• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Nikon MHG 8x30 vs Leica Ultravid HD+ 8x32 (1 Viewer)

Gilmore Girl

Beth
Supporter
United States
I'm noticing my 1st gen Swaro CL 8x30 seems to have a little better apparent brightness compared to the MHG. Sunday was a very dull gray day. I went out pretty early in the morning. Looking in dark shadows the HG seems relatively dim and I think this may just have to do with the warmer color tones compared to CL which has more neutral (cooler) tones. Apparent brightness is a little better overall in the CL IMO even though they may have very close total light transmission percentage.

This doesn't mean the HG is too dim. It was overall fine on that darkish gray Sunday morning.
For 8x30 it seems bright enough ... just not as helpful as the CL IMO.
This is the only area of performance where I find the CL a little better.
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I'm noticing my 1st gen Swaro CL 8x30 seems to have a little better apparent brightness compared to the MHG. Sunday was a very dull gray day. I went out pretty early in the morning. Looking in dark shadows the HG seems relatively dim and I think this may just have to do with the warmer color tones compared to CL which has more neutral (cooler) tones. Apparent brightness is a little better overall in the CL IMO even though they may have very close total light transmission percentage.

This doesn't mean the HG is too dim. It was overall fine on that darkish gray Sunday morning.
For 8x30 it seems bright enough ... just not as helpful as the CL IMO.
This is the only area of performance where I find the CL a little better.
Swarovskis are known for brightness in low light. I have noticed that in all my Swarovskis. That is not to say the HG is weak in brightness it is just that Swarovskis shine in that area.
 

lmans66

Out Birding....
Supporter
United States
Still getting used to the quicker focus of the HG. I found it helpful this weekend.

This has been something I have been stating about the CL for a long time...it is SLOW to focus in on an object. The HG beats the CL hands down in many areas and is by far the better bin. And that is not to mention the price.... the CL is US 1200 vs the MHG for roughly $900... clearly a better bin
 

Paskman

Registered User
Supporter
This has been something I have been stating about the CL for a long time...it is SLOW to focus in on an object. The HG beats the CL hands down in many areas and is by far the better bin. And that is not to mention the price.... the CL is US 1200 vs the MHG for roughly $900... clearly a better bin


For you it may be the better bin, but for me it wasn't. It is purely subjective, I couldn't get on with the handling of the HG, where as, for me, the CLs fit my hands like a glove. They are razer Sharp almost to the edge, where as the HGS, although have a slightly wider FOV, have a smaller sweet spot. I accept that the CLS are not without fault - their close focus could be better. But to say that the HG beats the CLs "hands down" and is "clearly" better is purely your opinion on what suits you. By the way, I am not slagging off the HGs here, they are very nice bins
 

lmans66

Out Birding....
Supporter
United States
For you it may be the better bin, but for me it wasn't. It is purely subjective, I couldn't get on with the handling of the HG, where as, for me, the CLs fit my hands like a glove. They are razer Sharp almost to the edge, where as the HGS, although have a slightly wider FOV, have a smaller sweet spot. I accept that the CLS are not without fault - their close focus could be better. But to say that the HG beats the CLs "hands down" and is "clearly" better is purely your opinion on what suits you. By the way, I am not slagging off the HGs here, they are very nice bins

Yes correct...I must admit that the CL feels really well in my hands too....I just had other issues but the 'fit' is perfect. To each their own ...I know I had both the CL and the MHG side by side ....in the field for awhile.

I cannot speak more highly of the process of selecting a binocular. Try them out....side by side if you can. One person's bin is not the other.
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
I wouldn't say the MHG beats the CL "hands down," but I do think that the comment that "it's a better birding tool" is about how I would summarize my feelings.

The CL is flatter field and perhaps more free of optical aberrations, yes. But the MHG has a better FOV, faster focus, closer focus, and better contrast. The CL might be better for stargazing (though who uses an 8x30 for stargazing?), and might test better in a lab, but for me the MHG wins as a birding tool.

The UV 8x32 is lovely but poor eye relief and the not amazing FOV leave me underwhelmed. If they could keep the form factor but up the FOV and make a compact NV 8x32, or if Nikon had an alpha lineup that kept the basic form factor / weights of the MHGs, it could really shake the market up. But the UVHD is kind of handicapped and a large slice of the birding community never even considers it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top