-
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.
Follow up testing Noctivid (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter arran
- Start date
Ontario
Well-known member
Canip, how does the Monarch HG stack up against the Noctivid? Trinovid HD, SLC,
GLOBETROTTER
Well-known member
Globy,
The Swaro's have a green cast. The latest SF's have a black cast
:t: Thats true !!!
Thank you, GG.
That latter point is a very good observation, and I fully agree with you and expect Leica will exactly do that (they are in fact the ones who have made in the past that kind of continuous improvements over time)
Regarding the first point, maybe I did not make myself clear enough, and I appreciate you bringing it up:
I think the Noctivid "beats"the competition on
- mechanics, esp. the focus /diopter mechanism
- well "rounded" field of view, very comfortable in panning (yes, the SF has a much wider field of view, but that, together with the distortion characteristics, comes at the the price of a massive globe effect, esp. in the 8x SF)
- warm, attractive, "cozy" image with high level of sharpness and contrast. As I said, I so far preferred the "cold" images provided by the SFs and EL SVs over the saturated image of the Ultravid, but the Noctivid seems to combine color saturation with a high level of "sharpness".
Of course, everybody's eyes are different, and I would never dare to go and buy an expensive bino just based on someone else's impressions. As you say, you will have to go and see for yourself.
And, of course as well, a number of very subjective factors also influence your decision when selecting a nice binocular - just think of the criteria based on which most people, myself included, buys cars ;-)
If I had to make a rating of the reviewed six binos in the sense of "which alpha binocular would you buy and, if it were not available, what would be your next pick?", I would probably say the following, based on many - more or less subjective - factors (this is current thinking and subject to getting wiser - I probably shouldn't even write this down):
1. EL SV
2. SF
3. Noctivid
4. HT
5. Ultravid
6. EDG
So the Noctivid made it right away and easily to rank 3 - as mentioned, it didn't blow me away, but it placed itself solidly among the top tier binos right away - not so bad after all !
Canip
Last edited:
dalat
...
Canip wrote something about the HG in a German forum a while ago, perhaps you can decifer it with google's help: http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,431391,432053#msg-432053
BTW, he regularley writes reviews there, always very balanced, free from brand partisanship and based on direct comparisons with other binoculars.
Ontario
Well-known member
Like to hear Canip's current impression now that he's had hands experience with the Noctivid and his "trump" comments about the Monarch HG has me intrigued. The reviews of the Trinovid HD vs old have been mixed so if he's got any experience with them I'd be interested.
Thanks for the link Dalat!
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
The Noctivid seems like a nice addition to the top-alphas with a good balance between features, and what you describe are important factors.
I'm not directly suffering from "rolling ball" but good effective eye relief with glasses is always welcome.
Do you find the Noctivids having more effective eye relief than the SV:s?
i.e. being better with glasses, easier to see the whole field to the edge without moving eye/bins around etc.
Ontario
Well-known member
OK ... Almost as good as the EDG, better than the Trinovid HD! How about the SLC ? on your cale from 1 thru 9 8-P
1. EL SV
2. SF
3. Noctivid
4. HT
5. Ultravid
6. EDG
7.
8.
9. Trinovid HD
Here is my first mini-impression (very temporary). Other reviewers have compared the HG with other vitamins, I try to give an impression how I see the Monarch HG in comparison with his "direct brothers" of Nikon: Monarch 7, HG-L, EDG. The only goal is to encourage those who do not know the glass to look at it.
The HG is therefore like a young of the EDG - slimmer, lighter, somewhat less "baroque", looks good, feels good, is well in the hand. Mechanically correct: Focusing (without the "EDG_Knack" in the center), center bridge, points of observation of the ocular shells, everything Nikon has made the effort to indicate the mechanism of the diopter compensation on the right eyepiece on the glass with signs: lift, then rotate. Works soft and round; Zero point not completely at zero.
Compared to Monarch 7:
The HG is about the same size and the same weight (715g with straps and eyepiece). The haptics of the HG are more pleasant. The picture is still slightly wider than the Monarch 7 (8.3 degrees to 8 degrees). The visual acuity of the HG is significantly better than in the 7, already the middle sharpness and then very clearly the edge sharpness. The image is "more homogeneous" when the HG is pivoted. In a direct comparison, the monarch 7 falls noticeably.
Compared to the HG-L:
The Monarch HG is clearly lighter and more compact (and more pleasant reinforced). The central focus seemed to me rather better in the first observations in the HG than in the HG-L, and the image field of the HG-L is so much narrower that here also worlds lie between the two glasses: tunnel vision against wide field of view.
Compared to the EDG:
Monarch HG is significantly smaller and lighter. The mid-range seemed almost as good as in the EDG, the edge sharpness not quite as good, but the HG also has significantly more field of view (8.3 degrees against 7.7 degrees).
Also in the "5 seconds comparison" with other good mid-class glasses makes the Monarch HG good figure.
For example Trinovid HD: worlds between the narrow visual field of the Trinovid and the monarch HG. In the sharpness the HG holds loose with, CA seems to me in the HG much better corrected than in the Trinovid HD (why it is actually HD?).
My "Steckenpferd" Streulicht: the EDG is exemplary for me in this category. The Monarch HG also shows a good performance here: direct sunlight on the front lenses does not cause any fog or slight reflections, the view over a sparkling water surface is also digested easily, the picture remains clear and disturbing - a good performance for a compact glass !
After what I said, I am personally quite impressed by the monarch HG for now.
Attachments
Last edited:
arran
Well-known member
Thanks for great review
The issue that stands out for me to buy an Noctivid is the ease of view when panning
This really was a pro for them while comparing with SF and SV
Probably it has to do with the warm cast
A2GG
Beth
Thanks Canip for clarifying some things in your review.
The optics and mechanics of the Nocti sound top notch based on all reviews
in so far. Ergonomics seems to be the downside. I prefer traditional design over
open bridge style in full size bins and I do wish Leica would have put the excellent optics
of the NVid in a traditional body/frame with some more original design elements.
The optics and mechanics of the Nocti sound top notch based on all reviews
in so far. Ergonomics seems to be the downside. I prefer traditional design over
open bridge style in full size bins and I do wish Leica would have put the excellent optics
of the NVid in a traditional body/frame with some more original design elements.
Last edited:
@ All,
Thank you for the feedback on my review !
@ Bob (post #12):
There were rumors before Swaro came out with the Field Pro upgrade that they might also work on the optics, to keep up with the SF, but they didn't (the info I get from the optics market says that the EL SV still sells quite well). Whether and what they will do in response to the Noctivid I don't know.
@ Globetrotter (post #13):
Yes, it may well be that your eyes are better trained than mine and that for you, the perception of a particular 3D effect is easier than for me. A number of other people seem to have perceived it as well. But many have not seen it, like me. Maybe it's just lost on me. People are different; if you put 10 different brands of Scottish Whisky in neutral glasses in front of me, I would like them all but could not tell you their names - but I know people who could.
@Vespobuteo (post #28):
Your quote ..."Do you find the Noctivids having more effective eye relief than the SV:s?"
Answer: yes, I do. I do occasionally wear eyeglasses but usually take them off when using binoculars. For the review, I tried the Noctivid both with and without eyeglasses. While the EL SV has sufficient eye relief to keep the glasses on (eyecups fully screwed in) and still see the entire fov, the Noctivid is even more "generous": with the glasses on, I could screw te eyecups out at least one stop and still comfortably oversee the entire fov. So I hope I am right in guessing that the Noctivid would allow the use of relatively thick eyeglasses and still work (mine are quite thin).
@zzzzzz (posts #22 and 26):
Comparing the Noctivid to Monarch HG, Trinovid HD, SLC ? Hmm ... interesting suggestion !
As dalat has pointed out, I am rather impressed by the HG and like it, but comparing it to an alpha that costs 4 times as much would be a bit unfair (the Noctivod would win that race ...)
My main criticism of the Trinovid HD is its narrow fov, which in practice appears even narrower than the data might suggest. Again, I would not want to compare it head on head with the Noctivid.
The SLC is a different story. There was, as far as I remember, a remark in another thread in this forum by Gijs van Ginkel, namely that he would prefer the HT or the SLC over the Noctivid. I am myself a big fan of the SLC (new model) and rate it highly, but would have to do some further work before I could come to a conclusion whether or not to agree with Gijs.
Thank you for the feedback on my review !
@ Bob (post #12):
There were rumors before Swaro came out with the Field Pro upgrade that they might also work on the optics, to keep up with the SF, but they didn't (the info I get from the optics market says that the EL SV still sells quite well). Whether and what they will do in response to the Noctivid I don't know.
@ Globetrotter (post #13):
Yes, it may well be that your eyes are better trained than mine and that for you, the perception of a particular 3D effect is easier than for me. A number of other people seem to have perceived it as well. But many have not seen it, like me. Maybe it's just lost on me. People are different; if you put 10 different brands of Scottish Whisky in neutral glasses in front of me, I would like them all but could not tell you their names - but I know people who could.
@Vespobuteo (post #28):
Your quote ..."Do you find the Noctivids having more effective eye relief than the SV:s?"
Answer: yes, I do. I do occasionally wear eyeglasses but usually take them off when using binoculars. For the review, I tried the Noctivid both with and without eyeglasses. While the EL SV has sufficient eye relief to keep the glasses on (eyecups fully screwed in) and still see the entire fov, the Noctivid is even more "generous": with the glasses on, I could screw te eyecups out at least one stop and still comfortably oversee the entire fov. So I hope I am right in guessing that the Noctivid would allow the use of relatively thick eyeglasses and still work (mine are quite thin).
