I picked up a 10x42 pair of Noctivids on Friday at my local Leica boutique--something I had been waiting for since the initial announcement. My previous pair of full size bins was a pair of 10x42 Ultravid HD's that I purchased some years ago (not the "plus" version). My use is a mix of general scenery observing/wildlife observing and astronomy. I have a pair of 8x32 Ultravid HD's that I prefer for daytime use due to their smaller size and weight. Here are some of the differences I found in comparing the new Noctivids to my older Ultravids...
First the view:
The contrast in the Noctivids is a very obvious improvement over the Ultravids. You can see this in good light, bad light, overcast conditions, basically everything but night sky viewing where contrast levels on stars are already so ridiculously high that small changes don't really matter.
The field is flatter on the Noctivids, but not dramatically so. I'd say the Noctivids are "sharp" roughly 70% of the way to the edge, while the Ultravids were sharp 50% of the way to the edge. Both designs show field curvature and coma if you look for it. Personally, I have never cared that much about having a perfectly flat field in my bins as long as the sweet spot is large enough to cover my area of concentration (where my eye has high resolution). Others, I know, would disagree vehemently, so make sure you know your own preferences.
The difference in brightness is small but detectable. Not enough to really matter, though. You can tell when doing an A/B comparison, but there's no "wow" factor like there is with the contrast.
Color cast is a touch more neutral in the Noctivid vs. the Ultravid, but both have a very slight (and I find very pleasing) warm cast. Noctivid is pretty close to neutral, though. Colors appear very saturated.
I don't wear glasses except for reading, so I can't speak to whether there is a major change in eye relief from a practical standpoint.
Both bins show fairly good control of on-axis chromatic aberration, but you'll still see color fringes if you go looking for them. I don't think the level of correction has changed significantly from the Ultravid HD's. Maybe a touch better?
Lateral chromatic aberration is present in both bins. This is most noticeable when using the bins for astronomy. It's not at all obtrusive for terrestrial use--frankly, the lack of a flat field and the off-axis coma will do more to prevent you from seeing sharp details than the lateral chromatic aberration, but it's definitely still there in about the same amount, to my eye, as in the Ultravids.
Flare suppression, both of veiling flare and present reflections, is really, really good in the Noctivid--noticeably better than in the Ultravids. If you do much observing with challenging light situations that tend to create flare, the Noctivids make a real improvement.
Now for the ergonomics and handling:
On paper, the Noctivids are quite a bit heavier. In practice, I didn't notice it in the hand, but I haven't yet spent a full day with the bins. If I had them around my neck for hours on end I'm sure I would notice.
I like the open bridge design a lot, though the placement of the strap lugs on the Noctivids is a touch annoying--rubs against my ginger when I rest it on the focuser.
I tend to hold bins with one hand close to the face for focusing and one hand farther down the barrels for additional stability. I am able to wrap my left hand around the barrel without a problem, but I have pretty skinny fingers for a man. I can imagine others finding them cramped.
Eye placement I found to be very easy and a bit more forgiving than with the Ultravids. The eye lens is huge on the new bins. However, I find I can't move my eye around much left or right to see the edges of the view without getting black outs. I don't do this much anyway, so I don't see it as a problem, but I understand the Swarovisions in particular are better in this regard, so if you are the type of person who moves his eye around rather than moving the glass, take that into account.
The focuser is a HUGE step up on the Ultravids. On my sample there is no backlash/play at all--none. Also, the focuser is very smooth and even in both directions. There was never any question on when I had achieved best focus, and i found myself searching back and forth much less than with the Ultravids--basically not at all.
Marketing hype:
I don't know what a "plastic" view is with regard to a binocular, so I'm not certain what the Leica marketing people were trying to convey there. I don't see any change in depth of field or in "3D" perception vs. the Ultravids. My samples are 10x bins, so the field of view is pretty narrow at short to medium distances. Much of my viewing is at infinity, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about depth of field.
In summary, The contrast is a noticeable improvement. The ergonomics are very good, but that's a pretty personal decision so your mileage may vary. The eye placement is easy and reasonably forgiving, but you still need to move the bins not your eye to see the edge of the field (due to black outs and flatness of field issues). The additional light transmission vs. the Ultravid HD's is detectable but it's not going to jump out at you.
