Finally clicked into place with UVHD Pluses (and still love SLC) (1 Viewer)

[SeldomPerched]

Just random outpourings really, but with a dangerous follow-up question at the end... ... dangerous to me, that is!

Finally, finally after years of faff everything has — literally — clicked into place for me with both the Ultravid HD Pluses I now feel very lucky to have still in my possession. The 7x42 has bothered me for ages as, no matter what, it just hasn't quite had the snap and crispness of the competition of similar format and vintage i.e. T*FL, a fantastically great bin and with AK prisms as an added bonus for high transmission. The 8x32 even less so till I changed units at quite a loss after coming to the conclusion that the first one I bought felt like a Friday night job; the new replacement I bought nearly two years ago (at a guess; I forget time these days) has been absolutely great by comparison.

Three days ago I was all ready to pack up the 7x42 and take it into the dealer where I bought it in 2018 or 19 and be ready to lose heavily on it. "No demand for sevens these days"; that sort of thing. The bin was leaving me very disappointed after finding it trailed some way behind even the Dialyt BGAT*P* that I was reunited with about a month ago, itself a legend but an ageing one. On the day planned for trading in the Leica 7x42 some instinct or paranormal message from the Leica forum here made me forget the pot of hot tea and the cake I had readied for a break before setting out; the tea went cold as I decided to unpack the bin back out of its box and have a last stab at tweaking the dioptre setting — something last done months ago when I was convinced it couldn't be improved on (but still wasn't exactly Swaro- or Zeiss-clarity convincing). I pulled out the stop and moved the dial round by half a space between the lines from minus, closer towards centre (whatever that represents in numerical terms), pushed it back in, remade the tea so as to give myself a chance to 'regroup', drank a cup, ate a slice, went outside, and almost didn't dare lift the bin to my eyes, so sure was I that the experiment would fail.

It didn't fail. For the first time I could agree immediately with all the superlatives uttered about the 7x42 UVHD Plus or non-Plus. Not just about the colour or three-dimensionality or easy view, all of which I had experienced all along, but finally the resolution matched the other alphas though in a more aesthetic way (to me anyway). Goodness knows how I had failed to get the setting right originally or to realize it wasn't really right even when I had got closer to it.

So long had the jinx lasted that I didn't dare trust my findings till I had used the bin again a few times over the next 48 hours. The double-checking did reassure me though, as the view continued to excel each time I looked.

That's about it; no longer do I feel jealous when reading the lyrical-waxing posts about Leica UVs or NVs, nor do I need to worry any more that I have a dud. The 8x32 and the 7x42 are both excellent; each lends a slightly different feel to the imagery apart from the obvious physics of the different magnification and objective sizes. Something is a bit different between the two in terms of contrast and colour, and of course the viewing is a little easier with the 42 than the 32 which is famous for compact size at the expense of viewing comfort, but both give a lovely image and now with excellent definition as well.

Someone remind me please: moving now to a different UVHD Plus model what would I find different in the 8x42 UVHD plus version as regards the look of the image? Colours, ease of view, definition, contrast, crescent flares, eyecups. Not worried about CA and astigmatism and GE (rolling ball). I wonder if I'd find that one as good as the 8x42 SLC... perhaps just a little nicer in its colours and, I'm guessing, a touch lower in contrast, but now that the two Leicas I have are set just right I'd wouldn't be heartbroken to hear the SLC might remain top of the 8x42s for me. Canip, if you are reading this, what do you think as I am pretty sure you have or have used both UVHD+ and SLC in 8x42? My feeling is to stick with what I have but it's tempting just to try that other UVHD Plus.

Tom

 

[Bentley03]

Tom, I'm delighted to hear that you've finally resolved your frustration with your 7x. It is, as you know, my absolute favourite binocular, bar none.

I won't comment on the 8x42, despite having spent a considerable amount of time with a pair (HD not HD+). I never quite got beyond my concern that the eye relief was just a little too marginal for me, to enjoy them in complete comfort, which is a bit crazy, because my most used pair of binoculars are my 8x32 UVHD+. Work that one out!

