• 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.

Noctivid 10x42 vs Ultravid HD+ 10x50 (2 Viewers)

Mike F

Well-known member
Does anyone have any experience of both of these bins? I'm interested in the optical performance and differences rather than the ergonomic. I have the NV but have always been interested in a 10x50 UV. Apart from slightly longer viewing times with the extra light capture of the 50 are there any other reasons why I might either want both, or indeed the UV instead of the NV?
 
Theoretically perhaps, but would you ever be in a position to notice it?

John

I would think not. My guess is that any advantage of the larger objective lens of the UV would be offset by the superior optics of the NV, but I'd be interested in some opinions from first hand experience.
 

Vespobuteo, Thanks for this. I had seen some of those reviews before, but not all in one place. I've read a number of them including the 10x42 NV, 10x50 UV, 12x50 UV, 10x42 SF and 10x42 EL.

I didn't glean any useful or meaningful information with regard to a comparison of the 10x50 UV vs 10x42 NV, but it did become apparent that the reviewer likes flat fields and sharpness to the field stop. He was very complementary in his reviews about nearly every aspect of the three Lieca's except for criticising them for not having flat fields and edge-to-edge sharpness. He consistently gave the nod to Swarovski's for that reason and dismissed Ziess due to poor build quality.

I suppose that one has to read any review with the reviewers bias's in mind. That's fine, but it would have been nice if he had acknowledged, if only once, the fact that many people don't regard curved fields and soft edges as a fault. I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around. I simply move the binocular, and do the same even if it's mounted on a tripod.

Oh well, each their own, but an acknowledgement that field curvature and soft edges are a design choice made by the manufacturer rather than a fault would have been nice in what otherwise are excellent reviews.

Any more opinions regarding the 10x42 NV and 10x50 UV?
 
Last edited:
Vespobuteo, Thanks for this. I had seen some of those reviews before, but not all in one place. I've read a number of them including the 10x42 NV, 10x50 UV, 12x50 UV, 10x42 SF and 10x42 EL.

I didn't glean any useful or meaningful information with regard to a comparison of the 10x50 UV vs 10x42 NV, but it did become apparent that the reviewer likes flat fields and sharpness to the field stop. He was very complementary in his reviews about nearly every aspect of the three Lieca's except for criticising them for not having flat fields and edge-to-edge sharpness. He consistently gave the nod to Swarovski's for that reason and dismissed Ziess due to poor build quality.

I suppose that one has to read any review with the reviewers bias's in mind. That's fine, but it would have been nice if he had acknowledged, if only once, the fact that many people don't regard curved fields and soft edges as a fault. I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around. I simply move the binocular, and do the same even if it's mounted on a tripod.

Oh well, each their own, but an acknowledgement that field curvature and soft edges are a design choice made by the manufacturer rather than a fault would have been nice in what otherwise are excellent reviews.

Any more opinions regarding the 10x42 NV and 10x50 UV?

Well, he's an astro-guy, and not a birder, so you will have to read it from that POV. He's reviews are quite balanced but he seems to miss the greatest advantage with the NV:s though, superior glare control.

Haven't yet seen a flat-field design binocular that can control glare in the way that the NV:s do.

I would pic the NV over the UV because the EP is so much better with glasses.

Any (theoretical, 50mm vs 42mm = 19%) resolution difference would need the usage of a doubler and bin mounted on a tripod to see.
 
Last edited:
Vespobuteo, Thanks for this. I had seen some of those reviews before, but not all in one place. I've read a number of them including the 10x42 NV, 10x50 UV, 12x50 UV, 10x42 SF and 10x42 EL.

I didn't glean any useful or meaningful information with regard to a comparison of the 10x50 UV vs 10x42 NV, but it did become apparent that the reviewer likes flat fields and sharpness to the field stop. He was very complementary in his reviews about nearly every aspect of the three Lieca's except for criticising them for not having flat fields and edge-to-edge sharpness. He consistently gave the nod to Swarovski's for that reason and dismissed Ziess due to poor build quality.

