A2GG
Beth
Yes, this describes my experience as well. I came to the same conclusion eventually too. Also, now I just try to enjoy being outdoors and not being too concerned with what I may see or not see.
-
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.
CA On The Noctivid (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter b3rd
- Start date
Yes, this describes my experience as well. I came to the same conclusion eventually too. Also, now I just try to enjoy being outdoors and not being too concerned with what I may see or not see.
I enjoy birding and being outside but I also really enjoy trying the latest and greatest binoculars and optics. I am very interested in the improvements made by manufacturers in binoculars and I like the technical side of optics. It all started when I had an Amateur Astronomy class in college. When I learned about telescope construction and astronomy and the physics involved it just fascinated me. We had to learn all the constellations and go observe at the observatory about twice a week. For quite awhile I was into Amateur Astronomy and had some big telescopes and then gradually I gravitated into binoculars and birding and it satiated my interest in optics. I would say I have just as much interest in optics as birding. Sometimes I think I use birding as a means to an end to try different binoculars. but I also use my binoculars for nature observation and big game animals. I am a perfectionist when it comes to optics so that is probably why I like the Swarovski SV's because with their sharp edges and flat fields they are about as perfect optically as binoculars can be. Distortion on the edges and CA bothers me because I can see it. Binoculars are not just a tool for me. I am very interested in their construction and performance. I like nothing better than to try the latest and greatest binoculars.
Last edited:
John M Robinson
Well-known member
Dennis, are you currently satisfied with your Swaros? If somehow Swaro or somebody else improves it optically, will you invest in the new, improved model? I feel like I was where you are now with my Ultravids in 2009. They blew me away and gave me great satisfaction in daily use. I realized after several years, and some generations of improvements, I would never be able to keep up, I flat out couldn't afford it. I also realized when I would take my Ultravids into a shop to compare, my older Leicas held up well against the newer models. At that point I decided to just use and enjoy them without obsessing.
That said, I'm really looking forward to the retro Trinovids ��
That said, I'm really looking forward to the retro Trinovids ��
John M Robinson
Well-known member
Btw, I also took astronomy in college, that's where I learned about chromatic aberration and how the 48" Schmidt was developed to combat CA. I'm 69 now, but at last eye check I had 20-12.5 (I can read about half the 20-10 line) corrected vision, but my correction is only +1.50, with no astigmatism, so I use my bins without glasses.
I think this just boils down to personality traits. I'm satisfied with darn good as long as it does everything I need, while Dennis enjoys the pursuit of perfection. I'm an avid fly fisherman, and I have a number of high end fly rods. I'm actually on another forum similar to this one, only about fly fishing and tackle. I'm constantly going at it with another poster who believes my 1991 Scott G904 is obsolete because fly rods have improved so much since then. I point out that I still catch a lot of fish with it and it gives me great enjoyment to cast it. Neither of us is right or wrong, there is no right or wrong, we just have different approaches to life.
I think this just boils down to personality traits. I'm satisfied with darn good as long as it does everything I need, while Dennis enjoys the pursuit of perfection. I'm an avid fly fisherman, and I have a number of high end fly rods. I'm actually on another forum similar to this one, only about fly fishing and tackle. I'm constantly going at it with another poster who believes my 1991 Scott G904 is obsolete because fly rods have improved so much since then. I point out that I still catch a lot of fish with it and it gives me great enjoyment to cast it. Neither of us is right or wrong, there is no right or wrong, we just have different approaches to life.
I am satisfied with my two Swaro's the 8.5x42 SV FP and the 8x32 SV FP but I am always interested in trying new binoculars and new models. I am not bragging but a couple thousand dollars to have the latest alpha binocular is not a major problem. Really birding is not a hugely expensive hobby. If Swarovski or Zeiss, Leica or Nikon comes out with a new model I would be first in line to buy one. i enjoy really good optics as much as I enjoy birding and nature observation. I like trying something new also. New technology whatever.
Last edited:
Mike F
Well-known member
I wonder, in that case, why you don't just buy a Noctivid? They are by all accounts an overall match for the alphas from Swarovski and Zeiss. Then you'd have the best of all worlds. I totally understand being interested in optics for their own sake, so why not? Or do you really believe that Leica is a distant third behind S and Z, in which case why are you bothering to ask questions?