Me, I'm hankering after a pair of 10x42 UVHD or UVHD+, despite knowing I'll face the same issue of very marginal eye relief.

James

 

[GrampaTom]

So Tom, Perhaps slightly existential...

You just got your 7x42 UVHD figured out. After almost prematurely turning your back on it but avoided that mistake, you have now bonded. You still have the 832 and accept its complimentary role. Why then ... almost instantly do you want to think of another? Especially as most would see whichever 842 you land on, would be just slightly different from what you have.

What is this thing that does that to us?

 

[SeldomPerched]

So Tom, Perhaps slightly existential...

You just got your 7x42 UVHD figured out. After almost prematurely turning your back on it but avoided that mistake, you have now bonded. You still have the 832 and accept its complimentary role. Why then ... almost instantly do you want to think of another? Especially as most would see whichever 842 you land on, would be just slightly different from what you have.

What is this thing that does that to us?

It's more curiosity to know the differences than to have one; I was probably getting carried away while typing. Each 'family' has common features but also differences. I'm interested to hear more about this regarding the 8x42 from others as Tobias Mennle liked all three of the Leicas I mentioned but found (unsurprisingly) some differentiation apart from the obviously different magnifications and objective lens sizes. So it's more a case of adding to knowledge than itching to buy another bin. I managed quite a careful prune-down of kit in the last two years and as you say have just got the existing Leica 7x42 back on to my Christmas card list, so to speak! The only one I weakened on and wished I hadn't parted with was the Zeiss 7x42 BGAT*P* and when I saw one for sale and then saw it was my own sold example from
About two years ago I did go for it, still use it and love it.

I did have the 8x42 UVHD (pre-Plus) very early on and liked it despite its being a second best choice when I couldn't find the 7 anywhere. Anyway as you say what is with me already is all bonding so at the moment this really is just academic interest.

Also I am interested in Meopta which are supposed to be outstandingly good optically though people may be divided over the styling. But I shan't buy as I know I'd soon feel overstocked again.

Tom

 

[SeldomPerched]

Tom, I'm delighted to hear that you've finally resolved your frustration with your 7x. It is, as you know, my absolute favourite binocular, bar none.

I won't comment on the 8x42, despite having spent a considerable amount of time with a pair (HD not HD+). I never quite got beyond my concern that the eye relief was just a little too marginal for me, to enjoy them in complete comfort, which is a bit crazy, because my most used pair of binoculars are my 8x32 UVHD+. Work that one out!

Me, I'm hankering after a pair of 10x42 UVHD or UVHD+, despite knowing I'll face the same issue of very marginal eye relief.

James

James, I know what you mean about the eye relief. Oddly, I can get on fine with the 8x32 UVHD+ at three settings: eyecups all the way in i.e. not protruding; screwed out just past the first friction point i.e. stop unscrewing as soon as the initial resistance ends; and screwed out a bit further and stopping when resting on the next point of resistance but not going through the resistance. The 7x I can use at first click from closed and second from closed. What settings do / did you typically use on your 8x32 and 8x42?

Have a look at Tobias Mennle's UVHD Plus reviews of all three and see what you think.

And thank you for the welcome back to the Happy UVid Club; it's nice to be back! I find 10x too shaky unless resting on a window ledge or ground my elbows, etc but I am told the 10x50 is very nice indeed, if often overkill! And I am sure the 10x42 that you want too.

Tom

 

[Scott98]

I just made a post yesterday about this issue in the Nikon forum! Diopter not being set correctly....it can make sharpness, edge definition, and color correction all appear to be poor. Highly recommend setting the diopter on your binos on a bright star at night to get it 100% correct.

I'm right in the middle on "0" for most binoculars, so it's easy to make the mistake of not checking carefully on new ones. But a couple of my porros need adjustment off "0" for my eyes.

It's interesting that the diopter imbalance and miscollimation can be hard to see during the day, but become visible on bright star images at night. It makes me wonder if the diopter being slightly off is partly responsible for people reporting different results, or reviews, of the same bino.

