• 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.

What is the Noctivid about? (1 Viewer)

After using the NV 8X42 for a week now,(I do not wear glasses so during the day the eye-cups are all the way out, under lower light, they can be lowered one tier) I do like them, same approximate weight as the EL SV 8.5X42, so a bit heavy for a 8X42, comparatively.
Additionally I could see where the eye relief/eyecups could be problem for some. Overall in general regarding optics only, (I still feel the EDG 8X42 is my favorite 8X42 esp. based on the ergonomics), I would have to say the statement below by Peter is on point. Both also handle glare extremely well.

"Concerning the flat field (or lack thereof), if I was asked to describe in a single short sentence the view thru the NV I'd say that it's quite similar to that thru the EDG but with more field curvature".

Andy W.
 
Tenex, Alexis,

Contrast. Asked for opininions by the both of you, repeatedly. And righly so, I'd say.

So, does the Noctivid offer superb contrast? Yes, I strongly believe it does. But not in the way that it displays more contrast than others, or even better contrast. I have looked hard for it, over and over, again and again, I've searched for exceptionally deep blacks and remarkably bright whites set against each other, I've tried to become aware of highlights popping up in the image like in no other binocular. And after all this my simple conclusion is that it's just not there. At least not like this, not in this spectacular way.

I think that the Noctivid, like all alpha binoculars, is an instrument of very subtle complexity, and so its contrast is necessarily a subtle phenomenon. I guess many among us have at one time fiddled with the TV set to adjust brightness, color and contrast in a satisfying way. Or have worked with Photoshop to optimize photo's. Took some time didn't it? Ýou've probably learned, like I did, that cranking up contrast is often not for the better. Why? Because artificially adding contrast (and that's what our beloved binocular coatings do) has the tendency to go to the expense of fine detail. See the pictures added from Wikipedia where contrast is lowered or added, the upper left one being the original.

So what I mean to say is that when discussing contrast we should not speak about more or less, great or small, but about balancing factors (contrast, color, brightness). And most of all we should turn our attention to resolution, because that's where it counts, in the way small detail is transmitted to our eyes and brain.

I think that my Noctivid is absolutely exceptional in retrieving the finest detail. I am well aware that there are other binoculars that could be just as good, but I don't own them as they don't suit my taste, at least not quite. The Ultravid HD+ is among these contenders but when I look hard and long I know why the Noctivid is Leica's flagship. It's so easy on the eyes, so subtle in its presentation, it's a damn good binocular (Bill said).

Renze
 

Attachments

  • Contrast_change_photoshop.jpg
    Contrast_change_photoshop.jpg
    153.2 KB · Views: 161
Last edited:
Hello,

Leitz had made a point of emphasizing contrast in their photographic lens designs. This may have been to distinguish its products from those of competitors.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 
So what I mean to say is that when discussing contrast we should not speak about more or less, great or small, but about balancing factors (contrast, color, brightness). And most of all we should turn our attention to resolution, because that's where it counts, in the way small detail is transmitted to our eyes and brain.
That's an interesting perspective, and brings up the question no one has asked Alexis: how is it that you find contrast crucial and would be excited by more in the NV (my guess would be color saturation?)... and potentially at the expense of what?

Edit: The digital manipulations in that photo look quite extreme compared to variations between binos. And the usual tradeoff I've seen and heard discussed is between contrast and brightness, rather than detail (resolution). Think of the dark but saturated look of Nikon EDGs or SEs.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Chosen can chime in with discussion of the green ham...we have had discussions ad nausea regarding color...contrast....brightness? (what is that anyway). All of it is subjective.
I will put this way, Renze is right the NV is a great 8X42 which provides great resolution. IMHO Leica along with Nikon provides great color in their glass, some like the warm enrichment and some hate it...and prefer the colder tones, it is a matter preference and taste.

Andy W.
 
....All of it is subjective.
..... it is a matter preference and taste.

Andy W.


Andy,
So sorry to crunch your remarks down to these salient points, but I think they help actually prove one issue, which is that, at a certain level, the optical distinctions are subtle, and the personal aesthetics/preferences become the prevailing factor.


And to that I would add, whether an optical device literally 'fits' one or not, which I think has more to do with 'objective' issues like IPD, ER, and AFOV, and how those factors integrate with one's default visual 'measurements' for lack of a better description.

I am a big fan of the Noctivids. Now in my 9th month of regular weekend birding use.


-Bill
 
Last edited:
Bill, the blackouts you describe are the problem I have when eyecups aren't deep enough for the ER, but not the immersion issue I'm trying to understand.

The problem may be that "AFOV" seems to be defined by the equation in question, which only involves magnification and RFOV. Whereas my impression of immersion, how much of my visual field the view occupies vs the black space around it, seems to depend also on other aspects of eyepiece design like ER and field flatteners. I've even read that the ISO formula for AFOV gives a more accurate (and smaller) result for flat-field binos whereas the simple approximation is appropriate for conventional curved fields, which seems to suggest that FF does make a difference to AFOV.

