New Leica September 4 2017 (1 Viewer)

Omid · Sep 21, 2017

Patudo said:
Read your pdf with interest Omid. I would guess (not having looked through your previous posts) your background is as a hunter? I agree that binocular development is probably now led by/directed towards the birding rather than the hunting community, and that the pace of improvement has tapered off and that future improvements in pure optical quality (transmission, resolution etc) are likely to be incremental (unless major disruptive technology intervenes, of course).

Thank you for reading my slides. Yes the improvements in sports optics have been very incremental and that, too, is tapering off. Now, speaking of disruptive technology, I have made some innovations myself:

a) Binoculars without a critical eye relief. The exit pupil is located at the eyepiece and is as large as the eyepiece. This way, the entire eyepiece shows an image when viewed from behind the binoculars. The image is visible even if you position your eyes on an off-axis position.

b) Binoculars with convergent optical axis capable of extreme close focus (say 20 cm).

c) Binoculars with divergent optical axis providing about 30% or more "binocular" field of view.

I once had a topic about my inventions here on Birdforum. I can't post there as it says the topic is too old to reply too. I might open a new one and present my projects if the forum members are interested.

Regards,
-Omid

A2GG · Sep 21, 2017

Omid said:
I agree that the roof prisms of today might be slightly better in terms of contrast, brightness etc. and slightly lighter with possibly slightly better focusing wheel. But these minor improvements are not significant enough to justify introducing multiple generations of products (e.g. Leica Trinovid BA, then BN then Ultravid, then Ultarvid HD then Ultravid HD+ then Nuctivid.). Hunters and sportsmen have recognized these and they are not buying the new stuff.. (Zeiss 8X56 Classic is the favorite of the German hunters, not the new SF of HT models)

Another very important factor is this: An improvement that will be lost if a drop of rain falls on the objective lens or if your hand shakes a little bit is not worth it. Such "improvements" are only useful as discussion subjects here on Birdforum.

Binoculars are tools, but they are also meant to be enjoyed. These little improvements are slight at this stage in the game of course. But, I still imagine my Uvid HD+ to have a dramatically improved image over the original Trinovid from a few decades ago. Did most of those even have phase coatings?

Anyway, I understand your broader point. But, I do think the image in this new Trinovid should look immediately noticeably better than the original. There's nothing wrong with updating an old popular classic and one that was so venerated and beloved. I think it's also nice to introduce something lighter finally. The weights of top bins are heavy. Ironically, re-introducing this light-weight old body pushing things forward.

A2GG · Sep 21, 2017

Omid said:
I agree that the roof prisms of today might be slightly better in terms of contrast, brightness etc. and slightly lighter with possibly slightly better focusing wheel. But these minor improvements are not significant enough to justify introducing multiple generations of products (e.g. Leica Trinovid BA, then BN then Ultravid, then Ultarvid HD then Ultravid HD+ then Nuctivid.). Hunters and sportsmen have recognized these and they are not buying the new stuff.. (Zeiss 8X56 Classic is the favorite of the German hunters, not the new SF of HT models)

Another very important factor is this: An improvement that will be lost if a drop of rain falls on the objective lens or if your hand shakes a little bit is not worth it. Such "improvements" are only useful as discussion subjects here on Birdforum.

I bolded where I think this is a totally subjective viewpoint. Some may agree with you while others may not. I haven't look through a Noctivid, but some are saying the image is very impressive. All of these improvements are slight yes, but cumulative over time to present a noticeably better image from old Trinovids to new Noctivid. I would think the new Noctivid would be an obvious improvement optically presenting an image which is clearly superior. This still comes down to the user however...some may notice the improvements and appreciate them while others may barely notice the improvements over the decades and subsequently have no appreciation for them.

A2GG · Sep 21, 2017

Also, I may be one of only a few odddballs who appreciated the UV+ upgrade with Schott HT glass instead of discontinuing the Uvids outright. Even if it's only a slight upgrade to the image it's nice to have such a classic model tweaked.

Dorian Gray · Sep 21, 2017

Tiny improvements eventually add up to significant improvement, but at this point, even tiny improvements are hard to find without changing the design emphasis to more practical considerations (which no-one is willing to do, perhaps because the result would seem radical and buyers are mostly conservative).

