Renze de Vries
Well-known member
I’m somewhat bewildered by the fascination, if not to say obsession, on this forum with Leica Noctivid’s 3D view. Was it the marketing department at Wetzlar that turned up the heat? Possibly, but let’s see what is actually stated on Leica’s website: ‘(…) image plasticity almost like in 3D’. Doesn’t sound too bold to me, nothing outrageous, rather careful I’d say.
‘Almost’. I agree that’s not very clear, specific or exact. But in any case no-one at Leica is claiming something stereoscopic like in 3D television, or even the kind of 3D illusion we may experience in porro binoculars. All that’s said, it seems to me, is that the Noctivid does something good to the perception of space and depth, and so to the liveliness of the image.
So you see I’m more taken by Leica’s modesty than by the gross expectations expressed in these quarters. I wonder, what should one expect from a binocular? Special effects, of the kind we see in the movies with 3D spectacles on? In 3D picture viewers? Something we can say ‘wow’ to? Should we really expect typical porro effects from a roof binocular? And ultimately, should we be happy with all that?
Of course we wouldn’t. Just imagine the chaos, the awful clash of opinion between porro and roof aficionados on Birdforum, the sound of hurrahs (faintly) and yechs (thunderous), if Leica had really succeeded in the design of a full-fledged porro view in a roof body. Good gracious, it would be a disaster, not only here, but certainly at Leica headquarters where one would realize that their new top tier binocular would only be sold to a few eccentrics. More specific, to only those eccentrics buying exocentric binoculars.
Since I’ve used the Noctivid for several weeks now, and seen the phenomenon, I’m happy to report that Leica hasn’t fallen into the trap of special effects. A hint of 3D? Possibly, but I’m not particularly sensitive to it (others may!). What I see is a very fine apparent field of view, a richly detailed and vivid image, a naturalness not easily found elsewhere. It’s especially the latter aspect that strikes me. It reminds me of the very subtle way we experience space and depth in real life. Just have a look around. Of course we know that we live in a three dimensional world, and we’re led to believe that we see that. But in fact it’s pretty difficult to point it out. The optical clues by which we experience three dimensionality are remarkably subtle indeed.
Leica is a firm with a long and respectable history. They’re proud of that (sometimes bordering on arrogance) and for good reasons. It’s about quality, maintaining a standard of excellence. With respect to binocular design, it’s quite remarkable that in every model issued since the 1950’s (I can’t say anything substantial about what went before) there’s a certain philosophy behind it, a characteristic approach, something distinct that makes one say ah, here’s the Leica view again. Part of the philosophy is I think an aversion to optical tricks, to spectacular effects, and I think that’s fine. Because an optical instrument shouldn’t be a funhouse.
What I see is that Leica has aimed for the natural view. If that doesn’t sound very impressive to you, I think you’re right. The natural view isn’t spectacular at all, it’s just there, taken for granted. But since a binocular is by its nature highly artificial (remember the illusion of depth in the porro view), making a binocular with an image that feels natural to the eye is rather difficult. And I guess it’s not easily appreciated as well. But that’s how it is, take it or leave it.
Renze
‘Almost’. I agree that’s not very clear, specific or exact. But in any case no-one at Leica is claiming something stereoscopic like in 3D television, or even the kind of 3D illusion we may experience in porro binoculars. All that’s said, it seems to me, is that the Noctivid does something good to the perception of space and depth, and so to the liveliness of the image.
So you see I’m more taken by Leica’s modesty than by the gross expectations expressed in these quarters. I wonder, what should one expect from a binocular? Special effects, of the kind we see in the movies with 3D spectacles on? In 3D picture viewers? Something we can say ‘wow’ to? Should we really expect typical porro effects from a roof binocular? And ultimately, should we be happy with all that?
Of course we wouldn’t. Just imagine the chaos, the awful clash of opinion between porro and roof aficionados on Birdforum, the sound of hurrahs (faintly) and yechs (thunderous), if Leica had really succeeded in the design of a full-fledged porro view in a roof body. Good gracious, it would be a disaster, not only here, but certainly at Leica headquarters where one would realize that their new top tier binocular would only be sold to a few eccentrics. More specific, to only those eccentrics buying exocentric binoculars.
Since I’ve used the Noctivid for several weeks now, and seen the phenomenon, I’m happy to report that Leica hasn’t fallen into the trap of special effects. A hint of 3D? Possibly, but I’m not particularly sensitive to it (others may!). What I see is a very fine apparent field of view, a richly detailed and vivid image, a naturalness not easily found elsewhere. It’s especially the latter aspect that strikes me. It reminds me of the very subtle way we experience space and depth in real life. Just have a look around. Of course we know that we live in a three dimensional world, and we’re led to believe that we see that. But in fact it’s pretty difficult to point it out. The optical clues by which we experience three dimensionality are remarkably subtle indeed.
Leica is a firm with a long and respectable history. They’re proud of that (sometimes bordering on arrogance) and for good reasons. It’s about quality, maintaining a standard of excellence. With respect to binocular design, it’s quite remarkable that in every model issued since the 1950’s (I can’t say anything substantial about what went before) there’s a certain philosophy behind it, a characteristic approach, something distinct that makes one say ah, here’s the Leica view again. Part of the philosophy is I think an aversion to optical tricks, to spectacular effects, and I think that’s fine. Because an optical instrument shouldn’t be a funhouse.
What I see is that Leica has aimed for the natural view. If that doesn’t sound very impressive to you, I think you’re right. The natural view isn’t spectacular at all, it’s just there, taken for granted. But since a binocular is by its nature highly artificial (remember the illusion of depth in the porro view), making a binocular with an image that feels natural to the eye is rather difficult. And I guess it’s not easily appreciated as well. But that’s how it is, take it or leave it.
Renze
Last edited: