• 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)

I think the issue with mine is just the field stops are not perfectly lined up because I don’t get any eye strain and if I move my eyes back away from the exit pupils when looking at a distant power line they stay lined up.
 
Might be the case indeed. Is there any other way to test? Sun collimation perhaps? Or would that indicate an error in field stops again?
 
Ewww bugger... it didn't work. Maybe I should try it naked next time...

Bloody boring fall/ winter isn't it. Nothing but fog and grey skies for months in a row |8||
 
Regarding collimation, this is probably the way to check and quantify (also approved by Bill Cook in his book):

https://sites.google.com/site/rchamon/home/sun-images-method-for-collimation-of-binoculars

I measured my Ultravid with this method and it is perfect, whereas some other glass looked pretty bad but was still very much inside the tolerances. And definitely some people are more sensitive then others.

Although I dislike 10x bins, the Noctivid 10x42 is truly phenomenal. Just started to test one. Optically and mechanically superb. Quite a l lot of CA though. Focuser oh so smooth just like EDG. Ergonomy is very ok, although the double bridge design feels a bit forced and improves nothing on the single hinge of the Ultravid. Of course they needed it for psychological reasons, to really attack the Swarovision.

I now have high hopes for the Noctivid 8x32 because ease of view in the Noctivid is superb with 4mm EP. Hopefully the 8x32 will not be a double bridge design.
 
Last edited:
Regarding collimation, this is probably the way to check and quantify (also approved by Bill Cook in his book):

https://sites.google.com/site/rchamon/home/sun-images-method-for-collimation-of-binoculars

I measured my Ultravid with this method and it is perfect, whereas some other glass looked pretty bad but was still very much inside the tolerances. And definitely some people are more sensitive then others.

Although I dislike 10x bins, the Noctivid 10x42 is truly phenomenal. Just started to test one. IMO makes Zeiss SF, Swarovision and EDG redundant. Optically and mechanically perfect. Focuser oh so smooth just like EDG. Ergonomy is very ok, although the double bridge design feels a bit forced and improves nothing on the single hinge of the Ultravid. Of course they needed it for psychological reasons, to really attack the Swarovision.

I now have high hopes for the Noctivid 8x32 because ease of view in the Noctivid is superb with 4mm EP. Hopefully the 8x32 will not be a double bridge design.

Thanks for the info. I will have to give that a try
 
Regarding collimation, this is probably the way to check and quantify (also approved by Bill Cook in his book):

https://sites.google.com/site/rchamon/home/sun-images-method-for-collimation-of-binoculars

I measured my Ultravid with this method and it is perfect, whereas some other glass looked pretty bad but was still very much inside the tolerances. And definitely some people are more sensitive then others.

Although I dislike 10x bins, the Noctivid 10x42 is truly phenomenal. Just started to test one. Optically and mechanically superb. Quite a l lot of CA though. Focuser oh so smooth just like EDG. Ergonomy is very ok, although the double bridge design feels a bit forced and improves nothing on the single hinge of the Ultravid. Of course they needed it for psychological reasons, to really attack the Swarovision.

I now have high hopes for the Noctivid 8x32 because ease of view in the Noctivid is superb with 4mm EP. Hopefully the 8x32 will not be a double bridge design.

Thanks for this - it's as I suspected. And thanks for the test info! :clap:
 
I just got a Zeiss 8x32 conquest hd and thought I would use it to check the collimation on my Noctivid. I mounted the Noctivid on a tripod and used the 8x32 behind the Noctivid to give a magnification of 80x. When looking at a star I can see the vertical alignment is spot on but surprisingly the horizontal alignment is of a little and I see two stars side by side. I wonder if this slight horizontal mis alignment is the secret to enhancing the 3D effect. I am Curious now if other Noctivid are this way. If other owners would be kind enough to check this I would be curious to know. I thought about sending it back to have it checked out but maybe it is supposed to be like this
 
Well I just sent my Noctivid back to Leica to have the collimation checked out. Hopefully it won’t take to long. I hate to be without them but I just want to make sure they are ok.
 
According to Leica, the diopter at infinity value is still only -4D, the same as they had 30 years ago in Trinovids.

Just incredible they cannot make it -6D or something similar to Swaro/Zeiss.
That is way more important than the close-up distance they brag about or some other variables such as brightness.

If you have myopia of -5D, you cannot use any Leica devices without corrective eyewear. Such as glasses or contact lenses and both are a pain at times. Using optics with binoculars is not fun, I prefer to take them off and then dialing in the focus all the way past infinity. Works very well with Swaro EL 8.5x42 and I don't have noticeable astigmatism so glasses gain nothing.

This is a deal breaker and just too bad, because Leica is optically excellent, even 1990's Trinovids are stunning every single time. Optically my first choice above Swaro but I haven't seen the latest-greatest models yet to compare them to. I am sure Noctivid is superior to 30 year old Trinovids but they do need to address the diopter value at infinity. Needs to be greater.
 
Last edited:
I see a pattern forming.



What isn't false is the current Leica Trinovid HD has too much ER. I have all five clicks extended & if I attempt to bring the cups to me sockets it blacks out. I should not be required to back out of fully extended cups for the view because I do not wear corrective lens.

Especially for oversaturated colour way too susceptible to chromatic aberration at a mediocre FOV for the price point. On the other hand I could deal w/everything else if Leica backed off the ER leaving the five click, or add a couple, adjustment allowing me to at least rest the bins in me normal fashion.

Leica has taken the '60s era too little ER turning it 360* which is fine if one wears glasses. Evidently Leica caters demographically to the older generation. Sadly for me as a product of the '50's I'm not optically part of the target group.


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.
 
Finally got to look through a Noctivid. Crossed paths with a birder who had a 10x42 and asked him how he likes it.
He said he compared it against the other two and liked it better. He let me take a peek for a few minutes. It was a drab dim overcast day , but I was able to get these initial impressions:

Large sweet spot (noticeable compared to my 7x42 ultravid).

Surprised with ease of view with my glasses. Very good for 10x42.

Typical beautiful Leica-esque image rendering and very sharp.

Super duper smooth focus wheel as many others have noted. It seemed very precise too which made a pleasant focusing experience. Seems quicker than ultravid.

Didn't feel like a brick as I imagined but I would think weight would get to me over time out in the field.
Weight difference (and size) apparent when going back to my UVid.

Armour is nice like UVid and fit/ergonomic feel in hands seemed fine to me.
Had a nice luxurious feel just like ultravid.

Didn't notice any CA but didn't look for it.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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