Thank you.
Why? I believe most people (and me as well) use binoculars in handheld mode much more often than a tripod mounted. And it's ok to describe a perceived sharpness in that case. I use a word "sharpness" to describe acutance, not a resolution. In case of a resolution test i fully agree, the test should be performed with a tripod mounted binoculars and with an additional booster. A photo test by a DSLR could be even preferable.
And I agree with them, the Zeiss SF are more contrast, but the Noctivid are sharper (crisper) on axis.
I don't own the NL 8x42, so can't make a direct comparison. May be will have a chance to do it in a month or so.
Concerning Canip question about the smell, the Banner Cloud had some plastic smell from a rubber covering for a while at the beginning. It is a binoculars for the price and not more, in terms of build quality and used materials.
Thank you.
Why? I believe most people (and me as well) use binoculars in handheld mode much more often than a tripod mounted. And it's ok to describe a perceived sharpness in that case. I use a word "sharpness" to describe acutance, not a resolution. In case of a resolution test i fully agree, the test should be performed with a tripod mounted binoculars and with an additional booster. A photo test by a DSLR could be even preferable.
And I agree with them, the Zeiss SF are more contrast, but the Noctivid are sharper (crisper) on axis.
I don't own the NL 8x42, so can't make a direct comparison. May be will have a chance to do it in a month or so.
Concerning Canip question about the smell, the Banner Cloud had some plastic smell from a rubber covering for a while at the beginning. It is a binoculars for the price and not more, in terms of build quality and used materials.
have compared NV vs NL 8x42
and SF VS NL 8x42
didn't compare three all but compared with same references nl 8x42 and el 8x32
between NV, SF, NL
NL is bit sharper then NV and hand down sharper then SF
VERY acknowledgeable in all of the method I do for the review.
so central sharpness is
SF << NV < NL.
sf has best 3D rendering and brightness.
and green, black, yellow color is best satuated because it's significant yellow - green hue.
so color fidelity is worst in SF but SF 8x42 has better fidelity then 10x42 SF. NV 8x42 is more transparent then I thought.
CA in center is much better then NV and very similar with NL. (SF is brighter then NL so, it can be obvious to think that SF controls CA better in center then NL.)
but much more CA in edge.
edge sharpness percnetage is about 92% in sf, 96% in NL, 85% in NV to my eyes.
SF has highest pincusion distortion. so panning is more comfortable then NL
eye placement is lot better in NL then SF and NV.
SF, NV has bit shorter eyecup for it's real eyerelif.
(especially NV 8x42)
x3 digiscoped of the SF 8x42 / NL 8x42.
take only one each of 12 photos taken.
there is a bench to fix my elbows and window frame to support my hand and bino.
and you guys will know the digiscoping skills seeing a digiscoped birds I have taken.
have taken over 300000 shot approx with Samsung S21
also do birding only with digiscope.
I know how to take, and use digiscope at least more then most of other users.
As I said before. Camera is not always right but not always wrong.
SF 8x42 / EL 8x32 (old Swarovision pre field pro)
YES it can be a sample variation
YES it can be just a uneven work by camera
YES it can be just one's wrong thought that every one can have diffrent feel.
BUT I said it because it is confident experience for me in these comparisons.
In my own eyes, diffrence gap in bigger.
after seeing all the buzz going on my previous thread of the bino comparison, I'm not planning to post other specific threads about this.