Finally clicked into place with UVHD Pluses (and still love SLC) (3 Viewers)

[Tringa45]

Thank you John. I feel a little silly not having noticed that myself, but it makes me feel a little better knowing it isn't "off"!

Zach

Hi Zach,
With corrected vision the dioptre setting of my 8x56 SLC is spot on at 0 but is "off" in another sense.
I believe that at the infinity setting the black wedge on the focusser should be at 12 o'clock and the "SLC 8x56" lettering horizontal, but on mine it's upside down.
This is in line with a close focus of 4,6 m (4 m spec.) with corrected vision and a focus overtravel of at least 7 dioptres (5 d spec.).
It doesn't bother me in the least but I'm sure Lee and the other entymologists would reject it with horror.

John

 

[SeldomPerched]

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

Brock, I'm putting a little reply to this in the Nikon thread where you first posted. Not that it will tell you much when you read it!

Tom

 

[SeldomPerched]

Tom, I’m really happy for you that you got the diopter settings right and enjoy the 7x42’s! It started a very interesting thread. The only downside of your story is that right now I have a very strong appetite for cake and the bakery is closed on Sunday…

As i have both the UVHD (non-plus) 8x32 and 7x42 i would like to comment shortly on the difference in “focus behavior” i noticed when using both in a forest. WIth the 7x i get a very relaxed view and i see all the trees in one perfect image but with the 8x it‘s a totally different story. I have to use the focusser all the time and for that reason i don’t take it with me anymore when i go walking in the forest. I have also a Duovid 8-12x42 but i can’t remember if it has the same behavior.

Interesting to read about your focusing experiences with 8x32 and 7x42 UVHD non-pluses, Thotmosis. I had the greatest difficulty with my first pair of 832s but that isn't relevant as they turned out to be a poor sample (this was evident when comparing with the replacement pair and it wasn't to do with the dioptre setting). i certainly find the newer 'nice' bin to have very sensitive focusing, needing only the finest adjustment to spoil the focus. But I am quite sensitive also to correct or incorrect focus on the 7x42s, along the lines of depth of field only covering acceptable not exact focus. That's been when trying them out casually but when focusing on a bird that has appeared in the view instinct takes over and all these considerations disappear whether it's 832 or 742. Sorry to make the bins sound like aircraft!

PS. Cake is a mistake

Tom

 

[SeldomPerched]

Tom, I’m really happy for you that you got the diopter settings right and enjoy the 7x42’s! It started a very interesting thread. The only downside of your story is that right now I have a very strong appetite for cake and the bakery is closed on Sunday…

As i have both the UVHD (non-plus) 8x32 and 7x42 i would like to comment shortly on the difference in “focus behavior” i noticed when using both in a forest. WIth the 7x i get a very relaxed view and i see all the trees in one perfect image but with the 8x it‘s a totally different story. I have to use the focusser all the time and for that reason i don’t take it with me anymore when i go walking in the forest. I have also a Duovid 8-12x42 but i can’t remember if it has the same behavior.

Yes, it has been a good thread and great to see a significant gang of 742ers flying the flag. Makes me glad I have kept the Leica as well as the good old FL and recently by lucky chance getting back the same Dialyt unit that I sold a couple of years ago. On that by the way it was the work of about 30 seconds to key in the dioptre correctly. No idea why I find different models easier or harder in this respect. Swarovski are the easiest of all; I feel like I have just cut my eyes when they are zeroed in!

Have you got or used an 842 UVHD (plus or non-plus)? I wonder if the '42 factor' would give you an easier focus experience for 8x. I know there are quite a few on here who are 42 fans because generally the view through 42s across the different makes is a bit easier for one reason or another. (I get confused by eye relief and so on, which is why I'm being vague here!)

Tom

 

[Thotmosis]

Yes, it has been a good thread and great to see a significant gang of 742ers flying the flag. Makes me glad I have kept the Leica as well as the good old FL and recently by lucky chance getting back the same Dialyt unit that I sold a couple of years ago. On that by the way it was the work of about 30 seconds to key in the dioptre correctly. No idea why I find different models easier or harder in this respect. Swarovski are the easiest of all; I feel like I have just cut my eyes when they are zeroed in!

