NL Pure Image Flatness - Good or Bad? (1 Viewer)

[Will K]

Its been a few months now, and I'm starting to ponder that curiously 'flat' image provided by the NL Pure. After buying a 12x42 last year and making it my 'all-round' bino for birding, landscapes, sea viewing, etc., I've had a few opportunities to look through Noctivids. The Leicas have a noticeably more 3D image, and I can completely understand why some people who are used to that very 'natural' 3D effect would be turned-off by the NL's comparatively clinical and levelled effect.

However, when playing around with the focus on the NL, I notice that this flat quality increases the tendency to make objects in the out-of-focus foreground 'invisible' when looking at something in the distance. It feels as though distant objects are much 'closer' and more immersive as a result, because the lack of a more 3D perspective brings any specific object in focus up close and personal to the highest degree.

Now, I might be misidentifying the reason for this effect. It could be a result of the wider AFOV and the effects of peripheral vision, or even in inability to process the difference in magnification made with a 12x! But it still feels as though the flat quality of the NL is contributing to this immersive effect - maybe not immersive within a more 3D 'mise-en-scene' (if that French term makes sense here!), but immersive when looking at any specific object.

Do other people see this benefit in the NL's flatness, or I'm I being silly?

(Apologies, as usual, if this has been discussed before. Feel free to post links to relevant threads.)

 

[Paultricounty]

Its been a few months now, and I'm starting to ponder that curiously 'flat' image provided by the NL Pure. After buying a 12x42 last year and making it my 'all-round' bino for birding, landscapes, sea viewing, etc., I've had a few opportunities to look through Noctivids. The Leicas have a noticeably more 3D image, and I can completely understand why some people who are used to that very 'natural' 3D effect would be turned-off by the NL's comparatively clinical and levelled effect.

You didn’t say what the Nocs were, but in any event wed be comparing a Leica 8x or 10x bin without a field flattener with a curved field to a 12x with a field flattener. So as we both know , two different birds (you like that, two different birds, birdforum 🤣 ) so the image will always be different in many ways. Imo I didn’t think we’re talking about 3D effect here, immersive would the word id use. This is why I posted a discussion asking others their opinions of terminology we always seem to throw around very loosely.

I think desirability of any binoculars with field flatteners will be a very subjective, some like it, some don’t , and for multiple reasons, which has been discussed in detail (ad nauseam) in many discussions.

However, when playing around with the focus on the NL, I notice that this flat quality increases the tendency to make objects in the out-of-focus foreground 'invisible' when looking at something in the distance. It feels as though distant objects are much 'closer' and more immersive as a result, because the lack of a more 3D perspective brings any specific object in focus up close and personal to the highest degree.

I believe this is mostly about DOF not the flat field The 12x will always have a more shallow DOF than a 10x , 8x and so on. So I think your noticing that shallow DOF.

Now, I might be misidentifying the reason for this effect. It could be a result of the wider AFOV and the effects of peripheral vision, or even in inability to process the difference in magnification made with a 12x! But it still feels as though the flat quality of the NL is contributing to this immersive effect - maybe not immersive within a more 3D 'mise-en-scene' (if that French term makes sense here!), but immersive when looking at any specific object.

I feel there is a few things going on here, the large FOV on the NL’s (even a 12x) does give the indivisual a perception of being inside the image (immersive ) because the field is so big. But on the other hand it’s still a very flat field , where if we were comparing the same magnification between the NL and the Nocs, the Leica does have a much more immersive image quality to it, it’s like the image is surrounding you.

Do other people see this benefit in the NL's flatness, or I'm I being silly?

Your not being silly at all, i know exactly what your talking about. There are many benefits to a flat field.

(Apologies, as usual, if this has been discussed before. Feel free to post links to relevant threads.)

Paul

 

[Will K]

Thanks, Paul. That’s interesting!

 

[Hermann]

Do other people see this benefit in the NL's flatness, or I'm I being silly?

Well, some people do. Others don't. It's all a matter of personal taste.

I personally don't care either way, as long as the binocular doesn't show any "funny" distortions.

Hermann

 

[Elpha8888]

Leicas have a beautiful depth of field, closest that I have seen to a porro, my 8x Ultravid was wonderful in this regard.
Depth of field and immersion are different, I always put the immersive nature of a binocular down to the AFOV and a few other factors in the design.
If you were looking through an 8x Noc then it would also naturally have more depth of field than a 12x. The Leicas I have owned all have had excellent depth of field and pop.

I think what you have described I've noticed as well, but that is just part of owning a 12x Swarovski with a flat field, the 8x Pure while wonderful for different reasons will probably still show that to a degree as well.

I found the 12x Pure very immersive which was why I enjoy it so much for astronomy and coastal viewing. The ability to put me in the image and amongst the stars is on another level.
I appreciate the two brands for their different glass and build characteristics. The Leicas will also have traits that will not be as enjoyable as the Swarovski.

For daytime viewing only would I use a Swarovski? probably not but my decision is based on other factors as well like glare control.

