• 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 8x42 review (1 Viewer)

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
Kikkertspesialisten (a Norwegian dealer) have added the 8x42 NV to their ranking/reviews.

NV gets very good scores overall (second place in total), top-score for FOV with glasses, contrast and brightness.
Resolution (Oplosning) is said to be measured objectively in the lab. NV gets 97.5 vs 94.5 for Zeiss SF 8x42.
Swaro SV 8.5x42 gets 100 (0.5x mag advantage), The cheaper Leica Trinovid HD 8x42 gets an impressive 99.

In previous review format there was info (and sometimes score) on glare handling/surpression also, but it seems they have removed that, unfortunately.

https://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/kikkerttester_8x42_rev15.pdf

(10x42 NV not yet reviewed.)
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I think those resolution ratings are are utter nonsense.

The author obviously hasn't a clue that resolution it essentially determined by the objective and magnification is completely irrevant. It must mean that, at best, rather than a objective scientific dertermination, they are doing some something else entirely. Perhaps a subjective assessment by eye? That would condem them further still. Yes, the 8.5x42 may well show 6% smaller detail than the other 8x models, but at least 80% of that list will be eye limited for those with 20/10 eyesight, and 100% for the average user.

An objective observer would have no choice but to score most of those binoculars as an identical 96% of the Swarovski value.

Of course there might be something missed in translation and they are referring to some other parameter entirely. Profit margin perhaps? ;)

David
 
Last edited:
...An objective observer would have no choice but to score most of those binoculars as an identical 96% of the Swarovski value...

On axis yes, but not if they somehow figure in some off-axis testing as well. I'm not saying that they did, just that it is a possibility to generate a range of different and lower values.

--AP
 
I like the idea of assigning numeric values to binoculars, similar to this and Allbinos' reviews, but I feel like there needs to be some form of standardization and actual measurements.
 
I was a bit curious how the stated "objective measurements" was done for the 42mm bins so I sent them a mail.

The answer I got was that they use test chart (from Swarovski) photographic equipment (full frame camera + 50 mm lens) for the measurements of resolution and brightness. The RAW files are then analysed.

They also told me that older tests (those tests have another format/layout) are based on visual assessments
"a form of methodology we've found to be subjective and yielding results too uncertain."
 
Last edited:
Thanks for enquiring on our behalf. The answer unfortunately doesn't improve matters. A 50mm lens is hopelessly inadequate for determining binocular resolution so all the 8x42 models should have given the same result.

David
 
Hello, you think why they have not taken into account the Nikon EDG 8x42 and 8.5x44 Kowa?. Giorgio

Giorgio

Sometimes binocular companies do not have test binoculars available when they are needed and sometimes people who test binoculars do not think to ask for particular binoculars.

Lee
 
Ok Lee, but do you agree that it is not complete ?, even miss the Minox 8x43 APO, per non completo, intendo, se si vuole verificare le prestazioni ottiche di una marca. Thanks
 
Ok Lee, but do you agree that it is not complete ?, even miss the Minox 8x43 APO, per non completo, intendo, se si vuole verificare le prestazioni ottiche di una marca. Thanks

OK Giorgio you are right, the test is not complete, and in my opinion it would have been better to split the test into two parts: binoculars above a certain price and binoculars below this price.

However I am sure that when trying to get together so many binoculars it must happen that some cannot be available just when they are wanted.

Ciao Lee
 
Hello, you think why they have not taken into account the Nikon EDG 8x42 and 8.5x44 Kowa?. Giorgio

This is one of the other big issues with these kinds of tests. They rarely look at models such as the big Kowa or models from lesser-known manufacturers such as Maven. The Kowa may not tick all of the boxes for some but it is certainly a capable instrument and, in my opinion, superior to all of the other sub-alpha options in most all variables excluding ergonomics/heft.

The EDG is the alpha that is left behind, for whatever reason. The 8x42 was truly one of the most pleasing views I've had, while also having excellent handling characteristics. But, I'm assuming as a result of the bulk of Nikon's sales being in the <$500 price-range, the EDG just doesn't hold the reputation of other alphas.

As Lee mentioned, it is sometimes simply a limitation of what is available to the reviewer.

Justin
 
Justin, post 12,
For The Netherlands and some other parts of Europe, the Mavens are not available, Kowa hardly gets any attention since there is not a good representation and the service level is either low or not there, the same for Nikon, so it is for some testers a waste of time to investigate these three brands.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
'm sorry, why do not you lose by importing a professional eyecare imported slice and a piece of birdwatchers can not try them, an example is Kowa in telescopes and in my opinion has been a leader for many years, I speak clearly of the model 883.
 
'm sorry, why do not you lose by importing a professional eyecare imported slice and a piece of birdwatchers can not try them, an example is Kowa in telescopes and in my opinion has been a leader for many years, I speak clearly of the model 883.
 
'm sorry, why do not you lose by importing a professional eyecare imported slice and a piece of birdwatchers can not try them, an example is Kowa in telescopes and in my opinion has been a leader for many years, I speak clearly of the model 883.

Kowa marketleader??

Well, not here that's for sureB :)

Jan
 
There are larger telescopes focal opening, but do not have the same correction and control of which Chromatic Aberration sull'883 is zero, even using the doubler (1,6) looking at an animal at 96x.
 
There are larger telescopes focal opening, but do not have the same correction and control of which Chromatic Aberration sull'883 is zero, even using the doubler (1,6) looking at an animal at 96x.

You are absolutely right in this area, but this does not make them marketleader at our country. Not even close.

Jan
 
Good morning, do you mean by market leader? whether it intends to be the brand that sold more, quite right, this does not mean that those who sell more has the best merchandise. To give you an example Swarovski (which builds binoculars / scopes excellent) is the most popular brand among hunters (at least in Italy) but it's almost a fad for them to wear one crys, often do not even know what they buy.
 
Last edited:
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