Mike F
Well-known member
I'd be interested to know why and in what way you thought the image of the 10x50 UVHD+ was better than the 10x42 NV?
-
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.
Noctivid 10x42 vs Ultravid HD+ 10x50 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mike F
- Start date
I'd be interested to know why and in what way you thought the image of the 10x50 UVHD+ was better than the 10x42 NV?
dwever
Well-known member
Probably less about better and more about personal taste.
Like the UVHD+ 7x42, Leica hit a sweet spot with the 10x50 being very bright with almost the same color signature as the 7’s, great contrast and saturated colors. The NVD in 8X42 surpasses/measures up, but for me not so much the NVD 10x42. As Globetrotter noted in 2015, the 10x50’s have amazing if not class leading resolution, sharpness, while somehow keeping the easy Leica view. Their saturation and contrast is perhaps like a 10X version of the 7x42’s. I gave the 10x50’s up due to their seemingly massive size and a hitch in the focusing mechanism in my sample, only to find myself eventually with the huge NVD 8X42’s.
I should’ve kept the 7x42 and a repaired 10x50 UVHD+, they are for me the Kodachrome of binoculars, warm and wonderful, but I succumbed to the hype of the new Noctivid buying the 8x42’s shortly after their release. I think my NVD’s are truly great, but I was probably fine where I was. I have wondered though if the UVHD+ would have held up to the subzero winters in Alaska the way the Noctivid have.
Top three modern Leica’s to me in order: 7x42 UVHD+, NVD 8x42, 10x50 UVHD+.
Attachments
Last edited:
Mike F
Well-known member
dwever, thanks for your reply. I think the highlighted part of your post would be good reason for anyone to consider the NV 10x42 over the UVHD+ 10x50, given that their optical performance must at least be close.
However, I'd still be interested in a direct detailed comparison if someone is able to give one........
dries1
Member
Massive size is a subjective opinion for the 10X50HD+, this glass is why I have so little use for 10X42s, they are the easiest/lightest premium 10X50 made today along with the EL SV 10X50. I think years ago a large objective view glass (10X50s) during the day were dim and really heavy, not with them today, the UVHD+ 10X50 always gives me the WOW with the 6.7 degree FOV. For me I would have use for NVD 8X42 not the 10X42, but this all subjective anyway.
Andy W.
Andy W.
Thanks for the detailed replies dwever and Andy,
I had the 10x50SV and didn’t have a problem with the size and weight. My primary bin will be the 7x42HD+, and the 10x will be used in the winter, and for days on the coast when I’m not carrying a scope and/or long and heavy camera lenses. The brighter image and (usually) wider field of view of the x50 over the x42 makes up for the added weight in my experience. Just looking for a companion to the 7x Leica with the same warm, contrasty and saturated view.
Good to hear of the experience of less CA in the 10x50HD+. Now, I just need to find one to test (particularly for the eye relief with glasses). The 10x50 specs show 2mm less eye relief than on my 7x, but I pull those out one click stop for my glasses, so hopefully the 10x50 will work.
Rob
I had the 10x50SV and didn’t have a problem with the size and weight. My primary bin will be the 7x42HD+, and the 10x will be used in the winter, and for days on the coast when I’m not carrying a scope and/or long and heavy camera lenses. The brighter image and (usually) wider field of view of the x50 over the x42 makes up for the added weight in my experience. Just looking for a companion to the 7x Leica with the same warm, contrasty and saturated view.
Good to hear of the experience of less CA in the 10x50HD+. Now, I just need to find one to test (particularly for the eye relief with glasses). The 10x50 specs show 2mm less eye relief than on my 7x, but I pull those out one click stop for my glasses, so hopefully the 10x50 will work.
Rob
Last edited:
Rob,
Based on what you say above the 10 may work with your glasses and anatomy. For me the 7x42 HD+ has an acceptable FOV when using glasses with eye cups fully down. But the 10 loses too much FOV with glasses, maybe as much as 30%.
Hope the 10s work out for you.
Mike
Based on what you say above the 10 may work with your glasses and anatomy. For me the 7x42 HD+ has an acceptable FOV when using glasses with eye cups fully down. But the 10 loses too much FOV with glasses, maybe as much as 30%.
Hope the 10s work out for you.
Mike
Mike F
Well-known member
Rob, I have the 7x42 UVHD+ and compliment them with the 10x42 NV. Each to his own, and this is only a matter of passing interest to me, but I wonder whether the the 10x50 UVHD+ would really give you any advantage over the 10x42 NV.
As I've said, I would love someone with both, or at least first hand experience of both, to give me their opinion of a direct comparison, but on the points you mention I really wonder if you (or I) would notice a difference in brightness, or experience a wider field of view on the 10x50 vs the 10x42?
The difference in brightness between a 50 and 42 is pretty hard to notice in all but the most extreme lighting conditions anyway, but given the greater transmission due to the new optical design and better coatings of the NV, I would have thought that the difference is negligible. As regards the FOV, it's 117m on the 10x50 UV+ compared to 112m on the 10x42 NV, which isn't that much. Additionally, it's been noted here many times that a larger 'sweet spot' (or flatter field) gives the impression of a larger FOV, so again, I would have though that any advantage on paper to the UV+ would be negated.
The weight difference, however, is 1000g compared to 860g!
As I say, I have no axe to grind and I'd love to hear some first hand reports (I'd certainly add a UVHD+ 10x50 to my bin drawer if I could find some justification!
), but these are my reservations.PS the NV has less CA generally that the UVHD+ range as I understand, and the eye relief is 19mm on the 10x42!
dries1
Member
Mike,
Some like the UV HD+ 10X50 as I do. It seems that you are trying to rationalize that the Noctivid is better, and it likely is better FOR YOU, however some who are comfortable with a bit more weight prefer a premium 10X50 for the views it provides for THEM. There is not one better than the other here, they are both premium glass.
Andy W.
Some like the UV HD+ 10X50 as I do. It seems that you are trying to rationalize that the Noctivid is better, and it likely is better FOR YOU, however some who are comfortable with a bit more weight prefer a premium 10X50 for the views it provides for THEM. There is not one better than the other here, they are both premium glass.
Andy W.
Mike F
Well-known member
I appreciate that Andy. However, although I do own the NV I’m not trying to rationalise that it’s better, I would just like to hear some first-hand opinions and experiences of the objective differences between it and the 10x50 UV+ in order, if anything, to rationalise owning both!
I understand the fact though that ultimately they are both excellent but different. I’m just trying not to cross that line (without good justification) of having ‘more than one of the same’, because I fear it’s a dreadfully slippery and excessively expensive slope! (So to that extent you’re right 8-P)
Last edited:
Mike,
Good points all. When I compared the 10x42SV to the 10x50SV, the 10x50 won hands down. I can only describe it as a more immersive view. I THINK it was due to the wider FOV and brighter image (although, I would agree, in sunny daylight the difference is not really detectable).
Now, I know the NV and UV+ are different from the SV, so I can’t conclude that the same results will hold for the Leicas.
But, if the 10x50UV+ shows WORSE CA than the 10x42NV, then it won’t work for me. I did induce CA in my quick test of the NV on a bright overcast day. And in a 10x bin I do think the FOV difference of 353’ vs. 336’ to be noticeable. I’m a sucker for wider views (although I do think you make a good point about the larger sweet spot of the NV).
However, the only thing that could make my 7x42UV+ better would be for it to have the FOV of the 7x42FL, but it’s not enough of a knock against it to make me reject it.
AND, I didn’t like the handling of the NV after using the UV+ for so long (although I’d probably get used to it).
The best thing is for me to get my hands on BOTH the 10x42NV and the 10x50UV+ at the same time to test the CA and compare the handling.
Great comments from everyone!
Good points all. When I compared the 10x42SV to the 10x50SV, the 10x50 won hands down. I can only describe it as a more immersive view. I THINK it was due to the wider FOV and brighter image (although, I would agree, in sunny daylight the difference is not really detectable).
Now, I know the NV and UV+ are different from the SV, so I can’t conclude that the same results will hold for the Leicas.
But, if the 10x50UV+ shows WORSE CA than the 10x42NV, then it won’t work for me. I did induce CA in my quick test of the NV on a bright overcast day. And in a 10x bin I do think the FOV difference of 353’ vs. 336’ to be noticeable. I’m a sucker for wider views (although I do think you make a good point about the larger sweet spot of the NV).
However, the only thing that could make my 7x42UV+ better would be for it to have the FOV of the 7x42FL, but it’s not enough of a knock against it to make me reject it.
AND, I didn’t like the handling of the NV after using the UV+ for so long (although I’d probably get used to it).
The best thing is for me to get my hands on BOTH the 10x42NV and the 10x50UV+ at the same time to test the CA and compare the handling.
Great comments from everyone!
NDhunter
Experienced observer
With these 2 Leica models and sizes, you are comparing apples to oranges, and that is true with
any top optics. Comparing a 42 with a 50 is much different. Now throw in 32 mm binoculars.
So that means don't try to choose which is best on here, that is left to the eyes of the beholder.
Jerry
any top optics. Comparing a 42 with a 50 is much different. Now throw in 32 mm binoculars.
So that means don't try to choose which is best on here, that is left to the eyes of the beholder.
