Follow up testing Noctivid (1 Viewer)

The-Wanderer said:

Vespobuteo,

There are several reviews that suggest the top makers do not measure according to the ISO standard, and that Swarovski may not be consistent between model ranges.

Some, apparently, may compute rather rhan measure.

Anyway, its a mess.

Click to expand...

The-Wanderer said:

Vesputobeo,

It has been claimed that the ocular on the 8.5x is concave rather than convex. I understand that not all modern bins have convex oculars which calls into question the ISO standard's univerality.

I cannot tell if the 8.5 ocular is concave or flat, but it does not look to me as if it is convex.

Click to expand...

The-Wanderer said:

Superduty,

There is clearly a diiference that is not rigorously accounted for.

Click to expand...

The-Wanderer said:

Superduty,

The SVs you mention have specified ERs of 20mm and the 10x42 SF has a specified ER, IIRC, of 18mm. The SVs have a rim to glass distance of, as best I can judge, 5mm which suggests for my glasses on me have an effective ER of 15mm, and the 12x, that uses the same eyeup of 14 mm which, again for me is not enough.

There is clearly a diiference that is not rigorously accounted for.

Click to expand...

The-Wanderer said:

Lee,

You may be right, I do not know, nor do I know if the software inputs and outputs are consistent.

There is however, sufficient evidence that experiences are not consistent between spectacle users, and reviewers who make measurements. Science should validate theory, and software should be validated.

Few reviewers address this issue and I praise those that do, as I do users who state their experiences of contrary indications. Allbinos, for example, do not appear to address the issue.

Click to expand...

The-Wanderer said:

You seem, Lee, to be missing the point that for a given spectacle wearer, "face, lens and frame design" do not change.

Click to expand...

zzzzzz said:

OK ... Almost as good as the EDG, better than the Trinovid HD! How about the SLC ? on your cale from 1 thru 9 8-P

1. EL SV
2. SF
3. Noctivid
4. HT
5. Ultravid
6. EDG
7.
8.
9. Trinovid HD

Here is my first mini-impression (very temporary). Other reviewers have compared the HG with other vitamins, I try to give an impression how I see the Monarch HG in comparison with his "direct brothers" of Nikon: Monarch 7, HG-L, EDG. The only goal is to encourage those who do not know the glass to look at it.

The HG is therefore like a young of the EDG - slimmer, lighter, somewhat less "baroque", looks good, feels good, is well in the hand. Mechanically correct: Focusing (without the "EDG_Knack" in the center), center bridge, points of observation of the ocular shells, everything Nikon has made the effort to indicate the mechanism of the diopter compensation on the right eyepiece on the glass with signs: lift, then rotate. Works soft and round; Zero point not completely at zero.

Compared to Monarch 7:
The HG is about the same size and the same weight (715g with straps and eyepiece). The haptics of the HG are more pleasant. The picture is still slightly wider than the Monarch 7 (8.3 degrees to 8 degrees). The visual acuity of the HG is significantly better than in the 7, already the middle sharpness and then very clearly the edge sharpness. The image is "more homogeneous" when the HG is pivoted. In a direct comparison, the monarch 7 falls noticeably.

Compared to the HG-L:
The Monarch HG is clearly lighter and more compact (and more pleasant reinforced). The central focus seemed to me rather better in the first observations in the HG than in the HG-L, and the image field of the HG-L is so much narrower that here also worlds lie between the two glasses: tunnel vision against wide field of view.

Compared to the EDG:
Monarch HG is significantly smaller and lighter. The mid-range seemed almost as good as in the EDG, the edge sharpness not quite as good, but the HG also has significantly more field of view (8.3 degrees against 7.7 degrees).

Also in the "5 seconds comparison" with other good mid-class glasses makes the Monarch HG good figure.
For example Trinovid HD: worlds between the narrow visual field of the Trinovid and the monarch HG. In the sharpness the HG holds loose with, CA seems to me in the HG much better corrected than in the Trinovid HD (why it is actually HD?).

My "Steckenpferd" Streulicht: the EDG is exemplary for me in this category. The Monarch HG also shows a good performance here: direct sunlight on the front lenses does not cause any fog or slight reflections, the view over a sparkling water surface is also digested easily, the picture remains clear and disturbing - a good performance for a compact glass !

After what I said, I am personally quite impressed by the monarch HG for now.

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

QUOTE=The-Wanderer; that experiences are not consistent between spectacle users, and reviewers who make measurements Unquote


If that is what you meant then yes I did miss that: you referred to spectacle users and reviewers, both of them in the plural so didn't associate your remarks as referring to a single person, presumably yourself.

It should be noted that the position of the spectacles on the nose is a variable that can change from hour to hour or day to day and can change the apparent ER of bins.

Lee

Click to expand...

[email protected] said:

So the Swarovski SV is still king!:king: No surprise.:-O

Click to expand...

etudiant said:

There had been some comment on another thread suggesting that spectacles for nearsighted users improved the effective eye relief.
That suggests the eye relief is not a stable measure even if the eye cups were standardized.
So again the amount needed depends on the individual user, just as Troubador noted.

Click to expand...

ceasar said:

No Dennis. It is simply an opinion by Canip writing as Pinac in a German website on 13 September 2016.

http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,431391,432053#msg-432053

See Post #29 above in this Thread.

You wrongly gave credit for this analysis to "ZZZZZZZ."

It was originally written by "Canip" and translated from German by "ZZZZZZZ" in post #29 above.


By the way, Dennis, I notice that "ZZZZZZZ" is from Aurora (no state specified). Could that be Aurora the suburb of Denver? I was wondering if you know him?

Bob

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

With some bins, shifting my specs up or down my nose by very small distances can cause or cure 'blackouts'.

Lee

Click to expand...

etudiant said:

The more I hear about eye relief, blackouts, FoV and CA, the more I yearn for the day that some competent electronics company builds a decent digital binocular. I'd love for the Noctivid to be the last of the all optical dinosaurs.

The nice thing with digital is that most aberrations can be disappeared with software, while the display can be fully immersive if desired.
The rise of VR headsets will help drive the shift to digital. My guess(hope) is that we are less than a decade away from the transition. Sony has shown the way with their DEV50, but neither the display not the software are as yet up to snuff.

Click to expand...

etudiant said:

The more I hear about eye relief, blackouts, FoV and CA, the more I yearn for the day that some competent electronics company builds a decent digital binocular. I'd love for the Noctivid to be the last of the all optical dinosaurs.

The nice thing with digital is that most aberrations can be disappeared with software, while the display can be fully immersive if desired.
The rise of VR headsets will help drive the shift to digital. My guess(hope) is that we are less than a decade away from the transition. Sony has shown the way with their DEV50, but neither the display not the software are as yet up to snuff.

Click to expand...