Leicas...

[ollypenrice]

Hmm, just had a rush of blood to the head and ordered a pair of used Leica 8X42s from a UK dealer I trust.

A few years ago a guest handed me a pair of bins in the dark as he stepped up to the Dob. I didn't know what they were and pointed them at M31. I was utterly astounded. The stars were minute and the colour in the galaxy was a lovely gold. They were mesmerizingly good and, of course, turned out to be Leicas. I have some 10X25 Ultravids already for the wildlife but they are a bit small for astro - though they show M27!

I want 8x because I'm getting less good at holding 10x still enough and I felt the exit pupil of 8x50 was not going to get into my eye anyway, so why pay more and hold more? We don't have any premium astro bins here at the moment so a little gap is filled and will doubtless while away the time pleasurably during long imaging runs...

Pah, it's only money!

Olly

[Capricorn]

It's a lot of money.

But they are very, very, very good.

Not going to tell you to enjoy them, they are so good you will not have any choice.

[Gasman]

I can highly recommend the Leica`s Olly. I have a pair of 8x42`s I`ve had a few years that I use for birdwatching and they are superb to use on the night sky. After using these I went for the Apo 77mm refractor again a super piece of kit and the only scope I`ve used that I can see star colours with. I`m actually taking this (what is actually a birdwatching scope after all!) with me to compare with other astro apo scopes at the Peak star party on Saturday!

Steve

[E621Keith]

Congratulation Olly, I will be looking forward to hear your review. I heard rumours many birding binoculars are designed with field curvature to bring more of the foreground in focus to increase depth of view when birding. I wonder if this is true for the Leica or not.

[ismangil]

So is this the TeleVue of binoculars then... The ultimate goal...

On mobile (excuse the strange predictive words...)

[ollypenrice]

Congratulation Olly, I will be looking forward to hear your review. I heard rumours many birding binoculars are designed with field curvature to bring more of the foreground in focus to increase depth of view when birding. I wonder if this is true for the Leica or not.

I think it probably is. I'm not sure where to look for flatfield bins, though. Any ideas?

Olly

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have my doubts that field curvature would be introduced on purpose. The design would presuppose that the bird in the centre is either closer too, or further away from the viewer than the rest of the scene. This is not that safe an assumption. The frequent comments that EPs for birding scopes have different field curvature than astronomical ones may be caused by something else: the focal length of birding scopes is generally much shorter than that of astronomical scopes, and this short focal length tends to correlate with more field curvature. Thus, spotting scope EPs may be designed to correct for that, by having a field curvature matching that of the objective. This may be why they are often designed for a particular range of spotting scopes (often consisting of a handful of types). Astronomical EPs are typically corrected for a flat field, because Newtonians have negative curvature as seen from the EP, and fracs and cats positive.

[FLO]

I heard rumours many birding binoculars are designed with field curvature to bring more of the foreground in focus to increase depth of view when birding. I wonder if this is true for the Leica or not.

It's nearly true

In a previous life I used to sell Leica optics. They introduce some pincushion curvature so when panning across the landscape the view appears to move naturally across the field. An entirely flat field would look unnatural when panning and barrel curvature (the opposite of pincushion) would look distinctly odd.

I am a huge fan of binoculars, a closet binocular nerd in fact

HTH,

Steve

[BinocularSky]

Hang on a mo! Pincushion isn't field curvature (different focus at centre and periphery) , it's field distortion (different magnification at centre and periphery). And yes, it is deliberately introduced into binoculars to reduce what would otherwise be a nauseating "rolling ball" effect.

(On the batphone, so expect typos.... )

[FLO]

Hang on a mo! Pincushion isn't field curvature (different focus at centre and periphery) , it's field distortion (different magnification at centre and periphery). And yes, it is deliberately introduced into binoculars to reduce what would otherwise be a nauseating "rolling ball" effect.

(On the batphone, so expect typos.... )

I don't mind typos

It depends whether you are talking to a photographer or a birdwatcher. Field curvature is where the image is formed on a curved surface rather than a flat surface. If you are a photographer using a sensor or film that is a problem because it results in the edge being out of focus when the centre is sharp. But we are talking binoculars where the image is formed in our eye and it is possible to see a curved field that is sharp from centre to edge.

Perhaps I should not have thrown 'pincushion' into the mix because that is almost exclusively a term used in photography (I also sold cameras and lenses pre-FLO).

I am only posting my understanding in the hope it helps and I am happy to accept others might hold different opinions or definitions so am grateful for your advice

Steve

[FLO]

This is a useful site that shows the difference between pincushion and barrel distortion:

http://www.dxomark.c...ents/Distortion

I guess I could have said 'concave' field curvature but 'pincushion' is perhaps more easy to visualise.

