• 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.

CA On The Noctivid (1 Viewer)

b3rd

Reg1stered User
Do I need to worry about CA on the Noctivid? I think I am sensitive to this phenomenon--I've noticed it on multiple binoculars, although nothing so high-end as the Noctivids. I like the philosophy of these binoculars a lot. Classic, photographic image without distortion, high contrast, good low light performance... But I have some concerns that I will get them and be disappointed when I see green and magenta fringes on a backlit seabird.

I've looked through them in unchallenging light, and I really liked them a lot.

If I bought these, they would probably be my primary birding binocular in just about all conditions. Living in DC, I'd opt for the 10x for its reach, spending a decent amount of time looking at birds over water or at a bit of a distance. Never had a problem with shake unless I am on a boat or trying to do things one-handed.

Other things I've considered but not looked through: SLC 10x42 (quite a chunk cheaper)

Things I've considered seriously and have looked through: Maven B2. Thought they were really good. I did notice a bit of CA, although it might have been a problem with my IPD adjustment. Still might go that route, but for some reason I"m drawn to the Leica brand due to their excellent reputation in photography.
 
HT has the same design philosophy as the NV - high contrast, low glare, neutral colour, non flat-field but the HT is nearly free from any CA.

I've used many hundreds of binoculars and the HT is my favourite view thus far - not tried the NV yet though! You would be making a great choice with the SLC as well - great image and low CA, to my eyes at least.
 
CA on the Noctivid

Hello evebody. I use a Noctivid 8 X 42 since 16 months. To my eyes, I have lot of CA. A french commercial director writes my that CA is the against part of shine... Noctivid have lots of qualities: nice view, hight contrast, good low light performances, ergonomics to my hands and hight quality of manufactury. But I can't bare CA ans I think to sell them. I am more happy why my Trinovid 10 X 42 BA of the 90's! No CA to my eyes with them. Perhaps I am going to buy Zeiss with ABK. Sorry for my poor english!Yours sincerely.
 
One of the first things the persons invited for the introduction of the NV was the occurrence of Color diffraction and I also saw it when I got NV samples to be tested (test published on the WEB--site of House of Outdoor).
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Asking the group about CA is only going to get a myriad of responses, as peoples sensitivity is far too personal. If you are sensitive [I'm in that group] sounds like the NV might not be for you - if not, all of the bins other attributes would likely keep you happy.
 
Asking the group about CA is only going to get a myriad of responses, as peoples sensitivity is far too personal. If you are sensitive [I'm in that group] sounds like the NV might not be for you - if not, all of the bins other attributes would likely keep you happy.

This is an excellent and very sensible response to one of the most frequent questions that comes up in the Binocular Forum.:t:

Bob
 
This is an excellent and very sensible response to one of the most frequent questions that comes up in the Binocular Forum.:t:

???

Sensible because if one is sensitive to CA one shouldn't pick a bin w/a lot of CA (like the Noctivid)? Agreed.

Sensible because those who don't see CA should be happy w/a bin w/CA since they can't see it? I would argue against that thought. Whether one sees CA or not, it still degrades the quality of the view, so all else being equal, I consider it a bad characteristic.

--AP
 
I'm told [by Henry, whom I would trust to be correct] that my HT has spherical aberration. I don't see it, maybe my eyes are not sharp enough, don't know but the view is superb. If I just went with Henry's view, I would have discounted the HT flat-out...and missed out on what I consider my true optical treasure that impress and awe day after day, even after years of use.

The overall consensus on the NV seems to be - great sharpness, contrast, 3D but too much CA for some. It seems as though those that don't see the CA are left with a great image. A problem is only a problem if it manifests itself in the users reality, rather than the hypothetical, which seems to be the case here...
 
Last edited:
???



Sensible because those who don't see CA should be happy w/a bin w/CA since they can't see it? I would argue against that thought. Whether one sees CA or not, it still degrades the quality of the view, so all else being equal, I consider it a bad characteristic.

--AP

I was responding to what James Holdsworth wrote and he did not imply anything like what you have written above.

Personally I don't see it under most circumstances when I am using my binoculars but I do consider it a "bad characteristic."

Is there any proof that people who do not "see" CA are handicapped by a degraded view?

Bob
 
Last edited:
I was responding to what James Holdsworth wrote and he did not imply anything like what you have written above. I don't see it but I do consider it a "bad characteristic."

Is there any proof that people who do not "see" CA are handicapped by a degraded view?

Bob

Exactly what I was going to say.

At what point does CA that I don't see in Noctivids that I own impede or hamper my ability to enjoy this binocular while birding?

How many binoculars does that leave for those of us to buy/use that don't have CA that some see?
 
CA is like ro;;ing ball, color rendition, etc, all subjective, I myself am not affected by CA, with certain glass viewing dark objects against the sky once, I could see the color on the image edge, but I was really looking for it.
Some folks are prone to seasickness, I grew up on the water in the USVI and some would get seasick with just the slightest of choppy seas. I never had to take Dramamine because I do not get seasick.

Andy W.
 
Do I need to worry about CA on the Noctivid? I think I am sensitive to this phenomenon--I've noticed it on multiple binoculars, although nothing so high-end as the Noctivids. I like the philosophy of these binoculars a lot. Classic, photographic image without distortion, high contrast, good low light performance... But I have some concerns that I will get them and be disappointed when I see green and magenta fringes on a backlit seabird.

I've looked through them in unchallenging light, and I really liked them a lot.

If I bought these, they would probably be my primary birding binocular in just about all conditions. Living in DC, I'd opt for the 10x for its reach, spending a decent amount of time looking at birds over water or at a bit of a distance. Never had a problem with shake unless I am on a boat or trying to do things one-handed.

Other things I've considered but not looked through: SLC 10x42 (quite a chunk cheaper)

Things I've considered seriously and have looked through: Maven B2. Thought they were really good. I did notice a bit of CA, although it might have been a problem with my IPD adjustment. Still might go that route, but for some reason I"m drawn to the Leica brand due to their excellent reputation in photography.
I've looked at the Noctivid on two different occasions in very bright sunlight and I did not have a problem with CA (something I look for). Like every other bin CA can be seen on the edges.
Leica recently upgrade the optical train on my 7X42 Ultravid BR and I've noticed a serious improvement in CA control. Whether the upgrade was HD or HD/Plus or just original BR glass I don't know. I do know the view is improved, quite pleasant and true to the Leica color scheme. The center field is tack sharp. Not bad for an old Ultravid.

Side-by-side the Noctivid is a definite upgrade to the Ultravid HD/Plus models...yes I compared them side-by-side.

Good luck!
 
CA is ...subjective...

No. CA is an objective, measurable performance characteristic of the optical system and can't really be corrected away by the brain, only hidden from awareness. Not bringing all wavelengths of light to same focus can't be anything but bad for contrast and effective "sharpness".

--AP
 
No. CA is an objective, measurable performance characteristic of the optical system and can't really be corrected away by the brain, only hidden from awareness. Not bringing all wavelengths of light to same focus can't be anything but bad for contrast and effective "sharpness".

--AP


In optical theory I'm sure that's correct, although it sure doesn't jive with user reports of the NV having class-leading contrast. Even Kimmo thought so, so I remain flummoxed...
 
CA is like ro;;ing ball, color rendition, etc, all subjective, I myself am not affected by CA, with certain glass viewing dark objects against the sky once, I could see the color on the image edge, but I was really looking for it.
Some folks are prone to seasickness, I grew up on the water in the USVI and some would get seasick with just the slightest of choppy seas. I never had to take Dramamine because I do not get seasick.

Andy W.

I have to agree with Alexis about this.

Telling us you don't get seasick isn't useful if what we want to know is whether the boat is rocking.

Angular Magnification Distortion (the cause of "rolling ball"), as well as Longitudinal and Lateral Chromatic Aberrations are real instrument characteristics that can be accurately observed and even photographed with a little effort. Anyone who truly doesn't see these things can't tell the rest of us anything useful about them.
 
I have to agree with Alexis about this.

Telling us you don't get seasick isn't useful if what we want to know is whether the boat is rocking.

Angular Magnification Distortion (the cause of "rolling ball"), as well as Longitudinal and Lateral Chromatic Aberrations are real instrument characteristics that can be accurately observed and even photographed with a little effort. Anyone who truly doesn't see these things can't tell the rest of us anything useful about them.

I think, as usual, you are attracted to the ‘idea’ that this phenomena is somehow measurable....and yet when challenged, you will be unable to adequately do so. Perhaps some crude measurements could be cobbled together,,,but much more will not be possible.

I’ll throw out an estimate that 90%+ of what folk on BF refer to as CA is in fact some form of defective vision.
 
Alexis Powell:
CA is an objective, measurable performance characteristic of the optical system and can't really be corrected away by the brain, only hidden from awareness.

Henry Link:
I have to agree with Alexis about this.

It is not certain to me whether "agree" covers what I quote below.
AP /?and Henry,
What is the difference, as meant here, between "corrected away by the brain" and "hidden from awareness"?
If it is easier for you, just an example will be enough, even unrelated to optics.
Personally, I am sensitive to CA when I look for it, but do not notice slight appearances of it "in the field".
Thank you!
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top