• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

8x32 binocular with the most 'wow!' effect (2 Viewers)

The 10x42 SE is my regular birding binocular and I know it's the thing here to wax lyrical about what one owns, but IMO some of the praise that comes for it is slightly over-romanticised due to its status as the last great porro. It's unquestionably a fine binocular and I like it very much, but the latest top alphas are certainly - to my eye anyway - superior, particularly in colour rendition and from what I've seen (and admittedly there may be differences in sample variation etc - but I recall Kimmo testing his Canon 10x42 against the SE and finding the former sharper) sharpness or at least perceived sharpness. That's not counting areas of real practical birding advantage such as FOV, weatherproofing, handling/ergonomics. I've said before and still think Nikon deliberately handicapped the SE by making sure its field of view was inferior to the HG and later EDG series, and furnishing that long (almost over-long) eye relief design (which is also flat field, so not exactly as simple as an Erfle, either...) with rubber eyecups almost seems like an in-joke.

The price paid for that level of excellence, of course, is cost, and I've sometimes joked to friends that the SE is my "austerity alpha". It does that very well indeed, but much though I enjoy my SE, I'd exchange it for any of NL, SF, EL and probably FL (would need to compare the two side by side closely, though) too.

I think most porros that consumer birders and others buy (with honourable exceptions such as the Habicht and Fujinon) are indeed not as robust as roofs. My SE is well made, but I won't use it in the tropics (which is why it's not here with me now), nor anywhere it's liable to encounter heavy rain, and I'm always conscious that the focus action pumps air in and out of the binocular that over time will result in haze that needs cleaning, to the point I try to focus as little as possible (which, fortunately, I can get away with in my birding). That said, I don't believe military levels of robustness are necessary for the great majority of civilian users (otherwise we'd see more folks toting Hensoldts). But waterproofing, IMO, is necessary for a binocular to be commercially successful. Most users given a choice between buying a binocular claimed to be waterproof and one labelled as only "splashproof" will go for the former.

Leica probably secured the Perger design to prevent it from being used by a competitor. It's not the only porro design out there - maybe more could have (and could still be done) with the Porro II design - but the only place likely to press forward with that kind of innovation (the PRC) is already producing very good roof binoculars.

PS. for what it's worth, when I use 8x32/8x30 (generally preferring 8x42), most times I want the "old porro experience" - straight to your eyes and a 150m field of view. So you could say that's what wows me. As for more modern binoculars, I think the 8x32 FL is very good, very sharp and clean image with well rendered colours and a wide FOV. It's a great example of the modern birding 8x32. But I haven't compared it closely with eg. the 8x32 Swarovision or the newer SF. Pinewood, who did, shelled out for the SF.
I had a few pairs of Nikon SE 8x32's and I agree with you that they were good, but not quite up to modern alpha standards. They were finicky for eye placement for me. I had to place my eyes just right, or I would get black-outs. I believe they have something called spherical aberration which causes this. The SE did have more contrast, pop and sharper edges than the Nikon EII 8x30, which IMO has a dull, lifeless view and when you compare them with a Habicht the difference is immediately apparent with the Habicht being much brighter and having more contrast and pop to the image. IMO, the Habicht's are the best porro binoculars available and the only one that can compete with the newer alphas.
 
Yes, indeed. And the fact that the SE is still among the best binoculars out there just shows how good relatively "simple", straightforward porros can be. No need for complex objective lenses, no need for ED glass, no need for complex focusers, no need for phase-coatings, no need for dielectric coatings.

I sometimes wonder if the trend started by Leitz and Zeiss in the 1960s didn't lead in a totally wrong direction.

Hermann
Maybe because all those things can be marketed and they can make 100-500% markeups for the technologies. I’m still blown away every time I pick up a vintage 7x35 Bushnell Rangmaster from the 1950’s or the Swift Holiday MKII’s from the 60’s. Both give today’s best a good run for the Monday when the lighting is good.
 
Hello Arthur

Tell a Swarovski Habicht that it is not as robust, compact and waterproof as a modern roof, and it will laugh in your face! The point Herman made is more can be accomplished with a porro at a lower cost than a roof because a porro is intrinsically a simpler and more efficient design. As Herman said there is no need for complex objective lenses, no need for ED glass, no need for complex focusers, no need for phase-coatings, and no need for dielectric coatings.

A porro has higher transmission, a better stereoscopic view, and a more transparent image because of a simpler light path and total internal reflection. Porro's haven't changed that much outside of coatings in 100 years since the first Habicht was made because they don't need to. My 30-year-old Swarovski Habicht 7x42 GA killed my brand new Leica UVHD+ 7x42 outside of FOV, and I returned the Leica the next day.
Sounds like you got a bad Leica. Theres a lot more the UVHD+ has to offer than the brighter sharper Habicht. You may have missed that, or made a business decision to send the Leica back before you’d have to sell it at a loss in a few months 🤭😉✌🏼.

