Transmission Ultravid HD plus (1 Viewer)

[ReinierB]

Back to the topic: I still find it strange you can find the transmission levels of all the Leica binoculars on the offical Leica site accept the Ultravid's.
Noctovid: 92% for the 8x42 and 91% for the 10x42. Trinovid pockets: 87%. Trinovid 32 and 42: 90%
Ultravid pocket: not stated
Ultravid 32, 42, 50: not stated
There must be a reason for it.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Reinier,

I wouldn't be inclined to the view that something untoward is going on . . .

FWIW, looking at the spec's in one of the last of the comprehensive catalogues from Leica - the 2017 Nature one - it shows:
• the Noctivid x42's, the Ultravid HD x32/ 42/ 50's, and the Ultravid x20/ 25's, all having 92% transmission (see the copy), while;

• the Ultravid Blackline and Silverline x42’s have only 89% transmission.
(in contrast, in the 2018 Hunting catalogue the UV Blackline x42’s are listed in the same columns as the UV HD's, with 92% transmission
[there are no Silverlines mentioned] ).


Other pages have the spec’s for all of the Trinovids - the full size 'Retrovids', and the HD's, along with the pocket size BCA's -
but with no mention of transmission.


. . . Most likely what's currently on the site, is just an example of inconsistency from those who wrote the text for the pages.


John

 

[ReinierB]

I find 92% transmission for the UHVD hard to believe. Always, when an UHVD is compared with a Swarovski or Zeiss, they say that the Swaro or Zeiss is brighter / better suitable for low light...

 

[Paultricounty]

I find 92% transmission for the UHVD hard to believe. Always, when an UHVD is compared with a Swarovski or Zeiss, they say that the Swaro or Zeiss is brighter / better suitable for low light...

Yes, this is noticeable with Leica and Nikon. But at these quality levels , that what you describe has less to do with a few percentages of transmission than to the coatings used and where it peaks. I always find the Zeiss and Swaros slightly brighter than most Leica’s and Nikons when the lights get low, that’s not to say the latter are not bright binoculars.

 

[Scott98]

Leica UVHD and Nikon EDG don't post transmission specs. They're both excellent to my eyes, I wouldn't hesitate to get UVHD if you want excellent clarity and high-throughput optics. The coatings on the eye lenses & objectives look very dark and state-of-the-art technology to me. The 10x50mm UVHD+ are excellent for astronomy where light transmission is critical.

 

[Trinovid]

I find 92% transmission for the UHVD hard to believe.

I wonder if between the claimed 89% for the BR/BL/SL and 92% as the highest claim might lie the non + version HD.
However, I’d also presume that, like light emitting sources as well, that binoculars transmitting a warmer view due to their selected coatings, would appear less bright than those with less red and more green allowed by their respective coatings in turn.

 

[John A Roberts]

Besides Leica's published transmission figures (a single peak value), there is more comprehensive data available from other sources,
primarily:
• Gijs at: https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/ , and;

• Arek at: Binoculars reviews - AllBinos.com (look in the individual reviews).


A couple of comparative examples from Gijs:
a) The x42 Noctivids and UV HD Plus, from 2017 in 'Test van de nieuwe 8x42 en 10x42 verrekijkers . . . '




b) And the UV 8x20, from way back in 2005 in 'Compact Kijjers':




So perhaps Leica isn't so lacking in transmission compared to others?

And looking at what they were capable of as early as 2005 with the UV 8x20, their general approach in relation to other models may reflect
consideration of the overall visual effect, verses maximum possible transmission across the visual spectrum, while disregarding other aspects
e.g. with camera lenses, Leica has long been known for valuing particular aesthetics in terms of image quality verse 'exact' reproduction.


John

 

[MiddleRiver]

Besides Leica's published transmission figures (a single peak value), there is more comprehensive data available from other sources,
primarily:
• Gijs at: https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/ , and;

• Arek at: Binoculars reviews - AllBinos.com (look in the individual reviews).


