SV versus SF versus NV (1 Viewer)

jan van daalen said:

:gh:

As it turns out the quotum for Holland is 5. We pre-ordered 4 and got 1 (which goes back as soon as there are more samples available).
So I do hope the free play is a sample variation and not "a thing".
For your convenience I checked the NV,SF,SV,HT, HD+ and SLC on center and edge performance:

FWIW:
HT offers + on CA and ++ on SA. CA and unsharp occurs on the last 10%;
NV offers ++ on CA and SA. CA and unsharpness on 30 and 20% from edge;
HD+ is the same as the NV;
SLC ++ on CA and SA. CA and unsharpness on 20%;
SV ++ on CA and -+ on SA. CA on 20% and complete sharp;
SF same as SV but last 5% not exact sharp in edge.

The brightness of the color fringing is most present on the NV and the HD+.

Best I could do!

Maybe if you guys/:gh::gh: learn Dutch it would make communication much easier8-P

Jan

Click to expand...

Thanks Jan, that's fantastic comparo information :t:

Fingers crossed the focuser is a one off - it's amazing how many early units of new models from different manufacturers seem to have focusing precision issues ..... :cat:

Btw, that will be a big negatory on learning the Dutch :brains: . I have been accused of speaking Double Dutch at times B :-O, but otherwise I'm only fluent in 8 languages ....


Chosun :gh:

Tarsiger said:

As a long term user of zeiss fl 7x42 the first thing I noticed about the 8 and 10 noctovids today were the weight!!
I'm not prone to suffering from any of the usual optical aberrations but I found the noctovids, sadly, unuseable as there were no eyecup positions where I wasnt struggling with blackouts. Things improved with 7x42 Ultravid+ but still present unlike the FLs.
(ps Im not a spectacle wearer). Personally I prefer the cheaper plasticky armouring on the zeiss as its 'sticky' whereas the newer leica armouring is distinctly 'slippy' especially in dry hands. For me the FL fits my hands and eyes and the focusser is the right size and position and quick enough for me. I'm concerned that despite massive price tags on alpha bins my only choice when they eventually fail will be ebayed 7x42 FLs!!
In todays glorious sunshine, and not being desperately critical, I couldnt see much difference, certainly not in relation to the £2100+ price.

Russ

Click to expand...

Take good care of your 7x42 Russ so it lasts forever Looks like 7x42 is going extinct. Leica will discontinue the Ultravid+ in a few years (this info reported here on BF by a shop owner). So, I also need to take good care of my UV+ 7x42. I wear glasses and never had a blackout with my UVid, but everyone is different. I sure would love to try the FL 7x42 some day , but probably never get that chance since they are rare now. Maybe someday one of the top makers will produce a new 7x, but it's probably a long shot.
A 7x32 would be nice too.

Chosun Juan said:

Zeiss SF, the bin, which has a lot of ergonomic design thought put into it,
and everything to do with Zeiss the company, and the dastardly way that their marketing spiel and photos over-exaggerated, and misrepresented the grip and focusing ergonomics of the Swarovski SV. That was a low blow, and not worthy of a prestige company. By all means, talk your own company's product's good points up --- but don't falsely deride competitors.
Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Its a fact that the naming of SF (or Smart Focus) promised much in the way of focusing innovation and delivered a rather conventional focuser that needed tweaking later. This was a mighty own-goal and rather a shame considering the SF's achievements.

Below is a picture of Carina Schiestel-Swarovski doing her best to not over-exaggerate and misrepresent the grip and focusing ergonomics of Swaro's EL. :-O

Lee

jan van daalen said:

Refocussing doesn't lead to edge sharpness on the NV and the FOV of the SF is really bigger.
On contrast though......wow the NV hit the nail exactly.
Don't know what they did, but that job was done superb.

Jan

Click to expand...

Jan,

Did you rank that list for contrast? Was the NV the clear leader?

james holdsworth said:

Jan,

Did you rank that list for contrast? Was the NV the clear leader?

Click to expand...

James,

No, no ranking.
In case of contrast I must say that the NV is the clear leader (for me) FWIW.

Jan

jan van daalen said:

James,

No, no ranking.
In case of contrast I must say that the NV is the clear leader (for me) FWIW.

Jan

Click to expand...

