New Leica September 4 2017 (1 Viewer)

Troubador said:

Bob

I would think that any sealing system that can keep Nitrogen at over atmospheric pressure inside, will surely keep out water too.

Happy to be corrected if any this is in error.

Lee

Click to expand...

Actually, nitrogen is just about the easiest gas to keep inside a binocular. That is because it is the partial pressure difference between inside and outside that is the driving force for the gas to move. Since it is 80% of the outside air, any nitrogen inside has little incentive to move out.

The nitrogen itself also has no influence over other gases trying to get inside, such as water vapour. Only the quality of the seal affects that.

The primary purpose of the nitrogen is to flush out the normal air just before sealing the instrument.

Hermann said:

Actually, I think Leica are waffling a bit here. My translation would run something like this:

"The new Trinovid isn't waterproof, so don't throw it into your garden pond, don't wash away salt or dirt under the tap, and don't put it into the dishwasher. You will be OK in light rain, but in a real downpour you need to be careful and protect the bincolurs. If you aren't and get water into the bin, you'll have to pay to get the binoculars cleaned."

Hermann

Click to expand...

According to Allbino's testing, some of Leica''s waterproof binoculars aren't even waterproof (leaked during tests). I bet the new "splashproof" version isn't much better.

Dorian Gray said:

When I had a Docter 7x40 B/GA, I was amazed how good the image was despite the lack of phase-correcting coatings. Of course I was not able to compare it to the same binocular with phase correction, but the view was certainly good enough for aberrations to dominate the quality (and they duly did off-axis).

Click to expand...

That's actually what you find in the literature: The smaller the exit pupil and the higher the magnification, the more obvious the effects of phase-coatings become.

The Zeiss Jena/Docter is a prime example for that: Relatively small magnification, large exit pupil. What happens during the day is that you "shift" the small entrance pupil of your eyes so that you only utilize one half of the exit pupils of the binoculars. That's been mentioned e.g. by Adolf Weyrauch and Bernd Doerband in their article.

Hermann

jgraider said:

According to Allbino's testing, some of Leica''s waterproof binoculars aren't even waterproof (leaked during tests). I bet the new "splashproof" version isn't much better.

Click to expand...

That doesn't even make much sense, does it? A "splashproof" binocular isn't waterproof. How surprising.

BTW, I've seen many, many Trinovids being used in the field in the 1970s and 1980s, in all sorts of weather. We've got two in the family that saw heavy use over the years until they were retired once the phase-corrected roofs arrived on the market. I know of only two Trinovids that leaked. Ours survived all sorts of weather no problem. One was even washed rgularly under the tap, something I wouldn't do with the Trinovid.

And over the past 30 years I saw several supposedly "waterproof" roofs from alpha manufacturers that also leaked. There was only one other Leica among those, an Ultravid 8x32.

Hermann

It's just pure coincidence that in two Allbinos tests, both times Leica's leaked. Ok.

BTW, one of my fave all time binocs that I've owned was a Trinovid BN that I used hard for 15 years. Toughest bino ever made IMO.

Alexis Powell said:

For those who can see how dramatically phase coatings improve the view through roof prism bins, there is no going back to old bins (or at least no desire to spend $$$ on them).

For me, the deal killer spec of these new 7x35 when considering use in the field, is the close focus. Four feet would have been great, but I'd settle for six. Ten ft is just too far. When I want a bin that is light, compact, wide FOV, good eye-relief and close focus, I'll be reaching for the Zeiss 8x32 FL. Wish it had 5 mm exit pupils, but I'll live without them.

--AP

Click to expand...

All:

This is a question about phase coatings. The discussion is well known
about phase coatings on SP prisms. How about the Uppendahl prism ?

Do the same principles apply ?

I find it interesting, Leica is the only company making binoculars with the Uppendahl prism design, and the Perger porro prism.

Jerry

I seriously believe Leica sport optics is struggling to remain relevant in today's market. Didn't someone here post that they were for sale recently?

Absolutely BEAUTIFUL binocular! One of the best looking binoculars of all time IMO. Love it! I'm drooling to try one out. For birding...7X35 is about perfect. Classic lines with current technology....Does it get any better? I'm thinking the ER will be enough for use with eyeglasses. 15mm is generally enough with the way Leica measures. Just kinda thinking of showing up at Magee Marsh in May 2018!

Maybe I should get with Steve @ Opics 4 birding for preorder. :smoke:

chill6x6 said:

Absolutely BEAUTIFUL binocular! One of the best looking binoculars of all time IMO. Love it! I'm drooling to try one out. For birding...7X35 is about perfect. Classic lines with current technology....Does it get any better? I'm thinking the ER will be enough for use with eyeglasses. 15mm is generally enough with the way Leica measures. Just kinda thinking of showing up at Magee Marsh in May 2018!

