dries1
Member
You must have some great issue with CA, I have viewed the Aurora, I prefer the HG from Nikon, but please do enjoy the Aurora. The Noctivid is superior IMO, sorry for the issue with CA.
Last edited:
-
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.
6 January 2022 - New Leica announcement (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter fmarinai
- Start date
Ratal
Well-known member
Indeed. CA on snow is a moment my brain refuses to play any longer. Shame, as the Noctabid view is beautiful. I just cannot deal with CA.
Nikon HG is a nice bino for sure. Just feels cheap and the eye cups are a disaster.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hi Paul,
Difficult...
The Noctivids have no particular unique selling point.
The FOV is relatively small compared to the SF or NL, some people have problems with the narrow bridge construction, the focuser is slightly towards the nose, the balance is noticeably better in the SF and NL, the focuser is at least as good in the SF, and the Noctivids have a little more CA and appear a little darker against an SF and NL.
Ultimately, the Swarovski service is exceptionally good, as is the Zeiss service. I've often heard complaints from Leica in recent years.
The Noctivids are really nice binoculars but I'm sure the SF and especially the NL sell a lot more, I'm a lot on binocular retail sites, the NL often sell out, often the SF too, the Noctivids are pretty much always available.
I'm sure Swarovski has a real bestseller with the NL, the SF are also doing well, Leica probably isn't that successful with the Noctivids, which is probably why no 8/10x32 will follow.
But I would still be happy if Leica would produce a few more Alpha binoculars, otherwise a player would be missing.
Andreas
Noctivids have great optics but although they are styled like an open-hinge bino I found that I had to move my hand so much for my 1st finger to reach the focus wheel that they might as well have been a conventional bino design. Gijs van Ginkel mentioned this too. Of course if an open hinge grip is not important to you then this would not be of concern, but for me it was a disappointment.Hi Paul,
Difficult...
The Noctivids have no particular unique selling point.
The FOV is relatively small compared to the SF or NL, some people have problems with the narrow bridge construction, the focuser is slightly towards the nose, the balance is noticeably better in the SF and NL, the focuser is at least as good in the SF, and the Noctivids have a little more CA and appear a little darker against an SF and NL.
Ultimately, the Swarovski service is exceptionally good, as is the Zeiss service. I've often heard complaints from Leica in recent years.
The Noctivids are really nice binoculars but I'm sure the SF and especially the NL sell a lot more, I'm a lot on binocular retail sites, the NL often sell out, often the SF too, the Noctivids are pretty much always available.
I'm sure Swarovski has a real bestseller with the NL, the SF are also doing well, Leica probably isn't that successful with the Noctivids, which is probably why no 8/10x32 will follow.
But I would still be happy if Leica would produce a few more Alpha binoculars, otherwise a player would be missing.
Andreas
Lee
Paultricounty
Well-known member
All interesting and valid points. It’s very hard to compete with the NL and SF. Maybe Leica decided third best is acceptable. Although the open bridge design could’ve been better, it doesn’t seem to bother me. I think it’s subjective on the open bridge design, as I see some people don’t like the tapered NL’s which I love.Hi Paul,
Difficult...
The Noctivids have no particular unique selling point.
The FOV is relatively small compared to the SF or NL, some people have problems with the narrow bridge construction, the focuser is slightly towards the nose, the balance is noticeably better in the SF and NL, the focuser is at least as good in the SF, and the Noctivids have a little more CA and appear a little darker against an SF and NL.
Ultimately, the Swarovski service is exceptionally good, as is the Zeiss service. I've often heard complaints from Leica in recent years.
The Noctivids are really nice binoculars but I'm sure the SF and especially the NL sell a lot more, I'm a lot on binocular retail sites, the NL often sell out, often the SF too, the Noctivids are pretty much always available.
I'm sure Swarovski has a real bestseller with the NL, the SF are also doing well, Leica probably isn't that successful with the Noctivids, which is probably why no 8/10x32 will follow.
But I would still be happy if Leica would produce a few more Alpha binoculars, otherwise a player would be missing.
Andreas
The focuser position is another thing I read about before I bought them. I was concerned about if, it was going to be necessary to reach for the focuser. But I find it perfectly comfortable ,not much different than the UVHD’s or Nikons MHG’s and many others. I’m a little surprised people are having that issue because I don’t have large hands and I’m not reaching for it at all. I wonder sometimes when a feature like that comes up in some review and then it takes on a life of its own.
Putting the bridge and focuser position aside (because both are subjective) the smaller FOV, more CA and darker image are all true and noticeable to very small degrees , but still there. That’s where I agree they are inferior. We are splitting hairs Here. Yet on the other hand with those specs falling short of the NL and SF they seem to be the ones I always want to grab. It’s the image quality that pops, at least more than the SF’s and they just feel nicer than the competition.
The specs alone don’t always equate to a better viewing experience. The color saturation and contrast and over all image is where I think the Leica’s excel slightly over the others. I would’ve thought that image quality and build feel would make them incredibly popular with birders.
It’s really hard to compare because the NLs are so amazing. Swarovski did an incredible job by completely improving every aspect and fault of an already amazing EL. They hit it the ball out of the park with the NL. Leica on the other hand just did a upgrade to the Ultravid. As others have said, Leica is not really the NFL of binocular making, it’s just another fine product line from there large main Business products. They still got me when it comes to image and build quality feel.
Thank you
Paul
Yes there is brand Bias and I am a Leica boy, ...probably started with Cameras. But when I bought my Noctivid, although a bias obviously....I tried the NL and SF side by side and the contrast, colors.....all pointed to the Leica. For me it goes beyond the technical aspects of it and I look at ergonomics and color/contrast and Leica had the others, let alone by size. Can't fault the other two, as I have had Swaro SLC's and HT's in the past, so have given all equal shots thru the years, but my eyes and hands prefer the Leicas.
