I'm not sure if I'm missing something but it appears that the 5's would offer a slightly longer position when fully extended compared to the 3's? Which is basically what I'd like, longer cups.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where is the Leica Ultravid 8x50 HD-Plus? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Conndomat
- Start date
Mike F
Well-known member
OK, I stand corrected! Both of those eyecups have the longer, taller profile, but they are also in fact different lengths overall. @F88, that presumably means that they would extend further away from the oculars.
Here are the 'longer' 3 position and the 'shorter' 5 position eyecups, left to right,
from my 12x50 and 7x42 respectively. As you can see, they are the same overall length, and the shorter 5 position eyecups are what I had assumed Leica had sent to @CharleyBird, but clearly that is not the case!Great to learn something new thanks to the community here!
tenex
reality-based
How would you describe what the problem was here? I would have thought a 7x42 among the most forgiving formats in such respects, with all that DOF. Or is that exactly what made it hard to get just right?
Indeed. I now have a 10x56 myself, to whose weight I'm no longer as averse as I would once have been, but the narrow AFOV of low-magnification bins has always kept me from understanding their alleged magic, and this seems to be an extreme case. So what's going to motivate you to pick these up and leave something lighter (even that 7x42) at home?
Conndomat
United States of Europe
The thing just broke completely, now only office works, but as you know, this is for work, not to have fun in the Birdforum, which is a pity ...
Bye for now,
Andreas
Mike F
Well-known member
So, there are apparently three different eyecup versions which are somewhat interchangeable on the x42 and x50 Leicas. In the attached picture left to right; the longer 5 position with the bigger profile, the shorter 3 position with the bigger profile, and the shorter 5 position with the smaller profile.
As the longer 5 position variant came off my Noctivid it is obviously not new as such, but it may be that Leica have made it available for the 10x42 8x50 and 12x50 more recently.
Edit: The only caveat to the above is that it's possible (I can't be sure from looking at @CharleyBird's pictures) that the eyecup from the NV is an even longer version than the alternative 5 position eyecup that he now has, but I suspect that it's the same.
As the longer 5 position variant came off my Noctivid it is obviously not new as such, but it may be that Leica have made it available for the 10x42 8x50 and 12x50 more recently.
Edit: The only caveat to the above is that it's possible (I can't be sure from looking at @CharleyBird's pictures) that the eyecup from the NV is an even longer version than the alternative 5 position eyecup that he now has, but I suspect that it's the same.
Last edited:
CharleyBird
Well-known member
Photo with the older 3-stop on left, updated 5-stop on right, showing the slight difference.
Placing the steel rule on the body and measuring to the base of the rubber eyecup by eye, the 3-stop was about 8mm, the 5-stop about 9.5mm.
So these updated eyecups (for the models specified in #26) are about 1.5mm 'longer'.
(Edited to add the 5-stop may be nearer 10mm, so about 2mm longer, but I'd rather give conservative estimated measurments)
Last edited:
dries1
Member
Firstly thanks Mike and CharlyBird for providing this info on the eyecups. It is surprising as I was wanting some extra length on my UVHD12X50 (eyecups fully extended). So I presume if I order the eyecups shown shown on the pic on post #26, I would get ~1.5mm of extra extension when eyecup is fully extended on my 12X50 UVHD s. This would help me as I could use it when viewing at Zenith with the 12X50.
Andy W.
Andy W.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
John - since I know you love accurate details, the listed weight of the 7x42 is incorrect in Leica’s specs. They seem to have swapped the 10x and 7x weights as the 7x42 weighs ~750g and is the lightest 42, I assume due to the simpler ocular design.
Like you I’m largely confused about the appeal of the 8x50. The 7x42 is much smaller, much lighter, has a much wider FOV and has basically the same exit pupil size. And it also has comfortably long eye relief. I don’t know why one would choose the 8x50 over the 7x42.
The 10x50 is much more interesting to me with its much wider AFOV, and the larger aperture allowing for a still comfy 5mm exit pupil despite the higher mag, making the extra size and weight easier to justify.
My best guess is that the appeal of the 8x50 is to large degree due to very subjective factors. The specs alone certainly don‘t explain why everything in this bino „just feels right“ to me, even more right than in the 7x42 or the 10x50. So I fully understand why people are confused. The only advice I could give is: try it out yourself and see whether you notice the appeal. Many people may not.