The main problem with the small improvements is that they have been accompanied by outsized price increases. This is a problem with many high-quality consumer goods these days. There is unprecedented disposable income sloshing around but less time than ever to think meaningfully about purpose and function. The result in the case of binoculars is hyper-expensive models that offer only a trivial practical advantage over old products from the same company, and usually with new drawbacks, too.

I welcome the new Trinovids, because at least they emphasise slightly different aspects of performance, even though I think the prices are still unjustifiably high.

I hereby predict their aberration correction will be much lower than today’s high-end binoculars. It’s still not even clear to me that Leica changed the optical formula beyond the necessary small changes to work with currently available glass types.

Loud Green Man · Sep 21, 2017

Omid said:
I agree that the roof prisms of today might be slightly better in terms of contrast, brightness etc. and slightly lighter with possibly slightly better focusing wheel. But these minor improvements are not significant enough to justify introducing multiple generations of products (e.g. Leica Trinovid BA, then BN then Ultravid, then Ultarvid HD then Ultravid HD+ then Nuctivid.). Hunters and sportsmen have recognized these and they are not buying the new stuff.. (Zeiss 8X56 Classic is the favorite of the German hunters, not the new SF of HT models)

Another very important factor is this: An improvement that will be lost if a drop of rain falls on the objective lens or if your hand shakes a little bit is not worth it. Such "improvements" are only useful as discussion subjects here on Birdforum.

You may have something there along with hunters buying range finding bins that 99% are unlikely to have need of! Rather sad but Z**** only recently stoped making that rubber armoured classic.

LGM

jan van daalen · Sep 21, 2017

Omid said:
I agree that the roof prisms of today might be slightly better in terms of contrast, brightness etc. and slightly lighter with possibly slightly better focusing wheel. But these minor improvements are not significant enough to justify introducing multiple generations of products (e.g. Leica Trinovid BA, then BN then Ultravid, then Ultarvid HD then Ultravid HD+ then Nuctivid.). Hunters and sportsmen have recognized these and they are not buying the new stuff.. (Zeiss 8X56 Classic is the favorite of the German hunters, not the new SF of HT models)

Another very important factor is this: An improvement that will be lost if a drop of rain falls on the objective lens or if your hand shakes a little bit is not worth it. Such "improvements" are only useful as discussion subjects here on Birdforum.

Mmmmm.... My best sold hunting model from Zeiss is by far the 10x54 HT, followed by the 8x54 HT, because of the 96% lighttransmission. After that comes the Meopta Meostar range. The old classic 8x56 was mostly/only sold to hunters with classic rifles. It is an icon but the HT beats the S.... out of this old classic.
I have to admitt; the 7x42 and 8x56 classic is a beautifull pair.

Jan

Hermann · Sep 21, 2017

Dorian Gray said:
I welcome the new Trinovids, because at least they emphasise slightly different aspects of performance, even though I think the prices are still unjustifiably high.

From what I know these are made in Europe, in Portugal. If that's the case the price isn't unjustifiably high, especially if you take into account that the prisms are of a type that isn't very common at all at present despite its advantages.

Dorian Gray said:
I hereby predict their aberration correction will be much lower than today’s high-end binoculars. It’s still not even clear to me that Leica changed the optical formula beyond the necessary small changes to work with currently available glass types.

Do you know the original Trinovids Leica made until about 1988? Their one major weakness was that they didn't have phase coatings, leading to a slightly soft image even in the centre, with a gradual, "soft" decrease in sharpness towards the edges. They, especially the 10x40, also showed the loss of contrast typical of binoculars without phase coatings. In other words, they had the classical corrrection of roof prism binoculars without field flatteners with a clear emphasis on the image quality at the centre, just like other classics, e.g. the Zeiss Dialyts.

I predict the new version will have exactly the same correction, so if you expect a flat field with high sharpness at the edges you'll be disappointed. However, the image quality in the centre will be up to scratch, now that the binoculars have phase coatings and of course modern multi coatings.

