• 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.

Yet another Leica Noctivid review (1 Viewer)

Peter,

I saw nothing in any of the Noctivids I looked with that would suggest that they had a tilted focal plane. Must admit, though, that I did not remember to specifically test for it. Checking edge performance generally did not bring out anything unusual either. They are very similar to what I see in Swaro SLC, with a wide sweet spot and gradually softening edges, with some field curvature and astigmatism in the outermost third of the field of view.

Kimmo
 
The post below is the best effort I've made at demonstrating how a really low aberration binocular image looks different from the image of a higher aberration binocular, even when there is no significant difference in what can be resolved on the USAF chart at normal magnification. Just follow the directions for how far to back up from your computer screen. I hope it's obvious that the line pairs in the low aberration image look cleaner and higher contrast even at large sizes that are easily resolved by both binoculars.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3424981&postcount=17

Hi Henry,

Assuming the Zeiss has a longer focal length objective than the Swaro, its f-number would be greater than the Swaro's at any common aperture. Would that not account for what you're recording at very high magnification? If so, would not the same difference be found, let's say, between the x56 and x32 FL models?

I find it difficult to comprehend how perceived differences in "sharpness" and "cleanness" at normal magnification would also not degrade acuity, since they should result in image blur.

Ed
 
Probably slightly over 1kg with all accessories attached---you really feel that weight after carrying them around your neck for a while.

Kimmo:

I was wondering if you have tried to test my conjecture that the NVs have a slightly tilted focal plane.

Peter

960 grams for mine with front and rear guards plus strap
 
Thanks or those observations, Kimmo. Good to finally have some high magnification star-test results.

I suspect proper baffling and unusually low axial aberrations are probably all that’s needed to explain the magical 3-D and DOF properties being reported by some Noctivid owners. As you well know, not many “alpha” binocular specimens manage to do even one of those things really well, much less both.

I wonder if you could check for anything unusual about the field curvature or rectinear distortion? On another thread those have been suggested as reasons for enhanced 3-D, or at least a pleasant illusion of 3-D, unrelated to stereopsis.

Henry

With the Ultravid 10x42 which I checked Leica did a great job. Flat field impression with regards to edge sharpness when viewing. But the field is still curved, but although quite a bit less than in my Ultravid 7x42Plus, and with still strong pincushion distortion. Combined with superb contrast down to the resolution limit, a very strong (pseudo-)3D performance for sure. And no Absam Ring phenomenon whatsoever. Well done, Leica. I am worried about the CA though. Very strong CA watching birds in bare branches, and also in the center, at least when I use the glass a bit sloppily (tilting). And CA phenomena in the unsharp parts like spherochromatism in fast prime lenses. I hope the 8x42 is better. The contrastier the lens, the more CA, so it seems.
 
Last edited:
With the Ultravid 10x42 which I checked Leica did a great job. Flat field impression with regards to edge sharpness when viewing. But the field is still curved, but although quite a bit less than in my Ultravid 7x42Plus, and with still strong pincushion distortion. Combined with superb contrast down to the resolution limit, a very strong (pseudo-)3D performance for sure. And no Absam Ring phenomenon whatsoever. Well done, Leica. I am worried about the CA though. Very strong CA watching birds in bare branches, and also in the center, at least when I use the glass a bit sloppily (tilting). And CA phenomena in the unsharp parts like spherochromatism in fast prime lenses. I hope the 8x42 is better. The contrastier the lens, the more CA, so it seems.

Tobias
Forgive me asking but is any of this about Noctivid as it reads as if it concerns Uvid 10x42?

