HD vs HD plus (1 Viewer)

[kabsetz]

My experience with various Leica HD/HD+ models is the same as Jremmons's. I couldn't reliably differentiate between them with visual comparison. When I know which is which, I can convince myself that I see a small difference, but would not dare to make a bet that I could tell them apart without external cues.

Sample differences in aberration levels can, however, cause the image of one binocular to be clearer and purer to enough of a degree that the difference becomes reliably recognisable, and that means more to me than slight transmission differences.

Kimmo

 

[Canip]

Gijs (post # 19),
thank you. Yes, that may be a valid explanation.
Kimmo‘s and jremmons’ experiences and your transmission measurements confirm my (and my test group‘s) experience that the difference is almost not, if at all, perceptible with the eye, so I think (no offense intended) that those reports that indicated a recognizable difference in brightness and/ or sharpness between HD and HD+, were in fact based on the „when I know which is which“ situation described by Kimmo.

 

[adhoc]

From page 1 of of a 6-page (presently) thread on the Uv.+ 7x42 begun Dec. 2015. [Link]
8x42:

...In direct comparison between HD and HD+, the latter has noticeably less CA, the image looks sharper with more micro contrast and sparkle, it looks cleaner, almost "washed clean", and shows more detail in shadowy areas.

It also looks brighter, which makes sense given the transmission increase...

7x42:

I found the same results with my 7x42 HD+ compared to a non-HD 7x42. It's hard to explain, but the HD+ image just feels brighter, cleaner, with amazing detail in the shadows. Both are great, but the HD+ wins every time...

 

[typo]

FWIW, I briefly compared the HD to the plus when it was first launched and would agree with Torview and John Frink. A clear difference, and an improvement for me. I was told at the time that it was only a coating upgrade.

I think we need to keep in mind that there is significant variation in individual eyesight, including colour discrimination, and it would be quite remarkable if we did agree.

David

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Canip, post 22,
I have only investigated the 8x32HD and HD-plus and the 8x42HD and HD-plus, but what I could see with my eyes is a slightly better performance at lower light levels of the 8x42HD-plus (observed it before measuring transmission spectra) and my observations were actually confirmed by the transmission measurements, since the improvement in transmission is roughly 3% in the blue part of the spectrum, whereas it is smaller in the other part of the spectrum.
With the 8x32HD and HD-plus I could not see these differences although I tried very hard. Perhaps a slightly better performance at lower light levels is what Leica had in mind when it introduced the HD-plus series, but our facilities for mind reading recently broke down, so we could not check that.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Troubador]

our facilities for mind reading recently broke down, so we could not check that.
Gijs van Ginkel

You could borrow mine Gijs but I can't remember where I put them.....

Lee

 

[adhoc]

My last post (#23 above):
Oops, I noticed only now that the second quote there compares not HD+ vs HD but HD+ vs Non-HD. To make up for this I scrutinized the rest of that thread but found nothing more on HD+ vs HD.

Post #25: "...our facilities for mind reading..."
Substitute "brain" for mind there and we are on our way. Scientists and engineers may even now have gone further than the media knows in modeling the optic-neural system, as they have with those other exhilarating/terrifying advances in AI.

 

[dries1]

I checked my 8X42HD against the HD+ in 8X42 and a 10X50 HD and my HD+, this was out in the field - I saw so difference. I only bought the HD+ in 10X50 because of the offered price by a known dealer to me. I would have purchased an HD 10X50 after looking through both, for the right price of course. Save your money there are great deals here in the US on the HD.

A.W.

 

[Canip]

Gijs (posts #19 and 25),

a final remark from my side: last week, I had a chance to compare my 8x50 HD with an 8x50 HD Plus in Zurich, side-by-side and both mounted on tripods.

The image in the HD Plus was both brighter and whiter than in the HD, and this was immediately recognizable in the side-by-side comparison.

The difference was clear, but it was not huge. Would I have recognized it without having the two instruments at 30cm from each other, so that I could easily switch back and forth between the two? I am not sure.

Canip

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Canip, post 29,
I agree with you that the differences are small and especially with the 8x32 hardly visible, but measurable as the transmission spectra show. The customer has to decide if he/she finds it important.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[harleydkc]

In my experience and for my eyes, the difference is minimal, if any.

A while ago, I even had a group of six people do a „blind study“, comparing the 8x32 HD and 8x32 HD Plus side by side with the „HD“ sign covered so the two binos would look exactly the same. The HD was named the better bino as many times as the HD Plus (I reported the results on a German optics forum).

I also have the Ultravid 7x42 in both HD and HD Plus, and again, the difference is minimal, if recognizable at all.

My personal view: the improvement of the HD Plus over the HD does not show in „normal use“. So you would not regret buying the HD version; as Jerry mentioned, it is a very nice bino.

Canip

Canip

thank you for the info, I have ultravid 8x32 HD and have been wanting to upgrade to the HD+ but reading your post plus others i think i will stick to my 8X32HDs and save my money

 

[David in NC]

My 8x42 HDs on a recent pontoon boat tour of Lake Jocasse SC...

