• 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.

Yet another Leica Noctivid review (1 Viewer)

Thanks for the clarification!

I suspect proper baffling and unusually low axial aberrations

So this and Kimmo's impressions mean that you think that the Noctivid is an extremly good binocular (regardless of what it does to percieved 3D or not). Right?

You really need to add a bit of hyperbole, exclamation marks and capitals to your dry statement of facts and findings, so that we can understand what you really are saying ;)
 
If I apply the terms "proper baffling" and "unusually low axial aberrations" to the same binocular you can be sure I'm near falling into a faint from shear exhilaration. ;)
 
I now had an opportunity to revisit the 10x42 Noctivid with a bit more time and the Zeiss 3x12 tripler as a booster. Still haven't seen the 8x42, but that opportunity might present itself in a few days. There were two specimen to try, and I checked both on a tripod indoor, looking at both a USAF 1951 glass slide target and glitter points serving as artificial stars.

Both specimen showed a remarkably clean and high-contrast image on the glass slide lines at 30x, more resembling a high-quality scope than a typical alpha class binocular. On glitter points, the first unit had very tight best focus Airy disks with no flare, spiking or coma. A little too much light in the rings vs. the central spot, but that is typical since the glitter points at the shop are too close (about 8 meters) and therefore show more SA than at normal viewing distances. De-focused, a faint prism line started to appear after 8-10 rings, but this did not smear the image in focus at all. The second unit did nearly as well in the right tube, but had a little bit more problems in the left, with a more prominent prism line artifact and a tiny bit of coma and spiking in best focus.

I checked the better unit outdoors also, where we had brilliant winter sun and fresh snow, with frozen water droplets in a tree about 50 meters away providing natural glitter points. At this distance, most of the SA was gone, and there was quite clear ring pattern on both sides of focus, albeit contrast in the rings was markedly better inside focus. Outermost ring shows the typical longitudinal CA color shift depending on the side of focus, but all the inner rings look pretty color free. I won't go much further in trying to compare levels of CA with other binoculars, but feel confident enough in saying that these are better than previous Leicas and at least close to being on par with other top binoculars.

Viewing a nearby forest where the sun was shining through the tops of winter birch trees, I needed to first check which distinguishing marks in the trees would warn me of the sun before viewing in its direction. This was necessary since there was nothing in the view that would warn me that I was just about to destroy my eyes by getting the sun into the field of view. No veiling glare, no crescents, nothing. Viewing the branches and the bark of the Birches and Spruces that were close to the sun and had blue sky visible through the branches, the contrast was superb and detail recognition exceptional. I compared the view to that of my Canon 10x42, which is unusually good in backlight situations, and there was no doubt the tripod-mounted Leica was better.

Kimmo

Thank you, Kimmo. Very interesting report !!!
What I gather from your review is that you consider the 10x Noctivid a very fine binocular. My humble opinion (and that of a number of other users) is that the 8x is a superb binocular as well, so all in all, Leica seems to have done a very good job when designing and producing the Noctivid, even if we leave all sorts of hypes about 3D, depth-of-field etc. aside.
 
Thanks or those observations, Kimmo. Good to finally have some high magnification star-test results.

I suspect proper baffling and unusually low axial aberrations are probably all that’s needed to explain the magical 3-D and DOF properties being reported by some Noctivid owners. As you well know, not many “alpha” binocular specimens manage to do even one of those things really well, much less both.

I wonder if you could check for anything unusual about the field curvature or rectinear distortion? On another thread those have been suggested as reasons for enhanced 3-D, or at least a pleasant illusion of 3-D, unrelated to stereopsis.

Henry

Henry,

I did some normal panning and looked at the behavior of straight lines, round objects and rectangular objects as they approached field edges. Nothing too systematic, but to me it looks like there's a little bit of compression towards the field edge, but only a little, and slight pincushion distortion, but only slight. To my eyes, no rolling balls or carousels.

I fully agree with your first paragraph. It is the relative absence of axial aberrations and stray light that gives the image its snap and purity which in turn makes the job of ours eyes and brains easier and more natural.