BTW, one aspect I don't think has been mentioned here is that the old Trinovid had just about the best focuser of all the roofs made at the time. Even today there aren't many binoculars with a better focuser; the only onces I can think of are the focusers of the Nikon HG/HG-L and the Nikon EDG. No play, even in binoculars that have seen a lot of hard use over the years, very precise, no problems with shifts in the dioptre correction. I only hope Leica didn't mess about with the focuser at all.

Hermann

Loud Green Man · Sep 21, 2017

jan van daalen said:
Mmmmm.... My best sold hunting model from Zeiss is by far the 10x54 HT, followed by the 8x54 HT, because of the 96% lighttransmission. After that comes the Meopta Meostar range. The old classic 8x56 was mostly/only sold to hunters with classic rifles. It is an icon but the HT beats the S.... out of this old classic.
I have to admitt; the 7x42 and 8x56 classic is a beautifull pair.

Jan

And perfect for an upgrade with current HT glass etc. but more chance of Z**** offering a snow leaoperd-fringed neck strap!

LGM

jan van daalen · Sep 21, 2017

Loud Green Man said:
And perfect for an upgrade with current HT glass etc. but more chance of Z**** offering a snow leaoperd-fringed neck strap!

LGM

LGM

I still have to figure out whether to take any of your contributions serious, or not at all.
In case of the last, your name says it all.

Jan

Omid · Sep 21, 2017

jan van daalen said:
My best sold hunting model from Zeiss is by far the 10x54 HT, followed by the 8x54 HT, because of the 96% lighttransmission.

I wonder what the light transmission for the Classic 8X56 is. It has less number of lenses than more recent designs so I expect the transmission must be very good.

Light transmission is another misleading figure that has become prominent in binocular discussions. It might seem that a 96% transmission results in a significantly brighter binocular. It doesn't. A few "percent" more or less light intensity is not perceptible by human eye. (Simple test: Attache a small piece of paper to the objective of your binocular to cover 5% of its area and see if you notice a change in brightness. )

Also, If your eye pupil is not exactly at the exit pupil, you will lose a few percent of light gathered by the binoculars. The same happens if your eyes are convergent looking at an an object not directly at the center of field view (pupil shearing). Image brightness as felt by the human eye is on a logarithmic scale and eye can only detect very large differences in brightness. 5%, 10% and during day time even 100% brightness barely make any difference.
During winter and in snowy areas, or at a sunny beach, the less brightness, the better.

I was in Denver, Colorado when the recent solar eclipse happened (11:40 AM). 96% of the sun was covered by the Moon yet it was barely noticeable. If you were just walking the streets and didn't know there was an eclipse, you probably wouldn't notice it. The day was very bright and felt like late afternoon, not even close to a sunset.

From Wikipedia:

The human eye can detect a luminance range of 10 to the power 14. This is a ratio of one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) to one (from one millionth (0.000001) of a candela per square meter to one hundred million (100,000,000) candelas per square meter.

Regards,
-Omid

Loud Green Man · Sep 21, 2017

jan van daalen said:
LGM

I still have to figure out whether to take any of your contributions serious, or not at all.
In case of the last, your name says it all.

Jan

So every contribution to this thread must be of Expert wisdom status with no room for the member who acknowledges their lack of technical expertise and therefore restricts comment to the lighted-heatred end of the spectrum?

LGM

Gijs van Ginkel · Sep 21, 2017

Omid, post 291,
I am a little amazed by your remarks about the effects of light transmission, since with your knowledge you undoubtedly know better. With regard to effect of light transmission of observed brightness in binoculars light transmission differences smaller than 3% (and identical exit pupils) is for many persons not visible, but higher than 3% it certainly is especially under low light conditions.
With regard to the measured light transmission of the Zeiss 8x56 Classic we measured 91-93% over a broad wavelength range, for the 8x54 HT it ranges from approx. 94-95% or 96%. Since the 8x54 has a smaller exit pupil the differences in brightness are hardly or not observable.
Gijs van Ginkel

NDhunter · Sep 21, 2017

Gilmore Girl said:
Thanks Jerry. I hope I didn't come off sounding disparaging of older binocular models (never my intention). I have a Zeiss Jenoptem 8x30 from 1986 and think the image is still good (and built well).

It would be interesting if you could get your hands on the new Trinovid 10x40 to do a comparison to see the improvements.

