• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Leica September 4 2017 (2 Viewers)

My recollection is that the old ones came from the factory with even more distant close focus (18-20'?). You could send your binocular to Leitz to be "close focused", presumably by removing some focus beyond infinity. The result was close focus about like the new ones. I imagine there is just no more internal space available between the prism and the eyelens for the moving eyepiece elements without changing the design.

I agree about the image quality of the old ones. I bought a 7x35 and 8x40 around 1986-87. I was mystified by how both were inferior to my $80 Nikon 7x35 Porro.
 
Last edited:
As far a the use of Nitrogen goes he says that it isn't used to pressurize the instrument but, as an inert gas, it is used to provide a negative growth environment against fungus.

Bob

Bob

My understanding was that the Nitrogen is free from water vapour so there is none to condense on the internal glass surfaces when the temperature differences between the outside world and inside the binos, that Bill refers to, occur. So no fogging from internal sources, and no nice dampness to encourage fungus growth too, as Bill points out. In addition, 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
 
I agree about the image quality of the old ones. I bought a 7x35 and 8x40 around 1986-87. I was mystified by how both were inferior to my $80 Nikon 7x35 Porro.

Henry: can you please expand this comment.
Peter
 
Without stepping on Henry's toes - all roof prism bins before phase-coating were inferior to good quality porro's...even if the porro's were 10 times less expensive.
 
Bob

My understanding was that the Nitrogen is free from water vapour so there is none to condense on the internal glass surfaces when the temperature differences between the outside world and inside the binos, that Bill refers to, occur. So no fogging from internal sources, and no nice dampness to encourage fungus growth too, as Bill points out. In addition, 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

Hello Lee,

I don't have the overall knowledge to correct you in much of anything concerning binoculars so I think I'll give a direct quote from Bill's book instead and let you decide.;) In Bill's book the paragraph below about the use of Nitrogen comes immediately before the one that I quoted in my post above.

Anyway, I agree with you.

"Also, the dry nitrogen isn't used to pressurize the instrument as some suppose; if gas can't get out, the moisture can't get in. But even in a factory setting, all moisture can't be removed from the atmosphere and since fungus can't grow in the presence of an inert or noble gas, nitrogen is commonly used to provide a negative growth environment."



Bob
 
Last edited:
Hello Lee,

I don't have the overall knowledge to correct you in much of anything concerning binoculars so I think I'll give a direct quote from Bill's book instead and let you decide.;) In Bill's book the paragraph below about the use of Nitrogen comes immediately before the one that I quoted in my post above.

Anyway, I agree with you.

"Also, the dry nitrogen isn't used to pressurize the instrument as some suppose; if gas can't get out, the moisture can't get in. But even in a factory setting, all moisture can't be removed from the atmosphere and since fungus can't grow in the presence of an inert or noble gas, nitrogen is commonly used to provide a negative growth environment."



Bob

Thanks Bob, much appreciated.

Lee
 
Henry: can you please expand this comment.
Peter

Mainly what James said. I had similar disappointing experiences with Zeiss Dialyts around the same time. At the consumer end nobody knew what was wrong with roof prism binoculars until Zeiss began marketing P coating in 1988. Only then did they explain to us that there had been a problem all along. The Trinovids had additional compromises because they weren't multi-coated and the Uppendahl prisms required two mirrored surfaces, which in those days meant silver at best.
 
10x40 Trinovid
122m @ 1000m
Red Leitz Wetzlar logo
798xxx

Weight 577g

All the field is easily visible to me. Claimed 7 degrees.

Blue and amber coatings.

The view is good although somewhat dim.

Unfortunately this sample has debris visible. Maybe paint flakes? Otherwise seems clean inside.

I don't know when it was made.

If the new ones had similar fields of view I would be interested. But not with their restrictive FOVs.
 
