Ultravid HD edge sharpness (1 Viewer)

[Pileatus]

Has anyone compared Ultravid and Ultravid HD edge sharpness? Leica is known for relatively soft edges and it's one thing I'd like to remove from my view.

If my 7X42 Ultravid had less CA and better edges, it would be close to perfect.

John

 

[308CAL]

if it has a "swaro-esque" sweet spot?

 

[henry link]

If my 7X42 Ultravid had less CA and better edges....

John,

A good description of the Nikon 7x42 EDG. Now if Nikon can just straighten out the problem with the focusing knob.

Henry

 

[kristoffer]

What are the best features of the Leica HD's?

 

[Pileatus]

John,

A good description of the Nikon 7x42 EDG. Now if Nikon can just straighten out the problem with the focusing knob.

Henry

One can only hope!

 

[dalat]

I can't compare with the Ultravid but I own the HD, and yes, it's rather soft at the edge. I suppose that there have been no major changes in that point, at least I've never heard about that.

Edge softness is one thing that I really only see when I try hard looking for it. In normal use for birding, this is something which never ever bothers me or would reduce in any way performance or comfort of birding. I always wonder what's all that craze about edge-to-edge sharpness in bins for birding. I can't really see the benefit of total sharpness all over the field, in normal use I only look at the centre. Looking at the edge of a bin takes quite some effort and its definitely not comfortable to do, I wonder why anyone would do that other than for testing the sharpness there.
I feel that edge-to-edge sharpness is one of the few features where manufactures still can compete, while in most of the other more relevant features, differences between brands are now minimal. I guess the next generation of Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica will all have pretty good edge-to-egde sharpness, but I don't really see what that will be good for. At least for birding that is.

Is that just me and I am missing sth?

Florian

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Florian, I own the Zeiss FL, so I don't often look at the Leica forum. If you were to replaced "Leica HD" with "Zeiss FL" in this thread, it would read like threads in the Zeiss forum. Especially when the FL came out, there was a lot of grousing about edge sharpness and alleged small "sweet spot." In five years of ownership, I've never been able to see what the complaints were about. "Edge sharpness" sounds like something people fret about when weather is bad, and there's nothing to do but obsess about minor things. People have said, "When I look at a flock of birds..." Yes, but it's impossible to concentrate on all of them at once. You naturally center the bin on the particular birds of interest. I can see some legitimate concern about edge sharpness in a tripod-mounted scope, but not binoculars.

 

[308CAL]

well i noticed the lack of edge sharpness in the FL while hunting at dusk. the sweet spot was in focus but the out of focus ring was much more prominent in poor light and it annoyed me. It also had some flare issues in the sunset.

the leicas i compared to my swaro werent as noticeable until you switched back and forth between them and the swaro. once i saw the wide sweet spot, i couldnt switch back

 

[brocknroller]

I've had a 10x42 EDG on loan for two weeks now, and the edge performance is very good, no "ring of fire" at the edges. I find that very distracting and would not tolerate it in a $2K bin. I don't like it even in a $200 bin.

Being a Nikon, I expected good edges, but the unexpected good news is that the full sized EDG has pincushion!!!

The amount of "rolling ball" is the same as my 8x32 LX, which gives a smooth pan.

Not quite as smooth as the SE, but MUCH better than the full sized LX/LX Ls, which have the worst "rolling ball" I've seen in any bin. It was like looking through a wide field "fish eye" camera lens.

The colors are also closer to what I see with my unaided eye than the warmer-skewed color palette of the LX L series, which makes reds look orangey and blues look purplish.

The EDG has the best ergonomics of any roof I've tried. Not too long like the Promaster, with enough room for my fingers in the open space, and the thumb indents are well placed for my hands and shallow enough to use comfortably with my thumbs back when looking high in trees.

I'll post more comments on the EDG thread when I'm finished using them (Steve Moore also tested the resolution in this sample, though it was an overcast day, not the best conditions, but it still came out very good).