Although I only manage a short time with the NV under difficult conditions at BirdFair, I think it is another candidate for a binocular with the enhance sharpness characteristics I described in my Meostar 12x50 review, FWIW. Not sure if or when I might get a chance for a closer look.

David

typo said:

Although I only manage a short time with the NV under difficult conditions at BirdFair, I think it is another candidate for a binocular with the enhance sharpness characteristics I described in my Meostar 12x50 review, FWIW. Not sure if or when I might get a chance for a closer look.

David

Click to expand...

Hi David,

Having both the Meopta 10x50 and 12x50HD in stock, I compared them with the NV.
Not an honest comparison as there is no 12x NV but still the Meopta's are not in the same league as the NV IMHO.
Comparing the HD+ 12x50 to the Meostar 12x50HD (2.500,00 euro against 1.250,00 euro) I have to declare the Leica as the winner.
Is the Leica factor 2 better? Hell no!! The Law of Deminising Return in progress.

Jan

Chosun Juan said:

Jerry,

That one went straight through to the keeper! :eek!:

Not sure why you misunderstood. My reference had nothing at all to do with Zeiss SF, the bin, which has a lot of ergonomic design thought put into it,

and everything to do with Zeiss the company, and the dastardly way that their marketing spiel and photos over-exaggerated, and misrepresented the grip and focusing ergonomics of the Swarovski SV. That was a low blow, and not worthy of a prestige company. By all means, talk your own company's product's good points up --- but don't falsely deride competitors.


Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Lets not forget the ridiculously exaggerated finger position in the Porter`s review................

The problem I have Jan is that the 12x50HD I was sent by Meopta was exceptionally good (maybe suspiciously good), and different from the rest of the Meostar range on show as I stated. I suspect it's different from your stock as well. What I don't know if this was a cherry picked sample or representative of current production specification. What I can say for sure is that your Leica HD+ certainly wouldn't beat the Meostar 12x50HD for effective resolution. It was essentially perfect. The most obvious other difference was the colour. To my eye obviously more netural than most Swarovski and Zeiss offerings and the transmission plot would put it pretty close to the Leica HD+. I can't comment on the samples you have but the Meostar 12x50 HD I had was really very good.

I've posted elsewhere that I was very impressed with the NV and liked it better than the other alpha models on the day. (I'm intrigued by the conflicting opinions reported so far though.)The point I'm making is that I'm seeing the first convincing signs that manufacturers are successfully mapulating contrast profiles to enhance perceived sharpness. I find that rather exciting.

David

Torview said:

Lets not forget the ridiculously exaggerated finger position in the Porter`s review................

Click to expand...

No John and who could forget the outrageous exaggeration on Binomania?

Lee

This morning a rendered a short visit to Jan van Daalen's shop and that was the first time I got to know the 8X42 NoctIvid in comparison with the 42 mm SV, SF, HT and SLC.
Based on the writings on this forum I had expected "to be blown away"by the Noctivid. In short: I was not.
It is a well made binocular that is for sure but with a price of more than 2500 euros one can expect that.
First the handling: the open bridge has a much narrower spacing between the two binocular tubes as the SF and the SV. As a consequence the handling is quite different and I found no advantage really from the open bridge, whereas the narrower spacing forces you to hold the binocular in a way different from the SF and the SV and not in favor of the Noctivid in my hands. The focussing wheel runs smooth with about the same turning resistance as the SV and a tiny little lighter than the SF.
The focussing wheel sticks out above the binocular body quite a bit more than with the SF and the SV and that forces your hands a bit more than with the focussing wheels of the SF and the SV.
The eycups are attached with the well-known bayonet mount Leica also uses in its other models. It works, but needs some excercise for a smooth practice (I like a screw mount better, but that is a matter of taste).
The presence of CA has already been mentioned by Jan. Considering the published transmission of 92% by Leica I had expected a very bright image, but the SLC was considerable brighter.
Color reproduction of the Noctivid was close to that of the HT and more red (or warmer if you like) than that of the SF and looked more like the color reproduction of the HT. Im curious how the transmission spectra will turn out, but that will come one of these days.
The focussing wheel needed 2 rotations from close focus to infinity or the other way around.The sample Jan had showed a little free play of the focussing wheel, but that can be helped probably in an easy way by Leica.
Now suppose I had a bag filled with money and I had the possibility to make a choice between the five binoculars I mentioned, would I buy the Noctivid?
With the knowledge I have now (but that can change when I get more time with the different binoculars) I would prefer the HT or the SLC over the Noctivid and if it where a choice between open bridge binoculars, the Noctivid would stay in the cupboard, since I found the SF and the SV more to my liking optically and with regard to handling comfort.
I will try to attach tomorrow some of the photos I have made today, but these are my impressions at the moment.
Gijs van Ginkel

Thanks Gijs, and looking forwards to your photos and measurments

Gijs van Ginkel said:

First the handling: the open bridge has a much narrower spacing between the two binocular tubes as the SF and the SV.