If I de-focus a bright star into a round blob, then slowly move it into focus, it becomes immediately obvious when one side focuses to a point and the other side is still blurry. I'm not sure how you could even do this during the day.

 

[brocknroller]

Just random outpourings really, but with a dangerous follow-up question at the end... ... dangerous to me, that is!

Finally, finally after years of faff everything has — literally — clicked into place for me with both the Ultravid HD Pluses I now feel very lucky to have still in my possession. The 7x42 has bothered me for ages as, no matter what, it just hasn't quite had the snap and crispness of the competition of similar format and vintage i.e. T*FL, a fantastically great bin and with AK prisms as an added bonus for high transmission. The 8x32 even less so till I changed units at quite a loss after coming to the conclusion that the first one I bought felt like a Friday night job; the new replacement I bought nearly two years ago (at a guess; I forget time these days) has been absolutely great by comparison.

Three days ago I was all ready to pack up the 7x42 and take it into the dealer where I bought it in 2018 or 19 and be ready to lose heavily on it. "No demand for sevens these days": that sort of thing. The bin was leaving me very disappointed after finding it trailed some way behind even the Dialyt BGAT*P* that I was reunited with about a month ago. Itself a legend but an ageing one. On the day planned for trading in the Leica 7x42 some instinct or paranormal message from the Leica forum here made me forget the pot of hot tea and the cake I had readied for a break before setting out; the tea went cold as I decided to unpack the bin back out of its box and have a last stab at tweaking the dioptre setting — something last done some months ago when I was convinced it couldn't be improved on (but still wasn't exactly Swaro- or Zeiss-clarity convincing). I pulled out the stop and moved the dial round by half a space between the lines from minus, closer towards centre (whatever that represents in numerical terms), remade the tea so as to give myself a chance to 'regroup', drank a cup, ate a slice, went outside, and almost didn't dare lift the bin to my eyes, so sure was I that the experiment would fail.

It didn't fail. For the first time I could agree immediately with all the superlatives uttered about the 7x42 UVHD Plus or non-Plus. Not just about the colour or three-dimensionality or easy view, all of which I had experienced all along, but finally the resolution matched the other alphas though in a more aesthetic way (to me anyway). Goodness knows how I had failed to get the setting right originally or to realize it wasn't really right even when I had got closer to it.

So long had the jinx lasted that I didn't dare trust my findings till I had used the bin again a few times over the next 48 hours. The double-checking did reassure me as each time the view continued to excel.

That's about it; no longer do I feel jealous when reading the lyrical-waxing posts about Leica UVs or NVs, nor do I need to worry any more that I have a dud. The 8x32 and the 7x42 are both excellent; each lends a slightly different feel to the imagery apart from the obvious physics of the different magnification and objective sizes. Something is a bit different between the two in terms of contrast and colour, and of course the viewing is easier with the 42 than the 32 which is famous for compact size at the expense of viewing comfort, but both give a lovely image and now both with excellent definition as well.

Someone remind me please: moving now to a different UVHD Plus model what would I find different in the 8x42 UVHD plus version as regards the look of the image? Colours, ease of view, definition, contrast, crescent flares, eyecups. Not worried about CA and astigmatism and GE (rolling ball). I wonder if I'd find that one as good as the 8x42 SLC... perhaps just a little nicer in its colours and, I'm guessing, a touch lower in contrast, but now that the two Leicas I have are set just right I'd wouldn't be heartbroken to hear the SLC might remain top of the 8x42s for me. Canip, if you are reading this, what do you think as I am pretty sure you have or have used both UVHD+ and SLC 8x42? My feeling is to stick with what I have but it's tempting just to try that other UVHD Plus.

Tom

Tom,

The grass is always greener (particularly in Zeiss bins with their boosted middle range) but if you solved your problem with your 7x42, it seems there's no need to look for a better bin since you now know what the problem was, unless you've got $2k burning a hole in your pocket. If so, I suggest you stick it in your savings account and let it acrue interest, the rate just went up another 1/4 pt.

If retired Chief Opticalman Bill Cook were still haunting there forums, he would have said: I told you so!