Have you got or used an 842 UVHD (plus or non-plus)? I wonder if the '42 factor' would give you an easier focus experience for 8x. I know there are quite a few on here who are 42 fans because generally the view through 42s across the different makes is a bit easier for one reason or another. (I get confused by eye relief and so on, which is why I'm being vague here!)

Tom

Hi Tom, I’ve got a Duovid which has a 8x modus but it’s a different bird. I will do a test though when the rain stops. Also i have two BN’s that are in Portugal right now 7 and 8 x42. Very curious how they will compare With each other and with the UVHD and Duovid at 8x. Oof it will be a busy spring with all this comparing, hope to find the time to just take one and enjoy the scenery

 

[Thotmosis]

Interesting to read about your focusing experiences with 8x32 and 7x42 UVHD non-pluses, Thotmosis. I had the greatest difficulty with my first pair of 832s but that isn't relevant as they turned out to be a poor sample (this was evident when comparing with the replacement pair and it wasn't to do with the dioptre setting). i certainly find the newer 'nice' bin to have very sensitive focusing, needing only the finest adjustment to spoil the focus.

I dont have issues with my 8x32 but it’s a different experience. I’m everytime amazed that Leica made in such a great view in a really compact package. Razor sharp. It has the best focus until now of all my Leica’s. My Duovid has some play and in general i like the focus of my Habicht and old Zeiss better. For me it’s more precise.

But I am quite sensitive also to correct or incorrect focus on the 7x42s, along the lines of depth of field only covering acceptable not exact focus. That's been when trying them out casually but when focusing on a bird that has appeared in the view instinct takes over and all these considerations disappear whether it's 832 or 742. Sorry to make the bins sound like aircraft!

For me the Leica 7x42 is somewhat easier to focus / more forgiving then my Zeiss FL 7x42, which is also brighter, has a better focus but the Leica has more contrast. I need much more time, probably years to find out the differences.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Hi Tom, I’ve got a Duovid which has a 8x modus but it’s a different bird. I will do a test though when the rain stops. Also i have two BN’s that are in Portugal right now 7 and 8 x42. Very curious how they will compare With each other and with the UVHD and Duovid at 8x. Oof it will be a busy spring with all this comparing, hope to find the time to just take one and enjoy the scenery

Comparing and enjoying — good multitasking practice but just enjoying is easier and, well... more enjoyable

Will still be interested to hear your findings with the Duovid though!

Tom

 

[SeldomPerched]

I dont have issues with my 8x32 but it’s a different experience. I’m everytime amazed that Leica made in such a great view in a really compact package. Razor sharp. It has the best focus until now of all my Leica’s. My Duovid has some play and in general i like the focus of my Habicht and old Zeiss better. For me it’s more precise.


For me the Leica 7x42 is somewhat easier to focus / more forgiving then my Zeiss FL 7x42, which is also brighter, has a better focus but the Leica has more contrast. I need much more time, probably years to find out the differences.

I must look again tomorrow as your contrast comment interests me. You're not alone commenting on higher contrast in the Leica than the FL. To me the FL contrast is higher as is the SLC8x42 last version that I have. Wonder why. Individual human differences, different generation coatings or maybe me just not quite identifying characteristics accurately (that could be it!).

Tom

 

[Patudo]

...I start by setting the diopters to my eyes and then check the setting out of curiosity. Basically using my binos as an eye test.

Diopter has to be set to your eyes regardless what the indicated marks on the binocular might be. With most of my binoculars that have a diopter scale I almost always end up within a maximum of 0.5 dpt above or below the mark that indicates 0 - but with my Nobilem 12x50B I have to turn the diopter almost all the way to the left. I did ask Gary H if it could be adjusted, but apparently not.

I also find my diopter can change, not just over a long session, but over the year - in hay fever season especially. I truly hate that phenomenon, especially as birding is often very good indeed when it's on.

