You know what Mike? I don't know? It's around that era, I actually bought mine past that time frame. It seems people know which Trinovid you're talking about when you put that year span prefix in.
I've got two of your trio, no NV.
-
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.
What is the Noctivid about? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tenex
- Start date
You know what Mike? I don't know? It's around that era, I actually bought mine past that time frame. It seems people know which Trinovid you're talking about when you put that year span prefix in.
I've got two of your trio, no NV.
dwever
Well-known member
I had to go back and read this thread, but Mike F’s bashing assertion is probably a fair concern when considering posts 32, 12, and 76 in this thread alone, and the impossible positions taken regarding Leica that would be very hard to know as “facts” as asserted (post 14) over things such as Leica’s lack of corporate competitive desire, budget, and development limitations. Respectfully, I don’t understand the tone of animus in these posts.
Parenthetically, I am thankful that there is real progress between my UVHD+ and NVD optically; and, I would add that the progress is even more pronounced in industrial design and build quality.
Having just gotten out of a long purchasing process on RF binoculars I’m going to respectfully disagree. Leica and Zeiss have the best electronics and ballistic calculator with Zeiss offering blue tooth instead of Leica’s clumsy and difficult access memory cards. Most importantly, Zeiss gives you your distance read in an astonishing 0.3 secs instead of Leica’s 0.5 which makes a big difference, particularly when using the tracking feature. Factor in Zeiss getting a read with a single button press instead of two, and the speed difference is remarkable. Zeiss and Swaro are clearly ahead optically. Zeiss and Leica has the longest read distances with the Zeiss 2,500 yards and Leica 3,000, although in Alaska I do not use mine to hunt. Swaro has a swollen body for electronics making it look like the fuselage of an RC135, And Leica’s,body profile is unique. The Zeiss just looks like a pair of HT’s unless you see the perfectly flush pair of buttons.
At Sportsman’s Warehouse I was able to annoy their sales staff on and off for a week comparing Leica, Swaro, and Zeiss. Obviously since I ended up with the completely recent redesigned Zeiss, that was the winner for me. The Swaro while comparable to the Zeiss optically was somewhat compromised electronically; and the Leica while comparable to the Zeiss electronically was seriously compromised optically.
With a bear in the area (circled in the snow) early Spring this year, it is good to quickly know you’re over 1,200 yards away (bear at Hatcher Pass, Matsu Valley. Ca. 3,200’ elevation - I did not take the moose pic.). Distance can be very hard in th snow unaided, particularly in flat light.
Attachments
Last edited:
Omid
Well-known member
Thanks for agreeing with my assessment. I have noting against Leica, I admire them for what they have achieved in the past. But, it is a fact that there is no room left to improve binoculars in any meaningful way that can be appreciated during their "intended use" in the field. Zeiss and Swarovski are in the same boat, making confusing two-tier products that overlap with each other and confuse the customer. We can give Leica credit for making only one-tier of binoculars.
By the way, Leica is now leading the market in range-finer binoculars. Their banana-shaped models are clearly superior to Zeiss and Swarovski counterparts. But these products are also getting silly as the main competing specification is their "maximum range". The maximum range is now upto 3000m which is far beyond anything useful in hunting (intended application of the product).
Speaking of a product whose specs are way beyond "useful level", I am typing this post on an HP super laptop which has a 6-core Xeon processor and a 17 inch 4K display. The display resolution is far beyond what human eye can discern. In addition, the icons and text become too tiny if displayed at native resolution. So, to be able to use this wonderful state-of-the art display, I am running it on the "recommended setting" which reduces the effective display resolution by 250%!
Long live progress!
-Omid
Attachments
Last edited:
Omid
Well-known member
Hi Gijs,
Hello to you from sunny Los Angeles! Obviously, my opinion is based on my own experiences and expectations; I am not making a claim to being universally correct. As I just said in my post above, Leica has not fallen behind by not doing anything. Everybody has been sanding where they are: at the peak of optical quality!
-Omid
Last edited:
wdc
Well-known member
Perhaps beverages are involved! ;-)
I agree, the curmudgeonly, doomspeak, and dubious assertions of the poster in question are unreasonable and unnecessary, however the general sense that Leica has not moved the ball much was pointed out over 3 years ago in this allbinos review:
https://www.allbinos.com/302-binoculars_review-Leica_Ultravid_HD-Plus_10x42.html
Even that article places Leica's product relatively on par with its competitors. And that's pre-Noctivid. I don't think anyone is praising the Noctivid as a game-changing product. Its expensive, it weighs more than the former flagship, and it does not do much optically, design-wise besides increase eye relief. So, it may be what Omid is saying is fairly accurate: binoculars are nearing the limit of their evolutionary development in their current format.
Swarovski got field pro attachments a few years back, and Zeiss has better eye cups this year for the SF. Yes, the 8x30 CL was improved, and the 8x25 Victory pocket is excellent, but that's trickle down upgrades, not innovation.
Do binoculars need innovation? Thats a whole new thread. I'm just thankful for excellent products with good eye relief. (and birds)
-Bill
Last edited:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Michael: Good to see you own some Leica's, and I do too, I have several
models, and have tried most all of them.
They are good binoculars, but I do find they are not as good as the other top
models out there.
So there you have it, like it or not.
Jerry
The Noctivid is bright and the design is stylish. A good quality safe choice. If someone wants to have their socks knocked off after using an older Leica, they should try looking through a Zeiss SF.
Edmund
wdc
Well-known member
Dad-Blame-it.
Maybe that's why I haven't actively sought out a 10x42 SF...
I'm enjoying my Noctivid. Don't ruin my happy place with your SF propaganda... ;-)
-Bill
Mike F
Well-known member
Thanks for the response, Jerry.
