I'm curious if anyone has had the opportunity to test these two models out. I understand the 42mm will be slightly brighter, however I'm curious what the comparison is really like. I'd like to go and get my hands on some to test myself but, the nearest store is at least an hour away. I'm drawn to the 32mm due to the smaller compact size, but the 42mm due to the possibility of a brighter, possibly clearer, image. The spec sheet has the 32mm with a wider FOV, by only a couple feet. Has anyone had a chance to compare the two models?
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Leica Geovid Pro 10x32 vs 10x42 (with or without AB+)
- Thread starter chav0_12
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I have the 10x42 AB's and they have been retired for the new Vectronix Vector X. Really should take a look at these but no doubt the Leica is a fabulous product. The Vector x with the hud and software plus the optics are awesome.
My primary concern is optics with a secondary for the RF capabilities. Right now I'm using a Leica 2800.COM paired with my Kestrel Elite. I'm not too worried about solutions because the setup that I'm currently using is awesome and adding a RF bino would only increase my capability when rifle hunting. How do the optics compare between Vector X and the Geovid Pro?
The optics edge to edge are very slightly better in the Leica in full daylight. In your case just stay with what you have as the capability offered by the Vector X may not be in your best interest based on your comments.
Yeah I'm not thinking I'm gaining much capability by going to the binocular version, but I do want to add an RF binocular for some extended range shooting as I do believe it will be easier to range farther targets accurately, especially being able to use a tripod.
I have used the 10x32 pros for a couple of years. Really like them. Having the solution in one device is super helpful in hunting situations.
IMHO the glass is very good, not fantastic. I think you loose some quality with any RF binos compared to non.
IMHO the glass is very good, not fantastic. I think you loose some quality with any RF binos compared to non.
shooters
Well-Known Member
I no longer use my Leica 10x42 Pro AB. I run the Sig 10k Gen2.
The Leica glass is marginally better, but the range finders do not compare. The Gen2 is fabulous.
The Leica glass is marginally better, but the range finders do not compare. The Gen2 is fabulous.
I'm currently using Swarovski 10x42 SLCs, so I'm thinking stepping up might give me better glass. If I had the NL Pures I might be thinking I'd lose optical clarity.
Do you glass long periods with the 10x32s? Does the small exit pupil seem to bother you?
What makes the Sig so much better? My
Primary concern is as a binocular first and range finder second so optics is key.
I do spend a lot of time behind them. I dont have issues with them but they will never be as good as something like the Pure's. To me, it was a huge help having one optic for range and calculations
shooters
Well-Known Member
Is there a difference in glass. Yes. It's it night and day, no. To me it it would be like comparing a ZCO to a ATACR. Both nice, but the ZCO is just nicer.
The rangefinder on the other hand is light years above the Leica.
What makes the rangefinder in the Sig light years ahead of the Leica?
shooters
Well-Known Member
The speed and strength of the rangefinders don't even compare. The info the Sig display gives is better. The app is better. At the rate it computes the information makes the Leica look like it's from the early 90s.
