IMO the problems arose when you used them in the rain, i.e. when you used the focuser a lot. At least that's what seems to have happened on the two occasions when friends got water into their 10x40s on separate birding trips in the UK. That's quite different from just placing a pair in a fish tank full of water.
I owned a 1982 Leitz 7x35. I was a sailboat captain at the time and took them on numerous transpacific sailboat crossings, at least six trips, plus used them in the mountains. They never showed signs of leaking, but the prisms got knocked loose from banging around the boat in rough seas. I was young and immature abusing them like that. I replaced them with a pair of Fujinon 7x50 MTRCs, more appropriate for that kind of use.In relation to the degree of 'waterproofness' of the original series Trinovids . . .
A) There’s an interesting observation by Steve C:
B) And something similar from an old review of a Swift Eaglet 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?
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
Roger,
Cap'n Jack,
Roger,
Thanks for that review of the 7x35 B and to John for letting us know about it.
It's quite remarkable how well the old Leitz held up against the Retrovid with Leica's latest prism and AR coatings. I'm not sure if the fact that the Leitz is in such good shape is proof of Leica's "industrial strength" or if it had been owned by a little old lady from Devonshire.
Question?
You wrote: Given that a focusing lens in the usual position between the prisms and objectives is known to contribute to false colour, the unusual focusing system here [between the EP and prism] may help with the remarkably low false colour levels.
Why do modern roofs have the focusing element between the prism and the objectives? Is this necessary for the WP/FP, which the Leitz doesn't have?
Brock
Since you've mentioned it here in the article, what are your differing views on these two subjects as applies to the posted article? These are both subjects that I've been hoping to better understand.
You might be thinking of Leif Goodwin, Holger, who had observed that his Zeiss Dialyt 8x30 seemed to have less false colour issues cf more typical roof prism models of the time. Indeed at such time there were folks insisting that claims of false colour issues in low magnification binoculars were a fabrication hence fluorite or ED glass had no place in them (though I do remember in one exchange his main adversary suggesting he was going to go away and have a think about how potentially eyepieces might be a source of such issues). Showing commendable consistency in his binocular upgrades I recall Leif moved on to a Nikon SE and then Zeiss Victory FL; the Zeiss Diaylt was gifted to his mother who subsequently had it stolen from her
.
I think Henry mentioned it, but I'm not sure if he discovered it. Could be Goodwin, as Norm mentioned above. I didn't realize that there was a change in where the focusing element was positioned at the time ED glass was introduced. I attributed the increase in CA as a result of the change from lead glass to unleaded glass.
The change was from moving objectives or eyepieces to an internal focusing element, and it had happened in roof models before the phasing out of leaded glass, so one could indeed suspect that as the primary reason for introducing ED glass (as your microscope example also suggests). But then, Porro models like EII don't seem to need ED glass, do they... so perhaps it's really the combination of the two factors, at least at the more modest magnification of binoculars.
These are the two statements I find difficult:
When I first looked through a Leica 10x42 BA, immediately after they came out here, I straightaway noticed it had clearly more CA than a Zeiss 10x40 BGAT*P. I remember we were looking at Swifts, on a bright but overcast day, and the Swifts' wings had nice green and violet fringes on their wings. I believe Leica quietly made some changes to their BAs. Later 10x42 BAs I looked through were better in that regard.
www.birdforum.net
Hmm. Seems got it wrong about Leif's mum's binocular : it was a Zeiss Classic 8x20 he'd bought her which she had for about a year before was stolen.
Here's an early post by Birdforum standards by Leif speculating about the possibility of internal focusers being a contributory factor in the CA issues he found in roof prism models :
Zeiss 10x42 FL T* - first birding field trip
I agree with you that there is an area of "extreme sharpness" in the middle of the field in the 8X42 FL. It's certainly as sharp as any binocular I have seen in the center, perhaps the sharpest. Your idea about design trade-offs may explain it, but other factors might also be involved. For...
Looks like the Zeiss Victory FL and Nikon HGL both came out at about that time in 2004, the Leica Ultravid BR had been out for over a year and Swarovski were now busy producing faster focusing ELs...
