News from Leica (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

Gosh and Golly Gilmore.

You stay quiet for months then you inundate us!

Nice to hear from you, don't be a stranger here :t:

Lee

 

[Gilmore Girl]

Gosh and Golly Gilmore.

You stay quiet for months then you inundate us!

Nice to hear from you, don't be a stranger here :t:

Lee

o

I don't get too excited by much these days, but a new binocular from
Leica is nice news.

 

[Hermann]

Yes, I saw that in the specs and the 8x42 would be fine with my glasses I think, but I would like to see an 8x32 from Leica with good eye relief.
Since the UV 8x32 doesn't have enough, I'd love to see a new Trinovid HD 8x32 with enough ER. If they do produce an 8x32 I assume it would be around 15mm which may not be enough for me. I'm just griping out loud

The problem is better eye relief, say 16-17 mm, would mean that Leica would have to change the style of the 8x32, making it quite a bit bigger. The Ultravid 8x32 is the most compact 8x32 with very good optics on the market. In order to achieve that Leica went for eyepieces with a short focal length, and such eyepieces don't have much eye relief. If you compare the Leica to the Swarovski, for instance, the difference in length is immediately obvious - but the Swaro has a lot more eye relief.

So what Leica did was to make a compromise: They went for a very compact, small and light 8x32, taking into account that it won't work for (some) eyeglass wearers. Only "some", because a fair number of eyeglass wearers can actually get along with the eye relief, it all depends on your glasses.

Hermann

 

[Gilmore Girl]

The problem is better eye relief, say 16-17 mm, would mean that Leica would have to change the style of the 8x32, making it quite a bit bigger. The Ultravid 8x32 is the most compact 8x32 with very good optics on the market. In order to achieve that Leica went for eyepieces with a short focal length, and such eyepieces don't have much eye relief. If you compare the Leica to the Swarovski, for instance, the difference in length is immediately obvious - but the Swaro has a lot more eye relief.

So what Leica did was to make a compromise: They went for a very compact, small and light 8x32, taking into account that it won't work for (some) eyeglass wearers. Only "some", because a fair number of eyeglass wearers can actually get along with the eye relief, it all depends on your glasses.

Hermann

Yes, I'm already aware of this with the Ultravid (don't mean to sound snarky here). I'm talking about a future 8x32 Trinovid and not the current Ultravid.
The Ultravid design is not going to change.
I am hoping that the Trinovid 8x32 (if one is made) will have more eye relief than the Ultravid 8x32. It should since the Trinovid HD 8x42 achieves better ER than the Ultravid 8x42.

The Trinovid HD is just a hair shorter than the Ultravid yet has better eye relief, so they must've designed the eyepieces differently to achieve this (?).
Trinovid 8x42 HD has 17mm ER, so I'm going to assume that an 8x32 Trinovid may have around 15mm ... I'm guessing of course here.
I'm only hoping that, if an 8x32 is made, it will offer better eye relief than the Ultravid, but it's still a long shot for me since I think I need about
16mm minimum and probably more than that to be comfortable.

p.s. I'm ok with a Trinovid 8x32 which is longer/bigger than the Ultravid 8x32 if it will provide better ER.

...and please forgive me for making a lot of assumptions here. I don't fully understand how ER is achieved in the design process.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Yes, I saw that in the specs and the 8x42 would be fine with my glasses I think, but I would like to see an 8x32 from Leica with good eye relief.
Since the UV 8x32 doesn't have enough, I'd love to see a new Trinovid HD 8x32 with enough ER. If they do produce an 8x32 I assume it would be around
15mm which may not be enough for me. I'm just griping out loud

just don't look at the ER spec.
you need to try them to know for sure,
the previous trinovids 8x42 had about 15.5mm I think
and they worked ok for me with glasses,
the eye cups are very well designed and shallow
and don't "eat" much of the ER
as with some other eye cup designs

 

[Gilmore Girl]

just don't look at the ER spec.
you need to try them to know for sure,
the previous trinovids 8x42 had about 15mm I think
and they worked ok for me with glasses,
the eye cups are very well designed and shallow
and don't "eat" much of the ER.

I owned the previous Trinovid and with 15.5mm ER it actually
worked fine.

I tried the new Ultravid Plus 8x32 recently hoping
that it would work , but alas ... the full FOV was not visible. A decent
part of the FOV was cut out with my glasses on.
This was rather depressing for me since I've always wanted the 8x32 UV.

So, this is why I'm hoping that Leica will produce an 8x32 Trinovid which will work ok with my glasses. That would be awesome, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[Vespobuteo]

I owned the previous Trinovid and with 15.5mm ER it actually
worked fine.

I tried the new Ultravid Plus 8x32 recently hoping
that it would work , but alas ... the full FOV was not visible. A decent
part of the FOV was cut out with my glasses on.
This was rather depressing for me since I've always wanted the 8x32 UV.

So, this is why I'm hoping that Leica will produce an 8x32 Trinovid which will work ok with my glasses. That would be awesome, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

The 8x32 ultravids are so tiny, do they have 13 mm ER perhaps?
also the FOV and AFOV are bigger than for the Trinovids, which can be nice,
but makes things more complicated for eye glass wearers.

The Trinovid HD are still very light and compact for a 42mm,
and not much heavier than the Conquest 8x32 HD:s,

 

[Gilmore Girl]

The 8x32 ultravids are so tiny, do they have 13 mm ER perhaps?
also the FOV and AFOV are bigger than for the Trinovids, which can be nice,
but makes things more complicated for eye glass wearers.

The Trinovid HD are still very light and compact for a 42mm,
and not much heavier than the Conquest 8x32 HD:s,

Ultravid 8x32 has 13.5mm ER...not quite enough for me with my
thick plastic frames.

I agree...the new 8x42 Trinovid HD specs are attractive and a nice improvement over the previous Trinovid.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Hi GG :hi:, aarrrrrrggggh! and egad!! :scribe: sorry to hear about the UV 8x32 HD - nothing worse than your elusive golden fleece bin with a fatal deal breaking flaw! As Leica to my knowledge still haven't released the UV 8x32 HD+ yet, perhaps you could drop them a line and see if an eyecup redesign is possible to offer more ER? Your other option is different, closer fitting glasses (I know $ since you just got these), or another bin, perhaps the 7x or 8x42 UVHD+ ? all things considered, they are pretty compact and lightish for 42mm's of such quality. (If a 42mm is still too heavy, have you tried the Swarovski 8x32 SV - it has wonderful lattitude for seeing the full Fov, and fantastic "eyeroamaboutability"! for such a smallish bin, even for eyeglass wearers - it really is something quite special in this regard, something to do with a generous "Randpupille" as I understand it. NB. This may come at the compromise of slightly less than best in class glare handling.) More on "Randpupille" here: http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3105616&postcount=22

ER is a codependent variable for a given optical design, based on focal length, Fov, ocular diameter, field characteristics, field stops, etc. There is no free lunch however, and increases in one parameter (eg. ER) means a reduction in Fov, or requires larger oculars (hence increased weight), or different design (increased weight, cost, other compromises). Leica seems to have settled on a set of design compromises that revolve around compact physical dimensions, and lightish weight (considering the fine quality robust engineering) - what tends to be limited then compared to the competition, is Fov and ER, and they also have more pincushion distortion. :cat:

In practical use, the raw ER figure which by convention is measured from the last ocular surface, is also affected by eye cup design, glasses design (curvature, stand-off, etc), whether you are short-, or far-sighted, and even facial symmetry and characteristics, etc. Combine this with alignment tolerances, viewing distances, and parallax error etc, and getting a "nice" view can at times be difficult for us "four eyes" |8.|

It pays to try the individual models as sometimes the spec sheet is not the whole story due to the eyecup design and the fit to your eyeglasses /face. More prominent eyecups are designed to better shield the ocular surface from background reflections, but for us glasses wearers that is not so much of an advantage since it cuts down on the ER, and unless you have those fly-like side covers on your eyeglasses, reflections can enter behind the eyeglasses in the space to your face. I have found the Zeiss HT to give better ER (for me) than the specs indicate, purely because of the fit - in fact I have to back the eyecups out ever so slightly on the 8x42 HT. Unfortunately, I don't get along with Leica's so well, and lose Fov ....... :-C

Good luck with your quest GG :t:

I'm like you and don't want anything on my eyeballs (contact lenses), and I am very hesitant about lasik surgery etc. I know a few people who have had it done, and they all have this unexplainable weird look to their expression (kind of like a deer caught in the headlights) :eek!: , most report some sort of difficulty such as seeing halos around lights at night - not ideal when you are driving! Therefore that alone crosses it off the list for now, besides, as I travel further down life's road, I find that my short-sightedness is starting to slightly correct somewhat due to changes in the eyeball .....


