Mikecr
Well-Known Member
I'm sure ballistics is completely out of Leica's element
Neither bullet weight, nor altitude, are part of field solutions.
Neither bullet weight, nor altitude, are part of field solutions.
Leica's New Geovid HD-B
- Thread starter gr8fuldoug
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
ArizonaWildernessHunter
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 35
I have owned a pair for a few weeks now. They have always been within an inch of shooter or exbal out to around 800 yards with my 30-06 185 gr Berger load. It just happened that profile "us 4" matched well and I have not tried the custom programing yet to see what even further distances read out. Should have tried 875 yards but didn't yet. For selecting the correct curve I just used exbal and selected inputs that matched the default setting that Leica uses. Think they were 0ft, 29.3, and 69 degrees. Better check on that since that could be for a different program I have used recently. They are very good all around and well worth the wait and the dent in the pocket book. Will try to finish up my testing with custom readouts and other calibers and then post some more.
ZSteinle
Well-Known Member
How is the light transmission compared to other binocs u have used. I have read that the hd-b will start to get dark fast. How are the optics?
cummins cowboy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2010
- Messages
- 361
that is not true, they are using uncorrected barometric pressure which does relate to altitude, if you don't correct the barometric pressure to sea level standard you get the same value to offer a firing solution. bullet weight doesn't matter either as long as the correct BC is entered.
simply put you need
speed
barometric pressure either corrected or not
temp
bullet bc
and look angle. all of these things the HD b's compensate for.
there is also spin drift and Coriolis but thats probably not enough to worry about if its only doing its thing to 1000 yards.
ArizonaWildernessHunter
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 35
Of the optics I spent a lot of time comparing since I got them this is what I found (also posted some comparisons from before I bought mine earlier in this thread). I know side by side the image is a little brighter than a Leica ultravid 10x42 non-HD (with a couple scratches) and maybe the same as a swarovski el 10x42 non-HD at the center of the image; at night with very little moon light. During an overcast day I know there was no difference between them and a swarvoski el 10x42 HD. Still need to try them out before sunrise and at night to tell for sure if a difference exists (my buddy who owns a pair has been really busy). They are way brighter than leupold gold ring HD 10x42.
After seeing some posts as well stating they get darker faster than a swarvoski el 10x42 HD I can think of some things that may not have been fully considered. The field of view is larger in the geovid HD-B so if the light transmission was identical the image would be less bright by about 2%, due to the light being spread over a larger area. Maybe this could equate to the advantage of being able to better see small points or kickers 1 minute sooner when using a bino with a smaller field of view with HD glass. Either way I think you would still be able to see the animal just fine. If you ever put an ARD or a sunshade on a scope in the middle of the day and then took it off you can still see everything just fine it is just a littler darker. Another thing is the rubber lens covers that came with my still had release agent and rubber fragments on them. Washed them a bunch before putting them on the binos, they should do this at the factory but didn't for some reason. I am positive that this could get on the lenses and would be a pain to clean off. The binos also have dual diopters so if someone didn't adjust them exactly the same a blurry image can look less bright. Finally if you look through a non-rangefinder bino and then look through a rangefinder bino and start clicking away that light for the display will impair your night vision even if it is red. When I do get a chance to compare these some more with the swarvoski HD binos think that the field of view thing will make some difference. Due to the increased speed of getting a ballistic solution I think the edge would go to the geovids for hunting. If swarvoski ever can figure out how to make a HD el range then things may change since we could actually compare apples to apples.
So far for real world experience in low light this is what I found. Glassed up a coyote at around 650 yards off my back porch and it was dark enough out that I could not see the turn warning sign at 596 yards away without the binos. Was out scouting for a friend and was able to wait for an elk to get out of its bed and easily tell it was a 5x5 at a little over 800 yards well after sundown.
As far as clarity they are amazing. The very edge of the lens is just as clear as the center and with that large field of view this makes for more efficient glassing. Was glassing some thick junipers and saw the flicker of a cow elk's ear on the very edge of the field of view.
Also since they are porro prism then are way better at seeing depth and 3D effects. I didn't even realize this till I starting looking through thick junipers and tall grass the day after I received them. The great true to color (at least to my colorblind eyes, I cannot see some shades of red well) and contrast is great like any HD bino.
I think if someone is having problems with light transmission that they should compare them to another pair if possible. These are a whole new design and the lens and prisms are being made by hand so I am sure that a mistake could happen. I know people that have had to get warranty work or replacement done on their leica and swarvoski binos due to things not done perfect. The most severe ones were out of spec hinges. One was a leica and the other a swarvoski from different owners that baby their binos.
One other thing I did notice is that UV light affects how far you can range. No matter how bright or with smoke from a prescribe burn I could range to a little over 1400 yards. With less UV light and when it is really clear with low humidity you can range much further. At night you can range easily over 2000 yards. Got multiple readings on the same slope of 2256, 2257, 2256, 2258, and 2256 in that order. Was resting them on a primos trigger stick tall monopod. If you range one handed expect to range at around 1200 repeatedly and to about a mile with both hands. Make sure to keep the lens on the laser really clean or it will limit you to about 1350 yards.