A Zeiss 10x42 FL probably "edges" out the Nikon in centerfield sharpness, but I'd rather give up a little (and I mean little, this bin is very sharp) center sharpness for better edge sharpness.

Once Nikon fixes the focuser, and they start marketing them overseas after the economy picks up, I think the EDG is going to give the FL, Ultravids, and even Swaro ELs some stiff competition when they start finding their way into more birders' and hunters' hands.

Brock

 

[Pileatus]

Edge softness can be VERY distracting, especially if your eyes have little or no ability to accommodate.

I believe many reviewers unknowingly correct binocular inefficiencies with good eyesight, resulting in very narrow reviews. If you don't see CA and soft edges never bother you, count your blessings. Swarovski is building the new EL specifically to address CA and soft edges. Considering the price, I'd bet Swarovski is going after old folks with cash in the bank.

Thanks for the specific comments regarding edge sharpness in the Ultravid HD. I suspected they didn't change a thing but, again, one can hope!

John

 

[John M Robinson]

When I bought my 8x42 Ultravid BRs two years ago I spent hours at the store over the course of a week, then a full weekend at home comparing them to the 8.5x42 ELs. There were things I liked about both binoculars and I would have been happy with either pair, but I ended up with the Leica's. The real deal breaker with the Swaros was that blue-green ring around the whole view right at the edge. It just distracted me. I really liked the edge to edge view of that particular pair of Ultravids. Since I noticed that blue-green ring around the edge I now notice it in most Swaros but I accept it better now as just one of those design trade offs.

The other issues that pushed me to the Leica were I liked the case and rain covers better, but the compactness of the Leica is the biggest factor. I have corrected 20-10 vision and I really didn't notice a drop off in edge sharpness to the point it bothered me. Like someone said, I'll move my eye around in the view and if something off center interest me, I'll move that item to the center of the bin.

John

 

[APSmith]

I find edge sharpness to be one of the most critical factors in the enjoyment (and usefulness) of binoculars. I suspect it is one of the key challenges which optical designers face - that is, achieving a large area that is of acceptable sharpness. As discussed here previously, it seems to be one of the issues which distinguishes alpha from sub-alpha.

That said, can anyone give a comparison of sweet spots between the Leica Trinovid 8x32 and the Leica Ultravid 7x42? I realize these are different animals, but which one has the largest sweet spot?

APS

 

[dalat]

Edge softness can be VERY distracting, especially if your eyes have little or no ability to accommodate.

That may be. As i have good eyesight, I don't know if I actually perceive the lack of edge-sharpness less than others. However in my HDs, there certainly remains an area at the edge that is not sharp also to my eyes. It does not bother me though, as in normal use I never try to focus there. As others have said, the natural reaction is rather to move the bin to have the area of interest in the central area, eg. once I see moving a bird around the edge.

I am still not sure if there is a difference in perception of the sharpness, or if there is just a different way of use or priorities. So maybe you can explain a bit more: when do you perceive the lack of sharpness at the edge, when does it bother you? When you are turning your eyes towards the edge only? Or also when you actually are looking at the centre?

I myself feel that when looking at the centre, anyway the area at the edge is blurry, so even if it would be totally sharp there I would not realize it.


As for CA, this is also sth. that does not bother me in most situations (eg. birding inside the forest), however there are certainly many situations where I see CA (raptors on the sky, perched birds against the sky) and where it would bother me if it would not be pretty well corrected (at least in the central area, but again, that's where it matters to me).

Florian

 

[brocknroller]

....

I am still not sure if there is a difference in perception of the sharpness, or if there is just a different way of use or priorities. So maybe you can explain a bit more: when do you perceive the lack of sharpness at the edge, when does it bother you? When you are turning your eyes towards the edge only? Or also when you actually are looking at the centre? ....

Florian

I notice it mostly while panning. My eyes dart ahead to the right or left and into the "zone of unknowingness". That bothers me, because I'm looking for a bird in the fuzzy edges.

