Leica Noctivid 10x42 review (1 Viewer)

Leica Germany had test weeks for the Noctivids recently, a truly excellent service IMO and marketing money well spend (hopefully). Unfortunately I got the 10x instead of the 8x, nevertheless it was an exciting week with a gorgeous binocular. Like with the Ultravid 7x42HD+ which is my point of reference, I like the balance of qualities Leica put into this bin. My short review here:

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/leica/noctivid10x42/noctivid10x42.html

I don´t do much night sky, but unlike Roger Vine I found the edge performance of my - possibly better - sample to be excellent. I could - by refocusing - obtain a very sharp image far towards the edges, sth. which is impossible with say a Zeiss FL, which I interpret as a good correction of astigmatism. No doubt astigmatism and other aberrations vary from lemon to cherry samples. My biggest worry about the Noctivid was that Leica imitated the Swarovision flat field. I am so glad they did not. Their solution pleases me very well. Flat field impression is (from memory!) similar to the Nikon 8x42 EDG, but with more 3D effect and less tunnel view due to more pincushion distortion.

IMO the Noctivid is about:

- extreme contrast from big to smallest objects.

- excellent ease of view (probably due to good aberration control). I was shocked how easy the view was with only 4mm EP, about as good as in my 7x42 Ultravid except in late twilight and darkness. I have high hopes now for a 8x32 Noctivid.

- Leica colour (I hate the green stuff in Zeiss and Swaro SLC).

- pseudo3dimensionality (perceived 3D, beyond simple stereopsis).

- exceptional resistance to peripheral, crescent flaring (very unlike Swarovision)

- perfect panning behavior, no rolling globe whatsoever (very unlike SV and SF).

- great build quality and industrial design


What I don´t like:

- Compact double hinge design seems a step back from Ultravid and EDG. This seems to be more about convincing us the Noctivid is a truly new design than about great ergonomy. Focuser way to close to the oculars.

- Weight. Almost 100g more than Ultravid/SF/EDG.

- still some pronounced veiling glare against the sun, sometimes worse than in my Ultravid.

- While to my eyes this is a surprisingly bright bin, the name Noctivid judging by Leica tradition (Noctilux...) should have been reserved for a state-of-the-art bright bin - Perger Porro, AK prisms...

- Chromatic aberration. It almost seems as if the extreme contrast and good control of other aberrations unveil CA in a more pronounced way. I don´t think that one more lens of ED glass would have helped much. If it were that easy... There is a German lens designer, Mr. Kisilev, who recently wrote in a german magazine: "What every lens designer learns in his first year is that the sharper your lens, the more CA you get."... for the explanation you´d probably have to be an aspiring lens designer.

I will look at the 8x42, as a much better comparison to my Ultravid. I hope Leica will not get totally rid of their compactness paradigm with a possible 8x32 Noctivid.

Outstanding review Tobias. A great read as always :t:

Hi Tobias,

Thank you for your riview. But I am surprised by your finding of "some pronounced veiling glare against the sun" in the Noctivid....
When I compared last June my Zeiss HT 10x42 with a Noctivid 10x42 I was VERY SURPRISED by the practically total absence of veiling glare in the Noctivid looking almost to the sun vs. the HT. With the HT the vision was very "milky" with a strong veling glare! With the Noctivid, none veiling glare!!!! Amazing difference!
May be different samples...

PHA

Hi Tobias, another good review from yourself.

I`m afraid I agree with you about the C/A being to frequently visible in the NV, I can`t comment on glare as I`v not tried it in suitable circumstances yet.

I actually find the contrast too much, looking at a Gull against a bright sky I find it hard to see where the delineation between the two is, the outline of the Bird lost in the contrast.

Tobias Mennle said:

There is a German lens designer, Mr. Kisilev, who recently wrote in a german magazine: "What every lens designer learns in his first year is that the sharper your lens, the more CA you get."... for the explanation you´d probably have to be an aspiring lens designer.

Click to expand...

