• 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.

Noctivid 10x42. finally a nearly perfect 10 (1 Viewer)

Thanks for your report :)

I can't decide whether I should order an 8x or 10x Noctivid.
Compared to your 7x42 Ultravid, were you able to hold that 10x NVD reasonably steady?

Hi LB,

I noticed it was shakier right away. I was just using the 7x right before.
However, I did comment to the guy that the image shake didn't seem quite as bad as expected.
I don't think I have very steady hands.

Forgot to mention it seemed pretty bright and good day to check, as it was quite a dreary and gray morning.

If you already have a 7 or 8x then I would go for the 10x. But, if it will be your primary bino then maybe go for the 8x.

This guy said his last bino was 10x and this is the power he prefers. He seemed very happy with his new Noctivid
and said it was a big upgrade compared to the binocular he used for so many years. I didn't ask what his previous bino was, but I think he said he had a Leica.
 
I've spent a fair bit of time behind the 10x42 and 8x42 Noctivid... I'd go 8x42 hand's down. Finest all-around binocular I've ever been behind.

What was it that you liked better about the 8 compared to the 10x. I have the 10 power and love it but am wondering if the 8 is even better.
 
Interesting points you make.
I had a similar problem with Swaro EL. The ER was just right. But the eyecups were not long enough. I had to install eyecups from a 8x50 SLC to get the proper ER and avoid blackouts. This is not something you do on an alpha binocular.

The deal breaker for me, is that incredibly, NV and all Leica models *still* has the same diopter at infinity value of only -4 Diopters. Meaning if you are -5, you cannot use the device without corrective optical devices such as eyeglasses or contact lenses. They haven't changed since the 1990's Trinovid days. Seems under the hood, it inherits some of the same design. Instead of a complete redesign.

How do I know? Leica told me. It's -4, officially. Lots of people have -5 through -8D. I don't use them with glasses, so they are out for this very reason. This is as important than ER or FOV (IMO).

I can use Zeiss/Swarovski without any optical correction as their focus past infinity easily rolls over to -6D. This is too sad because IMO Leica has the top spot among alphas optically. But then I haven't seen the latest-greatest Zeiss SF, maybe it's no longer the case.

These optics are so expensive and so excellent overall, that it is really disappointing when they don't work for the individual user. Like you I love the optics of most Leica products. I've compared them at length to Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikon and personally prefer the Leica look with Nikon a close second. I'm sure I'd be happy using any of the above for the rest of my life, but at the prices these carry, I hold out for the best (to me) binocular.

I'm like you in another way, it would drive me nuts to ruin the view of my "alpha" optics by looking at them through my glasses, so I remove my glasses when using my Ultravids. I'm fortunate in a couple ways, 1) my eyeglass prescription is relatively minor, +1.25 left + 1.5 right, so I'm well within the focus range of the Leica's. 2) The shape of my face, deep set, narrow IPD eyes, fit the 42mm size Leica's great. Very easy view, no blackouts.

On the other hand, as much as I love the view, the 32mm size Leica's don't work for me. Another surprise is that even though a lot of people have blackout issues with the Nikon SE's, I don't. They fit me perfectly, very easy view. All this just goes to show how personal this all is to the individual. What is a very disappointing deal breaker for one person isn't even an issue to someone else. We all know binocular design is complicated and full of compromises. I'm sure the major manufacturers carefully analyze the market when they seemingly place an arbitrary line such as number of diopters beyond infinity, eye relief or close focus distance. That line will rule these bins out for anybody past that line, the question is, how many is that?
 
Finally got to look through a Noctivid. Crossed paths with a birder who had a 10x42 and asked him how he likes it.

Had to go back a few pages to find an appropriate thread. Last month I too was able to use the 10x42 model (owned by a fellow birder) for about 15 minutes or so. The following commentary is largely based on notes I took the same day. It was about 10.30 local time, conditions very bright sunlight with a light breeze. I had an 8x32 FL (green) on hand - my regular birding binocular which I am very familiar with.


Optically - very, very sharp, especially center field. Superb resolution showing exceptional detail both close (spotted-necked doves at about 20m - the spots provided a good test of detail - and foliage of trees about 150m away) and far (details of buildings over 900m away).

Strong saturated colours, but I like that, as distance all too often leaches out colour. I like the colour rendition.

Well baffled, as other commentators have noted. I tried it over an area particularly prone to creating veiling glare (angle of the sun contacting morning haze). In that situation it seemed to control stray light better than the 8x32 FL (obviously not quite an apples to apples comparison) - not by a huge amount, but noticeable.

Image strikes me as having similar brightness, clarity and cleanness to the FL and EL SV. I'll specifically check for CA if I get to use one again, but suspect one would need to go looking for it, unless CA is something one is sensitive to.

The 8x42 I tried at Birdfair 2017 gave me the impression of being a little like the image offered by larger exit pupil binoculars (I realize this sounds a bit kooky and would like to try one again). I didn't see this with the 10x42, although of course with this binocular you have the same objective size with 2x more magnification.

The ultimate test for the birding I do - tracking tiny distant targets in the sky - I wasn't able to do this time round, as the birds we were watching didn't take to the air. I think it'd do very well, but probably not better at this particular job than other alphas.

Field of view - appears to have a bit more than the 10x40 Dialyt I am very familiar with, although actual FOV is only slightly more (112m vs 110m). Not as much as the SF, but certainly enough for field use.

Tons of eye relief. I had no trouble getting and maintaining perfect eye placement from the start. Definitely not as finicky as the 8x32 FL.


Ergonomics/Handling - Focus speed quick but still precise. Focus feel: smooth, precise, weighted very well.

It didn't feel all that much bigger than the 10x40 Dialyt in hand - heavier, yes, and bigger, but not by all that much. More compact than the SF definitely, and the 10x42 SV too I think.

I could still get my fingers around the barrels. (I specifically checked for this.) So the open bridge is still of utility, at least to this particular user. Not acres of room, so if you have hands like Tyson Fury, you won't be able to use it. But for me, fine.

The barrels aren't perfectly round in cross-section but are contoured, with the idea I suppose of fitting your hand grip more naturally. This sounds a bit gimmicky - I can't say it made a material difference to its feel in hand to me.

Rubber armouring seems a bit stickier than the 8.5 Swaro (albeit this was in 30+ degree Celsius and tropical humidity) but not an issue. I personally prefer slicker surfaces like how the Dialyt rubber armour gets after long use.

It does feel a fair bit heavier coming from the plastic 8x32FL, but gives the impression of being very solid. Very confidence-inspiring in terms of build quality. Quite similar to an EL in that respect.

About the only niggle I found was that the focus wheel was a bit too close to my face. I think the SF does handle better. But ergonomically the NV is still very good. I'd say it is in the same league as the 8.5 handling wise.


Overall - very good package for a 10x42 that delivers a superb image (although when I went back to the 8x32 FL I had to note that although the differences between the two could be noticed by the critical eye they were objectively very small). Top class build quality. I can't offer an opinion on value as they are out of my price range and everyone will likely have his/her opinion on that anyway. But the product itself is very impressive.
 

Attachments

  • 20181223_152353_01.JPG
    20181223_152353_01.JPG
    114.7 KB · Views: 79
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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