If the sweet spot is very small (e.g., Celestron 8x32 Ultima, Jap. version) I will even notice the fuzzy edges while looking at the center, and it will strain my eyes, because they will try to focus the blurry area no matter how much I try to keep my eyes centered.

In a wide field bin, 70% sharpness from the center is acceptable, with a gradual fall off to the edge from there.

Even a steep fall off at that point in a WF bin would be tolerable. I had a Minolta 7x35 Activa WP FP, and the sharpness fell off at 70% and went blurry quickly after that.

The Minolta's FOV was 9.3*, so that still gave me 6.5* of sharp images.

However, take 70% away from a 6.5* FOV bin, and what's left - 4.5* - would be less tolerable for me.

Steve Ingraham explained Zeiss's design philosophy on his now defunct "zbirding" Website.

The idea was to get as sharp an image as possible within the "zone of critical sharpness," which he said was 30% away from the center.

So over 60% of the overall FOV, the image is sharp, with the image at 30% off center being as sharp as the center, but then falling off rapidly after that.

With the Nikon 8xEII, 8xSE, 10xLX, and 10xEDG, the center is very sharp, but the "critical sharpness" starts falling off before 30% out.

However, the fall off is so gradual that you probably won't see this in normal use. For daytime observing, the image appears to be sharp to the edge in each bin.

In the case of the 12x50 SE, the images holds up well off axis even in a star test, staying sharp to about 90% toward the horizontal edges.

Same for the 10x42 LX and 10x42 EDG, which have larger fields of view.

On the vertical axis edges, the EDG shows a small amount of field curvature, which can be refocused right at the very edge. If my focus accommodation were better, I'd probably see the image sharp from edge to edge, because it only requires a small nudge to refocus.

The fact that I started out using bins for stargazing probably influences my design choice.

I was used to seeing sharp edges, so when I bought my first birding bin (the least expensive from Ingraham's BVD reference list, the Celestron 8x32 Ultima), I was disappointed with the fuzzy edges, which weatherman/optics reviewer Todd Gross called "crummy" - a good description!

After doing some research, it appeared that Jap. made Nikons were my best bet for sharp edges. Indeed, even my 1980s 7x35 WF Action and 8x35 WF Action have good edges - better than some alpha bins from what I've read - and they are very sharp on axis - the 8x35 rivals the 8x32 SE. They sold for under $100.

It appears that manufacturers can make a bin with a sharp center and sharp edges at low price points.

So why would I accept less from $2K alphas?

Brock

 

[ronh]

Guys with the finest binoculars made are ususally the ones who say they don't care about edge sharpness, they'll just center the bird if they want to look at it. They even claim this or that alpha (the Zeiss FL is the current whipping boy) has "poor edge sharpness".

HAW HAW! It's easy to get spoiled. I have one of those Japanese Ultimas too, and even though its a narrow-fielded 10x50, the small sweet spot and abysmal edge are really distracting. It's like the confusion is closing in on your consciousness, just before you pass out from the general anesthetic.
Ron

 

[jaymoynihan]

... sharp center and sharp edges at low price points. ...

So why would I accept less from $2K alphas?

Brock

So, what alphas, currently in production, are sharp across the field?

 

[falcondude]

So, what alphas, currently in production, are sharp across the field?

I thought Ultravid can fill in that spot. But after reading the comments, it does not seem to be case. Maybe future EL that is due next year. My EL is sharp till 65-70% from center. It is perfectly fine with me.

 

[brocknroller]

So, what alphas, currently in production, are sharp across the field?

That would be the aforementioned Nikon EDG!

Brock

 

[308CAL]

That would be the aforementioned Nikon EDG!

Brock

i would say the SLCnew 7x42 and EL 8.5x42 are pretty darn sharp across the field as well

 

[Fireform]

No binocular is sharp from edge to edge, whatever the ads say. The 7x42 and 8x32 EDGs I've had came the closest, though. They are certainly alpha binoculars, albeit a different flavor of alpha from Z/L/S.