Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Review Trinovid HD and Noctivid

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Wednesday 20th December 2017, 13:00   #1
14Goudvink
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Hague
Posts: 440
Review Trinovid HD and Noctivid

See:
http://www.tvwg.nl/testrapporten/kij...Noctivid.shtml

Compared to 10x42 SV and SF.

Last edited by 14Goudvink : Wednesday 20th December 2017 at 13:05.
14Goudvink is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 20th December 2017, 14:31   #2
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 735
Thanks you so very much for the detailed review/comparison including the Trinovid 10X42 HD. Mine arrives today and this is the first review of substance that I've had the pleasure to read. My only concern is the ratio of PC/globe effect. I appear to enjoy somewhat of a 50/50 style or thereabouts. A little PC w/little ripple in a pan/scan that maintains the integrity of rectangle shape in a horizontal pan whilst tilting the image in a vertical scan [tilting the top of the view towards me from horizon to zenith/away from me zenith to horizon].

Should the Trinovid 10X42 have less PC than the 10X40 Conquest it would provide a good start. If the HD has more PC than the 2009 Weaver Super Slam, that I purchased a few weeks prior, I will personally be disappointed.

At these prices it is a shame that bins are not rated on the accumulative effect of PC Vs. globe effect. Part of the problem being is that not all experience globe effect, yet all should see PC as I understand. Regardless, a ratio exists in every bin. I see globe effect/PC in varying degrees.

Speaking of, I look forward to your conclusion of Distortion/Rolling Ball of 4/5. I speculate that me sweet spot lies twixt there und 5-/3 of the Swaro. Was there a value to ' - ' as it only shows on the Swaro score?

ETA: I also enjoyed your earlier review of the Conquest HD 10X42 as it seems to share similar price/optical qualities.
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom

Last edited by Nixterdemus : Wednesday 20th December 2017 at 15:27.
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st December 2017, 02:14   #3
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixterdemus View Post
Thanks you so very much for the detailed review/comparison including the Trinovid 10X42 HD. Mine arrives today and this is the first review of substance that I've had the pleasure to read. My only concern is the ratio of PC/globe effect. I appear to enjoy somewhat of a 50/50 style or thereabouts. A little PC w/little ripple in a pan/scan that maintains the integrity of rectangle shape in a horizontal pan whilst tilting the image in a vertical scan [tilting the top of the view towards me from horizon to zenith/away from me zenith to horizon].

Should the Trinovid 10X42 have less PC than the 10X40 Conquest it would provide a good start. If the HD has more PC than the 2009 Weaver Super Slam, that I purchased a few weeks prior, I will personally be disappointed.

At these prices it is a shame that bins are not rated on the accumulative effect of PC Vs. globe effect. Part of the problem being is that not all experience globe effect, yet all should see PC as I understand. Regardless, a ratio exists in every bin. I see globe effect/PC in varying degrees.

Speaking of, I look forward to your conclusion of Distortion/Rolling Ball of 4/5. I speculate that me sweet spot lies twixt there und 5-/3 of the Swaro. Was there a value to ' - ' as it only shows on the Swaro score?

ETA: I also enjoyed your earlier review of the Conquest HD 10X42 as it seems to share similar price/optical qualities.
Your post talks about distortion of optics, and that includes pincushion
distortion, the measurement of curved lines near the edges.

Allbinos has a nice way of scoring and measuring distortion of binoculars
and those are very useful.

Globe effect, rolling ball, is another thing entirely, as it is not measurable.
It has to do with human visual perception.

Jerry
NDhunter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st December 2017, 02:47   #4
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 735
PC is not limited to the edges. I see it dead center under movement though I am aware of the static measurements used by allbinos.

Allbinos nevah reviewed a Weaver SS. I await their review of the Trinovid HD hopefully 10x42.

Globe effect is not merely on or off. There are degrees to the effect dependent not only among individuals, but also the degree if you will of PC. I can see PC along w/partial globe effect in the same bin under certain conditions. The distortion of PC is evident, but if the PC is not overwhelming the view retains artifacts of globe effect.

Lack of PC will induce full blown globe effect on me. Howevah, if the designers do not go hog wild on PC I see the subdued globe effect as a ripple in a horizonal pan. In a vertical scan the view tilts towards me in the direction of motin/away from me the direction I came from. If I pan up the top comes to me whilst the bottom is pushed away. Just the opposite on the way down bottom half to me top half away.

As if the view is on a horizontal hinge tilting dependent on direction of vertical movement.

Too much PC and the trunk of a tree, dead center, stretches as I move up or down. Way too much PC, ZR 7x36, produces what I refer unto as the fountain effect under vertical scan. So much of a curved distortion over the wide view produces "fountians" on the left & right. The left side on upward vertical turns CCW the right side CW. These swap direction when I scan down. I do not know what it is I only know it is way too much distracting movement for me. I gave away the ZR because of that movement on the peripherals that I saw.

As always, YMMV ...
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom

Last edited by Nixterdemus : Thursday 21st December 2017 at 04:41.
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st December 2017, 10:51   #5
14Goudvink
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Hague
Posts: 440
Nixtedermus,

The review is not by me (wish it was), but by a fellow countryman Jan Meijerink. His email address is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Just leave out DITNIET to get a correct email address.

George
14Goudvink is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st December 2017, 11:38   #6
dries1
Registered User
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,429
I have seen pincushion distortion, however I have never seen rollin ball when I pan with glass - at least not yet anyway.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 21st December 2017, 11:40   #7
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 735
My mistake though perhaps misunderstanding is me only strength.
I did notice the link, but I was rushing through the review(s) a mite.
Thanks for the correction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
I have seen pincushion distortion, however I have never seen rollin ball when I pan with glass - at least not yet anyway.

Andy W.
You shouldn't see RB if enough PC is applied. It's my understanding that most do not recognize globe effect w/no PC.

That would make me a mental defect of sorts.
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom

Last edited by Nixterdemus : Thursday 21st December 2017 at 11:45.
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st December 2017, 16:22   #8
maico
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 286
The bit about arc/sec was interesting
http://translate.google.com/translat...Noctivid.shtml
maico is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st December 2017, 18:09   #9
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by maico View Post
The bit about arc/sec was interesting
http://translate.google.com/translat...Noctivid.shtml
I think that bit needs some clarification. It has been Jan Meijerink's practice to derive his resolution in arc seconds from the number of lines per millimeter resolved on his chart. Most others use line pairs per millimeter, so his measurement of 2.28" should be read as 4.56" for comparing to others.

2.28" for a 42mm objective lens is really too good to be true since the diffraction limit for a 42mm lens using line pairs per millimeter is about 2.76". 4.56" is just OK by binocular standards, but not very impressive and indicates something is a bit off with the barrel that he measured.

Last edited by henry link : Thursday 21st December 2017 at 21:22.
henry link is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st December 2017, 18:33   #10
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,335
I mostly agree with Nixterdemus' explanation of "rolling ball". But I would add that it's the presence of angular magnification distortion that causes the effect, not the absence of pincushion. There is no such thing as a distortion free FOV. As pincushion decreases and lines become straighter AMD increases and causes the shapes of objects to compress radially toward the edge of the field. A small circle at the field center becomes an oval when moved to the edge. When panning, that change in shape mimics the change in shape of a small circle on the equator of a globe as it rounds the edge when the globe is rotated.

Some binoculars, like the SV and SF, have a compound distortion sometimes called "mustache distortion" because of the way it causes lines to bend like a handlebar mustache. In that case pincushion increases normally across the inner part of the field, but then reverses in the outer part, causing AMD to develop abruptly near the field edge.

Last edited by henry link : Thursday 21st December 2017 at 21:25.
henry link is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 22nd December 2017, 02:42   #11
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 735
Henry, always a pleasure for you to share your expertise. My lack of optic knowledge is only surpassed by inept attempt in using a page to express a paragraph that at best is a ballpark figure.

In the sub-alpha bins it seems they are in one camp or another being "all" AMD or PC more or less. I oft wonder why not more of middle of the road. Then again if only a relatively small percentage are adversely affected by Globe effect why bother?

I noticed in the linked review the Noctivid was scored a mite different in the Distortion/Globe effect [4.5/4.5] than the Trinovid [4/5]. By contrast the Swarovski EL 10X42 came out 5-/3. [not sure if the '-' was a typo] Grade rating 1=bad, 2=moderate, 3=fair, 4-good, 5=excellent.

I realize you were not the author of review, but do you feel that distortion in the grade is a reference to PC? [taking into account Google translation Dutch/English] The EL is known to induce globe effect in some, so in Globe effect it is only rated as fair, in what I conclude, to be control of Globe Effect then excellent, again in what I conclude, in PC. That seems to be the explanation of the grading.

Which brings me back to the Noctivid rating that presume to imply half a grade better than the Trinovid in PC control whilst being half a grade worse in globe effect control.

In taking the long way around it appears the alpha Leica shows less pincushion w/flatter field compared to the Trinovid. Which perhaps is the view I seek though costing south of a grand.

Have I come full circle in answering me own inquiry in that I need to pay more for the view I want?

ETA: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html

I went back for a refresher course. Perhaps I'll quit referring only to PC as distortion. It would seem I prefer light barrel distortion. That would explain me disdain for very the heavier doses of pincushion.

Apologies for drifting off the review.
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom

Last edited by Nixterdemus : Friday 22nd December 2017 at 17:27.
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yet another Leica Noctivid review Renze de Vries Leica 59 Monday 6th August 2018 05:42
Leica Noctivid 8x42 review Vespobuteo Leica 23 Tuesday 14th February 2017 13:25
Noctivid Review - Birdwatching Magazine mak Leica 50 Saturday 11th February 2017 02:39
my review of Leica Trinovid 8x42 binomania Leica 19 Wednesday 13th February 2013 19:50
Review of Swarovski EL 8.5x42 vs. Leica Trinovid 8x42 BA etc Swarovski 29 Wednesday 26th March 2008 18:50

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.26973200 seconds with 22 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:23.