Happy new year.
 
Sounds like you got a bad Leica. Theres a lot more the UVHD+ has to offer than the brighter sharper Habicht. You may have missed that, or made a business decision to send the Leica back before you’d have to sell it at a loss in a few months 🤭😉✌🏼.

Happy new year.
I have had every Leica including three Noctivids. I am just not a Leica fanboy like you. For some reason, they just don't wow me. The edges are too soft, the FOV is too small, and the transmission is too low. Saturated colors just don't make up for all those shortcomings. I just can't see the love for Leicas. I guess I agree with Allbinos and that is why they have them all ranked below Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon's. They haven't made any improvements in Leicas in 20 years. The 8x20 UV's are ok, but then the Curio 7x21 are still better.

 
The 10x42 SE is my regular birding binocular and I know it's the thing here to wax lyrical about what one owns, but IMO some of the praise that comes for it is slightly over-romanticised due to its status as the last great porro. It's unquestionably a fine binocular and I like it very much, but the latest top alphas are certainly - to my eye anyway - superior, particularly in colour rendition and from what I've seen (and admittedly there may be differences in sample variation etc - but I recall Kimmo testing his Canon 10x42 against the SE and finding the former sharper) sharpness or at least perceived sharpness. That's not counting areas of real practical birding advantage such as FOV, weatherproofing, handling/ergonomics. I've said before and still think Nikon deliberately handicapped the SE by making sure its field of view was inferior to the HG and later EDG series, and furnishing that long (almost over-long) eye relief design (which is also flat field, so not exactly as simple as an Erfle, either...) with rubber eyecups almost seems like an in-joke.

The price paid for that level of excellence, of course, is cost, and I've sometimes joked to friends that the SE is my "austerity alpha". It does that very well indeed, but much though I enjoy my SE, I'd exchange it for any of NL, SF, EL and probably FL (would need to compare the two side by side closely, though) too.

I think most porros that consumer birders and others buy (with honourable exceptions such as the Habicht and Fujinon) are indeed not as robust as roofs. My SE is well made, but I won't use it in the tropics (which is why it's not here with me now), nor anywhere it's liable to encounter heavy rain, and I'm always conscious that the focus action pumps air in and out of the binocular that over time will result in haze that needs cleaning, to the point I try to focus as little as possible (which, fortunately, I can get away with in my birding). That said, I don't believe military levels of robustness are necessary for the great majority of civilian users (otherwise we'd see more folks toting Hensoldts). But waterproofing, IMO, is necessary for a binocular to be commercially successful. Most users given a choice between buying a binocular claimed to be waterproof and one labelled as only "splashproof" will go for the former.

Leica probably secured the Perger design to prevent it from being used by a competitor. It's not the only porro design out there - maybe more could have (and could still be done) with the Porro II design - but the only place likely to press forward with that kind of innovation (the PRC) is already producing very good roof binoculars.

PS. for what it's worth, when I use 8x32/8x30 (generally preferring 8x42), most times I want the "old porro experience" - straight to your eyes and a 150m field of view. So you could say that's what wows me. As for more modern binoculars, I think the 8x32 FL is very good, very sharp and clean image with well rendered colours and a wide FOV. It's a great example of the modern birding 8x32. But I haven't compared it closely with eg. the 8x32 Swarovision or the newer SF. Pinewood, who did, shelled out for the SF.
Good write-up, Patudo. There are definitely differences in the different serial numbers on the SEs. I’ve owned six of them in the last few years and maintain two of them right now (in 8x32 and one 10×42). With serial numbers 501xxx, 503xxx, 504xxx, two 505s (low and high numbers), and two 550s. I can assure you the late 505 and 550 are identical and a step up from earlier serial numbers. The 550 improvements probably show up on higher number 505s. I have both, and you could see coating differences as well as brightness and sharpness in the later versions. Although the NLs, ELs, and SFs are superior, it’s not by much in my side-by-side comparisons, and the wow factor is right there with the alpha roofs.

I also compared an early and late run 10x42SE with my Canon 10x42L; the Canon is very close to my early SE but not as good as the last run SE. It does appear to me that some very good improvements were made over that 10-15 year period these were in production. I’m wondering if it was more than just coating improvements. I’m going to find some pictures of the coatings on the serial number variants.
 