Maybe I should get with Steve @ Opics 4 birding for preorder. :smoke:

Click to expand...

With you there Chuck. The Silver & Black model :t:

10x40 Trinovid.
Clear sky.
Measured field left barrel 7.02 degrees. Right barrel 6.95 degrees. Difference likely to do with my different dioptre correction in each eye.
Close focus about 30ft no glasses, or 20ft with distance glasses, which gives very small field due to small eye relief.

Large gibbous Moon really excellent resolution. Easy to hold steady.

Near street light. Veiling glare but few ghosts. 7/10.
I was surprised how good this well worn Trinovid 10x40 is near street lights.

Focus and dioptre very precise.

Image dim.
Star images good.
Alignment good.
Edge poor. For me top edge good other three poor.
CA centrally good.

This old binocular still very useful for astronomy although image dim.
Loses 0.5 magnitude on star brightness.
Stars are very high contrast, so loss of contrast no problem, but stars dimmer than a modern binocular.

Nikon Monarch HG early production 8x42 cannot be used near street light because of large circular ghost arcs.

Daytime clear sky.
8x42 Nikon Monarch HG 666g
10x40 Trinovid 577g and considerably smaller.

For shadow detail the Nikon MHG 8x42 has dramatically higher resolution with much more detail seen compared to the old Trinovid 10x40.
Against sky pretty similar detail.
(I don't have a 10x42 MHG to compare, although I compared a phase coated 10x42 Elite which is much bigger than the Trinovid).

Gibbous Moon in day. Trinovid detail very good. MHG 8x42 higher contrast but similar detail.

A new Trinovid 10x40 with 7.0 degree field or larger would be very nice for non glasses wearers. At least for me.
Would I buy one. Probably not as I don't need it.

What I want is Minolta Standard MK updated with modern coatings.
7x35 11.05 deg
8x40 9.4 deg
10x50 7.8 deg.

And a modern 6x24 Amplivid or Trinovid 12 to 13 degree field.

jgraider said:

I seriously believe Leica sport optics is struggling to remain relevant in today's market. Didn't someone here post that they were for sale recently?

Click to expand...

Something remotely like that.

There's an investor called "Blackstone Group" currently holding 45% of Leica's stock, and they want out.

This can have a variety of reasons, and per se it is no sure indication (let alone proof) that Leica is in trouble.

The last company figures that I heard of (through 03/2016) were positive.

I guess, as others have said, most people who purchase these will have more than one pair of binoculars so waterproofing is potentially less of an issue.

Should my 6 numbers come up I'll have 7x35 in leather, and a Continental GTC for touring around Sutherland in glorious spring sunshine. And, should the weather turn, 10x42 Noctivids to go in my Speed 12.

Now there's 2 unlikely scenarios:eek!::-O

Rich

What about the new all electric Classic Jaguar E type.

Binastro said:

What about the new all electric Classic Jaguar E type.

Click to expand...

Given that Llanelli Scarlets Rugby ground is below sea level, there are times when I'm pro global warming:-O

Rich (Ospreys fan)

When I was in Swansea and LLanelli as a rep, the buyers were having a great time making fun of me in Welsh.
I hadn't a clue what they were saying.

I think I still got a sale, although 1960s so I can't remember.

NDhunter said:

...This is a question about phase coatings. The discussion is well known
about phase coatings on SP prisms. How about the Uppendahl prism ?

Do the same principles apply ?...

Click to expand...

Yes, the same principles apply, and to AK prisms as well. In the posts above, both henry link (post 181) and Hermann (post 194) describe experiences with Trinovids that had Uppendahl prisms and lacked phase coatings.

--AP

re Posts 207 & 211. The old Ernst Leitz company had pretty well lost its relevance in the photographic market by the 1970s and was not generating the turnover to support the R. & D. to compete with the likes of Nikon. When the company was split threeways, the photographic/ optics side lost whatever pooling of research from the surveying and medical sections, so what had been past glories became important assets, leaving a company not really sure of its own identity, an optics company or a premier brands company. What price a range of these Trinovids with the shiny bits "tastefully" 24ct gold plated and there must be an almost endless range of coloured leathers for the limited edition market............

Cheers,
Jim.