One last feature that I like is the magnesium edge is tapered toward the lens and there must be a new coating that allows even easier cleaning.
Hope this helps anyone that is interested in these binos. I would still encourage anyone to try anything optic first since people's eyes, facial fit, and other needs can vary greatly.
Also if anyone is interested my next bino will likely be the new HD swarvoski SLC 15x56 W B that will be coming out in January provided that I don't spend the funds on some unexpected expense. I don't believe that Leica or Swarvoski are better than the other on a whole but think that at times one company is ahead of the other depending on the product line.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
I don't have one to test their ballistic solution with. I would recommend this if a decision point in purchase.
I'm sure it does measure absolute pressure, as this is the only measure. Where I'm concerned is in application to ballistic solution.
Altitude is not pressure, it's physical height from seal level, which is meaningless in determining air density to BC in ballistics.
If they're converting measure to pressure altitude, and applying standard conditions for this altitude, they could be messing up because it rarely applies to the real world.
Review this thread: http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/altitude-vs-barometric-pressure-11950/
Maybe they did just exactly what is needed for us. But don't assume it anymore than assuming your scope actually adjusts in MOA, or that BC on a box is correct for your velocities & conditions.
With LRH we have to go past generalizations straight to verified truths.
ArizonaWildernessHunter
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 35
If this helps the Geovids read 25.61 and a Davis vantage pro 2 reads 29.75 (although I know that the davis is sometimes 0.10 too low) when right next to each other at the conditions today and 4100 ft elevation.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
25.61"Hg is simple absolute pressure(this is good)
29.75"Hg is sea level adjusted pressure, given your input of 4100ft Altitude, assumption of standard altitude temperature(44.4degF), and binocular measure of 25.6"Hg absolute.
Altitude readings derived from either would be dependent on temperature.
My conern is about the use of measured pressure toward calculation of air density within the Geovid.
When we start converting to and back converting from altitude, and then applying results in common ballistic software, the probabilty of errors goes up.
The Geovid solution just needs to be validated against the best of today's ballistic software.
29.75"Hg is sea level adjusted pressure, given your input of 4100ft Altitude, assumption of standard altitude temperature(44.4degF), and binocular measure of 25.6"Hg absolute.
Altitude readings derived from either would be dependent on temperature.
My conern is about the use of measured pressure toward calculation of air density within the Geovid.
When we start converting to and back converting from altitude, and then applying results in common ballistic software, the probabilty of errors goes up.
The Geovid solution just needs to be validated against the best of today's ballistic software.
NZ Longranger
Well-Known Member
I have 2 sets of the new Leica's, a CRF 1600-B, 2 sets of EL Range's and a set of Zeiss RF's, that I have been testing extensively for the last few weeks.
In a nutshell the new Leica's rangefinder is no better than the CRF1600-B in most conditions, and way, way behind the Swaro and the Zeiss in useful rangefinding ability. In the usual daytime hunting conditions to the sort of non reflective targets we have in the field, they have struggled to consistently get 1100 to 1200 yards. The Swaro's and the RF's have blitzed the usual 1500 yards plus at the same time. The Leica's range fast when they actually get a range, but if you want something for shooting beyond 1000 yards in most conditions, these new Leica's will be a disappointment. I'm not interested in how far they will range to a refelective road sign, or in the dark. I want to know how reliable they will be in my usual daytime hunting conditions. Either I have 2 dud sets, which seems unlikely, or they are still significantly behind their competitors.
They still round off to the closest MOA as someone said earlier - plain stupid!
And too many of the important inputs like sight height cannot be varied. The ballistic solution is really only useful to 600 or 800 yards or so, before the potential error gets too great.
They do not display both LOS and EHR at the same time as the Swaro's do, and you need to remember at all times how you have it programmed or there's potential for a stuff up.
This is how they are best used though I feel, with a custom dial graduated in yards, and using the EHR feature. This will work fine to 600, and to 800 if you're aware of the environmental extremes that will cause too much error. But then they are no better than the Swaro's at this. The ballistic readout was where Leica could have gone into the lead, but they got it wrong, again. The Europeans seem to struggle understanding ballistics and the way we use our dial up scopes.
They are also heavier and bulkier than the Swaros.
On the plus side they are very good optically, a touch above the Swaro's on the daytime resolution test. They do range much closer than the Swaro's 30 yards, so are much more useful to a bow hunter.
They are better in light rain, low cloud and mist than the CRF 1600 which has always been a fault of all the Leica's, but they are still way behind the competition.
That's about my thoughts with the new Leica's so far if anyone is interested.
In a nutshell the new Leica's rangefinder is no better than the CRF1600-B in most conditions, and way, way behind the Swaro and the Zeiss in useful rangefinding ability. In the usual daytime hunting conditions to the sort of non reflective targets we have in the field, they have struggled to consistently get 1100 to 1200 yards. The Swaro's and the RF's have blitzed the usual 1500 yards plus at the same time. The Leica's range fast when they actually get a range, but if you want something for shooting beyond 1000 yards in most conditions, these new Leica's will be a disappointment. I'm not interested in how far they will range to a refelective road sign, or in the dark. I want to know how reliable they will be in my usual daytime hunting conditions. Either I have 2 dud sets, which seems unlikely, or they are still significantly behind their competitors.
