Which is the most popular x42s (x43) bino?

[SzimiStyle]

Hi Folks,

I would like to know what is your favorite binocular. I am planning to buy a new binocular later on but have no idea which model to choose from the top end products most probably listed here. If you have time please share your ideas and experiences pros and cons. Would be great to see besides your vote on the poll.

Thanks for participating in this game.:smile:

Hug, Szimi

[Colin Key]

Can't (won't) answer this until I get some response to my previous post here:

Just wondered whether anyone has got their hands on any of the new Ultravid HD range, and if so what is their opinion. I currently have the "old" Ultravid 10x42 which are excellent, but still reckon that my even "older" Trinovid 10x50 BA are better optically (but with advancing years they feel as though I have a bag of cement around my neck).

Since the new model seems to be trickling through and I understand that the current Ultravids are now being discounted to shift stock, the price differential makes the HDs roughly 50% more expensive. I cannot believe that they could be optically and mechanically 50% better than the old model.

Some mates who went to the last Bird Fair had a look through what was there on the Leica stand and, although they said there was a lot of "ooohing and aaaghing", they could not detect any noticeable improvement in IQ.

There could be a reason for this: one of my friends (who is in the optical glass business, but nothing to do with "sports optics") who recently went to see a well known retailer in the U.K. was told that although the models on show at the BF were the new HD housing, they just had the old Ultravid glass in them because they could not meet the BF deadline for prototype production. Gossip maybe, but given Leica's recent problems it just might be true.

Apology for long post but I am the sort of person who gets a bit "itchy" when a "new and improved model" is released, and with the Leica HDs, Televid 82mm APO 'scope, and Canon's 800 mm lens coming this year it is going to be quite an expensive time!

Colin

[SzimiStyle]

Let me correct the list as the HD version from Leica seems to be too fresh for having field experiences. Please, in case, use the Leica vote for the older Ultravid model.

Szimi

[SzimiStyle]

Can't (won't) answer this until I get some response to my previous post here

So are you punishing me as others didn't check your post?:err::smile:
Hmmm...

[Colin Key]

So are you punishing me as others didn't check your post?:err::smile:
Hmmm...

No, no, no. I am as eager as you to find out which is the best model of 10x42 but I had hoped that someone would have "picked up" on my query about the Ultravid HDs.

The "word on the block" is that the currently discounted "old" Ultravids are a great bargain. I personally cannot see the new HD's being any great improvement, and certainly not worth the price ("better bins do not see better birds"). My wife has Swaro 10x42 ELs which are very good, but I prefer the feel of the Leicas. I must say, that my first "real" bins were Zeiss Dialyt 10x40s (or was it 42s, can't remember) and ergonomically they were the best I have had - unfortunately not waterproof, but I did like the design and the "feel".

You do realise that we are all being taken for a very expensive ride with this "verbal techno ...." publicity? :ohdear:

Colin

[Colin Key]

O.K. I have now voted (for Leica). BUT, I did meet someone a few weeks ago who had the Zeiss FL 10x42 which he let me use (and adjust to my own eyesight) and I thought that they were wonderful, both optically and mechanically (the focus wheel was far smoother then any Leica or Swaro I have handled).

Colin:cool:

[SzimiStyle]

Yes, as a professional bird photographer I know what you mean. The prices are way too high but we somehow always looking for the most recent products released.

Back to the the main topic. I have just sold my Swaro EL 10x42. I am looking for a different product which is reliable both mechanically and optically. Of course I had no problem with the optical quality of the Swaro but mechanically I didn't like it. The usability of this product is not the one I need in the field. E.g. too much time with focusing from zero to infinity.

Szimi

[SzimiStyle]

O.K. I have now voted (for Leica). BUT, I did meet someone a few weeks ago who had the Zeiss FL 10x42 which he let me use (and adjust to my own eyesight) and I thought that they were wonderful, both optically and mechanically (the focus wheel was far smoother then any Leica or Swaro I have handled).

Colin:cool:

After reading Brian's experience I had the same feeling Zeiss should be my next binocular. :smile:

Szimi

[Colin Key]

Off-topic, but I have just visited your blog and website Szimi - EXCELLENT, very professional and with some wonderful images.