Improvements should be immediately noticed I would think since the new Trinovid will be phase corrected and fully multicoated with modern AR coatings...and all that jazz

Yes, I would love to compare them someday. It will be interesting to
hear how some review these, and I suppose we will hear about a comparison.

Jerry

Rathaus · Sep 22, 2017

Hermann said:
BTW, one aspect I don't think has been mentioned here is that the old Trinovid had just about the best focuser of all the roofs made at the time. Even today there aren't many binoculars with a better focuser; the only onces I can think of are the focusers of the Nikon HG/HG-L and the Nikon EDG. No play, even in binoculars that have seen a lot of hard use over the years, very precise, no problems with shifts in the dioptre correction. I only hope Leica didn't mess about with the focuser at all.

It's certainly the best focus mechanism I've ever come across in a roof. And the thing is, when looking at not just one but many many trinovid focus mechanisms which are 5-6 decades of age, they are all nigh on perfection (as is collimation). Zero slop, zero play, perfectly smooth and precise, perfect dampening, perfectly synchronous. Everything is perfect.
How Leica managed to degrade their focus mechanisms on following models such as the current Ultravid is completely bizarre. I took a mint looking 10x40 Leitz Trinovid with me when recently I tried new Ultravids - I think 4 out of 5 brand new 2K+ Ultravids I inspected in the shop displayed rough and sloppy focusers...the fifth had barely any play but was still rough with stiction. They were a complete embarrassment in direct comparison to the old Leitz. I couldn't help but wonder how they'll be in 5-6 decades time!? Regarding Quality Assurance, Buying five decade old Leitz bins from unknown folks on international ebay has proven to be a far far safer bet than rummaging through brand new Ultravids on a fancy shop shelf. My hunch is that the cost of continuing to manufacture the old trinovid focus mechanism was way too high. The penny pinchers had their impact.

Alexis Powell · Sep 22, 2017

Rathaus said:
...My hunch is that the cost of continuing to manufacture the old trinovid focus mechanism was way too high...

More likely the new design just wasn't as lucky or well-considered. Titanium is a notoriously sticky metal, so perhaps not the best choice for the Ultravid focus mechanism's "center axis shaft" as reported in their promotional materials.

Although sometimes a bit sticky, I've never met an Ultravid with synchronization issues, slop, or that was in any way unreliable. I don't think the sticky feel should be interpreted as indicating lack of durability.

--AP

jan van daalen · Sep 22, 2017

Omid said:
I wonder what the light transmission for the Classic 8X56 is. It has less number of lenses than more recent designs so I expect the transmission must be very good.

Light transmission is another misleading figure that has become prominent in binocular discussions. It might seem that a 96% transmission results in a significantly brighter binocular. It doesn't. A few "percent" more or less light intensity is not perceptible by human eye. (Simple test: Attache a small piece of paper to the objective of your binocular to cover 5% of its area and see if you notice a change in brightness. )

Also, If your eye pupil is not exactly at the exit pupil, you will lose a few percent of light gathered by the binoculars. The same happens if your eyes are convergent looking at an an object not directly at the center of field view (pupil shearing). Image brightness as felt by the human eye is on a logarithmic scale and eye can only detect very large differences in brightness. 5%, 10% and during day time even 100% brightness barely make any difference.
During winter and in snowy areas, or at a sunny beach, the less brightness, the better.

I was in Denver, Colorado when the recent solar eclipse happened (11:40 AM). 96% of the sun was covered by the Moon yet it was barely noticeable. If you were just walking the streets and didn't know there was an eclipse, you probably wouldn't notice it. The day was very bright and felt like late afternoon, not even close to a sunset.

From Wikipedia:

Regards,
-Omid

Hi Omid,

I was more reacting on your statement that the Classic beats the HT is sales.
It's not. When the HT line came out, sales in classics dropped. Where the big FL was considered bulky, the HT is elegant.
I do, BTW, consider lighttransmission as an important aspect for dusk and dawn use and only for that the HT is used down here.

Jan

Patudo · Sep 22, 2017

Omid said:
...But these minor improvements are not significant enough to justify introducing multiple generations of products (e.g. Leica Trinovid BA, then BN then Ultravid, then Ultarvid HD then Ultravid HD+ then Nuctivid.). Hunters and sportsmen have recognized these and they are not buying the new stuff..