 

[Thotmosis]

I must look again tomorrow as your contrast comment interests me. You're not alone commenting on higher contrast in the Leica than the FL. To me the FL contrast is higher as is the SLC8x42 last version that I have. Wonder why. Individual human differences, different generation coatings or maybe me just not quite identifying characteristics accurately (that could be it!).

All the reasons you mention and also maybe sample variation, time of the year and as PatUdo in the post above says in relation to diopter settings (if i understand him correctly) our eyesight can change due to external and internal factors: the weather, illnes, hay fever etc. etc. For me the 7x binoculars are the most easy and “constant” binoculars to use in changing environments and when one has e.g. hay fever. Hope this make sense Tom.

A last remark about the 8x32 UVHD and 8x42 Duovid, the latter is somewhat dimmer and the little UV somewhat sharper but still the bigger 42 is more relaxed to look throug.

 

[John M Robinson]

Yes, it has been a good thread and great to see a significant gang of 742ers flying the flag. Makes me glad I have kept the Leica as well as the good old FL and recently by lucky chance getting back the same Dialyt unit that I sold a couple of years ago. On that by the way it was the work of about 30 seconds to key in the dioptre correctly. No idea why I find different models easier or harder in this respect. Swarovski are the easiest of all; I feel like I have just cut my eyes when they are zeroed in!

Have you got or used an 842 UVHD (plus or non-plus)? I wonder if the '42 factor' would give you an easier focus experience for 8x. I know there are quite a few on here who are 42 fans because generally the view through 42s across the different makes is a bit easier for one reason or another. (I get confused by eye relief and so on, which is why I'm being vague here!)

Tom

Don’t forget us 7x35 guys.😊 It’s probably the best, easy viewing compromise binocular ever.

 

[b-lilja]

What a terrific thread - best I can remember in many a moon. Honestly, a relief after some of the "yes they are/no they aren't" merry-go-rounds...

I love the star/diopter tip - just adjusted my 8x40SFLs based on it, and wow, look at them pop!

Like Brock, my eyes are really different which makes the whole diopter situation challenging. I find my eyes tire differently over the course of the day, and so I don't have a "set and forget" diopter setting - something I need to check pretty regularly.

Appreciate Lee's comment about foreshortening, etc. with higher mags - I think this is why I like 7x so much in marine settings - I hadn't made the connection before but it makes sense, which a lot of depth in a small vertical height - somehow the 7x just presents a great view at sea.

Yesterday I sat and just scanned the territorial view from our house on my 7x26 B and L v4s - old classic body style - I just got lost visually exploring.

I had my 7x42 HD+s out today ironically on a visit to Whidbey Island - and I could just look and look. Even with the diopter set perfectly, I still don't think these are the ultimate in crispness. That, and the slightly inaccurate color, keep me from fully giving myself over to them as "the ones".

 

[Troubador]

I must look again tomorrow as your contrast comment interests me. You're not alone commenting on higher contrast in the Leica than the FL. To me the FL contrast is higher as is the SLC8x42 last version that I have. Wonder why. Individual human differences, different generation coatings or maybe me just not quite identifying characteristics accurately (that could be it!).

Tom

Leica's colours are different from those through FL so may appear more contrasty but it is hard to separate this from the different colour palette.

 

[Tringa45]

I love the star/diopter tip - just adjusted my 8x40SFLs based on it, and wow, look at them pop!

The object distance chosen to set the dioptre doesn't matter one iota because, after focussing, the virtual image distance for each individual eye is always the same. See Dioptre Setting: Fallacy and Fact
You could even do it at 2 m on a 1951 USAF test chart with multiple line pairs/mm.
The only caveat here though is that you would have to use a tripod to maintain the distance.
If you focussed with the left eye at 2m and unintentionally set the dioptre at 1,9 m with the right eye that would be a natural difference of only 0,026 dioptres.
However, through a 7x binocular the error would amount to 1,3 dioptres and through a 10x bin it would be 2,6 dioptres!
In practice, setting on a high contrast object like a car licence plate at around 100 m should give a reliable result.
Some roof prism binoculars with a central dioptre setting (and some Porros with a rocking bridge) do have problems with the sychronicity of the focussing lenses/eyepieces and suffer from a wandering dioptre setting. Swarovski solve this by spring loading, which accounts for the different focussing torque clockwise/anticlockwise.

