• 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.

Leica Noctivid 10x42 review (1 Viewer)

henry link said:
This thread seems like a good place to insert some experiences I've had with veiling glare and less than perfectly clean objective lenses. The photos below show the objective lens of a binocular after about a month of moderate use. When examined from the front under most lighting conditions it actually looks pretty clean, like the left photo, with just a few dust motes. The center photo shows how much worse the buildup of dust and crud appears under direct sunlight coming from just the right angle. The right photo shows the effect on the exit pupil of all that light scattering stuff on the lens surface when direct sunlight falls on the lens from about a 40º angle as the binocular is pointed toward a darkly shadowed area.

Believe it or not, image contrast is only subtly affected by that dirty lens when sunlight is coming from behind the viewer. But, for purposes of testing for veiling glare with strong back lighting a lens that dirty (or even less dirty) will make a binocular with excellent baffling look like it has poor resistance to glare. I've learned that before any test for glare is carried out it should be carefully determined that the front surface of the objective is pristine.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true and a big source for error (I personally discovered it in an eye opening way a while back when comparing the 8x42 SLC to the SV and my first impression was totally wrong due to more dust on the SLC objective). I my case not the reason for differences in flare behavior as I cleaned both bins before observation during that precious sunny spell...

I also have the impression that the water repellent LotuTec etc. coatings attract dust much more than older coatings - which is what I expect from hydrophobic microstructures.
 
Last edited:
typo said:
I've only tried the Noctivid a couple of times and not recently, so my memory may not be reliable, but to me the characteristics of the view were rather different to the ELSV, SLC, HT, SF, EDG and Kowa Genesis which were on adjacent stands at Birdfair. Yes there were differences in colour and field curvature, but I saw no obvious difference in depth of field or stereopsis. What I did note was a much clearer view of the positional relationship of small detail. It was most clearly illustrated by how the stems intelaced in the reed bed in front of the optics marquee. I remember with the Swaro in particular, it wasn't always easy to discern which crossing stem was in front of the other without some effort. With the Noctivid it was effortless. In the time I had, my perception was that with the Swaro, and to some extent the other, those stems seemed relatively two dimensional compared to the Noctivid. It was easier to see which were tubular and which had been flattened by buffeting. I took it that because they looked like three dimensional strustures, they appeared to have a stronger spatial position. Micro 3D. One thing I should point out is that others, using the same binoculars, on the same scene, on the same day, claimed they saw no difference whatsoever. Whatwever Leica has done with the Noctivid, it seems it isn't appreciated by everyone.

David
Click to expand...

David, this is a beautiful description of part of the phenomenon. Micro 3D. I like to call it pseudo3D because it goes much beyond stereopsis.

Yes the Leica approach is not appreciated by everyone, as expected. The Swarovision has its merits, but it somewhat spoiled a lot of users because its differences to previous binocular designs were so blatantly obvious to unexperienced persons.
 
maico said:
Top end cinematography lenses have more resoution not less due to the higher magnification required. A set of Leica superspeeds will set you back $250,000.

More traditional designs like English made Cookes are used by some Oscar winning cameraman because they have more field curvature than flat field designs like Zeiss Planars which have flat planes of focus. The Cooke gives more depth to the image off-axis. If you are filming 2 actors talking they don't need to be parallel to the image plane to both be in focus.

Leica optics have traditionally had plasticity and good colour colour reproduction which gives gentler roll off and a more 3 D look than Zeiss which traditionally have more edge sharpness. (...)
Click to expand...

Just came across this 2hrs long test of cinematography lenses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eRmqYzJVfU

For those interested in the topic - dimensionality of an image not connected with stereopsis (obviously), check out the fabulous Canon lenses at the beginning of the film - which are all classic designs (some decades old) with distortion and curved fields. The 3D just jumps at you.

