I almost thought about selling my 8x32 BN when I got the Ultravid but nope, they’re staying.
-
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.
Trinovid BAs still a 'sweet spot' among Leica binoculars? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter LarryO
- Start date
dorubird
The unskilled mechanic blames his tools!
Larry is referring to DOF (Depth Of Field) not AFOV (Apparent Field Of View)
You are absolutely right, my error, I must have been confused by tenex‘ sentence „Actual measurement would be best…“ (I know how to measure AFOV, but how do you measure ADOF??).
My 'new' late model 8x32 BN is probably the 'nicest' (not best) binocular I have ever owned.
It is a keeper and will never be sold.
I've sold some great binos in the past and regretted it .... Nikon 10x42 SE's, and a few others.
Thotmosis
Well-known member
Can you tell us which few others?
Thotmosis
Well-known member
It’s really amazing how much love and appreciation there is for this old Leica Trinovids. I don’t know any other series of binoculars that has so much affection and fans.
tenex
reality-based
Well it does seem a challenge but had better be possible, because if "apparent DOF" itself is just some sort of, um, impression, discussing how it varies won't get anywhere. One could imagine setting up objects on a football field and measuring where they still seem in focus under various conditions... though of course defining that is a bit arbitrary. (Photographers start talking about "circles of confusion"...)
"Apparent DOF" is definitely a subjective characteristic, dependent on visual accommodation, so subject to variation among observers. The conjecture is that, even for individual observers, it might vary among binocular models or time of day, owing to differences of accommodation dependent on the color spectrum of light involved (as transmitted by particular binocular models or existing in ambient light at different times of day).
My invitation, based on Tenex's correct observation of significant differences in color spectrum with time of day, was for subjective reports from users of whether they noted any difference of apparent DOF at various times during days with a single binocular model.
Eyes can't accommodate to a photograph. Objects in it appear either in focus or out of focus depending on how they were recorded by the camera -- on where they were in relation to the distance at which the camera lens was focused. So measures of acceptable resolution (circles of confusion, larger or smaller for objects at various distances from the plane at which the lens was focused) in a negative or print are relevant to a discussion of photographic DOF. Indeed, distance ranges of acceptable focus (DOF), based on defined, "acceptable-sized" circles of confusion, are typically provided as scales on photographic lenses.
Larry
Edited to elaborate slightly on photographic DOF and circles of confusion, as I understand them.
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
Today I started playing around with evaluating the DOF of two identical telescopes with different color biases. I'm using my normal method of examining the size of the circle of confusion from a nearby artificial star after focusing both telescopes on the same distant object. Using this method eliminates accommodation as a variable, but then I'm too old to have much accommodation anyway. The telescopes are the two sides of a binocular with a blue filter attached to one side and an orange filter attached to the other side.
A quick first test indicated no clear difference in the size of the circles of confusion when moving one eye back and forth between the blue and orange sides. I'll get back to it tomorrow and post more detail.
A quick first test indicated no clear difference in the size of the circles of confusion when moving one eye back and forth between the blue and orange sides. I'll get back to it tomorrow and post more detail.
This seems a quite different case, with eye accommodation indeed eliminated. My understanding is that, if the telescopes are well corrected for longitudinal chromatic aberration, focus of the orange and blue rays should be at or near the same image plane. Theoretically, there should be small differences in the sizes of circles of confusion (e.g. of the Airy disks) for different colors based on diffraction.
Larry
Mac308
Well-known member
I got an 8x32 BN in 2002, and used it until 2007 when I replaced it with the 8x32 BR Ultravid. I sold the BN with no regrets. While a nice binocular, I disliked the pull up eyecups that would often mash down (not especially positive locking) and I also disliked its not having drop down objective covers. It was certainly robust, but no more so than the Ultravid, and, among other things, I like the Ultravid‘s size better. The one accessory the BN has which better the the Ultravid‘s is its ocular cover (rainguard). I bought a BN rainguard from Leica and use it on my Ultravids instead of the supplied one. I replaced the BR Ultravid with the HD version in 2014 which has hydrophobic coatings, a feature I genuinely appreciate. My .02
First regret was a Trinovid BCA 8x20 in the green and black. I chopped it in for an Ultravid 8x20, but never really preferred the Ultravid.... the Trinovid 'felt' better.
I sold a Nikon 8x30 Porro to a friend because he really wanted it, and kept picking it up. I really wanted it too, which is why I bought it, but somehow got duped into selling it to him.... idiot!!!
A Nikon 10x42se.... huge mistake letting that one go, I sold it for a camera lens.... which itself is long gone.
I may end up regretting the CL8x25 I just sold.
It wasn't really working for me when paddleboarding.... not great one handed, and I had to keep putting the paddle under my arm, to use 2 hands.
That combined with wanting to scratch the BN itch has seen that one go.... But I really rate the CL8x25.
I'm not a hoarder of anything, so I sell stuff too easily.
These are just the ones I remember, I've been into optics since 16, i'm now 54.
Oh, and my very first pair of binos I saved all my pocket money for....I was so excited.... don't even know what they were, porros of some sort.... but I wish I had them to give to my lad.... But they went too!!
My new BN's will be STAYING.... i've learned my lesson.
Maybe i'll think about swapping the Meostars out for a Habicht... but that could be a big mistake.... Meostars rock!!
I've just added drop down covers to my BN's. Can't believe they ship without
. Eye cups stay up no problems whatsoever.I tested the BN directly against the new Trinovid, and the Ultravid+ all in 8x32 format.
It wiped the floor with the new Trinny, and was bloody close to the Ultravid+ for sheer viewing pleasure. Not technically as good, but it was no less impressive really.
Personally I found the ergonomics of the BN vastly superior to the Ultra. The focusser is sublime. There is a gentle curve over the top of the bino, which incorporates the focus wheel, and makes one handed use, if necessary, a breeze. This is beneficial to me when out paddleboarding.... I see a lot of nature out on the water!!
As the Salesman could have possibly sold me a new Ultravid+, I was quite surprised when he smiled and said how close he thought the old BN was to the Ultra.... I appreciated his honesty. This was all with the pre 145 serial number BN.
I have just upgraded this one to a newer post 145 serial number BN with the better coatings. In all honesty, I'm hard pushed to tell the difference!
tenex
reality-based
Of course not, but if you want to explore perceived DOF in a binocular you still need an equivalent way of defining and measuring what can still be accommodated as acceptably "in focus", a point that seems so obvious I didn't belabor it as perhaps I should have. (Test charts?) Results may vary from one observer to another, but each must be able to evaluate it consistently in order to perform comparisons.
Once you have a suitable standard for that to avoid noise and bias, Henry's idea of color filters is perfect. A wide range of possible variation, direct comparison, no need to wait for different conditions.
Last edited:
Agree on both points. Users willing to report differences in apparent DOF with different light spectra, ambient by time of day or deliberately created by filters, are invited to include the criteria used to defined the perceived DOF, allowing others to adopt them. In this way a set of subjective reports might be assembled that permits some useful comparisons among them. If significant differences are reported in such experiments, comparisons among binocular models could then be considered.
henry link
Well-known member
I spent quite a while this morning using an array of color filters from orange (I lost my red filter) through yellow, yellow green, green to blue (violet was too dark to be useful). I could detect no difference in the size of the defocused diffraction disc of an artificial star based on the color of the filter.
Then I found two Christmas tree ornaments of the same size, one blue and one amber, which I set up outside next to each other to reflect glitter points of the sun. I used a single 16x telescope with both colored glitter points close to the field center. I could see no difference in the size of the two out of focus glitter points. The photos below show more or less exactly what my eye saw at the eyepiece. I tried to simulate the eyesight accommodation I no longer have with the image on the right by simply bringing the telescope closer to focus on the glitter points as my eye would do if it could. As you can see both the blue and amber circles of confusion shrink by the same amount maintaining the same distance from focus and therefore the same DOF relative to each other.
Of course, there is one obvious reason that light at different times of day might produce a visible change in DOF unrelated to color casts. If the eye's pupil is 2mm in bright sunlight, but dilates to 4mm in cloudy dark or near sunset conditions that would be all the explanation needed for a change in DOF as long as the binocular's exit pupil is 4mm or larger.
Then I found two Christmas tree ornaments of the same size, one blue and one amber, which I set up outside next to each other to reflect glitter points of the sun. I used a single 16x telescope with both colored glitter points close to the field center. I could see no difference in the size of the two out of focus glitter points. The photos below show more or less exactly what my eye saw at the eyepiece. I tried to simulate the eyesight accommodation I no longer have with the image on the right by simply bringing the telescope closer to focus on the glitter points as my eye would do if it could. As you can see both the blue and amber circles of confusion shrink by the same amount maintaining the same distance from focus and therefore the same DOF relative to each other.
