Interesting Optics Trade discussion on where Leica binoculars are made. (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

Indeed, the optical tolerances are finer in manufacturing roof prisms glass and the manufacturing costs are higher. But this does not mean that they are more sensitive to shocks in comparration with porro prism. Mechanically the roof binoculars are more compact and more resistant. The porro binoculars have a simpler optical construction with much bigger prism that making the mechanics more exposed, instead they are easier to manufacturing and service than roof one.
So, Porro binoculars have simpler optics with more complex mechanics, and roof binoculars have more complex optics with simpler mechanics

I agree, but in most situations it is a non-issue because both roofs and porros are pretty tough, and it is going to take a pretty good knock to knock either one out of alignment. I would not choose a roof prism over a porro because it is less likely to be knocked out of alignment. The reason I prefer a porro lately is because they are brighter with higher transmission and have more 3D than even the best roof. For me, it is about the optics, not the haptics.

 

[Paultricounty]

I agree, but in most situations it is a non-issue because both roofs and porros are pretty tough, and it is going to take a pretty good knock to knock either one out of alignment. I would not choose a roof prism over a porro because it is less likely to be knocked out of alignment. The reason I prefer a porro lately is because they are brighter with higher transmission and have more 3D than even the best roof. For me, it is about the optics, not the haptics.

Really for you it’s about optics not haptics? And you still have Terra’s. As usual I’m confused by your posts.

Happy Easter.

 

[Paultricounty]

Why? How does their method of collimation differ from roofs? I just find this counterintuitive, always hearing about the finer tolerances involved in manufacturing roof-prism models. I would have expected Porros to be simpler and therefore more robust.


I have to agree about the Habicht... beautiful in a way, but even an E2 is so much friendlier to use in the field.

I see that what are presumably the last of the EDGs are still for sale in Japan. It's an interesting and distinctive optical design, with fewer and thicker elements than competitors. Do they have the same coatings and reddish color cast that SEs did, and E2s before 2017? Is their "field flattener" similar to Swarovision, sharp to the edge but with a subtle softening before that, or just a later onset of curvature?

... And back to the thread topic, it was interesting to see a recent post here wanting to identify a mid-1970s Trinovid 7x35: the ocular read E. LEITZ GMBH WETZLAR, but the rubber armor was stamped MADE BY LEITZ PORTUGAL. That has a long (and honorable) history.

The EDG coatings are more tobacco green, more similar to the Leica Ultravid’s. There is a Field flattener but it’s not as flat as the Swarovski EL line. It’s very low distortion to the edg (EDG 🤭).
There more like the latest, after 2017 E2’s except sharper and more like the SE’s. Extremely comfortable view/eye-box, excellent CA control, sharp as almost anything on the market today and a little like Leica in color.

 

[[email protected]]

I was specifically speaking of true hi-end alpha glass with that bright sparkle, not like the roofs you mentioned. I hear you about Nikon possibly not servicing EDG’s , but not the end of the world. If I’m not mistaken the EDG’s are right in there in weight (27oz) like most high quality 42’s and just a few oz more than those Zeiss (not sure where there made) conquests. I wonder if the eyecups were made in China, hmmm.
I can understand why you are so taken with the brightness of the Habicht’s considering the dark BN’s and the darker Terra’s (unfortunately definitely not Portugal) 🤪.

Have you really tried the EDG’s , is it possible it was some other Nikon you were talking about. My EDGs are small for a 42. Smaller than Ultravid 42’s and much smaller (real long in the tooth) 42 Habicht’.s. 😄

Happy Easter.

Those little BN's 8x32 are quite good for a 20-year-old binocular. They are not quite as good as the Noctivid 8x42, but they don't give up a lot outside of, they are a little less bright with less sharp edges, and they are way more compact and much lighter. I chose the Zeiss Terra 8x25 over the Victory 8x25 because the Terra has less eye relief and longer eye cups, and I don't have to float them in front of my eyes like I do the Victory's. I bet the Terra’s transmission is in the 90s, just like the Victory because it is very bright and very sharp on-axis. I tried all the compacts, and it worked the best for me, although the FOV is smaller than the Victory. I have had all the EDG's I believe, and they are great all-around binoculars. If Nikon had perfected them, they could have been the best binocular on the market. They don't have any weak points, but on the other hand they are not especially strong in any areas outside of maybe glare control. Their transmission is good, but not class leading like the Habicht or Zeiss HT. Their FOV is good, but not class leading like the NL or SF. They are kind of of the Mercedes of the binocular world in that they do everything good, but they don't do anything outrageously good like the high transmission of the Habicht or Zeiss HT. The Habicht's are the Lamborghini's of the binocular world because they are not very easy to use, but they have great 3D and fabulous transmission. The EDG's did have problems with their eye cups that sometimes don't stay on, but yet you can't replace them with anything else because they have a special ridge on the end of the objective lens for the objective cover. As I said if Nikon had ironed out these little bugs nothing could have touched the EDG's including Swarovski, Leica or Zeiss.