Well done,

Colin :certifiable:

[Brian S]

Szimi

If Swarovski are off your target, then it would have to be Zeiss, Leica or Nikon.

Zeiss obviously make both 10x and 8x, both of which are excellent. They are extremely comfortable to use, though as with the 8x Swarovskis the 8x is larger; optically they perform well, as you would expect.

The Leicas are equally good, with a very neutral image-colour, but the difference in image quality are marginal. I like the compact body, which feels nice in the hand.

Nikon also make excellent binoculars, and the 8x42s are again excellent. They are now lighter and feel comfortable to hold, and optically equal to the others.

The optical differences between the above three makes are marginal - there is also very slight differences between individual units. Personal preferences come into play to such an extent that my advice has to be try them out. In my opinion, I would not go for any of the 10x models, but rather stick with slightly less magnification but more light-gathering of the 8s or 8.5s.

Brian S

[Colin Key]

The usability of this product is not the one I need in the field. E.g. too much time with focusing from zero to infinity.

Szimi

I could be wrong (and Brian might be able to correct me here), but I am fairly sure that Swarovski addressed this problem by altering the gearing in later versions of the ELs. So, if this is your main concern with the Swaros, and your own was an early unit, you might find that more recent ones are better in this respect.

Just another thought: the new Leicas have only a ten year warranty. I mention this because I have had to send both my 10x50 Trinovids and my 10x42 Ultravids back to Leica Germany for warranty repairs. The Trinovids went back because the shroud on the hinge fell off, and then back again because the focus wheel was very rough and "jerky" when they were returned. The Ultravids went back because the rubber armouring became loose (not an uncommon problem, I believe). Good service each time and the bins came back totally refurbished and looking brand new, but should this have been necessary? Just to balance things out, my wife's Swaro 10x42EL went back because an eye-cup kept falling off and the focus wheel became so stiff it was impossible to move with one finger. My Swaro ATS 80HD 'scope is also going back because the main barrel is constantly unscrewing itself. I should add that we are meticulous when it comes to looking after our gear, so these problems are not due to rough usage.

A final thought - did you you know that Leica binoculars are "Made in Portugal"? We all assume, I suppose, that we are buying superbly engineered German merchandise but as far as their bins are concerned (don't know about 'scopes) the optics are manufactured in China, the bodies are made in Germany and the units are assembled in Lisbon.

Colin :ohdear:

[SzimiStyle]

How I should understand that '... but the difference in image quality are marginal' at Leicas? Are they considerably 'worst' in image quality?
Based on the feedback and study I would buy Zeiss now if purchase would be urgent now.
The question is open for me as the 8x or 10x bino should be a perfect tool.
I still look for other comments :)
Come on guys :):ohdear: Looks not many birders like to browse forums :)

Szimi

[Colin Key]

Just to lighten this up a bit (gear talk can get a bit serious), I have taken the liberty of copying and attaching (rather than linking to the thread) a very humorous post by "ThoLa" from Germany posted on BF:


Dear Combatestant!

Congratulations. You are the lucky winner of the 1st prize of our competition. You have won one of the first specimens to be delivered of the brandnew, inflatable Zeica Ultrawit 8x42 LD*. After all air has been squeezed out, this revolutionary new *Low Definition device can be neatly folded to fit into any normal shirt pocket, making it the first and only full-size pocket binocular! The body of this spectacular novel optical device is made out of Leicanium, a high-grip, space-age plastic alloy.

As sole contestant in our prestigious prize-draw you will receive as an extra the Lone Rider Support Award, which is a can of pressurized LeicrogenTM - a secret and very special mix of gases, exclusively made for an exclusive select group of customers from 100%, unadulterated hot air by our internationally highly acclaimed marketing department. Safety is guaranteed by the silk-tie boys who recently got through with their claim that our new flouride-HD-GLASS-lenses consist of fluorite CRYSTALS, which - crystals and glass being mutually exclusive physical categories - despite being pure nonsese nevertheless helped the hype (and thus sales numbers).
LeicrogenTM is a time-proven, fluorescent, psychedelic gas mixture that tints the world slightly pink to make it more pleasant, that has been used for years by the much-feared Swiss Navy, who uses LeicrogenTM - patent pending - to inflate the floating tanks of their submarines, the Swiss Coast Guard’s rubber boats, their captains personal rubber ducks, and other critical rubber devices that sailors need when being off-shore for months!