@zzzzzz (posts #22 and 26):
Comparing the Noctivid to Monarch HG, Trinovid HD, SLC ? Hmm ... interesting suggestion !
As dalat has pointed out, I am rather impressed by the HG and like it, but comparing it to an alpha that costs 4 times as much would be a bit unfair (the Noctivod would win that race ...)
My main criticism of the Trinovid HD is its narrow fov, which in practice appears even narrower than the data might suggest. Again, I would not want to compare it head on head with the Noctivid.
The SLC is a different story. There was, as far as I remember, a remark in another thread in this forum by Gijs van Ginkel, namely that he would prefer the HT or the SLC over the Noctivid. I am myself a big fan of the SLC (new model) and rate it highly, but would have to do some further work before I could come to a conclusion whether or not to agree with Gijs.
GLOBETROTTER
Well-known member
@ Globetrotter (post #13):
Yes, it may well be that your eyes are better trained than mine and that for you, the perception of a particular 3D effect is easier than for me. A number of other people seem to have perceived it as well. But many have not seen it, like me. Maybe it's just lost on me. People are different; if you put 10 different brands of Scottish Whisky in neutral glasses in front of me, I would like them all but could not tell you their names - but I know people who could.
[/QUOTE]
If you give me 10 glass of scottish whisky i will love all binoculars and people around me
Yes, it may well be that your eyes are better trained than mine and that for you, the perception of a particular 3D effect is easier than for me. A number of other people seem to have perceived it as well. But many have not seen it, like me. Maybe it's just lost on me. People are different; if you put 10 different brands of Scottish Whisky in neutral glasses in front of me, I would like them all but could not tell you their names - but I know people who could.
[/QUOTE]
If you give me 10 glass of scottish whisky i will love all binoculars and people around me
GLOBETROTTER
Well-known member
If you give me 10 glass of scottish whisky i will love all binoculars and people around me
Ontario
Well-known member
Thanks Canip!
If that's the case sounds like I should give the Trinovid HD a pass.
The reviews have been mixed ... OutdoorLife awarded the Trinovid HD it's Editor Choice for full size binocular this year and another member posted he felt optically it was better than the previous model at the same time the folks over on the 24 campfire forum are comparing the Trinovid HD directly with SLC so I figured I'd get your take since I'm interested in the Noctivid and currently own an SV and HG.
The-Wanderer
Well-known member
Canip-Vespobuteo
I have the ELSV 8.5x and the 12x, both bought used, that have specified eye reliefs of 20mm and 19mm respectively.
For me the 8.5x works fine, just, but the er of the 12x only works properly if I press the spectacles hard against my face.
If the NVs have better eye relief, Leica may be measuring from the rim and not the apex, that is assuming that Swarovski follows the iso standard for measurement of er, although the 8.5 ocular may not be concave and hence have no apex. Reports suggest that Zeiss measures from the rim for the SFs, as well.
I have the ELSV 8.5x and the 12x, both bought used, that have specified eye reliefs of 20mm and 19mm respectively.
For me the 8.5x works fine, just, but the er of the 12x only works properly if I press the spectacles hard against my face.
If the NVs have better eye relief, Leica may be measuring from the rim and not the apex, that is assuming that Swarovski follows the iso standard for measurement of er, although the 8.5 ocular may not be concave and hence have no apex. Reports suggest that Zeiss measures from the rim for the SFs, as well.
Last edited:
My information from industry sources indicate that eye relief is a measurement of the distance from the highest point on the eye lens to the exit pupil (it is an optical-system concept) and doesn't take eye cup design into account because there are too many variables in the production and assembly of the eyecups to allow a reliable and publish-able figure.
Lee
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
I suspect it's the eye cup design and depth that is the difference.
All (large) manufacturers most likely follow the ISO standard for ER measurements.
SV:s the eye cup rim steals about 5-6 mm of effective ER. Eye glasses are seldom completely flat either so if not pushing them against eye cup, the loss might be even more.
Swaro should definitely supply shallower eye cups (more eye glass friendly) as an alternative.
(They do for the ATX scopes)
Noctivid's eye cup looks shallower to me than SV's:
https://us.leica-camera.com/resizer...tps://i.vimeocdn.com/video/587349554_1280.jpg
Assume it's 4 mm, 19mm - 4mm would be more than 20mm - 6mm.
1 mm can make a significant difference in eye relief.
Last edited:
The-Wanderer
Well-known member
Lee,
Please read my last paragraph again.
Please read my last paragraph again.
The-Wanderer
Well-known member
Vespobuteo,
There are several reviews that suggest the top makers do not measure according to the ISO standard, and that Swarovski may not be consistent between model ranges.
Some, apparently, may compute rather rhan measure.
Anyway, its a mess.
There are several reviews that suggest the top makers do not measure according to the ISO standard, and that Swarovski may not be consistent between model ranges.
Some, apparently, may compute rather rhan measure.
Anyway, its a mess.