I read all comments with great interest and my impression is that there may be some misunderstanding about the historical developments.
In 1941 Prof. Joos, scientist and Zeiss coworker published a paper in which he described the phase problems of roof prisms in detail. Knowing the phenomenon does not mean that you can solve it directly and scientific and technological developments made it only in 1988 possible to solve the problem with phase correction coatings.
(Surprisingly Weyrauch and Dörband do not even mention Joosts work in their paper from 1988 in which they describe the problems and use of phase-corrected roof prisms and also König and Köhler do not mention his paper, (it is unknown to me why they seem to have forgotten it, Prof Joos was a pretty important scientist for Zeiss in the 1940's).
Between 1897 and 1988 we had to deal with these phase problems, since Hensoldt started production of roof prism binoculars in 1897. Zeiss had started in 1894 with the production of porro prism binoculars and Hensoldt and Zeiss were in a tough competition, since the roof prism binoculars were also very attractive to the public.
In 1928 Zeiss acquired Hensoldt, but roof prism production was continued using Hensoldt's name for many years.
Now with regard to the dulness of roof prism binoculars without phase correction some measured data (and these are data from porro's as well as roofs), which we measured ourselves.
- Voigtländer Krimstechter 4x55 (few lenses only from 1866: lihgt transmission 67,5%
- Leitz Binodal 6x30 porro from 1908: light transmission 51%
- Leitz Fernglas 08 Holland glass (or Galilei f you want) 5x40 from 1917: light transmission 69,6%
- Leitz Binux 8x30 porro from 1927: light transmission 54%
- Leitz Camparit porro from 1950 (coatings applied): light transmission 73%
- Leitz Trinovid Uppendahl roof from 1965: light transmission 75%
- Leica Trinovid 8x32 Schmidt-Pechan roof from 1992: light transmission 88,5% (phase corrected)
- Leica-Kern porro 8x30 from 2000: light transmission 68%
We have a lot of similar data from other binocular producers and these show the same pattern and it is certainly not straightforward to conclude that porro's are much brighter than roofs. As far as I could see phase coating does have a great impact on image resolution, but not so much on image brightness.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs van Ginkel said:

I read all comments with great interest and my impression is that there may be some misunderstanding about the historical developments.
In 1941 Prof. Joos, scientist and Zeiss coworker published a paper in which he described the phase problems of roof prisms in detail. Knowing the phenomenon does not mean that you can solve it directly and scientific and technological developments made it only in 1988 possible to solve the problem with phase correction coatings.
(Surprisingly Weyrauch and Dörband do not even mention Joosts work in their paper from 1988 in which they describe the problems and use of phase-corrected roof prisms and also König and Köhler do not mention his paper, (it is unknown to me why they seem to have forgotten it, Prof Joos was a pretty important scientist for Zeiss in the 1940's).
Between 1897 and 1988 we had to deal with these phase problems, since Hensoldt started production of roof prism binoculars in 1897. Zeiss had started in 1894 with the production of porro prism binoculars and Hensoldt and Zeiss were in a tough competition, since the roof prism binoculars were also very attractive to the public.
In 1928 Zeiss acquired Hensoldt, but roof prism production was continued using Hensoldt's name for many years.
Now with regard to the dulness of roof prism binoculars without phase correction some measured data (and these are data from porro's as well as roofs), which we measured ourselves.
- Voigtländer Krimstechter 4x55 (few lenses only from 1866: lihgt transmission 67,5%
- Leitz Binodal 6x30 porro from 1908: light transmission 51%
- Leitz Fernglas 08 Holland glass (or Galilei f you want) 5x40 from 1917: light transmission 69,6%
- Leitz Binux 8x30 porro from 1927: light transmission 54%
- Leitz Camparit porro from 1950 (coatings applied): light transmission 73%
- Leitz Trinovid Uppendahl roof from 1965: light transmission 75%
- Leica Trinovid 8x32 Schmidt-Pechan roof from 1992: light transmission 88,5% (phase corrected)
- Leica-Kern porro 8x30 from 2000: light transmission 68%
We have a lot of similar data from other binocular producers and these show the same pattern and it is certainly not straightforward to conclude that porro's are much brighter than roofs. As far as I could see phase coating does have a great impact on image resolution, but not so much on image brightness.
Gijs van Ginkel

Click to expand...

Dear Gijs,

Thanks a lot for your data! Just reading through this thread, I noted in message #173 your measurements:

Leitz Trinovid 7x35B (1965): transmission 500nm=62% at 555 nm=66%
Leitz Trinovid 7x35B (1981): Transmission 500 nm= 78% at 555 nm=81%

They appear to contradict your quotation above (light transmission 75% for Leitz Trinovid Uppendahl roof from 1965) - what might be the reason behind these large differences in 1965?

Cheers,
Holger

Holger, post 217,
That is a very good question and I do not know the reason for the difference. A possibility can of course be, that the prsms inside have collected a transmission decreasing layer, but we did not observe if visually. Another puzzle is the Leica-Kern 8x30 porro from 2000, since that seems rather low with 68% transmission for a fairly recent porro, since the Hartmann Compact WW from 1985 reaches already 63%.
Another one is the Leica Geovid 8x56 from around 2006 with 73% also rather low considering the year of production.
So we have a lot of fun still ahead with the investigation of historical binoculars, a real cliff hanger.
I will try to get hold of different Leica Trinovids from different years, when we investigate the brand new Leica Trinovids, so we can get an idea of the historical changes.
Gijs van Ginkel