Lee
 
Hello everybody,

here is my personal feedback on the Noctivid 10x42 I own since one year.

well, how to say... i am also a leica fan and i previously owned a trinovid 10x50 BN which was stunning. The new noctivid is a bit a disapointment for me, i don't get the whaaa effect i was expecting. I am wondering if i have a faulty unit? to clarify a little my perception, i have recently purchased an 1st generation Svarovsky EL 10x42. The fact is that in my eyes, the Swaro gives better images than the NV, in particular i find the image sharper with more contrast in the Svaros. The NV seems a little bit more "foggy" or "smooth" in comparison, and has also a strong chromatic aberration (a white bird in the sky appeared .. greenish in the NV!). It seems that it should be the inverse situation. I am not clear if it is the unit I own or the NV itself.

Any suggestions?

P.S. As I am so amazed by the EL's (i find them superior to my leicas !!), that i decided to purchase the last field pro version that should be even better.
 
Hello everybody,

here is my personal feedback on the Noctivid 10x42 I own since one year.

well, how to say... i am also a leica fan and i previously owned a trinovid 10x50 BN which was stunning. The new noctivid is a bit a disapointment for me, i don't get the whaaa effect i was expecting. I am wondering if i have a faulty unit? to clarify a little my perception, i have recently purchased an 1st generation Svarovsky EL 10x42. The fact is that in my eyes, the Swaro gives better images than the NV, in particular i find the image sharper with more contrast in the Svaros. The NV seems a little bit more "foggy" or "smooth" in comparison, and has also a strong chromatic aberration (a white bird in the sky appeared .. greenish in the NV!). It seems that it should be the inverse situation. I am not clear if it is the unit I own or the NV itself.

Any suggestions?

P.S. As I am so amazed by the EL's (i find them superior to my leicas !!), that i decided to purchase the last field pro version that should be even better.

Hi peffert and welcome,

I would suggest having your Noctivids checked, in my experience they have the best contrast of anything currently available, and should be noticeably better than a first generation Swarovski EL. I currently have two EL field pro models and even they cannot match the contrast of a Noctivid in my eyes.

Personally I do see too much chromatic aberration in the Noctivid for my liking.
 
Below is my brief review of the NV 8x posted more than one year ago. Like peferrt and Torview I found that the (early) sample of the NV I reviewed had too much CA. Compare what peferret said "a white bird in the sky appeared .. greenish in the NV!" with what I said in the review below "CA: rather conspicuous off axis: a crow, with a whitish sky as a background, looked almost like a green parakeet when moved off center!"

To the comment below about NV's glare control I would like to add that I have recently acquired a Zeiss Victory FL 10x56 which has even better resistance to glare (probably also due to a slightly larger EP). I did not believe that was possible!

-------------------------------------------------------------------
NV 8x42---short review, bullet style
++Build quality and accessories: very good; among others, I like the rainguard, which I rarely do; also a very good system for the objective lens caps.
--Ergos/handling: hard to find the best grip, the open bridge/double hinge is somewhat useless--despite moving the focus knob higher than usual, there is not enough space for 4 or even 3 fingers. Focus knob unusually close to the eyes, I tried to focus a few times by trying to turn the upper hinge instead of the knob! Also rather heavy on the neck--- and it feels a bit cold in the hand, especially as there is no rubber armor between the tubes.
--Focus knob a bit on the stiff side on my sample, also seems to have a tiny play when you change directions.
--Blackouts (without glasses): slight but relatively frequent, despite very good eyecups with multiple stops-- they seem a bit too short (the ER=18mm, and the eyecups extend about 14mm); Use with glasses should be fine (but I need to twist up the eyecups till the 2nd stop).
++/--Apparent 3D: quite visible. My explanation: the upper part of the FoV has a small negative curvature (so that the background is in focus), whereas the lower part has a lot of positive curvature (so that the foreground is in focus)--this yields 3D impression (the -- is for the excessive curvature in the lower part).
--Pincushion: acceptable.
--CA: rather conspicuous off axis: a crow, with a whitish sky as a background, looked almost like a green parakeet when moved off center!
++Contrast: very good, likely due to a very good light transmission curve and very good baffling. As remarked by others objects do stand out well separated from the background and the view is vivid/vibrant. (I briefly watched a soccer game in San Francisco and I could not stop looking at the yellow and red jerseys... ).
++Glare control: very good, likely the best--and this despite the fact that looking at the lower part of the FoV one can see 2 bright reflections from 6 to 5 (right tube) and 6 to 7 (left tube), likely from a lens ring or the prism edges--like in the SF8x42!
 