Bill is of the mind that half the time people say they can't get a sharp image with their binoculars it's due to not setting the diopter properly.

This happened to me a couple days ago. I was out in the backyard looking at a robin perched on my neighbor's roof, and it didn't look as sharp though my 8x32 EDG as I would have expected (or any of my bins for that matter). It was a rare sunny spring day.

What makes setting the right diopter correctly more difficult for me is that my left eye and right eye are polar opposites when it comes to close focus, with my left eye being very presbyopic (can focus better near than far) and my right eye very myopic (can focus far better than near). On top of that I have a catract in my left eye, so on cloudy days, I get the best focus I can, and then check the focus through the right EP and see if my target is in focus, if not, try, try again until it's sharp or at least close. So that may have been a factor since the last time I set the diopter, it was on a cloudy day.

I was wonder if that might have been what happened to you the last time you set the diopter on the 7x42 UV HD+. If it was cloudy, any aberrations in your eyes would be ampflified especially since the UV has a 6mm exit pupil, which would allow your entrance pupils to open wider than an 8x42 or 8x32. If you then reset the diopter on a sunny day when your entrance pupils would be well below the UV's exit pupils, you might get a more accurate diopter setting.

For whatever reason(s), that day the right diopter was considerably off, so I had to reset it and this time held my finger on the diopter ring while I pushed down the focuser cap with my other hand just in case I had moved it accidentally while pushing down the focuser cap.

Voilà! The patient robin, who was still perched on top of the roof was now in sharp focus. The week before was the first time I saw a robin in my backyard this year, and it was there for a half hour festing on a motherload of bugs. A treat for my cats too, who watched the robin eating and wanted to eat it, but they were restrained.

So, Capn' Cook was right when he said that oftentimes the reason people don't see sharp images through the binoculars is that they are not focused properly. I think we both can attest to that.

Ramblin' Brock Elliott

 

[SeldomPerched]

Tom,

The grass is always greener (particularly in Zeiss bins with their boosted middle range) but if you solved your problem with your 7x42, it seems there's no need to look for a better bin since you now know what the problem was, unless you've got $2k burning a hole in your pocket. If so, I suggest you stick it in your savings account and let it acrue interest, the base rate just went up another 1/4 pt.

If retired Chief Opticalman Bill Cook were still haunting there forums, he would have said: I told you so!

Bill is of the mind that half the time people say they can't get a sharp image with their binoculars it's due to not setting the diopter properly.

This happened to me a couple days ago. I was out in the backyard looking at a robin perched on my neighbor's roof, and it didn't look as sharp though my 8x32 EDG as I would have expected (or any of my bins for that matter). It was a rare sunny spring day.

What makes setting the right diopter correctly more difficult for me is that my left eye and right eye are polar opposites when it comes to close focus, with my left eye being very presbyopic (can focus better near than far) and my right eye very myopic (can focus far better than near). On top of that I have a catract in my left eye, so on cloudy days, I get the best focus I can, and then check the focus through the right EP and see if my target is in focus, if not, try, try again until it's sharp or at least close. So that may have been a factor since the last time I set the diopter, it was on a cloudy day.

I was wonder if that might have been what happened to you the last time you set the diopter on the 7x42 UV HD+. If it was cloudy, any aberrations in your eyes would be ampflified especially since the UV has a 6mm exit pupil, which would allow your entrance pupils to open wider than an 8x42 or 8x32. If you then reset the diopter on a sunny day when your entrance pupils would be well below the UV's exit pupils, you might get a more accurate diopter setting.

For whatever reason(s), that day the right diopter was considerably off, so I had to reset it and this time held my finger on the diopter ring while I pushed down the focuser cap with my other hand just in case I had moved it accidentally while pushing down the focuser cap.

Voilà! The patient robin, who was still perched on top of the roof was now in sharp focus. The week before was the first time I saw a robin in my backyard this year, and it was there for a half hour festing on a motherload of bugs. A treat for my cats too, who watched the robin eating and wanted to eat it, but they were restrained.

So, Capn' Cook was right when he said that oftentimes the reason people don't see sharp images through the binoculars is that they are not focused properly. I think we both can attest to that.

Ramblin' Brock Elliott

Great post, Brock. I'll answer it properly in the morning with my own back yard / back garden experiences of today with the newly and at last well-adjusted binoculars.

Drivellin' Tom

 

[SeldomPerched]

I just made a post yesterday about this issue in the Nikon forum! Diopter not being set correctly....it can make sharpness, edge definition, and color correction all appear to be poor. Highly recommend setting the diopter on your binos on a bright star at night to get it 100% correct.

I'm right in the middle on "0" for most binoculars, so it's easy to make the mistake of not checking carefully on new ones. But a couple of my porros need adjustment off "0" for my eyes.

Scott, I must try that. Good advice. With Swaros it's easier because I have found the modern ones all seem properly zeroed at the factory so the same clicks on say an SLC also work perfectly on an EL i.e. you only need to find the right setting on one bin. Does your star method hold up well for close range work (which I like, where the bin in question can manage it)?

Tom

 

[brocknroller]

Just found this thread about the 32 EDG II diopter moving unitentionally while turning the focuser wheel, which I knew was an issue with the EDG I. I didn't think this could happen with the EDG II's diopter ring since it's wider and has click stops, but according to Kimmo and other BF members on this thread, it can happen if you press down hard on the focuser wheel near the bottom (which is where the diopter ring lies underneath). One member mentioned this can happen especially while wearing gloves, which I was since it was cold earllier in March (came in like a lion).

So, I might have accidentally moved the diopter when I was using the bins with gloves!

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our eyes / But in our gloves, that we are underthings.

Nikon EDG diopter problem

I purchased a new pair of 10x32 EDGs (version II) before Christmas. They're great, but using them in the field recently I've noticed that the diopter shifts considerably, which is quite annoying! Experimenting with them, I think the issue occurs with me when wearing gloves when I probably tend...

www.birdforum.net

Brock

 

[tenex]

I pulled out the stop and moved the dial round by half a space between the lines from minus, closer towards centre...

Congratulations. I wish I could experiment now with the diopter on our BN but it's in New Jersey getting recalibrated after being knocked well off. (Still I always set a diopter visually, never by its scale.)

So now we have to ask: (1) what's different about Leicas that you've only had this difficulty with them?
and (2) can this also be the case for everyone else who finds Leicas (possibly excluding NV) less than tack sharp, including me? I rather doubt it...

 

[John M Robinson]

So Tom, Perhaps slightly existential...

You just got your 7x42 UVHD figured out. After almost prematurely turning your back on it but avoided that mistake, you have now bonded. You still have the 832 and accept its complimentary role. Why then ... almost instantly do you want to think of another? Especially as most would see whichever 842 you land on, would be just slightly different from what you have.

What is this thing that does that to us?

Ten years ago a forum member named Frank sent me his 7x42 Ultravid for me to compare next to my 8x42 Ultravid BR. If I tried them side by side I could barely make out the difference in magnification, but otherwise the view was identical. So little difference I certainly couldn’t justify owning both. I recently read a post suggesting a seven and a ten complement each other nicely, perhaps more so than an eight and ten. I’m currently selling my 8x42 Ultravid to help fund a 10x42 Alpha to use with my 7x35 Retrovids.

 

[Bentley03]

James, I know what you mean about the eye relief. Oddly, I can get on fine with the 8x32 UVHD+ at three settings: eyecups all the way in i.e. not protruding; screwed out just past the first friction point i.e. stop unscrewing as soon as the initial resistance ends; and screwed out a bit further and stopping when resting on the next point of resistance but not going through the resistance. The 7x I can use at first click from closed and second from closed. What settings do / did you typically use on your 8x32 and 8x42?

Have a look at Tobias Mennle's UVHD Plus reviews of all three and see what you think.

And thank you for the welcome back to the Happy UVid Club; it's nice to be back! I find 10x too shaky unless resting on a window ledge or ground my elbows, etc but I am told the 10x50 is very nice indeed, if often overkill! And I am sure the 10x42 that you want too.