Torview
Well-known member
The Noctivid has been out for a long time now.................?
We seem to have drifted in to a more philosophical direction in this thread.
I first joined the forum simply to get some recommendations in my price range. Fired up by enthusiastic comments from past and present members I duly visited a well stocked optics store expecting to leave with a new toy. It didn't happen. I tried the 4 on my list (and about another 15) and there was not one I wanted to take home. For then last 8 years I've been trying to figure out why I frequently disagree with others. I'm most certainly not alone as various forum threads testify. In the meantime there have numerous heated debates about various design issues. Rolling ball on the Swaro ELSV 8.5x42, glare on the ELSV 8x32, sharpness of the original Swaro CL, colour rendition of the FL/HT/UV/EL SV/UV, and now CA in the Noctivid, to name a few.
From three of the top optics companies in the world I think we can be confident that the optical design of those models have been tailored to a very specific customer specification and use. What they consider to be the average requirement for their expected customers. Unfortunately I don't suppose any of us know who those average customers are, but it might be possible to educated guess about their use at times.
So what factors might the designer consider? The range, colour, contrast, and brightness of the target for a start, but also the visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, spectral sensitivity and colour discrimination of the user. The further an individual steps away from the design criteria. it seems the more likely they are to complain. I don't imagine they considered for a second how obsessed some might be with performance of the outer 10% of the field of view. Perhaps Swarovski did design the original CL for the retired safari goer? In which case I'm sure they were very successful. However in using resolution as a distinguishing from the ELSV they would definitely be excluding the likes of John with his 20/12.5 acuity, and many more mainly younger users bescides. Why did both Zeiss and Swarovski choose to remove much of the red from the transmission spectrum, yet Leica choose to keep it? Sorry, but really don't think birdwatching was their priority. I strongly suspect they were segmenting the hunting market, but I won't elaborate on that.
The truth is we see the world very differently. Amongst the regular poster here there will be a two or possibly three fold range in visual acuity. Distance perception will vary by at least 30 fold. Spectral sensitivity, particularly in the red and blue will vary considerably as will contrast sensitivity. Even colour discrimination varies with gender and culture. We differ considerably in levels of perceptive skills too. No designer can satisfy all those user variations for a start, let alone the environmental differences in light levels, spectrum, clarity, and colour and contrast mosaic of the target and surrounds.
For what it's worth I really like the Noctivid, but I wouldn't consider it an all-rounder. Under the thinly clouded midday light of a English summer, looking at birds in the near to medium range, I thought the level of detail, colour, contrast and textural information in the sweet spot bettered all the other the top models. That is considerably more important to me than any minor CA, field curvature or softness at the edge. It would be dumb of me to expect others to have the same opinion with their own eyesight and usage. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be my choice for winter twilight either.
It's a fact of life that some users will be able to more accurately describe a binocular's optical characteristics more objectively than others. It obviously helps to be able to measure certain properties. However to score those parameters and then add them up I feel is a grave mistake. All it tells you about is the prejudices of the observe, and risks having little relevance to anyone else.
Please, if anyone wants to proclaim a model as 'best' please at least state your state your visual acuity, score in colour discrimination tests, the range of scene luminance, colour temperature, weather conditions, target range and dimensional detail, and rank characteristics like sharpness, colour, contrast, glare, CA, RB, against against several other contenders. Perhaps then we might begin to have some understanding as to how another opinion might relate to our own priorities.
Dennis, I've read quite enough of your comments to know our priorities are completely different. It doesn't mean we won't like the same binocular, but I think we can be sure it will be for quite different reasons. I wouldn’t put money on you liking the Noctivid, but then you constantly surprise us.
David
I first joined the forum simply to get some recommendations in my price range. Fired up by enthusiastic comments from past and present members I duly visited a well stocked optics store expecting to leave with a new toy. It didn't happen. I tried the 4 on my list (and about another 15) and there was not one I wanted to take home. For then last 8 years I've been trying to figure out why I frequently disagree with others. I'm most certainly not alone as various forum threads testify. In the meantime there have numerous heated debates about various design issues. Rolling ball on the Swaro ELSV 8.5x42, glare on the ELSV 8x32, sharpness of the original Swaro CL, colour rendition of the FL/HT/UV/EL SV/UV, and now CA in the Noctivid, to name a few.
