• 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.

Blast from the past (1 Viewer)

Hi Alexis, Ken Rockwell does provide a reasonable guide to nikon photography products, however, his appraisal of the 10x40, non B type trinovids is off, particularly in the comparisons to todays offerings.
My first alpha bins were the described model, the weight, size, fov and ergonomics are a good memory. However, the ER, minimum focus, brightness and contrast, (also being non WP) are best forgotten.
Interesting write-up, but I, for one, would not remotely consider giving up one of my alpha bins to go back to them.
Regards, John
 
Last edited:
The interesting feature (ignoring the downsides) is that they were 7.0° FOV for a 10x bin. A feature of the late 50s and through the 60s of wide field 10x bins e.g. see Chandler Robbins' Bushnell 10x50 7.2° FOV bins on another thread here (worth it just for the photos!).

The closest to this today is Kruger Optical Caldera 10x42 (still not shipped?) which started at 7.0° and is now advertising a spec of 6.8° FOV (the same as a Zeiss FL 10x32 the other current wide 10x out there) assuming it has enough ER to see the whole field. Waterproof, ED glass, phase-compensated, better ER and Chinese made: how times change.

http://www.krugeroptical.com/caldera.asp
 
I don't think I will be relying on Ken Rockwell's impressions again. It takes nothing short of willful self delusion to believe that the image from an old Leitz Trinovid is bright and sharp. Naturally I tried them (owned a 7x35 and 8x40) in the 80's when they were often touted as the world's best. Even then their light transmission and sharpness were easily surpassed by any decent Porro, like the $80 Nikon 7x35 Action I thought I would replace with the 7x35 Trinovid.

The sad kernel of truth in Rockwell's article is that the Trinovids were beautiful objects like we don't see in the binocular world anymore and the basic optical design was ingeniously simple and sound. All they need to be fully competitive with today's binocular optics are multi-coating, phase correction and dielectric mirror coating. With those essential improvements I'd be the first in line to buy a pair.
 
No doubt Rockwell is opinionated but he is the first one to say his website is basically a "goof." He almost had me a believer in this Leitz 8x40mm until I saw he still paid ~$500 for them. Not being a collector, there have been many glass/coating improvements made since 1990 to get me to spend $$ on an antique alpha.

But he does know more about cameras and photography as an art than I ever will and what gear features are really important for those who only want to take creative vacation/travel/family photos.

And he does have a point that far too many worry about the hardware and not enough about "software" of our hobbies.

cheers,
Rick
 
My first "good" bins were the 7x35 Trinovids I got around 1985. I used and abused them for years, they crossed the ocean from Hawaii to the mainland with me 14 times in small sailboats, plus lots of hunting and hiking. They got so bad that I sent them back to Leica in 1996 for repair, but the, at the time $410.00 repair cost, was more than a brand new Pentax DCF which I bought instead. Those Pentax never lived up to the Leitz in my mind.

Beyond the optics which I thought were wonderful, was that sleek, slim design and very light weight that I liked so much. Ten years ago I gave them to my buddys son who still has them. I actually looked through them last Fall and was impressed again with the easy view and great feel in the hand. I know todays optics are way advanced over those old Trinovids, but sometimes I think I could live with those old optices in order to have that small, light package.

John
 
The sad kernel of truth in Rockwell's article is that the Trinovids were beautiful objects like we don't see in the binocular world anymore and the basic optical design was ingeniously simple and sound. All they need to be fully competitive with today's binocular optics are multi-coating, phase correction and dielectric mirror coating. With those essential improvements I'd be the first in line to buy a pair.

If I had any ambition and venture capital I would go to China and try to copy that 7x35 Trinovid with the improvements you mention Henry. I think they would sell like hotcakes.

John
 
John,

You will have to find someone to make the Prisms and add the improvements to them that Henry recommends. It might be like starting from scratch again.

I wonder how many other binocular manufacturers other than Leica used Uppendahl Prisms?

Bob
 
One of the most amusing reviews I've read in a while.

As a writer, I appreciate his use of hyperbole to get his point across, but literalists may take him...well, too literally.

Most memorable is his observation:

"Binoculars, like cameras and Americans, have gotten too big and fat as the years progress."

