• 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.

What is the Noctivid about? (1 Viewer)

Anything magical about the contrast? That was _big news_ to me, if real. It is the thing that most bins do rather poorly relative to other aspects of their performance, and it is of great practical consequence.

--AP

Magical about the contrast? Perhaps such verbiage, if it ever was uttered, was the post partum euphoria of a new owner. ;-)

If there was such a gross difference between binoculars at that level, don't you imagine it would be obvious to many? (including Leica, Zeiss, and Swarovski)

-Bill
 
If there was such a gross difference between binoculars at that level, don't you imagine it would be obvious to many? (including Leica, Zeiss, and Swarovski)

-Bill


This is an absolutely brilliant (and honest) analogy. Thanks Bill.
 
The design specs that induce rolling ball in some viewers are known. Perhaps that is what you mean by "it is not a subjective phenomenon", but perhaps not. The experience of rolling ball _is_ subjective. Some people experience it and are bothered. Some people experience it yet are not bothered. But many users simply do not experience it. A good number of users experience it initially but then stop experiencing it (and do not experience it again, even on a different day) as their brain learns to adjust perception to the sensory input (Like when adjusting to a new eyeglasses prescription).

--AP

Alexis, I did wonder whether I was being totally clear with what I said. I did indeed mean exactly what you wrote in your first sentence! I also understand that the way a user experiences rolling ball, as with anything else, is subjective. Personally I wish I could live with it because as it is I cannot tolerate it and therefore any binocular with a true flat field.
 
...I wish I could live with it because as it is I cannot tolerate it and therefore any binocular with a true flat field.

Ah, but how to prevent the rolling ball illusion and still have a flat field is also a known design criterion, and there are several examples, including Canon 10x42 L IS that do this successfully for most users.

--AP
 
Ah, but how to prevent the rolling ball illusion and still have a flat field is also a known design criterion, and there are several examples, including Canon 10x42 L IS that do this successfully for most users.

--AP

Thanks Alexis, that’s good to know, but how does that Canon compare to the Leica Swarovski and Zeiss alpha bins?
 
Ah, but how to prevent the rolling ball illusion and still have a flat field is also a known design criterion, and there are several examples, including Canon 10x42 L IS that do this successfully for most users.

--AP

A prime example of this for me is the Nikon EDG.
 
OK, yes, practically speaking a large part of the Noctivid's purpose is competition with (or imitation of) other brands, notably Swaro, not just their own UV line. But I'm interested in what the NV actually delivers.

Tenex, speaking subjectively, while other binoculars surpass in various objective measurements, for me currently no binocular delivers a more emotionally satisfying optical experience than the HD+ 10x50.
...Another area of possible improvement -- increasing the AFOV in some models without excessive compromise in other areas if possible. Example, the now discontinued EDG 7x42 is IMO an outstanding binocular except it has a relatively narrow AFOV, while the HD+ 7x42, closely comparable in most respects, has a better AFOV (but less eye relief which may be the trade off).Mike
From my experience, a lot of the binoculars I've tried do not fit me, due to ER and IPD accommodation, so I'm always interested when I can find one that does. I was lucky with the Noctivid. The 10x 42's combination of eye relief and AFOV gives me one of the most immersive views I've had to date.
Regarding longer ER, without any doubt that's a welcome change for those of us wearing glasses, but for the rest of us the long ER might lead to blackouts----for me the blackout issue, especially of the NV 8x42, was a deal breaker.
This sense of immersion matters a lot to some people, including me. Somehow I've never seen the 50mm UVs, and should try them. I'll also keep it in mind next time I have a chance to try the NV. My own general impression is that the more manufacturers increase ER for spectacle wearers -- we're up to 20mm now, how much could be considered enough? -- the less AFOV there seems to be to enjoy, and the more often I find eyecup depth inadequate. (Is this what Peter meant by blackouts?) Field flatteners also seem to decrease AFOV, independently, so AFOV is taking a double hit lately. (Technical corrections or explanations welcome here.)
 
Disclaimer: I've never used a BA/BN and have very limited experience with the HD+ so most of my remarks are in comparison/contrast to the other two top alphas. I've tried a 10x42 owned by a birding acquaintance and a couple of 8x42 demos, and found both excellent, very much in the same ball park as the SF and SV. At that level they are all, frankly, outstanding, but as others have observed, each of the three designs has its own strong point - wide field of view for the SF and sharpness to the edge for the SV. The Noctivid's great quality to me is the beauty of its image (very subjective I know) - I just love the way in which brighter colours stand out. Presumably Leica's background in photography leans them towards more saturated colours. The sweet spot is large and the baffling/stray light control excellent, although from what I gather that was a strongpoint of the old BA/BN series too.

I've often thought that I would probably choose one of the other two alphas myself, as they better suit the birding I do, but if I knew I'd be seeing something of great beauty - some exotic pheasant or sunbird perhaps, or even something like a spectacular sunset - and had the choice of the three to view it with, I would, with very little hesitation, first pick up the Noctivid.
 
So I was about to restate two so far unanswered questions:
* I asked, does the NV have a larger sweet spot than the UV?
* Alexis asked, does it have higher contrast?

Patudo just mentioned a "large sweet spot", suggesting perhaps yes to the first? And also "brighter/saturated colors", which could suggest higher contrast?
 
This sense of immersion matters a lot to some people, including me. Somehow I've never seen the 50mm UVs, and should try them. I'll also keep it in mind next time I have a chance to try the NV. My own general impression is that the more manufacturers increase ER for spectacle wearers -- we're up to 20mm now, how much could be considered enough? -- the less AFOV there seems to be to enjoy, and the more often I find eyecup depth inadequate. (Is this what Peter meant by blackouts?) Field flatteners also seem to decrease AFOV, independently, so AFOV is taking a double hit lately. (Technical corrections or explanations welcome here.)

Tenex,
Interesting observations.
I went through a list of binoculars, where I can see the entire field with my glasses on, and checked their afov using this online calculator:
https://astronomy.tools/calculators/binoculars
I used the ISO standard method.

As might be expected, the LESS IMMERSIVE ones have a smaller AFOV:
Vanguard Endeavor ED II 8x42 53.31° AFOV
Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42 54°
Leica Ultravid BR 7x42 52°
Leica Trinovid HD 8x32 52.6

in other words, more of a 'pipe' style of view, however beguiling it might be.

The MOST IMMERSIVE ones have the largest AFOV:
Swaro EL WB 8x32 58.6
Leica Noctivid 10x42 58
Zeiss Victory SF 8x42 61

Eye relief on these vary between 17 (Trinovid HD) to 20 (Swaro EL)
The correlation between eye relief and its impact on FOV isn't quite
apparent to me yet, as one of the wider true fields (8x32 Swaro) also has the most eye relief. Also the Victory SF has the widest true field, a flat field, and the widest AFOV of all the ones listed, plus 18mm of ER..

Perceptually 'narrow' AFOV, for me, lies below 54°, and immersive is
happening at 58° and beyond.

Granted, immersion is another subjective impression, characterized by me as the widest possible view I can see, where the field stop is still visible, yet it is close to the periphery of my vision.

So, I'm not convinced that long eye relief is necessarily to blame for impacting true field or apparent field of view, at least within the range of binoculars I listed. It may require more complex, and heavier, eye piece designs though.

-Bill
 
Last edited:
Leica seems to have a solid lock with 3rd place in the so-called European alpha sports optics category.

They will remain there, no real reason to go any farther, they don't have the ability or desire.

Jerry
 
Significantly the NVD upped the game with industrial design and build quality, the value of which may not be fully appreciated. The durability and construction of the focusing seems greatly improved in the NVD as I previously had two focusing issues with two UVHD+. During my days in state law enforcement my first pair of Steiner’s literally came apart from daily use while a subsequent pair of regularly dashboard dropped Zeiss Marines were virtually indestructible that optically somehow remain in just about original condition.

The 7X42 UVHD+ and Zeiss Victory HD 8X42’s were the most pleasing images I have come across in any alphas, with the 7X42 UVHD+ nudging the win with it’s Kodachrome leaning colors; and the NVD 8X42 at least matches that 7x UVHD+ while besting it in clarity and contrast.

To me up here where the NVD’s live on the passenger side floor of a work SUV often in arctic weather, I think this has been a total package and worth the extra coin, and the NVD’s are in a space other alphas might struggle to occupy.

I somewhat recently picked up Zeiss Victory Ranging bins, which are HD’s with electronics, and they are excellent, but not as robust as the NVD’s with or without the electronics.

NVD’s left pic w/dog in January 2018, Alaska, far right pic around 2016 or 17 when I was comparing the NVD’s with the UVHD+
 

Attachments

  • 642DFD3C-E493-4335-9246-DF6F67EF1CB8.jpeg
    642DFD3C-E493-4335-9246-DF6F67EF1CB8.jpeg
    263.1 KB · Views: 142
  • FD30EA22-0AD0-44EC-B5F7-7932BBD2B9A2.jpg
    FD30EA22-0AD0-44EC-B5F7-7932BBD2B9A2.jpg
    100.2 KB · Views: 117
  • CE5FD655-A657-48A7-B462-F9A5656C8D8B.jpeg
    CE5FD655-A657-48A7-B462-F9A5656C8D8B.jpeg
    409.4 KB · Views: 158
Last edited:
Significantly the NVD upped the game with industrial design and build quality, the value of which may not be fully appreciated. The durability and construction of the focusing seems greatly improved in the NVD as I previously had two focusing issues with two UVHD+. During my days in state law enforcement my first pair of Steiner’s literally came apart from daily use while a subsequent pair of regularly dashboard dropped Zeiss Marines were virtually indestructible that optically somehow remain in just about original condition.

The 7X42 UVHD+ and Zeiss Victory HD 8X42’s were the most pleasing images I have come across in any alphas, with the 7X42 UVHD+ nudging the win with it’s Kodachrome leaning colors; and the NVD 8X42 at least matches that 7x UVHD+ while besting it in clarity.

To me up here where the NVD’s live on the passenger side floor of a work SUV, I think this has been a total package and worth the extra coin, and the NVD’s are in a space other alphas like Zeiss SF’s could not occupy.

I somewhat recently picked up Zeiss Victory Ranging bins, which are HD’s with electronics, and they are excellent, but not as robust as the NVD’s with or without the electronics.

Thanks for sharing a body of real world experience. Good read and information.

-Bill
 
Last edited:
So yesterday I went birding practically all day. Planned on looking for returning migrants for the day but got a notice of a couple of phalaropes about 35 miles from here so of course I had to go. I did use the NV 8X42 mostly and the Silverline 8X42.

So I was about to restate two so far unanswered questions:
* I asked, does the NV have a larger sweet spot than the UV?
* Alexis asked, does it have higher contrast?

Patudo just mentioned a "large sweet spot", suggesting perhaps yes to the first? And also "brighter/saturated colors", which could suggest higher contrast?

I asked, does the NV have a larger sweet spot than the UV?

I would say SLIGHTLY. Probably the amount of the increased FOV. Neither of which rolls off as fast as an HT/FL.

Alexis asked, does it have higher contrast?

If we are talking about higher than an UV, I'd prob have to say yes. I went birding practically all day yesterday and used the NV and Silverline(BR) back to back. To be clear the Silverline is basically an UV, not a UVHD+. Contrast is one area I believe I could see a difference. I compared several times, pretty sure I could see a difference.

For sure there is little difference in the anti-reflection coatings...

For certain I'd be happy if I cleared out all my binoculars but Leica's. I wouldn't feel like I was showing up with anything less than the best. I'd want to keep the SV 8X32 and 12X50 but the rest...I wouldn't have any issue with that whatsoever.
 

Attachments

  • fullsizeoutput_e79.jpeg
    fullsizeoutput_e79.jpeg
    68 KB · Views: 150
  • fullsizeoutput_13b6.jpeg
    fullsizeoutput_13b6.jpeg
    80.8 KB · Views: 104
I went through a list of binoculars, where I can see the entire field with my glasses on, and checked their afov using this online calculator:
https://astronomy.tools/calculators/binoculars
I used the ISO standard method...
The correlation between eye relief and its impact on FOV isn't quite apparent to me yet...
Of course that formula assumes that AFOV is only a function of magnification and true field, denying that ER matters in principle! And you're only listing binos with 17-20mm ER that work well with your eyeglasses, which isn't much of a range, whereas my impression has always been that those with 13-15mm ER (like my UVHD+ 10x32) tend to give me a more immersive experience. So can someone answer this question of the effect of ER on AFOV? I don't see how to measure my subjective impression of it.
 
Of course that formula assumes that AFOV is only a function of magnification and true field, denying that ER matters in principle! And you're only listing binos with 17-20mm ER that work well with your eyeglasses, which isn't much of a range, whereas my impression has always been that those with 13-15mm ER (like my UVHD+ 10x32) tend to give me a more immersive experience. So can someone answer this question of the effect of ER on AFOV? I don't see how to measure my subjective impression of it.

I agree that eye relief matters in principle, especially now that you point it out. ;)

I was trying to show that a selection of binoculars with long ER could also have a wide AFOV, which I think missed your point.

If you're getting blackouts when you're too close to the eyepiece, and have to back away BECAUSE of long ER, then I expect the entire image perceptually begins to shrink. Is that your experience?

If so, I can see how that could become objectionable.

-Bill
 
Bill, the blackouts you describe are the problem I have when eyecups aren't deep enough for the ER, but not the immersion issue I'm trying to understand.

The problem may be that "AFOV" seems to be defined by the equation in question, which only involves magnification and RFOV. Whereas my impression of immersion, how much of my visual field the view occupies vs the black space around it, seems to depend also on other aspects of eyepiece design like ER and field flatteners. I've even read that the ISO formula for AFOV gives a more accurate (and smaller) result for flat-field binos whereas the simple approximation is appropriate for conventional curved fields, which seems to suggest that FF does make a difference to AFOV.

I keep having this confusion in threads where I try to describe these effects on "AFOV", but should perhaps be using another term instead. What should one call this perceived width of the view... "PFOV"? To me then, the PFOV seems to be reduced both by excessive ER and by field flatteners, producing more of a tunnel impression. Am I mistaken somehow, or is there a good explanation for this?
.
 
Last edited:
I keep having this confusion in threads where I try to describe these effects on "AFOV", but should perhaps be using another term instead. What should one call this perceived width of the view... "PFOV"? To me then, the PFOV seems to be reduced both by excessive ER and by field flatteners, producing more of a tunnel impression. Am I mistaken somehow, or is there a good explanation for this?
.

Sounds like a question worthy of a separate thread. Maybe some of the more scientifically inclined will offer their perceptions on the issue.

-Bill
 
Bill, the blackouts you describe are the problem I have when eyecups aren't deep enough for the ER, but not the immersion issue I'm trying to understand.

The problem may be that "AFOV" seems to be defined by the equation in question, which only involves magnification and RFOV. Whereas my impression of immersion, how much of my visual field the view occupies vs the black space around it, seems to depend also on other aspects of eyepiece design like ER and field flatteners. I've even read that the ISO formula for AFOV gives a more accurate (and smaller) result for flat-field binos whereas the simple approximation is appropriate for conventional curved fields, which seems to suggest that FF does make a difference to AFOV.

I keep having this confusion in threads where I try to describe these effects on "AFOV", but should perhaps be using another term instead. What should one call this perceived width of the view... "PFOV"? To me then, the PFOV seems to be reduced both by excessive ER and by field flatteners, producing more of a tunnel impression. Am I mistaken somehow, or is there a good explanation for this?
.

That is probably true, eye relief should be sufficient for the individual observer, not too much nor too little.

Personally I prefer to use bins with the eye cups down even without glasses. The "starring into a black tube" effect seems less that way. But I guess that might not work for all with any bin.

Also too much AFOV (in combination with too short (effective) ER) might be problematic for some (with glasses). To me it was quite apparent with the new Zeiss Harpia scope, ver large AFOV and FOV but I couldn't see much of the latter, even though the ER is stated to around 18mm I think.

I guess eye pieces are more down to personal preferences and eye/cranial features than you might think at first. One does not fit all.

That's why my recommendation always is try before buy.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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