Each to their own - nothing wrong with that. I think we are in a fortunate position these days with a choice of alpha binoculars from the big three that can hardly be improved upon. It's just a matter of preference in the end, rather than a case of one being superior or inferior to the others.
Michael.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Omid, post 84 from a gray rainy Holland,
I agree that a lot of optical improvements are difficult to realise wih todays optical qualities already, certainly when companies also want to stay alive. We had a discussion once with one of the leading quality guarding employees from Zeiss. He asked us what would you wish us to make both as far as housing material and construction is concerned as well as optical performance. We can make it, that is no problem, but the next question was of course: what are you willing to pay for it and if the price is too high for you how can we survive with hundreds of employees. Seem reasonable questions, which I could not answer being a rich scientist (?!).
Gijs van Ginkel
I agree that a lot of optical improvements are difficult to realise wih todays optical qualities already, certainly when companies also want to stay alive. We had a discussion once with one of the leading quality guarding employees from Zeiss. He asked us what would you wish us to make both as far as housing material and construction is concerned as well as optical performance. We can make it, that is no problem, but the next question was of course: what are you willing to pay for it and if the price is too high for you how can we survive with hundreds of employees. Seem reasonable questions, which I could not answer being a rich scientist (?!).
Gijs van Ginkel
Iceberg slim
Fly by night
Patudo, That sums up using the NVs superbly, i owned Swaro SVs and imho the NVs are sharper, maybe the Swaros are brighter, but the Colour rendition of the NVs is supreme
Hello All,
I would be interested to know how the 20 year old plus Zeiss 7 x 45 Night Owl compares to the Leica Noctivid.
I have a Leica 10 x 32 UVHD+ and to my eyes their is very little difference in performance between the Leica and Zeiss , I would rate them about equal , although the Zeiss (as is to be expected), has better low light performance.
Can anybody who has both the Noctivid and Zeiss Night Owl comment on this.
Thanks.
Cheers.
I would be interested to know how the 20 year old plus Zeiss 7 x 45 Night Owl compares to the Leica Noctivid.
I have a Leica 10 x 32 UVHD+ and to my eyes their is very little difference in performance between the Leica and Zeiss , I would rate them about equal , although the Zeiss (as is to be expected), has better low light performance.
Can anybody who has both the Noctivid and Zeiss Night Owl comment on this.
Thanks.
Cheers.
I just tried a new 8x42 Leica Noctivid from a seller on Ebay called leica-store-leiss which is in the Netherland's for $2K shipped. Excellent seller I received them in ONE day via Fedex. At first I thought they were nice binoculars with good build quality and nice optics being very resistant to glare and having nice saturated colors. But I noticed right from the beginning the focuser was pretty tight especially in the counter clockwise direction. I thought it would loosen up but it just seemed to get TIGHTER. After awhile I just gave up on them and returned them. I probably got a lemon. I think if the focuser was smoother and less tight they would be pretty nice binoculars. I was comparing them to an 8x32 Nikon EDG II I have and there was no comparison in focusers. The EDG was much smoother and more fluid and easier to use. The Noctivid focuser was almost jerky on mine and it took two fingers to turn it in the counter clockwise direction. I noticed that because of the large eye relief even with the eye cups all the way out If I wasn't careful I would get blackouts. For me the eye cups need to be a couple of mm longer.
Last edited:
Torview
Well-known member
Not the highest praise of the view Dennis.
I`m less keen on the ergonomics but the only problem I have with the view is I find them too contrasty like a UHDTV set to dynamic.
HAAAH- - - So I am not the only one who has found that the focussing mechanism on the modern Leica's are sub-standard for this expensive product , I know , I know.
o
o oPEACE , PEACE.
:t:
Cheers.
To be honest the Nikon EDG's put the focuser on the Noctivid to shame. The EDG makes it pleasant to focus and with the Noctivid it was like a fight every time you moved the focuser on my sample. It is a shame that even alpha binoculars have quality problems. You think when you pay over $2K for a binocular that it would be perfect but it is not so.
IMO the Noctivid is definitely an alpha level binocular and it has it's strong points like glare control, nice saturated colors and a good 3D view for a roof but I it doesn't WOW me like the Zeiss SF or Swarovski SV. It doesn't have as big of FOV nor the sharp edges like the SF and SV do. I think Leica is a little behind Zeiss and Swarovski.
A small point here, but I think in this thread it would be helpful for people to specify whether their experience and comments relate to the 8x or the 10x Noctivid or both and how long ago they tried them. I tried the 8x about 18 months ago and found the focuser to be stiff as others have said and while it was very good I wasn't that taken with it (not enough to buy anyway). A month ago with the 10x and the focuser was buttery smooth and the view completely wowed me - I'm still considering buying one.
wdc
Well-known member
I never tried the 8x, because it wasn't physically available in the shop. The 10x certainly impressed me, and that's what I eventually ended up with. With regards to Dennis' remarks on the focuser, I've also found a bit more resistance counter clock-wise, manifested at the close focus end, <10 ft. But most of the time I'm looking further than that, so it doesn't bother me at all. The rest of the focus range is even, and as described: 'buttery smooth'.
An 8x32 SV I own, also has a little more resistance in one direction than the other, plus it feels slightly 'grainy', and thats through the entire focus range. However, these types of issues do not interfere with the pleasure of birding, or the quality of the view. They are minor niggles, more like the feel of different brands of guitars, and slightly different gauges of strings. You just get used to it in short order. At least I do.... most of the time. We all have different tolerances for these things.
Enjoy your Noctivids folks! ;-)
-Bill
Similar threads
