• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Why do Zeiss's alpha level binoculars like the FL and SF have some of the best CA control of any binoculars? (1 Viewer)

Anyway, why couldn't Leica just correct the CA in the top binos? I get it that the non flat, small FOV, high contrast, red hue and high distortion image has its appeal. On the other hand, nobody likes CA.
Nowadays, even the chinese SRBC has way less CA than the top Leica bino like Jackjack showed, while having a wider field, better corrected, etc. Cutaway images show that Leicas have roughly the same amount of lens elements like Swaros or Zeiss. What's stopping them from matching glass types, using achromatic doublets in the eyepieces, etc. to reduce CA? I feel like they could leave all those "features" I mentioned above that appeal to certain users intact, while having ample margin to remove CA, any ideas?
Maybe high levels of CA are why Leica's are known for those highly saturated colors. The CA actually IS the saturated colors.:p
 
Last edited:
for the first paragraph, that you say I missed the point, I was half jocking πŸ˜€
Have compared Kowa genesis 10x33 with Leica UV 10x32.
πŸ˜‰βœŒπŸΌπŸ‘πŸ»
Kowa excels at Distortion, CA, Edge sharpness but overall Leica UV is a better bino.
Genesis has a quirky distortion pattern. I see a ring of distortion starting then it’s clear and a no distortion ring, then the distortion continues to the edge. But I still like him.
I think Leica is the most sustainable bino at the market.
Best build quality and best AS (at least here in South Korea)

yellowish hue is made by dropping purple blue, and bit of green transmission compared to yellow, orange spectrum.
if intended, it help to reduce eyestrain and enhance color satuation and contrast at sunny days then more bluish ones.
but imhaving similar color bias doesn't mean they have similar texture of color.

such as around 2010 MIC bins emphasize yellow + orange same as Leica UVHD.

and recent MIC bins tend to reduce yellow light and spare more purple and blue. making bit reddish but lot better in color fidelity.
and Fujinon HC & Vortex Razor UHD have very similar bias

but lot is diffrent in actual.


I was traveling through Europe early this August. Day was much brighter then South Korea enough for me to miss my EDG πŸ˜€

many bino have different times and ways to shine.
looking through BN 7x42 at early sunset was the best experience Leica gave to me πŸ˜€
 
Anyway, why couldn't Leica just correct the CA in the top binos? I get it that the non flat, small FOV, high contrast, red hue and high distortion image has its appeal. On the other hand, nobody likes CA.
Nowadays, even the chinese SRBC has way less CA than the top Leica bino like Jackjack showed, while having a wider field, better corrected, etc. Cutaway images show that Leicas have roughly the same amount of lens elements like Swaros or Zeiss. What's stopping them from matching glass types, using achromatic doublets in the eyepieces, etc. to reduce CA? I feel like they could leave all those "features" I mentioned above that appeal to certain users intact, while having ample margin to remove CA, any ideas?
But that statement can be said about every binocular on the market. Why does not Zeiss fix the yellow color cast I see when I use them? πŸ™‚ Whites are dirty yellow. I do not like that in a binocular. And it is allways there so I think about everytime I lift a Zeiss SF to my eyes. Crazy! πŸ˜‰ Thats not the case with CA in the Noctivid 8x42 where it just is prominent/disturbing in certain situations. There are binoculars wich show lot of CA to the point that they are almost unusable in the field. But you can not say that about the Noctivid 8x42.
 
I totally agree. The Noctivid 8x42 does not handle CA perfectly, but I think it handles CA well in most birding situations. I am rather sensitive to CA, but CA is not an issue with the Leica Noctivid. The old Nikon HGL was hard to use because of disturbing CA everyware you looked, but that is not the case with the Noctivid 8x42. As you say..in some situations/lighting CA can be rather prominent in the Noctivid 8x42, but so it also is in many other binoculars (Nikon EDG 8x42 to name one). Leica Noctivid 8x42 is not perfect, but a very very good binocular. Zeiss SF and Swarovski NL Pure are not perfect either..and according to me they loose to the Leica Noctivid when I compare over 20 different things wich are important in a binocular. My favourite binocular is still Nikon EDG 8x42, but maybe with time it could be the Leica Noctivid 8x42. Time will tell.. πŸ™‚
You see a lot of CA in the EDG 8x42? I always found CA to be pretty well controlled in the EDG. I always thought it would be nice to have a computer program where you go through and check the things that are important to you and the computer picks your binocular for you with AI.
 