I find that assertion very hard to swallow. If a lens has substantially different focal lengths for differing wavelengths then its sharpness will be impaired. Do you have a linK?

John

Tobias:

I am attaching my brief review of an early example of NV 8x42 (posted in December 2016). It agrees quite well with yours. In particular I have also found the CA to be poorly controlled, a fact which at that time generated some discussion. I believe I have also reviewed the NV 10x42 in some thread, but could not find that review. I should add that the NV's FoV also is not fully competitive. Well, you cannot have everything....

Peter

NV 8x42---short review, bullet style
++Build quality and accessories: very good; among others, I like the rainguard, which I rarely do; also a very good system for the objective lens caps.
--Ergos/handling: hard to find the best grip, the open bridge/double hinge is somewhat useless--despite moving the focus knob higher than usual, there is not enough space for 4 or even 3 fingers. Focus knob unusually close to the eyes, I tried to focus a few times by trying to turn the upper hinge instead of the knob! Also rather heavy on the neck--- and it feels a bit cold in the hand, especially as there is no rubber armor between the tubes.
--Focus knob a bit on the stiff side on my sample, also seems to have a tiny play when you change directions.
--Blackouts (without glasses): slight but relatively frequent, despite very good eyecups with multiple stops-- they seem a bit too short (the ER=18mm, and the eyecups extend about 14mm); Use with glasses should be fine (but I need to twist up the eyecups till the 2nd stop).
++/--Apparent 3D: quite visible. My explanation: the upper part of the FoV has a small negative curvature (so that the background is in focus), whereas the lower part has a lot of positive curvature (so that the foreground is in focus)--this yields 3D impression (the -- is for the excessive curvature in the lower part).
--Pincushion: acceptable.
--CA: rather conspicuous off axis: a crow, with a whitish sky as a background, looked almost like a green parakeet when moved off center!
++Contrast: very good, likely due to a very good light transmission curve and very good baffling. As remarked by others objects do stand out well separated from the background and the view is vivid/vibrant. (I briefly watched a soccer game in San Francisco and I could not stop looking at the yellow and red jerseys... ).
++Glare control: very good, likely the best--and this despite the fact that looking at the lower part of the FoV one can see 2 bright reflections from 6 to 5 (right tube) and 6 to 7 (left tube), likely from a lens ring or the prism edges--like in the SF8x42!

Click to expand...

still some pronounced veiling glare against the sun, sometimes worse than in my Ultravid

Click to expand...

Tobias:

I believe the glare that you observed when viewing very close to the sun is due to the reflections from the prism edges that I mentioned in the last comment of my review above.

Peter

PeterPS said:

Tobias:

I am attaching my brief review of an early example of NV 8x42 (posted in December 2016). It agrees quite well with yours. In particular I have also found the CA to be poorly controlled, a fact which at that time generated some discussion. I believe I have also reviewed the NV 10x42 in some thread, but could not find that review. I should add that the NV's FoV also is not fully competitive. Well, you cannot have everything....

Peter

Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

Missed this december post completely, but your explanation why the 3D is so called present could be the one I was looking for.

Thx

Jan

jan van daalen said:

Hi Peter,

Missed this december post completely, but your explanation why the 3D is so called present could be the one I was looking for.

Thx

Jan

Click to expand...

:t::t:
Lee

Tobias,

I agree with you on CA, sharpness, contrast, colour and most other things, but on veiling glare my experience was different from yours. In the conditions where I got to view with the 10x42 Noctivid, I saw very little or no veiling glare. I doubt this could be due to sample differences in the binoculars. It is more likely that you have viewed in even more demanding lighting than I did. My viewing did include bright sunny days, but there was none of the very worst (and here quite rare) veiling glare light - sunshine with some thin mist or haze in the air, where there is both strong direct sunlight and strong sunlight scattered from the morning or evening mist. Morning mist just being burned away by the rising sun is a conditions that kills every binocular or scope I have ever tried, and I did not have any of that when I tried the Noctivid.

Kimmo

Hi,

When I compared my Z HT 10x42 vs Noctivid 10x42, I tried HARD to provoke veiling glare, defect I see very important for my tastes..I tried both in VERY difficult situations looking against the sun, with the sun close to edges of buildings and trees. I repeat, veiling glare almost absent in the Noctivid. The veiling glare in the HT made it almost useless in that extreme situation. I fell in love with that Noctivid.

PHA

Nice review, Tobias. As I read through this thread it makes me realize that although I value subjective reviews from an experienced reviewer like you they don't really mean a lot because it is just your opinion and your eyes that you are judging the binocular with. You say you see veiling glare with the Noctivid but then there are at least three comments from other experienced members that say they say no veiling glare or the Noctived was the best binocular they have ever used to control veiling glare. You do no objective testing at all outside of maybe close focus distance and things like that. Your review is your opinion basically. I believe the reviews from Allbinos are more meaningful because although they aren't perfect they do some objective testing to eliminate the human factor. Robert Vine and you even disagree on the Noctivid and you are both excellent reviewers. I know Kimmo is a very experienced reviewer and he disagrees with you on veiling glare. Then when they don't agree with you they dismiss it as a bad sample. If I buy a $2500.00 Noctivid how I am even going to know if I got a good sample. The alpha binoculars are generally going to be better than less expensive binoculars and they should be because they cost more and they are all very good but every person is going to differ on what they prefer and what they think is important so I say try before you buy. What we need are more reviews with more objective testing to eliminate human bias and opinion. Everybody has different priorities as to what is important to them in a binocular. To one person CA control may be important and to another person handling and ergonomics are more important. We are all different so good thing there are different binoculars to choose from. You know the Habicht 8x30 W is your favorite binocular and I think it is totally useless in certain viewing situations due to veiling glare. It is just opinion and personal taste.

PeterPS said:

Tobias:

I believe the glare that you observed when viewing very close to the sun is due to the reflections from the prism edges that I mentioned in the last comment of my review above.

Peter

Click to expand...

Agree !!!!

I was surprised to read the glare problem on the NV.

For me the reviews of Tobias are a reference and i a big fan of his web site, but probably he dint got a good sample of the NV 10X42.

The veil glare and flare on the NV is way ahead over the other alpha and a reference to follow for the other manufactures.

I like the exquisite color reproduction on the NV better than my SV FP 10X50, the color on the SV FP in inproved respect the first generations of SV, coatings are different, less green a yellow with a touch of pink now, the barrels are painted with a darker paint.

There is nothing to complaint about the SV FO 10X50. is one of the very best binoculars in the market but the NV for me is better.

There is something lacking in the SV view when you compare with a binocular like the NV or the HT, the SV is perfect but more flat, the HT and NV have a little bit more pop and 3D due to the curvature of field.

Please check the fantastic review of Henry Link talking about this.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/446051-swarovski-slc-56-wb-vs-zeiss-victory-fl-56/

GLOBETROTTER said:

Agree !!!!

I was surprised to read the glare problem on the NV.

For me the reviews of Tobias are a reference and i a big fan of his web site, but probably he dint got a good sample of the NV 10X42.

Click to expand...

I'm with the previous poster on this issue in sharing his concern about the notion of sample variation in the Noctivid. I've stated before here (with regard to collimation) that it's unlikely that any two binoculars are going to be completely identical, but surely the 'sample variation' between two Noctivids must be vanishingly small and of the sort that only someone like Kimmo with his specialised equipment can detect.

I really can't believe that there could be so much difference between two examples such that there would be virtually no veiling glare on one and very obvious veiling glare on another. The answer as to why one or two people notice it and most don't must surely lie elsewhere.

In any case, Tobias's review example came from Leica Germany. Surely, if noticeable sample variation actually exists, Leica would have made sure that they sent him a good one?!

Tringa45 said:

I find that assertion very hard to swallow. If a lens has substantially different focal lengths for differing wavelengths then its sharpness will be impaired. Do you have a linK?

John

Click to expand...

John
I will stick my neck out and suggest that what the German gentleman meant is that when you key new parameters into your optical software that will deliver a lens with greater resolution, you should also expect an increase in chromatic aberration. What I think was left unsaid is that for the lens to realise its 'sharpness potential' you will need to introduce more CA control which would typically mean ED glass, or better ED glass or Fl glass. At least that is how I understand this remark but I may be mistaken and would welcome correction.

Lee

PeterPS said:

Tobias:

I am attaching my brief review of an early example of NV 8x42 (posted in December 2016). It agrees quite well with yours. In particular I have also found the CA to be poorly controlled, a fact which at that time generated some discussion. I believe I have also reviewed the NV 10x42 in some thread, but could not find that review. I should add that the NV's FoV also is not fully competitive. Well, you cannot have everything....

Peter

Click to expand...

Peter,

After carefully comparing the 10x SV/NV/SF on "3D" differences, I come to the conclusion there ain't any. The sharpness in DOF is exactly the same.
To make it clear: for me 3D (as an example) is being able to see if a certain tree is before another one.
Depth of Field is the sharpness of the image between two distances.

I read a lot of talk about the exceptional 3D aspect of the NV and Leica Wetzlars explanation about it was that they would not give up that secret because otherwise the others would copy itB . Sure....
So your explanation brought some possible light on this subject but after comparing things, I still can't see it.
Could you explain in humble language (so my modest brain can digest it) what the F.. I am missing here?

Thx

Jan

Hi Jan,

This is Peter's explanation for the sensation of "Apparent 3D" in the Noctovid.

"Apparent 3D: quite visible. My explanation: the upper part of the FoV has a small negative curvature (so that the background is in focus), whereas the lower part has a lot of positive curvature (so that the foreground is in focus)--this yields 3D impression (the -- is for the excessive curvature in the lower part)."

This doesn't make sense to me. I can't imagine any combination of spherical or aspherical lenses that could produce negative field curvature in one direction and positive in the opposite direction (and presumably zero field curvature in the transition from positive to negative along the perpendicular axis). At any rate this idea would be easy enough to check by rotating the binocular.

Henry

henry link said:

Hi Jan,

This is Peter's explanation for the sensation of "Apparent 3D" in the Noctovid.

"Apparent 3D: quite visible. My explanation: the upper part of the FoV has a small negative curvature (so that the background is in focus), whereas the lower part has a lot of positive curvature (so that the foreground is in focus)--this yields 3D impression (the -- is for the excessive curvature in the lower part)."

This doesn't make sense to me. I can't imagine any combination of spherical or aspherical lenses that could produce negative field curvature in one direction and positive in the opposite direction (and presumably zero field curvature in the transition from positive to negative along the perpendicular axis). At any rate this idea would be easy enough to check by rotating the binocular.

Henry

Click to expand...

Hi Henry,

It doesn't make sense to me either but that could be caused by my lack of braincells to understand the complexitiy of the subject:-C

Even Leica refused to shed light on this matter:-C:-C

Creating a myth is one thing but to be able to sell it to knowledgeble people is quite remarkeble.
Still, I'm in the dark......

Jan

Leica refused to shed light on this matter.
Creating a myth is one thing but to be able to sell it to knowledgeble people is quite remarkeble.

Click to expand...

Jan and Henry:

My conjecture about what might cause the 3D effect would imply the existence of a tilted focal plane, and as both of you suggested, is likely far-fetched; at least we do not know of any other previous case.

I agree with you, Jan, that the 3D in the NV might be nothing but a "fata morgana" that disappears in a side by side comparison with other binos of the same mag. However some people see 3D in the NV but not so neatly in other binos, and that might have to do with their eyes (I believe that a bit of astigmatism paradoxically might help here), their brain, as well as NV's field curvature pattern.

Peter

Peter,

Rotating or inverting the binocular is still the test for the idea of a tilted focal plane.

Henry