Click to expand...

Another thing I don't understand properly ... How can the spacing between the tubes be tangibly different to the SF and SV? Do SF and SF have some offset in the optical path that the NV has not? Are the tubes thicker? Or do you mean the spacing between the two bridges?

Dalat, post 52,
I mean the open space between the two binocular tubes is smaller for the Noctivid as it is for the SF and the SV, I hope to show it with the photos.
Gijs van Ginkel

Torview said:

Lets not forget the ridiculously exaggerated finger position in the Porter`s review................

Click to expand...

Thanks for the photo, that shows my point exactly.

The SF, does have great ergonomics, that is important in one of
the traits I look for in choosing a binocular.

Jerry

The pictures I made yesterday of the NV, SV and SF are of insufficient quality to show the differences I have described, so I asked Jan to measure the space between the two tubes.
He measured:
NV=59 mm
SV=61 mm
SF=70 mm
Gijs van Ginkel

Hi Gijs, thanks for the efforts, but sorry, I still don't get it :-O

From your measurements (60-70 mm) I asume it is the distance between the two bridges, and not between the two tubes? The distance between the tubes would depend on the IPD setting and be much smaller????

dalat said:

Hi Gijs, thanks for the efforts, but sorry, I still don't get it :-O

From your measurements (60-70 mm) I asume it is the distance between the two bridges, and not between the two tubes? The distance between the tubes would depend on the IPD setting and be much smaller????

Click to expand...

Accurate as a Swiss watch

Put the setting on my IPD, the SV offers 12mm space; the NV 8 to 10mm and the SF 12 to 16mm.
The SV has almost straight tubes.

Taking in consideration that I measured the distances with a Made in Japan Mitutoyo and not with something from Swiss origine could raise the question how precise the measurements are........

Jan

Hi Jan...
Thanks for the info...

Do you have both a a 8X and 10X NV? Would the 10X work with eyeglasses?

THANKS!

chill6x6 said:

Hi Jan...
Thanks for the info...

Do you have both a a 8X and 10X NV? Would the 10X work with eyeglasses?

THANKS!

Click to expand...

No 10x.

Pre-ordered 4 and got 1. It seems that the quota for Holland is 5 units so this could take a while........

Our 8x has a free play on the focussing knob and a customer, who ordered one in the UK (because we couldn't deliver him), told me yesterday that his sample has free play.

Enfin, ours will go back to Leica as soon as enough samples have arrived. So far, two potentials backed off because of this free play. If it turns out that the first production batch NV's is representative for our unit, I wish Leica all the luck in the world with their NV's.

Jan

Thank you for this clear and concise review, Gijs (post 51). I am looking forward to testing a Noctivid against HT, EL SV, SF, HD Plus and SLC shortly, so I appreciate your remarks (looking at your previous tests of other models, my own reviews very often come to similar results as yours).

And thank you, Jan, for post 59.

You know what this all reminds me of ?

Remember the time when the SF was introduced ?
At the time, Zeiss marketing had put the SF up into the binocular Mount Olympus - the best of the best of the best, nothing could be even close. So expectations were extremely high, mine included.

Then I got one (SF 8x42). After 2 months, I had to send it in for service, since the focus wheel had developed significant amounts of play. Zeiss exchanged the focus mechanism (since then, my SF works fine), and it seems they reintroduced the SF model with a modified focus mechanism shortly thereafter.

If expectations are too high, later disappointments are inevitable. Has Leica fallen into te same trap this time with the Noctivid ?

And if companies don't take the time to test and test and retest and then only bring products to the market, things like the ones mentioned in post 59 happen. So far, Leica seemed beyond that, they were the one premium manufacturer that was not affected by technical flaws like Zeiss or Swarovki (I had to send in several binos to both of them for service or replacement of faulty parts, but never to Leica), their mechanical quality was beyond doubt. So what is happening here ?