Tom

Tom, over the months your frustration/difficulties with getting the very best out of the 7x has had me thoroughly confused. Certainly it was unlikely that any suggestions I might have had would have been to try things that you would undoubtedly have tried already. Anyway, you're sorted now, which is terrific.

My eye relief comments are based on the fact that I'm a glasses wearer, so theoretically the 8x42, with more usable eye relief than the 8x32, should be less marginal and more comfortable, but it's not, it's equally marginal and no more comfortable. I expect/want more comfort from an 8x42. 8x32's I use with the eyecups screwed all the way down, the 7x42 I find best set at the first click stop up. The 7x35 Retrovid I prefer with eyecups all the way down, but the 8x40 Retrovid works best for me at first click stop up. Identical eye relief according to Leica specs (Retrovids), but quite different in real world use.

I'm familiar with Tobias' work and very much enjoy reading his reviews/articles. I don't, however, always agree with his findings/perceptions, and sometimes completely disagree. Part of that, I believe, is the fact that I wear glasses and he doesn't, but there are definitely differences in our tolerances of various characteristics in binoculars. That said, he is most definitely the expert, but what he sees with his eyes will always be quite different to what I see with my own, and I allow for that when reading his articles.

The 10x50 Ultravid I have spent time with, and found that, for me, they were the mother and father of all CA generators, extraordinary levels. I honestly don't believe it was just the binoculars, or that they were a bad copy, but the combination of them, me, and my glasses, which was responsible. Beautiful binoculars though, apart from the CA I generated while using them.

There, my morning BF ramble over coffee (which is now rather cold).

James

 

[SeldomPerched]

Congratulations. I wish I could experiment now with the diopter on our BN but it's in New Jersey getting recalibrated after being knocked well off. (Still I always set a diopter visually, never by its scale.)

So now we have to ask: (1) what's different about Leicas that you've only had this difficulty with them?
and (2) can this also be the case for everyone else who finds Leicas (possibly excluding NV) less than tack sharp, including me? I rather doubt it...

I'm going to think a bit about that, Tenex, as that's a large part of why I had just about given up on the 7. It was partly the fact that the 8x32 was OK that pushed me to try once more, also knowing there are many here who have found the resolution fine. Will get back to you...

 

[Troubador]

Hi Tom
The big difference between 8x and 7x that I noticed when I finally got round to acquiring a 7x42 (a MeoStar actually) was that through the 7x objects in the foreground had a more realistic separation from objects in the background. Through 8x binos these objects appear unnaturally closer together in the same way that objects do in a photo taken with a telephoto lens, so I call this effect 'telephoto compression'. Now, 8x is still my favourite general purpose magnification but when it comes to looking at the wonderful coastal panoramas of the Scottish islands I prefer a Meopta MeoStar 7x42, the only 42mm bino I now have since I downsized to 32mm to save weight.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Hi Tom
The big difference between 8x and 7x that I noticed when I finally got round to acquiring a 7x42 (a MeoStar actually) was that through the 7x objects in the foreground had a more realistic separation from objects in the background. Through 8x binos these objects appear unnaturally closer together in the same way that objects do in a photo taken with a telephoto lens, so I call this effect 'telephoto compression'. Now, 8x is still my favourite general purpose magnification but when it comes to looking at the wonderful coastal panoramas of the Scottish islands I prefer a Meopta MeoStar 7x42, the only 42mm bino I now have since I downsized to 32mm to save weight.

Hi Lee,

That fits in with my impression arrived at independently quite recently. The 7x format — I'm going now to use your photographic lens analogy — gives me a kind of calm and easy view a bit like using a 50mm lens when not too close up, which I've come to prefer after decades of using a 35mm as my primary (and prime) lens. The 8x is more like a short to medium tele. But the analogy can't be taken much further, I feel.

10x I find hard to decide on but the main thing that puts me off 10x is that I do find it hard to hold still. I have one and it's compact and light (SLC 10x42 final WB version) but I can't get the best out of it unless I can support it or myself, in which case it is very nice. With 10x for me it's not to do with weight to carry round but weight to hold still. At the other end of the scale the little 8x20 green armoured Trinovid I still have (my only bin from 1993 to 2018) I find impossibly fiddly and too light to hold and view through effectively. If it weren't so cute and pocketable I'd have sold it by now.

