Leica Geovid HD-B review (2 Viewers)

[JabaliHunter]

a slightly different kind of review for those who are interested...
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/12/12/leica-geovid-hd-b-review/

 

[dalat]

Interesting review! Thanks for the link!

The most interesting bits I found were that the Geovid optics are apparently really good and that it really sells well, the bit about Leica pricing, and that Swaroviski refused to participate in this comparison.

Well, let's hope that Leica soon comes up with a Ultravid successor.

 

[FrankD]

I thought the review was interesting as well. My only complaint?

Tons of comments and info about ballistic information and rangefinding performance but literally nothing on optical performance characteristics. I realize folks are buying these because of the rangefinding aspect but there are also many, many individuals who would consider purchasing them based on optical performance alone.

..and as for the advertised price. For the folks that regularly buy $2400 Swarovskis, another $600 is probably not that significant.

 

[Troubador]

I also doubt whether the invoiced price from Leica, Germany to Leica, USA was just the cost of production.

International companies like Leica will decide not only how much profit they try to make on a sale but also where that profit is made. This can depend on many things such as where profits are needed to pay for investments but also where business profits are taxed most heavily.

In all likelihood the price from Germany to USA will have a profit margin in it so that the factory recovers revenues directly to help pay for investments.

Leica USA will also make a profit as they have to perform in a financially sound way and pay their way in the world.

Taken overall, I am confident the total profit accrued by Leica world-wide is more than the reviewer thinks.

Lee

 

[jan van daalen]

Two remarks:

This bin is made in Portugal (script on left barrel) and NOT Germany.
The fluorite lens is only on the focussing lens and NOT part of the objective lens system.

Jan

 

[james holdsworth]

Two remarks:

This bin is made in Portugal (script on left barrel) and NOT Germany.
The fluorite lens is only on the focussing lens and NOT part of the objective lens system.

Jan

Like water on a flame........

 

[ronh]

Very interesting, thanks Jabali.

While a few people pine for "the advantages of a Porro", I don't think any kind of Porro can beat the best modern roof. Thanks to the industry's marketing choice of making the roof prism the "chosen one", it has been aggressively refined, and finally brought up to a performance level fully equal to the Porro in my opinion. And it still maintains the advantage of compactness that made it appealing in the first place.

Reading the patent documents for the Perger prism, I concluded that the advantage of the Perger over the roof is in getting range information out of and displays into the optical path, not clearer views.

It will be interesting to see if Leica thinks there are enough nostalgia buffs to cater to them with a Perger prism normal binocular. But it won't be any cheaper, as the new rangefinder demonstrates, and I can't see why it would be any better, as good as roof prisms have become. Leica roofs could be a tad brighter it is true, but I blame their choice of antireflection coatings, not a fundamental weakness of modern multicoating technology. Zeiss FL 32mms, with their superbly coated SP roof prisms, are within a couple percent as transmissive as their AK stable mates, so it can be done, has been done. Roofs are tricky yes, but their manufacture has been mastered. Why go backwards?

Ron

 

[Steve C]

This link was in colored text in the review in the OP, it is the optical results.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/...-field-tests-the-optical-performance-results/

Like Ron, I used to think roofs were pretty much porro equivalent. Then I got those Bushnell Rangemasters. Do nothing but give that binocular the best modern glass and coatings and watch out is my current thinking. I think the high end roofs are superb, but for way more money. I have to wonder what a new porro with some bells and whistles with the same view for less than half of current $$'s roof's might do.

I for one hope the new Ultravid is just the Geovid sans rangefinder paraphernalia. Leica may have a marketing lever to push the perger as the new era best deal yet. I notice that the porro superiority was pretty visible in that review

 

[JabaliHunter]

..and as for the advertised price. For the folks that regularly buy $2400 Swarovskis, another $600 is probably not that significant.

Compared to the the Vectronix at $23,800 in one of the other reviews, you are probably right! Although that one works through glass and can range up to 30,000 yards (!) (your military has some nice toys!)...