From three of the top optics companies in the world I think we can be confident that the optical design of those models have been tailored to a very specific customer specification and use. What they consider to be the average requirement for their expected customers. Unfortunately I don't suppose any of us know who those average customers are, but it might be possible to educated guess about their use at times.
So what factors might the designer consider? The range, colour, contrast, and brightness of the target for a start, but also the visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, spectral sensitivity and colour discrimination of the user. The further an individual steps away from the design criteria. it seems the more likely they are to complain. I don't imagine they considered for a second how obsessed some might be with performance of the outer 10% of the field of view. Perhaps Swarovski did design the original CL for the retired safari goer? In which case I'm sure they were very successful. However in using resolution as a distinguishing from the ELSV they would definitely be excluding the likes of John with his 20/12.5 acuity, and many more mainly younger users bescides. Why did both Zeiss and Swarovski choose to remove much of the red from the transmission spectrum, yet Leica choose to keep it? Sorry, but really don't think birdwatching was their priority. I strongly suspect they were segmenting the hunting market, but I won't elaborate on that.
The truth is we see the world very differently. Amongst the regular poster here there will be a two or possibly three fold range in visual acuity. Distance perception will vary by at least 30 fold. Spectral sensitivity, particularly in the red and blue will vary considerably as will contrast sensitivity. Even colour discrimination varies with gender and culture. We differ considerably in levels of perceptive skills too. No designer can satisfy all those user variations for a start, let alone the environmental differences in light levels, spectrum, clarity, and colour and contrast mosaic of the target and surrounds.
For what it's worth I really like the Noctivid, but I wouldn't consider it an all-rounder. Under the thinly clouded midday light of a English summer, looking at birds in the near to medium range, I thought the level of detail, colour, contrast and textural information in the sweet spot bettered all the other the top models. That is considerably more important to me than any minor CA, field curvature or softness at the edge. It would be dumb of me to expect others to have the same opinion with their own eyesight and usage. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be my choice for winter twilight either.
It's a fact of life that some users will be able to more accurately describe a binocular's optical characteristics more objectively than others. It obviously helps to be able to measure certain properties. However to score those parameters and then add them up I feel is a grave mistake. All it tells you about is the prejudices of the observe, and risks having little relevance to anyone else.
Please, if anyone wants to proclaim a model as 'best' please at least state your state your visual acuity, score in colour discrimination tests, the range of scene luminance, colour temperature, weather conditions, target range and dimensional detail, and rank characteristics like sharpness, colour, contrast, glare, CA, RB, against against several other contenders. Perhaps then we might begin to have some understanding as to how another opinion might relate to our own priorities.
Dennis, I've read quite enough of your comments to know our priorities are completely different. It doesn't mean we won't like the same binocular, but I think we can be sure it will be for quite different reasons. I wouldn’t put money on you liking the Noctivid, but then you constantly surprise us.
David
John M Robinson
Well-known member
Very well said!
Hi David,
Very well said!!!
By the way, last year I compared my HT 10x42, the most confortable binocular to use , TO ME, with cristal clear and oustanding optics, TO ME, with a Noctivid 10x42, in, wanted, very difficult light situations.
In spite all I had read about it, I was really surprised by the, practically, elimination of the veiling glare in the Noctivid. This is an objective, not subjective optical quality of the Noctivid. The other optical qualities, being slightly different, were as good, TO ME and for my uses, as the Zeiss HT. That elimination of glare is, TO ME, a need in a top binocular and has a notorious effect in the general quality of the view.
Having "tested" all the other so-called alpha binoculars, the NV has the edge, TO ME, because of that! I would miss the "ergonomics" of the Zeiss HT, but this is not enough to compensate for the NV.
Best
PHA
Very well said!!!
By the way, last year I compared my HT 10x42, the most confortable binocular to use , TO ME, with cristal clear and oustanding optics, TO ME, with a Noctivid 10x42, in, wanted, very difficult light situations.
