• 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.

Roger Vine’s review of an original Leitz Trivovid 7x35 (2 Viewers)

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
In a 'blast from the past', Roger has added a review of an original Leitz Trinovid 7x35B, dating from the late 1960’s,
see at: Leitz 7x35B Trinovid Review

Original Leitz 7x35B verses current Leica 8x40:

Leitz 7x35B vs Leica 8x40.jpg


Roger has previously reviewed both the current Leica 'Retrovid' 7x35 and 8x40 models that were introduced in 2019,
see at: Binocular Reviews

And as can be seen, while the new models have the same external body as the original Leitz versions, they differ in various ways including:
• having Schmidt-Pechan rather than Uppendahl prisms;
• the eyepiece designs;
• focusing by moving a lens in the objective, rather than than by moving lenses in the eyepiece, and;
• having much updated lens and prism coatings
(and though lacking a B designation, all three current models have long eye relief eyepieces).


In terms of the chronology of the original Leitz models:
• the first models in 6x24, 8x32 and 10x40, were introduced in 1963;
• the first long eye relief model the 7x35B, was introduced in 1965;
• with the 7x42B following in 1968, and the 8x40B in 1969, and;
• the updated 8x32B and 10x40B versions, were introduced in 1974 (there was no 6x24B).
RA versions were introduced in 1979, and production finally ended in 1988 (the all new Leica BA series was introduced in 1990).

For more on the history of the Leitz models, see various posts at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/leitz’s-trinovids-models-and-numbering.370117/
Much is summarised in post #56 - but be aware of Gary’s caution in post #45, in assuming too strict a chronology in terms of the serial numbering.

. . . So, Roger’s Leitz 7x35B #724,537 with the original propriety strap lugs, would date from the late 1960’s
(loops for a standard 10 mm strap end were introduced around 1971).


John
 
Last edited:
Nice to see the classic get some attention. If this Retro had Uppendahl prisms and 150m FOV as originally announced in 2017, I might have tried one myself despite not really being a 7x fan.

Interesting note about the strap lugs; FieldPro is more an atavism than a novelty, and the Leitz version looks more compact.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, John.

For the sake of completeness, and to compare like with like, here the new and the old 7x35 side by side:

View attachment 1504649
Oddly and a bit disconcertingly, when looking at the pictured models, unlike the original Trinovids, on the outermost side of both Retrovid barrels there is a visible gap where the objective lens barrels join the body. Perhaps, machining imprecision on this particular Retrovid pair?
 
Last edited:
Cal Poly G'daughter and I've been birding a bit lately. While she loves snakes and lizards, her training is a plus when we get something in view we need to figure out. Ive been loaning her my old Zeiss 1040Bs, with a bit of guilt, while I use the NL 832s and drag the blasted scope around. Wondering, trying to assuage that guilt, I decided to see what I was subjecting her too, so did a shootout with them against EL 1042s and NL 832s. Uh... they're fine! And I suspect even with my newly Cataracts fixed eyeballs, her young eyes see just fine. She sure is fast on target.

Ive written this before, but saw my first roof prism bino, in fact this same Leitz Trinovid at an optics shop in 1970. Having just returned from an all expenses paid trip to Southeast Asia, newly married, and struggling to find a career, I could only look. But thought "Man, these are gorgeous! Someday." Paradigm busters? Surely.

Its fun to ruminate about the way stuff was, wish it was still that way. But then why? Classic styling is a thing. Sure, I dig it. Performance seems different. Things evolve. Sometimes it's for the way a thing functions for we the consumer, sometimes it's for the manufacturer and sometimes both. Schmidt Pechan prisms are ubiquitous. They, along with coating technology have evolved. Are they sourced or does each bino maker make these? I suspect its the former. Wasn't there a posting here on BF written by someone at leica explaining the choice to SP vs Uppendahl? If Uppendahl evolution and existing production was more a thing of the past, then getting a retro Trinovid to market at a reasonable cost/profit required this change. So be it.

I had to look up atavism... I may be the only Field pro fan on Birdforum. Sometimes its lonely here. But FP hardly seems atavistic. In fact I confess to a certain tingle of pleasure as I looked at the photo above, of that strap attaching post and thought Aha! The origins of FP, right here, right there. Cool.
 
Last edited:
This is a really interesting thread topic - John (post #1), thank you for initiating this thread!

Canip (#2), great photo!

Owlbarred (#4), seriously impressive attention to detail. I wonder if the gap is the leatherette covering being a little bit too narrow for the objective lens barrels.
 
A very interesting review, as usual, even though there are a few points I see differently, like his remarks on Uppendahl vs. SP prisms and the effects of phase-coating in low power binoculars.

Hermann
 
Oddly and disconcertingly. comparing the pictured models, unlike the original Trinovids, on the outermost side of both Retrovid barrels there is a visible gap where the objective lens barrels join the body. Perhaps, machining imprecision on this particular Retrovid pair?
Interesting observation; yes, it’s clearly more visible on this particular sample than on my other Retrovids, but the gap is in the leatherette only, so not a machining issue, but an assembly one (I got much worse gaps in the leatherette on several of my Swarovski Habicht models).
 
Last edited:
A very interesting review, as usual, even though there are a few points I see differently, like his remarks on Uppendahl vs. SP prisms and the effects of phase-coating in low power binoculars.

