• 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.

No one spotted the updated SF today? (1 Viewer)

One could be flippant and say or perhaps challenge that science hasn't changed since classic written papers or journals but we know how rapidly advancement has progressed with modern materials and designs be it prism design, coatings or glass. Have these changed since the classic books on optics that you refer to per chance?

The laws of physics haven't changed. If they did I'd be seriously worried, actually. You can find the explanation as to why the depth of field only depends on the magnifaction for instance in Holger Merlitz' book, to name a modern source.

If you *do* see a difference in DOF, it may be caused by field curvature, possibly in combination with your range of accomodation. That may give an impression of a larger depth of field. But it's an impression, not an objective property of the binoculars.

Hermann
 
The laws of physics haven't changed. If they did I'd be seriously worried, actually. You can find the explanation as to why the depth of field only depends on the magnifaction for instance in Holger Merlitz' book, to name a modern source.

If you *do* see a difference in DOF, it may be caused by field curvature, possibly in combination with your range of accomodation. That may give an impression of a larger depth of field. But it's an impression, not an objective property of the binoculars.

Hermann
Leica, as usual, made the center of the Noctavid deadly sharp. Coupled with visible field curvature (aka soft edges) one could argue for the presence of increased DOF. Personally, I did not see it and I specifically tested for it outdoors. The focus is relatively fast making it easy to adjust for distance but, again, there was no magical DOF in the model I examined.
 
I have only had a brief encounter with a Noctivid as of now, and that was the 10x42 model. Nevertheless, it did display an image that, while not having "better DOF" than competing models, did seem to have a set of virtues that, put together, allows our eyes and brain to have an easier time in perceiving depth of field, or at least a lessened need to twiddle with the focus wheel. These virtues or characteristics were:

- Exceptionally good baffling and internal blackening. Very little stray light to be seen anywhere.

- This leads to exceptional contrast, both blacker blacks and whiter whites as well as better definition of subtle shades of gray in poor light/low contrast subjects.

- Visually (did not use a booster yet) excellent sharpness. An image that looks like it has very, very low overall aberration levels. My hopes went up that here might - finally - be a binocular that is purposely made to come closer to diffraction limit than to ISO standard. More samples need to be seen and properly tested in order to know whether this is the case.

All of the above combine to make the circle of confusion smaller, meaning that you can look a tiny bit closer/farther than the optimum focus point before the perceived defocus becomes large enough to trigger a need to re-focus.

- A very large sweet spot for a non-field-flattener design. Very much like Swaro SLC series.

- Like the SLC's, a very nice small amount of field curvature with very low levels of field edge astigmatism. Together, these mean that for a given centerfield focus, the edges are in best focus closer to the viewer, and typically your foreground is closer to you than the target centered in the view. The younger your eyes and the better your accommodation, the better you are able to utilize these characteristics of the view.

I'll take a better look at these as soon as I have time, but for now let's say that I was suitably impressed. Unfortunately, I don't have the money to collect any more Muggle binoculars, but if I did, these would top my list of what to have on the bookcase and for the occasional retro outing.

Of course we can quibble about the specifics of strap lug placements and space for fingers between the tubes and exact gram weights etc., but I see the Noctivid as a quality instrument in true Leica tradition.

Once I get to subject it to more rigorous tripod-mounted tests and boosted star-test/resolution test tortures, my view of the view it provides may change. But, the first impression this time was certainly quite impressive.

Kimmo
 
The laws of physics haven't changed. If they did I'd be seriously worried, actually. You can find the explanation as to why the depth of field only depends on the magnifaction for instance in Holger Merlitz' book, to name a modern source.

If you *do* see a difference in DOF, it may be caused by field curvature, possibly in combination with your range of accomodation. That may give an impression of a larger depth of field. But it's an impression, not an objective property of the binoculars.

Hermann

I am sure Hermann is absolutely right on this but equally I am sure that Pyrtle is reporting what he saw. The controversy comes down to a possible misuse by Leica of the term depth of field.

I don't believe Leica has actually increased what is normally defined as the depth of field but, if a user finds that for whatever reason (and both me and Hermann and others before have referred to field curvature's and accommodation's role in this, and Kabsetz has added another, above) that they do not have to refocus as much to see clearly subjects somewhat behind and somewhat in front of the centre of the field of view, then effectively, for that viewer, the depth of field is larger. Maybe we should call it something like 'personal depth of focus'.

Lee
 
Last edited:
Binomania has a new review of the Black model, just up today.

Things have not changed much if at all, from the grey version.

Just a change in armor color. The 4 position eyecups are available free from Zeiss if
you ask. Most will not see a need.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
Binomania has a new review of the Black model, just up today.

Things have not changed much if at all, from the grey version.

Just a change in armor color. The 4 position eyecups are available free from Zeiss if
you ask. Most will not see a need.

Jerry

The armor fits now also much tighter around the binocular case. Compared to my (relatively early) grey version with lots of "bubbles" under the rubber, this is a welcome improvement.
Optics unchanged (still very good in my view).
Improvement also of the focusing mechanism. The SF now appears to be the premium bino it should have been from the beginning.
 
The armor fits now also much tighter around the binocular case. Compared to my (relatively early) grey version with lots of "bubbles" under the rubber, this is a welcome improvement.
Optics unchanged (still very good in my view).
Improvement also of the focusing mechanism. The SF now appears to be the premium bino it should have been from the beginning.

The focuser must have been improved upon, in the original models
starting in later 2015.
I got mine in Nov. 2015, and the focuser is very smooth.

The grey armor has ridges on the underside, to allow better cushioning
in case of a drop. I had a question about that, and it does not bother
at all in use.

Jerry
 
The focuser must have been improved upon, in the original models
starting in later 2015.
I got mine in Nov. 2015, and the focuser is very smooth.

The grey armor has ridges on the underside, to allow better cushioning
in case of a drop. I had a question about that, and it does not bother
at all in use.

Jerry

I am sure you are correct about the focuser Jerry.

The grey armour has been fine on my SFs and feels nice to me but it does feel different to conventional armour.

Lee
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top