New binoculars from leica (1 Viewer)

[mfunnell]

Talk about unimpressive... They claimed introduction of HT glass would improve the transmission from the HD to the HD+, which most tests have revealed to be untrue. The HD+ still had a fair amount of CA. Oh, and they are now the heaviest of the alphas.

While not something I'm ever likely to buy (for $$$ reasons if no other) I'd not be that quick to write them off until people have looked through them.

The view may be :eek!::t::eek!: over-the-top amazing, and make the ordinary-looking spec sheet rather moot :smoke: I can live in hope.

...Mike

 

[Vespobuteo]

GG: I agree, and marketing fluff like "good balance" won't fight gravity.
On the other hand, making things too compact will compromise the optics, baffling, edge sharpness etc.
Zeiss did some weight savings on the eyecups and body armor on the SF,
but I think the equation lightweight AND top-optical performance is quite difficult.

And I don't think Noctivids will replace Ultravids.

The "modest" FOV is probably to minimize CA
since the bins are quite short also.

Purchasing an alpha bin will definitely not be any easier after the release of the Noctivid.
But as mfunnell wrote, the view might be amazing...and that's what counts.

One thought is why not switching the position of the focus wheel and the upper bridge?
Like the Weaver super slam binoculars...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/821380-REG/Weaver_849635_Super_Slam_10_5x45_Binocular.html
maybe it looks too weird....:-O

 

[jremmons]

While not something I'm ever likely to buy (for $$$ reasons if no other) I'd not be that quick to write them off until people have looked through them.

The view may be :eek!::t::eek!: over-the-top amazing, and make the ordinary-looking spec sheet rather moot :smoke: I can live in hope.

...Mike

Very possible I suppose, but there are already a few that tick off the absolutely amazing view box, in a much more ergonomic package (SV, HT, EDG, and FL for me). I don't really understand what they are talking about with better balance and blah blah blah when one of the Ultravid's best properties was its handling.

Higher Eye-relief is a plus but the 8x42 UV was more than usable with glasses so meh. The Field of View specs don't match up, 7.7deg does not correspond to 440ft/1000yds, I don't think.

 

[dwever]

I'd not be that quick to write them off until people have looked through them.

Precisely. Everybody take a deep breath for goodness sake.

 

[Binastro]

For me the most interesting thing is the ingenious baffle systems to suppress stray light, keeping reflections to an absolute minimum while retaining maximum contrast.
The restricted field of view is probably partly to ensure that this will actually be achieved.

Also I expect at least one aspheric or at least figured surface.

But it is heavy, and I like dioptre control on the eyepiece, and the field is modest, so it is unlikely I will be going for these.

 

[Binastro]

I think it said 135m at 1000 metres.
About 7.7 degrees.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Talk about unimpressive... They claimed introduction of HT glass would improve the transmission from the HD to the HD+, which most tests have revealed to be untrue. The HD+ still had a fair amount of CA. Oh, and they are now the heaviest of the alphas.

J,

Some of that is a bit harsh re the UVHD+, they actually Did show a consistently tested transmission increase of a few % (source: Allbino's, and Gijs). It's just that this is difficult to detect by eye (and more likely to show up in colour rendition differences rather than detectable brightness increases) and for some strange reason is still below directly comparable optical design competitors - the Swarovski SLC. :cat:

At 92% these NV's would seem to have closed that gap if the claim tests true.

That's a fair cop about the CA though - I wonder if these new NV's will fare any better - though with what has been announced, I can't see how ...... :h?:

Also, agreed - these new NV's are ridiculously heavy - that's going to put a lot of people off ...... looks like we will have to wait for the 'NoctiVid Light' - NVL model ..... :smoke:


Chosun :gh:

 

[henry link]

The Field of View specs don't match up, 7.7deg does not correspond to 440ft/1000yds, I don't think.

The FOV spec expressed in feet at 1000 yards is wrong. Somebody made the mistake of converting meters to feet before multiplying the metric spec by 3. It's happened before. The correct specs are 405' at 1000 yrds for the 8x42 and 336' for the 10x42.

 

[dalat]

And I don't think Noctivids will replace Ultravids.

I'm pretty sure it will. It's just too close in everything. Further down Jan said the UV will stay around for 3 more years. That would be the time to bring out the Noctivids 32s and 50s (with Perger Prisms ).

That Noctivid is certainly no huge leap forward, merely catching up with the competition in the specs. But if baffling, ease of view and mechanics are indeed even better than in the Ultravid, than this is a nice bin.

 

[Vespobuteo]

I'm pretty sure it will. It's just too close in everything. Further down Jan said the UV will stay around for 3 more years. That would be the time to bring out the Noctivids 32s and 50s (with Perger Prisms ).

That Noctivid is certainly no huge leap forward, merely catching up with the competition in the specs. But if baffling, ease of view and mechanics are indeed even better than in the Ultravid, than this is a nice bin.

If they UV:s stays another 3 years...it's not a replacement...to me.


But the UV:s will probably go down a bit in price to compete with Swaro SLC:s perhaps.

...and we still haven't seen any Zeiss SF 32mm...

 

[jremmons]

The FOV spec expressed in feet at 1000 yards is wrong. Somebody made the mistake of converting meters to feet before multiplying the metric spec by 3. It's happened before. The correct specs are 405' at 1000 yrds for the 8x42 and 436' for the 10x42.

Thanks HL, that is what I assumed. 405 is not particularly impressive when compared the 8.5 SV (399') or the SF, or even the new Monarch HG.

Improved baffling is interesting but I always though stray light control was one of the better qualities of the UV, at least when compared to some other alphas (only the EDG I found consistently better).

I still have doubts about the transmission claims; while the HD+ may have had slightly (i.e. probably not enough to be actually noticeable to the human eye) improved transmission, I think they claimed that use of HT glass would improve it even further than it did.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Thanks HL, that is what I assumed. 405 is not particularly impressive when compared the 8.5 SV (399') or the SF, or even the new Monarch HG.

Improved baffling is interesting but I always though stray light control was one of the better qualities of the UV, at least when compared to some other alphas (only the EDG I found consistently better).

I still have doubts about the transmission claims; while the HD+ may have had slightly (i.e. probably not enough to be actually noticeable to the human eye) improved transmission, I think they claimed that use of HT glass would improve it even further than it did.

The transmission increase vs the ultravids is probably in the new AR-coatings.
Most likely due to transition to new technology. It think you can draw a parallel with the development of the Meopta Meostar 8x32 (compare gijs figures, old and new sample). The new ones is about 2 % better (close to 90%), and they don't have HT-glass (will give an additional 2%).
The interesting thing is if the noctivids will be above 92% in a wide spectrum.

 

[Gilmore Girl]

GG: I agree, and marketing fluff like "good balance" won't fight gravity.
On the other hand, making things too compact will compromise the optics, baffling, edge sharpness etc.
Zeiss did some weight savings on the eyecups and body armor on the SF,
but I think the equation lightweight AND top-optical performance is quite difficult.

...:-O

I'm sure it is difficult , but Razor is done smart and keeps weight down even with a metal body.

I would be fine with polycarbonate body on a Leica bin, less rubber armour only in spots for good grip and who knows how else to bring weight down. I know others must have that metal body. For nature observation it doesn't have to be built like a tank. You just need to take care of the bino (as you should anyway).

I think we're going backwards here exceeding 30 ounces.

I guess I don't care about edge sharpness as much as others.
View within sweet spot of UVid plus is great.

I will be nice if they focused on controlling CA a bit better even though in the 7x it is good, but they can improve it esp. in higher powers where you can see it more off axis.

I would have like to see more concentration on handling, weight and mechanical operation than trying to improve on image which at UV+ level is already excellent.

In a nutshell: .a little improvement optically...just a tweaking , but more improvemnt on the other tangible stuff.

 

[Gilmore Girl]

While not something I'm ever likely to buy (for $$$ reasons if no other) I'd not be that quick to write them off until people have looked through them.

The view may be :eek!::t::eek!: over-the-top amazing, and make the ordinary-looking spec sheet rather moot :smoke: I can live in hope.

...Mike

I wrote it off as soon as I saw the weight...it's a deal killer for me.

But, I do hope the view is nice and looking forward to initial reviews.

 

[henry link]

Judging from the one user report I've read it seems possible that the Noctivids may have retained the traditional Leica pincushion distortion. If that's true it could make them an attractive alternative to the mustache distortion of the Swaro SVs and Zeiss SFs for people who object to the Globe Effect.

