Hi Michael,
Miksi ei?
It's only money.
Terve.
Great read Chuck, as you`ve such a wide range of premium binoculars I`d be interested in your opinion about the contrast on the NV.
I got the chance to try one again recently alongside an SF and SV, the contrast on the NV was noticeably higher than the other two, (I know at this level we are`nt supposed to see any difference) but I found this very high contrast reduced the detail I could see in certain circumstances.
For example looking at a Herring Gull on the ridge of a roof with fairly bright clouds behind on the NV and to a lesser extent the SV the outline of the Gull was very hard to observe, for me a bit like the highlights in a photo being "blown out" if thats the right term, I found the much lower contrast of the SF allowed me to clearly see the outline of the Gull and whereas the legs almost disappeared on the other two the colour and shape of the legs was all there in the SF, its given me a whole new take on the SF and I can`t stop thinking about how appealing I found it.
Of course I may have weird eyes !
Chuck
Forgetting which bino you went out with is OK, we all do that sort of thing. But don't forget whether you went out with your wife or your girlfriend. Doom lies down that road :eek!:.
Nice write-up Chuck as always. Thanks for posting.
Lee
Respectfully, not sure how 4.6 ounces (130Gr) makes any real difference; but then for years I was in awe of a pair of 7X50 1200 gr. Zeiss Marines happily used for hours and hours at a time in LE. I don’t know if my taste simply isn’t as refined, or we’re straining at gnats here. Probably the former.
Among the samples Chuck reviews so well here, from a size perspective, they’re pretty much interchangeable making optical performance preeminent, and why my Noctivid 8x42 is about all I use. Although my stupidly sold 7X42 UVHD+ were just wonderful.
Dwever, I have a Noctivid 10x42 and an UVHD+ 7x42. I'm currently being sorely tempted by an ex-dem Noctivid 8x42. Please, please talk me out of this (can't rely on Chuck to do it because he already has all three!), or tell me why and how I can justify having both the NV 8x42 and the UV 7x42....
Regards, Michael.
Dwever, I have a Noctivid 10x42 and an UVHD+ 7x42. I'm currently being sorely tempted by an ex-dem Noctivid 8x42. Please, please talk me out of this (can't rely on Chuck to do it because he already has all three!), or tell me why and how I can justify having both the NV 8x42 and the UV 7x42....
Regards, Michael.
Hmmm.....I don't see that with the NV....it may very well be true that the SF handled that particular light condition better... What do you think?
Honestly, you don't need it. I think that's the perfect outfit! If I were going to add ANYTHING to those two it would be a quality 8x32 and or 12X50. i'd be happy to recommend a couple!
With the 7x42 UVHD+ Leica hit a magical sweet spot where everything came together exquisitely to the point where that sample's usability, image, and industrial design just about gave the 7x42 a soul.
Having said that, the NV 8x42 is technically a bit of a superior image, awesome to use, but maybe somehow just not as fun/satisfying to own, and I can't really say why. I would be fully satisfied either way.
A 7x42 UVHD+ an 8x42 NVD would be too redundant for me to justify, although in my case I already owned a 7x42 and therefore wished I'd kept both. A 7x42 UVHD+ with a NVD 10x42 would seem to be a nice pair to own together.
I think the NV may just have the most startling contrast I`v ever seen
A remark like this prompts a question that's been lurking in the back of my mind for a while now. Is a binocular meant to show what you would see standing 8-10x closer to something, with as little degradation as possible, or have we actually begun to expect it to make things look even better than in real life? In which case it's no surprise Leica is about to start making eyeglasses.
Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32
This is the binocular I keep in the glovebox in my vehicle. It has gotten a lot of use and got an unexpected good bit of use on this trip. It's a great binocular when all your gear is packed up or when you want something smaller while taking a tour. It's just gotten better with time. The focus has lightened up to be really nice. Lots of FOV helped around the confines of the fort. I really like this binocular. Really, it's without fault.
