• 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 vs Ultravid HD+ 10x50 (1 Viewer)

...I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around. I simply move the binocular, and do the same even if it's mounted on a tripod...

Ah well, to each their own, as you say, but just to underscore this point, what you write (quoted above) makes ABSOLUTELY no sense to me. Absolutely none. I move my eyes when looking about, not so much my neck or my body. When looking through a bin that doesn't have a wide field that is well corrected to the edge, I am forced to move my neck/body to re-position the binocular for every small change in viewing angle, which is a movement that feels very unnatural.

Moreover, your point about not looking at our own eyes' field stops (i.e. that we do not, except in rare circumstance, view critically using peripheral vision) is a completing irrelevant misdirect. It does not at all describe what is happening when looking through a bin off-axis. When viewing off-axis though a bin, one is (as you say, and I agree) using one's central vision, just (as I say) as when looking around a scene normally. I expect, when I look this way and that around the world by moving my eyes, for my central vision to remain comfortably high resolution and in focus, not to be (as in a bin with off-axis astigmatism or field curvature) challenged by all-of-a-sudden needing a different glasses prescription (as is effectively the case when looking off-axis through a bin with off-axis astigmatism or field curvature)!

For me, the analogy would be to a window made of warped glass that was only transparent and undistorting when looking through it normal (90 degrees) to the plane of the window. I like a bin to be like a proper undistorting window pane (that, in the case of a bin, also presents a magnified view of the world), such that I can look left/right/up/down at the scene visible through the window (yes, using my central vision!) without interference imposed by distorting degrading window glass. Tangential point of fact: some modern windows are not so good in this regard. I find the windshields/windscreens of most cars very irritating while birding because of the distortions and degradation in resolution that they impose, even when viewing normal to the glass (but especially when attempting to see through them at other angles).

--AP
 
Moreover, your point about not looking at our own eyes' field stops (i.e. that we do not, except in rare circumstance, view critically using peripheral vision) is a completing irrelevant misdirect. It does not at all describe what is happening when looking through a bin off-axis. When viewing off-axis though a bin, one is (as you say, and I agree) using one's central vision, just (as I say) as when looking around a scene normally. I expect, when I look this way and that around the world by moving my eyes, for my central vision to remain comfortably high resolution and in focus, not to be (as in a bin with off-axis astigmatism or field curvature) challenged by all-of-a-sudden needing a different glasses prescription (as is effectively the case when looking off-axis through a bin with off-axis astigmatism or field curvature)!--AP

Alexis, this just goes to prove how different we are. I totally except that people have different preferences, and indeed, this is not a point of contention for me, but I wanted to comment on one issue that you raised.

I can agree with everything you say (or at least not dispute it, as we've said, each to their own), but I think you have, in the above quote, misunderstood my point about looking at our own eye's field stops. I understand your comments, but my point was that it's actually impossible to do that without the target of our attention remaining in the centre of the perceived field - even if we cannot look any further up, down, left or right. In other words we cannot centre the focus of our vision in our periphery vision, When I look through a binocular the FOV I see is to me like the FOV I see with the naked eye (although obviously much more restricted), with a centre and periphery. Certainly, in practice, I look around the central 60-70% area without moving the bin, just as I would look around the central 60-70% of my naked eye FOV without moving my head, but beyond that, moving the bin seems as natural to me as moving my head, and looking at the field stop instead of moving the bin seems as unnatural as looking as far up, down, left and right as I can instead of moving my head.
I DO understand your point, and if I was like you I would probably demand a flat field, but I'm not, so I don't! Furthermore, that allows me to enjoy what I consider to be a much more natural (or at least enjoyable, as what's 'natural' is a matter of opinion) image.
 
One needs to remember that flat field designs do come with their own, built-in draw backs as well. I find most flat fields to possess some degree of rolling-ball, or at least unusual bending of lines while panning, as well as AMD at the edge. Also, to me at least, these flat fields lack some of the dynamic perception of depth that a curved design shows and gives me the impression of looking at a screen image, rather than something from life.

To each his own.
 
...I DO understand your point, and if I was like you I would probably demand a flat field, but I'm not, so I don't!...

Glad to know we understand each other, because I think we do. As I understand things, one difference is that you feel the bins as extensions of your eyes, whereas I feel them as a windows that I look through with my eyes.

--AP
 
One needs to remember that flat field designs do come with their own, built-in draw backs as well. I find most flat fields to possess some degree of rolling-ball, or at least unusual bending of lines while panning, as well as AMD at the edge. Also, to me at least, these flat fields lack some of the dynamic perception of depth that a curved design shows and gives me the impression of looking at a screen image, rather than something from life.

To each his own.

Yes, to each his or her own. I've experienced rolling ball in the Nikon 10x42 Venturer LX, but I think it is something that I adjust to quickly. As for the 3D thing from curved designs that many comment on, I do not experience that at all. In fact, I don't even appreciate the analogy to movie screens because I don't perceive (conventional) movies as flat. Probably that's why 3D movies do nothing for me other than irritate me with the extra glasses and due to the dim image.

--AP
 
One needs to remember that flat field designs do come with their own, built-in draw backs as well. I find most flat fields to possess some degree of rolling-ball, or at least unusual bending of lines while panning, as well as AMD at the edge. Also, to me at least, these flat fields lack some of the dynamic perception of depth that a curved design shows and gives me the impression of looking at a screen image, rather than something from life.

To each his own.

James, that describes why I find curved fields more natural and enjoyable. Thank you!
 
As I understand things, one difference is that you feel the bins as extensions of your eyes, whereas I feel them as a windows that I look through with my eyes.

--AP

Good comment, exactly my point!
A diffracted window is only partially usable.
The 3D effect is good with Porro's, here are "Dachkantgläser" (what was the English term, roof edge ?) very modest, whether conventional or flat field design, there are much more important aspects in this group from binoculars.

Andreas
 
Last edited:
Glad to know we understand each other, because I think we do. As I understand things, one difference is that you feel the bins as extensions of your eyes, whereas I feel them as a windows that I look through with my eyes.

--AP

Alexis, yes, I would say that is a fairly good analogy, although I do look around in the 'sweet spot', not just exactly through the middle of the bin. But in general, yes, I consider bins as an extension of my eyes, rather than a window.
 
I have a more specific question for anyone who has looked through both the 10x42NV and the 10x50HD+ (or even the 10x42HD+, for that matter). Chromatic aberration (CA).

I have not had the opportunity to test the 10x50HD+ in person, although I have tested the NV. I did detect a little CA in the NV, and didn’t have to go all the way to the edge of the field of view to see it. I am susceptible to two things, CA and rolling ball. So, no flat field bins for me, which knocks out the SV and SF for me (too much distortion in both of those when panning, and I’ve looked extensively through both). But I also am no fan of CA, as I can see it pretty clearly when present.

My favorite bin is the 7x42HD+ (No CA, except at the very edge and only during less then perfect atmospheric conditions). I live on the Texas Gulf Coast, and a 10x is useful, particularly at the shore and during winter while viewing raptors when the vegetation has died out over the marshes. Looking for a 10x to compliment my 7x for these situations.

I owned the 10x50SV for a while, and it handled beautifully. No real CA, but over time I still could not get over the RB. The one 10x42NV I looked through had noticeable CA, and I didn’t like the ergonomics as much as my 7x HD+.

Can anyone comment on their experience with CA in either the 10x42 or 10x50 HD+? Is it more, less or the same as the NV (if you’ve had the chance to look through both - or all three)?
 
Last edited:
I have a more specific question for anyone who has looked through both the 10x42NV and the 10x50HD+ (or even the 10x42HD+, for that matter). Chromatic aberration (CA).

I have not had the opportunity to test the 10x50HD+ in person, although I have tested the NV. I did detect a little CA in the NV, and didn’t have to go all the way to the edge of the field of view to see it. I am susceptible to two things, CA and rolling ball. So, no flat field bins for me, which knocks out the SV and SF for me (too much distortion in both of those when panning, and I’ve looked extensively through both). But I also am no fan of CA, as I can see it pretty clearly when present.

My favorite bin is the 7x42HD+ (No CA, except at the very edge and only during less then perfect atmospheric conditions). I live on the Texas Gulf Coast, and a 10x is useful, particularly at the shore and during winter while viewing raptors when the vegetation has died out over the marshes. Looking for a 10x to compliment my 7x for these situations.

I owned the 10x50SV for a while, and it handled beautifully. No real CA, but over time I still could not get over the RB. The one 10x42NV I looked through had noticeable CA, and I didn’t like the ergonomics as much as my 7x HD+.

Can anyone comment on their experience with CA in either the 10x42 or 10x50 HD+? Is it more, less or the same as the NV (if you’ve had the chance to look through both - or all three)?

Zeiss 10x42 HT - ''no CA for you!''
 
I would try the HD+ 10X50, it is the one glass that provides SV views with out the flat field/panning/RB issues, but I would try before you buy, at these $$$, highly necessary. Personally I get much more pleasure viewing with 10X50+ than any 10X42 especially for long distance viewing sessions, so much more comfortable on the eyes.

Andy W.
 
Zeiss 10x42 HT - ''no CA for you!''

Hi James,
I will admit, I had a chance to look through a 8x42HT several years back, and I remember it being extremely bright and with a form factor that fit me nicely. Seemed to be pinnacle of the evolution of the old Zeiss 7x42GBAT (the first binocular I ever looked through that made me say, “Wow!” out loud).

I moved to the Leica after having the Zeiss 7x42FL because I like the color saturation of the Leica over the Zeiss in a side-by-side comparison (although I do remember the FL as having almost zero CA, which I assumed would be true with the HT). Not having done a side-by-side of the HT and my Leica HD+, I don’t want to assume the same holds true relative to color rendition between the two.

However, I know I would choose the HT over the SF and SV, as I can’t get along with the distortion pattern of the two latter bins. With the HT now discontinued, I’m not sure how much of an opportunity I’m going to have to find a 10x42 to test.

The Leica 10x42NV I tested had the same color saturation of my 7x42HD+, which is why I hope to get my hands on the HD+ in x42 or x50 to test for CA.
 
I would try the HD+ 10X50, it is the one glass that provides SV views with out the flat field/panning/RB issues, but I would try before you buy, at these $$$, highly necessary. Personally I get much more pleasure viewing with 10X50+ than any 10X42 especially for long distance viewing sessions, so much more comfortable on the eyes.

Andy W.

Thanks for the reply, Andy. My experience with 10x bins has shown me that, in general, I have enjoyed the 10x50 over the 10x42 as well. I agree, that I need to try before buying one. That’s the one I’m leaning towards if the CA is acceptable. Do you have any opinion on CA with the 10x50?
 
Razor6,

I have the 10X50 BA, UV BR, and the UV HD+, the BR 10X50 has about the same as the BA, but the HD+ to me CA is negligible. Another person who has the HD+10X50 is Canip, perhaps he can provide some insight. I think in relation to CA, the HD and HD+ models were improved in the handling of CA over the BR.
However I am not that susceptible to CA, I can induce it, but overall in the 10X50 glass I notice it the least.
That said, I am still enjoying the BR 10X50s today, love the handling and the contrast.
I would try to view the HD+10X50 if you can, alongside the EL SV, they are really the best 10X50 there is hands down, and I have many.

I still have the SV 10X50.

Regards,

Andy W.
 
I own the HD in 8X42 and 12X50 new after comparing them to the HD+, no CA for me, MY EYES, so over $1500 in savings. Could not be more happy with them.

Andy W.
 
But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields.
That is exactly my feeling also. I find actual distortion at field edges distracting (think Zeiss) but am usually not looking for perfect sharpness there, though it's nice for astronomy. It's the central sweet spot (area of sharpness really) that matters most to me, and is improved by flat(ter) field designs. And then on the other hand they tend to have a smaller AFOV, which is less appealing...
I would try the HD+ 10X50, it is the one glass that provides SV views with out the flat field/panning/RB issues...
Not sure what you mean in this context by "SV views"... I'm not sure I ever tried the HD+ 10x50, and if not I probably should have. But no one stocks it in my area. Does it not have the traditional optical design like other Leica UVs? (Which I like very much in my 10x32 by the way, but less so in the 42...) How does the eye relief feel, not for eyeglasses but just viewing ease and comfort?
 
I had the 10x50 UVHD+. Phenomenal image but a humongous set of bins for Leica. Class leading in some ways. I borrowed a set of NVD 10x42’s from Chili6x6, and as nice as they were, bought the NVD 8x42.

Between the two 10x bins you mention the UVHD+ if image is the big issue although it could just be my personal taste. If resale is of concern, then the NVD.
 
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