• 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's Noctivid and 3D (1 Viewer)

I had the occasion this past weekend to look through the Noctovid, ELSV, and SF all side by side at the Las Vegas SCI show. I will say that this could only be done indoors, as there was not an outdoor option to do this. They are all amazing, and I could see virtually no difference in sharpness, resolution, 3D, Plasticity, or anything else between any of them. Only difference I could find was that the SV is sharper to the edge of the 3. The N's have a nice feel to them, and I found the focus mechanism and eyecups to be as good as it gets.

8(.5)x and/or 10x?
 
8(.5)x and/or 10x?

Good question. As I suggest in post #4 of this thread, the 3D/Plasticity characteristic was not discernible to me in 10x NTV while in the 8X NTV it was readily seen.

If that difference is repeatable or typical, it offers an explanation for why user's are having varying reports on it's existence.

Hi Doug...
Your comments about the 8X vs 10X and 3-D may certainly be valid. More DOV may help 3-D
 
Last edited:
Good question. As I suggest in post #4 of this thread, the 3D/Plasticity characteristic was not discernible to me in 10x NTV while in the 8X NTV it was readily seen.

If that difference is repeatable or typical, if offers an explanation for why user's are having varying reports on it's existence.

My experience of perceiving more plainly the distance between islets in a row going away from me on Rutland Water at the British Bird Fair was with 8x Nvids.

Lee
 
Renze's opening comments mention Leica's reference to "image plasticity almost like in 3D". I also remember from Holger's interpretation that "plasticity" might have been translated as "vividness." So, the expression "image vividness almost like in 3D" would make a great deal more sense, i.e., vivid images are lifelike.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you that there is no physical basis for 3D perception. It's widely misunderstood that 3D requires stereopsis, and that monocular cues are learned and insufficient. Quite the contrary.

When I look at Dwever's photograph on post #4, for example, it becomes much more vivid and three-dimensional when I close one eye. In this instance, by closing one eye I'm accomplishing two things: (1) narrowing down the FOV, and (b) eliminating the "unnatural" situation where both visual fields have the same image. Perceptual realism requires that they have different image projections.

Of course, I'm banking on the assumption that you can see a similar vividness effect. If not, we can't really discuss it further.

Ed

Thank you, Ed, for the suggestion to look with just one eye. It really does give a strikingly 3D feel to the image, quite contrary to what I'd have expected.
Clearly there is more to depth perception than just geometry, to my surprise.
 
Dear gentlemen,
I have looked with my left eye, with my right eye, with both eyes, standing on my head with the same experimental set-up, asked my colleagues to do the same and the very nice picture in post 4 with quite a bit of depth sharpness does not show any changes. So I am very happy, that you all have such gifted viewing possibilities, but I can not verify your experimental data. Recently we had the acceptance speech of a new Prof. in Experimental Physics and one of his statements was: if there is one solid observaion that does not confirm a working hypothesis, we must take into consideration that the working hypothesis is wrong.
Quite a few scientist were mad at him, but he is in my opinion correct.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Dear gentlemen,
I have looked with my left eye, with my right eye, with both eyes, standing on my head with the same experimental set-up, asked my colleagues to do the same and the very nice picture in post 4 with quite a bit of depth sharpness does not show any changes. So I am very happy, that you all have such gifted viewing possibilities, but I can not verify your experimental data. Recently we had the acceptance speech of a new Prof. in Experimental Physics and one of his statements was: if there is one solid observaion that does not confirm a working hypothesis, we must take into consideration that the working hypothesis is wrong.
Quite a few scientist were mad at him, but he is in my opinion correct.
Gijs van Ginkel
Man is intelligent.
Huh.
End of hypothesis.
 
Dear gentlemen,
I have looked with my left eye, with my right eye, with both eyes, standing on my head with the same experimental set-up, asked my colleagues to do the same and the very nice picture in post 4 with quite a bit of depth sharpness does not show any changes. So I am very happy, that you all have such gifted viewing possibilities, but I can not verify your experimental data. Recently we had the acceptance speech of a new Prof. in Experimental Physics and one of his statements was: if there is one solid observaion that does not confirm a working hypothesis, we must take into consideration that the working hypothesis is wrong.
Quite a few scientist were mad at him, but he is in my opinion correct.
Gijs van Ginkel

What?
You have NOT tried looking through the bino flat on your stomach, both knees bent, with a cap on your head and your shoes off ???
:eek!:
How dare you come to any conclusions if you have not done a full set of tests?
;)
 
Canip,
You are quite right, I should have dived to a depth of 10 meters and have a good view through the binoculars.
What I have missed as yet in the whole discussion of the new Leica Noctivid, is to compliment Sigrun Kammans, the optical designer of Leica and Stephan Albrecht, the produkt manager, and their colleagues for their excellent work in designing, constructing and making it ready for the market of a very nice binocular.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
I really don't understand this 3D effect craze, in particular how it would be so much more noticeable in the 8x.