In spite all I had read about it, I was really surprised by the, practically, elimination of the veiling glare in the Noctivid. This is an objective, not subjective optical quality of the Noctivid. The other optical qualities, being slightly different, were as good, TO ME and for my uses, as the Zeiss HT. That elimination of glare is, TO ME, a need in a top binocular and has a notorious effect in the general quality of the view.
Having "tested" all the other so-called alpha binoculars, the NV has the edge, TO ME, because of that! I would miss the "ergonomics" of the Zeiss HT, but this is not enough to compensate for the NV.
Best
PHA
John M Robinson
Well-known member
I think he/she probably has. If CA is a deal breaker, then reading this thread must have convinced him the Noctovid is not for him.
dries1
Member
Yes that was a clear summation from David, and revealing that we all have different vision,acuity, floaters, etc.
I have the EL SV 8.5X42 but I had the EDG 8X42 prior, and to my eyes, while the EL has a flat field to the field stop and the EDG has a bit of field curvature, I find the EDG more pleasant especially when panning, additionally I am one to look straight ahead when viewing anyway.
The EL may be brighter, however the EDG has light transmission spread over a nice broad spectrum, and I still prefer it to the EL. These are the only 8X42s with field flatteners beside the Monarch HG I own.
Additionally, to date I have not found a glass as sharp on axis than the FL, when zoned in.
I have the Leica 8X42 HD and to date see no reason for the Noctivid, and yes I like the rendition of the reds and brown from the Ultravid.
Our eyes are indeed different and out tastes even more so.
Andy W.
I have the EL SV 8.5X42 but I had the EDG 8X42 prior, and to my eyes, while the EL has a flat field to the field stop and the EDG has a bit of field curvature, I find the EDG more pleasant especially when panning, additionally I am one to look straight ahead when viewing anyway.
The EL may be brighter, however the EDG has light transmission spread over a nice broad spectrum, and I still prefer it to the EL. These are the only 8X42s with field flatteners beside the Monarch HG I own.
Additionally, to date I have not found a glass as sharp on axis than the FL, when zoned in.
I have the Leica 8X42 HD and to date see no reason for the Noctivid, and yes I like the rendition of the reds and brown from the Ultravid.
Our eyes are indeed different and out tastes even more so.
Andy W.
Me thinks some people on these forums overthink things.
Of the two I've been trying out over the last few days, Vortex Razor 8x42 HD and the Zeiss Conquest 8x42 HD
I've gone with the Vortex, not because it's sharper on axis or off axis for that matter, or any issues with CA.
( I don't see it anyway ) unless I really, really look for it. Field curvature didn't play a part in my choice either.
I went with the Vortex because the ergonomics were better for me and there seemed to be less in the way of the view. With the Vortex it feels like you can just go out and touch what you are looking at.
Very pleased with them, to be honest though, I don't think I'm as critical as most folks on here.
Of the two I've been trying out over the last few days, Vortex Razor 8x42 HD and the Zeiss Conquest 8x42 HD
I've gone with the Vortex, not because it's sharper on axis or off axis for that matter, or any issues with CA.
( I don't see it anyway ) unless I really, really look for it. Field curvature didn't play a part in my choice either.
I went with the Vortex because the ergonomics were better for me and there seemed to be less in the way of the view. With the Vortex it feels like you can just go out and touch what you are looking at.
Very pleased with them, to be honest though, I don't think I'm as critical as most folks on here.
Lightbender
Well-known member
No... nobody overthinks things here. This is the binoculars forum. :smoke:
Dennis When will you order your Noctivid? I can't wait to hear your comments!
Dennis
When will you order your Noctivid? I can't wait to hear your comments!
Last edited:
If you're paying $2500 for absolute best of the best, the only way you can choose is to be overly critical.
I decided I am a "sharp edge" kind of man. I really like the perfect FOV with the edges sharp to the field stop on the SV's and RB doesn't bother me. I prefer the SV over the SF because it has sharper edges and with the Noctivid having more off-axis distortion than the SF I don't see one in my future.No... nobody overthinks things here. This is the binoculars forum. :smoke:
Dennis
Robert Moore
Well-known member
Dennis do you still have the 8x56 slc? I recently got the 2018 model and wow what a bino.