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Hi Eitan (post #50),
Leica seems to be slapdash about many of their spec's e.g. see the comments in posts #139 to 142 at:
www.birdforum.net
The x42 UV designs all seem to use the same objectives and prisms, with the differences being in the eyepieces
i.e. 4 lenses with the 7x42, and 5 lenses with each of the 8x42 and 10x42 - though differing in curvature and thickness
See posts #19 and 21 at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/what’s-your-favorite-7x42-binoculars.379534/
(I've no idea why the first link in this post is 'dynamic' but this one is not)
And FWIW on digital kitchen scales my 7x42 UV HD weighs in at 745 g/ 26.2 oz, and the 8x42 UV HD at 762 g/ 26.8 oz
John
Leica seems to be slapdash about many of their spec's e.g. see the comments in posts #139 to 142 at:
Retrovid 7X35 a viable birding binocular?
I have hab the Zeiss FL 8*32 some times ago for almost a year. It is a very nice binocular. I know ist is difficult to compare binos out of memory. For me in general it does not make sense to compare binoculars with different magnifications. But i would not say ist was sharper. Naturally ist is...
www.birdforum.net
The x42 UV designs all seem to use the same objectives and prisms, with the differences being in the eyepieces
i.e. 4 lenses with the 7x42, and 5 lenses with each of the 8x42 and 10x42 - though differing in curvature and thickness
See posts #19 and 21 at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/what’s-your-favorite-7x42-binoculars.379534/
(I've no idea why the first link in this post is 'dynamic' but this one is not)
And FWIW on digital kitchen scales my 7x42 UV HD weighs in at 745 g/ 26.2 oz, and the 8x42 UV HD at 762 g/ 26.8 oz
John
eitanaltman
Well-known member
Wow, so even the 8x42 spec is off! That’s the first I had seen that it was quite a bit less than the listed 790g, interesting! The worst part is they don’t seem to ever correct their specs, the incorrect weights for the UV models have been around since before the HD+! And there’s that well known goof with the FOV of the Trinovid HD models when they first came out.
On the eyecup length, and eyepieces, not sure if this was mentioned above but I think the long vs short profile depends on the ocular and how long it is (or how far it “projects” from the body).
I have this photo from when I had a Trinovid BR 10x42, which had the longer profile eyeups
Here’s a photo of my 7x42 HD, you can see the ocular doesn’t stick out nearly as far.
For the record, my non plus 7x42 HD has 3 position eyecups, and the 10x42 Trinovid BR pictured above had 5 position.
The 3 position eyecups on my 7x42 are about 26mm long and look identical with the 5 position one on the right in Mike F’s photo above, so I suspect there’s even more versions:
On the eyecup length, and eyepieces, not sure if this was mentioned above but I think the long vs short profile depends on the ocular and how long it is (or how far it “projects” from the body).
I have this photo from when I had a Trinovid BR 10x42, which had the longer profile eyeups
Here’s a photo of my 7x42 HD, you can see the ocular doesn’t stick out nearly as far.
For the record, my non plus 7x42 HD has 3 position eyecups, and the 10x42 Trinovid BR pictured above had 5 position.
The 3 position eyecups on my 7x42 are about 26mm long and look identical with the 5 position one on the right in Mike F’s photo above, so I suspect there’s even more versions:
Last edited:
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
Hello Tenex,
Good if demanding questions!
First, 7x42 adjustment: this is a mystery to me for the reason you mention. I think I may have grudgingly — and, as it turns out, wrongly — accepted some time ago from various posters with UVHD Plus or pre-Plus problems that resolution was something you traded in for the other qualities of Leica Ultravid, such as easy and immersive view, glowing colours, compact size. It was only after corresponding quite frequently with Tobias Mennle and reading comments and advice from other UVHD Plus users that I realized the resolution for most of the view should be every bit as good as a top Zeiss or Swarovski, even though we know different makes prioritize different features. Really, I'm sure I knew that all along. Getting the adjustment right on the 7x42 was a great relief; the Leica muzziness had been a disappointment. Now at last I had all the resolution and clarity you could wish for (and I have an 8x56 FL as a demanding benchmark). To compound the problem I had had similar problems with an 8x32 UVHD Plus and began to wonder if there was something about Leica that just didn't go with my eyes. The 8x32 turned out to be a poor unit; it has since been exchanged and the replacement is now a favourite for use on a walk or a trip where I know the weight and convenience of size are deciding factors. The contrast is also very good indeed.
Getting both those sizes right when it finally happened was joyous. With that as the background, I think Andreas's recent query about the 8x50 UVHD Plus as well as Chuck and Mike's very favourable comments about the 8, 10 & 12x50 seduced me. Luckily I feel vindicated by the experience since receiving the large binoculars. Canip has explained the feeling well in his post. In practical terms there is probably very little point in my having them, unlike with the 8x32 and 7x42. In trivial terms the 8x50 completes the trilogy but in more serious vein I prefer an 8x50 to a even a 10 let alone a 12 because I can handhold it. I'm just out to enjoy them and see how it goes.
