For some 2 years I have intermittently used a 12x45 Zeiss Conquest in open country when I was unwilling to carry scope and tripod. 12x magnification really exceeds my ability to hand hold and although it worked quite well with a monopod, some of the convenience of using a binocular was lost.
Apart from that I had become somewhat dissatisfied with the FOV (80m @ 1000m) and the haloes probably caused by reflections of my eyes or glasses in the eyepieces.
A bird festival was held at the beginning of the month at the Kemnader Lake south of Bochum and I went along to assess the alternatives.
Apart from most of the optics companies, there were stands from NABU (the German RSPB), a raptor sanctuary, birding tour firms, and the tourism boards of Catalonia and Extremadura.
One notable absentee was Nikon, whose German headquarters are only 60km away in Düsseldorf. Just another example of their perfunctory treatment of sports optics. I hear that they have only 2 representatives per country for sports optics but 16 for cameras.
Among the scopes the superiority of Kowa, Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss over the competition was very significant. One Fujinon I looked through caused the worst blackouts I have ever experienced.
The new Zeiss PhotoScope was interesting. It zooms via the objective instead of the eyepiece and provides an almost constant AFOV from 15x to 45x. The new 25-50x zoom eyepieces from Leica and Swarovski are a welcome addition but I found the eye relief of the Swarovski to be very limited and really had to "crawl" into it to get the entire FOV. The 20-60x zoom, while having a limited AFOV at the lower range, is more comfortable for glasses wearers.
Among the bins there were some interesting exhibits, which are not necessarily suitable for birding. Fujinon were showing their 25x150, which was used by the late Yuji Hyakutake to discover the comet named after him. For terrestrial use it was a little disappointing showing colour fringing. There is an ED version but that costs an even bigger fortune. Similarly, I found the 32x82 Kowa High Lander rather inconvenient with its individual focussing.
My main bin is a 7x42 Swarovski SLC so I like large exit pupils and was impressed by the ease of view of the 10x56 Zeiss Victory, which nevertheless has a significant weight penalty . Perhaps its excellence led me to overlook the 10x42. The 50mm Leica Ultravid HDs had a lot of field curvature and pincussion distortion and the 8+12x42 Duovid compromises FOV at the lower magnification. However, the 10x42 Ultravid HD was superb and was my favourite along with the 10,5x44 Kowa XD. If used without glasses however, the latter has impossibly large and thick eyecups and is on the heavy side.
Last week I travelled to my dealer in Bonn (I doubt there is better informed dealer in the whole country) with the intention of buying the Ultravid. The €250 cash back offer from Leica would lessen the pain in my wallet a little.
After taking the Conquest to sell on commission he gave me the 10x42s from Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss to try. Now I have always admired the 8,5x42 EL but did not like the 10x42 EL at all. CA was very noticeable and eye relief much too short. It was a really close call between the Ultravid HD and the Victory FL and I must have swapped between the two a dozen times. The decision fell in favour of the Victory because it fitted my large hands better and because the Ultravid HD showed CA in the centre of the field if the pupils were not perfectly centred. The Victory FL was much less critical in this respect. I am inclined to think that what many describe as a lack of longitidinal CA in the Victory FLs is really down to good eyepiece design.
The praises of the 10x42 Victory FL have been sung many times on this forum so suffice to say I am a very happy (if financially depleted) birder.
John
John,
That was so much better than "I got a 10x42 FL and it is great". Thanks for sharing the story. I am a recent 8x42 FL convert. Compared to a Leica it is a big fat binocular, but the bulging shape fits right into my palms and makes for a very comfortable and steady grip. Also the not-quite-straight barrels leave a lot of thumb room up underneath, where my Trinovid BA was really cramped.
I regret that I never got the chance to try a Leica HD when I was in the market. Most people find, like you, that it is not as well color corrected as the Zeiss. That is a big crusade issue for me, and I'm quite happy with mine. Optically and ergonomically both, it seems wonderful to me, but I have to admit that the Leica is somehow the more appealing machine.
Congratulations, and I hope you enjoy your 10x as much as I am enjoying my 8x.
Ron
Thanks Ron,
I followed your acquisition of the 8x42 FL and can understand that you are more than satisfied. The 42mm FLs have now been on the market for 5 years virtually unchanged and there is still nothing better out there.
I'm not an astronomer but yesterday we had our first clear night for over a week and I put the FL on a monopod and had a good view of Jupiter with four moons shown as fine pinpoints.
At the German forum meeting a couple of months ago it was asserted that Leica optimize their MTF curves for medium spacings to give good contrast for terrestrial viewing, whereas Zeiss do better at small spacings, which would explain their good performance on the stars.
John