I have said this before on other threads: from experience with numerous otherwise identical scopes but with varying levels of aberrations and consequently sharpness and contrast, the best ones exhibit better subjective depth of field to a surprising degree. This with magnifications much higher (up to 75x) and hence depths of field much shallower than with binoculars ever. So I think this is what gives the Noctivid a "better depth of field," which I also see.

Kimmo
 
I can't answer for Kimmo, but in my experience (and at my rather average eyesight acuity) all but a very few binoculars, including most alpha models, do not correct spherical and longitudinal chromatic aberrations quite well enough to produce images with uncompromised sharpness and contrast. Many individual units are further degraded by various defects like astigmatism, coma, pinching and poorly made roof edges. High magnification star-tests reveal which of those defects are present in the center field image and how bad they are.

I should add that the presence of such problems doesn't mean people won't like what they see through a binocular. It's just that an image with truly low aberrations looks better; cleaner, sharper, more transparent, higher contrast. Unfortunately, the eye seems to accept a degraded, but still pretty good image as "perfect" until a lower aberration image is experienced for comparison.

Henry

I agree with everything in this post except perhaps the first half of the first sentence.

Kimmo
 
Both specimen showed a remarkably clean and high-contrast image on the glass slide lines at 30x, more resembling a high-quality scope than a typical alpha class binocular. <snip> The second unit did nearly as well in the right tube, but had a little bit more problems in the left, with a more prominent prism line artifact and a tiny bit of coma and spiking in best focus.

Kimmo:

Thanks a lot for your observations. What I'm interested in is how large the difference between the two 10x42s really was, in real terms. Was it a difference you'd be likely to notice in the field, without the 3x12 booster? And how does the sample variation you found compare to other binoculars?

What I find very interesting indeed is that this may be a binocular that you can actually *use* with a booster in the field if need be, for instance on trips when carrying a scope would be inconvenient or, due to the terrain, impossible.

Hermann
 
What I find very interesting indeed is that this may be a binocular that you can actually *use* with a booster in the field if need be, for instance on trips when carrying a scope would be inconvenient or, due to the terrain, impossible.

Hermann

42mm will still be quite limited in brightness and resolution (dawes limit etc.).

What would be interesting to know is if there is any significant higher resolution in the NV compared to the other alphas. (looking att USAF test charts) without booster. I doubt that...
And for example the 8.5x SV will still have a slight advantage in mag vs the 8x NV in such a comparison.
But if the 8x NV would resolve the same as the 8.5x SV I would be impressed.
And a 8x50mm UVHD+ bin would probably be superior in resolution to a 8x42 NV also.

That said, it's not impossible that the view in the NV by some can be perceived being "snappier" than the competition. And this might be due to the performance at higher spatial frequencies. Equal to camera lenses, some lenses just don't work well with tele converters, and some do better. Correlates mostly to performance at higher spatial frequencies (MTF30), i.e. better micro contrast.
But since the eye (brain) is the registrating unit, people will probably see different things and views might differ.
 
Last edited:
.....
.....
What would be interesting to know is if there is any significant higher resolution in the NV compared to the other alphas. (looking att USAF test charts) without booster. I doubt that...
....
....

.... rightfully so - there isn't, and certainly not a siginficant one, at least in my eyes.
 
The post below is the best effort I've made at demonstrating how a really low aberration binocular image looks different from the image of a higher aberration binocular, even when there is no significant difference in what can be resolved on the USAF chart at normal magnification. Just follow the directions for how far to back up from your computer screen. I hope it's obvious that the line pairs in the low aberration image look cleaner and higher contrast even at large sizes that are easily resolved by both binoculars.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3424981&postcount=17
 
Last edited:
The post below is the best effort I've made at demonstrating how a really low aberration binocular image looks different from the image of a higher aberration binocular, even when there is no significant difference in what can be resolved on the USAF chart at normal magnification. Just follow the directions for how far to back up from your computer screen. I hope it's obvious that the line pairs in the low aberration image look cleaner and higher contrast even at large sizes that are easily resolved by both binoculars.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3424981&postcount=17


Can we say the Habicht tested was typical of the model, optically / quality-wise? I think you mentioned too much SA in the 8x30 at the time...is this inherent in the design or just a lemon sample?
 
Yes, I think we can be pretty confident that the aberration level is typical. I have two Habicht 8x30's made 25 years apart, so between them I have four individual telescope units to test. All four show very similar spherical and longitudinal chromatic aberrations in star-tests. There are small differences in coma among them, almost certainly resulting from the de-centering of some objective cells required to reach collimation. The one in the photo is the best side of a pair made in March of 2016.
 
.... rightfully so - there isn't, and certainly not a siginficant one, at least in my eyes.

I suspect sample variation might be more significant.

I got to try the Noctivids today and the 8x unit had a very nice, sharp and contrasty view, but the 10x was not as impressive. I felt as if I had to struggle to get it into focus. I also tried a Zeiss 10x42 SF and it was very easy on the eye, and I had no problems getting things into focus etc. Was this due to model or sample variation, I really can't say. The 10x NV was an early production sample though, the SF was the latest with black armour.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think we can be pretty confident that the aberration level is typical. I have two Habicht 8x30's made 25 years apart, so between them I have four individual telescope units to test. All four show very similar spherical and longitudinal chromatic aberrations in star-tests. There are small differences in coma among them, almost certainly resulting from the de-centering of some objective cells required to reach collimation. The one in the photo is the best side of a pair made in March of 2016.


Veering off-topic, I wonder how a model [Habicht 8x30] that made it's reputation for being [as described by owners / users and some optical ''experts''] the sharpest binocular they had ever seen, actually got that reputation?

Assuming you are correct Henry, and your results are typical of the model, then just where does this impression of incredible clarity come from? And this impression isn't just coming from rubes, but many with a lot of binocular experience. Is there some other optical effect in play that suggests sharpness or masks unsharpness?

No dog in the hunt here, having never tried a 'current' Habicht, but I am interested in just how these legends get started - and I guess this can apply to the Noctivid too, as it is already gaining mythic status based on mostly subjective criteria.
 
Kimmo:

Thanks a lot for your observations. What I'm interested in is how large the difference between the two 10x42s really was, in real terms. Was it a difference you'd be likely to notice in the field, without the 3x12 booster? And how does the sample variation you found compare to other binoculars?

What I find very interesting indeed is that this may be a binocular that you can actually *use* with a booster in the field if need be, for instance on trips when carrying a scope would be inconvenient or, due to the terrain, impossible.

Hermann

I got to check out two 8x42 NV:s and one more 10x42 NV on thursday. Of these, all four tubes of the 8x bins again showed very clean boosted images with low to very low aberration in glitter points and the USAF glass slide looking clean and well defined. There were small differences, with one tube of the second binocular showing a little bit of coma, and discernible prism edge artifacts in all four tubes, although only in one of them to an extent which I judge would barely just show in the unboosted image.

The 10x42 sample this time was a little less good, with one tube showing enough of a rough prism edge to render optimally focused points of light visibly cross-shaped. This amount of on-axis astigmatism is for my eyes enough to make fully optimal focusing on the bar targets impossible, although the effect is slight enough that I would guess most users would not notice anything was amiss.

These were the first 8x NV:s I have seen. In all respects, their image is very similar to that of the 10x. Again, no RB, excellent centerfield sharpness, unprecedented contrast and no veiling glare whatsoever. This time, there was a thin uniform low-lying cloud coverage with the sun breaking through it enough to show as a disk too bright to comfortably look at, and therefore dangerous to view through binoculars. Again it was necessary to check in advance the exact position of the sun above the treeline in order to avoid bringing it into view by accident, as there were no warning signs in the image.

As a reference, I checked a Swaro SLC 8x42 (latest, post-SLC HD-model) with the booster and the same tripod/light/test target sets, and saw essentially similar performance on glitter points and sharpness of the resolution target. This Swaro is one of the few binoculars I have seen displaying this level of freedom from aberrations before. On resolution alone, there was no difference that could be considered anything but sample-specific between them, but the Noctivids have coatings that show distinctly less reflections both on the objective and the eyepiece end, and the SLC does not reach the same levels of contrast.

