Leica 7x42 Ultravid checks all the boxes (best binoculars) (1 Viewer)

[chill6x6]

@chill - I was wondering if you had rephrased your original wording in that post? But your observation (though the result of far more hours in the field) definitely chimes with the (much more limited) comparisons I've had myself. I thought the 10x50 Meostar was so close to the 10x50 Ultravid HD+ (much vaunted by some here) that if anyone was interested in the latter they really ought to look very seriously at the latter. But then I also thought the 10x50 UVHD+ to be bettered by Swarovski's EL model in pretty much every respect except handling/size. The Noctivid is certainly a step forward optically from that range IMO.



Wasn't a copyright claim by Swarovski over the open bridge the main reason why the EDG 1 got nixed? Nikon ought to have issued them with a (removable) plastic bar between the two hinges and countered the claim with the contention that the binocular they were riffing off was Zeiss' 7x42 Dialyt!

Yes...I corrected the 7X42 Retrovid to 7X35. I used my Meostar 7X42 the other day....it rarely gets used....it's such a nice binocular. I never felt the need for anything else.

The open bridge copyright may have been the reason. I do know the armoring issue was there as well. I have the Gen 1 7X42 and the Gen 2 8X42 and really no issues with either one.

 

[chill6x6]

I understand, Thank you. I’m not familiar with the gen 1. I have the gen 2 8x42 late production, everything on it is stellar. No issue with hinge, armor is heavy and thick. Probably could take a fall better than most. I have heard others complain about the unusual diopter design as well as some say it drifts. I set mine when I received it , and haven’t touched it since.

They truly are superlative , the eye box is so comfortable, there’s no searching for position like some of the latest and greatest. The focusers feel is as good as it gets, imho. The image is beautiful as well, and as you say, very easy on the eyes.

Paul

I've thought about getting a 7X42 gen 2 but so far the gen 1 is going strong.

For those that don't know the difference between a gen 1 and 2 EDG....l to r gen 1 7X42, 8X32, and gen 2 8X42...

 

[Paultricounty]

I've thought about getting a 7X42 gen 2 but so far the gen 1 is going strong.

For those that don't know the difference between a gen 1 and 2 EDG....l to r gen 1 7X42, 8X32, and gen 2 8X42...

Correct if I’m wrong on this but I’m under the impression the gen 1 & 2 were the same optics, just different body.

 

[chill6x6]

Correct if I’m wrong on this but I’m under the impression the gen 1 & 2 were the same optics, just different body.

That's completely my understanding.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Paul and Chuck,

Yes, the two EDG versions are optically the same. The optics along with other details, can be seen in post #13 at:
Nikon EDG 7x42 floating diopter question

The original EDG was introduced in 2009, with the modified version dating from 2011.

Following the EDG's introduction, Swarovski who had introduced the EL Swarovision in 2009, initiated legal action against Nikon.
They alleged patent infringement in relation to the details of the focuser mechanism (not the shared 2 hinge/ open bridge design).

And whether at fault or not (?), Nikon changed the focus mechanism.


John

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi Paul and Chuck,

Yes, the two EDG versions are optically the same. The optics along with other details, can be seen in post #13 at:
Nikon EDG 7x42 floating diopter question

The original EDG was introduced in 2009, with the modified version dating from 2011.

Following the EDG's introduction, Swarovski who had introduced the EL Swarovision in 2009, initiated legal action against Nikon.
They alleged patent infringement in relation to the details of the focuser mechanism (not the shared 2 hinge/ open bridge design).

And whether at fault or not (?), Nikon changed the focus mechanism.


John

Interesting that EDG can be submerged into 16 feet of water for ten minutes , yet they recommend not putting under running water. And if wet should be wiped off before using the binoculars. Seems kind of odd, does that mean they can get rained on, but don’t use them until you dry them off.


Paul

 

[Ratal]

Interesting that EDG can be submerged into 16 feet of water for ten minutes , yet they recommend not putting under running water. And if wet should be wiped off before using the binoculars. Seems kind of odd, does that mean they can get rained on, but don’t use them until you dry them off.


Paul

Right. A static water column such as 16 feet below the surface, is not the same as a dynamic water column such as under a running tap. I know it sounds odd, but the depth is a constant known where as the running water has all manner of variables and can seek out imperfections and ferret it's way in over time.


As for the rain and dry them off part. Makes total sense, as you will operating the binocular, turning wheels and other such mechanical movements. This could in theory allow water ingress into the mechanism.

In the real world we use our binoculars as tools and they take a beating.

 

[Scott98]

In the real world we use our binoculars as tools and they take a beating.

What? They're not "tools", they're family members, around here they're coddled and spoiled and sleep on feather mattresses

 

[Patudo]

In the real world we use our binoculars as tools and they take a beating.

Who's "we"? Not most of the folks who put up photos of their binoculars here, that's for sure... 😸

 

[GrampaTom]

me.

 

[chill6x6]

Who's "we"? Not most of the folks who put up photos of their binoculars here, that's for sure... 😸

Binocular categories:

1. Binoculars I really don't like and look brand new because they are never used
2. Binoculars I really do like but I like another better so they aren't used much and look brand new
3. Binoculars I really like and I use them a lot but I really take care of them and they still look pretty good
4. Binoculars I really like but they are really used regardless of the conditions...they may kinda look it too

 

[GrampaTom]

Binocular categories:

1. Binoculars I really don't like and look brand new because they are never used
2. Binoculars I really do like but I like another better so they aren't used much and look brand new
3. Binoculars I really like and I use them a lot but I really take care of them and they still look pretty good
4. Binoculars I really like but they are really used regardless of the conditions...they may kinda look it too

Ah! The stages of recovery for gearheads... Sorta

For moi:
Stage 1 bye, bye, PDQ
Stage 2 sooner or later going to be gone, but cant bring myself to act on that impulse yet
Now things get interesting maybe cuz thats where I am in current recovery.
Stage 3 the epitome of THAT collection. Those are idealized, too nice to use, lovely to have and to hold. BUT then. Why?
Stage 4 Maybe nirvana, having arrived, the true meaning, (edit: shoulda said, value) of an inanimate object... utility. The answer to why.

 

[quincy88]

Yep. UV 7x42s are the best binocular out there. Its not even all that close.