If you are going to buy a Leica 7x42, you are better off buying the older Trinovid 7x42 rather than the 7x42 UVHD+. There is very little difference in the optics, and the build quality of the older Trinovid is actually better, and you can get one for 1/2 the price of the 7x42 UVHD+. The older Trinovid will last forever. If you want a smaller lighter weight 7x get the 7x35 Retrovid. I compared the Leica Retrovid 7x35 closely with a Leica UVHD+ 7x42, and they were almost identical in optical performance. I actually preferred the Retrovid 7x35 over the UVHD+ 7x42, especially when you consider size and weight.If you decide to change or "upgrade" your Trinovid BA to an Ultravid, IMO it would make the most sense sense to go all the way to the UV HD + version. In side by side comparisons of the Trinovid BN with the UV HD+ in 7x42 and UV BR with UV HD+ in 10x50 I thought both the HD+ were noticeably, even if only slightly, better in overall image quality, for me most noticeably in terms of a brighter image. As always your mileage may vary.
Mike
Well, even that isn't true!You can't compare a binocular's weight with different straps, rain guards and objective covers! Zeiss accessories are always heavier and better made than Leica's, especially the rain guard. Look at that flimsy rain guard on the Leica. Take all the accessories off and weigh them again. The Zeiss FL will be lighter. Use your head!
Here is what I got when I weighed the Zeiss FL 7x42 on my scale, exactly what Zeiss says they weigh 750 grams. Scopeviews actually weighs the binoculars, and he has both the FL 7x42 and UVHD 7x42 at 750 grams.Well, even that isn't true!
With accessories 12 grams difference, without accessories 15 grams difference!😁
But Charlie probably stuck two pieces of chewing gum on the Zeiss objective to annoy you...
Use your head!
Andreas
Agreed. And the weight difference is really pretty minimal. Not a big deal either way for me.Really, the weight isn't what matters between the two. It is the FL's 8.6 degree FOV versus the UV's 8.0 degree FOV and the 5% difference in transmission. The FL is a much brighter binocular, especially in low light, and has a much bigger FOV with no CA. I think the FL 7x42 could hold its own even against the legendary Habicht 7x42 in low light. There is less than 2% difference in transmission.
That's my favorite 7x42, or I guess I could say, it's the only one I've got. But to that I'd have to add that it was the unexpected decision I made to buy one after trying it out at the Leica store a couple years ago. Possibly my best binocular overall, among several other favorites.Latest UV+ (has the red HD)
I also regard your reviews as a gold standard. And you weighed an FL at 738g and a UV hd+ at 743g.quincy88, post 47,
Thank you for the compliments, you made my day. I will show it to my students and colleagues in the laboratory since they also contribute with our instrumentation, help and advise.
Gijs van Ginkel
Thanks for this, Jackjack! I have never looked through a BN 7x42. I'd like to see a side by side comparison of the views through an UV+ 8x32 and a BN 7x42. I own a couple of Leicas and I think the UV+ 8x32 has the nicest colour balance and texture of the Leicas I know. I think I know what you mean, when you speak of "texture" and "creamy tint", so I'd appreciate your thoughts.I have a comparison
View attachment 1602621
View attachment 1602630
BN is bit shorter but more thicker and much heavier
BN 7x42 / UVHD 7x42
View attachment 1602622
View attachment 1602623View attachment 1602624
View attachment 1602625
UVHD is significantly brighter
it is significantly sharper but seems like it don't reach the sharpness and brightness of FL 7x42 and CHD 8x42 at daytime.
they both have color tint between yellow and red.
UVHD's color is more towards yellow and BN more towards reddish brown.
UVHD is bit yellower then Nikon EDG 8x42 and significantly yellow then 8x32 UVHD+
UVHD 7x42 / UVHD+ 8x32
View attachment 1602635
BC has bit more creamy tint with better satuation. and UV has bit better color fidelity.
Edge sharpness is little but better in UVHD. BN have approx edge sharpness about 67% and UVHD around 72% not a big differ.
Despite it's higher brightness, CA is little better in UV hd but not as good as recent ED bino such as MIC BW18 ED, Apo 6.5x32
and of course not recent but best 7x42, Zeiss FL
Pincusion distortion is about same but as UVHD's magnification is bit smaller then BN, it may be get caught to your eyes bit more easily
for conculsion, UV is of course superior bino then BN. it is sharper, brighter with not much but better fixed optical abberation.
and it's much easy to carry and hold because of thiner barrel and lower weight.
it's eyecup and focuser is better made.
Puls, UV is much easier to focus because it's focuser is more exposed so it's easier to get my fingers on it
View attachment 1602637
but,
BN follow up it's central sharpness better then I expected.
(sharpness gap between Zeiss FL, Apm APO against UV is about same or less then UV is sharper then BN)
and BN have more cream like textuer resembling of old film camera lenses and because of it's lower transmission, BN has bit better comfort of the view(But UVHD is enough good for ease of eye)
so, BN 7x42 is a still good bino if you want rugged build quality and unique textuer and bias of color contrast.
If at the same price, it's obvious to go for UVHD, bit as I'm satisfied by the uniqueness of BN, I'll gonna stick to it.
maybe I can plan a review inculding 7x35 retrovid too which is even a lot diffrent bino then twos beside.
View attachment 1602631
and also comparison of three 10x42 Leicas
View attachment 1602636
Thanks CharleyBird. Given the anatomy of my neck and shoulders, I carry almost all 30mm and larger bins on a harness as it's much more comfortable for me. So, the main relevance w/r/t to weight for me in everything except pocket models is whether the combination of size, shape and weight of any given bin (the "density" ) makes it harder or easier to hold steady than comparable bins of the same magnification. I find the handling of the UV + and Zeiss T FL 7x42 are equally pleasant.Inaccuracies of any scale aside, mine were weighed on the same Soehnle scale which remained unmoved, one after the other.