 

[[email protected]]

Allbino's test of the Leica Ultravid 10x42 and Ultravid Plus 10x42 says there isn't a lot of difference between the two or even the older BR. In fact the Plus tested almost identical in every aspect to the regular Ultravid. They even say the Ultravid HD doesn't differ that much from the Ultravid BR and the Ultravid BR is almost identical to the Trinovid. Their testing isn't perfect but it is objective rather than just subjective.

"Year 2014 saw another Leica launch, this time of the Ultravid HD-Plus series. Still, if you compare these devices to the Ultravid HD binoculars you find out all the numbers remained the same. The producer just boasted of using glass of new type produced by the Schott company, with a better transmission. 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 clothed 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 second-hand specimen of Trinovids in mint condition for half the price of the new Ultravids HD-Plus."

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html
https://www.allbinos.com/148-binoculars_review-Leica_Trinovid_10x42_BN.html
https://www.allbinos.com/143-binoculars_review-Leica_Ultravid_10x42_BR.html
https://www.allbinos.com/216-binoculars_review-Leica_Ultravid_10x42_HD.html
https://www.allbinos.com/302-binoculars_review-Leica_Ultravid_HD-Plus_10x42.html

 

[PHA]

Hi denco,

I don't speak because published "test". Having had for a 5 years a BA 10x42, and used a lot one of the first Ultravid HD (non +) also 10x42, I can ASSURE you the Ultravid was A LOT more brighter and with a markedly better contrast and general "sharpness" than the BA!!! The dielectric prism coatings of the Ultravid (since the first one non HD) vs. the silver coating of the BA/BN series, plus another thing I doesn't now, made the difference. Anyway, when I bought the BA I had a chance to buy this or a just arrived BN. I selected the BA because, between those samples, the slightly older BA was sharper! I don't mind the BN shorter focusing distance. I think also the BA/BN were made "like a tank", usually said. But I cannot find any weakness in the construction of the UV!!!
But, I repeat, that UV HD was distinctly brighter without any question, to ME!

Best!

PHA

 

[Pileatus]

Hi denco,

I don't speak because published "test". Having had for a 5 years a BA 10x42, and used a lot one of the first Ultravid HD (non +) also 10x42, I can ASSURE you the Ultravid was A LOT more brighter and with a markedly better contrast and general "sharpness" than the BA!!! The dielectric prism coatings of the Ultravid (since the first one non HD) vs. the silver coating of the BA/BN series, plus another thing I doesn't now, made the difference. Anyway, when I bought the BA I had a chance to buy this or a just arrived BN. I selected the BA because, between those samples, the slightly older BA was sharper! I don't mind the BN shorter focusing distance. I think also the BA/BN were made "like a tank", usually said. But I cannot find any weakness in the construction of the UV!!!
But, I repeat, that UV HD was distinctly brighter without any question, to ME!

Best!

PHA

You bet.
The UV/BR is brighter than the earlier Trinovid BA/BN.
The UV/HD Plus models are a tad brighter than the UV but the differences are nominal.
All these models are excellent bins and I'd happily use a 7X42 BN any day of the week...and twice on Sunday!

 

[cohenfive]

Sorry to resurrect this old thread, but I could use some help. I'm considering buying a pair of binocs for my wife for birding/wildlife. We have 10x42 leica that are about 12 years old and have served us well. But she recently borrowed someone's swarovski 12x50's and fell in love..but she still loves me too!

Anyway, in looking at reviews it seems that the UV hd/hd + are about the equal of the swarovski en, and are a bit less expensive. I've been looking around and can get an as new with warranty pair of the uv hd + for $2k, and the same in the uv hd for $1750.

Trying to figure out whether I should expect any noticeable difference in performance between the two in the 12x50 model...Trying to keep costs down if possible, but if the new ones will perform better it is probably worth spending a bit more.

Thanks!

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

cohenfive, post 36,
The only way to solve this challenge is to try both binocuars side by side, our advise probably does not help a bit because you have to taken personal taste into account.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[dries1]

12x50

cohenfive, post 36,
The only way to solve this challenge is to try both binocuars side by side, our advise probably does not help a bit because you have to taken personal taste into account.
Gijs van Ginkel

I wholeheartedly agree with this.:t:
Additionally if one wears glasses, eye relief will be important.

Andy W.

 

[mpeace]

Cohenfive, if she's "fallen in love" with the 12x50 El why aren't you getting her those? Price difference isn't much relatively (they're both expensive) and you know she loves the ELs. My main concern with the Leica's is the eye relief (13mm vs 19mm for the EL), which is a bit small especially if she wears glasses. Might be fine, but as I say at least with the EL's you know there's no problem.

 

[SeldomPerched]

The following may or may not be helpful as it involves comparing 8 x 42 HD with 7 x 42 HD Plus (which I bought to replace the 8 x).

The 7 x 42 HD Plus has something extra that just lifts the experience into another dimension - very unscientific but clearly noticeable to me.

The trouble is of course that I am comparing sevens with eights and so some of the extra snap I see may be to do with the smaller magnification, steadier apparent handheld image, or just something due to the different optics regardless of any Plus upgrade.

But I see this wow factor in both 8 x 32 and 7 x 42 HD Plus models, whereas I was never convinced by my 8 x 42 HD. Then again, that could be due to sample variation.

All three were new purchases so presumably had not been dropped, heavily dinged, etc.

All the best,

Tom