I keep having this confusion in threads where I try to describe these effects on "AFOV", but should perhaps be using another term instead. What should one call this perceived width of the view... "PFOV"? To me then, the PFOV seems to be reduced both by excessive ER and by field flatteners, producing more of a tunnel impression. Am I mistaken somehow, or is there a good explanation for this?
.

I am not sure if this is germane or not, but perceived field of view may have some relevance here. I once read an article from an outdoors writer that stated one should leave the eye cups down because that gave a wider field of view. I more or less blew it off as nonsense. It did pique my curiosity however. So I grabbed a few binoculars and proceeded to compare the fields of view at the available eye cup settings. Much to my surprise, the field did indeed seem wider at the retracted setting. It varied with the binocular, and one or two did not seem to show the effect. So I then proceeded to actually measure the field at several settings. The measured field did not change, even though in some cases a viewer would have sworn the field widened as the eye cup setting was retracted. After some tinkering I came to the conclusion that what caused the effect was the retracted setting showed a much thinner black outer border around the image than when extended. Obviously there was a point where blackouts became too bothersome, on some, but not all, binoculars for me. I think that different binocular ergonomics, different facial construction, and different user perspectives and/or perceptions were the factors in play. But it is pretty easy to see where a definition of perceived field of view may well be useful. Since then when measuring actual fov against specific fov, I always use a tripod and use all available eye cup settings. The measured fov does not change.
 
The impression of wider vs. smaller field of view in relation to eye relief, eye piece construction, eye lens width, using spectacles or not etc. and along with that the concepts of Apparent Field of View and Perceived Field of View, have been discussed extensively by BF members like looksharp65, elkcub and Henri Link.

See this link https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=220415. Note that in post #1 looksharp65 mentions yet an earlier thread.

I do remember taking part in the discussion with some pictures of a couple of vintage binoculars of unusual construction. Here they are again. Note that the Ross (middle and right) is called Spectacle Solaross!

Renze
 

Attachments

  • Möller-Wedel 8X32 Marox.jpg
    Möller-Wedel 8X32 Marox.jpg
    101 KB · Views: 45
  • Ross 7x35 Spectacle Solaross (1).jpg
    Ross 7x35 Spectacle Solaross (1).jpg
    33.9 KB · Views: 56
  • Ross 7x35 Spectacle Solaross (2).jpg
    Ross 7x35 Spectacle Solaross (2).jpg
    38.4 KB · Views: 44
I am not sure if this is germane or not, but perceived field of view may have some relevance here. I once read an article from an outdoors writer that stated one should leave the eye cups down because that gave a wider field of view...
I've read about that here on BF. It doesn't work for me because it's too tiring to try to hold binos off my face without eyecup contact. I can see how it could psychologically affect the shut-in impression of "tunnel vision", but as you confirmed, it doesn't change the FOV, or even AFOV.
 
That's an interesting perspective, and brings up the question no one has asked Alexis: how is it that you find contrast crucial and would be excited by more in the NV (my guess would be color saturation?)... and potentially at the expense of what?

Edit: The digital manipulations in that photo look quite extreme compared to variations between binos. And the usual tradeoff I've seen and heard discussed is between contrast and brightness, rather than detail (resolution). Think of the dark but saturated look of Nikon EDGs or SEs.

I'm familiar w/contrast adjustments in digital photo editing and how they can trade-off with detail when applied crudely (Better to use curves, and keep a good distribution of different pixel values around the values most relevant to the visual structure of a given image), but that isn't what I mean w/bins. The best performance for a bin, in my opinion, would be contrast that is equivalent to a good naked eye view, which is my benchmark for "highest contrast". In other words, I seek contrast that is not compromised by veiling glare, scattering within the lens, chromatic aberration, or other such issues, and that is not altered by transmission (color) biases so that it has accurate blacks, whites, and everything in between. Some photographers call it microcontrast, but I think it is just contrast. Boosting contrast (e.g. by using filters or digitally redistributing pixel values) can help accentuate certain features, and is very useful procedure in photography, but I don't seek that from birding bins. I want glass that magnifies 8x and does nothing else :)

--AP
 
The best performance for a bin, in my opinion, would be contrast that is equivalent to a good naked eye view, which is my benchmark for "highest contrast".

I would call this hi fidelity contrast. And when you say "I want glass that magnifies 8x and does nothing else", I would call that hi fidelity optics.


I wouldn't make contrast as crucial as you obviously do, but maybe that's because you're more sensitive to it. I think we agree wholeheartedly on the phenomenon of contrast being very much related to other aspects in play. We concur also on the importance of naturalness, high fidelity. Yet, my ultimate test is the retrieval of fine detail, or resolution.

