Noctivid 8x42- wow! (1 Viewer)

[Binocollector]

Yes, but you might notice a weakness in a binocular if somebody else points it out that you didn't notice before. It happens to me all the time.

True. I wish I never heard about chromatic abberation.

 

[[email protected]]

True. I wish I never heard about chromatic abberation.

You're better off not to know about CA because once you see it it will bother you all the time.

 

[Trinovid]

You're better off not to know about CA because once you see it it will bother you all the time.

Not even a little bit true, but with your obsessive personality I could see it as applicable in your mind.

 

[Steve]

English is the site language please.

 

[Scott98]

Вчера в Прага Чехия пробвах Leica NV 8x42.
Леле .....
Красиви цветове, контраст и никакви аберации. Скоро бих си купил Leica NV 8x42!

translation: He likes them

 

[Steve]

Yeah well he can like them on another site .

 

[hopster]

Another NV 8x convert here. After initially struggling with more CA than I am used to in a top optic, I realised that they can be very fussy about eye position; both laterally and ER. When you get that correct, not only does the CA recede into the background - even on most high-contrast edges - but the central sharpness is extraordinary (have a look on a tripod at something in the far distance), the contrast and colour saturation are better than any other 8x42 roof I have looked through (better than EL/NL, much better than SF) which makes birds, flowers and other natural images really shine, there is an unusual ability to 'see into shadows and undergrowth' and a lovely crystalline quality to the image.

Other benefits are: (1) the adaptable eye cups allow use both with and without glasses quite easily though I also play with rubber eyecups (these fit well A Pair Binoculars Telescope Rubber Eye Cups Eye Guards Caps Inner Diameter 40 mm | eBay and you can cut out the centres to suit) to make small adjustments in ER and help stabilise eyes in just the right spot, (2) it feels very well-built like it doesn't need babying and will last and (3) it shows less milky glare and flares in tricky side-lit and front-lit situations than I would expect from an 8x42, though you can get the orange-rainbow crescents at the bottom of the FOV that were drawn by another member here when looking just below the sun or very bright skies, though I'm sure other optics would have suffered worse.

So I would prefer less CA on the edge of the field and for it not to pop up very occasionally in the centre on very high-contrast edges, and more relaxed eye positioning - but I suspect that without those you would not get the extreme sharpness and class-leading contrast and colour. I put it like this to someone recently:

I am starting to think about them as a little ‘highly-strung’ like a thoroughbred racehorse – capable of superb performance but ‘right on the edge’ and therefore needing careful handling and so a little less relaxed to use than the alternatives as result.

A few realistic caveats then: with my optical prescription (-2.5 & -2.75) I can only just get to infinity without glasses so if you are much more short-sighted than me you may need to use your glasses, and I would not choose this as an optic for astronomy because the contrast and colour benefits would not be so apparent and the wider and flatter field of an NL or SF is better suited, though probably you should get an x50 or x56 if you really want to focus on that aspect.

 

[Conndomat]

So I would prefer less CA on the edge of the field and for it not to pop up very occasionally in the centre on very high-contrast edges, and more relaxed eye positioning - but I suspect that without those you would not get the extreme sharpness and class-leading contrast and colour. I put it like this to someone recently:

Hello,

I still don't know what CA has to do with sharpness, contrast and color?

If you pick up a Nikon EDG, you might find that they are very similar to the Noctivids, the EDG is practically a Japanese Leica, the high-quality Nikons have always been very much based on the contrast and color of Leica, but with a lower CA, at least as far as the EDG is concerned.

IMO too clear CA even reduce the contrast and sharpness, it is not for nothing that high-end apos are clearly superior to simpler achromats at the star.

Getting good sharpness on the axis with binoculars is not the most difficult optic discipline, good middle-class glasses can now do that too, you have to check carefully whether the Noctivid is really sharper on the axis than an SF or NL, our colleague "Canip" has the three glasses tested some time ago with a three-booster, all glasses were practically the same and differences were difficult to recognize, his subjective "hit list" was 1st SF, 2nd Noctivid, 3rd NL

I think all glasses should be pretty much the same and differences here will probably only be noticeable through slightly better or worse sample variations.

Andreas

 

[lazy_ferret]

I must praise noctovid too, those are really good quality binoculars.

I have wierd eye pressure problem with swarovski nl pure 10x42 and 12x42. It is some unplesent feeling when i look long time with those. I tested different copy both of them with same result.
Its really shame because FOV of those are mind blowing thing to me.
If i go back swarovski someday, i would buy el 8x32 or 8,5x42 model, not nl.
So after all, i sell those and want testing something else.

I try noctovid 10x42 and 8x42 and like both very much.
Really pleasant sharp view, nice colour rendering and very quality feel overall.
They both have little CA, but nothing serious really.
So I bought 8x42 model and be happy with it.

 

[John M Robinson]

I did as you said (roof line), I failed to notice much… I did notice how much CA my old monarchs had when comparing back and forth though. Anyways I just wanted to make this post to say that after everything I read it’s really blown out of proportion, to my eyes it’s really nothing… maybe some people can see CA better than I.

As far as the weight, It’s 30 oz, but you are right they are a tank…. I imagine compromising weight means compromising glass and therefore coatings so I am more than happy to Cary a few oz extra for that extra special image. I put them on a marsupial bino chest pack so they are not bothering me at all in terms of weight.

Thanks for chiming in, I read a lot of your previous posts prior to purchasing

This is an old thread, so maybe too late, but please, don’t go looking for CA. Just continue to use and enjoy your fine binoculars. You could drive yourself crazy, obsessing over minute faults which every binocular has somewhere. It sounds like the Noctovids are perfect for you, just enjoy them.

 

[hopster]

This is an old thread, so maybe too late, but please, don’t go looking for CA. Just continue to use and enjoy your fine binoculars. You could drive yourself crazy, obsessing over minute faults which every binocular has somewhere. It sounds like the Noctovids are perfect for you, just enjoy them.

I agree. CA in the NV was a slight worry for me when I first used them but it becomes almost irrelevant once you learn exactly the correct eye position in terms of both ER and IPD and use it consistently. If you see a little off-axis (which can happen but only on very high-contrast edges) then move your eye a little and it's gone.

It might have a bit less FOV than the latest from Zeiss and Swaro, but like some others here have noted I am almost always focusing my attention in the centre anyway and the edges are mostly for peripheral noticing of movement. It's not as if it's even a narrow FOV, it's semi-flat field so the sweet spot is larger than average just not as wide as the current fashion in top roofs. For daytime/nature observation (unlike astronomy) there is no guarantee that the edges will be the same distance away from you as the centre anyway and so can easily be out of focus for that reason alone.

On the other hand, it has so many image quality advantages that were apparent to me when I compared and considered all of them as my 8x42 over a period of months:

• more resistant to glare than S in particular which is very important in real world use
• sharper in the centre than both i.e. more detail apparent in very distant objects when supported
• better/more natural colours (doesn't roll off in the deeper reds like both others)
• shows more subtle contrast differences e.g. into shadows
• I believe I see the 3D benefit that there was so much discussion about when it first arrived e.g. the relative position and roundness of tree trunks and branches

Enjoy the beautiful, crystalline image - that's why we use binoculars!