• 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.

Noctivid testing in shiny weather (1 Viewer)

arran

arran

Well-known member
Hi all
Weather is bright and clear and lots of sun.
Time to use my new NV and compare with other alphas ,from my girlfriend and friend
NV 10x42
SV 10x42
SF 10 x42

NV : a very colourtrue and comfortable view.Perfect glare resistance makes me appreciate more and more this parameter
A very nice microcontrast stands out compared with the other bins
A small amount of CA , but not to a level that it bothers me
A very good quality feeling.The position of the focusdrive scared me in the beginning, but now , I appreciate its very smooth work

SF : very sharp image impression, best correction for CA, but image is a bit less contrasty than the NV and SV
Superb focus-drive
The balance is a pro , but the weight is quite low, which makes the bin a bit more jumpy around the neck

SV :very nice contrast and colour true, but the NV scores better on micro-contrast and glare
A bad focusser that is not smooth at all, which enerves me

Overall , we agreed all three the NV scored best on image quality but the focusdrive position is something you must get used to

3D effect NV :sometimes the impression that microdetails are jumping out more pronounced than the others, but not at all the effect of a swaro habicht
 
Which do you prefer?
I agree with most of your findings, all are very good bins. IMO the balance, FOV, ergonomics, weight and smooth focuser of the SF:s make them my favorite in 10x42 bins. It's the only 10x42 I manage to handle without disturbing shake.
 
Vespobuteo said:
Which do you prefer?
I agree with most of your findings, all are very good bins. IMO the balance, FOV, ergonomics, weight and smooth focuser of the SF:s make them my favorite in 10x42 bins. It's the only 10x42 I manage to handle without disturbing shake.
Click to expand...

I prefer the NV because of its best glare resistance, but you can only test this quite sunny conditions
the contrast is also superb
On the other hand , the SF has best CA correction which gives a feeling of sharpest image
 
arran said:
Hi all

3D effect NV :sometimes the impression that microdetails are jumping out more pronounced than the others, but not at all the effect of a swaro habicht
Click to expand...

Interesting, surprising even considering the heated debate with the 3D-deniers a couple of weeks ago:t:
 
Spent some time with an 8x42 NV against my 8.5x42 SVFP at RSPB Arne yesterday, people can post all day about one being sharper than the other, but in reality they're both superb, beyond any real criticism.

But the NV does have a noticeably smaller afov, couple this with the SV's huge total field sweetspot and it still trumps everything else for me.
 
adhoc said:
Torview, does not the 8.5x vs 8x make a significant difference?
Click to expand...

Hi Adhoc, in afov ?

Well I may have this wrong, but as the SV has 6.25% more power than the NV or SF, if one reduces the NV fov by this amount we get 126.5m, not brilliant, when we do the same to the SF, 139m, of course if we increase the SV by this amount as if it were 8x we get 144m.

Every time I try the NV my respect increases, but the fov at this level in 2017 does feel a bit old school.
 
Hi Torview, sorry I was not clear there. I meant, in detail conveyed. Is this not like comparing a 10x and an 8x but in lesser degree? Differences of two xs between 8x through 10x will be more tricky than in other x ranges, because of the compromises between steadiness of image and magnification in 8x vs 10x, the most preferred xs by users for these two qualities, respectively.
 
I don't think 8.5x vs 8x greatly increases detail, but micro-contrast always looks amazing with 8.5x in my opinion.

I still don't get the hype of the Noctivid. It is good, as you'd expect, and very comparable to others in the same range. It definitely excels in terms of glare control, in my short-term (about 30min) testing period. But I thought it lagged in terms of CA control (as compared to the SV/HT/SF) and in terms of color neutrality, it was a typical Leica (i.e. it seemed to emphasize certain colors, similar to the SF with a seeming green emphasis).

Justin
 
Torview, Justin, I should have added, detail conveyed and whatever other benefits of a higher x. I can think of easier viewing of small details simply by seeing them larger, provided the x is not that high that steadiness is compromised. Can micro-contrast be enhanced by the .5 higher x?

Justin, does that "seemingly green emphasis" in your text refer only to the Zeiss? Most people find the Leica image "warm" if not neutral in colour.
 
adhoc said:
Torview, Justin, I should have added, detail conveyed and whatever other benefits of a higher x. I can think of easier viewing of small details simply by seeing them larger, provided the x is not that high that steadiness is compromised. Can micro-contrast be enhanced by the .5 higher x?

Justin, does that "seemingly green emphasis" in your text refer only to the Zeiss? Most people find the Leica image "warm" if not neutral in colour.
Click to expand...

I dunno if it is truly micro-contrast or not, but, to me, the image appears very similar except in separation of fine details between an 8.5x to an 8x. I can't identify something with an 8.5x that I couldn't with an 8x, but the image is more pleasing due to the apparent increased sharpness of those fine details.

Yes, I found the SF to be slightly green-biased. The Leica I found to have a reddish bias. Neither of these were particularly strong, but I do notice the difference between them and the SV and HT, both of which I find very color neutral. I found the FL slightly more yellow/green biased. The Leica image was very similar to the Nikon SE I was comparing it to, in terms of color at least.

Justin
 
adhoc said:
Hi Torview, sorry I was not clear there. I meant, in detail conveyed. Is this not like comparing a 10x and an 8x but in lesser degree? Differences of two xs between 8x through 10x will be more tricky than in other x ranges, because of the compromises between steadiness of image and magnification in 8x vs 10x, the most preferred xs by users for these two qualities, respectively.
Click to expand...

To be honest the NV and SV have incredible detail resolution, I can`t name one better than the other, but lined up next to the SF and SVFP, it has the smallest afov, the most CA (but very little), the most compromised open bridge spacing and least well positioned focus wheel.

But of course it has the best glare control and most saturated colours, nice to have the three to choose from.
 
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.

Similar threads

hopster
Blackouts looking at edge of FOV with Noctivid 8x
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Bentley03
B
A
Are my Leicas defective?
Replies
12
Views
1K
jafritten
jafritten
dorubird
Trinovid 8x20 BCA vs Ultravid 8x20 BR
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
T
Zeiss SF 8x30 vs SFL 8x40
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
tian1227
T
N
SF 42 & 32 Brief Comparisons
Replies
8
Views
2K
Scott98
S

Users who are viewing this thread

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