• 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)

Renze de Vries

Well-known member
Having used the Noctivid 8x42 for more than a month now, there are two aspects that strike me: transparency and ease of view.

The Noctivid’s image is unusually clean, free from aberrations. I don’t remember an 8x40 binocular where I saw so little impulse to change focus. The kind of transparency reminds me of the large exit pupil Zeiss Fl and Swarovski SLC 8x56 I had the pleasure to live with for a couple of years. This transparency is of great value, as the objects of attention are already there, just waiting to be brought in sharper focus. In practice: this is a very fast binocular.
Also I think that that the Noctivid’s transparency is the main reason for its excellent impression of depth and space

Ease of view always has been a property of Leica binoculars. At least to me. I’ve learned it has to do with their low astigmatism across the field of view. There’s a simple check here: when my eyes like to wander about, all by themselves, in the viewing circle, instead of somewhat directed toward the centre, it’s bingo. In comparison to its predecessors, the Ultravid HD and HD+, the Noctivid shows a marked increase in sweet spot and edge sharpness, which is of great consequence to the apparent field of view: big and bold, much larger in fact than can be expected from its quite ordinary specs (7.7 deg.).

Other aspects: top notch, no complaints. Or it should be the silver clad Christmas lettering on the side.

Oh yes, did I mention the Noctivid’s 3D performance? No, not here, I made a separate thread, have a look.


Renze
 
...Ease of view always has been a property of Leica binoculars. At least to me. I’ve learned it has to do with their low astigmatism across the field of view. There’s a simple check here: when my eyes like to wander about, all by themselves, in the viewing circle, instead of somewhat directed toward the centre, it’s bingo. In comparison to its predecessors, the Ultravid HD and HD+, the Noctivid shows a marked increase in sweet spot and edge sharpness, which is of great consequence to the apparent field of view: big and bold, much larger in fact than can be expected from its quite ordinary specs (7.7 deg.)...

I've always been a fan of Leica bins and that's great news about the ease of view, but when it comes to low astigmatism and wandering eyes, I find the Swarovski EL SV far superior to any of my older (i.e. nonNoctivid) Leica bins. It matches them for low astigmatism, surpasses them for low field curvature, and _far_ surpasses them for low off-axis chromatic aberration. Your thoughts on CA in the Noctivid?

--AP
 
I've always been a fan of Leica bins and that's great news about the ease of view, but when it comes to low astigmatism and wandering eyes, I find the Swarovski EL SV far superior to any of my older (i.e. nonNoctivid) Leica bins. It matches them for low astigmatism, surpasses them for low field curvature, and _far_ surpasses them for low off-axis chromatic aberration. Your thoughts on CA in the Noctivid?

--AP

There's the old truism again: our eyes are all different. I have compared the Noctivid to Swarovski's 8.5 EL SV for two full days and my eyes say no to the SV. I guess they don't like the infamous Absam ring at about two thirds, 60 deg., from the centre. It has always been like that: when the SV replaced the first EL it was immediately obvious to me it was an improvement. In all aspects, except one: ease of view. Sharp, cleaned up edge, well I can't care less, because my eyes won't go there anyway. I've always liked the original EL better in this respect (and so, the SLC, because that's the improved EL, without the Absam complications).

CA: the Noctivid performs clearly better on this than the Ultravids. But it's very well possible the SV is somewhat better still. I haven't really zoomed in on this aspect because I didn't have any complaints and CA is very much a matter of degree.

best regards,

Renze
 
I've always been a fan of Leica bins and that's great news about the ease of view, but when it comes to low astigmatism and wandering eyes, I find the Swarovski EL SV far superior to any of my older (i.e. nonNoctivid) Leica bins. It matches them for low astigmatism, surpasses them for low field curvature, and _far_ surpasses them for low off-axis chromatic aberration. Your thoughts on CA in the Noctivid?

--AP

About older Leica bins in comparison to the Noctivid: Leica has really done something new. My impression is they've gone back to basics, re-invent things. For instance, when it comes to ease of view the Noctivid reminds me more of the 1990's Trinovids than of the Ultra's. To the 8x32 BA especially: very easy on the eyes.
 
The Noctivid’s image is unusually clean, free from aberrations. I don’t remember an 8x40 binocular where I saw so little impulse to change focus. The kind of transparency reminds me of the large exit pupil Zeiss Fl and Swarovski SLC 8x56 I had the pleasure to live with for a couple of years. This transparency is of great value, as the objects of attention are already there, just waiting to be brought in sharper focus. In practice: this is a very fast binocular.
Also I think that that the Noctivid’s transparency is the main reason for its excellent impression of depth and space

Renze

Renze,

Thanks for the excellent post. You are the second experienced observer who has mentioned a view that appears to be unusually free from axial aberrations. That's music to my ears since I haven't seen any 8x42mm binocular with the low aberration transparency of the 8x56 FL.

What I would like to see now are some high magnification star tests and resolution measurements at both full aperture and at stopped down apertures that correspond to 2-3mm exit pupils. Those should establish without a doubt whether low axial aberrations (perhaps combined with unusually effective baffling) explain the good impressions you and others have reported.

Henry
 
Renze,

Appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the Noctivid. A few minutes at Birdfair was enought to know I liked it, but a frustratingly inadequate time to figure out why.

Like Henry, I'd be very interested in the full aperture and stopped down resolutions, but while you have it boosted, would you look at something else for me?

The Noctivid view properties did look quite distinct from the other top tier models. There may be a number of reasons, but I wonder if Leica may have improved perceptual sharpness in this design. It's associated with high contrast at comparatively low spatial frequencies. I know at least some binocular designers are aware of this property, but the question is has it been particularly well executed here. When you view the full USAF chart, could you let me know if there seems to be a level where the patterns become obviously more distinct, particularly in the 15 to 80 acrcsecond range (for an 8x).

Many thanks,

David
 
Last edited:
David,

I still haven't had a chance to revisit the Noctivid, but when I did look through a 10x42 and, hand-held and casually, compared the view to a 10x42 SF, viewing a vapor-deposited USAF glass slide target. In the whole of the slide, from largest pattern to the smallest resolvable, blacks were blacker and whites whiter in the Noctivid image. This means high contrast at comparatively low spatial frequencies in addition to high spatial frequencies.

But since these were quick and casual views, I take them with a grain of salt event though it was me seeing what I saw.

Kimmo
 
Kimmo,

The spatial frequency range I'm talking about is still pretty small, particularly hand held, so the contrast of the patterns should look predominantly high. In theory the threshold should be readily apparent with your eyes and a tripod, but boosting is the safer bet.

The best candidate for 'sharpness' I've had a chance to examine in detail is the Meopta Meostar HD 12x50 I reviewed recently. It's full aperture resolution was about the best I've actually tested, and stopped down, matched the Dawes limit. I've tested very good binoculars before, but this seemed sharper. With a chart, the contrast looked very respectable, as you might expect, but when I looked at the level of contrast up through the sequence of patterns there appeared to be a distinct increase in contrast at a specific frequency. This corresponded with published optimum for sharpness perception. It might have been a coincidence, but when I asked Meopta about sharpness they sent me contrast percentages for a very similar frequency. Seems it's something they test for. I thought the Meopta was unusually sharp but perhaps the Noctivid was better still. It might be it's performance is due to an entirely different reason, but the idea seems to be worth closer look. It's been used for many years in photographic lens design. Why not binoculars?

David
 
Last edited:
Rene,

Thanks for your review. Focus headroom resulting from accurate assembly (="increased DOF, plasticity, hocus pocus") is what I'm thinking.

Ron

I also note with pleasure that there have been no reports of bad goof ups on the NVs, like in the first of some new models we have seen before. Zeiss FL focus knobs popping off and springs going across the room, and Swarovisions with gritty focus and mold inside come to mind. Go Leica.
 
Rene,

Thanks for your review. Focus headroom resulting from accurate assembly (="increased DOF, plasticity, hocus pocus") is what I'm thinking.