A couple of comparative examples from Gijs:
a) The x42 Noctivids and UV HD Plus, from 2017 in 'Test van de nieuwe 8x42 en 10x42 verrekijkers . . . '

View attachment 1521630


b) And the UV 8x20, from way back in 2005 in 'Compact Kijjers':

View attachment 1521631


So perhaps Leica isn't so lacking in transmission compared to others?

And looking at what they were capable of as early as 2005 with the UV 8x20, their general approach in relation to other models may reflect
consideration of the overall visual effect, verses maximum possible transmission across the visual spectrum, while disregarding other aspects
e.g. with camera lenses, Leica has long been known for valuing particular aesthetics in terms of image quality verse 'exact' reproduction.


John

I think you nailed it ;-)

 

[tenex]

So perhaps Leica isn't so lacking in transmission compared to others?

Subjective perception of brightness is complicated. The relatively high contrast of Leicas may make them seem a bit "less bright" in an A-B comparison, along with the warm color cast. So it would be interesting to ask which really matters then and why, this impression or actual measured transmission?

 

[Scott98]

Subjective perception of brightness is complicated. The relatively high contrast of Leicas may make them seem a bit "less bright" in an A-B comparison, along with the warm color cast. So it would be interesting to ask which really matters then and why, this impression or actual measured transmission?

agree with this! Cooler color tones can make optics appear "brighter"

 

[SeldomPerched]

The Ultravids just look very beautifull! I like the look through the SLC and the ergonomics as well. Easy to hold and compact. I like the eyecups as well.
The SLC's aren't really goodlooking in my opinion though. Like Optica Exotica says: it looks like two pickles that are in love.
The UHVD's look more classy. However, if it was a SLC 10x42 I would have been more happy with them. So maybe I have to try to swap my 8x42 to a 10x42 on Birdforum... (Anybody with a SLC 10x42 seeing this?)
Or swap it for a UHVD 10x42 or SF 10x42, but I can't really justify the price difference, because I already have a NL 10x32 I use during daylight. I might add a Conquest 10x42 or Habicht 10x40 and keep the SLC 8x42 for the same amount of money... But then, will I ever grap the SLC 8x42 again since I prefer 10 power?

Thanks for all your comments! No impulsive actions needed... I think I have to go to a physical shop and try all the options: UHVD 10x42, 10x50, 12x50, SF 10x42, HT 10x54, Conquest 10x42, Habicht 10x40 (leather and rubber), EL 10x50, 12x50, SLC 10x56. All contenders .

I'm a bit late to this so you may have sold your SLC 8x42 by now. If not, I'd say don't! I got the 10s first in the pandemic, comvinced by Roger Vine's review on Scope Views. I agree with everything he said about them; they are great, they are slightly shorter in fact than the 8x version and so far the only 10x42 I've been able hold steady. But, in some way I cannot explain, the 8x42 SLC is in a higher dimension. Keep both if you don't have to part with one!

I also have a UVHD Plus, but in 7x42. I rate that and the 8x42 SLC level; the only differences I see are in the mag. & the different but both warm colour rendition. And actually I think the SLC design is attractive — it just isn't very photogenic! Your view may vary of course.

 

[Paultricounty]

Subjective perception of brightness is complicated. The relatively high contrast of Leicas may make them seem a bit "less bright" in an A-B comparison, along with the warm color cast. So it would be interesting to ask which really matters then and why, this impression or actual measured transmission?

In very sunny and bright conditions, hour after hour out in the open ,at the end of the day I feel the Leica and Nikons with the warmer color tones fatigue my eyes much less (if at all) than my Swarovski, Zeiss and a few other that lean more to the neutral or blue side of the spectrum. In overcast dark and cloudy days , I prefer the latter, being a little sharper under those conditions. If any of that makes sense.

Different latatudes may also play a role in how bright things seem through the glass.

Paul

 

[ReinierB]

I'm a bit late to this so you may have sold your SLC 8x42 by now. If not, I'd say don't! I got the 10s first in the pandemic, comvinced by Roger Vine's review on Scope Views. I agree with everything he said about them; they are great, they are slightly shorter in fact than the 8x version and so far the only 10x42 I've been able hold steady. But, in some way I cannot explain, the 8x42 SLC is in a higher dimension. Keep both if you don't have to part with one!

