 8x42. I found a dealer who still has unused Trinovids BN 8x32 and 7x42. Main use is rain forest birding.

What would you do?

Thanks for your opinion, Florian

PS: the 8x32 come in red and the 7x42 are 100 Euro cheaper

I might be able to help you here; if you are looking for an alternate to your existing 8x42 HD I think the 8x32 will be more different than the 7x42. I was recently able to compare a pair of 7x42 Ultravid BRs to my 8x42 BRs for two weeks. I was really surprised how close they were. I think you could have tricked me into believing I was looking through the sevens when it was really the eights, or visa versa, it was that close.

Now you have other considerations comparing ultra modern HDs to older generation BNs, "brick" ergonomics to compact Ultravids, but I think both the older 7x42 and the new 8x42 HD have that Leica look optically. If it were me I would go for the 8x32BN as a more compact field bino, I am one who loved the ergonomics of that little BN, his bigger brother aka "the brick", not so much.

John

 

[Pinewood]

Hi!
here's my 8x32 vs 7x42 problem: I have an Ultravid HD 8x42 as my only real bin at the moment, but I am considering to buy a second one, for my wife or friends when they go out with me (so i don't need to give them my Ultravids ) and of course to complement my 8x42. I found a dealer who still has unused Trinovids BN 8x32 and 7x42. Main use is rain forest birding.

What would you do?

Thanks for your opinion, Florian

PS: the 8x32 come in red and the 7x42 are 100 Euro cheaper

Florian,

A tough choice. I would ask your wife which one she prefers to carry. Which one has the better FOV for rain forest bird watching?
I have the red 8x32 BN but I use something more up to date.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :egghead: