• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

ScopeViews reviews the 10x42 Noctivids (1 Viewer)

This statement made me giggle and smirk.

"However, Leica haven’t tried to create anything as radical as the Zeiss SFs. Instead, the Noctivids seem to be pretty much a Leica EL, an admission that Swarovski got it right."

The voices in my head quieted right down after I read the entire review.
 
Last edited:
For my eyes the Swaro SV and its "rolling ball effect" are so overwhelming to make them nearly unusable for me. I appreciate that Leica designed the new Noctvid with something of a compromise rather than the overly (and unnatural) flat field of the SV.

"Flat field?

In daytime, first glance suggests these are a properly flat-field optic, like the Swarovski ELs. In fact, the field is very flat and sharp out to perhaps the last 20-30%, after which it softens progressively, though the edge is still usable. The softening is due to minor field curvature but mostly astigmatism. Distortion is very well controlled, with just a trace of pincushion to ease the rolling ball effect."
 
Why people want to compare this model to the SF and SV is beyond me - in terms of view and optical design, it is nearly a mirror of the HT and SLC. High contrast, low glare and a bit of edge softness with enough pincushion to provide a stable panning view.
 
james holdsworth said:
Why people want to compare this model to the SF and SV is beyond me - in terms of view and optical design, it is nearly a mirror of the HT and SLC. High contrast, low glare and a bit of edge softness with enough pincushion to provide a stable panning view.
Click to expand...

Aren't they supposed to be competing with those two glasses?

They are certainly priced in the same bracket.
 
james holdsworth said:
Why people want to compare this model to the SF and SV is beyond me - in terms of view and optical design, it is nearly a mirror of the HT and SLC. High contrast, low glare and a bit of edge softness with enough pincushion to provide a stable panning view.
Click to expand...

It´s not a mirror, it´s rather a league of its own (just returned a demo sample to Leica today...). As much as I was impressed with HT8x42 and am impressed with my FL 7x42 these older designs IMO have a higher degree of aberrations in the other zones, making them less comfortable to use. It´s not about curved field (which I consider to be a good friend) but aberrations in the outer zone. Try focusing spots in the outer 50% of an HT/FLimage you´ll never get them decently sharp. You do with the Noctivid and almost do with the Ultravid.

The Noctivid 10x42 most of the time has the ease of view of my Ultravid 7x42 which is to say sth. And UV is easier on my eyes than the FL 7x42.

The Noctivid to me seems to be a very mature design, well balanced, but it is also stunningly WOW. Should give the Swarovision a much harder time than the SF.

And no Absam Ring whatsoever... I´d rather have the last 20% of the field turning soft than a steep drop and rise in contrast at 70% aka Absam ring.

Roger´s review is a fine one, but I was wondering about the higher ghosting level of the NV vs SV. But then, I have only tried the 8.5x42 SV which has quite a lot of ghosting whereas the Noctivid has almost none.
 
Last edited:
Tobias Mennle said:
It´s not a mirror, it´s rather a league of its own (just returned a demo sample to Leica today...). As much as I was impressed with HT8x42 and am impressed with my FL 7x42 these older designs IMO have a higher degree of aberrations in the other zones, making them less comfortable to use. It´s not about curved field (which I consider to be a good friend) but aberrations in the outer zone. Try focusing spots in the outer 50% of an HT/FLimage you´ll never get them decently sharp. You do with the Noctivid and almost do with the Ultravid.

The Noctivid 10x42 most of the time has the ease of view of my Ultravid 7x42 which is to say sth. And UV is easier on my eyes than the FL 7x42.

The Noctivid to me seems to be a very mature design, well balanced, but it is also stunningly WOW. Should give the Swarovision a much harder time than the SF.

And no Absam Ring whatsoever... I´d rather have the last 20% of the field turning soft than a steep drop and rise in contrast at 70% aka Absam ring.

Roger´s review is a fine one, but I was wondering about the higher ghosting level of the NV vs SV. But then, I have only tried the 8.5x42 SV which has quite a lot of ghosting whereas the Noctivid has almost none.
Click to expand...


Compare the attached photo to the photo in the review, where he talks about edge sharpness / astigmatism....and tell me which one is sharper at 12 o'clock, 3 o'clock and 9 o' clock.
 

Attachments

  • bino pic1 (800x600).jpg
    bino pic1 (800x600).jpg
    224.7 KB · Views: 455
If the accompanying picture may be trusted the following statement was a very disappointing surprise and of jaw-dropping magnitude:

"Noctivid image quality drops off in the outer part of the field."

LGM
 
Tobias Mennle said:
It´s not about curved field (which I consider to be a good friend) but aberrations in the outer zone. Try focusing spots in the outer 50% of an HT/FLimage you´ll never get them decently sharp. You do with the Noctivid and almost do with the Ultravid.
Click to expand...

Forgive me ignorance, but are you speaking of field curvature that can be focused to roughly the same degree as centre field?
 
I don't have a Noctivid at hand, but my measurement records show that when the binocular was focused for optimum centerfield focus, resolution at the extreme edge dropped just under two groups on the USAF chart with my eyes, and with re-focusing for optimum edge focus, the reading was just under one group lower than optimum centre reading. Therefore, mostly field curvature but also some astigmatism.

As far as ghosting and flare, I also did not see any ghosting, and there was essentially zero flare, even in most difficult backlight conditions. These are the first binoculars with which I'd be seriously concerned about burning my eyes by inadvertently looking at the sun since there is no advance warning that you are getting that close.

Since Roger Vine views with glasses on and I don't, maybe the ghosting comes from that?

My measurement for eye-relief was 17.5 mm so almost the same. Eyelens diameter 26, so perhaps we rounded in different directions.

With respect to the discussion in the article about the AFOV, since the Noctivid has very little AMD (very little compression of objects towards field edge), the same true field yields a wider apparent field which. This also holds for the Canon 10x42, which has a field that looks wider than its true field would lead one to expect when compared to designs like the SV or the SF.

Kimmo
 
Tobias Mennle said:
It´s not a mirror, it´s rather a league of its own (just returned a demo sample to Leica today...). As much as I was impressed with HT8x42 and am impressed with my FL 7x42 these older designs IMO have a higher degree of aberrations in the other zones, making them less comfortable to use. It´s not about curved field (which I consider to be a good friend) but aberrations in the outer zone. Try focusing spots in the outer 50% of an HT/FLimage you´ll never get them decently sharp. You do with the Noctivid and almost do with the Ultravid.

The Noctivid 10x42 most of the time has the ease of view of my Ultravid 7x42 which is to say sth. And UV is easier on my eyes than the FL 7x42.

The Noctivid to me seems to be a very mature design, well balanced, but it is also stunningly WOW. Should give the Swarovision a much harder time than the SF.

And no Absam Ring whatsoever... I´d rather have the last 20% of the field turning soft than a steep drop and rise in contrast at 70% aka Absam ring.

Roger´s review is a fine one, but I was wondering about the higher ghosting level of the NV vs SV. But then, I have only tried the 8.5x42 SV which has quite a lot of ghosting whereas the Noctivid has almost none.
Click to expand...

Cheers for your observations Tobias.

I’ve been waiting for your impressions of the Noctivid, and from what you’ve previously written about your optical experiences I had a strong hunch that the Noctivid would tick many of your boxes.
I agree with your observations.

Not a perfect binocular by any means, but the finest and most aesthetically balanced set of compromises I’ve seen in a roof binocular (perhaps any binocular).

Keen to read about your experience with the 8x42 Noctivid when you get the chance.

Cheers,
Rathaus

Edit: Tobias - you (or someone on the forum) may have once mentioned a possible relationship between ease of view at the eye piece/eye placement - and it’s possible relationship to the amount of baffling. If this is the case, then the Noctivid appears to have pulled off the trick of offering a sweet and easy view combined with masses of dead pitch black baffling. I’ve poked about with a torch and it looks completely ‘dead’ inside this binocular. The eye pieces look like two invisible black holes barring the nice exit pupil.
 
Last edited:
Rathaus said:
Not a perfect binocular by any means, but the finest and most aesthetically balanced set of compromises I’ve seen in a roof binocular (perhaps any binocular).
Click to expand...

That is exactly my conclusion having spent time with both the 8x42 and 10x42.

I'm waiting for the 8x32...
 
The comment about ghosting seems a bit odd to me as well,
also very little talk about glare suppression (SV vs NV) in daylight.
But I guess astronomy is the main occupation for the reviewer.
In faint moonlight anything could happen with a dilated eye pupil, that might not be visible in daylight.
Conclusion; still no perfect 42mm bin on the market.
 
Vespobuteo said:
The comment about ghosting seems a bit odd to me as well, also very little talk about glare suppression (SV vs NV) in daylight.
But I guess astronomy is the main occupation for the reviewer.
In faint moonlight anything could happen with a dilated eye pupil, that might not be visible in daylight.
Conclusion; still no perfect 42mm bin on the market.
Click to expand...

Will there ever be a "perfect" 42mm? I don't really think so myself.

From what I've seen the NV runs circles around all other (roof prism) binoculars I know, so I find the comment about glare suppression also quite odd. It's far better than the SV from what I saw for instance.

Hermann
 
Really good review. The pictures are great of the NV and it is a very attractive instrument. Roger obviously preferred the SV overall and he especially liked it for astronomy because of it's highly corrected flat field and edge to edge sharpness. Interesting that the Swarovski's had better stray light performance when many members have been saying the NV's are really exceptional at controlling stray light. That was quite a negative comment he made about Zeiss build quality at the end but after having the having Zeiss Victory 8x25 and returning it for the Swarovski 8x25 CL-P I would tend to agree with him. Big difference in quality between the two. Zeiss are functional but they are not the quality of Swarovski or Leica anymore.

"So, even though the Noctivids are better the Swarovski ELs in some areas (eye relief and focuser), if you are intending to do much astronomy then I would buy the Swarovskis. Meanwhile, I would choose the Noctivids over the Zeiss SFs purely on build quality, even though I actually prefer the Zeiss."
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Really good review. The pictures are great of the NV and it is a very attractive instrument. Roger obviously preferred the SV overall and he especially liked it for astronomy because of it's highly corrected flat field and edge to edge sharpness. Interesting that the Swarovski's had better stray light performance when many members have been saying the NV's are really exceptional at controlling stray light. That was quite a negative comment he made about Zeiss build quality at the end but after having the having Zeiss Victory 8x25 and returning it for the Swarovski 8x25 CL-P I would tend to agree with him. Big difference in quality between the two. Zeiss are functional but they are not the quality of Swarovski or Leica anymore.

"So, even though the Noctivids are better the Swarovski ELs in some areas (eye relief and focuser), if you are intending to do much astronomy then I would buy the Swarovskis. Meanwhile, I would choose the Noctivids over the Zeiss SFs purely on build quality, even though I actually prefer the Zeiss."
Click to expand...

Concerning build quality, note that the SF review is of the mk1 (grey) version:

http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissVictory10x42SF.htm

The black mk2 version is better and closer to the SV and NV in quality feel.
I wouldn't dismiss the SF on build quality today, which I did initially.
Perfect ergonomics and lower weight is so much more important than a somewhat fiddly diopter setting.
 
[email protected] said:
Really good review. The pictures are great of the NV and it is a very attractive instrument. Roger obviously preferred the SV overall and he especially liked it for astronomy because of it's highly corrected flat field and edge to edge sharpness. Interesting that the Swarovski's had better stray light performance when many members have been saying the NV's are really exceptional at controlling stray light. That was quite a negative comment he made about Zeiss build quality at the end but after having the having Zeiss Victory 8x25 and returning it for the Swarovski 8x25 CL-P I would tend to agree with him. Big difference in quality between the two. Zeiss are functional but they are not the quality of Swarovski or Leica anymore.

"So, even though the Noctivids are better the Swarovski ELs in some areas (eye relief and focuser), if you are intending to do much astronomy then I would buy the Swarovskis. Meanwhile, I would choose the Noctivids over the Zeiss SFs purely on build quality, even though I actually prefer the Zeiss."
Click to expand...

Astronomy is one of the few uses I can imagine for a flat field binocular, since a mounted binocular won't experience rolling ball, and hand holding a binocular while looking up is way too shaky.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

John A Roberts
Roger Vine’s review of an original Leitz Trivovid 7x35
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Holger Merlitz
H
C
Zeiss conquest 8x56 review
Replies
4
Views
332
Craig77
C
John A Roberts
Roger Vine's review of the Retrovid 8x40
Replies
3
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
S
Noctivid 8x42- wow!
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
15K
hopster
hopster
S
IPD and folks who own the Trinovid HD in 8x32...
Replies
0
Views
675
sope0018
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top