I also have a UVHD Plus, but in 7x42. I rate that and the 8x42 SLC level; the only differences I see are in the mag. & the different but both warm colour rendition. And actually I think the SLC design is attractive — it just isn't very photogenic! Your view may vary of course.

Thank you! I decided to keep the SLC 8x42. I cannot part from it. The view is so comfortable I still grap it.
There is a difference in eye relief compared with the SLC 10x42, but I do not wear glasses, so I wonder, does that do something for me? The SLC 8x42 just fits my face perfectly. Put it (with eyecups fully extended) against my face and immediately I have a nice view without blackouts.

And actually I think the SLC design is attractive — it just isn't very photogenic!

I wonder, what will my wife think when I say it to her: you are attractive, but you're just not very photogenic

But I think I understand what you are saying. I just want to grap the SLC and view through it: the hold, the view, it's all really nice.

 

[Paultricounty]

I consider myself a Swarovski man, since I have the SLC 8x42 and the NL 10x32. However, I never gave Leica a chance. I like the compactness of the 32 and the 42. The NL 10x32 is stated as 640 grams (but is 670 grams weighted without strap, covers and rainguard) and still quite large. The UHVD 32 is really lightweight and compact. So sometimes I wonder why I didn't consider the UHVD 10x32.

I really like 10 power and nearly always have the feeling I prefer 10 power when using the SLC 8x42. I might swap them for a 10 power which is usable in dimlight as well. So the UHVD 10x42 or UHVD 10x50 are both contenders. However, the 50's lack the compactness of the 32's and 42's. So the appeal of UHVD 50 is less.

Diopter adjustment is not important to me. Actually, I do not understand why it is important for some. You just use it once to set it correctly and then you never touch it. Or don't I get it? The focuser is why more important. I like the position of the focuser of the NL's. So the Zeiss FL's and SFL's would be nice as well.
The Zeiss FL 10x42 with his high transmission would be a contender is well. Or HT 10x42, but hard to find nowadays.

The Noctovid just doesn't really appeal me. Maybe if I wear glasses, it would be a contender. Eyerelief isn't important for me. Habicht 10x40 would be a nice addition as well because of that.

However, Leica UHVD, it does't really shine in a specific area, but it's got it's appeal for me. Maybe it's the way they look, it's elegance.

The Noctivids step it up from the UV’s in optics, focuser and elegance, imho.

Paul

 

[ReinierB]

The Noctivids step it up from the UV’s in optics, focuser and elegance, imho.

Paul

I believe that. Except the elegance, but that is subjective. I think the noctivids look quiet plain.
How do you rate the optics of the noctivids compared with the EL and NL?

 

[Paultricounty]

I believe that. Except the elegance, but that is subjective.

I agree, but there are two parts to the elegance. There is the visual and the tactile. Some may like the way one looks over the other, then there is the material feel that is different in the Nocs with the smoothness of the armor, the buttery smooth and light focuser, the feel of the eye cups and settings.

I think the noctivids look quiet plain.
How do you rate the optics of the noctivids compared with the EL and NL?

I feel all three are on about the same level. One being slightly better in one area, and another being slightly better in some other area. I prefer the overall image in the Leica's.

Paul

 

[SeldomPerched]

Thank you! I decided to keep the SLC 8x42. I cannot part from it. The view is so comfortable I still grap it.
There is a difference in eye relief compared with the SLC 10x42, but I do not wear glasses, so I wonder, does that do something for me? The SLC 8x42 just fits my face perfectly. Put it (with eyecups fully extended) against my face and immediately I have a nice view without blackouts.



I wonder, what will my wife think when I say it to her: you are attractive, but you're just not very photogenic

But I think I understand what you are saying. I just want to grap the SLC and view through it: the hold, the view, it's all really nice.

Hi ReinierB,

Very pleased to hear your decision. And like you I am comfortable with 8x42 SLC without glasses and with pulled out eyecups. 10x42 OK too but sometimes cannot decide whether best fully pushed in or one click out.

No perceived as minus points to be given to your wife! Always a million dollars would be my advice!

Tom