Rouch, SV 12x50's seems better suited for dangling velvet.
-
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.
Noctivid 7x42 will never be made? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter spiralcoil
- Start date
Mac308
Well-known member
I've said forever, males in general, and American males in particular (especially hunters) are brainwashed in favor of power. "If 8x is good, 10x MUST be better!"
Most of the hunting I've done is behind me now (I've gone 100% to a whole food, plant based diet - vegan), but over the years I've had many opportunities to compare any number of quality 10X binocluars against my favored 7 or 8x's (Swarovski, Leica and Zeiss). For weight and size I've always packed 7x30/35 or 8x30/32 glass since I was primarily a backpack-mountain hunter. Comparing those againse 10x40/42 glass I was always struck how the 8x32's give up essentially nothing to 10x, and have less shake, while being more pack-able. The guys packing the 10X's generally have some complicated chest harness to keep the bins from flopping around. Me, I just tuck my 8x32 Ultravid's under my arm when climbing.
I'm not saying 10x's don't have their place, but I actually think that place is more at home in the birding world than the hunting world. On an animal, if I need more than 8x I need a LOT more than 10x, so that's when I pull out a spotter. If a 42mm objective is wanted, I'd always rather they be attached to a 7 or 8x with their big, beautiful exit pupils that bathe the eyes with light. If I'm going to have a 4mm exit pupil, I'd rather it be with an 8x32 than a 10x40/42.
It's always important to remind oneself every man-made thing is a compromise. To make good choices you need to be aware which compromises you're willing to make and accept, and how to weight your choices based on your preferences. In my experience, at least here in Montana, the 10x hunting fraternity is mostly unaware of this fact, and that the 10x40/42's carry genuine compromises. More often than not, it's a "follow the leader/keep up with the Jones" type of choice rather than a truly informed choice.
My .02
casscade
Well-known member
Tom, are you implying you wouldn’t have been able to identify the same thing with 8s, or even a 7x, maybe you couldn’t have, Idk, or maybe you could have. Did you have a 7/8 on hand at the time? Not a ton of difference handheld imo, on a tripod of course it’s a little better, assuming conditions/weather are right.
I’ve glassed miles upon miles of some of the biggest country from New Mexico to British Columbia and 8/10x was seldom ever a deciding factor in making a solid identification, especially when it’s miles away. It was usually a tripod mounted big glass or scope when it got down to serious glassing. Be it 7, 8x, or 10’s they were generally used for location purposes with 12’s being better considerably better. All this assuming we’re not at altitude on foot for miles on end.
Again, I like them all, use what you like, 7 through a 15, just don’t imply that the masses are anything other that just that, which means generally common or ordinary, meaning usually they follow whats popular at the time without first hand knowledge, again on average, always exceptions.
This forum wouldn’t be considered masses imo. And yeah many hunters I encounter usually buy a single bin, maybe 2 if serious, usually a ranging bin, and usually 10’s,..then roll with it no questions ask.
You also seem to assume I don’t like 10’s and I’m a 7x freak, I’m not by any stretch. Yes I absolutely think a 7/8 generally has a cleaner image over most 10s of the same obj. By that I mean less distortion, less shake handheld, generally an easier view, a bigger fov, better dof, again on average as there’s always the exceptions.
All I’m saying is that 7s are under rated today imo and work as well now as they did 50 years ago, 8 is the new 7x I suppose. Anyway enjoy your 10’s, I will along with my 7s, 8s, and 12s.
Cheers.
I’ve glassed miles upon miles of some of the biggest country from New Mexico to British Columbia and 8/10x was seldom ever a deciding factor in making a solid identification, especially when it’s miles away. It was usually a tripod mounted big glass or scope when it got down to serious glassing. Be it 7, 8x, or 10’s they were generally used for location purposes with 12’s being better considerably better. All this assuming we’re not at altitude on foot for miles on end.
Again, I like them all, use what you like, 7 through a 15, just don’t imply that the masses are anything other that just that, which means generally common or ordinary, meaning usually they follow whats popular at the time without first hand knowledge, again on average, always exceptions.
This forum wouldn’t be considered masses imo. And yeah many hunters I encounter usually buy a single bin, maybe 2 if serious, usually a ranging bin, and usually 10’s,..then roll with it no questions ask.
You also seem to assume I don’t like 10’s and I’m a 7x freak, I’m not by any stretch. Yes I absolutely think a 7/8 generally has a cleaner image over most 10s of the same obj. By that I mean less distortion, less shake handheld, generally an easier view, a bigger fov, better dof, again on average as there’s always the exceptions.