 

[Paultricounty]

Those little BN's 8x32 are quite good for a 20-year-old binocular. They are not quite as good as the Noctivid 8x42, but they don't give up a lot outside of, they are a little less bright with less sharp edges, and they are way more compact and much lighter. I chose the Zeiss Terra 8x25 over the Victory 8x25 because the Terra has less eye relief and longer eye cups, and I don't have to float them in front of my eyes like I do the Victory's. I bet the Terra’s transmission is in the 90s, just like the Victory because it is very bright and very sharp on-axis. I tried all the compacts, and it worked the best for me, although the FOV is smaller than the Victory. I have had all the EDG's I believe, and they are great all-around binoculars. If Nikon had perfected them, they could have been the best binocular on the market. They don't have any weak points, but on the other hand they are not especially strong in any areas outside of maybe glare control. Their transmission is good, but not class leading like the Habicht or Zeiss HT. Their FOV is good, but not class leading like the NL or SF. They are kind of of the Mercedes of the binocular world in that they do everything good, but they don't do anything outrageously good like the high transmission of the Habicht or Zeiss HT. The Habicht's are the Lamborghini's of the binocular world because they are not very easy to use, but they have great 3D and fabulous transmission. The EDG's did have problems with their eye cups that sometimes don't stay on, but yet you can't replace them with anything else because they have a special ridge on the end of the objective lens for the objective cover. As I said if Nikon had ironed out these little bugs nothing could have touched the EDG's including Swarovski, Leica or Zeiss.

“Those little BN's 8x32 are quite good for a 20-year-old binocular. They are not quite as good as the Noctivid 8x42”

Yeah I’d say that’s quite a comparison, would you like to rephrase that?

I see what you mean about the EDGs, they do everything very well, like an all around great optical tool with nearly any faults. Very sharp, very good CA control, very good glare control, good FOV, very good smooth focuser and very good build quality. A little different from the other three alphas you mentioned that do, a few things great, and other not so great. Like glare issues , to flat of fields (rolling ball) to much green, uncomfortable eye box and so, In other words, not as rounded out as the Nikons 😏. Maybe the three other alphas need to iron out a few things to be as well rounded as the Nikons.

Heres a nice point from your goto bible of optical knowledge Allbinos:

“Firstly and foremostly it is very flat so even at both ends of the visible spectrum the high transmission level is kept. It’s worth noticing here that on the border between blue and purple light the transmission reaches almost 90%.
Only few sets of binoculars can boast about such a value. Overall, when you integrate the values for the whole visible spectrum it turns out the Nikon is able to deliver more light than binoculars with higher maximum transmission”

Wow!

I don’t think I’d call the Habicht’s a Lamborghini of optical tools. That’s an Italian sports car that does everything on a razors edge, handles extremely well , that’s not a Habich , is extremely fast, that’s not a Habicht. And the leather in the Lamborghini smells a heck of a lot better than those German Habicht’s 😜.
I’d say the Habicht’s are more like a WW2 Jeep with a high powered upgraded engine. lots of obsolete components (long in the tooth) with a state of the art power plant 😏.

 

[CharleyBird]

Denco, see table above, provided by Canip who I recall also commented he observed the EDG and SF have the best glare control for him (he also has both in his collection).

 

[dorubird]

I agree, but in most situations it is a non-issue because both roofs and porros are pretty tough, and it is going to take a pretty good knock to knock either one out of alignment. I would not choose a roof prism over a porro because it is less likely to be knocked out of alignment. The reason I prefer a porro lately is because they are brighter with higher transmission and have more 3D than even the best roof. For me, it is about the optics, not the haptics.

Let's not forget that binoculars are as well mechanical instrument, not just optical one. When we are dealing with a top level of optics better mechanics makes a bigger difference in practice. In a pair of binoculars a excellent mechanics always help optics, but a excellent optics does not help mechanics... For example, in vain do you have the best optics if the binoculars come out of the collimation due to a small movement in the hinges or in the arms of the eyepieces, or if the focus is inconsistent, or if in winter gets stiff, or if etc... Porro bino they are more mechanically sensitive than the roof bino in case of shocks! Habicht and Nikon E2 binoculars have a very good and robust mechanics, but being porro they are a piece of sensitive jewelry in comparison with a more durable and tough top roofs one. If you ask me to drop my E2 or SF 10x42 on the floor, I always choose SF even if it is more expensive because I am sure that Nikon E2 will come out of the collimation, while SF I still hope that nothing will happen. However, I don't want to happen that because is not mentally comfortable
Many binoculars accidentally fell down on the floor in my experience. The strongest was the Nikon HGL 8x32. He received blows and scratches of tree branches, accidentally fell on the floor, and had all kinds of shocks over time without collapsing or other problems. If it was E2 in its place, he would no longer even had his screws (I would be happy to be wrong about that). I also had Conquest 10x42 which is famous for its durability but by accident with it I was more careful (he only got a few scratches on his armor)! Of course, there are also roof binoculars with bad mechanics that get out collimation only if you place them harder on the table. We're not talking about them

 

[Thotmosis]

"Porro bino they are more mechanically sensitive than the roof bino in case of shocks!"

I agree in general about Porro bino's being more sensitive then roofs but the Habicht GA and Steiner's are used by the military so i think they must be able to endure some rough handling, especially if they have IF. I dropped my Habicht 10x40 GA one time and everything was ok. Maybe i was just lucky though because the floor was made of wood and not concrete... Dropped my Swift Audubon 10x50 once and it was totally out of collimation.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

As far as I know, most military binoculars are porro's because they are very strong and shock resistant. I gave our son a 6x30 B@L porro (from WW-2) when he went for his work to the tropics. Before doing so I immersed it in a bucket of water for 20 minutes, dried it and no water had entered. In Africa it was used under different kinds of weather and dus conditions. It came back in perfect condition. The Swedish army uses the 7x42 habichts for its military. If properly made these binoculars do not suffer from loss of collimation. I was an officer in the Dutch army and I certainly would not want "my man" to use roof prism binoculars knowing how stron and reliable the porros are.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Thotmosis]

As far as I know, most military binoculars are porro's because they are very strong and shock resistant. I gave our son a 6x30 B@L porro (from WW-2) when he went for his work to the tropics. Before doing so I immersed it in a bucket of water for 20 minutes, dried it and no water had entered. In Africa it was used under different kinds of weather and dus conditions. It came back in perfect condition. The Swedish army uses the 7x42 habichts for its military. If properly made these binoculars do not suffer from loss of collimation. I was an officer in the Dutch army and I certainly would not want "my man" to use roof prism binoculars knowing how stron and reliable the porros are.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs, did you use the Leica/Ednar 6x42 when you where in the Dutch army? I see them a lot on the Dutch site www.marktplaats.nl for around 300 euro. They look very sturdy indeed, do you recommend them?

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Thotmosis, post 150,
Yes we used the Leica/Ednar 6x42, very nice binocular and well made. When the forces on the body were very strong they sometimes broke into two halves. If it is in good shape it is a very useful and pleasant binocular.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

When one takes the time to study the books by Dr. Hans Seeger among others about the history of military binoculars, one can observe that amost all military binoculars are porro ones. A good example of the strong construction of these military binoculars, we received during a visit to the Zeiss company in Wetzlar. One of the leading members of the department responsible for the company's quality standards, gave us an example of the strong construction of an 8x30 Hensoldt-Zeiss military porro. He dropped "by accident" the binocular on the concrete floor from a height of about one meter, took it from the floor and nothing was wrong with the binocular.
If you look at the different countries and their use of military binoculars:
Poland- PZO porro's
Russia: porro military binoculars made by different Russian companies
Germany: porro military binoculars from Zeiss-Hensoldt and other German companies
Sweden: among others Swarovski Habicht 7x42 porro's
Switserland: Kern porro military binoculars
England: among others Avimo7x42 porros used during the Falkland war
and there are quite a few other countries to add to this list
The statement that binoculars with porro prisms are too vulnerable for military use because of the risk of collimation losses compared with roofs gets little support from these data.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Patudo]

I have to agree with you about the brightness of the Habicht’s as well as the 3D effect. I always get a kick out of using them for a little while. I’ve come to the conclusion as a birding or observational tool that they are lacking in many ways for serious long term (all day) viewing. The 3D effect is only very noticeable at certain distances and not so much better than some good roofs that don’t go the route of flat field (Leica for one).

The Habicht has a relatively small sweet spot compared to many high quality roofs as well as eyebox/comfort levels. Let’s not even discuss the edge fall off, which is not great. A good high quality alpha has that perfect raise to the eye and your right there (fast) and that quick snap into focus with beautifully smooth geared focusers that are just a pleasure to use all day long. As opposed to the blister you would get on your finger doing that all day long with a Habicht.