They still round off to the closest MOA as someone said earlier - plain stupid!
And too many of the important inputs like sight height cannot be varied. The ballistic solution is really only useful to 600 or 800 yards or so, before the potential error gets too great.
They do not display both LOS and EHR at the same time as the Swaro's do, and you need to remember at all times how you have it programmed or there's potential for a stuff up.
This is how they are best used though I feel, with a custom dial graduated in yards, and using the EHR feature. This will work fine to 600, and to 800 if you're aware of the environmental extremes that will cause too much error. But then they are no better than the Swaro's at this. The ballistic readout was where Leica could have gone into the lead, but they got it wrong, again. The Europeans seem to struggle understanding ballistics and the way we use our dial up scopes.
They are also heavier and bulkier than the Swaros.
On the plus side they are very good optically, a touch above the Swaro's on the daytime resolution test. They do range much closer than the Swaro's 30 yards, so are much more useful to a bow hunter.
They are better in light rain, low cloud and mist than the CRF 1600 which has always been a fault of all the Leica's, but they are still way behind the competition.
That's about my thoughts with the new Leica's so far if anyone is interested.
I just finished a season of hunting with the 10x42 HD-B and constantly comparing them to the swarovision 10x42 EL. I sent them straight back to Leica after the season because the optical performance was definitively below that of the Swarovski. I talked to Leica today, and they are changing out the optical system. unfortunately, this will take at least 6 weeks because, as I was told by the technician, they have been getting a lot of them sent back for the same problem. Very disappointing for 3K.
The swarovski's had a much brighter crisper clearer picture. When I compared them side by side as the sun was going down, the Leicas felt like they were $1k binos, not $3k binos. The Leicas also had a very annoying green tint to the entire sight picture. The leicas also had a fuzziness to them that was non existent in the swarovskis. At dusk in south texas with clear skies I was able to use the swarovskis for a solid 10 to 20 minutes longer than the leicas and still make out exceptional detail. Overall, optically, they just did not perform even close to the swarovskis which was very disappointing because everything I had read indicated that they should exceed everything on the market.
When I spoke with the leica technician that had my binos in her hand, she admitted that there was a problem, that "many" of the HD-Bs have had this problem and that it would take at least 6 weeks to get them repaired because the "optical system" was on back order. All the way around, very disappointed. If they fix my binos and they do better than my swarovskis, I think they will be my go to bino, but that is a big if.
When I spoke with the leica technician that had my binos in her hand, she admitted that there was a problem, that "many" of the HD-Bs have had this problem and that it would take at least 6 weeks to get them repaired because the "optical system" was on back order. All the way around, very disappointed. If they fix my binos and they do better than my swarovskis, I think they will be my go to bino, but that is a big if.
Interesting. I must have got lucky and recieved a pair that does not have issues. I have a set of the Leica 10x42 HD-B's that I have had for about 3 months now and a set of the Swaro 10x42 EL's that I have had for a couple of years and used the Leica's the last month of hunting season on a couple of elk hunts. My hunting partner used my Swaro's and we swapped back and forth several times to compare the two during various stages of light (and even once in the dark under a full moon) and could not tell any difference.
I personally like the Leica's much better. I never did like how the Swaro's had the target circle in the right eye and the read out in the left eye. For me, it never did feel right, was hard to be sure you were on target to get accurate readings using two eyes.
I personally like the Leica's much better. I never did like how the Swaro's had the target circle in the right eye and the read out in the left eye. For me, it never did feel right, was hard to be sure you were on target to get accurate readings using two eyes.
cummins cowboy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2010
- Messages
- 361
you know there may indeed be something wrong at leica. its been a year since these have been announced and they still can't get them made and on store shelves. The had some late in the summer but the supply was a joke. this has to be hurting them. I would probably have bought some already but there just isn't enough out there that I can get a good deal on.
the other thing is while I need to look through some some more, keep in mind I wear glasses. I am not sure if its the porro prism deal or what but it just seems harder to get an image though these, its kinda almost like when you put up binoculars to your face and the hidge is too wide. it seems more difficult to get that perfect round circle view through them. I am not sure if its this or the view kinda seems oval shaped with the wider part being horizontal. thats not a bad think necessarily but just harder to get used to. I have to admit looking through them leaves me less enthusiastic about buying some, maybe its just how they fit my eyes. I have no problem with the older geovid hd's I have been using them for years.
the other thing is while I need to look through some some more, keep in mind I wear glasses. I am not sure if its the porro prism deal or what but it just seems harder to get an image though these, its kinda almost like when you put up binoculars to your face and the hidge is too wide. it seems more difficult to get that perfect round circle view through them. I am not sure if its this or the view kinda seems oval shaped with the wider part being horizontal. thats not a bad think necessarily but just harder to get used to. I have to admit looking through them leaves me less enthusiastic about buying some, maybe its just how they fit my eyes. I have no problem with the older geovid hd's I have been using them for years.