I suppose that one has to read any review with the reviewers bias's in mind. That's fine, but it would have been nice if he had acknowledged, if only once, the fact that many people don't regard curved fields and soft edges as a fault. I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around. I simply move the binocular, and do the same even if it's mounted on a tripod.

Oh well, each their own, but an acknowledgement that field curvature and soft edges are a design choice made by the manufacturer rather than a fault would have been nice in what otherwise are excellent reviews.

Any more opinions regarding the 10x42 NV and 10x50 UV?

Tobias Mennle writes excellent binocular reviews from the point of a photographer/cameraman rather than a stargazer


http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/leica/noctivid10x42/noctivid10x42.html
 
Last edited:
Hi Mike,

why so angry about Roger's review?
This was your Question and Roger testet both glasses!


Does anyone have any experience of both of these bins? I'm interested in the optical performance and differences rather than the ergonomic. I have the NV but have always been interested in a 10x50 UV. Apart from slightly longer viewing times with the extra light capture of the 50 are there any other reasons why I might either want both, or indeed the UV instead of the NV?

He also writes that the Noctivid is very good during the day, just not for Astro!
I can confirm his information where I had the NV 10x42 only too early onset distortion and CA.
Tobias Mennle is a Leica fan, just like Roger is a Swarovski fan.
By the way, Bino's is best to test it yourself, or you are looking for reviews that you want to hear ...

Andreas
 
Hi Mike,

why so angry about Roger's review?
This was your Question and Roger testet both glasses!

Andreas

Hi Andreas,

I think you must have misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not angry at all about Roger's review. In fact I thought it was excellent. I just thought it was a shame that he didn't acknowledge that what he considers to be a fault is not considered to be a fault by many others.

'Oh well, each their own, but an acknowledgement that field curvature and soft edges are a design choice made by the manufacturer rather than a fault would have been nice in what otherwise are excellent reviews.'


There's no anger there! ;)

And to reiterate in case you missed it, 'Does anyone have any experience of both of these bins? I'm interested in the optical performance and differences rather than the ergonomic. I have the NV but have always been interested in a 10x50 UV. Apart from slightly longer viewing times with the extra light capture of the 50 are there any other reasons why I might either want both, or indeed the UV instead of the NV?'

Best regards,

Michael.
 
Last edited:
I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around.

Couldn't agree more with this Michael. I do twist my eyes nearly out of their sockets (at least thats what it feels like) to try to look at field edges when reviewing but every time I do it I always wonder why it is so popular. But there is no denying lots of folks love sharp edges and flat fields.

Lee
 
Hi Michael,

Me too, couldn´t agree more with you about this.
And, of course with you, Troubador.

Best!

PHA
 
Most of the time I move my head to see what is at the edge of the view. But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields.

I began noticing it when I started moving my eyes left and right toward the edge of the view which was more of an exploratory glance for me than anything else.

I didn't do this when I used my Nikon 8x30 EII which had out of focus edges while looking at close birds. I began doing it when I purchased a flat field Nikon 8x32 SE. I still moved my head when it was necessary. The SE's FOV is much smaller than the EIIs but its flat field made it seem larger than it really was.

It find this flat field with its larger area of sharpness is helpful with binoculars that are designed with wider than average FOVs like my new Monarch 8x42 HG with its FOV of 435'@1000yds. It would normally have a FOV of 409'@1000yds with out of focus edges.

Bob
 
Last edited:
"Most of the time I move my head to see what is at the edge of the view. But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields." I have to agree with Ceasar. A flat field binocular with sharp edges seems to me to have a bigger FOV because it has a bigger sweetspot. Even though I am not constantly looking at the edges I know if they are sharp or not because I am aware of my peripheral vision. If a binoculars edges are soft I know they are soft without directly looking at them. I can "feel" it. I would say to Mike F. I have not directly compared the NV 10x42 to the UV 10x50 but I have compared the SV 10x42 to the SV 10x50 and the SV 10x50 is better because the bigger aperture gives you more advantages optically than advances in coatings will. The bigger EP in the 10x50 and the bigger objective will give you an easier more aberration free image than the 10x42 and it will be better in lower light plus it has a bigger FOV. If I were you I would go with the 10x50 UV if the additional weight and size are not an issue. Also, check out the SV 10x50 unless you are sold on the Leica view. They are very good and even though they are flat field with sharp edges they have more 3D than the smaller apertures like the 10x42 SV. They might surprise you.
 
Last edited:
I would say to Mike F. I have not directly compared the NV 10x42 to the UV 10x50 but I have compared the SV 10x42 to the SV 10x50 and the SV 10x50 is better because the bigger aperture gives you more advantages optically than advances in coatings will. The bigger EP in the 10x50 and the bigger objective will give you an easier more aberration free image than the 10x42 and it will be better in lower light plus it has a bigger FOV. If I were you I would go with the 10x50 UV if the additional weight and size are not an issue. Also, check out the SV 10x50 unless you are sold on the Leica view. They are very good and even though they are flat field with sharp edges they have more 3D than the smaller apertures like the 10x42 SV. They might surprise you.

denco, I'm sure you're right that bigger apertures give more advantages optically than advances in coatings will, but the NV isn't the same as the UV optically, so there are more fundamental differences than the coatings which might offset the advantages of the larger aperture. The 10x50 would certainly be better in low light, and yes, the FOV is a little bigger, but I'm not sure that the actual image quality (resolution) is any better. I'm actually very happy with the NV, but one always wonders...... If I get the chance to try a 10x42 SV I certainly will!
 
Most of the time I move my head to see what is at the edge of the view. But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields.

I began noticing it when I started moving my eyes left and right toward the edge of the view which was more of an exploratory glance for me than anything else.

I didn't do this when I used my Nikon 8x30 EII which had out of focus edges while looking at close birds. I began doing it when I purchased a flat field Nikon 8x32 SE. I still moved my head when it was necessary. The SE's FOV is much smaller than the EIIs but its flat field made it seem larger than it really was.

It find this flat field with its larger area of sharpness is helpful with binoculars that are designed with wider than average FOVs like my new Monarch 8x42 HG with its FOV of 435'@1000yds. It would normally have a FOV of 409'@1000yds with out of focus edges.

Bob

Thanks for this, Bob. I think that flat field and edge to edge sharpness may well enhance the perceived FOV and general view for some, and I'm sure some people like to look out towards the edge of the field, but personally I'm more than happy to trade the possible advantages of the above for the (to me) more involving view of a bin with some field curvature, and honestly the 'sweet spot' in the NV is huge and I get eye strain trying to look outside of the central 70%. ;) Plus there really isn't a great deal of softening towards the edges anyway. I think it's great that there are a variety of top end bins that cater for different tastes. It would be boring if they all tried to achieve the same result!
 
Most of the time I move my head to see what is at the edge of the view. But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields.

I began noticing it when I started moving my eyes left and right toward the edge of the view which was more of an exploratory glance for me than anything else.

I didn't do this when I used my Nikon 8x30 EII which had out of focus edges while looking at close birds. I began doing it when I purchased a flat field Nikon 8x32 SE. I still moved my head when it was necessary. The SE's FOV is much smaller than the EIIs but its flat field made it seem larger than it really was.

It find this flat field with its larger area of sharpness is helpful with binoculars that are designed with wider than average FOVs like my new Monarch 8x42 HG with its FOV of 435'@1000yds. It would normally have a FOV of 409'@1000yds with out of focus edges.

Bob

Hi Bob,

That is also my statement!
I think the overall view in a good flat-field look much more harmonious and brilliant.
If I watch for a while with conventional optics, so with "normal" edge sharpness and then to Swarovski grab I always think wow, what a brilliant picture.

Andreas
 
The SE's FOV is much smaller than the EIIs but its flat field made it seem larger than it really was.

Bob

Hi Bob, Andreas and others - forwhat it's worth, that is what I have found as well. The 8.5x42 Swarovision I have used on several occasions - and had additional opportunities to assess closely over the last week - gives the impression of having a very large field of view because it is virtually all "sweet spot".

Regards
Patudo
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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