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

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tenex" data-source="post: 3318034" data-attributes="member: 135233">Correction: after several days with this Ultravid HD+, I've concluded that I had a bad case of "believing is seeing" from my own theory.  I've now come to agree with the Eagle salesmen: I really see very little (if any) difference in field correction between the HD+ and older Leica models, from my old Trinovid BN to the previous HD model.  It's all classic pincushion distortion.  (I'm not sure how to explain the comment I quoted from binomania.it; perhaps he was just saying that he likes that, as it avoids any rolling-ball effect.)So anything I've said about liking a new eyepiece design applies only to the recent Trinovid BR 42.  The revised story would be that Leica experimented with this flatter-field formula in the Trinovid... and then decided not to implement it in the Ultravid series after all.  The BR 42 is a complete orphan in this respect, which anyone who would prefer it may want to acquire while they can.I do notice one distinctive thing about the HD+: it has what lens geeks call "busy bokeh".  In both my Trinovids, old BN and new BR, out-of-focus objects like tree branches are rendered in a smooth blurry fashion that grows sharper as they come into focus.  In the HD+ they look like superimposed multiple images that come together into a single one.  This is common in Leica's ASPH camera lenses that boast of employing aspherical elements, and makes me wonder whether the Ultravids may now have those too.  (It's curious that they would call attention to it in one case, and not the other.)  I don't know how long this has been so; I didn't think to check it in previous Ultravids I've seen.  Perhaps it's new in the HD+, and Leica decided to get a sharper image this way instead?</blockquote>

Verification