Then check the Tokinas starting around 1hr25 or the Zeiss Otuses at the end. They are all state of the art low distortion and flat field and boy I hate the results. Absolutely flat faces, flat spaces. For some it may be subtle, for me it would feel like ruining my efforts in photo/cinematography due to the inadequate work of some technocratic engineers (who of course only responded to the demand that lenses these days should have better edge performances). It´s IMO visible on a HD notebook monitor, but it might blow your socks off when watched on a huge screen from close enough. And with binoculars, we do stare for hours, this is much more like pixel peeping than watching TV or a computer monitor.

And another one, for me the classic which opened my eyes regarding to this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5febma4_OE

The cinematographer concludes he would only use the "flat" glass for "shooting sheet metal", never for people (these are 20k Leica summiluxes, ironically, but were designed from outside the Leica world/tradition).

The most 3dimensional looking 2D film I ever saw is "Hugo Cabret" which was entirely shot on the hand assembled high end Cooke lenses from England. Phenomenal. Of course the cinematography is also part of this. Here is a great article on some insights how they achieve these qualities of the lenses - each is assembled meticulously also in regards to CA and astigmatism:

https://www.fdtimes.com/2013/01/14/jon-maxwell-on-the-cooke-look/

Of course distortion and field curvature are two different phenomena.

Cinematographers will ruin their reputation when imaging their actors with flattened out, wide, 2D faces. That´s why they do such tests.

And in binoculars, I neither like my objects of interest flattened out by low or wrong distortion flat field glass, whatever the main reason for this.

I´m grateful especially to Leica I have these choices with regards to binoculars. Makes me smile on my daily walk even in the worst of weather...

And I´d be happy if Swarovski would bring their SLC line to EL quality consistency to compete with Leica on the topmost level of curved field pincushion distortion bins and give us even more choice.
 
Last edited:
Tobias Mennle said:
David, this is a beautiful description of part of the phenomenon. Micro 3D. I like to call it pseudo3D because it goes much beyond stereopsis.
Click to expand...

I wonder if this effect also works on bigger structures too. I have posted before about looking out from the Leica booth at Bird Fair towards three islands in the lake just a short distance away. With the Noctivid I felt I could perceive a distance between each of these islands that was not apparent through the Swaros on the adjacent booth. To put it in a more graphic way, I felt that, if it was possible to reach around to the front of the Nvids and put my hand into the image, I would find a space between each island into which I could put my fingers.
Could this be due to the islands themselves having a more pronounced 'solidity' or thee-dimensional appearance than through the Swaros?

Lee
 
Lee,

Might that have been the field curvature? The advantage was quite evident at times from the slightly elevated viewing point.

David
 
Troubador said:
This is my experience too especially when you include optimising the diopter setting.

Lee
Click to expand...

Lee, when in trouble with diopter settings, may I suggest you try a Leica, Nikon or Swarovski glass for a change 3:)

But seriously - diopter shift and small asynchronities in focus due to insufficient mechanics can drive you crazy when using or testing bins.
 
Tobias Mennle said:
Lee, when in trouble with diopter settings, may I suggest you try a Leica, Nikon or Swarovski glass for a change 3:)

But seriously - diopter shift and small asynchronities in focus due to insufficient mechanics can drive you crazy when using or testing bins.
Click to expand...

Tobias

LOL, I like your poke in my ribs :-O. And if I can spare time from testing Meopta, Kowa, GPO, Opticron and Zeiss binos I might take a look at those obscure brands that you suggest.

I have rarely been under the impression that optimising diopter settings over a few days has been necessary due to mechanical problems with the binos. I think it is more to do with getting the right balance between the technique where you close one eye at a time and the technique where you keep both eyes open. Using a combination of these over a couple of days and repeating it maybe 3 or 4 times in different circumstances gives me a result I can rely on in the long term.

Lee
 
typo said:
Lee,

Might that have been the field curvature? The advantage was quite evident at times from the slightly elevated viewing point.

David
Click to expand...

Yes it could be but I am still wondering if you what you have observed might have contributed.