Ron

I also note with pleasure that there have been no reports of bad goof ups on the NVs, like in the first of some new models we have seen before. Zeiss FL focus knobs popping off and springs going across the room, and Swarovisions with gritty focus and mold inside come to mind. Go Leica.

Ron,

I won't go into detail what disappointments I've experienced with focusers from Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica. It's really a widespread problem, and as such incomprehensible. With respect to the Leica's, in my experience the Ultravids have never been an improvement on the 1990's Trinovids, never. The Noctivid however is. It's completely redesigned: no two-part, left-right independence anymore (domage!) but a focus wheel typically designed for one-finger use. Which of course should be perfectly smooth. And it is.
 
David, Henry,

I have reported an impression of the Noctivid's image to the best of my ability, but unfortunately this ability is rather limited. I'm 68 years of age, and there's cataract in the right eye (awaiting treatment), go figure. The left eye tells me there's superb resolution in the Noctivid, while the view with both eyes (i.e. the Noctivid's field performance) reminds me of what Ed (elkcub) once gave as the optical ideal for binoculars designed for terrestrial use: matching the field curvature of the instrument to the retina's curvature as closely as possible. That's what I believe I'm seeing: a very fine, satisfying match.
The next step of course would be to add more technical detail. Notably an explanation of Leica's 'modification of the radii at the lens surfaces'. I've tried, but for the moment (wait until surgery has been accomplished!) I think it's best not to go into speculation.

Renze
 
Rene,

Thanks for your review. Focus headroom resulting from accurate assembly (="increased DOF, plasticity, hocus pocus") is what I'm thinking.

Ron

I also note with pleasure that there have been no reports of bad goof ups on the NVs, like in the first of some new models we have seen before. Zeiss FL focus knobs popping off and springs going across the room, and Swarovisions with gritty focus and mold inside come to mind. Go Leica.

Of the "big three", Leica makes the best impression also to me when it comes to manufacturing, assembly, and quality control. However, they also - as we say in German - "cook with water", like the others.

Of the two Noctivids that I came across so far (both 8x42, serial numbers: 02145757, 02146154), one had the perfect focus mechanism, but amazingly "unround" exit pupils. The other one had much rounder exit pupils, but exhibited a bit of friction in the focussing; the focus wheel turned evenly and without play, but there was a small amount of a "grinding" noise - nothing to worry about probably, but affecting the otherwise excellent impression a little bit.

My interpretation of this: there still seems to be some sample variation in the production of the Noctivid, which is not something unheard of for a new product; it could be a further indication that the Noctivid has in large parts been newly designed and is not just a small improvement of the Ultravid.

But compared to some of the "surprises" that other alpha producers have created when coming out with new products, Leica in my view still comes out on top with the Noctivid. I am confident Leica will get sample variation in hand, and the Noctivid is already now a superb binocular.
 
My interpretation of this: there still seems to be some sample variation in the production of the Noctivid, which is not something unheard of for a new product; it could be a further indication that the Noctivid has in large parts been newly designed and is not just a small improvement of the Ultravid.

I'm going to gently disagree here on the point that sample variations are due to release of a new product. The former premiere Leica line was the UV HD Plus, of which I've had four samples, no two of which were the same.

UVHD+ 8x42's, a 7X42, and a 10x50. The first 8x42 went back for a focusing slack problem whenever changing directions. The second 8x42 is just about perfect. The 7x42 has a minute amount of slack but I kept it being so slight. The 10x50 focused perfect from Infiniti to close-up, but from close up to Infiniti there was some grinding and stacking towards the end, and it went back.

Why the heck was a >$2,000 instrument one for four in acceptable focusing? Why the heck is there this much variation?
 
I'm going to gently disagree here on the point that sample variations are due to release of a new product. The former premiere Leica line was the UV HD Plus, of which I've had four samples, no two of which were the same.
.....
.....
.....