The good news is your Binocular should fetch nearly as much as the purchase price if you decided to sell and go for a Noctivid. My problem would be should I buy the 8x or 10x, probably the 8x of dof was top priority.

If you ever get the chance try a Swift Audubon, the depth of field is amazing and quite startling compared to the alphas.

 

[Paultricounty]

Unless I’m missing something I’m not seeing a difference in DOF between the Audubons than any other binoculars with the same magnification. If I was comparing the Swift 8.5x to a 10x anything then I do see a difference.

I found this in short form, from CN.
Depth of field is determined primarily by magnification, not prism design. Porro prism binoculars show more "3D" or stereoscopic vision due to their objective spacing usually being greater than roof designs. This greater angle perceived by the eye provides more information for the brain to infer dimensionality.

Paul

 

[Swissboy]

Leicas have a beautiful depth of field, closest that I have seen to a porro, my 8x Ultravid was wonderful in this regard.
Depth of field and immersion are different, I always put the immersive nature of a binocular down to the AFOV and a few other factors in the design.
If you were looking through an 8x Noc then it would also naturally have more depth of field than a 12x. The Leicas I have owned all have had excellent depth of field and pop.

I think what you have described I've noticed as well, but that is just part of owning a 12x Swarovski with a flat field, the 8x Pure while wonderful for different reasons will probably still show that to a degree as well.

I found the 12x Pure very immersive which was why I enjoy it so much for astronomy and coastal viewing. The ability to put me in the image and amongst the stars is on another level.
I appreciate the two brands for their different glass and build characteristics. The Leicas will also have traits that will not be as enjoyable as the Swarovski.

For daytime viewing only would I use a Swarovski? probably not but my decision is based on other factors as well like glare control.

The good news is your Binocular should fetch nearly as much as the purchase price if you decided to sell and go for a Noctivid. My problem would be should I buy the 8x or 10x, probably the 8x of dof was top priority.

If you ever get the chance try a Swift Audubon, the depth of field is amazing and quite startling compared to the alphas.

Haven't we seen this DOF discussion before? Just can't locate it for the moment.

 

[Paultricounty]

Haven't we seen this DOF discussion before? Just can't locate it for the moment.

Forgive me , I had no intention to hijack the OP discussion, but this is very interesting when some want to look into it further. There is multiple discussions on this. Here is an interesting conversation from a while back on CN with some prominent BF members discussing the topic.

"BEST OF" the Binocular Forum - Start Here - Page 2 - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

Back to OP. I’m with Herman here, but Its not that I dont care one way or the other, but more to the fact each has its own optical personality. Assuming we’re talking about quality optics to start with, the flat field is nice because most of the image circle is in focus , thus giving a very nice window on the world. We can take in the whole FOV (at the edges) without much fiddling with the focuser or having to slightly pan. On the other hand I find that bins with no field flatteners and a more curved field (Leica Ultravids for one) to me have a more immersive feel to them. I feel like the image is more around me than looking at it, if I’m explaining that accurately.

As far as the DOF between between flat field or a non flat field, I’m not really seeing any substantial difference when comparing the same magnification.

Paul

 

[Rg548]

I wasn't as impressed with Pures as I had thought I would be.
I preferred an Ultravid to pures. Whilst I'm sure the Pures are technically the best.... I found the view cold, stark and flat.... but with amazing brightness and clarity.
I just preferred the Leica view.... for what ever reason.
I've never looked through Noctivids as I'm sure that will end as a very expensive day out !!!

 

[Paultricounty]

I wasn't as impressed with Pures as I had thought I would be.
I preferred an Ultravid to pures. Whilst I'm sure the Pures are technically the best.... I found the view cold, stark and flat.... but with amazing brightness and clarity.

cold, stark and flat ,you’d feel the EL’s more so 🤣. I understand though. Some are more sensitive to the more bluer color hue to the EL and NL.

I just preferred the Leica view.... for what ever reason.

lots of reasons there, warmer image, seems to be easier on the eyes (imo) during very bright conditions, and very saturated color pop.

I've never looked through Noctivids as I'm sure that will end as a very expensive day out !!!

There is no doubt there 🤪.

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

Its been a few months now, and I'm starting to ponder that curiously 'flat' image provided by the NL Pure. After buying a 12x42 last year and making it my 'all-round' bino for birding, landscapes, sea viewing, etc., I've had a few opportunities to look through Noctivids. The Leicas have a noticeably more 3D image, and I can completely understand why some people who are used to that very 'natural' 3D effect would be turned-off by the NL's comparatively clinical and levelled effect.

However, when playing around with the focus on the NL, I notice that this flat quality increases the tendency to make objects in the out-of-focus foreground 'invisible' when looking at something in the distance. It feels as though distant objects are much 'closer' and more immersive as a result, because the lack of a more 3D perspective brings any specific object in focus up close and personal to the highest degree.

Now, I might be misidentifying the reason for this effect. It could be a result of the wider AFOV and the effects of peripheral vision, or even in inability to process the difference in magnification made with a 12x! But it still feels as though the flat quality of the NL is contributing to this immersive effect - maybe not immersive within a more 3D 'mise-en-scene' (if that French term makes sense here!), but immersive when looking at any specific object.

Do other people see this benefit in the NL's flatness, or I'm I being silly?

(Apologies, as usual, if this has been discussed before. Feel free to post links to relevant threads.)

Will, another thing I’d like to ad , is that if one is sensitive to globe effect then the NL flat field would fall into the bad category. Swaro did improve on that a bit from the worse EL line. But as someone hear more in the know than I has opined that it is not necessarily a product of the flat field itself, but more about the The optics design of the specific flat field binoculars.

I can see the globe effect in the EL and NL if I really concentrate looking for it , but it doesn’t bother me. I also have the Nikon EDG which also has a flat field with a field flattener, and I can’t see any globe affect. So it’s probably more inherent in the optical design itself.

Paul

 

[Will K]

If you ever get the chance try a Swift Audubon, the depth of field is amazing and quite startling compared to the alphas

I've not tried those before. I'll be sure to look out for a pair!

 

[Elpha8888]

The easy way out of this is to buy a Zeiss SF, it's a cross between the two 😋

 

[Elpha8888]

Unless I’m missing something I’m not seeing a difference in DOF between the Audubons than any other binoculars with the same magnification

I found that the 8.5 Audubon's have a really excellent DOF, it is one of the first qualities that struck me. Isn't it to do with how far the barrels are apart with porros? The Leicas were very good btw.

 

[Will K]

The easy way out of this is to buy a Zeiss SF, it's a cross between the two 😋

I considered it! But the ergonomics, build quality, edge on AFOV, and extra power of the 12x option swayed me to the NL. I still like how light the SF is.

 

[Paultricounty]

I found that the 8.5 Audubon's have a really excellent DOF, it is one of the first qualities that struck me. Isn't it to do with how far the barrels are apart with porros? The Leicas were very good btw.

I think your mixing up or confusing the difference of DOF and the 3D effect. The porro prism ,like in this example with the Swift Audubon’s have wider separation of the optical train, if I’m describing that accurately. This gives the porros a very three dimensional feel. It’s even more pronounced in the older vintage super wide 35mm binoculars, that three dimensionality jumps right out at you , ad the 7x magnification and it’s a completely difference optical experience.

Paul

 

[Elpha8888]

I think your mixing up or confusing the difference of DOF and the 3D effect. The porro prism ,like in this example with the Swift Audubon’s have wider separation of the optical train, if I’m describing that accurately. This gives the porros a very three dimensional feel. It’s even more pronounced in the older vintage super wide 35mm binoculars, that three dimensionality jumps right out at you , ad the 7x magnification and it’s a completely difference optical experience.

Paul

Thanks Paul, yes absolutely right, as you say the porro has that more pronounced 3d effect/pop, separation between objects is really a nice experience, however when I compared the Swift it also had the greater dof than the 8x I was comparing it with, I still have the Swift so best I take another look, I compared them with a flat field bin. I don't have a Leica at the minute as that would be ideal to see between the two.
I still haven't managed to get hold of a 7x35 yet 😋

 

[Rg548]

I've not tried those before. I'll be sure to look out for a pair!

Ace optics have a few!!

 

[Paultricounty]

I couldn’t get the link right so I’ll post a picture of my less than Scientific test back from September. This was done with four observers at a local coastguard station. Three observers were knowledgeable with optics, the fourth was just a drunk guy who wouldn’t go away , so we let him participate if he promised not to breath or sneeze on the glass 😧. All but the drunk agreed on the results, he didn’t even understand what we were talking about, even after each person explained to him what we were doing every time we looked through a different binocular. I will say he was very smitten with the Nikon E2, and if he had the chance I think he might’ve tried to run off with it.

Back to the OP about field flatness , if the flatness doesn’t cause you any panning issues then there really isn’t any bad, imo. It comes down to if you enjoy the image or not. I personally think the image quality in NL’s and EL’s are as good as it gets , and the SF’s and Noctivids are all amazing stunning optics and all are very similar in their optical level. I also think that the difference in flat field NL (or any others) is not so much of a difference that it makes a big difference, it’s just what pleases your eyes and brain more. When I use the FF bins I almost don’t notice the flat field, I just enjoy the breathtaking image quality, until I pickup the Noctivids or Ultravids, then i instantly see a difference.

Paul

 

[Kiwimac]

I had the 12x42 Pure. I sold a pair of EL 8.5's to get them and I regretted doing so almost immediately.

I disliked the NL so much I sold them within 6 months. I do not know whether it was my eyes (I had differential LASIK some years ago) or my copy of the NL but I could see odd artifacts in the image - almost like a pattern of lines - and I could never get them comfortable on my face even with the head rest.

I'm stuck on the fence between Zeiss SF and Leica Noctivids at the moment.