Of course, there is one obvious reason that light at different times of day might produce a visible change in DOF unrelated to color casts. If the eye's pupil is 2mm in bright sunlight, but dilates to 4mm in cloudy dark or near sunset conditions that would be all the explanation needed for a change in DOF as long as the binocular's exit pupil is 4mm or larger.
Attachments
for what it's worth, you're in good company there - I think Sancho of this parish has sold a SE no less than three times.
Thotmosis
Well-known member
Thanks, nice read. As i wrote in a previous post I’m still contemplating if I’m (becoming) a collector or not. Fact is that for the last 4 years i bought a lot of binoculars while before i had just 2 binoculars for more then 20 years. And I’m planning to buy even more, there are minimum 3 on my wish list. Zeiss FL 10x32 or Trinovid 10x32, a 12x50 and a 8x56. Do i need more binoculars? Abolutely not! But it makes me feel goodFirst regret was a Trinovid BCA 8x20 in the green and black. I chopped it in for an Ultravid 8x20, but never really preferred the Ultravid.... the Trinovid 'felt' better.
I sold a Nikon 8x30 Porro to a friend because he really wanted it, and kept picking it up. I really wanted it too, which is why I bought it, but somehow got duped into selling it to him.... idiot!!!
A Nikon 10x42se.... huge mistake letting that one go, I sold it for a camera lens.... which itself is long gone.
I may end up regretting the CL8x25 I just sold.
It wasn't really working for me when paddleboarding.... not great one handed, and I had to keep putting the paddle under my arm, to use 2 hands.
That combined with wanting to scratch the BN itch has seen that one go.... But I really rate the CL8x25.
I'm not a hoarder of anything, so I sell stuff too easily.
These are just the ones I remember, I've been into optics since 16, i'm now 54.
Oh, and my very first pair of binos I saved all my pocket money for....I was so excited.... don't even know what they were, porros of some sort.... but I wish I had them to give to my lad.... But they went too!!
My new BN's will be STAYING.... i've learned my lesson.
Maybe i'll think about swapping the Meostars out for a Habicht... but that could be a big mistake.... Meostars rock!!
. I don’t want to sell any of the ones i have right now because i use all of them on a regular basis. Now and then i give a binocular away. Also i had two houses before so then redundancy played a role. How many binoculars one need to have to be considered a collectorHaha... I think you are well on your way.Thanks, nice read. As i wrote in a previous post I’m still contemplating if I’m (becoming) a collector or not. Fact is that for the last 4 years i bought a lot of binoculars while before i had just 2 binoculars for more then 20 years. And I’m planning to buy even more, there are minimum 3 on my wish list. Zeiss FL 10x32 or Trinovid 10x32, a 12x50 and a 8x56. Do i need more binoculars? Abolutely not! But it makes me feel good
When we buy one for 'interest', as oppposed to 'need'... then I think you become a collector
We could use just one. For example, my 'old' 8x BN is fine for most things, even works better into dusk than I was expecting. There is nothing it won't see that a new Ultra would, for example. I don't 'need' 10x as well, but it's nice to have. I don't need 56mm objectives, but sometimes they are nice to have.
Many times over the years when times were tighter, I have managed fine with one pair of bins..... and could still do it again.
I'm gonna say....
More than one..... the collection has begun!!!
Enjoy and keep us up to date with your purchases
Thotmosis
Well-known member
Well if you put it like that the collection has begun for sure hahaHaha... I think you are well on your way.
When we buy one for 'interest', as oppposed to 'need'... then I think you become a collector
We could use just one. For example, my 'old' 8x BN is fine for most things, even works better into dusk than I was expecting. There is nothing it won't see that a new Ultra would, for example. I don't 'need' 10x as well, but it's nice to have. I don't need 56mm objectives, but sometimes they are nice to have.
Many times over the years when times were tighter, I have managed fine with one pair of bins..... and could still do it again.
I'm gonna say....
More than one..... the collection has begun!!!
Enjoy and keep us up to date with your purchases
. But they get there use, they are not in a box, every window in my house has a binocular next to it, sometimes two