The difference is negligible so please let's not all go weighing our bins.
I think creamy tint partly benefits from lower transmission.Thanks for this, Jackjack! I have never looked through a BN 7x42. I'd like to see a side by side comparison of the views through an UV+ 8x32 and a BN 7x42. I own a couple of Leicas and I think the UV+ 8x32 has the nicest colour balance and texture of the Leicas I know. I think I know what you mean, when you speak of "texture" and "creamy tint", so I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Nice jackjack. I prefer the view of the BN 7x42 to the UVHD 7x42. The BN 7x42 is significantly more saturated as can easily be seen by your pictures and like all BN's it has a uniqueness to its view having a more cream like texture resembling old film camera lenses because of it's lower transmission. The BN is a more comfortable binocular to look through than the UVHD+. The BN's just have a warm, comfortable view and there is nothing quite like them.I have a comparison
View attachment 1602621
View attachment 1602630
BN is bit shorter but more thicker and much heavier
BN 7x42 / UVHD 7x42
View attachment 1602622
View attachment 1602623View attachment 1602624
View attachment 1602625
UVHD is significantly brighter
it is significantly sharper but seems like it don't reach the sharpness and brightness of FL 7x42 and CHD 8x42 at daytime.
they both have color tint between yellow and red.
UVHD's color is more towards yellow and BN more towards reddish brown.
UVHD is bit yellower then Nikon EDG 8x42 and significantly yellow then 8x32 UVHD+
UVHD 7x42 / UVHD+ 8x32
View attachment 1602635
BC has bit more creamy tint with better satuation. and UV has bit better color fidelity.
Edge sharpness is little but better in UVHD. BN have approx edge sharpness about 67% and UVHD around 72% not a big differ.
Despite it's higher brightness, CA is little better in UV hd but not as good as recent ED bino such as MIC BW18 ED, Apo 6.5x32
and of course not recent but best 7x42, Zeiss FL
Pincusion distortion is about same but as UVHD's magnification is bit smaller then BN, it may be get caught to your eyes bit more easily
for conculsion, UV is of course superior bino then BN. it is sharper, brighter with not much but better fixed optical abberation.
and it's much easy to carry and hold because of thiner barrel and lower weight.
it's eyecup and focuser is better made.
Puls, UV is much easier to focus because it's focuser is more exposed so it's easier to get my fingers on it
View attachment 1602637
but,
BN follow up it's central sharpness better then I expected.
(sharpness gap between Zeiss FL, Apm APO against UV is about same or less then UV is sharper then BN)
and BN have more cream like textuer resembling of old film camera lenses and because of it's lower transmission, BN has bit better comfort of the view(But UVHD is enough good for ease of eye)
so, BN 7x42 is a still good bino if you want rugged build quality and unique textuer and bias of color contrast.
If at the same price, it's obvious to go for UVHD, bit as I'm satisfied by the uniqueness of BN, I'll gonna stick to it.
additionaly, it'm not going to sell it and upgrade it to 7x42 FL.
FL 7x42 give significantly better optics not only then BN 7x42 but also UVHD 7x42.
brighter, wider, sharper, better CA... but since it have significant mintish hue that I personally don't perfer it over color bias of Leica.
so if I want 7x42 FL, I just gonna have both in my room.
both are nice bino with diffrent characteristic.
maybe I can plan a review inculding 7x35 retrovid too which is even a lot diffrent bino then twos beside.
View attachment 1602631
and also comparison of three 10x42 Leicas
View attachment 1602636
UV series is still a very comfortable bino compared to bino such as Nikon MHG, Zeiss conquest, Swaro EL. but BN is on the diffrent class. up to the top with EDG between bino that I experienced.Nice jackjack. I prefer the view of the BN 7x42 to the UVHD 7x42. The BN 7x42 is significantly more saturated as can easily be seen by your pictures and like all BN's it has a uniqueness to its view having a more cream like texture resembling old film camera lenses because of it's lower transmission. The BN is a more comfortable binocular to look through than the UVHD+. The BN's just have a warm, comfortable view and there is nothing quite like them.
the best color I personally prefer in leica is 7x42 BN. followed by 10x42 BN, Duovis 42mm, and 10x42 NV.Thanks for this, Jackjack! I have never looked through a BN 7x42. I'd like to see a side by side comparison of the views through an UV+ 8x32 and a BN 7x42. I own a couple of Leicas and I think the UV+ 8x32 has the nicest colour balance and texture of the Leicas I know. I think I know what you mean, when you speak of "texture" and "creamy tint", so I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Comparison between BN 7x42 and UVHD+ 8x32Thanks for this, Jackjack! I have never looked through a BN 7x42. I'd like to see a side by side comparison of the views through an UV+ 8x32 and a BN 7x42. I own a couple of Leicas and I think the UV+ 8x32 has the nicest colour balance and texture of the Leicas I know. I think I know what you mean, when you speak of "texture" and "creamy tint", so I'd appreciate your thoughts.
I guess it depends on what location each one is being weighed at, humidity could be a factor 😜🫢Here is what I got when I weighed the Zeiss FL 7x42 on my scale, exactly what Zeiss says they weigh 750 grams. Scopeviews actually weighs the binoculars, and he has both the FL 7x42 and UVHD 7x42 at 750 grams.
Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL Review
www.scopeviews.co.uk
Leica 7x42 Ultravid HD Review
www.scopeviews.co.uk
View attachment 1602576