Thanks for your comments, Mike and Andy. My only reservation with the 50s is the weight and most of my viewing is in bright sunlight, where I'm not sure my old eye's pupils would benefit from the 50mm objectives. In Arizona sunlight, even my 25s look about as bright to my eyes as 32s and 42s. Of course, after sunset those 50's would pop really wonderfully!ZD, I agree with Jafritten's post 18. Owning both the 7x42 and 10x50 UV HD+, IMO the 10x50 would be an even (much) better companion to your 7x42 than a 10x42, especially given the immediate viewing opportunities depicted in your photos. With the right harness I can comfortably carry the 10x50 on challenging hikes and it's great on a Tripod of course. The 7x42 and 10x50 are a fantastic pair of "bookends" in terms of full size bins.
Mike
Hi, nor have I — as you could probably tell from my post!Tom... those photos of mine are not made with binoculars. I shoot with Lumix and Olympus Micro4/3 cameras these days. And I have a few Leica branded Panasonic lenses for the system. (Panasonic and Leica are in partnership, working together producing cameras and lenses.)
The panorama image off my back patio (above) was made with Lumix GX8 camera and Leica/Pana 12-60 lens, at 25mm normal perspective (50mm equivalent in 35mm format) of several stitched images, combined.
The tele image of the hawks (which does look very much "binocular") was made with the Panasonic 100-300 lens, at 300mm (600mm equivalent in 35mm format).
I have never tried making photographs through binoculars. Perhaps I should "look into" doing that!
View of hawks on the snag, which can be seen toward the right end of the above image.
As a retired commercial photographer, I've spent a lifelong career obsessed with color quality and visual enhancement to photographic renditions of reality. It is the difference between my Zeiss & Swaro bins image renditions vs. the Ultravid image rendition that I'm referring to, really. And, I'd say that to my visual taste, it is an enhancement - as I slightly prefer it.
Thanks for the great photos ZD! Those Harris hawks (aka bay-winged hawks) are regularly used as a falconer's bird here in the UK, but I've very seldom seen photos of them in their natural habitat, so far from where their captive descendants have ended up. They're noted for cooperative hunting, which is fairly rare in raptors, and probably makes them temperamentally more suitable for working in cooperation with humans. It would be fascinating to see a team of them doing their thing - like winged/feathered velociraptors!
I've noted quite a few folks with a photography background do seem to prefer the Leica look, interestingly enough. I wonder is it something in the way you guys are trained, or have trained yourselves, to prefer greater saturation, or is that just the way folks that enjoy photography are wired?
I also sometimes wonder whether, as distance often leaches out the colour of the image, some extra saturation may help bring back the colour (as it were) when viewing targets further away - maybe!
There is something about Leica glass.
That's an interesting distinction. Does it mean there's something you don't like about the Swaro/Zeiss, and if so what? I now use both Leica and Swaro, and while they have somewhat different character I'd say I like or enjoy both quite equally. (Then again the Swaro I chose was SLC, and I wonder whether I might have ended up saying something similar about ELs myself.)That about sums it up. I also have this feeling that I “like” my Ultravid HDPlus 10x50. Whereas I am impressed by my Swarovski ELs and Zeiss Victory HT and FL binoculars.
They were mine for nearly 20 years, first BN and then HD+ 10x32s. Lately I've discovered that bigger glass (SLC 56!) makes a nice complement. By the way I think Mike is right, you should try the Noctivid before settling on 10x42 UV.The UV HD+ 8x32's are really amazing bins - so compact, lightweight, with such an exquisite view, and tank-like build. They could be my one and only bins, if it came to that.
Mike, what can you say about the rolling ball effect in the NV? Is that one of the downsides that you don't see in the NV? That would be interesting for me to know.... I can say (as an owner of the 7x and 12x UVHD+) is that they combine the best features of the traditional Leica view with some of the advantages of the flat field alphas with none of the downsides...
That is indeed what I was mostly referring to. I’m very sensitive to rolling ball, being one of those people who somewhat controversially claim that it’s actually nausea inducing, and I don’t perceive any at all in the NV. On the up side the field IS flatter with much less pincushion than the Ultravids. It also has a noticeably larger sweet spot, although still fairly soft at the edges. I think if you like the UV view, you’ll love the NV view. The only downside for some people seems to be the ergonomics. I don’t have any issue with the ergonomics at all, and indeed I actually found myself using them one handed (made easier by the open bridge design) today when an interesting boat passed by whilst I was eating lunch!Mike, what can you say about the rolling ball effect in the NV? Is that one of the downsides that you don't see in the NV? That would be interesting for me to know.
This is bad news for me, Mike. That puts me into a position where I can't seem to find a reason to justify not to buy one. Moreover, I find myself in a position where I don't really know how to fund one. Maybe that'll solve my first problem after some consideration... For now, I shall drink oblivion from a double Highland Park, have a good night's rest and come back to the conversation tomorrow. Cheers, Mike.That is indeed what I was mostly referring to. I’m very sensitive to rolling ball, being one of those people who somewhat controversially claim that it’s actually nausea inducing, and I don’t perceive any at all in the NV.
Hello amgc36,I grew up with film cameras and started off with Nikon. Eventually was able to shoot with Leica R and M systems. I think the appeal of Leica lenses was not only the color balance but also the incredible bokeh. I’ve never seen anyone in any binocular discussion use the term bokeh for out of focus areas. I just acquired the 7x35 Trinovid classic and it’s easy to use and a pleasure. That about sums it up. I also have this feeling that I “like” my Ultravid HDPlus 10x50. Whereas I am impressed by my Swarovski ELs and Zeiss Victory HT and FL binoculars.
Good point. Birders are concerned with the center (where the object is located) and the edge (where the yardstick for optical quality is supposed to be found). More information about bokeh could be very useful.I’ve never seen anyone in any binocular discussion use the term bokeh for out of focus areas.
I don't understand: Mike is reporting he doesn't experience 'rolling ball' and nausea in the Noctivid and you call this bad news?This is bad news for me, Mike. That puts me into a position where I can't seem to find a reason to justify not to buy one. Moreover, I find myself in a position where I don't really know how to fund one. Maybe that'll solve my first problem after some consideration... For now, I shall drink oblivion from a double Highland Park, have a good night's rest and come back to the conversation tomorrow. Cheers, Mike.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, Renze. What Mike says is good news. My problem now is that I want one dearly and I can't really afford one....that's why I said it was bad news.I don't understand: Mike is reporting he doesn't experience 'rolling ball' and nausea in the Noctivid and you call this bad news?
Renze