I have had every Leica including three Noctivids. I am just not a Leica fanboy like you. For some reason, they just don't wow me. The edges are too soft, the FOV is too small, and the transmission is too low. Saturated colors just don't make up for all those shortcomings. I just can't see the love for Leicas. I guess I agree with Allbinos and that is why they have them all ranked below Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon's. They haven't made any improvements in Leicas in 20 years. The 8x20 UV's are ok, but then the Curio 7x21 are still better.

Don’t get me started, my friend; there’s way too much source material here to work with. You’ve also had every Zeiss and Sworo and had complaints about every one of them, issues with edges, green color hue, FL edges softness worse than UV, glare, etc., etc. On one hand, you extol the virtues of porros that have soft edges and glare issues (Habicht’s), and on the flip side, you say they are the best porros you ever used. I sometimes get dizzy reading your posts, but I still like you 😄. Curio is better than UV, at the very best, a subjective opinion and only so when you're selling the curio. 😉✌🏼
 

"Why am I writing about it? On our website, you can find tests of all 10x42 models, from the Trinovid BN to the Ultravid HD-Plus. It is easy to check what the customers gained throughout all these years. Firstly, the results show unanimously that, within the margin of measurement error, the HD-Plus model is practically the same as the HD model. Maybe the transmission level varies a bit but even if you compare the measurements taken with a spectrophotometer the differences remain very slight; it is really difficult to say whether they are an effect of measurement errors, natural differences between two specimens or the actual influence of Schott HT glass. If the spectrophotometer doesn’t show any distinct difference, it won’t be visible to the naked eye either.

So we have a situation where the Ultravid HD doesn’t differ markedly from the Ultravid BR and the Ultravid BR is an almost identical copy of the Trinovid but closed in a lighter casing. It seems that for almost 25 years, Leica haven’t introduced any innovative optical solutions to its key series of binoculars. Of course, the weight reduction and hydrophobic coatings are appreciated, along with a slight transmission increase or a tad wider field of view. Still, such a reputable company should have done better, especially if you take into account the length of the period of time we are talking about. As a result of such stagnation, Leica devices started to compete with each other: you can still buy a second-hand specimen of Trinovids in mint condition for half the price of the new Ultravids HD-Plus.

That tactics of Leica are especially strange because generally you can’t deny the company an innovative approach in optics, particularly when it comes to binoculars. After all, they pioneered in the rangefinder optics, making such revolutionary moves as launching Perger-Porro prisms instruments on the market. Why the line-up of ordinary binoculars has seen so few ground-breaking changes we don’t know. It would be good to finish our test on a more positive note so it should be emphasized that in the premium class of binoculars, apart from very good optics, the Leica also competes successfully with others when it comes to physical dimensions as it can be seen in the photo below, where it is positioned next to the Zeiss Victory HT 10x42.

To sum up, the Leica Ultravid 10x42 HD-Plus is a very good set of binoculars - almost exactly as good as its direct predecessors and the predecessors of its predecessors too. We hope the next model of this series will be truly different, not a merely refreshed version of the same device with just a few cosmetic changes."
 

"Why am I writing about it? On our website, you can find tests of all 10x42 models, from the Trinovid BN to the Ultravid HD-Plus. It is easy to check what the customers gained throughout all these years. Firstly, the results show unanimously that, within the margin of measurement error, the HD-Plus model is practically the same as the HD model. Maybe the transmission level varies a bit but even if you compare the measurements taken with a spectrophotometer the differences remain very slight; it is really difficult to say whether they are an effect of measurement errors, natural differences between two specimens or the actual influence of Schott HT glass. If the spectrophotometer doesn’t show any distinct difference, it won’t be visible to the naked eye either.
If this is from Allbino’s it’s totally irrelevant to me because myself and dozens of others have disagreed 20-30% of the time on characteristics of many reviews. I prefer in the field reviews with multiple observers on multiple days under different lighting conditions. Therefore not a one off with one specimen on one day with one reviewer.
So we have a situation where the Ultravid HD doesn’t differ markedly from the Ultravid BR and the Ultravid BR is an almost identical copy of the Trinovid but closed in a lighter casing.
Debatable , I’ve heard these arguments on multiple versions from Zeiss and Swarovski.
It seems that for almost 25 years, Leica haven’t introduced any innovative optical solutions to its key series of binoculars. Of course, the weight reduction and hydrophobic coatings are appreciated, along with a slight transmission increase or a tad wider field of view. Still, such a reputable company should have done better,
Also debatable, considering all the people who have issues with eye placement, blackouts due to complicated ocular design to squeeze out the most FOV on the newest options from Zeiss and Swaro with their innovations, not to mention glare, blue rings, green tint, edge distortion (FL), and other issues. Leica has done better with Noctivids.
especially if you take into account the length of the period of time we are talking about. As a result of such stagnation, Leica devices started to compete with each other: you can still buy a second-hand specimen of Trinovids in mint condition for half the price of the new Ultravids HD-Plus.
Yet they’re not as bright, or sharp. Just like you can buy an FL for half the price of the SF.
That tactics of Leica are especially strange because generally you can’t deny the company an innovative approach in optics, particularly when it comes to binoculars. After all, they pioneered in the rangefinder optics, making such revolutionary moves as launching Perger-Porro prisms instruments on the market. Why the line-up of ordinary binoculars has seen so few ground-breaking changes we don’t know. It would be good to finish our test on a more positive note so it should be emphasized that in the premium class of binoculars, apart from very good optics, the Leica also competes successfully with others when it comes to physical dimensions as it can be seen in the photo below, where it is positioned next to the Zeiss Victory HT 10x42.
I might ad that few would argue that Leica is not the best built of its competitors. Maybe it’s time to start asking why hasn’t the others improved their build quality, some have even said their taking a step backward, Swaro armor, FL tougher than SF and so on. 😉
To sum up, the Leica Ultravid 10x42 HD-Plus is a very good set of binoculars - almost exactly as good as its direct predecessors and the predecessors of its predecessors too. We hope the next model of this series will be truly different, not a merely refreshed version of the same device with just a few cosmetic changes."
Think IPhone. Don’t redesign the wheel, just make slow steady improvements for what the tool was meant to do 🙏🏼.

