What is the Noctivid about? (2 Viewers)

[Conndomat]

and they have all been with Swarovski.

Hi Jerry,

I had three !!! noctivids in a row, all with focus problems!

Maybe bad luck, my need for Noctivids was ended!

Every manufacturer has bad apples in their basket.

Andreas

 

[chill6x6]

It depends on what one calls a focuser "problem."

I have never returned ANY "high end" brand binocular because of a focus issue and I am hard to please. I have owned most brands and still have several of each with most being Swarovski and Leica probably. Some are better than others, yes. All focus with a reasonable amount of effort including direction change with little to zero slack in the adjustment. So with the binoculars I have I would call a focus issue uncommon with the higher end binoculars.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Which people? I've been 100% satisfied (as in never think twice about it, as you say) with the focuser on every high-quality bino I've bought or even tried in the last 20 years: Leica BN, Trinovid BR, and UV, as well as Swaro EL (various generations) and recent SLC, and Zeiss SF. (Lesser models, absolutely not.) The occasional lemons must just be overrepresented due to (understandable) online complaints.

Hi Tenex,

I just remember there were repeated comments about stiction (is that a word?) and unsmooth Swarovski focusers not that long ago. If I remember aright it was maybe more on slightly older (immediately preceding version) SLCs but the ELs got the occasional mention in comparative reviews. I have no problems with anything I've got but the EDG would be 'primus inter pares'.

Your last sentence - couldn't agree more, but as you say, understandable.

Tom

 

[Alexis Powell]

I don't understand why anyone feels the need to argue against others' experience of focus issues. I am quite tolerant of different feels to different focusers, but I have found that a surprisingly large percentage of the high-end bins I've tried have had issues. I do also think that these companies have improved on this as of late. Some past experiences off the top of my head:

Leica BA, BN, and original Ultravid models often had a problem with stiction and getting stuck at each end of travel, sometimes even requiring service.

Zeiss 7x42 BGATP can be finicky. My unit gets very stiff (yes, stiff) at high temps, despite 3 trips to Zeiss for service.

The first two original Swarovski 8.5x42 EL units that I tried had problems with left vs right synchronization. My good unit had to be serviced by Swarovski because it became too stiff to turn easily (despite being kept clean and dry). When working properly, the difference in resistance both ways doesn't bother me at all, but it is definitely there to experience.

The original Zeiss Victory models seemed to have issues with the diopter slipping during focus (I experienced it with a couple units that I tried). Some have claimed the same for the FL, but I've had no such trouble.

--AP

 

[tenex]

I am not trying to "argue against others' experience of focus issues". I'm just reporting mine, which seems likely to be underrepresented online, and wondering what the overall picture could really look like. Perhaps Swaro et al could provide data on what percentage of units sold have needed service for sticky focusing? I will say that if bad experiences actually predominate but I've somehow completely avoided them for 20 years, I'd be surprised.

It is puzzling. Owners of problem binos sometimes send them in repeatedly and never feel the problem is quite fixed... while others (presumably most) keep working just fine. That seems hard to explain.

 

[Mike F]

It is puzzling. Owners of problem binos sometimes send them in repeatedly and never feel the problem is quite fixed... while others (presumably most) keep working just fine. That seems hard to explain.

If I might be so bold as to throw in my 2 cents I would say this:-

It seems to me highly likely that problem bins are over represented on forums such as this simply because nobody reports a 'non- problem'. That's stating the obvious, I know, but I think the thing which explains what you've said above is the fact that some people can consider something a problem that many others simply don't. That's why, I believe, some people can repeatedly send in a bino to have a problem fixed and never be satisfied with the result. Others (perhaps the majority) would never have thought that there was a problem in the first place......

I say this as someone who is most definitely at the very exacting (bloody fussy!) end of the spectrum. I can find fault with just about anything(!) especially when it's a premium product that has cost a lot of money.