You may use it at your convenience to inflate you new „device“ whenever a „pretty bird“ comes in sight. LeicgrogenTM is inserted into the Ultrawit via a nozzle that replaces the conventional diopter setting which is now done by simply squeezing the stiffened, unfoccused barrel hard enough.

Your 1st prize will be delivered to your door by the SN-DL SAS (Swiss Navy’s Dry Land Sqecial Action Squat). Your address is known to us courtesy of the Mayor of Geneva’s office.

On behalf of the admiral of the Fleet,
Donald Rumsduck

Very funny, I thought,

Colin :laugh:

[SzimiStyle]

I could be wrong (and Brian might be able to correct me here), but I am fairly sure that Swarovski addressed this problem by altering the gearing in later versions of the ELs. So, if this is your main concern with the Swaros, and your own was an early unit, you might find that more recent ones are better in this respect.

Well the focusing issue was only one part of the problem. The second was the rubber loosening which I don't like. The third one is again the focusing ring. The black rubber cover was many times slipped while focusing disabling smooth movement.

A final thought - did you you know that Leica binoculars are "Made in Portugal"? We all assume, I suppose, that we are buying superbly engineered German merchandise but as far as their bins are concerned (don't know about 'scopes) the optics are manufactured in China, the bodies are made in Germany and the units are assembled in Lisbon.

I have spent almost 6 years in a multinational company which opened a factory in Hungary a few years ago. I have to say that the quality of products was produced here was any worst than those made in Germany or in Finland. I have no fear that Leicas are became worst because of the non native production. The processes are the same. I have visiting Leica's factory in Germany where they produce only photo gear. Optics are pre produced in China and the fine tuning 'Leica style' done in Germany by hand mainly. It was amazing to see.

Besides that I have no idea why Leica lost a part of its reputation. I also owned a Trinovid which I sold also. :(

Szimi

[SzimiStyle]

:laugh::laugh:

[Colin Key]

It does not really matter what product we are talking about these days (cars, washing machines, binoculars), you do not really know where it has been produced or assembled. The Asian manufacturing industry is such that whatever product you have for sale, you can always find someone who can make an almost identical product, but cheaper. This involves cheaper labour, cheaper raw materials and "cutting corners" on quality control.

I have always found it rather suspicious that the "Big 3" (Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski) always come up with similar competitive products at almost exactly the same price (cartel?).

I think that when the emerging markets (China and India, to name but two) get their act together we will see some drastic price reductions in "recreational optics".

Colin

[SzimiStyle]

Till those things happen I need to find a solution to watch birds which will be reproducing the best and the most beautiful image quality while on a pelagic trip or deep in an Ecuadorian or an Indonesian rain forest. :ohdear:

Szimi

[Colin Key]

I think that the Zeiss 10x42 FL will be my next binocular. I was put off some time ago by a (dreadful) review by someone called Stuart Winter in Birdwatching magazine referring to these bins as "Ferrari optics in a Skoda body". In retrospect (since Skoda are now owned by VW) I find the comment a great compliment.

Colin :smile::laugh::beer:

[SzimiStyle]

I think that the Zeiss 10x42 FL will be my next binocular. I was put off some time ago by a (dreadful) review by someone called Stuart Winter in Birdwatching magazine referring to these bins as "Ferrari optics in a Skoda body". In retrospect (since Skoda are now owned by VW) I find the comment a great compliment.

Colin :smile::laugh::beer:

Nice idea, but I'm afraid we many times choosing contrariwise as we first look at the external features (e.g. a nice babe) without taking too much care of the internal values. :laugh::laugh:
Anyway, I have no problem with the exterior of this product however I am a great Ferrari fun for years now. :notworthy:

Szimi

[SzimiStyle]

Back to the Skoda vs Ferrari issue.... anyone hold this Zeiss in his/her hand? Is it really such awful?

