• 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.

CA On The Noctivid (1 Viewer)

This endless musing on the merits of various instruments and their closeness to optical perfection is very entertaining - and often interesting - to read, and several posters have hit the nail on the head when they say that its all very subjective and personal. What I fail to understand is how the more critical contributors to this forum manage to enjoy their birding when they appear to be spending far more time picking fault with or otherwise critiquing their binoculars than they do actually birding with them!?

RB

Its an understandable concern. I use to have similar thoughts about Hi-Fi enthusiasts (Audiophiles if it makes them feel more credible) who worried about the quality of their 240v mains supply and if the pure copper conducter that ultimately joined hands with whatever came in from the street was responsible for a perceived compromised tone from Larry Coryell's "Barefoot Boy" album.

LGM
 
Its an understandable concern. I use to have similar thoughts about Hi-Fi enthusiasts (Audiophiles if it makes them feel more credible) who worried about the quality of their 240v mains supply and if the pure copper conducter that ultimately joined hands with whatever came in from the street was responsible for a perceived compromised tone from Larry Coryell's "Barefoot Boy" album.

LGM

I'm an audio nut as well and I was thinking the same thing. Guys obsessing over $2,000 interconnects.
 
I'm a Hi-Fi enthusiast as well! Is there some connection between being an audiophile and a bino nut? I think so - the pursuit of a level of quality that is only appreciated by the most demanding and discerning!

There's probably a clinic somewhere for people like us! :-O
 
I'm a Hi-Fi enthusiast as well! Is there some connection between being an audiophile and a bino nut? I think so - the pursuit of a level of quality that is only appreciated by the most demanding and discerning!

There's probably a clinic somewhere for people like us! :-O

I'm a music nut and a birding nut. To that end I have good binoculars and good audio equipment, and enjoy discussion of music, birds, binoculars, and stereos. But I think "audiophiles" as encountered on audiogon and other audio forums are at a whole different level compared to optics geeks. I've not yet seen anyone claiming that their binocular straps, rainguards, lens cleaning solution, or the like, provides a more crystalline view or more airy detail... Said about 1/2 in jest :)
 
...I've not yet seen anyone claiming that their binocular straps, rainguards, lens cleaning solution, or the like, provides a more crystalline view or more airy detail... Said about 1/2 in jest :)

Glad you say only 1/2 in jest, because when it comes to lens cleaning fluid, I've seen some extraordinary claims about the merits of ROR (which I find to be an excellent product, but not a game changer for lens transmission efficiency).

--AP
 
I hope the OP has gleaned a useful answer from this thread.

It has been interesting. I knew the question would potentially bring a lot of discussion. Because of my concerns about CA (and my own sensitivity to it), I ended up trying out the Swaro EL and Zeiss SF in a local store. Ended up getting the Zeiss 10x42 SF and I am loving it. The EL, for me, had way too much RB effect. The Zeiss, on the other hand, had RB, but just enough that I didn't really notice it, but got the great improvement in FOV. A nice fit for my eyes.
 
Congratulations to your new Zeiss SF!
Evidently, the degree of CA on the Noctivid was not acceptable for you?

I wonder whether there aren't feasible methods for OBJECTIVELY evaluating chromatic aberrations on binoculars, as there are clear-cut methods for determining image resolution or light transmission?
 
Last edited:
Congratulations to your new Zeiss SF!
Evidently, the degree of CA on the Noctivid was not acceptable for you?

I wonder whether there aren't feasible methods for OBJECTIVELY evaluating chromatic aberrations on binoculars, as there are clear-cut methods for determining image resolution or light transmission?

Yes. :cat:

Bill
 
We certainly do, and its a sad fact that anyone outside the clique who puts forward an opinion which goes against the grain, it is either decried or ignored!

RB

I cannot honestly say I've seen that in this particular sub-forum (although I guess it does happen in others - some of the "discussions" in the bird ID forum are almost beyond belief).

Patudo. Nice answer. On the Noctivid you say it delivers the most "attractive image" in a traditional way. What do you mean by attractive? Is it because you prefer the color bias of the Noctivid or something else.

Good question Denco. I think typo's post 108 sums it up really well. For me I think part of the attractiveness of the Noctivid was its colour rendition (to me - I know this is subjective)./ As I've mentioned before I like quite strong colour saturation in photographs and think it helps compensate for the way that distance (and often grey UK conditions) leach out colours. Leica seem to do this very well. The colours the Noctivid showed me were rich and well defined. Add to that a good sized sweet spot and alpha quality sharpness and brightness and the result is a really nice image - to me at least. I had also come to the Leica stand after looking through a couple of large objective binoculars - the 8x54 and 10x54 HT and the 8x56 SLC (which you used to own), the latter of which was simply outstanding. The Noctivid 8x42 wasn't quite able to match that class of binocular (to me anyway) but its image seemed closer to theirs than the other x42 alphas, although I can't begin to explain why.

Field of view, sharpness and brightness are more important in my birding than the beauty of the image - I am normally looking for tiny black silhouettes against the open sky - so something like the Zeiss SF would be more useful to me. But if I could pick up any of the three top alphas just to drink in the beauty of some sensationally colourful bird like a tragopan, red-and-green macaw, bird of paradise or something like that, or even just the multiple shades of yellow and orange to lilac and purple of a spectacular sunset sky, I'd go for the Noctivid.

Yes, I feel the same way about my Zeiss 8x32 FL. It works for me and still works for me after thirteen years.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

Mr Pinewood - I've recently had the pleasure of using one of your other favourites, the Binuxit. The one I have must be more than 50 years old and still has the capability to impress me full stop, let alone considering its age.
 
Last edited:
Congratulations to your new Zeiss SF!
Evidently, the degree of CA on the Noctivid was not acceptable for you?

I wonder whether there aren't feasible methods for OBJECTIVELY evaluating chromatic aberrations on binoculars, as there are clear-cut methods for determining image resolution or light transmission?

If you search the forum, you will find that Henry Link has presented objective testing of several binoculars for CA. Personally, I'd love to see Henry test the latest and greatest using his established methods.
 
Evidently, the degree of CA on the Noctivid was not acceptable for you?

I wonder whether there aren't feasible methods for OBJECTIVELY evaluating chromatic aberrations on binoculars, as there are clear-cut methods for determining image resolution or light transmission?

I first looked through a Noctivid in a Leica store under very unchallenging conditions, and the view was phenomenal, compared to a pair of Celestron Trailseekers (one would hope so--although these bins are pretty good when they are working correctly). Reading the marketing material about them and some comments on this forum, they seemed like a good pick for me, because I am very interested in a pleasant image, and it seemed like Leica had prioritized this in their lens design.

I can't explain it, but I've seen in action--certain lenses just create appealing images straight out of the camera. These lenses fetch a high dollar for this characteristic. Examples of this I've come across in photography: Pick any of the L-class primes in Canon's line up--the 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and some extent even the 135mm macro. They all have certain characteristics about them, and it has something to do with the whole package, rather than some particular optical measurement. Anyways, being interested in image aesthetics as much or even more than a slight edge on bird ID, I was fairly confident I would enjoy the Leicas greatly if I could convince myself that CA was not an issue.

While I was not able to directly compare the Leica NVs to the other 'alpha glass,' I was able to try some Maven binoculars, which came very highly recommended, I immediately noticed some CA in those. I also bought a pair of Zeiss Terra 8x25 during the EO sale, which had a splendid image to my eyes, given their size and price, and came to the following conclusions:

- I notice CA very easily, and it is highly distracting to me.
- Some CA I was noticing may be due to imperfect placement of the binoculars.

After that, I did some research, and it became pretty clear to be that the Leicas objectively have a relatively high amount of CA compared to most other high quality binoculars. This is a measurable phenomenon, and one I would notice. I decided that this would be a shortcoming I'd have to deal with if I bought these bins, and decided to try the Zeiss an Swaro in a store to see what I thought of them--particularly what I thought of any color cast or rollerball effects. After all, presence of RB comes at a trade off--more RB, more FOV.

The store I went to had both the Zeiss 10x42 and the famous 8.5x42 Swaros. I looked through them both and I was quite simply stunned by the Zeiss view. Comparatively, the Swaros made my dizzy with RB (and my wife too). Pair that with:
- My good experience with the smaller Zeiss bins,
- This binocular's good reputation for CA control,
- Wide FOV and a natural-feeling amount of RB (distortion),
- Very nice balance and weight, compared to even the Swaros, and
- No problems with color cast that I could notice.

I decided to just stop hemming and hawing and buy that copy right in the store. Haven't regretted it, and don't plan to.
 
I decided to just stop hemming and hawing and buy that copy right in the store. Haven't regretted it, and don't plan to.

Good for you! Buying a pair that you've actually tried is the best thing to do by all accounts.

Now, just DON'T try a Noctivid! 8-P
 
Noctivid's high colour saturation:

I wonder how can a “passive” optical system (without amplifying electronics involved) INCREASE colour saturation? I could imagine the opposite, that an optical system may DECREASE colour saturation. Am I wrong?

To my eyes the view through a Zeiss SF, for example, looks a little less colour saturated than real life.

