Ultravid 7x42 HD+ vs Noctivid 8x42 (3 Viewers)

[PHA]

Hi Nigel,

I tried a Ultravid HD 10x42 vs a Trinovid (2012-2015) and...I like more, definitively the Trinovids! Were only two pairs but that Trinovids had a better view!!!! I don´t see a need for an upgrade having this Trinovid. Perhaps a jump to a Noctivid....

 

[Lewis]

A 50mmm size objective has 41% more surface area than a 42mm size objective. Regardless of the lens elements and the coatings applied to their surfaces there is going to be a substantial increase in light transmission with the 50mm binoculars.

For night use on the water I have used a 7x50 binocular as it was great for spotting navigational aids and hazards. 7x was more than enough for the level of detail I needed. A very different situation than observing and identifying birds where I prefer 10x or greater binoculars and have them with 25mm, 32mm, 42mm, and 50mm size objective lenses.
The larger the objectives the greater the range of weights depending on the particular binocular and the greater my tendency to go with the lighter ones and not the ones with the best image resolving as a difference of a percent or two in clarity is not important to me.

I would have thought 50 mm objectives will always outdo 42s, but on a recent xmas birdcount I tried another birder’s 8x42 Swaros (I don’t know what model) while they tried out my 10x50 B6 Mavens.

The Swaros were brighter. We both noticed this.

I love my 10x50 B6s, but now I’m all like, hmmmmmm.

I won’t buy Swaro or Zeiss but I would (eventually, if I could ever afford them) buy 10x42 Noctovids if they too were brighter than my Mavens. I am lucky (or unlucky? : ) to have a Leica store in my area, so maybe one day I’ll test drive Noctos. I wish they came in 10x50s.

I went there once and tried 10x50 Ultravids. I was not moved by the view but I should try them again, too.

 

[hopster]

Assuming it was bright enough for your pupils to be less than 5mm, the relative brightness would have been defined mainly by the overall transmission number and - depending somewhat on the scene - the relative colour balance. For example, Swaro roofs tend to have more blue than others which makes a difference towards twilight.

I would also say that Noctivids are at the upper end of brightness for S-P roofs but that is not what stands out for me. It's the colours (including not missing red/warmth), contrast and central sharpness.

 

[Paultricounty]

I would have thought 50 mm objectives will always outdo 42s, but on a recent xmas birdcount I tried another birder’s 8x42 Swaros (I don’t know what model) while they tried out my 10x50 B6 Mavens.

The Swaros were brighter. We both noticed this.

I love my 10x50 B6s, but now I’m all like, hmmmmmm.

I won’t buy Swaro or Zeiss but I would (eventually, if I could ever afford them) buy 10x42 Noctovids if they too were brighter than my Mavens. I am lucky (or unlucky? : ) to have a Leica store in my area, so maybe one day I’ll test drive Noctos. I wish they came in 10x50s.

I went there once and tried 10x50 Ultravids. I was not moved by the view but I should try them again, too.

If all things being equal the 50 will be brighter in lower light conditions, in this case all things are not close.

 

[Swedpat]

If all things being equal the 50 will be brighter in lower light conditions, in this case all things are not close.

Yes, with same light transmission and providing the eye pupil dilates to at least 5mm and that exit pupils are exactly 4,2 vs 5mm, a 10x50 is almost 42% brighter than a 10x42. It should then require that the 10x50 is pretty much uncoated in order not to be brighter in low light.

 

[Scott98]

The Swaros were brighter. We both noticed this.

I love my 10x50 B6s, but now I’m all like, hmmmmmm.

Try it again at dusk and the results will be quite different, the lights will go out in the 42's while the 56's are still showing the birds