Chosun :gh:

 

[Gilmore Girl]

Hi GG :hi:, aarrrrrrggggh! and egad!! :scribe: sorry to hear about the UV 8x32 HD - nothing worse than your elusive golden fleece bin with a fatal deal breaking flaw! As Leica to my knowledge still haven't released the UV 8x32 HD+ yet, perhaps you could drop them a line and see if an eyecup redesign is possible to offer more ER?
Chosun :gh:

Hi CJ :hi:

The 8x32 UV+ has been out for a few months now and this is the model I tried (the Plus). I was so hoping it would work for me.
Oh well...nothing I can do about it really because I already have new eyeglass frames. Thinking back on it , I should really have
tried less bulky frames, but too late now. My eye plan is only a discount plan and there's a lot of money spent out of pocket for
the lenses, coatings and frames.

I did try the SV 8x32 and I do think they are very good with glasses.
This may sound silly , but after my 'ultimate' bino , the UV+ 8x32, didn't work out I just felt like I didn't want anything else,
so I have decided to stick with my 8x42 Opticron bino which I've had for a year and a few months now and is serving me well.

I will stay with the Opticron through the winter and in the future I'll consider whether I want to try and go back to 8x32 format
(which I miss and is ultimately my favorite) or stay with 8x42. Since using the full size 8x42 for a while now I have gotten used to
the benefits of larger EP , easier/comfier view with glasses...and nice big bright image. So, I'm a bit torn between 8x32 or 8x42 for my future bin.

I have to admit that the 7x42 UV+ is very tempting. It's heavy though and I am trying to stay away from the heavy weights, but it seems like
it could be an awesome bino. The new Trinovid HD 8x42 also is intriguing and a possibility due to the lower weight and good specs...and a
8x32 Trinovid that works with my glasses would be awesome and closest I can get to my 'golden fleece bin'

I'll figure it all out someday. I don't want to jump into anything anymore.
I've done that in the past and don't want to go there anymore. I want to take my time and I'm in no rush. The Opticron (countryman hd 8x42) gets the job done.
It's only 24 oz and has good optics.

 

[CloseFocus]

Hi CJ :hi:

The 8x32 UV+ has been out for a few months now and this is the model I tried (the Plus). I was so hoping it would work for me.
Oh well...nothing I can do about it really because I already have new eyeglass frames. Thinking back on it , I should really have
tried less bulky frames, but too late now. My eye plan is only a discount plan and there's a lot of money spent out of pocket for
the lenses, coatings and frames.

I did try the SV 8x32 and I do think they are very good with glasses.
This may sound silly , but after my 'ultimate' bino , the UV+ 8x32, didn't work out I just felt like I didn't want anything else,
so I have decided to stick with my 8x42 Opticron bino which I've had for a year and a few months now and is serving me well.

I will stay with the Opticron through the winter and in the future I'll consider whether I want to try and go back to 8x32 format
(which I miss and is ultimately my favorite) or stay with 8x42. Since using the full size 8x42 for a while now I have gotten used to
the benefits of larger EP , easier/comfier view with glasses...and nice big bright image. So, I'm a bit torn between 8x32 or 8x42 for my future bin.

I have to admit that the 7x42 UV+ is very tempting. It's heavy though and I am trying to stay away from the heavy weights, but it seems like
it could be an awesome bino. The new Trinovid HD 8x42 also is intriguing and a possibility due to the lower weight and good specs.

I'll figure it all out someday. I don't want to jump into anything anymore.
I've done that in the past and don't want to go there anymore. I want to take my time and I'm in no rush. The Opticron (countryman 8x42) gets the job done.
It's only 24 oz and has good optics.

Instead of looking for one perfect binocular, I've settled on having a binocular for every occasion. I've been wanting an 8x32 as well, but like you I'm going to wait to see if Leica comes out with a 32mm Trinovid line. I think Leica would know that a large segment of the population needs more eye relief than the Ultravids provide, and a simple, but we'll engineered and gimmick free Trinovid would satisfy me.

 

[Gilmore Girl]

Instead of looking for one perfect binocular, I've settled on having a binocular for every occasion. I've been wanting an 8x32 as well, but like you I'm going to wait to see if Leica comes out with a 32mm Trinovid line. I think Leica would know that a large segment of the population needs more eye relief than the Ultravids provide, and a simple, but we'll engineered and gimmick free Trinovid would satisfy me.

Yes and the new Trinovid HD is being marketed as an 'entry level' binocular, so I do think this is why ER is bit more with this new model to appeal to broader consumer base.
I think there's a good chance they'll produce a 32mm in this new model.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Ok GG |:d| thanks for the update on the x32 UVHD+ (I think Leica needs to fix it's website!)