This is coming from a guy who’s owns most of them, uses them almost daily with other observers, and not selling any of them 😉.
 
You know, I just tried a brand spanking new Leica UVHD + 7x42, and I was ready to be wowed by it, but I wasn't. It was like looking through a Leica Trinovid 7x42 BN from 30 years ago, except for the modern casing. If you like Leica's you might as well buy a Trinovid BN and save your self some money. Leica needs to do some significant updates to their products to catch up with Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon. Build quality and mechanics wise Leica is probably first but as far as optics they are behind the leaders. If you like old school optics, you might like Leica, and they are good binoculars, but they need to get more innovative. Why don't they do something with their Perger prism's? They bought the patent, but they have done nothing with it. They could make a beautiful modern binocular that would be incredible with the Perger prism, almost equal to the Nikon WX.

 
You know, I just tried a brand spanking new Leica UVHD + 7x42, and I was ready to be wowed by it, but I wasn't. It was like looking through a Leica Trinovid 7x42 BN from 30 years ago, except for the modern casing. If you like Leica's you might as well buy a Trinovid BN and save your self some money. Leica needs to do some significant updates to their products to catch up with Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon. Build quality and mechanics wise Leica is probably first but as far as optics they are behind the leaders. If you like old school optics, you might like Leica, and they are good binoculars, but they need to get more innovative. Why don't they do something with their Perger prism's? They bought the patent, but they have done nothing with it. They could make a beautiful modern binocular that would be incredible with the Perger prism, almost equal to the Nikon WX.

Blah, blah, blah. Same story different binoculars. If you can’t see differences between BN and UVHD+ then I’d say one of two things are taking place, your eyesight or optical acuity has declined , or I’d bet we’ll soon see a BN for sale on the classifieds from you. 🤪.

Which could it be, should we take a poll? 😂
 
Last edited:
the old Zeiss West porros for a moment: I've seen quite a lot of those; they were still reasonably common when I got into birding. And I can't recall seeing one that had dust or dirt inside, not even after years and years of use. I also don't recall seeing a pair that had fogged up. Those "Gummistulpendichtungen" obviously worked quite nicely...
...apart from causing outgassing, which is a notorious issue with old Zeiss West porros - all three of the ones I've purchased have needed to be worked on to deal with this issue, others I've looked at have had it, and owners with more experience (eg FrankL) have reported the same thing. I agree the concept is a good one, though.

(PS. does anyone have a photo of these rubber gaskets - the ones for my 8x30 non-B have perished and I'm wondering if a replacement can be contrived...)

Apropos of "simple" optical design - it's worth noting that the eyepieces of those porros were quite complex (for the era anyway) - I think Zeiss might have tried to be a little too clever there as the number of air to glass surfaces combined with the single coatings of the day resulted in quite poor light transmission. The edge performance of the ones I have is certainly pretty good, definitely better than the comparable Leitz 8x30, but I tend to favour the superior brightness of the latter. (A shame most of those models never made it to the T* multi-coated era...)

The size of the APM 6.5x32 eyepieces suggest their design is likely quite complex.
 
...apart from causing outgassing, which is a notorious issue with old Zeiss West porros - all three of the ones I've purchased have needed to be worked on to deal with this issue, others I've looked at have had it, and owners with more experience (eg FrankL) have reported the same thing. I agree the concept is a good one, though.

(PS. does anyone have a photo of these rubber gaskets - the ones for my 8x30 non-B have perished and I'm wondering if a replacement can be contrived...)

Apropos of "simple" optical design - it's worth noting that the eyepieces of those porros were quite complex (for the era anyway) - I think Zeiss might have tried to be a little too clever there as the number of air to glass surfaces combined with the single coatings of the day resulted in quite poor light transmission. The edge performance of the ones I have is certainly pretty good, definitely better than the comparable Leitz 8x30, but I tend to favour the superior brightness of the latter. (A shame most of those models never made it to the T* multi-coated era...)

The size of the APM 6.5x32 eyepieces suggest their design is likely quite complex.
The size of a binocular's eyepiece has nothing to with how complex they are. A larger eyepiece is usually for a wider AFOV and greater eye relief.
 
The size of a binocular's eyepiece has nothing to with how complex they are. A larger eyepiece is usually for a wider AFOV and greater eye relief.
Seems you are referring to the last sentence in Patudo's, which gets chopped off, when you hit "reply." Specifically this, "The size of the APM 6.5x32 eyepieces suggest their design is likely quite complex."

Size of course can be length, width. Why would an optical designer make the eyepiece longer than necessary if not for more stuff inside?
 
Seems you are referring to the last sentence in Patudo's, which gets chopped off, when you hit "reply." Specifically this, "The size of the APM 6.5x32 eyepieces suggest their design is likely quite complex."

Size of course can be length, width. Why would an optical designer make the eyepiece longer than necessary if not for more stuff inside?
Focal length. A shorter eyepiece has a lower focal length and a longer eyepiece has a higher focal length, meaning a shorter eyepiece will provide higher magnification and a longer eyepiece will provide lower magnification, as the focal length is inversely related to magnification. When calculating magnification on a binocular, you divide the objective lens focal length by the eyepiece focal length. Similar to a telescope. The length of the eyepiece also affects the amount of eye relief. Longer eyepieces generally have more eye relief for more comfortable viewing with glasses, while shorter eyepieces have a wider field of view but less eye relief. If you have ever observed with a telescope, you learn this quick because you can tell by the size and shape of an eyepiece usually how it will perform.
 
Last edited:
Focal length. A shorter eyepiece has a lower focal length and a longer eyepiece has a higher focal length, meaning a shorter eyepiece will provide higher magnification and a longer eyepiece will provide lower magnification, as the focal length is inversely related to magnification. When calculating magnification on a binocular, you divide the objective lens focal length by the eyepiece focal length. Similar to a telescope. The length of the eyepiece also affects the amount of eye relief. Longer eyepieces generally have more eye relief for more comfortable viewing with glasses, while shorter eyepieces have a wider field of view but less eye relief. If you have ever observed with a telescope, you learn this quick because you can tell by the size and shape of an eyepiece usually how it will perform.
From a PM with Gijs van Ginkle awhile back,

"With regard to the measured magnification: I divide the objective diameter by the exit pupildiameter, a very simple method and precise enough for everybody.
Measurement tools applied: high precision electronic ruler (objective diameter) and Ramsden dynameter made by Dr. Bleeker."
 
From a PM with Gijs van Ginkle awhile back,

"With regard to the measured magnification: I divide the objective diameter by the exit pupildiameter, a very simple method and precise enough for everybody.
Measurement tools applied: high precision electronic ruler (objective diameter) and Ramsden dynameter made by Dr. Bleeker."
What is a high precision electronic ruler and a Ramsden dynameter? Those items don't sound like something you would have in your toolbox. it wouldn't be as accurate as dividing the objective focal length by the eyepiece focal length.
 
Dennis, post 56,
A high precision electronic ruler is exactly what is says and a Ramsden dynameter is a special tool to measure the size of the exit pupil with high accuracy. As I wrote an electronic rules is what is says: you can measure the size of the exit pupil with this ruler with high precision. A Ramsden dynameter is a device that looks like a microscope eyepiece but it is constructed in such a way that you can measure the diameter of the exit pupil and because of its construction you are also able to determine the eyerelief.
For those interested in literature about it: the Ramsden dynameter is in detail desribed in "Lehrbuch der praktischen Physik" by F. Kohlrausch, sechzehnte Auflage, page 361.
As some of the readers may know: I worked as a scientist in the Laboratary of Physics at Utecht University and we used these instruments.
Gijs van Ginkel
 


Write your reply...

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top