Should I sell the Noctivid 8x42, replace with the new Swarovski 8x42 NL Pure? (1 Viewer)

[Peter Leitzman]

Personally there no way I'd be getting rid of Noctivids and swapping to NLs. I've always found Leica have the very best colour reproduction and the most natural image of the lot. However only YOU can make that decision and you need to field test the Swarowskis side by side with your Leicas.I'm in agreement with @ZDHart regarding spec and reviews. And if you're familiar with photography the difference between the two is like comparing a Sigma ART 50mm f 1.4 against a Leica Sunmilux 50mm F1.4. The Sigma has all rhe very latest tech, insane optical construction and spec wise blows the Summilux out the water. BUT when you compare images side by side, IGNORE SPEC the Leica has that certain something thr Sigma doesn't Same with this scenario

 

[ZDHart]

Personally there no way I'd be getting rid of Noctivids and swapping to NLs. I've always found Leica have the very best colour reproduction and the most natural image of the lot. However only YOU can make that decision and you need to field test the Swarowskis side by side with your Leicas.I'm in agreement with @ZDHart regarding spec and reviews. And if you're familiar with photography the difference between the two is like comparing a Sigma ART 50mm f 1.4 against a Leica Sunmilux 50mm F1.4. The Sigma has all rhe very latest tech, insane optical construction and spec wise blows the Summilux out the water. BUT when you compare images side by side, IGNORE SPEC the Leica has that certain something thr Sigma doesn't Same with this scenario

As a retired commercial photographer and avid life-long photographer, I will say yes... Leica glass yields an unmistakeable quality in color rendition, bokeh, clarity, sharpness... and has been doing so for very many decades.

Leica Camera (as the company calls themselves) has been all about achieving the finest quality in imaging glass and electro-mechanical engineering since inception. While there are a few other excellent optical product manufacturers extant (Zeiss and Swarovski being paramount among them), Leica definitely has a certain something special that sets them apart.

 

[Renze de Vries]

Should you sell the Noctivid? Immediately!


First of all, the Noctivid is too small. Only women and children will be able to get their fingers between the barrels.

The Noctivid is too heavy. It’s extremely important for binoculars to give the impression of lightness, so you can’t resist picking it up. The Noctivid doesn’t give this impression, it’s as heavy as it looks.

The Noctivid has terrible balance. Its center of gravity is exactly halfway the instrument (with the eyecups out) so it forces you to move your hands to that position. Binoculars should not coerce you into anything, they should follow your natural habits.

In case you stick to your natural habits, you will experience the terrible position of the Noctivid’s strap loops. They cut into the soft flesh of your hands! Birding is painful and no joy at all.

The Noctivid shows CA.

One very experienced reviewer discovered flare in the Noctivid. Suppose you’re the other one!

Another very experienced reviewer observed the Noctivid hangs with an awkward angle to your breast. Again, suppose you’re the other one with the same experience.

The Noctivid’s view is not entirely flat, it shows some field curvature. You don’t need that, there’s enough field curvature in your eyes already.

All truly great binoculars have a viewing circle with edges. The Noctivid has only one.

The Noctivid is too sharp.

The Noctivid has problems with sunlight.

The Noctivid has problems with cloudy skies.

 

[dries1]

Sounds like the idiot Klaus Shwab and the davos crowd this week telling us how to live, although I know you are being sarcastic.

 

[hop_sing]

To answer the starting question of this thread seriously: Yes.

 

[Alan Wrightson]

Hi,

a large field of vision is only one aspect among many others!

The Noctivid has a great contrast and the stray light suppression is also excellent.
It has very nice "colors" and on the axis it is extremely sharp.

A "gut decision" would be the wrong way here, you should test both glasses together for a few days, that Noctivid is not worse, it is just good differently.

Andreas

Totally agree with with the comments about the Noctivids

 

[KC Foggin]

Totally agree with with the comments about the Noctivids

I'm just going to jump in here and wish you a warm welcome to you from those of us on staff here at BirdForum
We're glad you found us and please join in wherever you like

 

[foresttones]

Bringing this thread back to life because I'm considering the opposite: should I sell my 8x42 NL Pure and get the NV? After trying a few samples, I ended up with an excellent copy of the NL Pure and find it lives up to the praise it gets here and elsewhere. I do have one issue: I find that it over flattens the image and that panning, even at times slowly, causes a disturbing presentation of space. I don't know if this is the rolling ball effect, but for instance sweeping across different branches on the same tree close in makes the image appear as if the tree were moving along a wave. It doesn't make me sick, but it does bother the hell out of me.