I'm sure that it is no co-incidence that the price of the Leica HD-B is essentially the same as the combined price of a EL SV and the hand-held Leica CRF 1600-B laser. If the optical quality is competitive, then removing the cost incentive to carrying two separate devices is a shrewd marketing move.

Reading the patent documents for the Perger prism, I concluded that the advantage of the Perger over the roof is in getting range information out of and displays into the optical path, not clearer views.

That was my impression too and I'm sure that I read that this lack of separation is a significant optical weakness in the Zeiss Victory RF.

 

[pompadour]

Just thinking of the next models from Leica -
- Have users (excuse me asking you guys instead of looking this up in, e.g, previous posts in Bf.) found the separation of the objs. gives a noticeable 3D effect in this bin compared with a roof?
- Can the Perger system (again, sorry, easier than looking up remarks or locating and figuring out from a diagram) allow the objs. to be further out and horizl. with the oculars? If the answer to the first qn. is no still this separation might add that advantage, while retaining a more compact shape and easier handling than a porro.

 

[Binastro]

.In my experience Leica laser rangefinders work well through glass.

 

[brocknroller]

Very interesting, thanks Jabali.

While a few people pine for "the advantages of a Porro", I don't think any kind of Porro can beat the best modern roof. .... Why go backwards?

Ron

Ron,

Count me in that group of a "Few Good Men" who pine for another premium porro, with its advantages of better depth perception and 3-D effect and better ergonomics than the standard closed bridge roof.

Well, maybe not beat, because the SE doesn't have exotic ED glass, but then again, it doesn't have internal focuser elements that add more CA to be removed by the ED glass in the first place. But I think in a resolution test, the SE would hold up to whatever midsized $2K roof you compared it with. Take away the ED glass as in the previous generation of alphas, and it might even beat them. In a side by side comparison, the 8x32 SE beat the 8x30 SLCneu and even edged out the 8x32 EL WB.

Spending piles of money trying to perfect the roof prism bin when a porro was already better in most respects was going backwards, trying to "reinvent the wheel." The industry should have embraced the porro and gave it internal focus and then added ED glass to eliminate the extra CA that caused, but it wouldn't have needed p-coatings or dielectric coatings, and most midsized roofs wouldn't be too damned small for my hands!

Brock, a confessed porromaniac

 

[Hermann]

While a few people pine for "the advantages of a Porro", I don't think any kind of Porro can beat the best modern roof. Thanks to the industry's marketing choice of making the roof prism the "chosen one", it has been aggressively refined, and finally brought up to a performance level fully equal to the Porro in my opinion. And it still maintains the advantage of compactness that made it appealing in the first place.

Well, apparently some people don't quite agree with you here:

"Die in der Werbung als anspruchsvoller ausgelobten Ferngläser mit Dachkantprismen weisen außer ihrer Kompaktheit und der koaxialen Lage von Objektiv und Okular keinerlei Vorteile auf, im Gegenteil. Das Vorhandensein einer Dachkante, des mit einem P-Belag beschichteten Dachflächenpaares, bei den meisten Typen des Weiteren einer zu verspiegelnden Fläche sowie eines Luftspaltes sind eindeutig Nachteile, die von den Herstellern mit sehr hohem Fertigungsaufwand weitgehend, aber nicht vollständig wettgemacht werden." (Perger, Andreas: Perger-System. In: Holger Merlitz (2013): Handferngläser, Haan-Gruiten: Verlag Europa-Lehrmittel, p. 42)

Now, you might say Andreas Perger (as the inventor of the Perger-Prism) is biased, but I've heard similar statements in private from other people involved in the European optics industry. What I was told on more than one occasion was along the lines of "Porro prisms are optically better, but people only want roof prisms nowadays."

Hermann

 

[ronh]

Thank you Brock and Hermann for your good arguments against the roof. I don't think many people will be drawn to the classic Porro for its additional bulk, however.