They look beautiful. I am very anxious to know how the "new classic Trinovids" will perform compared with another classic binocular, which is much cheaper in Europe. The Swarovski Habicht (10 x 40). Yes I know that's a porro.;)
 
Mainly what James said. I had similar disappointing experiences with Zeiss Dialyts around the same time. At the consumer end nobody knew what was wrong with roof prism binoculars until Zeiss began marketing P coating in 1988. Only then did they explain to us that there had been a problem all along. The Trinovids had additional compromises because they weren't multi-coated and the Uppendahl prisms required two mirrored surfaces, which in those days meant silver at best.

The problems caused by roof prisms have been known for a long time, cf. e.g. König/Köhler ³1959, p. 45:

"Die Dachkante hat noch einen Nachteil: In den Teilbündeln werden die Polarisationsebenen in verschiedener Richtung gedreht. [...] Die Dachkante bewirkt also eine für die Auflösung ungünstigere Intensitätsverteilung [des Lichtes]. Das bedeutet eine Bildverschlechterung besonders bei hohen Vergrößerungen und kleineren Austrittspupillen."

Zeiss/Hensoldt stuck to using roof prims mainly in binoculars with large exit pupils that were meant to be used in low light (7x42, 8x56) where the resolution disadvantage wasn't quite so apparent. However, once smallish roof prism binoculars with half-way decent image quality became available on the market, consumer demand for such roof prism binoculars increased, which in turn lead to smaller numbers of high quality porro prism binoculars being sold. In my opinion Leitz with their Trinovid binoculars were instrumental in this change; when consumer demand for the small, elegant and "modern" roofs increased, Leitz dropped their line of distinguished porros quite quickly.

Zeiss tried to hang on for a while, but in the long run the (optically excellent) porros just couldn't compete against the smaller roofs in the market place, even though the porros were, until phase correction coatings were finally invented by Zeiss (first publication in 1988), far superior to *any* roof.

The last to go was the Zeiss 8x30B (second version), a small, elegant porro that beat *any* 8x30 roof at the time easily.

Hermann
 
Last edited:
Without stepping on Henry's toes - all roof prism bins before phase-coating were inferior to good quality porro's...even if the porro's were 10 times less expensive.

I did a comparison between phase-coated roofs and roofs without phase coating some 15 years or so ago:

"I'm sure everyone here knows that roof prism binoculars *without phase-corrected prisms* are optically quite clearly inferior to those with phase-corrected prisms. The reasons underlying this problem have long been known. Albert Koenig and Horst Koehler, for instance, mentioned this effect in their book "Die Fernrohre und Entfernungsmesser" (3rd edition, 1959). An excellent explanation was published by Adolf Weyrauch and Bernd Doerband in 1988 in the "Deutsche Optikerzeitung".

I got my first pair of roof prism binoculars with phase-coated prisms, a pair of Zeiss 8x30B's, immediately after Zeiss started selling them, and I found the difference in direct comparisons to older Zeiss 8x30's quite marked. It was basically just as Weyrauch/Doerband had written in their paper - better resolution, slightly higher contrast, overall a "more pleasing image".

Last autumn I finally had a chance to do a more detailed comparison. We (a couple of fellow birders and I) got together for a weekend trip, and as there wasn't much about we had the time to do a detailed comparison of three different Zeiss 10x40B's. The first one was bought in 1979. It doesn't have T* coatings and the prisms are not phase-corrected. The second one was bought in 1981, with T* coatings but still without phase-corrected prisms. The third one was purchased in 1998, so it has both T* coatings and phase-corrected prisms. The interesting thing about this comparison was that all three binoculars were of the same make and had the same specifications, so all the differences observed were caused by the different coating technologies used. We compared the binoculars mounted on tripods, checking for their optical quality by looking at birds and a Zeiss standard resolution target in a variety of light conditions.

Perhaps the most interesting result initially was that the differences between the two old Zeiss 10x40B's weren't all that great. Sure, the T*-coated pair had slightly better contrast with cleaner colours and a slightly brighter image, but the difference was nothing to boast about. Even under difficult lighting conditions the difference wasn't that great. The resolution was exactly the same (as it should be), and the image of both was slightly fuzzy. This was most noticeable when checking the resolution targets. The comparison with the pair with phase-corrected prisms was almost a foregone conclusion after these results. And sure, it had much better contrast and cleaner colours, a brighter image and quite clearly a higher resolution than either of the two pairs without phase-corrected prisms. In fact, the difference was nothing short of amazing.