I had a chance to test out briefly the 8x42 NV at a Leica store and thought it was very nice. This was mid day LA lighting, so full, brutalish sun. I noticed no ill effects when panning. Still, I understand the NV to have a flattener, and so I wonder if I might find it bothersome too.

I tried out the 7x42 UV and would pick that up in a heartbeat, but really I need an all purpose bino that accommodates everything from bugs to birds, and the UV's close focus isn't great.

Incidentally, I keep hearing about the build quality of the Leica binoculars. I agree, it's excellent. But I don’t think it was remarkably better than the NL, which feels very solidly designed and built.

 

[Conndomat]

I had a chance to test out briefly the 8x42 NV at a Leica store and thought it was very nice. This was mid day LA lighting, so full, brutalish sun. I noticed no ill effects when panning. Still, I understand the NV to have a flattener, and so I wonder if I might find it bothersome too.

You can always give the same advice, you should test the glass yourself for a few days under different conditions.
It's also of little use to rely on other people's opinions, some call Noctivid great, others call NL better.

I think both binoculars are high-level, the best you can get in the 8x42 class, but not every glass suits every user, or any user fits any glass.
The advantages and disadvantages of binoculars are often only recognized after a long period of use, a test in the store can be helpful to get a first impression, but the acid test is everyday use.

Andreas

 

[KC Foggin]

Somewhere in the Forum within the last couple of weeks mentioned that the Swarovski NLs contain lead in the glass so I would confirm that before purchasing them

 

[sillyak]

Bringing this thread back to life because I'm considering the opposite: should I sell my 8x42 NL Pure and get the NV? After trying a few samples, I ended up with an excellent copy of the NL Pure and find it lives up to the praise it gets here and elsewhere. I do have one issue: I find that it over flattens the image and that panning, even at times slowly, causes a disturbing presentation of space. I don't know if this is the rolling ball effect, but for instance sweeping across different branches on the same tree close in makes the image appear as if the tree were moving along a wave. It doesn't make me sick, but it does bother the hell out of me.

I had a chance to test out briefly the 8x42 NV at a Leica store and thought it was very nice. This was mid day LA lighting, so full, brutalish sun. I noticed no ill effects when panning. Still, I understand the NV to have a flattener, and so I wonder if I might find it bothersome too.

I tried out the 7x42 UV and would pick that up in a heartbeat, but really I need an all purpose bino that accommodates everything from bugs to birds, and the UV's close focus isn't great.

Incidentally, I keep hearing about the build quality of the Leica binoculars. I agree, it's excellent. But I don’t think it was remarkably better than the NL, which feels very solidly designed and built.

Yes that is the "rolling ball" effect. It isn't the result of a flat field. It's the result of a designer choosing angular magnification distortion over rectilinear distortion.

In short, when one designs an optic it can either have AMD or RD or some combination of the two. Rectilinear distortion is either pincushion or barrel distortion.

In an astronomy eyepiece the designer will usually have heavy pincushion distortion, because it doesn't look funny when you are looking at a field of point sources of light and you don't want the magnification to change at the edge of the field. In a binocular most manufacturers will have a small amount of pincushion to avoid the rolling ball effect. Some decide to almost eliminate pincushion distortion for some reason. This results in the rolling ball effect, which some people don't even notice and some become physically ill.

Swarovski tends to have the most AMD.

Zeiss and especially Meopta, have some pincushion to avoid that effect.

 

[foresttones]

Yes that is the "rolling ball" effect. It isn't the result of a flat field. It's the result of a designer choosing angular magnification distortion over rectilinear distortion.

Thanks very much! I figured it was the effect. I do wish it didn't bother me so much as the NLs are so perfect in every other aspect.

I tried out the NVs and didn't notice it, but that was only for a short demo.

Has anyone else noticed any rolling ball on the Noctivids?

Back to the OP: I'd say that so long as you're OK with this design choice in the NLs, go for them. They're really excellent.

 

[Mike F]

Thanks very much! I figured it was the effect. I do wish it didn't bother me so much as the NLs are so perfect in every other aspect.

I tried out the NVs and didn't notice it, but that was only for a short demo.

Has anyone else noticed any rolling ball on the Noctivids?

Back to the OP: I'd say that so long as you're OK with this design choice in the NLs, go for them. They're really excellent.

I’m extremely sensitive to RB (I can’t use most Swarovski for that reason) and I don’t notice it in my 10x42 NV. The NV does have noticeably less pincushion that the UV.

