Broken Noctovid (2 Viewers)

Patudo said:

PS. if the photos are in any way representative of what you see looking through it, the view is pretty ... underwhelming...

Click to expand...

I looked through a mint 8x60 many years ago. And that was (like an 8x60H I looked through on the same day) anything but underwhelming. Fantastic binoculars, both of them.

Hermann

Interesting. I do sometimes wonder whether these old binoculars are over-romanticised/if the mystique surrounding them is matched by the reality.

If I had more spare cash I'd contribute to a fund to fly @jackjack over to Austria for a week and have him carefully look through (and take his binoscopes) binoculars like the 8x60, Deltar, SARD etc. It would be most amusing to see what happened to secondhand values if an experienced observer reported (and provided photos) showing up the deficiencies of even the best 1930s/40s era devices...

Patudo said:

Interesting. I do sometimes wonder whether these old binoculars are over-romanticised/if the mystique surrounding them is matched by the reality.

Click to expand...

Oh, they certainly are. None of them can compete with modern binoculars as they are, and certainly not the beaten up pair in the link I provided. But even a mint pair like the one I had the pleasure to try - and it must have been one of the very few pairs that had never seen any "action" - would need modern coatings to compete, and quite possibly modern glass types as well.

However, these binoculars were quite something. Aspherized (by hand!) lenses in the eyepieces, all the lenses finished by hand, extremely high mechanical quality. I read a guess somewhere years ago that such a pair would cost nowadays more than 25000 € to make. And quite frankly, the image quality across the FOV was really quite something given the age of that pair.

Patudo said:

If I had more spare cash I'd contribute to a fund to fly @jackjack over to Austria for a week and have him carefully look through (and take his binoscopes) binoculars like the 8x60, Deltar, SARD etc. It would be most amusing to see what happened to secondhand values if an experienced observer reported (and provided photos) showing up the deficiencies of even the best 1930s/40s era devices...

Click to expand...

Interesting idea, but I don't expect the results would affect the secondhand values at all. These are collector's items, even if they are in a sorry state. And collectors are prepared to pay ludicrous amounts of money just to own one of these pairs ...

Hermann

In terms of some design history . . .

For the most part following WWII, Porro prism binoculars continued the long established pattern of having an axle running the full length
of the two body halves, with the halves secured to to the axle at each end by a relatively narrow bridge.
(Exceptions with full size binoculars include the polycarbonate body Steiner models and the composite construction Swarovski SL models,
that had full length bridges.)

In contrast, for the first 50 years or so post-WWII most roof prism models did have a full length axle and bridge.
This was sometimes seen as an advantage in terms of long term durability, compared to the two point contact typical to Porro prism designs
(e.g. it's mentioned in John Barsness' 1999 book Optics for the Hunter).


However, the situation with roof prism binoculars changed in 1999 when Swarovski introduced the EL model. It had a short bridge at each end
- and no central axle. And the rear bridge was hollowed out to enable operation of the central focusing mechanism.
The lack of an axle was promoted as offering advantages in terms of holding.
(The EL was followed by the EL SV in 2009, and the EL Range in 2011.)

Then in 2010 Swarovski introduced the all new version of the SLC with a much shortened enclosed axle.
And with the introduction of the EL and SLC models, others started to offer similar designs.

Then in 2020 Swarovski introduced the NL with the focuser sandwiched between two short bridges,
with the rear being hollowed for the focusing mechanism.


By way of illustration, two images from Tobias Mennle's no longer active site Greatest Binoculars (along with an addition),
showing a variety of x42 models to scale . . .



In terms of axle/ bridge design progression:
Leica Ultravid with full length axle and bridge, top right
Swarovski EL SV with axle less dual bridge, top centre
Swarovski SLC with short enclosed axle, top 2nd from right
Swarovski NL with sandwiched focuser, bottom right

Also:
Zeiss HT (introduced 2012) with sandwiched focuser
Zeiss SF (intro 2015) with an additional front bridge
Nikon EDG II (intro 2011) with short enclosed axle


- - - -
The potential strength advantage of a full length axle and bridge, in comparison to an axel less design (e.g. the Leica Noctivid image in post #12),
is shown in:
Leica BA x42 cut away, from Claudio in post #68 at: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/127229-question-for-billc/page-3
Kowa BD x32 body shell, from the Kowa site




- - - -
In relation to the original subject of this thread, it shouldn't be totally surprising that a catastrophic failure could result from dropping an axle less unit.
Especially as we have no idea of the height involved, and as GG shows in post #12 the particular unit seems to have a structural weakness
in one of the front bridge arms.

However, if this style of design is particularly weak - considering the tens of thousands of Swarovski units in circulation over the last quarter century -
surely we'd be regularly seeing examples of failures


John

For completeness . . .

In terms of axle less roof prism designs, the Zeiss HT of 2012 is considered as introducing the focus knob located in front of the mechanism,
that converts the focuser rotation to move the focusing lenses.

However, the earliest use seems to have been on the little known Weaver Super Slam:



I’ve previously posted some information at: Weaver Super Slam - an Interesting Oddity?

And doing a quick search, the earliest reference I can find is in the annual Optic Test by Outdoor Life, posted May 2010.
See: Optics Test 2010


So in terms of availability it predates the Zeiss HT - although it made little commercial impression.
And it was less refined in not having a second bridge immediately in front of the focuser.


John

Looks like there is an even worse "value" for split up binoculars on offer. One half of an 8x32 EL SV for $200, yikes.

Hi GG,

Although described as an EL 8x32, it’s the original version of the CL x30 (with the eyecups missing), that was made from from 2011 to 2017.

Another image shows the other barrel including the diopter control, and yet another what may be a clouded objective:


(FWIW the seller seems to mainly deal in jewellery.)


For comparison, see the original and later version of the CL x30: the smaller two in the front row of a mixed flock of resting Swaro's caught by Chuck.


From post #12 at: Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 vs CL Companion 8x30


John

John A Roberts said:

Hi GG,

Although described as an EL 8x32, it’s the original version of the CL x30 (with the eyecups missing), that was made from from 2011 to 2017.

Another image shows the other barrel including the diopter control, and yet another what may be a clouded objective:

View attachment 1645274
(FWIW the seller seems to mainly deal in jewellery.)


For comparison, see the original and later version of the CL x30: the smaller two in the front row of a mixed flock of resting Swaro's caught by Chuck.

View attachment 1645275
From post #12 at: Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 vs CL Companion 8x30


John

Click to expand...

Good catch! I did not notice that they had mislabelled the model. So, it seems that even single bridge binoculars are destructible.

What on Earth is going on with these broken binoculars...did folks see the Leica listing and decide to list their own busted pairs?

This one looks like half an older style EL, in what appears to be a nice case.

hopster said:

This binocular has obviously had a very large impact on a hard surface. I'm not sure we can say that any binocular would have had resisted that better.

Click to expand...

Yes, the noctovid is also quite heavy with very hard rubber which probably doesn’t soften a hard landing, the rubber on one of the objectives has cracked on impact rather than act as soft cushion!

It’s safe to say they weren’t dropped on a grassy knoll! As a brief owner of the model the leica seemed the most robust in the hand of all the modern top end binoculars, second only to a trinovid.

Matt