Agreed on both points, and I would say this is true of basically every Leica model I've used/owned. Not to say Leica is not alpha level quality in some regards, but I've never been impressed by these two aspects. Some people are very fond of the warm color representation and likely do not notice CA much, though. To each his or her own...
-
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.
CA On The Noctivid (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter b3rd
- Start date
Agreed on both points, and I would say this is true of basically every Leica model I've used/owned. Not to say Leica is not alpha level quality in some regards, but I've never been impressed by these two aspects. Some people are very fond of the warm color representation and likely do not notice CA much, though. To each his or her own...
arran
Well-known member
The Zeiss sf for sure
I would agree with jremmons. Every Leica I have tried has had more CA than the other alpha's, a much warmer color representation and less sharp edges. Some people like a lot of saturated colors as the Leica shows but I prefer a more "real" color representation. It is all in what you prefer.
Lightbender
Well-known member
Noctivid's high colour saturation:
I wonder how can a “passive” optical system (without amplifying electronics involved) INCREASE colour saturation? I could imagine the opposite, that an optical system may DECREASE colour saturation. Am I wrong?
To my eyes the view through a Zeiss SF, for example, looks a little less colour saturated than real life.
I wonder how can a “passive” optical system (without amplifying electronics involved) INCREASE colour saturation? I could imagine the opposite, that an optical system may DECREASE colour saturation. Am I wrong?
To my eyes the view through a Zeiss SF, for example, looks a little less colour saturated than real life.
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
It's probably more about balance between different colors, than the absolute values. But the brain+eye is a complex system, especially how colors are perceived, and not always logical. Leica tends to bounce the reds more, Swaro the blues, and Zeiss the green/yellow.
Nikon, bounces the reds more also. Your correct and right on with the color balances. Some binoculars are more neutral also like the Swaro's.
Last edited:
Lightbender's point is something I have wondered about. Beyond what Vespobuteo sets out there seems to be more to it. If this was it then (a) all Leica models will have the same/a closely similar transmission curve, and (b) any binocular of moderate optical quality will show the "Leica rendition" if only its curve matches Leica's. It is known that Leica have unique secrets. Maybe this CA is an unavoidable result of their recipe? The "Leica rendition" in their present models, which some very much like, others dislike, is real. Does anyone have a more complete explanation?
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Shorter/compact bins need to bend the light more in the lens-system which might introduce more CA. The type of ED glass used will also have an impact.
Leica as well as Zeiss make lenses for cinematography that cost huge amount of money. I doubt they have any "unavoidable" CA in them because they want a certain look.
Color rendition is probably more about preferences than secrets as all major manufacturers, even Meopta (since a few years) have the latest plasma deposition technology for their AR-coatings.
Last edited:
Lightbender
Well-known member
I agree with that.
But when I compare the “overall” colour saturation (not the individual colour cast) of each binocular TO REAL LIFE, the overall/absolute colour saturation of the Noctivid appears similar to what I see with my naked eyes. The Zeiss SF appears less saturated THAN REAL LIFE; the Swarovision - to my eyes - is somewhere in between.
So I don't think that Noctivid's colours are OVER-saturated, as some say.
Last edited:
I consider Leica's to be a distant third behind Swarovski and Zeiss. One of their best binoculars the Leica Ultravid Plus 10x42 is 13th place in the Allbino's ranking of 10x42's. Really! Not very impressive for a $2200.00 binocular. There are a lot of less expensive binoculars that outperform it. Even the Vangusrd Endeavor EDII!
https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html
https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
The light transmission of the Vanguard is very low. I would never buy them for that single reason. But if you like low transmission, get them, they could double as sunglasses.
Adding up points for tripod mounts, IPD and transmission etc. to a total ranking figure is what makes Allbinos loose credibility. Binoculars are a bit more complex to evaluate than a single number.
Last edited:
Torview
Well-known member
Distant ?????........Really ?, not to me, the Noctivid is an exceptional binocular offering a different view for those who don`t find the SV`s & Sf`s delivering what they want from a top optic.
I`v gone with Swarovski but the Noctivid is a masterpiece IMHO.
I’m following this topic on the background,and i must agree that the Noctivid is one of the best binoculairs.
I have the 8x42 version.
The CA is only there when you watch off axis,the color,contrast,sharpness is perfect.
I have also an Swarovski EL 8.5x42 field Pro and had a black Zeiss 8x42SF for 3 Months and for my eyes the Noctivid is the best.:t:
Good explanation!
The light transmission of the Vanguard is very low. I would never buy them for that single reason. But if you like low transmission, get them, they could double as sunglasses.
Adding up points for tripod mounts, IPD and transmission etc. to a total ranking figure is what makes Allbinos loose credibility. Binoculars are a bit more complex to evaluate than a single number.
Vanguard Endeavor II/IV- A few points to consider..... PRICE- Consider it's currently about a $350 or less binocular. I almost didn't buy an Endeavor because of exactly the same reason you state, transmission. This would have been a mistake on my part. Perhaps because it does everything else so well OR maybe transmission is higher than measured at Allbino's, I never really notice the lower transmission under any in the field circumstances. I can tell if I'm holding an FL in one hand and the Endeavor in the other but other than that, not noticeable in the field. Although I've never had an issue with the Endeavor ED II or IV, QC SEEMS to be slightly hit/miss. I'd buy again!
I tend to agree as I usually do!
I generally like a flat field so in most cases the EL Swarovision gets the nod....HOWEVER, Comparing the Noctivid to similar designed binoculars such as the SLC I like the view/function of the Noctivid a little better. I DO think Leica got a little carried away with the ER of the Noctivid's however. Leica and Nikon are STILL the only brands I've never returned for any reason.
John M Robinson
Well-known member
I agree, I've tried and compared the topLeica to the top Swaro and Zeiss, and found that I prefer the Leica total package. Do I wish my Ultravids had less CA, of course, but in 99% of my use it's a non factor and the other 99% attributes makeup for that flaw. I get it that this is a big deal, deal breaker to a lot of you, and I wouldn't presume to try to talk you into dismissing your observations.
A very warm color transmission biased towards the red spectrum and slightly higher in CA than the other alpha's and less sharp edges.
Last edited:
What do you prefer about Leica's? The optics or the ergonomics. They are small in size and weight which I like. I feel the small size handicaps the performance of the optics because of short focal length issues and such.
What do you prefer in the view of a Noctivid over the Zeiss SF or Swarovski 8.5x42?
I've often thought the light intensity/light levels in your local area may have quite a significant influence in one's preference (or not) for saturated colours. Today was one of those typical grey UK days, raining from about 11am onwards. Those conditions tend to suck all the colour out of everything, especially over a bit of distance, and I can see how a binocular with strong colour saturation would work well - helping colours to stand out. For much of this summer, however, we have had really bright days and strong sunlight very similar to the conditions I've seen in Spain. Under such conditions design features such as baffling, internal blackening, etc., might be more important than high colour saturation.
I liked the Noctivid 8x42 I looked through at Birdfair last year a lot - very impressive device optically and at least the equal of Swarovski mechanically, although (in my opinion) could be improved ergonomically. Didn't try the Ultravids or the 10x42 Noctivid but the I thought the 8x42 was certainly a contender for Top Alpha status. It gave me the most similar (although still not quite identical) impression to the large objective binoculars I had tried earlier like the 8x56 SLC. The three alphas each offer something unique and special - Swarovski offers perfect flat field, Zeiss SF has outstanding field of view and the Noctivid delivers a really nice image in a more traditional manner. The well heeled consumer really does have some fantastic options at that end of the market.
I asked myself the same question after leaving the show last year. I felt the SF 8x42 would have been the most useful of the three for the birding I do because of its field of view (the 10x42 even more so). A real pleasure to use - I found the balance and handling, essentially, every bit as good as had been advertised. I didn't see the blue rings or any other optical effects - the view rather similar to the Swarovision but with edge sharpness falling off faster. The 8.5x42 Fieldpro - my brother's binocular which I have used quite a lot and am pretty familiar with - is absolutely superb though: the best all-rounder, and gives you great confidence in its build quality, a very similar impression as when handling the great classics of old. It is very easy to see why this model has become such a birders' favourite. I have a sneaking feeling Zeiss doesn't do an 8.5 because they've worked out that they'd sell more 8x and 10x! The flat field gives the impression of an absolutely massive sweet spot with amazing sharpness over the entire image. The 8x42 Noctivid delivers the most attractive image (my brother and myself both agreed on this) in a beautifully compact package (to the point it actually limits the advantages of the open bridge design) and feels every bit the equal of the Swarovski mechanically, but the focuser position is the most awkward of the three. They are so good (and priced in more or less the same ballpark) that the choice between them truly depends on individual preference.
Last edited:
