• 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.

Owners: How Are Your Leica Noctivids Serving You?! (1 Viewer)

As for eye darting, we all do it. Otherwise our heads would be in a state of constant jerking and twitching as we make small angular changes in our central gaze. I recall a few years ago Elkcub provided a link to a paper which found that the eyeballs can comfortably swivel over a range of about 35º before head movement is required. That's more than half the AFOV of the binoculars under discussion. Swiveling the eyeballs over 20 or 25º when reading or looking through a binocular probably goes quite unnoticed, which must explain why people can imagine that their eyes never dart around the field at all.
Henry

A large proportion of the discussions we have on the Forum about 'eye-darting' is usually in the context of the sharpness (or otherwise) of the edge of the field of view of a particular model of binos. Often there is mention of exploring the field of view from edge to edge and it is this 'extreme eye-darting' that I personally find uncomfortable.

You are absolutely right that a good deal of eye-wandering takes place within a pretty wide segment of the field of view but for me this is an entirely different thing from darting from field edge to field edge.

Other folks are apparently quite comfortable doing this.

Lee
 
Chuck, what about the comparison of the image, between them, other than for the magnification? Not all of us get this chance! Thanks.

The image is very similar...BUT more times than not I thought the Noctivid WAS the brighter of the two. It's pretty plain the Noctivid is Leica's cream of their crop. Just how MUCH better than the Ultravid HD+...hard to determine without identical magnifications. My guess is not a WHOLE lot of difference other than the obvious.
 
A large proportion of the discussions we have on the Forum about 'eye-darting' is usually in the context of the sharpness (or otherwise) of the edge of the field of view of a particular model of binos. Often there is mention of exploring the field of view from edge to edge and it is this 'extreme eye-darting' that I personally find uncomfortable.

You are absolutely right that a good deal of eye-wandering takes place within a pretty wide segment of the field of view but for me this is an entirely different thing from darting from field edge to field edge.

Other folks are apparently quite comfortable doing this.

Lee

What I don't understand is the idea that complete correction of off-axis astigmatism and field curvature creates an unnaturally "flat" view. That's why I've offered confusion between the meanings of field curvature and the unrelated characteristics of distortion as the probable source of such complaints. Your post #32 seems to be an example.

"No it (the real world) is not 'flat' Ratty, but neither is it curved in the way that the image through most bins is curved, and posts at the edge of the field of view might look bent through some binos but they aren't in real life either.

So-called flat fields are rarely totally flat and are just another kind of manipulation in the search for an image that is acceptable to more people."

Bent posts at the edge of the field of view result from distortion, not field curvature.

Henry
 
What I don't understand is the idea that complete correction of off-axis astigmatism and field curvature creates an unnaturally "flat" view. That's why I've offered confusion between the meanings of field curvature and the unrelated characteristics of distortion as the probable source of such complaints. Your post #32 seems to be an example.

"No it (the real world) is not 'flat' Ratty, but neither is it curved in the way that the image through most bins is curved, and posts at the edge of the field of view might look bent through some binos but they aren't in real life either.

So-called flat fields are rarely totally flat and are just another kind of manipulation in the search for an image that is acceptable to more people."

Bent posts at the edge of the field of view result from distortion, not field curvature.

Henry

Yes Henry, I understand the difference between field curvature and distortion and what I was seeking to convey to Rathaus was that the view through binos isn't 'natural' whether field-flattened or not.

Lee
 
I agree that the view through binoculars is not natural at all.
For a start one does not have a horizontal view of perhaps 160 degrees.

In fact I think the view through my distance glasses is not natural either, as I cannot view a very wide panorama without the frame intruding and the view outside the frame being unclear. Also the frame edge interferes with the view, cutting off bits.

What I don't like about 'distortionless' or rectilinear eyepieces such as in the Russian 7x30 and 10x42 is the sudden change towards the edge of bad angular magnification changes. Squashed full moons. And weird panning effects.

I like 82 degree Naglers and the odd 90 degree eyepieces I have tried. I don't like a 100 degree Ethos.

Horace Dall built a wide angle stereo camera based on Zeiss lenses that had 70 degree fields, as he thought this gave the best stereo photos. The stereo pairs were indeed very nice and better than most stereo pairs.
 
Until I came on this forum I'd never even thought about the way that I look through binoculars. Personally I find that I do move my eyes around the FOV (which as has been said is surely the norm) but I would say not usually beyond the central 60-70%. If, as an exercise, I look to the periphery of the image I am most definitely moving my eyes much more up and down or from side to side than I do when not using bins. In fact I find it quite unnatural and even somewhat uncomfortable to do so. AFAIK I have perfectly normal vision(!) so there's no physical reason why my eye movement would be restricted in any way - I just don't like doing it.

Comparing the UVHD+ and NV with regard to image sharpness at the extremities, I would say that roughly speaking the UVHD+ is sharp in the central 80% and the NV sharp central 90% (in other words to within 10% and 5% of the edge respectively) of the FOV. So for me, in practice, I notice no difference in this respect between them because I simply don't look there. Doing so would be akin to moving my eyes as far left and right or up and down as I can in normal vision without bins, and I never do that.
 
Lee,

Only the geometric and angular magnification distortions are "unnatural" and not fully correctable, but they are totally unrelated to field curvature and astigmatism.

There is no loss of "naturalness" in a binocular image that is fully or nearly fully corrected for field curvature (which really also means full correction of astigmatism since both the sagittal and tangential foci must be coincident). That is the way the world presents itself to our eyes without binoculars. The situation is very much the same as correcting chromatic aberration. There is no trade-off or downside to full correction.

Henry
 
Until I came on this forum I'd never even thought about the way that I look through binoculars. Personally I find that I do move my eyes around the FOV (which as has been said is surely the norm) but I would say not usually beyond the central 60-70%. If, as an exercise, I look to the periphery of the image I am most definitely moving my eyes much more up and down or from side to side than I do when not using bins. In fact I find it quite unnatural and even somewhat uncomfortable to do so. AFAIK I have perfectly normal vision(!) so there's no physical reason why my eye movement would be restricted in any way - I just don't like doing it.

Comparing the UVHD+ and NV with regard to image sharpness at the extremities, I would say that roughly speaking the UVHD+ is sharp in the central 80% and the NV sharp central 90% (in other words to within 10% and 5% of the edge respectively) of the FOV. So for me, in practice, I notice no difference in this respect between them because I simply don't look there. Doing so would be akin to moving my eyes as far left and right or up and down as I can in normal vision without bins, and I never do that.

This is pretty much my experience too. Nicely put.

Lee
 
Lee,

Only the geometric and angular magnification distortions are "unnatural" and not fully correctable, but they are totally unrelated to field curvature and astigmatism.

There is no loss of "naturalness" in a binocular image that is fully or nearly fully corrected for field curvature (which really also means full correction of astigmatism since both the sagittal and tangential foci must be coincident). That is the way the world presents itself to our eyes without binoculars. The situation is very much the same as correcting chromatic aberration. There is no trade-off or downside to full correction.

Henry

Here is what Rathaus posted a propos field-flattened binos:
"I've never found the natural world to be 'flat'. This is a bizarre notion to me".​
The corollary of this seemed to be the notion that binos without field flatteners provide a wholly natural view and my post meant to challenge that.
Did I choose the wrong examples Henry?

Lee
 
Last edited:
Right example if Rathaus meant distortion, wrong example if he meant field curvature. That's the problem with the way "flat field" is used in these discussions. The same term is used interchangeably for two unrelated things.
 
Hi James,

This is certainly true when we are forced to choose between one form of distortion or another, but if the choice is between an optical aberration or no aberration how many of us would decide that the aberration is more natural?

Henry
 
It's my understanding that Leica optics have more visible CA than the other elite binoculars, of all the distortions that's the one I detest the most, I'm not particularly fond of flat horizontal and vertical objects, (building roofs and walls, telephone poles, etc,) having an unnatural bowed appearance either. Whether or not a particular optic is your personal Holy Grail is totally dependent on your own expectations of what the perfect optic should look like. I think we all know the (Perfect) optic doesn't exist, probably never will.
 
Hi James,

This is certainly true when we are forced to choose between one form of distortion or another, but if the choice is between an optical aberration or no aberration how many of us would decide that the aberration is more natural?

Henry

The Swarovski SV may have few aberrations, but I find the flat field lacks depth and lacks the dynamic ''pop'' of some of my preferred binoculars, giving a rather dull and lifeless view - even though you may consider them nearly aberration-free. This alone is more annoying [and less ''natural''] to me than an aberration like poor edge sharpness etc.

My 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
The Swarovski SV may have few aberrations, but I find the flat field lacks depth and lacks the dynamic ''pop'' of some of my preferred binoculars, giving a rather dull and lifeless view - even though you may consider them nearly aberration-free. This alone is more annoying [and less ''natural''] to me than an aberration like poor edge sharpness etc.

My 2 cents.

The only aberrations I'm talking about here are field curvature and off-axis astigmatism. Yes, those are unusually well corrected in the SVs, but I doubt that's the source of your complaint. How can the absence of aberrations damage the image? As I've said before, I would look at the choice of distortion.
 
The only aberrations I'm talking about here are field curvature and off-axis astigmatism. Yes, those are unusually well corrected in the SVs, but I doubt that's the source of your complaint. How can the absence of aberrations damage the image? As I've said before, I would look at the choice of distortion.

In the Leica photo community spherical aberration is a feature, not an aberration.
o:D

What bothers me with field flatteners is that they seem to come with
some downsides in the form of greater glare/stray light sensitivity.

We know that the SV is not great on glare, the SF seem to be worse than the HT and the NV seem to be very good in that aspect.

Is it possible to build a bin with field flatteners that is as good as the NV when it comes to glare suppression?
 
That's a good example of how ideas about what's desirable in photographic optics don't always apply to binoculars and scopes. My understanding is that spherical over-correction in camera lenses, particularly portrait lenses, is considered a good feature because it creates a nice soft bokeh behind the subject. It inevitably softens the plane of best focus, OK for portraits, but never a good thing in binoculars and scopes.

The very same baffling for controlling glare can be used in binoculars with or without field flatteners. My 8x30 Habichts without field flatteners have similarly poor glare resistance to the 8x32 SV with flatteners and for the same reason, poor baffling of the objective cell. The field-flatteners in the SV seem to take the rap for everything, but just as in the choice of distortion, the relatively ineffective baffling in the SV has nothing to do with field flattening.

Henry
 
Last edited:
That's a good example of how ideas about what's desirable in photographic optics don't always apply to binoculars and scopes. My understanding is that spherical over-correction in camera lenses, particularly portrait lenses, is considered a good feature because it creates a nice soft bokeh behind the subject. It inevitably softens the plane of best focus, OK for portraits, but never a good thing in binoculars and scopes.

The very same baffling for controlling glare can be used in binoculars with or without field flatteners. My 8x30 Habichts without field flatteners have similarly poor glare resistance to the 8x32 SV with flatteners and for the same reason, poor baffling of the objective cell. The field-flatteners in the SV seem to take the rap for everything, but just as in the choice of distortion, the relatively ineffective baffling in the SV has nothing to do with field flattening.

Henry

I think I can understand why some might prefer a less "clean" view. It might relate to what you are used to seeing and how you use your bins.

You might be right about the baffling, but it is BAFFLING to me that no manufacturer have done it in a roof. I though for a bit the the EDG could ditch my theory, but it does not seem so:

"Nikon EDG at night in the direction of a lamp post and you can see obvious flares, something the most serious competitors and even the cheaper Nikon HG lack" (Allbinos)

Or is there a bin with flat field AND perfect glare/flare handling?
 
Right example if Rathaus meant distortion, wrong example if he meant field curvature. That's the problem with the way "flat field" is used in these discussions. The same term is used interchangeably for two unrelated things.

This is why I described the phenomenon as 'image manipulation', and the outcome as 'image aesthetic'. Swarovski, through skilful design intent and application, have offered us their interpretation of a 'flatter field'. Leica, through skilful design intent and application, has chosen a somewhat different path.

Henry, regarding this topic, you will note that neither Swarovski nor Leica use hard scientific data to either prove their case, denounce their competitors, nor to convince us into purchasing their product. That is because, regarding an image as witnessed through binoculars - there is no applicable hard scientific data to neatly plot, measure and explain away a 'flat field' or 'field curvature'. When anybody speaks of these phenomena in relation to an image viewed through binoculars, they themselves (yourself included) have entered the shifting sands of the descriptive and subjective world. I see nothing wrong with that, but let it be known for what it is.

Rathaus
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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