Szimi

[Colin Key]

Szimi,

If you go back to post #6 you will see that I stated that I met someone with a brand new Zeiss 10x42 FL which he allowed me to set (pupiliary separation and diopter adjustment) to my own eyesight. The optical quality was excellent (I was carrying my Leica Ultravid 10x42s at the time) and the mechanics (focus wheel and barrel separation) were also extremely good; I preferred them to the Leicas, but would have liked to test them under different conditions. They also felt rather more comfortable "in the hand" than either the Leicas or the Swaros, although photos of this Zeiss model tend not to convey this (they look rather awkard and "old fashioned", which might not be a bad thing!).

I was put off the Zeiss FL by the previously mentioned review in Birdwatch Magazine (ref: Ferrari v Skoda) but having had them in my hand they have the build quality you would expect from Zeiss.

I am going to get the FL 10x42s as my next binocular.

Colin

[SzimiStyle]

It very much looks I will do the same. Too many nice comments cannot be ignored. :smile: I have some time till I buy it so I may hold it in my hand before and especially looking through of the lens.

It is pity that others don't tell too much about this topic :) But it always nice to talk to you. :certifiable:

Szimi

[SzimiStyle]

In my opinion, I would not go for any of the 10x models, but rather stick with slightly less magnification but more light-gathering of the 8s or 8.5s.

Brian S

Brian, if thinking of the Zeiss which you would or which you use, the 8x32 or 8x42? If 8x which one is recommended? I am planning to buy two different models and want to be sure if x32 is a correct choice.

Sorry if the question is too infantile.

Szimi

[John Horsfall]

Sorry to go right back to the beginning but, if optical quality is your main consideration, and it seems so, why are the Nikon SE Porros not on the shopping list? I know everything has to be roof these days, and there is a slight justification in the waterproofing in some locations, but the porros have the theoretical edge on image and these Nikons have the practical edge on a lot of things - balance, handling, weight, and (most importantly) image. I have owned and used Zeiss and Leitz over the years but IMHO nothing comes close to the lovely neutral high-def image of the Nikon SE. To have the (admittedly good value) Minox on the shopping list when the SEs are not admitted to the party is almost criminally negligent: go do a side-by-side comparison and see for yourself. You will see I have never owned Sv. and I have never wanted to: for me the image, compared to the SEs, is looking through yellow-tinted tubes so, no matter what the word on the street says about these things, IMO they have the colour balance wrong. As for waterproofing, no porro can be proof but these are 'sealed' and have survived two week forays into Ecuador and several oceanic trips (Juan Fernandez on a small boat anyone?) without problems. I currently live in the Malaysian lowlands, in my experience the sweatiest location I have even visited, and again no problems with misting or fungi. My 10s are now 8 years old and mechanically like new except I had to replace both rubber eyecups due to rubber fatigue (under lifetime warranty with Nikon UK). The only disadvantage to carrying the SEs, or any porro, is that all 'roofed' birders treat you like a neophyte idiot. However, with 40 years of birding experience in all parts of the world plus a doctorate in ornithology (entailing looking through the infernal instruments for hours rather than minutes!), I have the good grace to listen politely to any bins advice I get in the field, but the advisor usually gets a bit of a shock when they ask for a look-see through the SE. By the way, though I don't own them, the 8s are wonderful compact and probably, in the end, more universally useful. Last, don't ask the price till your viewing comparison is done (likely!), and get a nice surprise! Perhaps that's the real reason wny more don't buy them!

[Joe stockwell]

i say other becaus i use opticron bga's

[SzimiStyle]

John, you are right in the statement of ignoring many of the excellent non-top competitor's products. I could name Minox, Opticron, KOWA or Bushnell. I was truly amazed by the handling and image quality of the former version of KOWA binos however I didn't make extensive tests at the BBF (just had a short time available). I have to agree also in the MINOX quality as it is almost as perfect as e.g Leicas at least talking of the the image quality.

One thing I really miss is an independent site where all the products are tested under the same conditions by the same independent, offer-free group of experts. That would be a real guide for those having different budget and target to have the best product for their money should be a porro or a roof prism bino. Browsing through the net for valuable reviews one can find out the there is almost always something behind the nice words. Sure there are a few exceptions. For me it was quite obvious to have Swarovski the winner in a journal where Swarovski was the main advertising partner to keep the journal alive. :puzzled:

The question is who should be a part of such a testing group and where those group could be set up? Maybe one of the next B.BirdFair?