John

 

[Scott98]

Yes, it has been a good thread and great to see a significant gang of 742ers flying the flag. Makes me glad I have kept the Leica as well as the good old FL and recently by lucky chance getting back the same Dialyt unit that I sold a couple of years ago. On that by the way it was the work of about 30 seconds to key in the dioptre correctly. No idea why I find different models easier or harder in this respect. Swarovski are the easiest of all; I feel like I have just cut my eyes when they are zeroed in!

so you have the 7x42 Leica, the 7x42 Zeiss FL, and Dialyts! Wow, that is the holy trinity of 7x! The only missing one is 7x42 EDG. The reasons to grab them on the way out keep multiplying - in the forest the 7x is by far the best, 7x35 or 7x42. I was taking 8x or 10x to view ducks and seabirds, but then I discovered the 7x42 are better in high winds. Minimizes the vibration from the wind on the binos and you see better. Especially combining 7x with the compact body of the UVHD or EDG. In the winter months on the North Atlantic the wind is usually blowing hard.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Don’t forget us 7x35 guys.😊 It’s probably the best, easy viewing compromise binocular ever.

Never picked one up or been handed one, John, but I can believe you.

 

[SeldomPerched]

so you have the 7x42 Leica, the 7x42 Zeiss FL, and Dialyts! Wow, that is the holy trinity of 7x! The only missing one is 7x42 EDG. The reasons to grab them on the way out keep multiplying - in the forest the 7x is by far the best, 7x35 or 7x42. I was taking 8x or 10x to view ducks and seabirds, but then I discovered the 7x42 are better in high winds. Minimizes the vibration from the wind on the binos and you see better. Especially combining 7x with the compact body of the UVHD or EDG. In the winter months on the North Atlantic the wind is usually blowing hard.

I have to admit I did have the EDG 7 as well but though it was great in many ways the image, to paraphrase Canip was bright but dull. I liked the focuser and the glass in general and had I nothing else to compare with would have been very happy, I'm sure. As it was I sold that and some other items as I didn't want to feel like a collector more than a user. I felt I didn't deserve to have them all actually.

I have heard at least two very experienced people say that while the 7x42 EDG is good the 8x is better! I did like the lack of glare with those EDGs.

I meant to ask: did you say you have the EDGs yourself? I can't quite keep up with all the posts at the moment!

Tom

 

[brocknroller]

The object distance chosen to set the dioptre doesn't matter one iota because, after focussing, the virtual image distance for each individual eye is always the same. See Dioptre Setting: Fallacy and Fact
You could even do it at 2 m on a 1951 USAF test chart with multiple line pairs/mm.
The only caveat here though is that you would have to use a tripod to maintain the distance.
If you focussed with the left eye at 2m and unintentionally set the dioptre at 1,9 m with the right eye that would be a natural difference of only 0,026 dioptres.
However, through a 7x binocular the error would amount to 1,3 dioptres and through a 10x bin it would be 2,6 dioptres!
In practice, setting on a high contrast object like a car licence plate at around 100 m should give a reliable result.
Some roof prism binoculars with a central dioptre setting (and some Porros with a rocking bridge) do have problems with the sychronicity of the focussing lenses/eyepieces and suffer from a wandering dioptre setting. Swarovski solve this by spring loading, which accounts for the different focussing torque clockwise/anticlockwise.

John

Thanks for that info, John. I didn't realize such a small error in setting the diopter could cause such a great differences, but I suppose this is what Bill Cook meant when he said that most problems people have focusing with their binoculars are due to incorrect diopter setting.

I also didn't realize the spring in the Swaros was what caused the different (and annoying to me) torque clockwise/anticlockwise. The issue is that it's not always the same on all samples or or all models. Some Swaro focusers are a lot worse than others in this regard. Up until I read your post, most people including reviewers attributed the issue to Swaro's having greaseless focusers.