Hello Torview, thanks a lot for your feedback as a Noctivid owner. It seems in the forums that the 8x42 NV is better than the 10x42. I have the 10 magnification model, i don't know if you own the same one. I will see if i can get my NV checked, it's a bit trikky to say to the leica guys that the unit is not as good as a competitor model... By the way, the colors in the NV are awesome and i have a very little flare as expected. Just a lack of contrast in my eyes and a bit to much chromatic aberration.
 
Hello Torview, thanks a lot for your feedback as a Noctivid owner. It seems in the forums that the 8x42 NV is better than the 10x42. I have the 10 magnification model, i don't know if you own the same one. I will see if i can get my NV checked, it's a bit trikky to say to the leica guys that the unit is not as good as a competitor model... By the way, the colors in the NV are awesome and i have a very little flare as expected. Just a lack of contrast in my eyes and a bit to much chromatic aberration.

peffert........... sadly I don`t own a Noctivid, my expression about the contrast is purely from trying several examples all 8x42 by the way.
 
I have been using NV 8X42 for 18 months. Everything is ok for me except the CA. In my eyes there is too much CA. I tried to reduce this CA by turning my 42 into 32. I cut out the eye protection. I must admit that it works and that without loss of brightness. I do not know why.Is there a technical or optical reason for this? Best regards.
 
I have been using NV 8X42 for 18 months. Everything is ok for me except the CA. In my eyes there is too much CA. I tried to reduce this CA by turning my 42 into 32. I cut out the eye protection. I must admit that it works and that without loss of brightness. I do not know why.Is there a technical or optical reason for this? Best regards.
hello apuapu25, i think the optical reason for this reduction of the CA is that the light passing through the edge of the frontal lens is cut by the diaphragm you installed. Most of the chromatic issues are coming from the edge of the lenses. Regards.
 
Hi,

my experience with 3 noctivids...

The 10x42 had a clear distortion, already a bit out of the middle, clear CA, too much for me, a bit too much color rendition, good contrast and stray light suppression!

8x42, first sample very good picture, extreme center-sharpness, clearly less CA than the 10x42, neutral colors, good contrast and good straylight suppression, a really good glass, better than the 10x42!

8x42, second sample, visually in all respects worse than sample one, I was really scared about the quality differences!
Unfortunately, all three had !!! Problems with the center drive.

My point, there are mechanical and optical great differences between the samples.

Only my two cents,
Andreas
 
I have been using NV 8X42 for 18 months. Everything is ok for me except the CA. In my eyes there is too much CA. I tried to reduce this CA by turning my 42 into 32. I cut out the eye protection. I must admit that it works and that without loss of brightness. I do not know why.Is there a technical or optical reason for this? Best regards.

Seems logical, stopping down a camera lens one or a few stops usually decreases CA. Interesting to hear that it's visible in your case.
 
As i have posted earlier, i was a bit disappointed by my 10x42 noctivid. I bought a early EL 10x42 and was astonished to see that in my eyes, the contrast was better than in my leicas. To get the ultimate binoculars for my taste i decided to order the last generation of EL's the field pro version (3rd. gen). I have now received the last EL and I made some field comparison between these 3 binoculars. here is my personal feedback

first contrast, the subject of my first post :

i noticed that the Swarovski's delivers brighter whites than my leica, making everything white "pop up" more efficiently than in the noctivids. This observation was particularly obvious when spotting seagulls on a lake. I also noticed the same "white effect" with the swaros when spotting white letters of a sign on a dark blue background. As both swaros delivers the same "white popup effect" and both have the swarobright coating, I think that the swarobright coating is bringing this amazing contrast with light (whites).
so to conclude, contrast is, in my eyes, better on both swaros.