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Hi PFG,
There’s still not any detailed comments or reviews available. However, there are a couple of interesting images on an Italian site:
I Nuovi Leica Geovid 32 PRO - Tutti i dettagli
The first clearly shows the x32’s necessary chunkiness, as the bridge arms containing the RF components are the same size as those of the x42’s.
And the second shows the consequently limited space between the bridge arms, only allowing a two finger grasp - along with a daintily extended little finger.
John
There’s still not any detailed comments or reviews available. However, there are a couple of interesting images on an Italian site:
I Nuovi Leica Geovid 32 PRO - Tutti i dettagli
The first clearly shows the x32’s necessary chunkiness, as the bridge arms containing the RF components are the same size as those of the x42’s.
And the second shows the consequently limited space between the bridge arms, only allowing a two finger grasp - along with a daintily extended little finger.
John
Attachments
Interesting photos! Thanks for sharing. The big x42s make the 32s look teeny tiny. But the specs show them still a full size bino measurement.
Paul, when you say you don't have to reach for the focuser, do you have your second, third and fourth fingers all wrapped around the optical tube?
Lee
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Hi Lee,
Yes, I’m able to get the three fingers in between what I call the double hinge (open bridge). Index finger slightly on an angle, no reaching though. It seems to me the focuser is in the traditional position on a set of binoculars. I do notice that because of the weight being centered, I hold the barrels in the middle. With a lot of other binoculars I like to hold further down the barrels closer to the objective lenses to steady then more, no sense of need to do that with the NV.
I had read a review (don’t remember from who) that mentioned the focuser was to far back and uncomfortable. After that I remember reading post after post of how out of position the focuser was.
I don’t really see that the focuser is further back than any other binoculars. With Zeiss FL and Swaro NL, I find that I have to consciously hold the binoculars all the way down the barrels otherwise my hands are not positioned well. It takes a little bit more getting used to the FL and the NL than the NV.
If I had to make one complaint (and I’ve seen this in a few reviews) is that the barrels are to close together for an open bridge for some. If your IPD is set to close you cant get your finger wrapped around the barrels in between the open bridge. Not at all like the Swaro EL and Zeiss FS where there’s plenty of room even with gloves.
Paul
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
FWIW I test drove a 10x42 Noctivid this past Saturday. I spent a good half hour with them, which although somewhat brief, seemed sufficient to get a sense of how they compared to Retro, Trino, Ultravid'o:
- The build is amazing. Everything is precise, solid, smooth operating and reeks of quality. And in spite of being 'luxe' they feel as if I could have driven nails with them. Substantial!
- For my Sm-Med hands, the ergos were superb. Good center-of-balance, NO issues whatsoever with focusing knob, great grip. I had been worrying about it based on photos and online comments but grabbed the binos and never even thought about it - totally natural (for me).
- I found them to be flat-field compared to other Leica's I have owned. I've never fondled Swaros so maybe in comparison to them, they are not flat field. At first I didn't like it - felt more like looking at scene than being 'in' it (compared to my UV's I swapped back and forth). I suppose with time I'd get use to it.
- The quality of view is superb. I could not get any CA to appear, or only at edge at best. Maybe conditions weren't right... dunno. The contrast is excellent and color is more neutral than the UV's, but not cold or unnatural.
- I had a little problem initially with blackouts, which I don't experience with any other binos I have owned. I wear close fitting wire rimmed eyeglasses and assume the NV's must have a ton of ER. I ended up finding I actually need to pull the eyecups out to first setting (which is only about 1/8"?) and even then I had to be a little more mindful about eyeplacement.
An 8x32 NV would be a dream!! Leica ARE YOU LISTENING???
Thanks Paul. When I have tried Noctivid and held the optical tube with my three fingers around it, I couldn't reach the focuser. Similarly, if I started by putting my first finger on the focuser I couldn't then wrap my three fingers around the barrels. Gijs van Ginkel found the same and reported it on here. Doesn't mean you can't hold the Nvid and enjoy its superb optics but for me and Gijs the open hinge grip just couldn't be used.
Lee
dries1
Member
MiddleRiver,
The Noctivid is a great handling glass, and the color rendition is the best IMO of the big three, (the NL is up there also) I also do not have any issue with CA. It is built to an excellent standard and no glare or crescent moons near the field stop. The eye cups will not need rubber bands or o -ring to hold them into place, or need to be replaced after frequent use.
There are other 10X out these for you to look at should you keep the BR and Retro without spending $$$, so perhaps you could decide on how often you use 10X, and get a mid range 10X.
The Noctivid is a great handling glass, and the color rendition is the best IMO of the big three, (the NL is up there also) I also do not have any issue with CA. It is built to an excellent standard and no glare or crescent moons near the field stop. The eye cups will not need rubber bands or o -ring to hold them into place, or need to be replaced after frequent use.
There are other 10X out these for you to look at should you keep the BR and Retro without spending $$$, so perhaps you could decide on how often you use 10X, and get a mid range 10X.
Mike F
Well-known member
Lee,
I’ve never even tried to wrap my fingers around the barrels. I know that that’s fundamentally the idea of the open bridge design(!), but I just hold them in the same way as any other binoculars and enjoy the view! 😉
For me as well the ergonomics are just fine, and I go between the NV and UV without a second thought.
I’m just putting this out there because it seems that many people have read the negative reviews and may have been put off from even trying the NV, but when they do they find that it’s actually perfectly okay.
Michael
Last edited:
Thats fine and Nvids are as lovely as all Leicas, but I find it disappointing that the open-hinge design is just a styling exercise.
Lee
