'The Big Three': NL Pure, Noctivid, Victory SF - A Brief Comparison (3 Viewers)

[Elpha8888]

For some reason many years ago I needed to take apart a Swarovski booster, I remember thinking to myself at that time about how amazingly well constructed the booster was. The extreme quality in the build and the materials used left me with no doubt in the Swarovski brand.
I also have the Pures and have no worries about future issues and full confidence in the product.
Having used their warranty before on some Els I can just enjoy the binocular, especially after having paid £2550 for them.
That said of course there can occasionally be problems, same goes for all brands including Leica.

 

[Hermann]

Whilst some people, I gather, have had genuine issues with the armour degrading prematurely, I experienced visible wear and degradation after just 7 hours in the field with a pair of brand new NL's. I also sensed collimation may not have been quite perfect in my copy. So, having been a thorough nuisance to my retailer after rejecting various copies of Swarovski binoculars over approximately a 12 month span I decided to deal with my grievances with Swarovski direct. It took months for them to fix them, due to the Absam upgrade last Summer, but they were finally returned with new armour and collimation adjusted late last year. I caused the cosmetic wear on the armour myself, because my habit is to walk with the appalling hard rubber rain guard tucked behind the instrument, between it and my clothing, the rubbing on the underside of the barrels creating white shiny areas of wear.

The issue, for me, was purely cosmetic, but I felt the visible wear devalued the binocular, should I decide to sell it on.

I don't sell my binoculars, I use them.

Hermann

 

[GrampaTom]

I'm still in love with these amazing binos, but the one thing which has me still thinking about Noctivids is that sense of bulletproof sturdiness which, so far, has been apparent only in Leicas. The NLs seem much more like 'delicate' instruments, but perhaps that feeling is a good thing - maybe I'll be motivated to take better care of them, and won't get complacent!

Yes well, people actually did once kick the tires on cars in showrooms as an indicator of quality, slammed doors, dropped hoods...

We cant get inside.

Judging a book by its cover is probably a more superficial indicator of quality than reputation, something that's mostly earned by performance over time.

 

[Dennis Mau]

It is very simple to decide between the NL, SF or Noctivid. I depends on what your preferences and priorities are. You may prefer one over the other because of ergonomics, but for me optics are the main criteria when choosing a binocular. If you like a big corrected flat field FOV with sharp edges and neutral colors, you will like the NL best. If you like a big, less corrected FOV with less sharp edges and a slight green tint, you will like the SF best. If you can tolerate a smaller less corrected FOV with less sharp edges than the SF, but you really like saturated colors, you will like the Noctivid the best. I think Swarovski has achieved the most advances in the NL, and I prefer them because I like the big FOV with sharp edges. My question is, if you don't care if the edges on your binocular are sharp, why would you care if the edges on your big screen TV are not sharp? When you go see an IMAX movie, do you want the edges of the screen to be fuzzy? How many of you just look at the center of the TV screen when you are watching a movie on your TV, or at the center of the screen when you go to a movie? I don't care what anybody says, you can see the edges of the screen on a TV just like you can see the edges of the FOV in a binocular. They are visible in your peripheral vision and if you move your eye there you can certainly see them. It is just a rationalization because you don't want to spend the $3K to get an SF or NL.

 

[mfunnell]

..if you don't care if the edges on your binocular are sharp, why would you care if the edges on your big screen TV are not sharp? When you go see an IMAX movie, do you want the edges of the screen to be fuzzy? How many of you just look at the center of the TV screen when you are watching a movie on your TV, or at the center of the screen when you go to a movie? I don't care what anybody says, you can see the edges of the screen on a TV just like you can see the edges of the FOV in a binocular. They are visible in your peripheral vision and if you move your eye there you can certainly see them.

To me this seems a silly and inapt analogy - on a TV or movie screen, 'fuzzy' edges stay fuzzy, no matter how I turn or tilt my head. Through binoculars, if I see something at a 'fuzzy' edge I can turn and tilt, as well as move my eyes. In any event, if something is 'fuzzy' at the edge of your view through binoculars it might well be (and often is) in a different plane of focus from what you've viewing in the centre. So you'd often have to re-focus anyway (no matter whether you turn and tilt to do so in the centre of view, or stare robotically straight and bring it into focus at an edge).

I don't think this particular analogy is quite the trump-card you think you're playing...

...Mike

 

[Bentley03]

I don't sell my binoculars, I use them.

Hermann

Me, I enjoy buying, selling/trading and using my binoculars. I find variety, Hermann, to be the spice of life.

 

[Will K]

For me, at least, I think that edge to edge sharpness is something that I’d always look for in optics now. Although, from what I remember, the Noctivids seemed plenty sharp. I’ve not looked through a pair since that day in post #1, however, and I’ve spent lot of time with the NLs in the meantime. Maybe my next experience with a Noctivid will be more nuanced.

 

[Dennis Mau]

For me, at least, I think that edge to edge sharpness is something that I’d always look for in optics now. Although, from what I remember, the Noctivids seemed plenty sharp. I’ve not looked through a pair since that day in post #1, however, and I’ve spent lot of time with the NLs in the meantime. Maybe my next experience with a Noctivid will be more nuanced.

The Noctivids have the sharpest edges of any Leica's, but they are still not as sharp as the NL, nor do they anywhere near the FOV of the NL. When you are used to using the NL and try a Noctivid is when you will see a big difference, not the other way around. Once your eyes have become accustomed to the sharp edges and huge FOV of the NL, the Noctivid will feel like tunnel vision. When you are used to using an alpha and try to go down to an MHG or Conquest HD is when you notice the difference. So if you can't afford an alpha, don't get used to using one.

 

[Dennis Mau]

To me this seems a silly and inapt analogy - on a TV or movie screen, 'fuzzy' edges stay fuzzy, no matter how I turn or tilt my head. Through binoculars, if I see something at a 'fuzzy' edge I can turn and tilt, as well as move my eyes. In any event, if something is 'fuzzy' at the edge of your view through binoculars it might well be (and often is) in a different plane of focus from what you've viewing in the centre. So you'd often have to re-focus anyway (no matter whether you turn and tilt to do so in the centre of view, or stare robotically straight and bring it into focus at an edge).

I don't think this particular analogy is quite the trump-card you think you're playing...

...Mike

Nah, I can easily the edges on my binoculars and the NL is so flat field that when you focus on-axis the edges are almost in tack sharp focus also. I can pick up birds on the edge of the FOV with an NL that I never could with a Noctivid.

 

[Scott98]

The Noctivids have the sharpest edges of any Leica's, but they are still not as sharp as the NL, nor do they anywhere near the FOV of the NL. When you are used to using the NL and try a Noctivid is when you will see a big difference, not the other way around. Once your eyes have become accustomed to the sharp edges and huge FOV of the NL, the Noctivid will feel like tunnel vision. When you are used to using an alpha and try to go down to an MHG or Conquest HD is when you notice the difference. So if you can't afford an alpha, don't get used to using one.

But that's a personal preference for wide field. I don't have that. Wider fields show more area, but bring troubles, like warping distortion and more difficult eye placement. AFOV in the 50's has always been enough for me. A 7.7 degree 8x bino would be just about perfect for me.

The ever-escalating FOV's do help to push product out the door. How do you get people that have everything to buy new binoculars? You start an FOV arms race and convince people to chase that higher spec number. I'm happy to see Nikon and Leica dig in their heels and say "enough" with increasing FOV.

 

[Will K]

The ever-escalating FOV's do help to push product out the door. How do you get people that have everything to buy new binoculars? You start an FOV arms race and convince people to chase that higher spec number. I'm happy to see Nikon and Leica dig in their heels and say "enough" with increasing FOV.

True, but the FOV arms race might also have been a factor which drew me (at least) toward optics and birdwatching in the first place.

If it wasn't for the 'wow factor' which the NLs provided when I first looked through them in a shop, I might not have developed such a keen interest in binos, scopes, birds, etc. It got me through the door.

 

[tehri]

Everyone has their own preferences, Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss... But for those who are sensitive to this FOV, NL Pure is a real game changer in the field of optic... no more, no less...

 

[GrampaTom]

It is just a rationalization because you don't want to spend the $3K to get an SF or NL.

Well now, an interesting thought, though probably one a bit too personal for here...

 

[GrampaTom]

True, but the FOV arms race might also have been a factor which drew me (at least) toward optics and birdwatching in the first place.

If it wasn't for the 'wow factor' which the NLs provided when I first looked through them in a shop, I might not have developed such a keen interest in binos, scopes, birds, etc. It got me through the door.

I get a wow with any of my binos, even my 35 year ol Zeiss 1040s still impress. Started when I was a kid looking through parent's whatevers out the window. Right up there with first time I rode a 2 wheeler without training wheels or adult hands to help. Maybe to like the first drive, after getting a license and Dad hands you keys to the family car.

I get if I was new and walked into this latest bino industry, FOV hype/push I would think it was FOV. But isn't it kinda just magical to see things from where we're standing that wouldn't be possible with the naked eye. And then there's the magic of the things we do see...

Yea, wow.

 

[Will K]

I can't remember where I first heard this phrase, but, for me, binos are about the 'supervision' they provide.

I'll look at anything: birds, tress, buildings, wallpaper (!). We take for granted the fact that binos extend the physical capabilities of the human body in a magical way. Something like an NL, Noc or SF just maximises that magic.

 

[Scott98]

If it wasn't for the 'wow factor' which the NLs provided when I first looked through them in a shop, I might not have developed such a keen interest in binos, scopes, birds, etc. It got me through the door.

this is why I didn't look through the NL's at the local shop! I knew what might happen.

 

[Will K]

this is why I didn't look through the NL's at the local shop! I knew what might happen.

Yep, Swarovski hooked me and reeled me in like a fish

 

[tehri]

I try to write a little about it, describe it... but I really feel the highest quality binoculars like teleporters... not only an extraordinary optical phenomenon, but coupled with a pure process of teleportation !!
These instruments are real teleportation platforms !!!
You look all the way over there, bring those optics to your eyes, and WHOOOOOSH, there you're !!!!!
Just amazing, and so often as unreal, 'Magic', yes !

 

[Maljunulo]

The NL seems to divide the population into two groups, those who can see the difference, and those who (for whatever reason) can not.

 

[Will K]

That just goes to show its down to subjective preferences, at that level of engagement. Lots of stuff can be measured objectively - X is bigger than Y, etc. - but how individual humans respond to that X and Y is often entirely unpredictable.