Anyhow, you knew what I meant

Steve

[ollypenrice]

Eeek, all this expertise! So, Swarowski and Zeiss (Victory) emphasise flat field but Leica don't. So for astro would I be better with one of the others? I can change the order.

My present tiny Leicas are far and away better on stars than anything else I've had and are the only bins I've tried on Jupiter which give a clean single disk. I just tried tham agaisnst some Canon stabilized L's and they gave a far better star test and were way ahead on Jupiter, though they don't do aperture!

Help!

Olly

[FLO]

You cannot go wrong with the Leica, of course, but are you able to try the Zeiss 8x42FL? The Zeiss FL series are, to my eye, brighter. But binocular choice is very subjective, believe me I know because I have demonstrated and sold thousands of binoculars across all price points over a period of around two decades (prior to FLO).

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Zeiss-Victory-8x42-TFL-Binocular.php

HTH,

Steve

[ollypenrice]

Thanks Steve, the Leicas are there secnd hand, I remember them being stunning, they are around half the new price, so I think I'll sitck with plan A. Yours and the other comments are much appreciated. This is not at all a field in which I have much competence or experience.

Olly

[FLO]

I should add that I stopped selling posh binoculars (Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss) when I launched FLO about six years ago so there may have been upgrades and changes to the models I was familiar with.

You mention Swarovski Olly, if you get a chance checkout the Swarovski Habitch porroprism series. Swarovski treated me to a tour of their factory in Austria so I had plenty of time to try the full range and was particularly impressed with the Habitch. They are smaller, lighter and more affordable than the roof prisms you are considering but are still robust (they were designed for the Austrian hunting fraternity) and have a wonderful 3D feel to the view. But if you do buy a Habitch check it is one without reticules in the eyepiece.

You've got me reminiscing now!

[FLO]

Oops. I didn't see your post before mine

A secondhand binocular from a trustworthy source is a good idea and a half-price Leica will be hard to beat.

[ollypenrice]

I thought about the Hablicht but don't they have a narrow FOV?

Olly

[FLO]

The more expensive Leica 8x42 BN (if that is the model) will have a wider field than the 7x42 Habicht, but the Habicht are lighter and cheaper (I originally thought you were buying new) yet are bright and have high optical quality. It is personal preference, I suggested them because they are more affordable and I like them. You would almost certainly come to view them the way you would a well loved pair of walking shoes, the ones you reach for every time and wear until they are totally worn out. But, you cannot argue against a half-price Leica so I am not going to try

Now if you can find a secondhand 7x42 or 8x42 Zeiss FL .....

HTH,

Steve

[FLO]

Olly, just had a thought. You could try chatting with the astro magazine you write for. They might arrange for you to review some binoculars suitable for astro.

[astrofox]

If astro binos are a s good as their photographic lenses then it would be a hard choice not to buy them. Their photo kit was beyond reproach and the kist to own

[ollypenrice]

Olly, just had a thought. You could try chatting with the astro magazine you write for. They might arrange for you to review some binoculars suitable for astro.

PM'd. Good idea.

Olly

[E621Keith]

Olly, just had a thought. You could try chatting with the astro magazine you write for. They might arrange for you to review some binoculars suitable for astro.

PM'd. Good idea.

Olly

Olly, if you are going to review some premium binoculars for astronomy, would you be able to add the Nikon SE/EDG and Fujinon FMT to that wanted list?

I wonder how the premium Japanese binocular compares, especially the astro specific Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50.

[BinocularSky]

Anyhow, you knew what I meant

I think so . FWIW (and at the risk of being thought to be overly tenacious ), here is some stuff that clearly demonstrates the distinction between field distortion and field curvature (in general, the site is superb for explaining optical aberrations in astronomical kit):

http://www.handprint.com/ASTRO/ae4.html#distortion

http://www.handprint.com/ASTRO/ae4.html#curvature

[FLO]

... and at the risk of being thought to be overly tenacious

How could anyone possibly think such a thing

[E621Keith]

I think so . FWIW (and at the risk of being thought to be overly tenacious ), here is some stuff that clearly demonstrates the distinction between field distortion and field curvature (in general, the site is superb for explaining optical aberrations in astronomical kit):

http://www.handprint...html#distortion

http://www.handprint....html#curvature

Since this is an astronomy forum rather than a bird forum, I agree it would be a good idea to use the astronomy definition of field curvature (curved focal plane) and rectilinear distortion (pincushion and barrel) rather than the bird one. Otherwise it will be confusing if one use 'field curvature' to describe rectilinear distortion in the binocular sub forum and the curved focal plane in the rest of SGL.

It's interesting to learn when birders talks about field curvature, they don't mean the same thing as the astronomer or photographer. I will remember that the next time I read a binocular review.