-
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.
New Retrovid 7x35 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter galazie1
- Start date
Boogieshrew
Well-known member
672808 👍
Boogieshrew
Well-known member
One year older than me!
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Boogieshrew,
I found the same production year as Jan (not surprising since we probably use the same source). In the test of 7x35 Leitz-Leica Trinovid binoculars in comparison with the Retrovid on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor you can find a test of that particular sample from 1966 (I borrowed that sample from Jan at that time for the investigation of the 7x35 Retrovid, actually the one you have now).
Gijs van Ginkel
I found the same production year as Jan (not surprising since we probably use the same source). In the test of 7x35 Leitz-Leica Trinovid binoculars in comparison with the Retrovid on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor you can find a test of that particular sample from 1966 (I borrowed that sample from Jan at that time for the investigation of the 7x35 Retrovid, actually the one you have now).
Gijs van Ginkel
Boogieshrew
Well-known member
Cool. I will look up your review.
Thanks very much and happy Christmas!
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Here we have an example of Gijs' tests which makes me wonder about his procedures, accuracy and - ultimately - usefulness for us.
First off, this a remarkably mixed bag of binoculars selected for testing. Is there any sound reason for comparison here?
Also, I'm quite surprised bij Gijs' decision to measure dirty, or at least not completely clean optics as is the case here with the 1966 Trinovid. Why? What should we do with his measurements other than draw the conclusion that it isn't performing to the best of its ability?
With respect to the transmission graphs, there is the sudden apparition of a binocular that hasn't been introduced or mentioned in the preceding table, a 1967 Trinovid.
And lastly, there's the strange appearance of two transmission graphs for one and the same binocular, the 1966 Trinovid. The difference in the graphs is no mean feat either, as it goes from 41 % to 55 % at 550 Nm, a difference of 35 percent points.
Renze
Side by side comparison between my Retrovid 7x35 and a friend's Ultravid hd plus 8x32
The Ultravid delivers finer details. Such as more delicate views of tree branches and leaves. The Retrovid gives more impressive overviews (widefield views), apparently having a larger FOV and a wider sweet spot.
It was a dull day so differences may not have showed up most clearly
The Ultravid delivers finer details. Such as more delicate views of tree branches and leaves. The Retrovid gives more impressive overviews (widefield views), apparently having a larger FOV and a wider sweet spot.
It was a dull day so differences may not have showed up most clearly
Attachments
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Renze, post 47,
Since I am interested in the historical development of binocular optical performance I sometimes make the choice to investigate also historical /older binoculars. I read from your post that this does not interest you in the least, but I can understand that, everybody has his/her hobbies or fields of interest.
When Jan van Daalen bought the 7x35 Retrovid we went together to the Kijkerspecialist in Holland, a well-known and very able repair specialist, who took the Retrovid apart for us, so we could get a look insight to get an impression of its construction.
It seemed interesting to investigate next to the Retrovid also older Trinovids and Jan had a few, so they became also part of the test.. The binoculars were cleaned as far as I could and then they became "victims"of the test. In your post you do not pose one question, but since you do not like or do not believe the results you question our measuring methods. You are free to do so, but it is in my opinion not very elegant and gentlemanlike.
For your information: the test procedures we use and the optical measurement techniques were judged by some binocular companies (and judged as being sound), the scientific papers in which the equipment was presented was judged by international experts, the standard procedure for judgment of scientific papers, not especially for binoculars but for ultramicroscopy, so we can measure spectra af single molecules. But that system is very sensitive and is also equipped for measuring the light transmission of binoculars. The other data were collected by measuring different parameters using the proper equipment as described in different physics textbooks about optics and optical equipment.
If you look into older binoculars, and I have shown that over and over among others at presentations for the Binocular History Society, you will be able to see, that in older systems light transmission values are very low as compared to modern optical systems.
Gijs van Ginkel
Since I am interested in the historical development of binocular optical performance I sometimes make the choice to investigate also historical /older binoculars. I read from your post that this does not interest you in the least, but I can understand that, everybody has his/her hobbies or fields of interest.
When Jan van Daalen bought the 7x35 Retrovid we went together to the Kijkerspecialist in Holland, a well-known and very able repair specialist, who took the Retrovid apart for us, so we could get a look insight to get an impression of its construction.
It seemed interesting to investigate next to the Retrovid also older Trinovids and Jan had a few, so they became also part of the test.. The binoculars were cleaned as far as I could and then they became "victims"of the test. In your post you do not pose one question, but since you do not like or do not believe the results you question our measuring methods. You are free to do so, but it is in my opinion not very elegant and gentlemanlike.
For your information: the test procedures we use and the optical measurement techniques were judged by some binocular companies (and judged as being sound), the scientific papers in which the equipment was presented was judged by international experts, the standard procedure for judgment of scientific papers, not especially for binoculars but for ultramicroscopy, so we can measure spectra af single molecules. But that system is very sensitive and is also equipped for measuring the light transmission of binoculars. The other data were collected by measuring different parameters using the proper equipment as described in different physics textbooks about optics and optical equipment.
If you look into older binoculars, and I have shown that over and over among others at presentations for the Binocular History Society, you will be able to see, that in older systems light transmission values are very low as compared to modern optical systems.
Gijs van Ginkel
Together with the UV HD Plus 8x32 and the EDG 8x32 of the friend. The EDG was nice. I think it is the best of the three for overall optical quality. But it is a bit dark. Side by side with the 8x32s, one can appreciate the brightness of the Retrovid 7x35. For the same physical size, you have a brighter and wider image.
Attachments
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
GrampaTom, post 51,
We have investigated the Ultravid 8x32 HD plus in comparison with the Ultravid HD and we have investigated the Retrovid 7x35. It is all on the WEB-site of House of Otdoor. Both binoculars are fine instruments in my opinion. I hope to come back to you later, since I have to fulfil some obligations here first.
Gijs van Ginkel
We have investigated the Ultravid 8x32 HD plus in comparison with the Ultravid HD and we have investigated the Retrovid 7x35. It is all on the WEB-site of House of Otdoor. Both binoculars are fine instruments in my opinion. I hope to come back to you later, since I have to fulfil some obligations here first.
Gijs van Ginkel
I learn something new
As the eyecups of the Retrovid 7x35 are small, when i rest them on my eyes, they press into my eyeballs. They distort my eyeballs, and distort the image
So for the best image quality, i need to let it touch my eyes just gently. I will loose some stability.
Or raise the eyecups to the middle position only, and rest them on the eyebrow bones. This way i need to tilt my head a bit. And again as the eyecups are small, the view is not as easy as with other "normal" binos
Not a big problem. Just a description
As the eyecups of the Retrovid 7x35 are small, when i rest them on my eyes, they press into my eyeballs. They distort my eyeballs, and distort the image
So for the best image quality, i need to let it touch my eyes just gently. I will loose some stability.
Or raise the eyecups to the middle position only, and rest them on the eyebrow bones. This way i need to tilt my head a bit. And again as the eyecups are small, the view is not as easy as with other "normal" binos
Not a big problem. Just a description
Attachments
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
No Renze, I am waiting for your measured data.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
I think if anyone is a Leica-fan-boy in anyway, they owe it to themselves to see the 7x35 in person and decide where it fits in their lineup. I have three Leica's already and have ordered in a 4th with the 10x32, so might have to get the 7x35 too (my 5th), from Duncan I am thinking in the Netherlands. But, I still have reservations----not optically----but more along the lines of; is this a 'birding binocular' or just a 'novelty' .... (which I consider to be the same for the original Zeiss dialyt )....
Worth a shot I suppose, as one can never beat the dopamine effect connected to opening up new optics boxes.
jim
Worth a shot I suppose, as one can never beat the dopamine effect connected to opening up new optics boxes.
jim
Last edited:
Have been attempting to put data on Galazie1 #50 idea that FOV and brightness explains this,
From post 27 https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Leica-kijker-test-dd-29-febr-2020.pdf
Leica Retrovid 735 - 90% @ 500nm, 92% @ 550nm
Then UVHD Plus 832 - 86.8% @ 500nm. 89.2% @ 550nm
From table 4 here, https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-c...32-GPO-Passion-ED-8x32-and-Kowa-8x32-BDII.pdf
Started this at #51,
Gils helped with brightness data,
From post 27 https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Leica-kijker-test-dd-29-febr-2020.pdf
Leica Retrovid 735 - 90% @ 500nm, 92% @ 550nm
Then UVHD Plus 832 - 86.8% @ 500nm. 89.2% @ 550nm
From table 4 here, https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-c...32-GPO-Passion-ED-8x32-and-Kowa-8x32-BDII.pdf
I think it's a novelty item, but also a good binocular, and if you want to spend the money, no problem. On the other hand, I would expect a sealed binocular with a large focus knob be a safer and more appropriate choice for a birding trip.I think if anyone is a Leica-fan-boy in anyway, they owe it to themselves to see the 7x35 in person and decide where it fits in their lineup. I have three Leica's already and have ordered in a 4th with the 10x32, so might have to get the 7x35 too (my 5th), from Duncan I am thinking in the Netherlands. But, I still have reservations----not optically----but more along the lines of; is this a 'birding binocular' or just a 'novelty' .... (which I consider to be the same for the original Zeiss dialyt )....
Worth a shot I suppose, as one can never beat the dopamine effect connected to opening up new optics boxes.
Edmund
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Hello Gijs,
Are you still with me? As you probably know, I don't have measured data, and in case I would have them I would refrain from making them available. Why? Because there’s no need. Because they’re already in existence. Because it would be highly unlikely my data would be any different from yours. That’s how good they are, I consider your measurements and data excellent.
This may come as a surprise to you, but it’s true, I don’t question your data. I never have, not in post # 47, not here. What I do question is something else, but just as important I believe, I question your presentation and interpretation. I find them confusing.
Now, it looks like I made a mistake bringing this up. You reacted as if stung by a bee. Your reading ability left much to be desired, you threw the Bible of scientific data collecting at me, you started guessing my fields of interest and hobbies, you dearly missed elegance and gentlemanlike behavior in my writing. Please Gijs, may I ask you to read again? You say I didn’t pose one question, but I see not one, not two, but three question marks. Wouldn’t these refer to a question? With respect to your guessing my interests and hobbies, all your assumptions happen to be wrong. The one observation which is correct, is my lack of elegance. And yes, I’m not a gentleman either. But is this necessary? Wouldn’t unelegant and ungentlemanlike people deserve the same treatment, i.e. answers, as more likable people?
OK, back to business. I said I find your presentation confusing. I fear the information is sloppy, awaiting clarification. Let me ask you again, what is happening with the Trinovid from 1967, which is in the transmission graph but not in the table?
And why do I see two different results for the 1966 Trinovid, presented in two different graphs?
Renze