Leica Noctivid 8X42/10X42
Truly a premium binocular. I suppose I've had the 10X since about Jan/Feb of this year. I got the 8X a couple of months ago at the start of Eagle Optics liquidation. The 10X42 has by now gotten a lot of use. The 8X42 not so much. All I can say is I've had absolutely zero issues with either. Nada. Everything WORKS and/or FUNCTIONS perfectly! On both. Dare I say it but no binocular I've ever owned has a more buttery-smooth focus adjustment. IF anything beats a Nikon EDG II this is it. Hinge tension-perfect. Eyecups-perfect. Diopter adjustment- half a notch down from the best in the business, a Leica HD Plus. Case- great compromise between space and compactness. I haven't owned it long enough to recommend without reservation but the odds are in your favor!
Leica Trinovid HD 8X42
Was the workhorse of the trip. I didn't expect it to be and I didn't expect to use it as much as I did! I used it because it mainly because was light/compact. I used it on long jaunts. I used with with shorts/t-shirt along the beach. It seemed to always be handy so I used it. I've had this one for two years plus a few months. I come away with a new respect for this binocular. Focus adjustment has excellent feel and it slack-free. Eyecups function and adjust perfectly. Optically it is a joy to use. Using the Trinovid HD was the surprise of the trip. Even thought I've owned it quit a while I was really surprised how much I like it and how well it represented itself in the face of strong competition! Great binocular!
So far I've done nothing but work since the trip. I guess that's the way it goes..:smoke:
Is that what eyeglasses do?
If you're willing to follow the suggested hypothesis, it's what I imagine Leica eyeglasses might do. (Otherwise the world has plenty of them already)
the view which you experience is not going to be the same as the one you would experience by standing an appropriate number of times closer to the subject
This is true and for me, especially when looking at subjects at 1.5 - 2.0 metres, if find the view better than the naked eye. By 'better' I mean that I am able to examine the detail and content of the view more easily and more thoroughly than simply getting my naked eye that much closer to the object. I cannot easily explain this except to say that on some tv nature programmes there have been close-ups of for example bees or butterflies on flowers and friends and family have said that those views are fantastic and impossible in real life. But actually those views are easily obtained using the close focus of modern binos.
Lee
This is true and for me, especially when looking at subjects at 1.5 - 2.0 metres, if find the view better than the naked eye. By 'better' I mean that I am able to examine the detail and content of the view more easily and more thoroughly than simply getting my naked eye that much closer to the object. I cannot easily explain this except to say that on some tv nature programmes there have been close-ups of for example bees or butterflies on flowers and friends and family have said that those views are fantastic and impossible in real life. But actually those views are easily obtained using the close focus of modern binos.
From experience with longer camera lenses I'd guess it has something to do with perspective and apparent field of view. Maybe the eye/brain appreciate detail better when not also trying to work out spatial relationships?
Maybe the eye/brain appreciate detail better when not also trying to work out spatial relationships?
That's surely one of the (perhaps the main) reasons why looking at a distant subject will not be the same (give the same view) as standing and appropriate number of times closer to the subject. You know from your experience with long lenses that things can look better (more impressive at least) through some good glass than they do through the naked eye!
I think this is exactly why I find these views easier to examine: it takes one visual variable almost out of the picture, so to speak, and of course the field of view of the bino reduces peripheral distractions as well.
Lee
Again, I agree! This is also why I don't think I'm as bothered as many here are about FOV. I understand the attraction of a wide FOV, and certainly for birding at short to medium distances is must be a positive asset, but at long distances I often appreciate the relative lack of distraction and focus that a narrower FOV affords. And as you say, any binocular will greatly restrict FOV compared to the naked eye.
Again, I agree! This is also why I don't think I'm as bothered as many here are about FOV. I understand the attraction of a wide FOV, and certainly for birding at short to medium distances is must be a positive asset, but at long distances I often appreciate the relative lack of distraction and focus that a narrower FOV affords. And as you say, any binocular will greatly restrict FOV compared to the naked eye.