Perhaps folks at Bird Fair could evaluate the distortion. Either check the bending of straight vertical lines as they move across the field when panning or, better, check the change in shape of a small circular object as it approaches the field edge. If a small object (spanning maybe about 5º of apparent field) that is circular in the field center remains a circle at the field edge then there is enough pincushion to correct angular magnification distortion and there should be no rolling ball. If the circle compresses to a vertical oval when it is moved from the center to 3:00 (what you see in the SV and SF) then there is not enough pincushion to correct AMD and you should see some rolling ball. The more compressed the oval the greater the impression of rolling ball is likely to be when panning. Leica Ultravids have had a little more pincushion than necessary to correct AMD, so they change a circle at 3:00 to a slightly horizontally stretched oval.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Judging from the one user report I've read it seems possible that the Noctivids may have retained the traditional Leica pincushion distortion. If that's true it could make them an attractive alternative to the mustache distortion of the Swaro SVs and Zeiss SFs for people who object to the Globe Effect.

Perhaps folks at Bird Fair could evaluate the distortion. Either check the bending of straight vertical lines as they move across the field when panning or, better, check the change in shape of a small circular object as it approaches the field edge. If a small object (spanning maybe about 5º of apparent field) that is circular in the field center remains a circle at the field edge then there is enough pincushion to correct angular magnification distortion and there should be no rolling ball. If the circle compresses to a vertical oval when it is moved from the center to 3:00 (what you see in the SV and SF) then there is not enough pincushion to correct AMD and you should see some rolling ball. The more compressed the oval the greater the impression of rolling ball is likely to be when panning. Leica Ultravids have had a little more pincushion than necessary to correct AMD, so they change a circle at 3:00 to a slightly horizontally stretched oval.

Leica even write about "the globe effect" here,
so they seem to consider it..

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=595534&d=1471600392

personally I'm more bothered by the distortion pattern in my 7x42 FL than in my SV..
and having edge sharpness (and a flat field) is a bit addictive..

 

[ceasar]

And no more 7x.

Is the entire HD+ series going to be discontinued?

https://us.leica-camera.com/Sport-Optics/Leica-Birding/Binoculars/Leica-Ultravid-HD-Plus/Range

There is no need for a new version of the 7x.

The 7x42HD+ has a FOV of 8º, 17mm ER and weighs 27.2 ounces (770 g.). It is smaller, lighter in weight and has a wider FOV than the 8x42 Noctivid.

Here is the USA website for the Noctivid:

https://us.leica-camera.com/Sport-Optics/Leica-Birding/Binoculars/Leica-Noctivid

 

[henry link]

Leica even write about "the globe effect" here,
so they seem to consider it..

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=595534&d=1471600392

personally I'm more bothered by the distortion pattern in my 7x42 FL than in my SV..
and having edge sharpness (and a flat field) is a bit addictive..

Thanks for the link. I hadn't read that, but it does suggest that there may be more pincushion than the SV/SFs. One statement, however gives the false impression that a "flat field" is incompatible with pincushion. A flat field means that field curvature (and hopefully off-axis astigmatism) are well corrected. That is completely unrelated to distortion and can be accomplished with any amount of pincushion, barrel or mustache distortion.

We don't yet know how well field curvature and astigmatism are corrected in the Noctivids. There is a negative element in front of the eyepiece field stop, which looks like a Smyth/Barlow lens. It should have two effects: firstly, to increase the eye relief by requiring an increase in the focal length of the 5 element basic eyepiece that follows it and, secondly, to provide at least somewhat better corrections for field curvature and astigmatism than earlier Leica eyepieces without it (the 12x50 Ultravid might already have a similar eyepiece, but with a doublet up front instead of a singlet).

Henry

 

[Chosun Juan]

..... I think we're going backwards here exceeding 30 ounces.....

I would have like to see more concentration on handling, weight and mechanical operation .....

GiGi, the increased weight is definitely a major bumma - this is up with the porky Zeiss HT now :-C

However, looking at the cutaway I would expect that the handling as far as balance goes would be quite good - we will have to 'weight' for the hands on reports to confirm that. :cat:

Leica has also made some really grandiose claims around the feel of the focusing quality too (and inherent in that - mechanical precision) ..... how you would ever objectively test that is really beyond any practical scrutiny. LOL :-O, I have to chuckle at that, and all the preemptive denial of globe effects --- not only have they been closely reading all the posts in Binoworld here on BF, but they have also managed to out-BS the BS trotted out by Zeiss ! :-O

Chosun :gh:

 

[dwever]

I for one am initially encouraged. I look forward to what we will know in 60 to 90 days.

Has anyone heard the U.S. MSRP or availability yet?

Below are side by side spec PDF's for the Noctivid's (8x42 and 10x42) and Ultravid HD+'s (10x42, 8x42, and 7x42) from Leica's web site.