So then how to Swaro fix this issue with the CL and NL's focusers? And what took them so long?! I loved the view through the SLC HDs (original, more expensive version with the 6 ft close focus), and the eye fit and ergonmics worked well for me, but I was too put off the unven focuser to buy one before they were replaced with the downscaled SLC WB.

Brock

 

[Tringa45]

Thanks for that info, John. I didn't realize such a small error in setting the diopter could cause such a great differences, but I suppose this is what Bill Cook meant when he said that most problems people have focusing with their binoculars are due to incorrect diopter setting.

Hi Brock,
Precise dioptre setting, as with focus, is easy to achieve. It's just that if done hand-held at a shorter distance, and that there is an object distance variation between focussing with the left barrel and setting the dioptre with the right barrel, errors would occur.
A distance variation between 100 m and 105 m would only result in a negligible error of 1/20th of a dioptre with a 10x binocular, so for hand-held dioptre setting medium to longer distance objects will give a more reliable setting.
It's often asserted that accommodation plays a role, but a binocular or telescope diminishes ones own accommodation capabilities by the square of the magnification.
Even children with high accommodation can achieve precise dioptre setting as I showed here Focussing: Just Do It!. My neighbour's 10 year-old repeatably set -0,5 d, both at 4 m and 80 m.

John

 

[brocknroller]

Hi Brock,
Precise dioptre setting, as with focus, is easy to achieve. It's just that if done hand-held at a shorter distance, and that there is an object distance variation between focussing with the left barrel and setting the dioptre with the right barrel, errors would occur.
A distance variation between 100 m and 105 m would only result in a negligible error of 1/20th of a dioptre with a 10x binocular, so for hand-held dioptre setting medium to longer distance objects will give a more reliable setting.
It's often asserted that accommodation plays a role, but a binocular or telescope diminishes ones own accommodation capabilities by the square of the magnification.
Even children with high accommodation can achieve precise dioptre setting as I showed here Focussing: Just Do It!. My neighbour's 10 year-old repeatably set -0,5 d, both at 4 m and 80 m.

John

Thanks, John. I read your link, and though I was intitally lost when you threw in an equation since I'm not a member of the cognoscenti nor Mensa nor the Prometheus Society. I did win the honor cord in science in 9th grade but that's about it. However, when you told the story about your neighbor's daughter, I got the gist.

My hands are fairly shaky, so for the most accurate diopter setting, I should mount my bins on a tripod. I use my neighgor's Jeep's license plate as my target, which I would estimate is about 150 ft. away. I didn't drag out the tripod, which is a heavy duty Bogan/Manfratto that I used for statgazing, but I did brace my elbows the top of a chair.

I found that although the views through my 8x32 SE looked fine on Sunday when it was sunny, the right EP was slightly out of focus today on an overcast day. So, I reset it and Man O' Man O' Shevitz, the views grew intensely sharper. I looked at a robin in a tree about a half block away, and I could see detail in its feathers. Considering how terrible my eyes are, and that it was only 8x, I was amazed. My acuity drops preciptously with the amount of light hitting the target.

When it gets warmer and the sun returns for a visit. I'm going to put the SE on a tripod (I have an SE/E2 triopd adapter) and check the diopter setting again using the same license plate and see if I can fine tune it ever better.

I've got a cataract in my left eye, so that always throws a spanner in the works. I'm only sure of my diopter setting with my Nikon 8-16x40 XL Zoom binoculars since it has the diopter on the left EP, so I follow the focus of my better eye.

Having seen the results on image sharpness from a careful set diopter, I'm going to do this with all my binoculars.

It also makes me wonder if the problem I had with the 8x42 EDG was due to an improperly set diopter. The views looked very sharp at medium distance and long distance, but near close focus (10 ft), the image was not as sharp. Or if like I accidentally did with the 8x32 EDG, if wearing gloves caused me to press down harder on the bottom of the focuser wheel and move the diopter ring underneath?

Brock