Renze
 
Last edited:
Let me approach the issue of the qualities of the Noctivid from this angle:

I have two pair of eyes in use. One pair is slightly astigmatic, the other pair is without astigmatism because it's corrected by spectacles.

In everyday life the unaided eyes are pretty good, they don't give me any trouble. I do know of course that there's better eye sight available but most of the time I don't care. I even do most of my birding in this manner, without the spectacles, because the view through my bins is more natural, less of a hassle.

Yet, when I put my spectacles on when birding, things change for the better. For instance, I like the perceived view when backed off a bit from the eye cups. There's a bit of the normal world in sight, there's a small black circle and inside the circle there's the magnified part of the world. It's dififferent from the normal viewing experience, and certainly less comfortable, but it has its rewards.
The other rewards are not subtle. The slight veiling caused by the astigmatism is gone, the world looks more transparent, much sharper and brighter, there's more contrast, colors are more vivid, and lots of small detail has become available.

Now what happens when I use binoculars on both types of eye sight? Of course the view improves when wearing spectacles. But not completely as expected. Some binoculars seem to profit more from the improvement than others. My reference binocular for central sharpness is the Swift Audubon 804 ED. No other bin has better central resolution than this classic porro. The Leica Noctivid just can't do this.
That is, with the unaided eye. When wearing spectacles the view through the Noctivid goes to a completely new level, while the Swift seems to have trouble improving on its already great performance. I have performed this test with other binoculars (non Hd-Ultravid, Ultravid HD+, Nikon SE, Kowa Genesis) and my impression is that the Noctivid indeed profits more from better eyesight than others. Suddenly there's a level of fine detail that's not quite available in the contenders mentioned.

Note: there's a factor here that should be constant when comparing bins like this. Not all binoculars are as well tuned to spectacle use than the Noctivid. And certainly not the Swift with its short eye relief. I have tried to take this into account as conscientiously as possible.

Renze
 
Hmm... has Leica has not only provided more ER in the Noctivid then, but also assumed and catered to higher than average acuity in users with eyeglasses? I wonder whether someone with unusually good unaided vision would corroborate that. It sounds somehow more interesting than the alternative, that the NV just accommodates eyeglasses better than other models in some way.
 
The purpose of the new model? Swaro has an open bridge bino that sells well, Leica figured they needed one too. There's been a lot of good info here, I think they improved many things slightly and I enjoy mine. I enjoy it more than my SV due to not having flat fields. I enjoy my UVHD's too and I don't think it's a giant leap. But to be totally frank I think it's purpose is simply to compete with the SV in an open bridge design. I think they did a good job, could be better (ergos), but good.

+1

They followed Swaro's lead. Top of the line dual hinge binocular; second tier single hinge binocular. It just took a long time to get there... has the EL been around 20 years now???

CG
 
All,

... the now discontinued EDG 7x42 is IMO an outstanding binocular ...

Mike

Hi Mike,

The Nikon EDG 7x42 is still listed in Britain - at £1,979. I bought one earlier this year and absolutely love it. As you say, the FOV is not record-breaking but the view, colour, the way the flat field is done, and the focus control are superb. AND the lens objective covers snap in firmly in mine. Anyway, back to the main point of the thread; not wishing to steer it in a new direction. Afraid I have never seen or looked through a Noctivid. The Nikon incidentally - don't know if you'd agree - has quite a Leica-like image except for the flatter field.

Best wishes,

Tom
 
Presumably Leica's background in photography leans them towards more saturated colours.

Interestingly my own impression, backed by photographic writers such as the late Roger Hicks, is that colour transparencies shot with Leica M and R lenses really do have a depth or 3D effect that stands out from the already excellent rendition of, for instance, Nikon, to cite the two marques that I have had first hand experience of.

Incidentally it struck me that when it comes to photographic lenses budget and financial concerns are always claimed to be irrelevant to development by Leica; they set out to produce the best they possibly can 'to the limits of the technically possible' - I think that's their phrase, or something very similar. A recent example would be the 50mm f/2 Apo-Summicron-M ASPH which must be the most expensive standard lens for 35mm or digital equivalent at that quite modest maximum aperture for the focal length. Perhaps the parameters and priorities are arrived at differently in the binocular sector of the company.

Tom
 
... The 7X42 UVHD+ and Zeiss Victory HD 8X42’s were the most pleasing images I have come across in any alphas, with the 7X42 UVHD+ nudging the win with it’s Kodachrome leaning colors; and the NVD 8X42 at least matches that 7x UVHD+ while besting it in clarity and contrast.

It is likely my knowledge is deficient, but just to check: did you mean Victory HD or was it HT or possibly FL or a Conquest HD? Apologies if there is a Victory HD: I'm fairly new to this hobby.

Tom
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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