So in effect the range I have not got 'issues' with is 8x32, 7x42, and 8 or 8.5x42. And I am sure I could live happily with any one of those three 42s, all for slightly different reasons. which is why I'll keep them all as long as circumstances physical or financial allow!

IF you have time and it isn't inconvenient, would you mind sending me a picture of the Meostar? You take nice photos of your binoculars.

Best wishes to you and Troubadoris,

Tom

PS I know they are two a penny but blackbirds, black and brown genders, are the birds that I find most fascinating and heartwarming. I spent hours yesterday viewing them through my 7x42 and then the 8x32, the latter only because the female had got in close under the 7x42's radar! Everything looked beautiful in dull rainy conditions with zero glare.

Another PS just added a few minutes after the rest of the post
How much advantage do you reckon you and Troubadoris get from using your 8x32 Trinny at close range compared with the same format Ultravid HD Plus? Compared with the 7x42 the 8x32 UV feels almost like a macro, though I know the EL and FL equivalents focus closer.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Ten years ago a forum member named Frank sent me his 7x42 Ultravid for me to compare next to my 8x42 Ultravid BR. If I tried them side by side I could barely make out the difference in magnification, but otherwise the view was identical. So little difference I certainly couldn’t justify owning both. I recently read a post suggesting a seven and a ten complement each other nicely, perhaps more so than an eight and ten. I’m currently selling my 8x42 Ultravid to help fund a 10x42 Alpha to use with my 7x35 Retrovids.

Interesting, John. You may have just seen Troubador's reply saying that when he finally got a 7x42 (it was a Meostar) he noticed a difference in that the 7x didn't compress the foreground in the way 8x does i.e. there was much less telephoto lens effect with the 7x.

Have you noticed any difference in viewing comfort with the 8x42 UV BR compared to the 7x42 UV owing to eye relief, regardless of any published figures?

I have found it handy to have an 8.5 for my largest shake-free magnification in normal use; I have a 10x but though it is nice and compact and not too heavy I can't get the sharp view I'm used to because of bino shake. If it's supported or on a tripod it is very crisp, so the bad workman isn't blaming his tools!

Tom

 

[Troubador]

Hi Lee,

That fits in with my impression arrived at independently quite recently. The 7x format — I'm going now to use your photographic lens analogy — gives me a kind of calm and easy view a bit like using a 50mm lens when not too close up, which I've come to prefer after decades of using a 35mm as my primary (and prime) lens. The 8x is more like a short to medium tele. But the analogy can't be taken much further, I feel.

10x I find hard to decide on but the main thing that puts me is that I really do find it hard to hold still. I have one and it's compact and light (SLC 10x41 final WB version) but I can't get the best out of it unless I can support it or myself, in which case it is very nice. With 10x it's not to do with weight to carry round but weight to hold still, in my case. At the other end of the scale the little 8x20 green armoured Trinovid I still have (my only bin from 1993 to 2018) I find impossibly fiddly and too light to hold and view through effectively. If it weren't so cute and pocketable I'd have sold it by now.

So in effect the range I have not got 'issues' with is 8x32, 7x42, and 8 or 8.5x42. And I am sure I could live happily with any one of those three 42s, all for slightly different reasons. which is why I'll keep them all as long as circumstances physical or financial allow!

IF you have time and it isn't inconvenient, would you mind sending me a picture of the Meostar? You take nice photos of your binoculars.

Best wishes to you and Troubadoris,

Tom

PS I know they are two a penny but blackbirds, black and brown genders, are the birds that I find most fascinating and heartwarming. I spent hours yesterday viewing them through my 7x42 and then the 8x32, the latter only because the female had got in close under the 7x42's radar! Everything looked beautiful in dull rainy conditions with zero glare.

Another PS just added a few minutes after the rest of the post
How much advantage do you reckon you and Troubadoris get from using your 8x32 Trinny at close range compared with the same format Ultravid HD Plus? Compared with the 7x42 the 8x32 UV feels almost like a macro, though I know the EL and FL equivalents focus closer.