All I’m saying is that 7s are under rated today imo and work as well now as they did 50 years ago, 8 is the new 7x I suppose. Anyway enjoy your 10’s, I will along with my 7s, 8s, and 12s.
Cheers.
Cascade?
Yes, especially with 7s. Though, if you want to come visit this fall and bring your 7s we can experiment. Im open, to being wrong. Notice I described sitting down and planting elbows on knees. In order to appreciate the more magnified, (magnificent) 10X view I do need to do something to steady things. I get your point IF I'm standing on my hind legs, fighting a bit of wind. But I don't just do that. Most here, (at BF), do to prohibitions on hunting conversation, wont potentially know this, but rifle shots are not taken standing on hind legs either... very often. Technique matters.
I think this a key point if the conversation turns towards us or them, as I thought yours did and does again here.
I use 10 and 8 almost interchangeably. I have way more years using 10. I hear the argument 7/8 fans like to make about 10s wiggling too much and so the lower magnification reveals more. Since my 8s are small, bought for convenience of travel and hiking, (mostly), but now used in the off season around the Bay, where the wind howls, they wiggle to. I experience this argument as one sided. Doesn't each offset the other? 10s with 20% more magnification reveal more detail, IF you can find the way to steady them. 8s give up that opportunity. When the wind is low, and/or I find a braced position, that 20% is gone. 8s appear steadier, but give up the magnification benefit, so the minimization of wiggles benefit, is offset.
Ive written this before. I may be wrong as I only carry one bino when I bird. That said, I do though bird the same couple places looking to see, what the migration, tides, wind, time of day, and topography have wrought. I believe, I believe, I can id birds with my 8s as well as my 10s. Yep. But, I do not believe, I can see the eyelid on that Goldeneye, swimming 15 yards away, or the water droplet on her back, standing proud, with the sunlight back lighting it into this shining orb, as well. Because I visit the same places, have learned the nuanced little hiding places of where the hoped for unusual is to be found, and done it repeatedly with both 8 and 10, Im pretty sure, if not absolutely convinced, I can see more detail, like those Elk antler points with 10. Ive never regretted the choice of 10s on a day. I have though, thought about my 10s, when only the 8s were to hand. Some here have seen where I bird. Perhaps those pics and those places explain better my preference. Ive also described my informal bino count of fellow birders at these places. 10s win.
That to me is the rub of the 8/10 conversation. But, surely the 7/ 8 vs 10 thing has been blabbed to death, ad nauseam.... Cant believe I wrote another 3 paragraphs on it. Sorry.
Are we just a bunch sheep, though?
Yes, especially with 7s. Though, if you want to come visit this fall and bring your 7s we can experiment. Im open, to being wrong. Notice I described sitting down and planting elbows on knees. In order to appreciate the more magnified, (magnificent) 10X view I do need to do something to steady things. I get your point IF I'm standing on my hind legs, fighting a bit of wind. But I don't just do that. Most here, (at BF), do to prohibitions on hunting conversation, wont potentially know this, but rifle shots are not taken standing on hind legs either... very often. Technique matters.
I think this a key point if the conversation turns towards us or them, as I thought yours did and does again here.
I use 10 and 8 almost interchangeably. I have way more years using 10. I hear the argument 7/8 fans like to make about 10s wiggling too much and so the lower magnification reveals more. Since my 8s are small, bought for convenience of travel and hiking, (mostly), but now used in the off season around the Bay, where the wind howls, they wiggle to. I experience this argument as one sided. Doesn't each offset the other? 10s with 20% more magnification reveal more detail, IF you can find the way to steady them. 8s give up that opportunity. When the wind is low, and/or I find a braced position, that 20% is gone. 8s appear steadier, but give up the magnification benefit, so the minimization of wiggles benefit, is offset.
Ive written this before. I may be wrong as I only carry one bino when I bird. That said, I do though bird the same couple places looking to see, what the migration, tides, wind, time of day, and topography have wrought. I believe, I believe, I can id birds with my 8s as well as my 10s. Yep. But, I do not believe, I can see the eyelid on that Goldeneye, swimming 15 yards away, or the water droplet on her back, standing proud, with the sunlight back lighting it into this shining orb, as well. Because I visit the same places, have learned the nuanced little hiding places of where the hoped for unusual is to be found, and done it repeatedly with both 8 and 10, Im pretty sure, if not absolutely convinced, I can see more detail, like those Elk antler points with 10. Ive never regretted the choice of 10s on a day. I have though, thought about my 10s, when only the 8s were to hand. Some here have seen where I bird. Perhaps those pics and those places explain better my preference. Ive also described my informal bino count of fellow birders at these places. 10s win.