Last edited:
You see a lot of CA in the EDG 8x42? I always found CA to be pretty well controlled in the EDG. I always thought it would be nice to have a computer program where you go through and check the things that are important to you and the computer picks your binocular for you.
I clearly see CA in the Nikon EDG 8x42 in certain situations where CA is prominent in the Leica Noctivid. CA in the EDG 8x42 is definately not a problem in most cases, and it is not in the Noctivid 8x42 either.. πŸ™‚
 
But that statement can be said about every binocular on the market. Why does not Zeiss fix the yellow color cast I see when I use them? πŸ™‚ Whites are dirty yellow. I do not like that in a binocular. And it is allways there so I think about everytime I lift a Zeiss SF to my eyes. Crazy! πŸ˜‰ Thats not the case with CA in the Noctivid 8x42 where it just is prominent/disturbing in certain situations. There are binoculars wich show lot of CA to the point that they are almost unusable in the field. But you can not say that about the Noctivid 8x42.
It is because optical design is about tradeoffs. You improve one thing and something else suffers. It is very hard to design the perfect binocular, or somebody would have done it. Swarovski came close to perfection with the NL, but then it has a boatload of glare. Leica has nice saturated colors, but their middle name is CA. Zeiss controls CA well, but some have the yellow/green color cast, so what is the solution. The only solution is to select a binocular that checks the most boxes for you, and realize you are going to have to tolerate the things you don't like about it. If there are things you can't tolerate, choose another binocular. I could not tolerate that goofy glare in the bottom of the FOV or the FP in the NL, so I moved on to Zeiss.
 
Last edited:
"Genesis has a quirky distortion pattern. I see a ring of distortion starting then it’s clear and a no distortion ring, then the distortion continues to the edge. But I still like him."

That is what I hate about the Genesis. It has a weird distortion pattern on the edge of the FOV that you notice. The FL has distortion on the edge, but it is more gradual and less noticeable.
 
(...) I always thought it would be nice to have a computer program where you go through and check the things that are important to you and the computer picks your binocular for you.

Strange. When I - rarely and after years! - want to buy new binoculars, I can easily choose them on my own: pre-selecting the relevant models, touching them, adjusting them, looking through them, that's all I need. Really, it's not that difficult and moreover, I have to solve more important problems every week. I hate letting other people decide for me. I definitely don't need a guru or a computer program. I also don't like an algorithm that selects my preferred music. Why do you have to make yourself so small, insecure and helpless? Take your time, clarify your preferences, make informed decisions and stick to them. Deciding for yourself is freedom and makes grown-up people happy!

Sorry, I don't want to appear rude, but I find it really very regrettable to waste our far too short lifespan on chaotic consumer decisions and not even be satisfied afterwards.
 
Last edited:
You see a lot of CA in the EDG 8x42? I always found CA to be pretty well controlled in the EDG. I always thought it would be nice to have a computer program where you go through and check the things that are important to you and the computer picks your binocular for you.
Why, we got you, you can tell everybody what they will like 🀭✌🏼.
 
But that statement can be said about every binocular on the market. Why does not Zeiss fix the yellow color cast I see when I use them? πŸ™‚ Whites are dirty yellow. I do not like that in a binocular. And it is allways there so I think about everytime I lift a Zeiss SF to my eyes. Crazy! πŸ˜‰ Thats not the case with CA in the Noctivid 8x42 where it just is prominent/disturbing in certain situations. There are binoculars wich show lot of CA to the point that they are almost unusable in the field. But you can not say that about the Noctivid 8x42.
Zeiss fixed it close to perfection at SFL
and former HT is really far from it
 
Why, we got you, you can tell everybody what they will like 🀭✌🏼.
Good thread on CA in the Noctivid's! Makes you want to switch to a Zeiss. :)


aquapu25
"Hello everybody. I use a Noctivid 8 X 42 for 16 months. To my eyes, I have a lot of CA. A French commercial director writes my that CA is the against part of shine... Noctivid have lots of qualities: nice view, high contrast, good low light performances, ergonomics to my hands and high build quality. But I can't bare CA, and I think I will sell them. I am more happy why my Trinovid 10 X 42 BA of the 90s! No CA to my eyes with them. Perhaps I will buy a Zeiss with an AK prism. "

Gijs van Ginkel
"One of the first things the persons invited for the introduction of the NV was the occurrence of Color diffraction, and I also saw it when I got NV samples to be tested (test published on the WEB--site of House of Outdoor)."

jremmons
"I think most Leica, including the Noctivid samples I have seen, show more CA than other alpha level binoculars."

pierrot_lunaire
"Having used the Noctivid 8x42 for about 8 months, I would say that it has wonderful optics, but also a very significant issue with CA. This is evident in a surprisingly wide range of conditions, sometimes intrusively, even close to the center of the image. For those sensitive to CA (even moderately), I would advise trying out the Noctivid in a variety of situations prior to purchase. There is something unique and rather special about the way in which Noctivid renders images, and if CA does not really affect you, it is one of the finest choices available. For me personally, I am currently looking for an alternative option with better control of CA."

aquapu25
"In my eyes, Noctivid 8X have a lot more CA than the Ultravid and Trinivid BA and BN. The 50 are free of CA. Could this CA technically come from the wide exit pupil of the Noctivid? Thanks."

arran
"Just compared the Noctivid 10x42 with Zeiss SF 10x42 from the local birdwatchers while looking at passing raptors against a bright sky and I was astonished how much CA the NV still gives in the central axis"



Like Quote
 
Last edited:
It is because optical design is about tradeoffs. You improve one thing and something else suffers. It is very hard to design the perfect binocular, or somebody would have done it. Swarovski came close to perfection with the NL, but then it has a boatload of glare. Leica has nice saturated colors, but their middle name is CA. Zeiss controls CA well, but some have the yellow/green color cast, so what is the solution. The only solution is to select a binocular that checks the most boxes for you, and realize you are going to have to tolerate the things you don't like about it. If there are things you can't tolerate, choose another binocular. I could not tolerate that goofy glare in the bottom of the FOV or the FP in the NL, so I moved on to Zeiss.
Yes, that is exactly what I ment. If Noctivid 8x42 would have prominent CA in the center all the time whereever you look it had been a "no no" for me. But it has not in most situations/lightings. Not to me at least. But such threads like this may make people believe that Noctivid 8x42 can not handling CA at all. I tried a Nikon HGL once..and that one had serious issues with handling CA if I remember correctly. Do you think the old Nikon HGL and the Leica Octivid 8x42 handles CA equal..or does the Nocticid 8x42 show more or less CA than the old Nikon HGL?
 
I had a Nikon HGL, and it had a lot of CA, especially on the edge. Going from memory, I would say it was worse than the Noctivid 8x42 I had, but I still remember seeing edge CA on the Noctivid 8x42. I had a green one and it was a beautiful binocular. I really liked the contrast and saturated colors, so it is a matter of where your preferences are. The Noctivid does have a magic to it, and you can't have everything in a binocular.

I really like my Zeiss FL 7x42, but it does have a slight green tint. I find it kind of relaxing, but it really bothers some people. Furthermore, I really like the on-axis view of the Zeiss SF's and FL's for some reason. I think it is because of their low CA and lack of aberrations, even though the FL's do have some distortion and slightly soft edges. The FL's edges are not as soft as some people think, though. I was looking at them today and actually they are not bad.
I can surely also see CA in the edges of the Noctivid 8x42 if it is a bright sky behind trees/a forest for example. But I can see that in my Nikon EDG 8x42 also..and in the Swarovski SLC 8x42 that I owned for some years ago too. The Noctivid has a little "stronger" CA than the EDG, but it is not by much. And I concider the Nikon EDG 8x42 to handle CA pretty well in most cases. I have only owned the Leica Noctivid 8x42 for a couple of weeks, so maybe I will detect disturbing CA in more situations than I do right now. But I don't think so.
 
you also have to move your eye from bino to bino for direct comparison. and aligning bino with human eyes to perfection is more difficult then with camera. because humen have curved, soft, highly differs in individual face.
and eco lens is less consistent, more dependent to condition then camera.

so what is more subjective?

Centring the camera lens on the ocular is pretty straightforward, but testing and then consistently getting the correct ER is much more difficult to achieve. ER can have a significant impact on CA.
 
I can surely also see CA in the edges of the Noctivid 8x42 if it is a bright sky behind trees/a forest for example. But I can see that in my Nikon EDG 8x42 also..and in the Swarovski SLC 8x42 that I owned for some years ago too. The Noctivid has a little "stronger" CA than the EDG, but it is not by much. And I concider the Nikon EDG 8x42 to handle CA pretty well in most cases. I have only owned the Leica Noctivid 8x42 for a couple of weeks, so maybe I will detect disturbing CA in more situations than I do right now. But I don't think so.

The worst seems to be on high-contrast edges from white objects in very bright conditions. Try a yacht hull on a sunny day against a dark background.

Perhaps the NV is optimised (as its name suggests) for lower-light situations?

Anyway I relish the presentation it gives even on sunny days. Important to get eye position just right.
 
The worst seems to be on high-contrast edges from white objects in very bright conditions. Try a yacht hull on a sunny day against a dark background.

Perhaps the NV is optimised (as its name suggests) for lower-light situations?

Anyway I relish the presentation it gives even on sunny days. Important to get eye position just right.
To me the most difficult situation for the Noctivid 8x42 is when it is cloudy, but still a bright soft light from the sun. In those cases birds get a lot of CA that makes it more difficult to ID birds. But also the Nikon EDG 8x42 show a lot of CA in that special weather/light condition. It should have been interesting to test the Swarro NL Pure in that type of lighting. My cousin has the NL Pure 8x32, so it will be possible for me to try that binocular in the near future.
 
To me the most difficult situation for the Noctivid 8x42 is when it is cloudy, but still a bright soft light from the sun. In those cases birds get a lot of CA that makes it more difficult to ID birds. But also the Nikon EDG 8x42 show a lot of CA in that special weather/light condition. It should have been interesting to test the Swarro NL Pure in that type of lighting. My cousin has the NL Pure 8x32, so it will be possible for me to try that binocular in the near future.

Yes let us know. These are all magnifying optics which have to operate within the laws of physics and so trade-offs and imperfections are inevitable. I think that in general x32s will produce less CA than x42s but optics experts here might disagree.

Personally, an optic that produces a bit less CA on some targets but by comparison washes out colour and contrast everywhere would not be one that I wanted to use as my main glass. I'm looking at you SF! The NL and HT produce colours as close to the NV as I have seen in a roof prism, but the NL has practical problems with glare-resistance and - if you're unlucky - armour quality, and the HT lacks too much red in the image making things look rather cooler than reality to my eyes.
 
Yes let us know. These are all magnifying optics which have to operate within the laws of physics and so trade-offs and imperfections are inevitable. I think that in general x32s will produce less CA than x42s but optics experts here might disagree.

Personally, an optic that produces a bit less CA on some targets but by comparison washes out colour and contrast everywhere would not be one that I wanted to use as my main glass. I'm looking at you SF! The NL and HT produce colours as close to the NV as I have seen in a roof prism, but the NL has practical problems with glare-resistance and - if you're unlucky - armour quality, and the HT lacks too much red in the image making things look rather cooler than reality to my eyes.
No binocular is perfect, but hopefully people choose THE binocular they consider to suite them best.. πŸ™‚
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top