• 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.

Leica Noctivid 10x42 specs (1 Viewer)

RealtreeJB

Active member
Hi,

I've seen a few different specs for the FOV on the 10x42 Noctivid.

Can someone please confirm the correct FOV.

Also, this is a flat field bino like the the Swarovski EL, correct ?

Thank you.
 
Hi,

I've seen a few different specs for the FOV on the 10x42 Noctivid.

Can someone please confirm the correct FOV.

Also, this is a flat field bino like the the Swarovski EL, correct ?

Thank you.

Hi Realtree,
I looked at the specs on Allbinos, as well as a few online retailers, and they match what Leica has in their own brochure. However, it looks like a typo occurred in the original specs, when they converted Meters to feet. Leica and everyone else lists the FOV in meters as 112 @ 1000 meters, and in feet as 376 @ 1000 yards. Converting meters to feet (112 x 3.281) yields 367 feet, but I always thought the rule of thumb on conversion here was multiplying 112 x 3, and turning 1000 meters into 1000 yards. The latter would yield 336 feet at 3,000 feet. So, unless I'm completely misrepresenting things, there is a typo that originated with Leica, which nobody has subsequently corrected. However there doesn't seem to be any dispute over the degrees 6.4 (I think rounding up from 6.39)

As for the flat field question, the answer is mildly 'no'. The image has a large sweet spot that progressively softens out near the edge. Whether you'll notice it or not you'll have to find out for yourself. I've had a 10x42 for over a year and a half, and don't notice it all. I don't even think about it. If you wear glasses, you'll find the eye relief to be generous, and the apparent field of view (AFOV), somewhere between 58-63°, depending on how you calculate it, to be quite immersive.
For me, this binocular is essentially a perfect fit, while others here have reported varying results. No surprise there! We're all built differently. I do recommend you try one if you can.

Edit: The Nikon 8x42 MHG actually says 'Field Flattener' below the eyepiece on the left barrel. Does it have a flat field? No, but its field character is similar to the Noctivid. They both have mild field curvature near the edge that can be focused out. In comparison, the Victory SF is sharper near the edge, but there's also some funny business going on with image compression, and color shift in those outer reaches.
In practical experience, I haven't noticed any of this when I'm out looking at nature.

Cheers,

Bill
 

Attachments

  • Leica_SO_Pi_Noctivid_0318_EN.pdf
    186.6 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
Hi Bill,

This is a common error in Field Of View conversion:

a) There’s 3.3 feet (39.4 inches) to 1 meter. So when converting a length in feet to meters, or vice versa, one divides or multiplies accordingly

b) However, Field of View is a ratio i.e. the width of the field at a given distance
The FOV is the same regardless of the units used, whether:
- meters at 1000 meters, or
- yards at 1000 yards

So when converting the width in yards, to the width in feet, there's 3 feet to a yard

The 10x42 Noctivid's FOV is: 112 m at 1000 m > 112 yd at 1000 yd > 336 ft at 1000 yd

- - - -

In the specification table that you attached, to convert the FOV in meters to feet, the conversion factors are:
- 3.28 for the 8x42, and
- 3.36 for the 10x42
So who knows what was going on?


John
 
Last edited:
b) However, Field of View is a ratio i.e. the width of the field at a given distance
The FOV is the same regardless of the units used, whether:
- meters at 1000 meters, or
- yards at 1000 yards

So when converting the width in yards, to the width in feet, there's 3 feet to a yard

The 10x42 Noctivid's FOV is: 112 m at 1000 m > 112 yd at 1000 yd > 336 ft at 1000 yd

Well, that is a simple and elegant way to think about it. Thanks.
 
If you guys would just use meters there wouldn't be a problem.......... ;)

Yep.

I had to use metric on a design project I was on and came to realize how utterly rational it is, compared to the english system of weights and measures. It seems from time to time there have been, and perhaps still are, national initiatives to convert the U.S. to metric, but it doesn't happen. It should have decades ago.

Its funny, since the common language of optics is metric, we have to deal with it anyways.

-Bill
 
Leica screw threads are per inch but diameter is metric.

The old Contax, Nikon and Kiev bayonets are all different, although they look the same.

Exakta and Topcon bayonets look the same but aren't.

I measured numerous 1.25 inch eyepiece barrel diameters.
They all vary, Russian, Japanese, U.S., British, Taiwan, China.
There has never been an agreed standard.

Also I think that planks of wood in Nordic countries are Imperial or maybe hybrid.

In Russia everything is approximate.

Regards,
B.
 
Yep.

I had to use metric on a design project I was on and came to realize how utterly rational it is, compared to the english system of weights and measures. It seems from time to time there have been, and perhaps still are, national initiatives to convert the U.S. to metric, but it doesn't happen. It should have decades ago.

Its funny, since the common language of optics is metric, we have to deal with it anyways.

-Bill

The statute system still has some good points going for it though, apart from the fact it is nice to keep some traditions -- we seem to be busy throwing them all away in Britain. Having 12 inches in a foot means that you get neat fractions when working in say thirds; not all those recurring decimals that the metric system throws up.

And, for me anyway, my shoe is exactly a foot long so I can measure distances, room sizes etc very neatly without any other measuring accessories. I think in the USA you are more consistent than on our side of the pond, where those who still use degrees F for temperature (I'm one of them) seem to switch to degrees C at the colder end of the scale. Another silly thing over here is so many people, while still using miles, then for some reason talk metres / meters when thinking of shorter distances. Even so, judging by the poor judgement of social distance in recent times my guess is that more of us would have got the distance right had the govt advice been 6' or 6'6" rather than 2m. At least the railways still measure in miles and chains. Where would the stumps be in cricket without a chain brought out to measure the wicket? Yours who hates all change!

Tom
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 3 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top