I know what you mean by losing enthusiasm after an 'ultimate' bino disappointment like that. Sooooo annoying!! :storm: :-C The right answer will come to you. o

I think we learn a lot about eyeglasses requirements for binoculars too by hanging around here - something to keep in the memory banks for the next iteration. Comfort rules and everything has to work together. :cat:

Everything is that much more critical for us eyeglass wearers as alignment errors are magnified by the increased distance from the ocular lens and margin of error is reduced. I normally don't even consider x32's since I like my 5mm plus EP's, but for it's size I thought the 8x32 SV's viewing lattitude for me with glasses was stunning. If you like the closed body form factor of the Leica's there's the Nikon 8x32 EDGII, but it is barely lighter than your current x42. http://www.allbinos.com/281-binoculars_review-Nikon_8x32_EDG.html

If you are liking the x42mm's 5mm+ EP, closed body form factor, AND looking for light weight with good ER, then when you are ready to get back on the horse, maybe one of these two might be worth exploring ..... similar Fov to the Leica's, lighter, and a bit more specc'd ER ......
Perhaps at the right price the only marginally heavier than 32mm format, Minox 8x43 APO HG at 660grams (23.3oz) is worth further investigation for you?
http://www.minox.com/fileadmin/media/Anwenderberichte/MINOX_APO_HG_8x43_translated.pdf
http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/minox/minox-apo-hg-8x43-br-binocular
http://www.optics4birding.com/minox-apo-hg-binoculars-review.aspx
Or the Vortex Razor 8x42 HD at 690grams (24.2oz) ? Great lifetime VIP warranty for US folk too. :t:
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-razor-hd-8x42-binocular
http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/vortex/vortex-razor-hd-8x42-binocular-2

It would be interesting to see how these two stack up to the new Trinnie HD, and indeed your present Opticron CM HD 8x42 ..... :cat:

All the best!


Chosun :gh:

 

[Gilmore Girl]

Thanks CJ... I have tried the Razor HD 8x42 a couple of
times at the Audubon store and really liked it. It's definitely
on my short list. I'm very fond of Leica, so I'd like to wait and
see more reviews come in of this new Trinovid and also wait for
any news of a possible 32mm in the works. Also, who knows what
else will come out in the next year or more from other companies.

 

[Chosun Juan]

GG,

I like the aesthetic look of both the Minox 8x43 APO HG and the Vortex Razor 8x42 HD (in it's own way, the CCW focusing direction - not so much! , but I know what you mean about the Leica's, particularly the Ultravid's (and the Silverlines too in their own nautical way), they have that mysterious 1940's European, misty, dimly streetlight lit leather trench-coat type classic look about them - perfect for spy's and Bogart alike!

The new Trinnie is looking a bit more down-market and generic to me and has lost some of that old world charm to my eyes ..... there's a lot to like about the price positioning though :t:

You are right, sit tight, wait for the reviews, demo's, and 32mm to come out, and then do a hands-on comparo for yourself (do try and include the Minox 8x43 APO HG in that, and hopefully you can do it in winter's low light too - the 32mm Trinnies might not make that deadline though?) to see how the ergo's pan out, and how the fit with your eyeglasses affects the margin of error for eye placement for you ..... :cat:

If worst comes to worst you could always go for an 8x32 SV in sand colour (gotta love a sale! http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/swarovski/swarovski-el-swarovision-traveler-8x32-binocular ,.... or!, even better! $1749! http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/swarovski.pl?page=swarovski32118 ) as a fashionable fall-back ..... of course that will mean having to give the spy game away! :-O

Good luck! :t:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Torview]

CJ, as a former 8x32SV owner, (it has been moved on), I peronally found the glare control to be appallingly bad, I think it takes living with a binocular for some time to really understand its flaws, in the case of the SV I should say I found this to be its only flaw, but once recognised it seemed to raise its ugly head way to often for me.

I have tried the 8x32 UVHD+ and found the eye placement to be very fussy even as a none eye glass user, kidney beaning and blackouts were the order of the day for me.

GG, I also don`t like heavy binoculars but have bought a 7x42UVHD+ and find the 770g weight is very easy and manageable, the view is breathtaking and possibly the best ever for me.

Also have you tried the Opticron Aurora, the size and weight of a 32mm in a 42mm with some top notch optics.

John.

 

[Gilmore Girl]

GG, I also don`t like heavy binoculars but have bought a 7x42UVHD+ and find the 770g weight is very easy and manageable, the view is breathtaking and possibly the best ever for me.

Also have you tried the Opticron Aurora, the size and weight of a 32mm in a 42mm with some top notch optics.

John.

I haven't tried the Aurora, but the Countryman is pretty compact
and light for a 42mm; 5.4in length and 24oz. I like the size and
has a nice feel. I may still keep it even if I buy a new bino to
use as my primary bin.