Chromatic aberration
This is the real weak point of my leicas, and after a lot of testing, i think this is also jeopardizing the whole contrast. In fact, when looking at a bright object in the leicas, it is noticeable that some color fringing is appearing at the edge of the object, in particular if the object is not centered in the field of view. the result is that the edge is not as bright as expected, and therefore is giving a less contrast-full impression. I have also compared the leicas vs the swaros on a raptor flighing high in the sky (i love raptors). The drawback in the leicas is that you might be fooled on the actual colors of the bird, linked to the color-fringing at the edges of the bird. In this field, i have to say that for me, the swaros are much better, as there is no noticeable CA, even if the bird is not centered in the field of view.

Sharpness
Well, the three binoculars are extremely sharp, and in this matter, i can say the leicas do not demerit. Using a tripod and looking at planets (Saturn), the best sharpness was obtained on the swaro field pro. The first EL and the Leica are equal to me, but very slghtly less sharper than the field pro.

Field of view
these are comparable for the three models, but the flat field and the sharpness towards the extreme edge of the field of the swarovision is a plus to my eyes. I have not noticed an annoying rolling ball effect in the last swaros, but i understand this is more personal feeling than an objective observation. For me the flat field opens more the view than in the two others, giving less a kind of "tunnel effect", but here it's my personal taste.

color rendition
well, in this area the leica shines, it is maybe the most neutral color rendition of the three models. The swaros seems maybe a little bit colder ("white effect" described before?) but in all cases, these three models are near perfection in that area

flare
well, this is where Leica beats Swarovski. the worst flare is on the first generation of EL, even if it is acceptable, the flare shows up easily in this model. The EL field pro has a better flare control than the first generation, but it is to say that flare is still present. The best here is the leica, where the flare appears only in extreme conditions.

comfort
for me (i don't wear glasses) the best is the last fied pro, confort is simply amazing, the eye relief is just perfect and i get the whole FOV immediately after putting the glass on my eyes, without having to adjust interpupillar distance very accurately. Second here for me is the leica, i noticed somehow that i have to adjust very accurately the interpupillar distance to get the best out of it, and sometimes i have a disturbing black shadow appearing in the field of view. pretty equal to the noctivid is the first El where i also have to adjust the binocular accurately. On this last bin, i think the shorter eye relief is the explanation.
In the hand, again the field pro is for me the best, perfectly balanced giving a lot a comfort while watching. The old EL is the lightest of the three, and therefore i will put it as second best. The leica is comfortable also, but a little step backward compared to the swaros.

well that's pretty much it and don't hesitate to ask me if you want some more details about these three alpha's.

my conclusion, which is of course very personal, is that in my eyes, Swarovski has achieved an almost perfect 10x42 with the EL Swarovision, better tahn the Noctivid in my eyes. The EL swarovision has no real weak point for me, whereas the Noctivid suffers too much chromatic aberration, lacks a little contrast and does not have this perfectly sharp field of view of the swarovision. Therefore, whatever you are using it for, if you are looking for a premium 10x42 and you hesitate between leica and Swaro, i can only suggest to get the Swaro for the money. But of course, try yourself and build your own opinion.

regards

Thomas
 
Last edited:
Is the Fieldpro really any different - categorically - [optically] than the previous generation? Lots of opinion but any hard facts out there? We have a few user reports of improved glare resistance in the Fieldpro, but that would require actual changes in construction / baffling.
 
Last edited:
Is the Fieldpro really any different - categorically - [optically] than the previous generation? Lots of opinion but any hard facts out there? We have a few user reports of improved glare resistance in the Fieldpro, but that would require actual changes in construction / baffling.

hello James, honestly i cannot answer for the EL Field pro vs 2nd generation of the EL regarding the glare control. For sure it is better than in the first generation of the EL, but as good as it is now, it is not as good as what Leica has achieved on the Noctivid.
 
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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top