After reading most of the pertinent posts on this forum, as well as other internet reviews, I decided to try several different binocular brands. The following is a sample of my unscientific impressions. I am a long-time photography hobbyist using high-quality lenses, but have limited experience with the binocular. I have a slight coffee-drinker-like tremor, and wanted to see how each worked FOR ME, rather than to critically measure the image quality on a tripod as others have done before me (and have done to a much higher evaluative standard than I could do).
First, the sets were 7x42 and 8x42 in Leica Ultravid and Zeiss FL, and the 8.5x42 EL Swarovski. I started with a bias toward Leica, having long experience with their rangefinder camera lenses.
What a tough decision! Each was excellent, but very different.
The images through the Leicas were luscious, sensous, three-dimensional, tactile. The colors were natural, and I could see subtle variations of muted/pastel yellows, pinks and blues very well. The pincusion effect was similar to the Zeiss. The edges "round off" to being out-of-focus (This can be focused along the curve of the lens-interesting to "see" the curve of the lens edge!) but I did not find it distracting. Each felt heavier than the Zeiss or Swarovski sets, though my impression is that it is because they are actually more dense. (The 7x42s actually were only 3/4 oz. heavier than the Zeiss, for example). Slight CA only, and that only in dramatic lighting situations. For me, obtaining the view I wanted was more difficult than it was with the other maker's examples. I can't explain that further, except to say it another way: Both my wife and myself felt we were having to work at using them, rather than just enjoying them.
I felt traitorous! I love Leica, and that wonderful image is irreplaceable! I want to be able to mount them on a camera body. Onward...
The Zeiss were, in many ways, opposites of the Leica. They feel lighter than they are (again, I think that it shows that we can perceive density but interpret it as weight), and they are intuitive to use. The images occur naturally, and the focus is almost too light and easy. They appear brighter than the Leica, but some (but not all) of this looks to me to be in the color representation. The field of view is excellent, and I could hold them steadier. CA was present only in extreme lighting. The pincusion effect was pronounced and occasionally distracting(more in the 7x), but I was not bothered by the out-of focus edges. I preferred having the wide angle/area of view, and kept thinking that Zeiss could have just masked off that extra view to cover up the edge blur. I was glad that they didn't. I was ready to send the Leicas back, but felt that something about the actual image was not quite best for me, the part that I haven't mentioned yet.
The Zeiss image is brilliant, vibrant, like the difference between standard color print film and a newer "vivid color" film. The colors simply jump out at you. They really catch your eye. The subtle pastels are less distinct, though. The contours of objects are clear, precise, accurate, rather than artistic. It was the laser printer text to the Leica handwritten script. My eyeballs didn't find it natural, but I could easily get accustomed to it. My wife liked it very much. The natural, light ease of use was enough of a benefit for me to choose them also---You just find yourself wanting to pick them up to look through them, and I can easily understand why so many people love them.
Three days later, the Swarovskis arrived. Excellent balance, with only a slightly heavier feel than the Zeiss. Smooth focus, though not as quick as the Zeiss. Natural color, with good differentiation of the more subtle ones. Pleasing contours and depth to the image, rather than what was, to me, a more stark representation in the Zeiss view, and an almost overdone rich one in the Leica---that was maybe what made the Leica harder (but wonderful--that is the way I want my photographs to look) for me to look through. Minimal edge blurriness. More CA than the others, which I seem to mentally filter out anyway. Very easy on the eyes to use, very comfortable and well-balanced. I kept them. Despite a very slight rattle in the left tube...
I hope this helps someone. I also hope that some of you can help explain my impressions so that I can better understand what I am seeing.
JR
Hi, JR
Welcome to the forum. And thanks for your perceptive review of the three binoculars. Your struggle to perceive enough difference between them to make an informed choice is something we have all been through. I chose Ultravid 7x42 eighteen months ago. At that time Swarovski had not yet changed the focus mechanism in the EL, and it was so slow that I could not tolerate it. If the EL focused as it does now, I would have bought it. Last year I compared 7x42 Ultravid and 7x42 FL and found them to almost indistinguishable in the field, though I preferred the ergonomics of the Ultravid. Anyway, we all have our reasons, and you have explained yours extremely well.
A very interesting post JR. Many thanks for taking the trouble!