 

[Patudo]

I do have one issue: I find that it over flattens the image and that panning, even at times slowly, causes a disturbing presentation of space. I don't know if this is the rolling ball effect, but for instance sweeping across different branches on the same tree close in makes the image appear as if the tree were moving along a wave. It doesn't make me sick, but it does bother the hell out of me.

If that's the case I would move it on - binoculars should not bother you to that extent. Just make sure to give the Noctivid (or whatever you replace it with) a good trial to make sure it doesn't give you similar issues.

 

[NDhunter]

Somewhere in the Forum within the last couple of weeks mentioned that the Swarovski NLs contain lead in the glass so I would confirm that before purchasing them

KC:
Lead in glass may be a good thing, many top optics have leaded glass lenses.
Do you have a problem with lead ?
Jerry

 

[Pileatus]

Be very careful making claims that are, at best, misleading and at worst harmful to one's reputation.
I suggest reading the entire thread carefully.

Lead glass in the Swarovski NL?

This warning ⚠️ is on the Midway website for the NL but not the EL? WARNING: This product can expose you to Lead, which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information go to - www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.

www.birdforum.net

Then, read the Swarovski information very carefully.

Constantly improve what is good

ISO Certifications EN ISO 50001, EN ISO 9001, EN ISO 14001, Compliance Statement

www.swarovskioptik.com

especially...

https://assets.ctfassets.net/pvkenuwtinkd/5d0FAWAGNb4mPGyQrv9A16/6b760f634dc91d7c75860e26ecb5877b/LF-01065_-_REACh_SVHC_Konformit__tserkl__rung_Swarovski_Optik_unterzeichnet.pdf

Trace lead in copper and aluminum alloys is commonplace.
If you're going to disassemble your binoculars and then consume the components you may have a problem but it won't be from lead!

 

[quincy88]

meh. I wouldn't. But I might consider it like you are now.
I own the NL 10s and sometimes wish they were Leicas. I occasionally think about selling my NLs and getting some Noctivids instead. I own Ultravid 7s and I never wish they were Swarovskis.

 

[[email protected]]

I wouldn't sell the Noctivid's. They have less glare, less RB, more saturated colors, they are sharper on-axis, have more 3D, better build quality by far and in general have a more pleasing beautiful view than an NL. The only thing the NL has is a bigger FOV and you don't need it because it is too big to take it all in at once. I will take quality over quantity any day of the week and twice on Tuesday! A Noctivid knocks the NL out of the park.

 

[Rg548]

To answer the sarting question of this thread seriously : NO

Hey... it's all personal, but having had the opportunity to sit with a Pure for a bit in a hide, I wouldn't even swap my Meostars for Pures. I'm serious!!!
It is a 'clinical' view. I guess technically it is probably the best, I really don't know, but my eyes see a 'flat clinical view'.
The quality of the image is in no doubt, but it's just not for me. I was so pleased I tried them out, because it's natural to always want 'the best' !!
I am a huge Leica fan for their 'perceived view'.....no technical details here, just how it looks.....and it always just looks great. I have only tried Ultravids, not Noctovids, and I would be happy to end my days in ownership of Leica's Ultravid HD+.
Fortunately, or unfortunately.... my Meostars are so close to the Leicas, there is no need for me to change.... but one day I just might.
That'll be after those Habichts of course😖😅

 

[Jessie-66]

Should you sell the Noctivid? Immediately!


First of all, the Noctivid is too small. Only women and children will be able to get their fingers between the barrels.

The Noctivid is too heavy. It’s extremely important for binoculars to give the impression of lightness, so you can’t resist picking it up. The Noctivid doesn’t give this impression, it’s as heavy as it looks.

The Noctivid has terrible balance. Its center of gravity is exactly halfway the instrument (with the eyecups out) so it forces you to move your hands to that position. Binoculars should not coerce you into anything, they should follow your natural habits.

In case you stick to your natural habits, you will experience the terrible position of the Noctivid’s strap loops. They cut into the soft flesh of your hands! Birding is painful and no joy at all.

The Noctivid shows CA.

One very experienced reviewer discovered flare in the Noctivid. Suppose you’re the other one!

Another very experienced reviewer observed the Noctivid hangs with an awkward angle to your breast. Again, suppose you’re the other one with the same experience.

The Noctivid’s view is not entirely flat, it shows some field curvature. You don’t need that, there’s enough field curvature in your eyes already.

All truly great binoculars have a viewing circle with edges. The Noctivid has only one.

The Noctivid is too sharp.

The Noctivid has problems with sunlight.

The Noctivid has problems with cloudy skies.

Unfortunately, I always have to translate:
Thanks for the laugh and the absolutely correct answer regarding the Thread title!
Compliments!!!
Better answer does not go.
;-)