Lee
 
Tobias Mennle;3666650 "What every lens designer learns in his first year is that the sharper your lens said:
Tobias,

After readiing this link https://www.fdtimes.com/2013/01/14/jon-maxwell-on-the-cooke-look/ which you posted, I think I understand the quote from Steven Kisilevich.

There would appear to be a design conflict in bringing the planes of maximum sharpness (least spherical aberration) and the achromatic plane (between the green and magenta focal planes) to coincidence.
Cinematographic lenses have focal ratios as fast as 1,4 and if a scene is shot at or near maximum aperture, loss of sharpness or colour fringing may be apparent when projected on to the big screen.

However, binoculars usually have focal ratios around f/4 and if viewing in bright daylight with 2,5 mm pupils (hopefully centred) with an 8x42, one would only require the central 20 mm of the objectives and the bin would have an effective focal ratio better than f/8. Here spherical aberration is not a big issue.

I have an old 7x42 Swarovski SLC, which in several respects is still a very good biocular, but colour correction is not its forte. I set it up on a tripod and viewed a sign (black lettering on white background) with a Zeiss tripler. There was significant green and magenta fringing either side of focus but sharpest focus was coincident with minimum CA.

John
Click to expand...
 
I wonder what the optical design is of the new NV. I suppose by now it has been disected,
and so would this make a difference in its performance ?

Jerry
 
I used to work as a focus puller in the film industry. Billy Williams the Oscar winning cinematographer loved his Cookes and on period films sometimes used his own re-cased 1950's ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Williams_(cinematographer)

It's probably worth pointing out the image in film is often deliberately diffused by netting the back of the lens or using a light diffusion filter in front. The opposite of what you do with a binocular.

It's only a couple of years ago I became interested in binoculars I was surprised with all the apparent optical flaws and weird colour balances on display. Reading posts from Henry Link and the like has been helpful in understanding what's going on !
 
Last edited:
Lightbender said:
Nice review,Tobias.
May I ask - overall, do you personally prefer the Noctivid to your SV 8.5x42?
Click to expand...

I don´t own the SV, I had one for a year, and it is a great glass, much better than the SF IMO, but I came to seriously dislike flat field in general. So I´m pleading with Swarovski that they bring the SLC line to Swarovision precision... also, to offer 42mm glasses with AK prisms.
 
Tobias Mennle said:
I don´t own the SV, I had one for a year, and it is a great glass, much better than the SF IMO, but I came to seriously dislike flat field in general. So I´m pleading with Swarovski that they bring the SLC line to Swarovision precision... also, to offer 42mm glasses with AK prisms.
Click to expand...

But Tobias the question was about Noctivid and you haven't mentioned it.

Lee
 
Tobias Mennle said:
I don´t own the SV, I had one for a year, and it is a great glass, much better than the SF IMO, but I came to seriously dislike flat field in general. So I´m pleading with Swarovski that they bring the SLC line to Swarovision precision... also, to offer 42mm glasses with AK prisms.
Click to expand...

IMO, the 42 mm SLC is already nearly perfect as is.
 
Lightbender said:
Nice review,Tobias.
May I ask - overall, do you personally prefer the Noctivid to your SV 8.5x42?
Click to expand...

As I don´t own neither a Noctivid nor a SV this question is somewhat hard to answer :-O

I love my Ultravid and see no point in upgrading to the Noctivid at the moment, for many good reasons as stated in my review. Ergonomy and weight of the Ultravid are much more to my liking for sure. Came to love the 7x perspective, too.

I´d be very excited about a 8x32 Noctivid though, would definitely have good use for that one.

I have decided against the SV a long time ago, may I also refer you to my reviews, especially the 8x42 "shootout".
 
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

N
Ultravid 7x42 HD+ vs Noctivid 8x42
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
8K
Scott98
S
T
Noctivid eyecups
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Russ Bart
R
Ignatius
History of Leitz/Leica Coatings
Replies
3
Views
953
mhasman
M
etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
dorubird
Trinovid 8x20 BCA vs Ultravid 8x20 BR
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R

Users who are viewing this thread

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