I cannot argue with you. Your experience with Leica is very different from mine (of the 19 Leicas in the bino collection I am looking after, among which a number of HD+, HD, Trinovids, Duovid and Geovid, none has ever shown mechanical trouble of the sort you describe), and I sure could not dismiss your experience as less relevant than mine.
I just thought the fact that the Noctivid is new on the market might more easily (and more acceptably?) explain sample variation than if a bino has been out for years. Of course, I may be wrong ...
 
Thanks for your thoughts Renze. Good luck with the Cataract operation.

David

If I can add my best wishes for the cataract op too.

I had my left done last February. It's about 30 minutes in and out. I'm terribly squeamish so was permitted a small, pharmaceutical, cannula-administered 'aperitif' if you will, before being wheeled into surgery.

Give it a few days to settle. I thought I was looking through a keleidoscope for about 36 hours afterwards.

After getting new glasses (you may not need any but it takes a few weeks for new lense to settle in), I could drive again and do all the things I had missed. My prescription settled from -8 to - 1.5 and frankly the whole thing is incredible !

The medical field is capable of some truly marvellous things.

The very best of luck

Tm
 
I now had an opportunity to revisit the 10x42 Noctivid with a bit more time and the Zeiss 3x12 tripler as a booster. Still haven't seen the 8x42, but that opportunity might present itself in a few days. There were two specimen to try, and I checked both on a tripod indoor, looking at both a USAF 1951 glass slide target and glitter points serving as artificial stars.

Both specimen showed a remarkably clean and high-contrast image on the glass slide lines at 30x, more resembling a high-quality scope than a typical alpha class binocular. On glitter points, the first unit had very tight best focus Airy disks with no flare, spiking or coma. A little too much light in the rings vs. the central spot, but that is typical since the glitter points at the shop are too close (about 8 meters) and therefore show more SA than at normal viewing distances. De-focused, a faint prism line started to appear after 8-10 rings, but this did not smear the image in focus at all. The second unit did nearly as well in the right tube, but had a little bit more problems in the left, with a more prominent prism line artifact and a tiny bit of coma and spiking in best focus.

I checked the better unit outdoors also, where we had brilliant winter sun and fresh snow, with frozen water droplets in a tree about 50 meters away providing natural glitter points. At this distance, most of the SA was gone, and there was quite clear ring pattern on both sides of focus, albeit contrast in the rings was markedly better inside focus. Outermost ring shows the typical longitudinal CA color shift depending on the side of focus, but all the inner rings look pretty color free. I won't go much further in trying to compare levels of CA with other binoculars, but feel confident enough in saying that these are better than previous Leicas and at least close to being on par with other top binoculars.

Viewing a nearby forest where the sun was shining through the tops of winter birch trees, I needed to first check which distinguishing marks in the trees would warn me of the sun before viewing in its direction. This was necessary since there was nothing in the view that would warn me that I was just about to destroy my eyes by getting the sun into the field of view. No veiling glare, no crescents, nothing. Viewing the branches and the bark of the Birches and Spruces that were close to the sun and had blue sky visible through the branches, the contrast was superb and detail recognition exceptional. I compared the view to that of my Canon 10x42, which is unusually good in backlight situations, and there was no doubt the tripod-mounted Leica was better.

Kimmo
 
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
 
Last edited:
Leaving aside 3D and DOF special effects...

I know what are the practical benefits of good baffling, but could you explain for a dummy like me what Kimmo's star test results and "unusually low axial aberrations" mean in practical terms for normal observation?
 
I can't answer for Kimmo, but in my experience (and at my rather average eyesight acuity) all but a very few binoculars, including most alpha models, do not correct spherical and longitudinal chromatic aberrations quite well enough to produce images with uncompromised sharpness and contrast. Many individual units are further degraded by various defects like astigmatism, coma, pinching and poorly made roof edges. High magnification star-tests reveal which of those defects are present in the center field image and how bad they are.

I should add that the presence of such problems doesn't mean people won't like what they see through a binocular. It's just that an image with truly low aberrations looks better; cleaner, sharper, more transparent, higher contrast. Unfortunately, the eye seems to accept a degraded, but still pretty good image as "perfect" until a lower aberration image is experienced for comparison.

Henry
 
Last edited:
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