I believe this comparison puts some of the claims made about modern multicoatings into perspective. Modern multicoatings are nice, but they're not the most important thing to watch out for in roof prism binoculars. Based on this comparison I'd say the most important progress has not been the development of modern muticoatings, but rather the development of phase-correction coatings on the prisms.

One other interesting observation we made was this: After we'd done our comparisons I got my old Zeiss West 10x50 Porros (~1963) from the car. My friends had got bored with testing optics by that time, so we only did a quick comparison with the new Zeiss 10x40B's, and the results were pretty amazing. Sure, the 10x40's had better contrast and a brighter image, after all, the old 10x50's only have a simple single-layer coating, but the resolution of the old 10x50's was quite noticeably *better*. In fact, the difference was so pronounced that we couldn't help but wonder why Zeiss doesn't make these binoculars with a modern T*-coating anymore."

So, a modern Trinovid, based on the old Trinovid, but with modern coatings, will run circles around any old Trinovid without such coatings. It's as simple as that. I have access to a well-preserved Leica Trinovid 10x40 made in the early 1980s, and I wouldn't really want to use it for birding anymore. Just like I don't use my old Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 BGA anymore. Without phase-coating they're just not good enough.

Hermann
 
The Trinovids had additional compromises because they weren't multi-coated and the Uppendahl prisms required two mirrored surfaces, which in those days meant silver at best.

The Uppendahl prisms I have looked at have only one mirrored surface, the first (upper, sloping) reflective surface in the bottom prism; all other reflections are TIR.

John
 
I think the MHG 8x42 comes pretty close: EP=5.25mm, FOV=145m and W=660g. In addition it's an 8x, and it's waterproof. That being said, I am also tempted to try the "new classic" Trinovid. However I am more interested in the 10x40, and unfortunately its FOV is not very competitive. Also I was wondering if anyone can comment on the leathered vs the rubber armor: the former is more classy but the latter is more practical (although it does not look so nice).

Yes, I also think the Nikon HG 8x42 comes close. What I personally don't like about it is that I somehow feel they're too "flimsy". Just a gut feeling, but a feeling I never have when I handle the old, semi-retired Trinovid 10x40 we've got in the family.

As to the armour: If I get one of the Trinovids, it'll be the 7x35. I nearly always carry a scope (or a Zeiss 20x60S Mono ... :king:) in addition to my binoculars, and I really like biggish exit pupils. I want to USE it, in all sorts of terrain, and for that purpose I'd get the rubber-armoured version. It's just as you say: It's more pratical.

Hermann
 
The instructions say: "The Leica Trinovid binoculars have a splashwater-proof aluminum chassis. They should therefore be protected from heavy rain and moisture, for example in the carrying case included in the scope of delivery."
So if they can't withstand heavy rain or even just "moisture", then what exactly does "splashwater-proof" really mean?

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
 
Hermann: Zeiss T* coatings must have improved significantly between 1981 and 1998. Any improvement there would have accounted for some of the improved MTF you observed in the newer Dialyt 10x40.

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).

So it slightly surprises me that knowledgeable claims are made, above, that all roof-prism binoculars were inferior to Porros before phase correction arrived.

Anyway, the new Trinovids will have phase correction. However, the aberration correction is unknown. Leica recently released a new camera lens with an ancient optical formula and new coatings and mechanics (the Summaron-M 28 mm f/5.6). So who knows what they did hgere.
 
I remember when I got my (discontinued) Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN binoculars from Cabelas in 2007 after the Leica Ultravid was introduced. Up till then I had been using a Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA that was made in the 1986 for about 5 years and I was satisfied with it.

When I got the Leica 7x42 I took both off them out on my deck to compare them on a relatively bright morning. I looked into the forest canopy near my house and at my neighbors houses and yards and things like that and I was really stunned by the difference in their views! The Leica was much brighter, had better colors and appeared to show a much sharper image than the Leitz.

Bob
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top