A small item to add to the revival of the cosy Leica feeling: the 8x50 was secondhand and so when I saw there would be no rainguard or objective covers I expected to have to pay dearly for Leica accessories. Ace Optics supplied a new strap FOC and a call to the Leica customer service number in London got me the answer that Leica would send me these accessories new and free of charge and postage. Apparently they check first to see you aren't a persistent chancer on free accessories then they contact you back to confirm delivery address. Well done, Leica!
Tom
Last edited:
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
Eitan,
Your third § - I would agree but the deciding factors for me are that I find 10x noticeably harder to hold still (except for the very compact light 10x42 SLC that I have) and though an avid 7x fan the magnification and 6xEP of this 8x50 are an alluring mixture, not to mention the look of the image. I seem to be lucky in that I can still see the brightness difference between an 8 or 8.5x42 and a 7x42 or 8x50.
The difference between 7x and 8x magnification is quite considerable, to me that is.
Tom
Your third § - I would agree but the deciding factors for me are that I find 10x noticeably harder to hold still (except for the very compact light 10x42 SLC that I have) and though an avid 7x fan the magnification and 6xEP of this 8x50 are an alluring mixture, not to mention the look of the image. I seem to be lucky in that I can still see the brightness difference between an 8 or 8.5x42 and a 7x42 or 8x50.
The difference between 7x and 8x magnification is quite considerable, to me that is.
Tom
tenex
reality-based
Is some sense of "ease of view" perhaps one of them? I'm sure that would be hard to explain technically. (I'd have the same question for fans of 8x56s.)
The new site not only automatically recognizes links entered as text and makes them dynamic, but even displays them in a fancy blue box like a search result. (If you click the "[ ]" icon above while editing, you can see the BBcode "unfurl" that causes this, and remove it if unwanted.) Presumably you must have entered the second link in a different way somehow that didn't trigger these features. I just experimented and found that if I type that URL in by hand, it gets converted. If I copy and paste it in, it doesn't! I hadn't noticed that before. Of course you can fix it either by using the "link" icon manually, or adding "URL" tags yourself (which you don't have to be in BBcode mode to do). Examples of three results:
https://www.birdforum.net/threads/what’s-your-favorite-7x42-binoculars.379534/
https://www.birdforum.net/threads/what’s-your-favorite-7x42-binoculars.379534/
What’s your favorite 7x42 binoculars
...... and why? (Compared to other 7x42 manufacturers)
www.birdforum.net
Last edited:
Mike F
Well-known member
Thanks for the good additional info!
Mike F
Well-known member
I tend to agree, except that the view through a 7x42 UVHD(+) is something very special. Probably, I suspect, more to do with that particular binocular than the format as such. However, a good 7x50? now that IS something(!) so I can also quite understand the appeal of an 8x50, particularly Leica's 8x50 UVHD+!
eitanaltman
Well-known member
I get what you’re saying about that subjective “magic” of the view that defy the specs, the 7x42 certainly has that intangible quality in spades.
So the appeal is that you are getting the goodness of the 6mm exit pupil without the “sacrifice” of the lower magnification, and the light gathering benefit of the larger aperture, so it’s probably off the charts in terms of viewing comfort. On the 3-way compromise axis of exit pupil, magnification, and size/weight, you are trading off the 3rd for the first two.
I just can’t see a situation where I would personally ever use it. The 7x42 is already as large as I’d want to carry around for general birding, and I don’t know where a big aperture version would fit in. One of the magical qualities of the 7x42 is that it’s barely bigger than a large premium 32mm. Here’s mine next to my 10x32 EDG, the Leica is only 100g heavier and barely larger!
So the appeal is that you are getting the goodness of the 6mm exit pupil without the “sacrifice” of the lower magnification, and the light gathering benefit of the larger aperture, so it’s probably off the charts in terms of viewing comfort. On the 3-way compromise axis of exit pupil, magnification, and size/weight, you are trading off the 3rd for the first two.
I just can’t see a situation where I would personally ever use it. The 7x42 is already as large as I’d want to carry around for general birding, and I don’t know where a big aperture version would fit in. One of the magical qualities of the 7x42 is that it’s barely bigger than a large premium 32mm. Here’s mine next to my 10x32 EDG, the Leica is only 100g heavier and barely larger!
Similar threads