Hermann
I used to also think that on 7x or lower mag binos, phase coating does not really make a big difference, such as on 8x or more, but comparing my (optically perfectly clean ) Leitz 7x35 with the Retrovid, the difference in sharpness and contrast is significant (of course, this is not only due to phase coatings in the new model but also to better glass, better coatings, etc etc). In my view, Leica did a great job in keeping the superb classic design and appearance while substantially upgrading the optical performance .
 
I used to also think that on 7x or lower mag binos, phase coating does not really make a big difference, such as on 8x or more, but comparing my (optically perfectly clean ) Leitz 7x35 with the Retrovid, the difference in sharpness and contrast is significant (of course, this is not only due to phase coatings in the new model but also to better glass, better coatings, etc etc).
When Zeiss introduced the phase-coatings, I did some lengthy comparisons in the field: Dialyt 7x42 BGAT* vs. Dialyt 7x42 BGAT*P and Dialyt 10x40 BGAT* vs. Dialyt 10x40 BGAT*P. In both cases the differences in brightness and especially contrast were quite visible, admittedly more so with the 10x40s.
In my view, Leica did a great job in keeping the superb classic design and appearance while substantially upgrading the optical performance .
But they should have made sure the Retrovids are waterproof. That was serious oversight IMO.

Hermann
 
Last edited:
When Zeiss introduced the phase-coatings, I did some lengthy comparisons in the field: Dialyt 7x42 BGAT* vs. Dialyt 7x42 BGAT*P and Dialyt 10x40 BGAT* vs. Dialyt 10x40 BGAT*P. In both cases the differences in brightness and especially contrast were quite visible, admittedly more so with the 10x40s.

But they should have made sure the Retrovids are waterproof. That was serious oversight IMO.

Hermann
I can’t imagine it’s an oversight as in they just forgot about it, they must have done it on purpose. Perhaps there are design constraints that made it difficult or impossible to waterproof that package. It sure seems like it would be easy with the focusing mechanism internal. I wonder where it would leak? The focus and diopter knobs? If it was a money issue, I wonder what the market would bear for a completely waterproof version. I’d certainly pay an extra $100. Maybe the underestimated their customer’s desires for complete waterproofing versus rain-splash proofing whatever that means.
 
Hermann, Thinking about the lack of waterproofing of these, (and it does seem an oversight), do you suppose my ol Zeiss 1040Bs are waterproof? Ive no idea.
No, they aren't. They focus with the objective lenses, so you've got to be careful in heavy rain. When you focus in the rain and there's water on the objectives, you can "draw" water into the bins.

That said, in the 1980s, when many people used either Zeiss Dialyts or Leitz/Leica Trinovids, I only saw one Dialyt that had fogged up, after a couple of days with heavy rain at a migration hotspot. Leitz/Leica Trinovids seemed to suffer from that problem more often.

Hermann
 
Last edited:
Perhaps there are design constraints that made it difficult or impossible to waterproof that package. It sure seems like it would be easy with the focusing mechanism internal. I wonder where it would leak? The focus and diopter knobs?
That's what I've been wondering about myself. And I've got no idea. I saw a few Trinovids that had fogged up in the rain, and I couldn't make out what had happened.
Maybe the underestimated their customer’s desires for complete waterproofing versus rain-splash proofing whatever that means.
Did anyone hear from Leica was "rain-splash proofing" actually means? I asked them a couple of years ago, and got a somewhat unsatisfactory answer.

Hermann
 
Having an older pair of Bushnell 936 "Customs" develop spiderwebbing after decades residing in my cars, and as Ive some control over what weather I go out in or how I protect binos when I do, Ive been more concerned about humidity finding its way inside and causing spiderwebbing with unsealed bins. That would be my greater longer term worry for the Retros. To date the Zeiss have not.
 
In relation to the degree of 'waterproofness' of the original series Trinovids . . .


A) There’s an interesting observation by Steve C:
. . .
It should be easy enough to water proof this new/old Trinovid. I do wonder about the degree of water proofing though. The area where my college was located had just received a new Leitz dealer, who was friends with my Ornithology professor. He brought several Leitz binoculars on this field trip. Later a couple of us went to his store to see more. He had a 7x35 Trinovid hanging on a strap, with the binocular resting submerged in the water of his big fish tank. His claim, correct or not, was that the internal construction waterproofed them. That will surely be taken to task, but it was what it was, a Leitz Trinovid display model submerged in an aquarium. This was 1970 or thereabouts.
. . .


B) And something similar from an old review by Stephen Ingraham:
(It’s from the start of a review of the Swift Eaglet 7x36. Stephen’s reviews from the late 1990’s though the early 2000’s, can now be found on
the Cloudy Nights site at: All Reviews | Better View Desired )

'Some of us have fond memories of the old Leica (then Leitz) 7x35 Trinovid. For several decades they were the binoculars many a birder aspired to.
They were small, had a wide field and good eye relief, and, with some effort and expense, could be adjusted to focus closely.
Though they were never advertised as waterproof, I know of at least one Leica dealer who used to keep a pair in a fish tank full of water in his front window
and pull them out to demonstrate to customers.'


. . . so maybe at the time it was a thing, at least with some US retailers? :unsure:
Though that's not to suggest that Canip should do a side-by-side dunking comparison of his old and new 7x35’s, to see what happens! 🛀


John
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 1 year 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