But not the "Supermodels," who tend toward anorexia.

I'm sure Ken would be quite pleased with the shape this slim "wasted" Supermodel 10x42 BL, if not her FOV and "modeling fee".

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/leica/leica-ultravid-10x42-bl-binocular-leather?tab=specifications#tabs
 
Last edited:
Have had over the years all the Leitz models of that generation. Wonderful ergonomics, construction, etc. But optics......? Why haven't the Leica people stuffed that model with current optics? Something just doesn't make sense. A wild guess. The old German engineer(s) who designed the first Trinovid passed on, and the current crop just can't bring themselves to pay homage to the past. John
 
I agree that this thread could have been put on Leica sub forum

Whoops! I meant to put it in the Leica subforum but I goofed up (maybe, like Rockwell, I should pretend the goof is intentional, and make a few obviously intentional mistakes elsewhere to keep everyone guessing). Could an administrator fix the problem please?

--AP
 
Have had over the years all the Leitz models of that generation. Wonderful ergonomics, construction, etc. But optics......? Why haven't the Leica people stuffed that model with current optics? Something just doesn't make sense. A wild guess. The old German engineer(s) who designed the first Trinovid passed on, and the current crop just can't bring themselves to pay homage to the past. John

John,
Somebody decided that Schmidt/Pechan Prisms were better than Uppendahls.
Bob

Brock,
That link you have posted in Thread 10 shows one beautiful binocular! Georgeous leather covering! Every bit as classic as the old Leitz Trinovid!:t:
Bob
 
Last edited:
The reason SP roof won is not because they're cheaper but because they're axial and more compact.

Uppendahl roof prisms have an offset to one side (a bit like Abbe Koenig but a bit worse) that makes mounting them "interesting" and takes away space from the hinge side of the bin.

Thanks the Telescope review for these

http://www.pbase.com/g_hawkins/image/73039534

you can just see the tops of the prisms (those whitish things)

Compared to SP

http://www.pbase.com/g_hawkins/image/87929892

Not the only odd roof leica made e.g. in an Amplivid

http://binofan.home.att.net/amplivid.htm

No conspiracy theory here ... ;)

BTW this is a useful page

http://test.www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Roof-Prism_Leica_Binoculars
 
Last edited:
I like it... binoholics=Male Birders (leave the political correctness for others to debate :))

Male birders, as opposed to birdwatchers, are more interested in their scopes and binoculars than the birds. It's the same as comparing audiophiles to music lovers: the audiophiles are more interested in their record players than the music.
 
I don't think I will be relying on Ken Rockwell's impressions again.
Again? Rockwell's mostly a chuckle head. He gets a few things right and is almost always too enthusiastic, with an occasional evangelistic bent.

The sad kernel of truth in Rockwell's article is that the Trinovids were beautiful objects like we don't see in the binocular world anymore and the basic optical design was ingeniously simple and sound. All they need to be fully competitive with today's binocular optics are multi-coating, phase correction and dielectric mirror coating. With those essential improvements I'd be the first in line to buy a pair.

This I agree with. The Leitz Trinovids are beautifully designed and a drop dead classic, both in pebble finish and armored. It's hard to imagine a current version with modern guts not being a big hit.

I'll take a 7x35, thanks.
 
Brock,
That link you have posted in Thread 10 shows one beautiful binocular! Georgeous leather covering! Every bit as classic as the old Leitz Trinovid!:t:
Bob

Though I think the BLs are indeed the sexy supermodel of today's bins they are too thick, three dimensional as compared to the Leitz Trins, which are flatter. The bridge section is longer as well not enabling the ring and little fingers to wrap around the barrel like on the Leitz.

How about a 7x35 styled like the Leitz with the black anodized finish and modern guts of the BL with, drum roll, saddle brown leather pebble grain and matching rolled leather strap and case. :smoke:

Oh, and uhm, why is this in the Zeiss sub-forum?
 

Attachments

  • 7x42 Trinovid.jpg
    7x42 Trinovid.jpg
    42.4 KB · Views: 131
  • Leica BL.jpg
    Leica BL.jpg
    30 KB · Views: 121
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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