That to me is the rub of the 8/10 conversation. But, surely the 7/ 8 vs 10 thing has been blabbed to death, ad nauseam.... Cant believe I wrote another 3 paragraphs on it. Sorry.
Are we just a bunch sheep, though?
I'm still arguing, justifying your choice, (as many do), by denigrating others, isn't necessary. I like the arguments I made earlier. Newbie hunters buy 10s, not because they don't know any better, the blind following the blind, but cuz they're advised to by folks they know, who do have at least some experience. Just as we all take advice from folks we think know, at the outset of any endeavor. And, hunting folks with experience, don't often convert to 7s over time, they stay with 10, and/or go 12/15, tripod. The tripod doing what I describe above, helping to steady up things so the extra X advantage can be utilized.
Its a head turner though, specially since the Pandemic. Kind of dense urban place runs smack into gorgeous mother nature. You may have heard of tent cities here? We have had one 50 yards outside front door to building. One pistol shooting, and several mornings where fellow tenants had to walk by someone "shooting up" in foyer. That, compares and contrasts with a 12 minute drive in a couple directions. One takes you up 1500' to a ridgeline, covered in Redwoods, Eucalyptus, Madrone, Manzanita and Bay. Hundreds of miles to hike. The other to the Bay trail I keep yakking about. Elk and Pacific vistas a bit farther, but easy day trip.
Sorry for the defense of hunters. Having once been one, I am sensitive. Modern society has little clue how hard that is.....
Sorry for the defense of hunters. Having once been one, I am sensitive. Modern society has little clue how hard that is.....
Blue72
Well-known member
Never say never, Leica did recently rerelease the 7x35 with improved glass
I understand 7x is not a big seller and it’s mostly for diehard enthusiasts. But sometimes those niche products help the entire lineup brand image. The same way poor selling or unprofitable flagship cars for automotive companies.
7x is not completely dead yet. I think the recent Kowa 6.5x32 shows that 7x can still find a following
I understand 7x is not a big seller and it’s mostly for diehard enthusiasts. But sometimes those niche products help the entire lineup brand image. The same way poor selling or unprofitable flagship cars for automotive companies.
7x is not completely dead yet. I think the recent Kowa 6.5x32 shows that 7x can still find a following
Well, I standby an earlier comment. One product planning strategy is to outlast the competition. Each individual binocular company, that formerly made 7X, made the decision, (apparently, reportedly), that 7X volume wasn't high enough to provide a reasonable return for them. They stopped making these and now the smallish residual demand, gets spread over those few makers who stayed in. Leica would seem to be the beneficiary of this strategy. Its fair though to challenge this notion with the idea that not all 7X sales volume previously enjoyed by Leica competitors will survive. 7s were/are being eaten up by modern 8s of all sizes and shapes. Still perhaps enough 7x demand will keep them in it. Perhaps even, the 7x35 Retros are proof that 7 is now a Leica thing... till another maker notices. Ha!
dries1
Member
I am in different environments, and sometimes 8X is all I need, however there are many circumstances where 10X or even 12X are a necessity. I really don't understand the hype of the 7X with the exception of a larger depth of field than 8X, the APOV however leaves much to be desired IMO. To me there is nothing a 7X can do that an 8X cannot. But many in the birding community are more suited to 7X, I don't know any hunters who use 7X.
I'd hazard a guess that the appeal of the Kowa 6.5 has a lot to do with the field of view it offers. 6.5s with more pedestrian fields of view are probably much less interesting to the potential buyer - and I'd be confident in saying very few use a 6.5 magnification binocular as their only, or even their primary, birding tool, no matter how wide its field of view may be.
Blue72
Well-known member
the FOV is definitely the main attraction, but it also has all the other benefits 7x offers.
7x35 has a cult following in the astronomy circles. The Kowa outperforms most of them
eitanaltman
Well-known member
Leica never leads the field (pun intended) in FOV. If you read the interview Lee posted at the top of this subforum, you will see that their design philosophy is about striking the right balance taking into account other factors like size, weight, vignetting / stray light control, etc.
It shouldn't be a surprise that they didn't push the envelope with the Noctovid FOV, they clearly feel that going for super-wide FOV has some negative trade-offs so they go for "pretty wide but not crazy wide" with nearly every model.
spiralcoil
Well-known member
"pretty wide but not crazy wide" ... Would 135m FOV of the NV 8x42 counting as pretty wide FOV nowadays?
dries1
Member
Yes a well corrected view as the Noctivid in 8X42 is, however there are others which have more but are pure garbage, (except the NL and SF, EII). I have and use the EDG 8X42 and 8X32 and they both have very nice corrected 7.7/7.8 degrees FOV also, so bigger is not always better.
PYRTLE
Old Berkshire Boy
In answer to the original post.........it isn't going to happen and you need to believe that. As in post #3, that spec in a roof prism didn't earn much or see many sales for neither Leica or Zeiss during the late 1990s or 2000s. The Leica premium range then had Trinovids in 20,25,32, 42 and 50 mm sizes whereas we only see a Noctivid in one size - 42mm. A x 7 Noctivid is not gonna happen....as with a hoped for 32mm. It is much debated that Leica has, on occassion, produced some small scale production niche ranges but times and market forces have changed. Leica has had a couple of "owner" reshuffles and corporate stratergy rethinks as they lost ground to the other big two European companies. Sadly, it will remain wishful thinking.
Last edited:
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hello,
usually binoculars with 60 ° degrees AFOV are referred to as moderate wide-angle.
It's really easy, if the FOV is at the top of your list buy an SF or NL, if the FOV is one of many other criteria, take additional binoculars with you.
People also have different priorities when it comes to binoculars.
Andreas
PYRTLE
Old Berkshire Boy
Not very practical though Andrea's though you are spot on in that we have differing requirements. Would you believe I know some who just buy because they want to be seen with the latest model for status purposes!
Conndomat
United States of Europe
I don't know, I don't know anyone who uses binoculars as a status symbol, other things are just better for that.
Binoculars are an absolute niche product and the people on the street have no idea about them!
I have never been asked about a Swarovski, Leica or Zeiss and I do not attach any importance to it, people think "aha" binoculars, whether it costs 2000 euros or if it fell out of the chewing gum machine they will not recognize.
Andreas
eitanaltman
Well-known member
Although a FOV just under 8 degrees might feel pedestrian in the context of the top dogs (like Zeiss SF) it's still comfortably in the "good but not great" zone.
Some top 8x42 roof prism models:
159m - Swarovski NL 8x42
----------------
148m - Zeiss SF 8x42
145m - Nikon MHG 8x42
----------------
137m - Meopta Meostar 8x42
136m - Swarovski SLC 8x42
135m - Leica Noctovid 8x42
135m - Zeiss FL 8x42
130m - Leica UVHD+ 8x42
130m - Vortex Razor HD 8x42
128m - Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42
Obviously the Swaro NL has shattered the ceiling, as the Zeiss SF did before it. Then the Monarch HG came along and pushed the envelope for "sub alpha" models.
But take those three models aside, the Noctovid is right in top of the rest of the pack alongside the Meostar, Swaro SLC, Zeiss FL which don't generate a lot of complaints about FOV
I'm sure Leica could have pushed it wider if they felt it didn't compromise other areas of performance. FOV is just one aspect of a binocular's view.
NZbinodude
Well-known member
I'm a hunter (in addition to a birdwatcher and general nature observer) and I've got a Leica Ultravid 7x42 HD+ on order.
Thought process:
I prefer 42mm over 50/54/56mm or 32mm. The 50's are too bulky/heavy, and the 32's are harder to hold steady & not as bright.
In the 42mm format, I'm not too fond of 10x due to the smaller exist pupil. Between 7x and 8x - the difference in magnification is negligible, but I'll get slightly easier eye placement with the 7x and slightly more light gathering (for my 25 year old eyes).
The Ultravid 7x42 is rather compact to boot - so I'm getting 42mm performance from a body which rivals most 32mm's in size. Sort of the best of both worlds.
As it stands, I'm a 'one' binocular man, so for me, it's about finding the perfect compromise, rather than picking a bunch of different tools for their individual strengths. Hopefully the 7x42's do the trick.
Or...I'll end up with the disease many of you've got, and start collecting the bloody things.
Thought process:
I prefer 42mm over 50/54/56mm or 32mm. The 50's are too bulky/heavy, and the 32's are harder to hold steady & not as bright.
In the 42mm format, I'm not too fond of 10x due to the smaller exist pupil. Between 7x and 8x - the difference in magnification is negligible, but I'll get slightly easier eye placement with the 7x and slightly more light gathering (for my 25 year old eyes).
The Ultravid 7x42 is rather compact to boot - so I'm getting 42mm performance from a body which rivals most 32mm's in size. Sort of the best of both worlds.
As it stands, I'm a 'one' binocular man, so for me, it's about finding the perfect compromise, rather than picking a bunch of different tools for their individual strengths. Hopefully the 7x42's do the trick.
Or...I'll end up with the disease many of you've got, and start collecting the bloody things.