I measured the Eye-relief of both the 8x and 10x NV:s as 19 mm from the eyecup rim. Diameter of eye lens is 26 mm, eyecup diameter is 41 mm, and the eyecups have click-stop extension at 3, 11 and 13 mm. Weight for the 8x42 with objective covers but no other accessories attached was 888 grams.

Kimmo
 
I got to check out two 8x42 NV:s and one more 10x42 NV on thursday. Of these, all four tubes of the 8x bins again showed very clean boosted images with low to very low aberration in glitter points and the USAF glass slide looking clean and well defined. There were small differences, with one tube of the second binocular showing a little bit of coma, and discernible prism edge artifacts in all four tubes, although only in one of them to an extent which I judge would barely just show in the unboosted image.

The 10x42 sample this time was a little less good, with one tube showing enough of a rough prism edge to render optimally focused points of light visibly cross-shaped. This amount of on-axis astigmatism is for my eyes enough to make fully optimal focusing on the bar targets impossible, although the effect is slight enough that I would guess most users would not notice anything was amiss.

These were the first 8x NV:s I have seen. In all respects, their image is very similar to that of the 10x. Again, no RB, excellent centerfield sharpness, unprecedented contrast and no veiling glare whatsoever. This time, there was a thin uniform low-lying cloud coverage with the sun breaking through it enough to show as a disk too bright to comfortably look at, and therefore dangerous to view through binoculars. Again it was necessary to check in advance the exact position of the sun above the treeline in order to avoid bringing it into view by accident, as there were no warning signs in the image.

As a reference, I checked a Swaro SLC 8x42 (latest, post-SLC HD-model) with the booster and the same tripod/light/test target sets, and saw essentially similar performance on glitter points and sharpness of the resolution target. This Swaro is one of the few binoculars I have seen displaying this level of freedom from aberrations before. On resolution alone, there was no difference that could be considered anything but sample-specific between them, but the Noctivids have coatings that show distinctly less reflections both on the objective and the eyepiece end, and the SLC does not reach the same levels of contrast.

I measured the Eye-relief of both the 8x and 10x NV:s as 19 mm from the eyecup rim. Diameter of eye lens is 26 mm, eyecup diameter is 41 mm, and the eyecups have click-stop extension at 3, 11 and 13 mm. Weight for the 8x42 with objective covers but no other accessories attached was 888 grams.

Kimmo

Thanks a lot, Kimmo - very interesting report !!
Canip
 
Veering off-topic, I wonder how a model [Habicht 8x30] that made it's reputation for being [as described by owners / users and some optical ''experts''] the sharpest binocular they had ever seen, actually got that reputation?

Assuming you are correct Henry, and your results are typical of the model, then just where does this impression of incredible clarity come from? And this impression isn't just coming from rubes, but many with a lot of binocular experience. Is there some other optical effect in play that suggests sharpness or masks unsharpness?

No dog in the hunt here, having never tried a 'current' Habicht, but I am interested in just how these legends get started - and I guess this can apply to the Noctivid too, as it is already gaining mythic status based on mostly subjective criteria.

Hi James,

Sorry for the late reply. On the topic of dogs I'm inclined to let sleeping ones lie, at least in this thread. ;)

Henry
 
Thanks again, Kimmo.

Alas, it looks like there is still the usual need to sort through some number of pairs to find a really good one. Not easy to do in the Leica desert here.

Henry
 
Hi Kimmo,
In the clarity of a Finnish winter air I suppose one gets no warning of impending Sun approach.

In polluted English towns it is very rare to see a clean Sun with no large white area around it.
I wonder if there would be warning here using a Noctivid, not because of the instrument, but just the milky approach to the Sun.

Using the ten year old 12x50 Ultravid nearing the Sun looking for the planet Venus it gets impossibly bright well before hitting the Sun.
However, I always hide the actual Sun behind a solid roofline.

One should never risk actually catching the Sun.

In England the planet Mercury is pink.
In Finland it is white.
 
Weight for the 8x42 with objective covers but no other accessories attached was 888 grams.

Probably slightly over 1kg with all accessories attached---you really feel that weight after carrying them around your neck for a while.

Kimmo:

I was wondering if you have tried to test my conjecture that the NVs have a slightly tilted focal plane.

Peter
 
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