Perger might be a little bit biassed in favor of the Perger I suppose but we can forgive that. His objections to the roof are correct of course, in principle. I only claim that they have been reduced to insensibly small effects. A more optically critical review of the new Leica rangefinder would be very interesting.

By the way, can somebody tell me if a Perger prism could function well with BK-7 glass? (it doesn't in a Porro or Schmidt Pechan) That is currently the only common prism glass that Schott makes in the "High Transmission" formula. I believe that is what is used in the Zeiss HT. If a Perger could use that glass, then it could be the brightest binocular, "in principle". Otherwise it would have a hard time beating the HT's transmission, not likely while it is the exclusive property of Leica.

Still it must be only a matter of time until BAK-4 and other prism glasses are made in "high transmission". Docter already cements the two Porro prisms in its cluster to avoid the air gap, but of course is stuck with using BAK-4.

Hey, I actually hope I'm wrong. Go, Leica!

Ron

 

[Troubador]

What I was told on more than one occasion was along the lines of "Porro prisms are optically better, but people only want roof prisms nowadays."

Hermann

Hi Hermann.

But did they really mean optically 'better', or did they really mean optically 'easier' (no critical roof to manufacture)?

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Thank you Brock and Hermann for your good arguments against the roof. I don't think many people will be drawn to the classic Porro for its additional bulk, however.

Perger might be a little bit biassed in favor of the Perger I suppose but we can forgive that. His objections to the roof are correct of course, in principle. I only claim that they have been reduced to insensibly small effects. A more optically critical review of the new Leica rangefinder would be very interesting.

By the way, can somebody tell me if a Perger prism could function well with BK-7 glass? (it doesn't in a Porro or Schmidt Pechan) That is currently the only common prism glass that Schott makes in the "High Transmission" formula. I believe that is what is used in the Zeiss HT. If a Perger could use that glass, then it could be the brightest binocular, "in principle". Otherwise it would have a hard time beating the HT's transmission, not likely while it is the exclusive property of Leica.

Still it must be only a matter of time until BAK-4 and other prism glasses are made in "high transmission". Docter already cements the two Porro prisms in its cluster to avoid the air gap, but of course is stuck with using BAK-4.

Hey, I actually hope I'm wrong. Go, Leica!

Ron

Hi Ron

I think the evidence supports your contention.

Look at the performance from 'Frank's Babies' these days which are really quite astonishing for the price. Whether they could be 5% 'better' and 15% cheaper as a porro is sort of beside the point. People wanting a slim and compact binocular can get terrific performance/value from a roof today.

Lee

 

[henry link]

Still it must be only a matter of time until BAK-4 and other prism glasses are made in "high transmission".

Ron,

Already happened in 2013. See here:

http://www.us.schott.com/advanced_o...rials/optical-glass/ht-and-htultra/index.html

So, there's no reason why there couldn't be "HT" binoculars using Schmidt-Pechans, or Porros for that matter.

Henry

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Ron, post 14,
The Swarovski Habicht 8x30 has within experimental error the same light transmission as the Zeiss Victory HT 8x42.
Gijs

 

[Hermann]

But did they really mean optically 'better', or did they really mean optically 'easier' (no critical roof to manufacture)

Optically better. Their reasoning was exactly the same as Perger's in the article I quoted.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

Look at the performance from 'Frank's Babies' these days which are really quite astonishing for the price. Whether they could be 5% 'better' and 15% cheaper as a porro is sort of beside the point. People wanting a slim and compact binocular can get terrific performance/value from a roof today.

Don't forget the Perger Prism allows much slimmer binoculars than conventional Porro I or Potto II types. The fact that the Geovid HD-B is pretty fat is in no small part due to the rangefinder.

I'm also not sure the difference between an alpha roof vs. an alpha porro would be as small as you seem to imply. I think it's well possible that the difference would be pretty obvious - but as long as there are no modern alpha quality porros on the market we'll never know for sure. The fact, however, that even an "old" porro like the Nikon SE can compete quite well with many of the top roofs with regard to optical performance, despite its obvious limitations, is quite telling IMNSHO.

Hermann