 

[Chosun Juan]

CJ, as a former 8x32SV owner, (it has been moved on), I peronally found the glare control to be appallingly bad, I think it takes living with a binocular for some time to really understand its flaws, in the case of the SV I should say I found this to be its only flaw, but once recognised it seemed to raise its ugly head way too often for me......

John.

John, a fair enough comment - damned compromises! I haven't grilled the 8x32 SV in the most challenging of nearly direct low angle sun conditions - ones in which all binoculars I have ever seen pull up short anyway. One of the hardest aspects for glasses wearers is to get that 'slap 'em to your face', 'ease of view', and large margin of error in alignment - especially with just a scant 4mm exit pupil to play with. It really can be quite frustrating at times, even with meticulous set-up. Often in snap viewing situations, the eye's alignment is less than 100% perfect, and these offer a greater chance for me of seeing something worthwhile, especially with just a 4mm EP. Really quite remarkable for me, individual fit for others though will be up to them to decide. I do know that Swarovski regard the 8x32 as a "very special little binocular". Perhaps the positioning and alignment required by glasses wearers reduces the propensity for glare somewhat, and I really wonder if it would be less noticeable at $1749 than it would at $2199!! 3

Anyway, after a suitable period of mourning over the 8x32 UVHD+ GG will have to hands-on all the suggestions to see where her preferences lie, and what compromises suit best. These new 42mm Trinnies are frugal in 8x Fov (the 10x seems a better improvement), and while offering a useful weight reduction over its predecessor, are not actually that much lighter than the 42mm UVHD+'s. It will be interesting to see how they compare to the Minox APO's and Vortex Razor HD that I mentioned which are usefully lighter, and indeed the Zeiss Conquest HD (about which I'm seemingly in a minority of being quite 'meh' about). It will also be interesting to see if any of these alternatives respond to the new Trinnie with reduced pricing too ? More competition has to be good for the game from our side of the fence :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[CliveP]

but I don't know any bin in the lower price range that have
perfect CA correction

Just wonder about the AFOV, no specs might indicate below 60°

I do, my Kowa SV 8x32 with 62.4 deg afov. Under £200 (mine were £150). Beat that Leica!

I suppose the only fault with my Kowa is that it just isn't expensive enough but I can live with that, happily. Oh and it has a normal case, fits my also no CA, Hawke Sapphire 8x43, perfectly )

Still I hope the new Leica turns out to be in some way stand out although sounds a bit like more of the same, or perhaps less, but may be good for those embarrassed by not having a revered logo on their bins although it still has the stigma of the lower end, though I hope it's better than that and that they actually worry the Chinese output but it's currently unlikely though if they can do it that would certainly be interesting. I suspect this new Trinovid won't even be trying, seeing itself above those others because of the badge. Be possibly interesting to see how it turns out. Revalation or damp squib? whatever a damp squib is?

My money (well imaginary money) is on Squib though a sort of Dry Squib.

 

[Gilmore Girl]

I do, my Kowa SV 8x32 with 62.4 deg afov. Under £200 (mine were £150). Beat that Leica!

I suppose the only fault with my Kowa is that it just isn't expensive enough but I can live with that, happily. Oh and it has a normal case, fits my also no CA, Hawke Sapphire 8x43, perfectly )

Still I hope the new Leica turns out to be in some way stand out although sounds a bit like more of the same, or perhaps less, but may be good for those embarrassed by not having a revered logo on their bins although it still has the stigma of the lower end, though I hope it's better than that and that they actually worry the Chinese output but it's currently unlikely though if they can do it that would certainly be interesting. I suspect this new Trinovid won't even be trying, seeing itself above those others because of the badge. Be possibly interesting to see how it turns out. Revalation or damp squib? whatever a damp squib is?

My money (well imaginary money) is on Squib though a sort of Dry Squib.

I owned the now discontinued Trinovid for almost a year and never saw any CA in the center of the image. It was controlled very well and with no ED glass.
Towards the outer edge CA was noticeable and even ugly at times.

I tried the Kowa SV when it first came out...had it delivered and tried it for a day or so. I didn't think the optics were good even at this price point.
However, you have mentioned the coatings have been updated and the image is better and I have no reason to doubt that. I'm sure the image has been improved a bit. But, I can't imagine such a dramatic leap in improvement which would rival (or even be better as you claim) the Trinovid. Even my $500 opticron countryman HD doesn't control CA in the center as well as the Trinivid did.
As Vesp said, at SV's price level there's no way it's clear of CA. It is a long bino, so the focal length may help a bit.

I would like to try the Kowa SV again someday, but I doubt the two stores near me will ever stock it.