Jerry
Very true Jerry,
Back to my original question that I need to answer for myself, is the CA control better on the 10x50UV+ vs. the 10x42NV. That’s the only question I really have. And yes, the only way to know for sure is for me to do a side by side comparison through MY eyes.
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
I've read with interest all through these posts about the 42 / 50 choice and those words 'Kodachrome of binoculars' would be all I needed to read to make a choice, if it were me choosing!
Come to think of it I used to shoot Kodachrome in a Leica M6 and that combination was really exciting. Often the pictures felt better than actual subject matter itself.
Tom
GLOBETROTTER
Well-known member
Time ago i had the 10x50 HD plus and compared with the SV 10X42.
The Leica was better showing the landscape with a nice separation between the fore and background and birds stand out and the view was more realistic than SV view doe to its extreme flat field correction.
But the leica was worse in clarity and transparency of view, more glass influence in the view and some times too much reddish cast in some circumstances was noticed.
The NV in in a new league on it own up there in clarity and cristal clear view like the best of SV with more 3D and plane separation.
They should keep the actual trinoids as entry level and keep only the Noctivid as top of the line, Ultravids are basically same optical design of first trinoids from 90, they just change aluminium for magnesium in the body and improve coatings that's all.
The Leica was better showing the landscape with a nice separation between the fore and background and birds stand out and the view was more realistic than SV view doe to its extreme flat field correction.
But the leica was worse in clarity and transparency of view, more glass influence in the view and some times too much reddish cast in some circumstances was noticed.
The NV in in a new league on it own up there in clarity and cristal clear view like the best of SV with more 3D and plane separation.
They should keep the actual trinoids as entry level and keep only the Noctivid as top of the line, Ultravids are basically same optical design of first trinoids from 90, they just change aluminium for magnesium in the body and improve coatings that's all.
Mike F
Well-known member
Andy, I understand where you're coming from, but have you compared the 10x50 UVHD+ and 10x42 NV? If not then surely you can't say what your eyes will see. The NV is a different optical design to the UV. You may well still prefer the UV 10x50, but to assume that you will based on the fact that the NV is a 42 seems, with respect, erroneous to me.
dries1
Member
I have over 50 bins, I have tried them, and I prefer the 50mm aperture, that is just me. Not to knock the Noctivid 10X owners, but to my eyes I prefer the 10X50 EL SV, UVHD+, FL 10X56, and the SLC 10X56. I have the EDG, FL, HG, SE and Leica (2012-2015) in 10X42, they will suffice.
Just to add, the optics in the SF 10X42 are IMHO the best in a 10x42, I have tried that one also, but ergonomically not for me.
Andy W.
Just to add, the optics in the SF 10X42 are IMHO the best in a 10x42, I have tried that one also, but ergonomically not for me.
Andy W.
Last edited:
Mike F
Well-known member
Andy, thanks for the response, and as I said before, I understand where you're coming from. I agree that there is something special about 50mm objectives, I'm just not sure that they are inherently better than a 42mm (with a different optical design). BTW I have the 2012-2015 (I presume you mean Trinovid) but in 8x, and I have to say that the difference between that and the NV is significant. However, I respect your obviously very experienced opinion.
All the best,
Michael.
All the best,
Michael.
dries1
Member
Mike,
I just do not use the 10X42 format much, I am sure the Noctivid is better than the Trinovid 40009, it is afterall a premium glass, not mid range. The EDG is still a great 10X42 (great edge sharpness along with the EL SV) as is the FL as a great all around glass ,so while I have these in 10X42, I still spend more time behind the 10X50s, it is a matter of choice. I am glad the Noctivid is good for you, but I will always enjoy a premium 10X50 more.
Andy W.
I just do not use the 10X42 format much, I am sure the Noctivid is better than the Trinovid 40009, it is afterall a premium glass, not mid range. The EDG is still a great 10X42 (great edge sharpness along with the EL SV) as is the FL as a great all around glass ,so while I have these in 10X42, I still spend more time behind the 10X50s, it is a matter of choice. I am glad the Noctivid is good for you, but I will always enjoy a premium 10X50 more.
Andy W.
Mike F
Well-known member
Andy, I was just reading through the last few posts again. Would you mind just clarifying this for me please? When I read it initially I took it to mean that you had directly compared the 10x42 NV with your other bins (including the 10x50 UV) but now I'm not sure if that's what you meant.
Sorry to press you on this. It's really no big deal to me, and I don't feel in any way that you're 'knocking 10x NV owners' as you put it. I'm just thinking of adding a 10x50 UVHD+ for the sake of having another lovely classic Leica(!) and I'm interested in the informed opinion of others who either have both or have compared them directly. I know at this level there is no objective 'better' or 'best' and that utimately I will have to compare them myself to know if I can justify having both, but hey, what are internet forums for........? B
Michael.
