New binoculars from leica (1 Viewer)

[Chosun Juan]

You're hitting the nail on the right spot.
While mentioning to Leica that the Laws of fysics stands in the way of their claims, I asked what they did to performe this, so I could explain it to more educated customers on the moment they tell me that what I am saying is BS. It hits back on me. Telling customers marketing mambo jambo and get slapped on the finger by them without having a correct answer is not the position I want to find myself in.

The answer I got was: We don't. It is a secret, we don't want our competitors to know. (like they don't dismantle the NV the minute they can put their hands on it)

Fact is, I did got the feeling it has a amazing DOF, but I must be brought into the position to be able to tell the 2.700,00 euro's donating customer to explain what he sees. It can't be rocketscience.

Maybe boxmoving Leica sellers get away with slogans like: "Technical details are not important. Enjoy the view and go birding", we sure don't.

Jan

Hahaha Jan, not only is that factually astute, but also in your own inimitable translated style - Very funny ! :-O :t:

Do you have the diamond bladed power saw on standby ?! o :cat:

Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Many thanks for the article Pileatus and zzzzzz. It's great! :t::t:

Ed

Ed, it was Beth who first posted the USF&WS report ...... thanks GiGi :t:
As Pileatus said, greater detail breakdown of that expenditure is buried in the notes to Table 8 - still a pretty broad brush though, although the latter macro analysis useful on a Governmental (and NGO too I'd imagine) level .....


Chosun :gh:

 

[The-Wanderer]

Jeff, (post 419)

I have never looked through a Leica binocular and I very much doubt that I will ever buy one, although I have some Leica camera lenses.

The reason is simple ; eye-relief.

I am a newb and have acquired my bins mostly cut price or used. That is how I learn, through experience. The technical side of me tells me that measuring eye relief should be a doddle to anyone with suitable equipment. But apparently not so, or, the bin manufacturers mostly don't care about the visually impaired, or that they are sloppy.

I have recently bought two used bins from the same alpha manufacturer. The one specifies its eye relief as 20mm and the other 19mm. In the past bins with lower eye relief have worked just fine for me, and I felt confident about buying these bins sight unseen. The 20mm bin is OK, just, and the 19mm not quite.

A Reviewer of bins has stated that this alpha manufacturer quotes different eye relief figures depending on the model type (both expensive roofs). Where is the logic in that? For me, with myopia, I need two measures to be standardized, the ocular glass to the eye lens and from the lowest setting on the bin to the eye lens. I cannot speak for those with other eye conditions. On the bins I have referred to above the difference, the recess, is 5mm. Why so long?

If the Noctivids come on sale used soon (before I die) for 50 to 60 per cent of the new price, I won't be buying, and if they do the bins will likely have flopped.

 

[CliveP]

You're hitting the nail on the right spot.
While mentioning to Leica that the Laws of fysics stands in the way of their claims, I asked what they did to performe this, so I could explain it to more educated customers on the moment they tell me that what I am saying is BS. It hits back on me. Telling customers marketing mambo jambo and get slapped on the finger by them without having a correct answer is not the position I want to find myself in.

The answer I got was: We don't. It is a secret, we don't want our competitors to know. (like they don't dismantle the NV the minute they can put their hands on it)

Fact is, I did got the feeling it has a amazing DOF, but I must be brought into the position to be able to tell the 2.700,00 euro's donating customer to explain what he sees. It can't be rocketscience.

Maybe boxmoving Leica sellers get away with slogans like: "Technical details are not important. Enjoy the view and go birding", we sure don't.

Jan

I find your posts very good. You do seem to be very much for the customer and very open and honest about describing your concerns such as the CA and distortions. I guess those customers do keep you on your toes but in the end you can only work with what Leica provide and it seems that you are left in the position of not really being able to explain the binocular as fully as some customers would like and therefore making you look quite unknowledgeable. If it was me I would just be honest and say I don't know the answer but I do know from my trial of them that they compare in this way or that against the other similar bins.

Perhaps Leica should look at your concern and see if they can be more helpful as it may well indeed be what is needed for satisfying these particular customers.

Personally though I'm not wanting to build a binocular so the proof for me would be in the real life usage experience and I think we're all wise enough to know that marketing jargon is well, just that.

In the end if the product is good it will sell and sell itself. (added this in edit but just saw below Binastro beat me to it

another edit. I'm sure part of the market for these bins also are customers for whom the money is nothing and they just go for the one with the fanciest blurb or flavour of the moment and have no interest beyond that.

and lets also not forget the next gen of models are most likely already underway, such as the Carson Scout)

 

[Binastro]

I think this situation is similar to why Hollywood bought and used TTH Deep field panchro lenses, speed panchros and TTH Technicolor lenses which were used for the Wizard of Oz and many great films.

The difference is TTH did not make a song and dance about it.
The lenses sold themselves.

Also the lenses with great bokeh.

It is not all physics.

I was involved in the sale of a very specialised camera and was told correctly that it needed black magic to get it to work properly at 15 million frames a second.

The only problem here is the supposed need nowadays to advertise products to the public in an over the top manner.

I turn off all adverts on the T.V. I can't stand them, including the BBC.

 

[Vespobuteo]

No idea if this could be relevant in binoculars (most likely not)
but the claims seem to be familiar...

"The Leica M651 MSD, known for its peak performance in image definition,
depth of field range, stereopsis, light intensity and color rendering,"

http://www.leica-microsystems.com/p...econstructive/details/product/leica-m651-msd/

US-Patent here:

"The invention relates to an optical device (500) with a device (600) for increasing the depth of field having at least one optical element (3) with different focal lengths (f1, f2)."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7586675B2/en

"The inventor recognized that, in order to achieve the object, the mechanical part, the iris diaphragm, can be replaced by an optically imaging element. The inventor recognized that it is possible to improve the depth of field in an optical device (e.g. in a microscope) by means of a single optical element having a plurality of (that is to say at least two) different focal lengths."

 

[etudiant]

No idea if this could be relevant in binoculars (most likely not)
but the claims seem to be familiar...

"The Leica M651 MSD, known for its peak performance in image definition,
depth of field range, stereopsis, light intensity and color rendering,"

http://www.leica-microsystems.com/p...econstructive/details/product/leica-m651-msd/

US-Patent here:

"The invention relates to an optical device (500) with a device (600) for increasing the depth of field having at least one optical element (3) with different focal lengths (f1, f2)."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7586675B2/en

"The inventor recognized that, in order to achieve the object, the mechanical part, the iris diaphragm, can be replaced by an optically imaging element. The inventor recognized that it is possible to improve the depth of field in an optical device (e.g. in a microscope) by means of a single optical element having a plurality of (that is to say at least two) different focal lengths."

Great find!
At a minimum, it proves Leica is serious about improving the DoF performance of optical equipment. It is not just marketing fluff.
So there may actually be substance to the Noctivid claim.
How much and how it is achieved at relatively low cost will need independent analysis to learn, as Leica is not telling.
Still, it is impressive that Leica, rather than just accepting 'the laws of physics', is actively working to extend what is possible through innovative design.

 

[jan van daalen]

I find your posts very good. You do seem to be very much for the customer and very open and honest about describing your concerns such as the CA and distortions. I guess those customers do keep you on your toes but in the end you can only work with what Leica provide and it seems that you are left in the position of not really being able to explain the binocular as fully as some customers would like and therefore making you look quite unknowledgeable. If it was me I would just be honest and say I don't know the answer but I do know from my trial of them that they compare in this way or that against the other similar bins.

Perhaps Leica should look at your concern and see if they can be more helpful as it may well indeed be what is needed for satisfying these particular customers.

Personally though I'm not wanting to build a binocular so the proof for me would be in the real life usage experience and I think we're all wise enough to know that marketing jargon is well, just that.

In the end if the product is good it will sell and sell itself. (added this in edit but just saw below Binastro beat me to it

another edit. I'm sure part of the market for these bins also are customers for whom the money is nothing and they just go for the one with the fanciest blurb or flavour of the moment and have no interest beyond that.

and lets also not forget the next gen of models are most likely already underway, such as the Carson Scout)

CP,

There is only one thing that counts and that is the customer.
They pay the bill and bring the food on the table. Period.

BTW, rich people haven't become rich because they are stupid, snobs or otherwise. They became it because the analyze like razorblades, pinpoint every doubteble statement and, most important, don't want you to waste their time.

So, factknowledge is the keyword.
So far, in this matter, factknowledge comes from BF. Nice for the consumer but what if my customer did his homework and blows my marketing mambo jambo out of the sky with simple basic Law of Physics?
I wasted his time, he feels treated like a moron, walks away and worst of all, tells his relatives of his experience.

BTW, we sell level Carson also and as a child, I was very very happy with it8-P

Jan

 

[Mark9473]

I'm a bit surprised that everybody seems to equate Leica's claim of "an incomparably three-dimensional viewing experience" with the Noctivid somehow having increased DOF.

I think they are alluding at something completely different. Perhaps it's easier to visualize this when thinking about how looking at a photograph of a distant landscape often doesn't match the visual experience. My experience is that the clearer the image, the more it resembles reality, independent of DOF. Look at a clear image of a landscape, and a less perfect version of the same scene. The lesser image will appear flatter.

Likewise in binoculars, an improvement in contrast, clarity, glare suppression etc. comes closer to giving the impression there is nothing in between the subject and your eyes, hence a more life-like view, which the brain will interpret as more three-dimensional. This has nothing to do with DOF.

 

[CliveP]

CP,

There is only one thing that counts and that is the customer.
They pay the bill and bring the food on the table. Period.

BTW, rich people haven't become rich because they are stupid, snobs or otherwise. They became it because the analyze like razorblades, pinpoint every doubteble statement and, most important, don't want you to waste their time.

So, factknowledge is the keyword.
So far, in this matter, factknowledge comes from BF. Nice for the consumer but what if my customer did his homework and blows my marketing mambo jambo out of the sky with simple basic Law of Physics?
I wasted his time, he feels treated like a moron, walks away and worst of all, tells his relatives of his experience.

BTW, we sell level Carson also and as a child, I was very very happy with it8-P

Jan

I think you do the Carson somewhat of a disservice but I know you are only joking and don't really mean that 8-P.
Obviously your margin on a Leica would be rather more.

I believe not all rich people have necessarily earned their wealth or are intelligent.

I suppose lastly I don't understand why you seem to be giving your customers marketing mumbo jumbo if you know they are so intelligent with razor sharp analysing capabilities?

To be honest I'm not really that interested so you can ignore the above.

It's telling though that of those that have tried the binocular it's not generally seeming that they are so blown away by it that it renders other bins that much or any lesser. Only time and many longer term user reports will be the true reveal and at the end of the day it is only a binocular and I'm all for great new better products but if this new Leica suddenly were to unexist then I doubt very much would change in the world.

 

[dalat]

Great find!
At a minimum, it proves Leica is serious about improving the DoF performance of optical equipment.

Leica Microsystems is not the same company as Leica Camera, and as far as they know, they have no more links other than sharing the Leica brand. Not sure what that means regarding the use of patents on DoF etc., just wanted to add that.

 

[Chosun Juan]

I'm a bit surprised that everybody seems to equate Leica's claim of "an incomparably three-dimensional viewing experience" with the Noctivid somehow having increased DOF.

I think they are alluding at something completely different. Perhaps it's easier to visualize this when thinking about how looking at a photograph of a distant landscape often doesn't match the visual experience. My experience is that the clearer the image, the more it resembles reality, independent of DOF. Look at a clear image of a landscape, and a less perfect version of the same scene. The lesser image will appear flatter.

Likewise in binoculars, an improvement in contrast, clarity, glare suppression etc. comes closer to giving the impression there is nothing in between the subject and your eyes, hence a more life-like view, which the brain will interpret as more three-dimensional. This has nothing to do with DOF.

Mark,

I don't think there's any confusion here between Leica's claims over increased 3-D and DOF.

I would think that most here would be aware by now that increased stereopsis, or 3-D is really only achievable with a greater objective spacing in comparison to the ocular spacing. This is not possible in an S-P prism (roof) bin. What is not in question is that Leica could have a quasi-3-D effect due to slight amounts of field curvature and pincushion distortion. Neither of these is related to DOF, that is a separate design issue, that yet combines with 3-D, focus speed, ease of view, glare control <-> contrast, FOV, and clarity (of which the NV doesn't present the maximal amount of unless it is changed to employ Perger prisms) etc, to form the real world viewing experience.

I think the questioning is around Leica's claims of "uncompromisingly large depth of field" http://en.leica-camera.com/Sport-Optics/Leica-Birding/Binoculars/Leica-Noctivid and how realistic this is given the usual laws of physics. The big question is do Leica have some innovation which overcomes this? There is certainly the Patent which Vespo linked above that may offer some potential in this area (not to mention their confidence). However we know that companies don't always implement patents - look at the debacle around Zeiss and the 'Smart Focus' SF .....In the end no more than a lot of expensive marketing guff, smoke and mirrors and unmet expectations, and one very ordinary bog stock fixed rate focuser :storm:

Is Leica's quiet confidence because they know they've implemented something innovative, or because they know that a carefully constructed advertising script treads right up to the legal line, but not over it? Leica hasn't helped with massively OTT (yet I suspect ultimately legally ambiguous enough) script such as "These high-end binoculars represent a revolution in the field of viewing optics ....." http://en.leica-camera.com/Company/...ses-2016/Press-Release-The-New-Leica-NOCTIVID

That is where the story is yet to fully unfold and become clear ....... perhaps Jan will need some laser measuring equipment as well as a diamond saw to get to the bottom of it :smoke: --- I'm pretty sure Zeiss and Swarovski will as soon as they can get their hands on one! :gn:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

Mark,

I don't think there's any confusion here between Leica's claims over increased 3-D and DOF.

I would think that most here would be aware by now that increased stereopsis, or 3-D is really only achievable with a greater objective spacing in comparison to the ocular spacing. This is not possible in an S-P prism (roof) bin. What is not in question is that Leica could have a quasi-3-D effect due to slight amounts of field curvature and pincushion distortion. Neither of these is related to DOF, that is a separate design issue, that yet combines with 3-D, focus speed, ease of view, glare control <-> contrast, FOV, and clarity (of which the NV doesn't present the maximal amount of unless it is changed to employ Perger prisms) etc, to form the real world viewing experience.

I think the questioning is around Leica's claims of "uncompromisingly large depth of field" http://en.leica-camera.com/Sport-Optics/Leica-Birding/Binoculars/Leica-Noctivid and how realistic this is given the usual laws of physics. The big question is do Leica have some innovation which overcomes this? There is certainly the Patent which Vespo linked above that may offer some potential in this area (not to mention their confidence). However we know that companies don't always implement patents - look at the debacle around Zeiss and the 'Smart Focus' SF .....In the end no more than a lot of expensive marketing guff, smoke and mirrors and unmet expectations, and one very ordinary bog stock fixed rate focuser :storm:

Is Leica's quiet confidence because they know they've implemented something innovative, or because they know that a carefully constructed advertising script treads right up to the legal line, but not over it? Leica hasn't helped with massively OTT (yet I suspect ultimately legally ambiguous enough) script such as "These high-end binoculars represent a revolution in the field of viewing optics ....." http://en.leica-camera.com/Company/...ses-2016/Press-Release-The-New-Leica-NOCTIVID

That is where the story is yet to fully unfold and become clear ....... perhaps Jan will need some laser measuring equipment as well as a diamond saw to get to the bottom of it :smoke: --- I'm pretty sure Zeiss and Swarovski will as soon as they can get their hands on one! :gn:


Chosun :gh:

CJ

I definitely think that Leica is onto something smarter than Zeiss's smart focus hocus pocus, but I am not at all sure what to call it.

In the sectioned drawing the right tube appears to have SP prisms and the left looks for all the world like half an AK. I wonder if the latter is a sham image to cover up some wizardry. One of the microscopy patent majors on the principle of having one optical tube deal with detail and the other FoV, leaving the brain to merge the two images, and I am wondering if something similar (not the same) is going on here.

Lee

 

[The-Wanderer]

On the principle of more choice, perhaps there will be two bins in the future, one for those with a dominent left eye and the other for the right. And maybe a scope for Cyclops.��

 

[dwever]

I find it bizarre that scrutiny of that would somehow get your goat.

Respectfully, scrutiny is a generous description of those posts if for no other reason than they take place largely in the exhausting abstraction of some posters having never scrutinized an actual NV.

But I've been belligerent about all of this now for a number of posts, so I'll stop at this point well after I should have.

 

[Troubador]

On the principle of more choice, perhaps there will be two bins in the future, one for those with a dominent left eye and the other for the right. And maybe a scope for Cyclops.��

And even better there could be a model with blacked-out objective lenses for those who never intend to actually look through it :-O.

Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

:cat:

CJ

I definitely think that Leica is onto something smarter than Zeiss's smart focus hocus pocus, but I am not at all sure what to call it.

In the sectioned drawing the right tube appears to have SP prisms and the left looks for all the world like half an AK. I wonder if the latter is a sham image to cover up some wizardry. One of the microscopy patent majors on the principle of having one optical tube deal with detail and the other FoV and I am wondering if something similar (not the same) is going on here.

Lee

Lee,

When the low res cutaway first surfaced I threw it out there (without so much as a nibble) that the S-P prism set(s)? (At least the LHS one looks like it is as far as I can tell) look to be oriented differently in each barrel - the RHS one seems to be rotated 90° in comparison ? It's difficult to tell from that photographic angle ..... you sneaky roving reporters that went to the Fair didn't happen to see a print version that you took a hi-res photo of did you? Maybe someone will venture an opinion now ..... :cat:

I had mulled over whether Leica might do something different in each barrel, whether it be prism set lengths, exit pupil size, or colour renditions, etc ....... but then I thought to myself (as The Wanderer has alluded to above), whoa! hang on - what if that doesn't happily marry up with the minute differences that may be in each eye and makes it worse?, or in other ways negatively compounds the problem?? :eek!:

It seems to me there will be a genuine innovation along the lines mentioned in the patent (multifocal lenses, and other, etc) which would be quite exciting and worthy of the word "revolution", or it will just be smoke and mirrors type "creative" advertising and a less progressive "evolution". Had they actually reduced weight, and not added ~100grams (~4oz) to the equation, I'm sure there would have been a lot more excitement even then .... :eat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Respectfully, scrutiny is a generous description of those posts if for no other reason than they take place largely in the exhausting abstraction of some posters having never scrutinized an actual NV.

But I've been belligerent about all of this now for a number of posts, so I'll stop at this point well after I should have.

Fair enough, though it is what we do around here , especially when the enthusiasm runs high on a new model :t:

And with access to generous Mavens and Rocket Scientists - why wouldn't we :cat: First hand experience is overrated -- I see no need to jump off a cliff just to find out that there will be an almighty splat at the bottom! :eek!:


Chosun :gh:

 

[pete_gamby]

One thing I noticed while I was cleaning* David Lindo's Noctivid on Saturday was a curious pattern in the reflection in the eyelens - my best description would be that there was an almost donut-shaped or toroidal effect. It's ridiculous to attempt to describe it properly here but having seen the comments about differing focal lengths in relation to the patent, suddenly reminded me of that very unfamiliar pattern.

* Yeah, I know, but crazy as it may sound he actually uses his binos to watch birds and they get dirty very quickly. He came to our marquee to say hello and while we were chatting I got to try out his sample of the new bino. The lens were covered in all sorts of stuff so it seemed only polite to clean them for him

Pete

 

[Troubador]

:cat:
Lee,

When the low res cutaway first surfaced I threw it out there (without so much as a nibble) that the S-P prism set(s)? (At least the LHS one looks like it is as far as I can tell) look to be oriented differently in each barrel - the RHS one seems to be rotated 90° in comparison ? It's difficult to tell from that photographic angle ..... you sneaky roving reporters that went to the Fair didn't happen to see a print version that you took a hi-res photo of did you? Maybe someone will venture an opinion now ..... :cat:

I had mulled over whether Leica might do something different in each barrel, whether it be prism set lengths, exit pupil size, or colour renditions, etc ....... but then I thought to myself (as The Wanderer has alluded to above), whoa! hang on - what if that doesn't happily marry up with the minute differences that may be in each eye and makes it worse?, or in other ways negatively compounds the problem?? :eek!:

It seems to me there will be a genuine innovation along the lines mentioned in the patent (multifocal lenses, and other, etc) which would be quite exciting and worthy of the word "revolution", or it will just be smoke and mirrors type "creative" advertising and a less progressive "evolution". Had they actually reduced weight, and not added ~100grams (~4oz) to the equation, I'm sure there would have been a lot more excitement even then .... :eat:


Chosun :gh:

CJ

Found your post 292 and the cutaway there is the only one I have seen and that wasn't on display by Leica at the Fair.

Lee