I think they are a pretty significant step up on the Ultravid HD's. Perhaps less of a step up on the HD +'s? Don't know since I don't own those. They aren't a revolution, but all the alphas are now close enough to perfection for their design that only refinements are possible. If you were expecting a huge improvement you will be disappointed. If your expectations are more in line, the new bins deliver.
First the view:
The contrast in the Noctivids is a very obvious improvement over the Ultravids. You can see this in good light, bad light, overcast conditions, basically everything but night sky viewing where contrast levels on stars are already so ridiculously high that small changes don't really matter.
The field is flatter on the Noctivids, but not dramatically so. I'd say the Noctivids are "sharp" roughly 70% of the way to the edge, while the Ultravids were sharp 50% of the way to the edge. Both designs show field curvature and coma if you look for it. Personally, I have never cared that much about having a perfectly flat field in my bins as long as the sweet spot is large enough to cover my area of concentration (where my eye has high resolution). Others, I know, would disagree vehemently, so make sure you know your own preferences.
The difference in brightness is small but detectable. Not enough to really matter, though. You can tell when doing an A/B comparison, but there's no "wow" factor like there is with the contrast.
Color cast is a touch more neutral in the Noctivid vs. the Ultravid, but both have a very slight (and I find very pleasing) warm cast. Noctivid is pretty close to neutral, though. Colors appear very saturated.
I don't wear glasses except for reading, so I can't speak to whether there is a major change in eye relief from a practical standpoint.
Both bins show fairly good control of on-axis chromatic aberration, but you'll still see color fringes if you go looking for them. I don't think the level of correction has changed significantly from the Ultravid HD's. Maybe a touch better?
Lateral chromatic aberration is present in both bins. This is most noticeable when using the bins for astronomy. It's not at all obtrusive for terrestrial use--frankly, the lack of a flat field and the off-axis coma will do more to prevent you from seeing sharp details than the lateral chromatic aberration, but it's definitely still there in about the same amount, to my eye, as in the Ultravids.
Flare suppression, both of veiling flare and present reflections, is really, really good in the Noctivid--noticeably better than in the Ultravids. If you do much observing with challenging light situations that tend to create flare, the Noctivids make a real improvement.
Now for the ergonomics and handling:
On paper, the Noctivids are quite a bit heavier. In practice, I didn't notice it in the hand, but I haven't yet spent a full day with the bins. If I had them around my neck for hours on end I'm sure I would notice.
I like the open bridge design a lot, though the placement of the strap lugs on the Noctivids is a touch annoying--rubs against my ginger when I rest it on the focuser.
I tend to hold bins with one hand close to the face for focusing and one hand farther down the barrels for additional stability. I am able to wrap my left hand around the barrel without a problem, but I have pretty skinny fingers for a man. I can imagine others finding them cramped.
Eye placement I found to be very easy and a bit more forgiving than with the Ultravids. The eye lens is huge on the new bins. However, I find I can't move my eye around much left or right to see the edges of the view without getting black outs. I don't do this much anyway, so I don't see it as a problem, but I understand the Swarovisions in particular are better in this regard, so if you are the type of person who moves his eye around rather than moving the glass, take that into account.
The focuser is a HUGE step up on the Ultravids. On my sample there is no backlash/play at all--none. Also, the focuser is very smooth and even in both directions. There was never any question on when I had achieved best focus, and i found myself searching back and forth much less than with the Ultravids--basically not at all.
Marketing hype:
I don't know what a "plastic" view is with regard to a binocular, so I'm not certain what the Leica marketing people were trying to convey there. I don't see any change in depth of field or in "3D" perception vs. the Ultravids. My samples are 10x bins, so the field of view is pretty narrow at short to medium distances. Much of my viewing is at infinity, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about depth of field.
In summary, The contrast is a noticeable improvement. The ergonomics are very good, but that's a pretty personal decision so your mileage may vary. The eye placement is easy and reasonably forgiving, but you still need to move the bins not your eye to see the edge of the field (due to black outs and flatness of field issues). The additional light transmission vs. the Ultravid HD's is detectable but it's not going to jump out at you.
I think they are a pretty significant step up on the Ultravid HD's. Perhaps less of a step up on the HD +'s? Don't know since I don't own those. They aren't a revolution, but all the alphas are now close enough to perfection for their design that only refinements are possible. If you were expecting a huge improvement you will be disappointed. If your expectations are more in line, the new bins deliver.