Hi Tom
Thank you for your good wishes and your kind words about my bino-pics. Here are two of the MeoStar as requested.

Blackbirds are a big favourite of ours and through this winter up to mid-March we have had upto 9 Blackies in our back garden and they have been eating their way through suet cake like crazy and enjoying bathing in our garden pond. They have dispersed somewhat now and we see only 4-5 at a time and in the evening their lovely song echoes around our neighbourhood.

Aileen does have a Leica Ultravid HD (not Plus) but she by far prefers the Trinovid for its friendlier feel and handling and that close focus of only 1 metre.

Lee

 

[jafritten]

There are many great binoculars out there. And some are admittedly "better" in one respect or the other. But I love my Ultravids best. I'm in the right club here, it seems.

The 8x32 and the 7x42 are both excellent; each lends a slightly different feel to the imagery apart from the obvious physics of the different magnification and objective sizes. Something is a bit different between the two in terms of contrast and colour

That's true. And it is also true for other configurations. I can understand Tom's curiosity to know the differences between the various configurations. I'd like to add that all the Ultravids I know also differ when it comes to panning or distortion. Still, they are clearly one "family".

I find 10x too shaky unless resting on a window ledge or ground my elbows, etc but I am told the 10x50 is very nice indeed, if often overkill! And I am sure the 10x42 that you want too.

I find the 10x42 is very easy to hold steady if you hold them like this (a quote from another thread):

I have gotten used to wearing a baseball cap with a stiff front shield when out in the fields with my binos. Holding the bino as usual with each hand holding one barrel, with the thumbs underneath the bino and the other fingers on top, I „grab“ the front shield of the cap with my index and middle finger, keeping the thumbs underneath the bino. This „locks“ the bino firmly in its position

... I rest my thumbs on the opposite barrel, respectively. And my right pinkie is pressed against the cap at the end of the hinge (where it reads Leica Camera Made in Germany). Holding the UV 10x42 this way tremble and jitter are drastically reduced. Body shake is still there, naturally. This technique works better with the 42 models than the shorter (and lighter) 32 models. If you play around with this, you'll see that it is also possible to place a finger on the focuser, at least with the 32 models. Naturally, it all depends on your hands and what you think is comfortable.

I also own the 8x20 BR but these are my most used ones:


...and beauties they are, arent't they?

 

[Scott98]

Scott, I must try that. Good advice. With Swaros it's easier because I have found the modern ones all seem properly zeroed at the factory so the same clicks on say an SLC also work perfectly on an EL i.e. you only need to find the right setting on one bin. Does your star method hold up well for close range work (which I like, where the bin in question can manage it)?

Tom

Yes, I went through my whole collection the other night and "0" was spot-on for all of the modern roofs and half the old porros. My new 10x35 E2's and 2 older pair of Nikon E's need to go + by .5-.8 tick on the scale. At least with the old-fashioned diopter adjustement on the porros it's easy to dial-in. Once you figure it out, the result is dramatic, suddenly the binos are razor-sharp and performing up to spec. It's a little disconcerting, especially with the brand-new E2's, it feels like something is wrong, but once the diopter is right they're super-sharp so I guess it's no problem.

Using a star is going to calibrate it for all viewing, near and far, the star image represents an infinitely small point of light. I slowly bring the blob of the star into focus and look for a disparity, one dot becoming a sharp point while the other side is still blurry. It can also look like mis-collimation, because when the sides don't match my eyes and brain struggle to merge the images properly.

Once I see something is amiss, I close my right eye and focus the star to a point in the left eye. Then, you close your left eye and see how the star looks on the right side. If it's not a point, you use the diopter adjustment to focus it to a point as well. You might have to go through the process a couple times to get it right.

So I'm not the only one who likes blackbirds! I just ran outside a half-hour ago when I heard a massive din of noise, dozens of common grackles had suddenly landed in the big oak tree outside my house - very cool! They appear quickly, then they're gone. What are they squawking about I wonder?