Szimi

[Jevgenyij]

>If Swarovski are off your target, then it would have to be Zeiss, Leica or Nikon.>

Not necesserily! Also the "most popular" is not equael with the best of the field. Minox making excellent value of money, and if Szimi need a fast focuing wheel, that is probably far the best choice.
Also, according to Kimmo Absetz, now the best 42 bin on the field is the Canon 10x42. Optically this bin overshadowed all the Leicas, Swarowskis and Zeiss in the tests. Almost everybody in nature photography using now the Canon IS lenses, which allows use 4 extra apertures. Imagine the same result in your bin!
I use IS bins for eight years now, and would never return for a non-IS.

Regards, Jevgenyij

[Jevgenyij]

I did find the Zeiss very uncomfortable. This is the most unbalanced bin I ever seen, very heawy at the front and the focusing wheel is far behind the balance.

Jevgenyij

[SzimiStyle]

Also, according to Kimmo Absetz, now the best 42 bin on the field is the Canon 10x42. Optically this bin overshadowed all the Leicas, Swarowskis and Zeiss in the tests. Almost everybody in nature photography using now the Canon IS lenses, which allows use 4 extra apertures. Imagine the same result in your bin!
I use IS bins for eight years now, and would never return for a non-IS.

Regards, Jevgenyij

Do you have link for this review? As I am a pro bird photographer I know what IS means. However I have never seen a good and handable Canon bino (most probably I haven't seen all of them). Unfortunately the optical performance isn't everything.

Szimi

[Jevgenyij]

I don't know if the test was published on the net or not, it was in the 2006/4 issue of Alula (finnish bird magazin). Kimmo is also on birdforum.net, you can ask him directly. I agree, handling can be very personal! I have the 10x30, 10x40, 12x and 18x IS modells of Canon. The 10x30 and 12x36 are almost identical in hand, both being very comfortable. The 10x40L is hard to say, it is less comfortable for sure, but far the most superior. Even without the IS it is having the best parameters of the 40' class, better FOV, close focus, than any Zeiss, Leica. According to Kimmo this is the first bin where "sharp until the edge" is not a poor advertisement only and I certainly agree. The 18x50 modell is heavy and bulky, but when I am travelling abroad I usually take only my 10x30 and 18x50 with me, and leave my scope behind, at home. I save lot of weight for me and much more handy. The IS in the 18x50 is so effective that I consider it giving a better view, especially in windy weather, than my Swarovski scope at 20x or 30x magnification. In a windy situation there is always some vibration on the scope, but none in the IS, so my eye can concentrate on the view, not on the continous re-finding and re-focusing issue.
It is interesting why IS is not so well known in Europe, in the States the 10x30 is far the best selling bin. This is also the best rated bin of all, saying "One of the best consumer-rated binoculars we have ever offered", you can read some reviews here:
http://www.binoculars.com/binoculars/bird-watching-binoculars/10x30isimagestabilizedbinocular.cfm#MyReviewAnchor
If I would buy a bin without IS, that would be a 7x40 Leica, however I would feel completely blind without IS.

Regards, Jevgenyij

[Colin Key]

Well, this is predictably going to turn into a "hot" topic as it always does when a "which is best" query is raised.

I am a bit "nosy" when I meet others birders with bins I have not seen or used before and always ask how they like them and if I can have a look through them. I must say that I have been very pleasantly surprised at the optical quality as well as build quality in some models costing about one-third the price of "top end" bins. My first bins were Zeiss Jena bought many years ago (not quite true, my first use of bins for birdwatching was a Royal Navy issue belonging to a friend of my father which weighed a ton and had so many graduated distance scales, etc. in the view that you could not really concentrate on the bird) and when they were "nicked" I replaced them with Opticrons; I though these were wonderful (I went from 10x42 to 10x50) but they kept falling to bits.

I have no experience of Nikons but cannot see why they should not make good optics (but I never got on very well with their 'scopes). We now have Swarovski 10x42 ELs (my wife's), Leica 10x42 Ultravid and Leica 10x50 Trinovid BA; apart from the weight disadvantage I still find the latter to be the best, both optically and mechanically.