Yep; but birders are, and they have a different and in many respects more demanding set of needs. The targets are tiny, fast-moving, and figuring out exactly what they are often depends on obscure little plumage details for which you cannot have too much brightness, resolution etc. Bird photography is notoriously one of the most demanding jobs when it comes to camera lenses and birding, I think, is a similar test of binoculars. I'm fortunate that the birding I do is more like nature observation than the type of birding most keen birders do - trying to locate and identify as many different species of birds as possible. Of course you have experienced birders whose fieldcraft makes up for any shortcomings in their optics, but even many of those, I think, would trade up if they could do so economically.

Rathaus said:
Regarding Quality Assurance, Buying five decade old Leitz bins from unknown folks on international ebay has proven to be a far far safer bet than rummaging through brand new Ultravids on a fancy shop shelf. My hunch is that the cost of continuing to manufacture the old trinovid focus mechanism was way too high.

It's comments like these that make me wonder (perhaps foolishly) how marketable better glass for classic binos might be. 60s-70s classic build quality, paired with 2017-era optics...

Loud Green Man said:
And perfect for an upgrade with current HT glass etc. but more chance of Z**** offering a snow leopard-fringed neck strap!

LGM

Zeiss wouldn't, of course. But I'm sure a top factory in Kunming or Xi'an could. In skim-reading the Zen-Ray forum, the gist of the observations seems to be: very good/excellent glass, very sloppy build quality. Now, of course, if you already own classic binocular(s) lacking all the optical improvements that have been made since the 1970s, but with the superlative build quality Rathaus, Hermann and others have talked about (and which I'd have to agree with based on my own much more limited experience)...

Oh, and I have to say your comment about the snow leopard neck strap had me in stitches. I couldn't help but imagine how comfortable one would feel on a cold day! Maybe someone could make a high-quality strap with Icelandic sealskin as a slightly less politically incorrect substitute...

Troubador · Sep 22, 2017

Patudo said:
Acknowledged sir, and I should have noted that they do have their detractors. It does seem, though, that there's plenty of demand for Singer and other noted Porsche tuners, and I do wonder (and wonder it will have to be, lacking as I do the entrepreneurship and connections needed to take such a proposition to market) whether a run of lenses/prism assemblies for the classic roof binoculars produced in the largest numbers - in order to achieve economies of scale - would be viable. Granted, the demographic owning classic Porsches is no doubt different to those owning classic Dialyts. But for every Troubadoris - who does of course have access to more modern glass, which makes it easier to indulge in nostalgia (I mean no offence - I own and regularly use an Oberkochen) I'd wager there's likely to be a chap like Hermann who has a much loved Dialyt 10x40B in his cabinet that he'd love to use but has reluctantly put aside because its optical performance just doesn't match up to today's Terra, let alone Conquest. Leica's latest release is basically a factory version of what we've been discussing and I for one will be interested in seeing how well it does on the market. If the lenses/prisms are indeed compatible with the Leitz models I wonder if there might be any interest in retrofitting them into Leitz Trinovids - service only available from Leica and at Leica prices of course!

Best regards
patudo

Good points Patudo

Lee

Omid · Sep 22, 2017

jan van daalen said:
Hi Omid,

I was more reacting on your statement that the Classic beats the HT is sales.
It's not. When the HT line came out, sales in classics dropped. Where the big FL was considered bulky, the HT is elegant.
I do, BTW, consider lighttransmission as an important aspect for dusk and dawn use and only for that the HT is used down here.

Jan

Hi Jan,

I understand. Thank you for providing the transmission ratio for Zeiss Dialyt 8X56. It is as I had guessed, nice!

Regarding "more transmission = better binoculars" I agree with you of course, it would make the binoculars slightly better for dawn or dusk use. My point was a) 10% more transmission doesn't mean 10% more "perceived brightness" and b) more "perceived brightness" is not always desirable. In many cases, such as when you are looking for a snow leopard in the snowy mountains of Tibet, less brightness = much better viewing experience

New Leica September 4 2017 (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Beth

Beth

Beth

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Natural history enthusiast

Well-known member

sub-200 birding aspirant

Moderator

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread