Not only clear but also deeply, deeply, immersive. :-O
Lee
This thread seems like a good place to insert some experiences I've had with veiling glare and less than perfectly clean objective lenses. The photos below show the objective lens of a binocular after about a month of moderate use. When examined from the front under most lighting conditions it actually looks pretty clean, like the left photo, with just a few dust motes. The center photo shows how much worse the buildup of dust and crud appears under direct sunlight coming from just the right angle. The right photo shows the effect on the exit pupil of all that light scattering stuff on the lens surface when direct sunlight falls on the lens from about a 40º angle as the binocular is pointed toward a darkly shadowed area.
Believe it or not, image contrast is only subtly affected by that dirty lens when sunlight is coming from behind the viewer. But, for purposes of testing for veiling glare with strong back lighting a lens that dirty (or even less dirty) will make a binocular with excellent baffling look like it has poor resistance to glare. I've learned that before any test for glare is carried out it should be carefully determined that the front surface of the objective is pristine.
I've only tried the Noctivid a couple of times and not recently, so my memory may not be reliable, but to me the characteristics of the view were rather different to the ELSV, SLC, HT, SF, EDG and Kowa Genesis which were on adjacent stands at Birdfair. Yes there were differences in colour and field curvature, but I saw no obvious difference in depth of field or stereopsis. What I did note was a much clearer view of the positional relationship of small detail. It was most clearly illustrated by how the stems intelaced in the reed bed in front of the optics marquee. I remember with the Swaro in particular, it wasn't always easy to discern which crossing stem was in front of the other without some effort. With the Noctivid it was effortless. In the time I had, my perception was that with the Swaro, and to some extent the other, those stems seemed relatively two dimensional compared to the Noctivid. It was easier to see which were tubular and which had been flattened by buffeting. I took it that because they looked like three dimensional strustures, they appeared to have a stronger spatial position. Micro 3D. One thing I should point out is that others, using the same binoculars, on the same scene, on the same day, claimed they saw no difference whatsoever. Whatwever Leica has done with the Noctivid, it seems it isn't appreciated by everyone.
David
Top end cinematography lenses have more resoution not less due to the higher magnification required. A set of Leica superspeeds will set you back $250,000.
More traditional designs like English made Cookes are used by some Oscar winning cameraman because they have more field curvature than flat field designs like Zeiss Planars which have flat planes of focus. The Cooke gives more depth to the image off-axis. If you are filming 2 actors talking they don't need to be parallel to the image plane to both be in focus.
Leica optics have traditionally had plasticity and good colour colour reproduction which gives gentler roll off and a more 3 D look than Zeiss which traditionally have more edge sharpness. (...)
David, this is a beautiful description of part of the phenomenon. Micro 3D. I like to call it pseudo3D because it goes much beyond stereopsis.
This is my experience too especially when you include optimising the diopter setting.
Lee
Lee, when in trouble with diopter settings, may I suggest you try a Leica, Nikon or Swarovski glass for a change 3
But seriously - diopter shift and small asynchronities in focus due to insufficient mechanics can drive you crazy when using or testing bins.
Lee,
Might that have been the field curvature? The advantage was quite evident at times from the slightly elevated viewing point.
David
Yes it could be but I am still wondering if you what you have observed might have contributed.
Lee
Tobias Mennle;3666650 "What every lens designer learns in his first year is that the sharper your lens said:Tobias,
After readiing this link https://www.fdtimes.com/2013/01/14/jon-maxwell-on-the-cooke-look/ which you posted, I think I understand the quote from Steven Kisilevich.
There would appear to be a design conflict in bringing the planes of maximum sharpness (least spherical aberration) and the achromatic plane (between the green and magenta focal planes) to coincidence.
Cinematographic lenses have focal ratios as fast as 1,4 and if a scene is shot at or near maximum aperture, loss of sharpness or colour fringing may be apparent when projected on to the big screen.
However, binoculars usually have focal ratios around f/4 and if viewing in bright daylight with 2,5 mm pupils (hopefully centred) with an 8x42, one would only require the central 20 mm of the objectives and the bin would have an effective focal ratio better than f/8. Here spherical aberration is not a big issue.
I have an old 7x42 Swarovski SLC, which in several respects is still a very good biocular, but colour correction is not its forte. I set it up on a tripod and viewed a sign (black lettering on white background) with a Zeiss tripler. There was significant green and magenta fringing either side of focus but sharpest focus was coincident with minimum CA.
John
Nice review,Tobias.
May I ask - overall, do you personally prefer the Noctivid to your SV 8.5x42?
I don´t own the SV, I had one for a year, and it is a great glass, much better than the SF IMO, but I came to seriously dislike flat field in general. So I´m pleading with Swarovski that they bring the SLC line to Swarovision precision... also, to offer 42mm glasses with AK prisms.
I don´t own the SV, I had one for a year, and it is a great glass, much better than the SF IMO, but I came to seriously dislike flat field in general. So I´m pleading with Swarovski that they bring the SLC line to Swarovision precision... also, to offer 42mm glasses with AK prisms.
Nice review,Tobias.
May I ask - overall, do you personally prefer the Noctivid to your SV 8.5x42?
IMO, the 42 mm SLC is already nearly perfect as is.