In practice, I was finally able to test the Noctivids (8x). I had my Nikon SE on hand. The Noctivids were great, but still had more CA than I find in the Zeiss HT (probably my favorite of the current alpha crop).
 
Dear gentlemen,
I have looked with my left eye, with my right eye, with both eyes, standing on my head with the same experimental set-up, asked my colleagues to do the same and the very nice picture in post 4 with quite a bit of depth sharpness does not show any changes. So I am very happy, that you all have such gifted viewing possibilities, but I can not verify your experimental data. Recently we had the acceptance speech of a new Prof. in Experimental Physics and one of his statements was: if there is one solid observaion that does not confirm a working hypothesis, we must take into consideration that the working hypothesis is wrong.
Quite a few scientist were mad at him, but he is in my opinion correct.
Gijs van Ginkel

That mental set possibility was covered in Post #16:
...Of course, I'm banking on the assumption that you can see a similar vividness effect. If not, we can't really discuss it further.

The flip side of what you're saying, however, is that one eye perceives 'depth sharpness" (a new phrase) at least as well as two. Now ask yourself the question how the brain deals with the lack of retinal disparity when viewing an image with two eyes. Do you not think it might be detrimental to perceived depth?

Standing on your heads, incidentally, doesn't suggest "solid observations" or independent ones either, — but the enthusiasm is acknowledged.

Ed
 
Maybe you should test the 10x as well and let us know? It will save me a 60 mile drive :t:

I'll see if Cabela's has them when I drop by this weekend (I doubt they will, though).

The 8x were in the hands of a fine birder I met this weekend up North. We swapped binos for about 10 mins (I had the 8x32 SEs) and were both pleased with the views. The NV was probably brighter, the SE was sharper to the edge of the field. The NV had great glare control (typical of Leica), but the SE was maybe more color neutral. Suppression of CA was very similar to the SV - not as good as the Victory HT/FL or Kowa Genesis models of which I am so fond, but not really bothersome in most conditions. The only other bino I had was the 10x43 ED4 which is a step below these two binos in everything except brightness and control of CA - but I couldn't do much of a direct comparison due to difference in magnification.

I can certainly see why someone would be fond of the NV. I do not, however, believe it to be a record-smashing, supreme alpha class binocular and believe it will just be another option among the many great alpha models.
 
Ed, post 32,
when I wrote "depth sharpness" I meant that the picture shown is sharp from (estimate) 1-5 meters. Does that clarify the "new concept"? In Dutch it would be "scherptediepte".
I tested my brain over and over, but the one-eye 3D observation in the picture we are discussing does not occur, so I made an appointment with a medical doctor for this afternoon.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Canip,
What I have missed as yet in the whole discussion of the new Leica Noctivid, is to compliment Sigrun Kammans, the optical designer of Leica and Stephan Albrecht, the produkt manager, and their colleagues for their excellent work in designing, constructing and making it ready for the market of a very nice binocular.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs,

For your consolation, please have a look at post #1

Renze
 
Ed, post 32,
when I wrote "depth sharpness" I meant that the picture shown is sharp from (estimate) 1-5 meters. Does that clarify the "new concept"? In Dutch it would be "scherptediepte".
I tested my brain over and over, but the one-eye 3D observation in the picture we are discussing does not occur, so I made an appointment with a medical doctor for this afternoon.
Gijs van Ginkel

'Scherptediepte' translates as depth of field, also called, but not entirely correct, depth of focus.

Renze
 
:hi: Renze,

If one subscribes to the argument that a "natural view" is one that retains the same visual cue relationships that would be obtained without binoculars, then Tobias' statement brings binocular design into conformity with nature. Zero field curvature and zero distortion are arguably "unnatural."

So I'm wondering how the NV compares with the SLC-HD in your estimation. I assume you like the Leica more; the question is, in what ways?

Ed

I wished I'd have access to the Swarovski SLC-HD instead of the Swarovision for a decent comparison (several days in different conditions), but unfortunately I didn't. The SLC would be better comparison because the optical design is more akin and so Leica's assets and/or improvements could be illuminated.
As I have owned and used the SLC-HD for a span of time large enough to have good, and certainly pleasing, memories of this instrument, I can say that one of the nice things in the Noctivid is the way it conforms to the peripheral view (i.e. my peripheral view) in a way I can't remember from the SLC. So my advice is to have a look at the Noctivid when you have the chance and compare on this aspect.
I'm very interested in your findings.

best regards,

Renze
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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