I have tried several versions of Canon and thought that the IS feature is a total waste of time and the chromatic aberration in all the Canons I have used is the worst I have ever experienced. I do not usually pay too much respect to CA in binocular reviews because I know that variance in human eyesight and colour appreciation is so great to render this aspect more or less irrelevant to most people.

I again, yesterday, had the chance to use a Zeiss 10x42FL for a considerable period of time and found that this binocular is optically superb (hard pressed to distinguish between Zeiss, Leica and Swaro, but the image looked "clean and fresh"), beautifully balanced (better than the Ultravids I had with me) and the focus wheel was the best-placed and smoothest I have used. And, the owner is an experienced birder who has also previously owned Leicas and Swaros.

So, it is a bit like asking a group of kids whether they prefer jelly, blancmange or custard.

I am going for Zeiss as my next purchase (with custard).

Colin :yes:

[Jevgenyij]

Colin, I think we really gave a good answer for Szimi! :laugh: He has to go to a shop and try them all. I also must say that if you think IS is a waste and the Zeiss the most well-balanced, than we must have a very different jizz :laugh:

[SzimiStyle]

Without hurting anyone and especially Jevgenyij I have to tell that, based on my experience, I simply cannot believe Canon IS binos are comfortable but for sure I will have a try at the next BBF in England.

Sure, 'which is the best...' captions are always muddying the calm water. There are so many tastes and comments (not here unfortunately) which makes decision not so easy. When more and more ppl are sharing their experiences the sun will be much shinier. :ohdear:

My wife has a NIKON High Grade Light 8x42HG L DCF bino which I really like image wise and from the focusing point of view but have some issues which I don't like in it. Based on many birders comments it seems the Zeiss 10x42 is the winner. I am just not sure wether to wait and look around at the BBF before I buy anything. Would be nice to hear more comments from others :) so I encourage you guys to join the company and tell your stories. :smile:

Szimi

[SzimiStyle]

Colin, I think we really gave a good answer for Szimi! :laugh: He has to go to a shop and try them all. I also must say that if you think IS is a waste and the Zeiss the most well-balanced, than we must have a very different jizz :laugh:

Guys, I guess the forums has the advantage of mixing so many different ppl with different jizzes as well :laugh::laugh:
No worry about the different tastes.:puzzled::laugh: I enjoy every comment received here. And this is not only about my final choice of my next bino purchase...

Szimi

[Colin Key]

Interesting debate, and some useful information. But I know from following similar debates on another 'birding' forum that there will never (EVER) be a consensus opinion.

Buy what you can afford, what suits your own "physique" (in terms of hand size, etc.) and what YOU consider to be optically the best.

No contest really, and not worth arguing about (but the views are always welcome just as long as people do not get too "manic" about what is THEIR perfect choice).

I personally think that the high end optics business has more or less "peaked" and any further improvements are not likely to be discernible to the majority of users. Hence my other thread about information on the Leica Ultravid HDs - are they really worth a price tag of 50% more than the current Ultravids? I think not.

Colin :no:

[Jevgenyij]

Szimi, for me the 10x and 12x modells are perfectly comfortable, but I have small hands. I agree that bin development is "peaking" soon in terms of optical quality, however there are promissing new technologies, like Canon's DO system or Nikon's new nano-layers, which is brilliant, just have a look on the MTF chart of their latest long photo-lenses! Who knows what is going on in the military labors? Also I think many companies will try to develope their own IS system, just like Nikon started to do and now they have excellent VR optics. Honestly, it is not question for me that IS will won over non IS, especially for guys like me, an addict of sundowners :smile:. By the waym I never seen any photographer who turned back from IS lens, once they bought one.

:beer:

Jevgenyij

[Colin Key]

By the way I never seen any photographer who turned back from IS lens, once they bought one.

:beer:

Jevgenyij

I think that IS on camera lenses and binoculars/telescopes are two different "ball games". I am just about to switch from a Canon IS lens to a non-IS lens; I have the 100-400mm L IS zoom which is my "walkabout" lens on my 1D Mk III. The IS system is the oldest on any of Canon's current line-up and it does not work particularly well (the gyros take significantly longer to settle down than they do on more recent lenses such as the 500mm f/4 L which I also own). Having tried a 400mm f/5.6 L prime I find it is both sharper and the AF more responsive, even used with a x1.4TCII, and since I use the zoom mostly at the long end I intend to change it for the 400mm non-IS prime. As I normally shoot in good light with shutter speeds of 1/1000s or more (often much more) I tend to have the IS turned off on my zoom and it gives me sharper images.