I agree with this and it's the only reason I didn't want to own one, everything else about it is delightful. But for that money the image must be top class.
 
I agree with that.

But when I compare the “overall” colour saturation (not the individual colour cast) of each binocular TO REAL LIFE, the overall/absolute colour saturation of the Noctivid appears similar to what I see with my naked eyes. The Zeiss SF appears less saturated THAN REAL LIFE; the Swarovision - to my eyes - is somewhere in between.

So I don't think that Noctivid's colours are OVER-saturated, as some say.

I agree with this, in particular the SF being a bit duller (contrast and colour) than real life compared to other alphas.
 
I agree with this and it's the only reason I didn't want to own one, everything else about it is delightful. But for that money the image must be top class.
I think Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss all have “top class” images, it’s just a matter of taste and which one tickles your fancy. I’ve spent considerable time with all three, I thought I do notice CA In certain situations, the sublime Leica image offsets that , to me, minor flaw. Regarding Swarovski, believe it or not, I think their 7x21 Curio has their best image. Crazy.
 
Today was my first chance to have a really thorough look through a Leica Noctivid, both 8x and 10x. I was again immediately impressed by the colour rendition, the contrast, the centre sharpness and the ability to ‘look into shadows’ and see shapes, relationships and textures better than most other optics (maybe not the Zeiss HTs). It is also beautifully built.

However….. I have ~-2.5 optical prescription and it seems that the Noctivid is another design (like the SW SLC and NL) that hardly provides enough focus leeway for me to get to infinity without glasses. So this means I may not be able to look at the stars with the naked eye – only wearing glasses – and working at long distances will have me almost right up against the focus end stop.

The other problem is well-known; CA. I found that the CA can be eliminated (or at least reduced to a similar level to other alpha optics) by very precise eye positioning. However, this makes them very fussy to operate and I think this would become an annoyance in actual use. And if one does not position the eye very carefully the CA will undoubtedly make an appearance even in the centre with very thin lime green and magenta lines. What a shame! The image is so nice otherwise.
 
I have a 10x42 Noctivid...I am not bothered by any CA.... as a sidetone and I know that some of you don't like this guy, but ....click to this link. I happen to really appreciate his reviews, Jim

 
Today was my first chance to have a really thorough look through a Leica Noctivid, both 8x and 10x. I was again immediately impressed by the colour rendition, the contrast, the centre sharpness and the ability to ‘look into shadows’ and see shapes, relationships and textures better than most other optics (maybe not the Zeiss HTs). It is also beautifully built.

However….. I have ~-2.5 optical prescription and it seems that the Noctivid is another design (like the SW SLC and NL) that hardly provides enough focus leeway for me to get to infinity without glasses. So this means I may not be able to look at the stars with the naked eye – only wearing glasses – and working at long distances will have me almost right up against the focus end stop.

The other problem is well-known; CA. I found that the CA can be eliminated (or at least reduced to a similar level to other alpha optics) by very precise eye positioning. However, this makes them very fussy to operate and I think this would become an annoyance in actual use. And if one does not position the eye very carefully the CA will undoubtedly make an appearance even in the centre with very thin lime green and magenta lines. What a shame! The image is so nice otherwise.
I have the opposite vision issue, I’m a plus 2.0, farsighted, but correctable to not quite 20/10 but better than 20/15. Like you, I also like to use my bins without glasses. Fortunately my Ultravids focus within my range. Interestingly my I can easily use my 7x35 Retrovids with or without my glasses.
 
I have a 10x42 Noctivid...I am not bothered by any CA.... as a sidetone and I know that some of you don't like this guy, but ....click to this link. I happen to really appreciate his reviews, Jim

I love that guy, he was partly responsible for me spending ridiculous amounts of money on binoculars. He also made me into a Leica fanboy. The Leica image and color saturation is unique to Leica. His reviews are fun and kind of real life, not just stats and numbers like just about all the others. I feel his reviews were hands on in the field and very unique, I’m surprised he didn’t get more appreciation.
 
I have a 10x42 Noctivid...I am not bothered by any CA.... as a sidetone and I know that some of you don't like this guy, but ....click to this link. I happen to really appreciate his reviews, Jim

I am a little sensitive to CA, but not overly so like some. I don’t see CA in the Noctivids in the center in 90% of my observing. Although I can see some on the edges , I can still see CA in SF’s, EL’s, HT’s and just about every binocular on the market except the Kowa Genesis. The image is so rich in the Leica that I wouldn’t give up that image for the tiny bit better CA correction in some of the other alpha. If I sold all my other glass I wouldn’t miss the FOV or neutral color of the others , but if I sold the Leica I’d definitely miss that Leica image richness.

Paul
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top