Owners: How Are Your Leica Noctivids Serving You?! (3 Viewers)

Edit - here is his take of the 10x42 - again glowing about control of stray light, so why others have such problems is unknown.

http://forrest143.blog.163.com/blog/...6201318325810/

You will also see that his comments on peripheral sharpness etc. seem to dispute the notion, put forth by some, that the HT is essentially the FL with HT glass - it's easy to see in his photos how the edge characteristics and area of best sharpness have changed.

Click to expand...

Noooooooo..........!

Click to expand...

james holdsworth said:

None of this ''glare'' problem gets reported for the 8x42 HT - in fact, user reports are nearly unanimously very positive for this aspect - just read the big thread - hundreds of users and only one or two report this issue. I know, from personal experience my HT is better than anything else I own or have tried. Not sure what the difference is with the 10 and 8 HT to cause such wildly divergent observations.

Click to expand...

henry link said:

For myself, I'm still waiting for an 8x50/56 Noctivid

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

I have used HT 8x42 many many times on the Isle of Islay off the west of Scotland in late October and early November, almost until sundown, so with a very low sun. Glare is not an issue I associate with HT.

Click to expand...

Hermann said:

In a direct comparison the Noctivid is in a different class altogether though. The HT is already very good, the Noctivid is better. A lot better.

Hermann

Click to expand...

PHA said:

Hello,

A week ago, in Barcelona, I had the opportunity to compare my Zeiss HT 10x42 with a Leica Noctivid 10x42. I was interested, mainly, in the veiling glare control of the Noctivid, mentioned by almost all their users.
Well, the Noctivid really impressed me with the incredible veiling glare control!!!! I, with the shop owner at my side, looked at trees and buildings edges with the sun almost in front. The Zeiss HT showed a very notable and disturbing veiling glare, that "milky" veil in the image. The Leica NV showed almost nothing of a veil. NOTHING!!!! It is a very important feature in a binocular!!!! Looking from the front, all the rings and ribs inside the Leica tubes are totally non reflecting. The HT, on the contrary, shows rings with a very bright surfaces, innaceptable to me. And, also, the HT prism reflect the sun light back to the front. When looking into the NV, ALL IS DARK AND NON REFLECTING!!!!!
About the other optical caracteristics, looking away of the sun, I cannot see differences between both binoculars. The colours and contrast were very simmilar. As a result, the details resolution or "sharpness" were also comparable. The ergonomic design is, to me, much, much better in the Zeiss HT. May be, to me, the best designed binocular in this respect, along the Zeiss SF.
I don´t understand why Zeiss (and Swarovski by the way) did not worked in the control of the glare in their binoculars...It can be a major issue in some difficult light situation, very common in the field....

PHA

Click to expand...

Rathaus said:

Right now is sunset and I am with my daughter viewing the head of a type of giant tall palm (not sure what type) with fruit. I've taken a very poor photo with dull flat light, so It doesn't come across in the photo well, but the head of this palm is huge and sustains a small ecosystem of plants, ferns, fruit, birds and nests which are all totally inaccessible to humans and other animals. It is mid winter here so the palm is dry. Please excuse the terrible photo but hopefully this can give some idea of the viewing scenario.

We are viewing through the NV 8x and the 8.5SV.

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

Errrrmm, what did you see Ratty? You seem to have stopped in mid-story.

Lee

Click to expand...

Tobias Mennle said:

Glare control as everything else is a difficult trade off business. And needs to be compared in many situations. I strongly believe there is "overbaffling" in some glasses (e.g. Ultravid 8x32, Nikon EDGs).

Very tight baffling seems to decrease viewing comfort. Swarovski goes for best viewing comfort by weak baffling - see SV 8x32 - and accepts more flare as a trade off. Zeiss has another approach. They are not stupid, but have different priorities. We have a lot of choices and both Swarovski and Zeiss are very successful with their products.

I suspect the NV does not excel in brightness...

Click to expand...

henry link said:

Hi Tobias,

I don't think a properly placed baffle effects viewing comfort, but a tight baffle placed too far behind a reflection at the edge of the objective can cause excessive vignetting from being laterally displaced by slight lateral pupil movements. Perhaps that's the kind of viewing discomfort you mean. The solution is to place the baffle just behind the objective so that its aperture and the objective aperture remain well aligned regardless of lateral pupil movement.

Large exit pupils can cover a lot of baffling sins by causing the reflections from the exit pupil edge to fall on the iris rather than entering the pupil of the eye. Visible vignetting is also minimized because the eye's small entrance pupil remains within the clear aperture of the large exit pupil even when it is vignetted. Almost any 7x42 should be relatively glare free and unvignetted during the day, whether it's underbaffled or overbaffled. There's no such margin for error in an 8x30/32.

Henry

Click to expand...

Rathaus said:

What I simply wanted to know were the impressions of my daughter looking with her pristine eyes at the leaves on this palm through the Noctivid and Swarovski.

All she knows is that there is a green binocular and a black binocular and I have (long ago) taught her how to use binoculars properly. Here is her very brief feedback when I asked her to specifically observe the leaves. I tried not to be suggestive and I used no jargon or terminology. What follows is the word for word feedback I received -



First (unhurried) look through NV: 'ok I have a nice view now'.

First (unhurried) look through SV: 'ok, I made everything very sharp'
Rathaus asks: how do the leaves look?'
Direct answer: 'I can't really see how the leaves overlap, they kind of blend in with each other'

Second look NV: 'I can easily see the leaves weaving now'

Second look SV: 'it looks flat, I can't really see the weaving and overlapping'

Third look NV: 'this one is better...can we play totem tennis now?'



I'm not suggesting this is in any way definitive. It is just another person's very simple observation.
However, I was not surprised, as this is exactly what I observed as well.

Rathaus

Click to expand...

elkcub said:

Rathaus,

This kind of subjective report is more meaningful to me than most, and comes closer to what a psychologist would try to do in a behavioral laboratory, i.e., use naive observers, control the stimulus, and avoid giving them a response bias. Very good. :t:

Ed

Click to expand...

henry link said:

Hi Tobias,

I don't think a properly placed baffle effects viewing comfort, but a tight baffle placed too far behind a reflection at the edge of the objective can cause excessive vignetting from being laterally displaced by slight lateral pupil movements. Perhaps that's the kind of viewing discomfort you mean. The solution is to place the baffle just behind the objective so that its aperture and the objective aperture remain well aligned regardless of lateral pupil movement.

Large exit pupils can cover a lot of baffling sins by causing the reflections from the exit pupil edge to fall on the iris rather than entering the pupil of the eye. Visible vignetting is also minimized because the eye's small entrance pupil remains within the clear aperture of the large exit pupil even when it is vignetted. Almost any 7x42 should be relatively glare free and unvignetted during the day, whether it's underbaffled or overbaffled. There's no such margin for error in an 8x30/32.

Henry

Click to expand...

henry link said:

Hi Tobias,

I don't think a properly placed baffle effects viewing comfort, but a tight baffle placed too far behind a reflection at the edge of the objective can cause excessive vignetting from being laterally displaced by slight lateral pupil movements. Perhaps that's the kind of viewing discomfort you mean. The solution is to place the baffle just behind the objective so that its aperture and the objective aperture remain well aligned regardless of lateral pupil movement.

Large exit pupils can cover a lot of baffling sins by causing the reflections from the exit pupil edge to fall on the iris rather than entering the pupil of the eye. Visible vignetting is also minimized because the eye's small entrance pupil remains within the clear aperture of the large exit pupil even when it is vignetted. Almost any 7x42 should be relatively glare free and unvignetted during the day, whether it's underbaffled or overbaffled. There's no such margin for error in an 8x30/32.

Henry

Click to expand...

apuapu25 said:

In a previous post I told you about the chromatic aberation that I see in my Noctivid 8X42 when I watch a dark bird in the sky.In fact the chromatic aberation appears when the subject comes out of the axis of my observation.So I have to follow the subject precisely if I do not want to see this yellow fringe appear.Worse than in other Leica 8X bins. Has anyone encountered this type of problem with the Noctivid? I don't think it is flare. Thanks.

Click to expand...