A bit off topic I know, but I thought the above was a really useful perspective on the Habicht. I myself didn't find the focus wheel on the example I tried difficult to turn (though my birding doesn't demand a great deal of focusing/refocusing, and I prefer focusers that are on the stiff and slow side), but agree with the comments on 3D and edge sharpness. I have to admit that although I use and like porros, the so-called 3D effect of porros never really struck me - maybe it's not apparent at the typical distances I'm viewing over, but even at shorter distances, whatever 3D effect I perceive has never, by itself, made the porro image more attractive than a roof. If anything I feel the image seen through a roof binocular is more natural in the sense that it's more "straight through" - our eyes aren't spaced as widely as porros!

OK - so those are my perceptions and subjective, and you may perceive 3D differently. But edge sharpness is a fact, and from what I've seen, none of the 8x30 porros of that era (Deltrintem/Jenoptem and derivatives, Binuxit etc) have great edge performance. The best of those I've tried was the Zeiss West 8x30, but that has a more modern eyepiece design. I'm glad Swarovski still manufactures the Habicht, and the 8x30 I tried was still a good performer in certain respects, but there's no doubt that binocular design has advanced since then.

NB. I've not found any the 8x30 porros I've tried to perform well against glare either, but fortunately that's not a deal-breaker for me.

 

[henry link]

I have to admit that although I use and like porros, the so-called 3D effect of porros never really struck me - maybe it's not apparent at the typical distances I'm viewing over, but even at shorter distances, whatever 3D effect I perceive has never, by itself, made the porro image more attractive than a roof. If anything I feel the image seen through a roof binocular is more natural in the sense that it's more "straight through" - our eyes aren't spaced as widely as porros!

Hi Patudo,

I've long held a similar view about the "3D" effect in Porros, and short distances are where things really go haywire. Just recently I realized I could easily construct a stereo baseline extender for my naked eyes by combining two star diagonals to make a little periscope to place horizontally in front of one eye. I've been playing around with it for about a week with the idea of starting a thread on the subject of the curious spacial anomalies I observed when my stereo baseline was increased (without any added binocular optics to confuse the issue). I'll try to write up something in the next few days.

Henry

 

[Paultricounty]

You can't see the difference between a porro prism and a roof prism! Wow! That is the first time I have ever heard that. Almost everybody immediately notices the difference in the 3D and realistic image of a porro prism versus a roof prism. The porro view is much more real because of the wider spacing of the objective lenses. A roof prism, especially those with flat field technology like the Swarovski EL, are "Pie Plate" flat and IMO it is very easy to see the difference. The 3D and the normally higher transmission of the porro are the big advantages of a porro plus the lower costs for the same performance as a comparably priced roof prism. This video shows the difference through a roof prism and a porro. Big difference!

Would really be nice if some of the big three and maybe Nikon would come out with some modern Porro‘s that improve on there shortcomings. Something with a nice FOV, clean flat field, smooth focuser, water proof and with a reasonable short focus range and of course high grade optics, I’d be all over that line of product. A 30, 40 and 50mm and 7x, 8x, 10x and 12x would be phenomenal. Couldn’t even imagine how many discussions that would ad to BF.

 

[henry link]

Dennis, did you even look at that video or give any thought to the reasoning in it?

 

[Paultricounty]

Exactly! If Swarovski, Zeiss or Leica would come out with a modern porro with all those improvements it would leave the roof prisms in the dust and for a lot less money than an alpha roof. The porro always has the advantage of being less expensive to build, the 3D view and better light transmission. An 8x40 alpha porro from Zeiss or Swarovski would be something, and they could probably sell them for less than $1500.

But then nobody would buy $1500-$3000 roofs anymore. Then the big 3.5 (.5 for Nikon) wouldn’t make to much on the ridiculously priced high end, high grade, alpha equipment. Seriously we really have to narrow down what we’re going to call them without offending peoples sensibilities. 🙄

 

[Ruff-Leg]

You can't see the difference between a porro prism and a roof prism! Wow! That is the first time I have ever heard that. Almost everybody immediately notices the difference in the 3D and realistic image of a porro prism versus a roof prism. The porro view is much more real because of the wider spacing of the objective lenses. A roof prism, especially those with flat field technology like the Swarovski EL, are "Pie Plate" flat and IMO it is very easy to see the difference. The 3D and the normally higher transmission of the porro are the big advantages of a porro plus the lower costs for the same performance as a comparably priced roof prism. This video shows the difference through a roof prism and a porro. Big difference!

I'm perplexed by this video. How can making a video through one lens of a binocular - roof or porro - demonstrate a 3D image or lack of one? It's missing the bi in binocular...

R-L

 

[henry link]

... How can making a video through one lens of a binocular - roof or porro - demonstrate a 3D image or lack of one?

R-L

It can't.

 

[Paultricounty]

Wait a second, that’s not Dennis doing a video🤣🤪. And how do I know, there’s no goats.