(You may have noticed my recent thread about the 12x50 UVHD+. I'm very sure that the vast majority of people would never have noticed the slight lens imperfections. They really are next to invisible in all but extreme direct lighting conditions and I'm still somewhat unsure if it's wise to send them back for a replacement with which I could well find another problem as bad or worse!)

 

[Troubador]

I don't understand why anyone feels the need to argue against others' experience of focus issues. I am quite tolerant of different feels to different focusers, but I have found that a surprisingly large percentage of the high-end bins I've tried have had issues. I do also think that these companies have improved on this as of late. Some past experiences off the top of my head:

Leica BA, BN, and original Ultravid models often had a problem with stiction and getting stuck at each end of travel, sometimes even requiring service.

Zeiss 7x42 BGATP can be finicky. My unit gets very stiff (yes, stiff) at high temps, despite 3 trips to Zeiss for service.

The first two original Swarovski 8.5x42 EL units that I tried had problems with left vs right synchronization. My good unit had to be serviced by Swarovski because it became too stiff to turn easily (despite being kept clean and dry). When working properly, the difference in resistance both ways doesn't bother me at all, but it is definitely there to experience.

The original Zeiss Victory models seemed to have issues with the diopter slipping during focus (I experienced it with a couple units that I tried). Some have claimed the same for the FL, but I've had no such trouble.

--AP

I never had issues with FL focusers either. I do know one Ultravid HD 8x32 that has a rough and sticky focuser that the owner never mentions and I have never commented on but would not enjoy at all. It is a good example of something one person doesn't notice and another finds unacceptable.

Way back in 2004 the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 WB (pre-Swarovision) I replaced my Zeiss Dialyt 10x40BGAT with developed a sticky focuser with increasing back-lash that I sent to Absam, but although it came back improved it was not 'as new' and I swapped it for an FL.

Despite this latter experience and grumbles about EL focusers regularly turning up on BirdForum a few years ago I argued with Brock at the time that I did not believe this problem could be as widespread as it seemed or Swarovski ELs would not have become market leaders among birders.

Lee

 

[Alaska4me]

I miss Brock. He was the best.

 

[Conndomat]

It depends on what one calls a focuser "problem."

Hi Chuck,

I'm not so critical of the focusers, I don't think it's so important whether they're a bit more resilient or softer, faster or slower, but I don't like focusers that rotate at different levels, sometimes more, sometimes less rotational resistance is a no for me!

Andreas

 

[Iceberg slim]

Their is definitely an issue, with Dioptre adjustment,(see my previous post on this issue) it does not lock it in place, with in a day of setting it, i am then able to move through the full range without having to pull the cap up as you usually would to set it, i asked my mate, who purchased at the same time, and he say he has the very same issue.
These binoculars of mine have been sent back to Leica, and they claim there is no issue!

 

[42za]

Hello All,

I do not have a Noctivid , but I do have an Ultravid HD+.

It is a hard thing to say , but the diopter adjustment and focussing mechanisms on the modern day Leica's feel flimsy , cheap and sloppy , and do not reflect the high prices that these binoculars sell for.

Pity , because these are really good binoculars otherwise , but I suppose that Leica have to cut costs somewhere.

I have previously posted my thoughts on this subject , but I was ridiculed and shouted down ---oh well 3 3 3 , no harm done.

Cheers.

 

[temmie]

Not necessarily about the Noctivid (I only used one for a minute, owned by a friend, and it was still brand new), but about focusers in general:
1. when someone like chill6x6 mentions he didn't have issues with focusers, I do wonder, with a collection as big as his, how hard he uses each and every of his binoculars?
2. regarding high-end binos and their focussing: I found you can wear out almost any focuser of any of the top brand binoculars until it grinds, has play or backlash. Just by trying out several binoculars of friends who use them a lot (daily), I can say that Swarovski EL have a coarse focus after some time / years. Zeiss stays smooth but the amount of play / backlash can increase. the Leica (until Ultravid) I tried didn't feel coarse (not smooth either but we know why, because they have a 'dry' mechanism) but had some backlash.

All of those focusers still worked but I feel some here would have issues with the deterioration. With Swarovski, I fele their focus is neither smooth nor fast, so not really attractive for me. Leica would be very OK as the focus stays mostly the same over the course of 5-10 years. Zeiss (the T*FL) runs a bit drier maybe after some years but it's still smoother than both Swaro and Leica, and if there is something I like a lot, it's smoothness

I can't say much about the noctivid, other than I don't like the ribbles on the focuser (to big).

 

[PHA]

Hi,

Well I have NEVER had ANY issue with the focuser of the many Swarovski Habicht I have had. Samples used HARD and for many years, specially one from the seventies. Still tight and without ANY backlash.

Best!

PHA

 

[dwever]

I returned two UVHD+'s to CameraLand for focus issue in a 8X42 (slop when you changed directions) and a 10X50 that rotated with different amounts of resistance in the cycle. The replacements were fine. My UVHD+ 7X42's had no issues nor does my Noctivid 8X42. I used Chili 6X6 (12 posts above) 10X42 Noctivids for a day and it focused beautifully.

My first Steiner's in state law enforcement literally just fell apart eventually; then, I bought a Zeiss 7X50 Marine that focused individually at the eye cup, and they were so abused falling off the dashboard a few times a week from the force of a left hand turn or a hard acceleration, but just indestructible as optically they never lost a thing. Build-wise my Leica's seem to fall somewhere in between the two extremes with the Noctivid seeming to have superior industrial design and build quality to the UVHD+ samples.

 

[hopster]

The Noctivid is bright and the design is stylish. A good quality safe choice. If someone wants to have their socks knocked off after using an older Leica, they should try looking through a Zeiss SF.

Edmund

As long as they like somewhat green-tinted and bland socks.

 

[NDhunter]

As long as they like somewhat green-tinted and bland socks.

I can tell you have no experience with the Zeiss SF, it really does knock the socks off anything Leica......
Jerry

 

[hopster]

I can tell you have no experience with the Zeiss SF, it really does knock the socks off anything Leica......
Jerry

On the contrary, I have looked through two examples of the 8x42 and one of the 10x42 at length and compared them directly with other top models (SLC, HT, NV, EL, NL) when I was looking to buy an 8x42 with image quality as my main criterion. I love the ergonomics, balance, focuser which are all top class and the wide FOV, but not the view which despite being very sharp has a slight green tint and a lack of contrast/sparkle compared with the very best (HT, NV) making them seem a little bland by comparison. I am certainly not alone in having seen this as many comments on this forum will confirm.

Please don't make assumptions about other people's experience simply because it does not agree with your own or your buying decision.

 

[NDhunter]

Well Hoppy, in your post # 215, out of the blue in a Leica thread you like to dismiss the Zeiss SF, and I find that unusual and wonder about your intent. And your lack of experience is clear...............I suppose anyone can throw out negative comments about anything.
Jerry

 

[hopster]

Well Hoppy, in your post # 215, out of the blue in a Leica thread you like to dismiss the Zeiss SF, and I find that unusual and wonder about your intent. And your lack of experience is clear...............I suppose anyone can throw out negative comments about anything.
Jerry

More accusations of 'lack of experience' because I don't agree with your definitive knowledge on the matter.

I don't dismiss your favourite optic, I give a considered view on the image quality compared to the best 8x42s that I have looked through with an open mind. You aren't to know but I have one Zeiss in my collection and my main birding optic used to be the HT 10x42, so I have no particular brand loyalty.

No more accusations or attempts to bully please, there is already too much of that here and it just pollutes the place.

 

[Trinovid]

I can tell you have no experience with the Zeiss SF, it really does knock the socks off anything Leica......

Well Hoppy...your lack of experience is clear...............I suppose anyone can throw out negative comments about anything.

Yes they can, and you just did it two posts in a row. Live and let live is obviously not in your mindset.