It is a well know fact that on long lenses the IS system can have a detrimental effect in some shooting conditions. This is why the most recent 500 and 600mm primes can detect when the camera and lens is tripod mounted and automatically turns off the IS. On older versions, if you did not manually turn off the IS when using a tripod the gyro movement could cause blurring at slower shutter speeds.

Colin

[Jevgenyij]

>and it does not work particularly well>
Agree, 100-400 is a very poor lens, both mechanically and optically, just can't imagine what people think when they buy it.

Actually, what you are saying is all true, but you like it or not, future is all about IS! :)) I mean definitely! :cool: Leica IS, Swaro IS, scope IS.

:beer:

[SzimiStyle]

>and it does not work particularly well>
Agree, 100-400 is a very poor lens, both mechanically and optically, just can't imagine what people think when they buy it.

Actually, what you are saying is all true, but you like it or not, future is all about IS! :)) I mean definitely! :cool: Leica IS, Swaro IS, scope IS.

:beer:

I would imagine IS in scopes rather than in binos but again I will have a try. However I never ever had problems holding steady a 'traditional' bino. :laugh:

Comments on photographic gear is a completely different story. :smile:
But agree how sh...t the 100-400 is:laugh:

Szimi

PS: I need a 'Shorebird Lover' smiley :ohdear::lovegulls::laugh:

[geoffwilliams]

I have been using Zeiss binoculers for 30 years and have always been happy with them apart from them not being waterproof. Of course the latest models are. I used to use 10x40's but my last ones were 7x42's which I've found are much better, more light gain and wider field of view i.e much quicker to get onto a small warbler flicking through the trees.
If I needed to change binos I would go for the Zeiss 7x42FL's but am perfectly happy with my 10 year old 7x42's.

[SzimiStyle]

For me a 7x model would definitely not be enough. I use my binos in various habitats and under various circumstances should it be a sea-watching or rain forest birding. 10x is my choice with a pair of 8x. But anyway good to hear another vote for Zeiss :)
Szimi http://kepfeltoltes.hu/080215/shorebirdlover_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.gif

[SzimiStyle]

Does anyone know something about the new Leica Ultravid 10 x 42 HD made with the new Leica AquaDuraTM technology?
Szimi http://kepfeltoltes.hu/080215/shorebirdlover_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.gif

[SzimiStyle]

Looks you all left this forum?:err:

Well, yesterday I visited one of my friends owning a pair of 10x42 Zeiss Victory bino. He reported the edges unsharp. I looked through of it indoor and saw the same. How it could be reported nice and top quality if a considerable part of the image is unsharp :puzzled:
I am a bit confused!

Szimi http://kepfeltoltes.hu/080215/shorebirdlover_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.gif

[Colin Key]

Looks you all left this forum?:err:



No, we are still here Szimi.

This is an interesting observation - is this the only pair that you have looked at? I have now looked through four copies, including spending an hour or so with one pair adjusted for my own eyesight, and found them to be as sharp, if not sharper than my Ultravids or Trinovids.

Colin

[SzimiStyle]

No, we are still here Szimi.

This is an interesting observation - is this the only pair that you have looked at? I have now looked through four copies, including spending an hour or so with one pair adjusted for my own eyesight, and found them to be as sharp, if not sharper than my Ultravids or Trinovids.

Colin

That is a good news Colin :)

Well this is a good new. Yes, I have held this product in my hands for the first time. Not sure if I saw everything quite clear as it was indoor in the night but somehow the edges looked to be fuzzy :?

It is a good news what you write here. I guess I need to explore this bino in birding conditions if meets my requirements. The focusing reel was really impressive however.

Looking forward to see details and reviews of the new Leicas.

Szimi

[chris butterworth]

I've still got my 'old' Leica 8x42's and I still don't find any REAL improvement in most of the newer bins, what difference there is is slight - as is having 10x - but buying optics is largely, or should be, a matter of what suits you. Choose the bins you prefer and b****r anyone elses opinions!