Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Renze, post 20,
That is pretty convincing, so Gary must make an addendum.
Gijs van Ginkel
That is pretty convincing, so Gary must make an addendum.
Gijs van Ginkel
-
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.
LEITZ’S TRINOVIDS - Models and Numbering (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter John A Roberts
- Start date
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Binastro, post 19,
We measured 67-69% transmission for the Komz 6x24.
Gijs van Ginkel
We measured 67-69% transmission for the Komz 6x24.
Gijs van Ginkel
Thanks Renze, post 20.
I did recall a 10 degree field for an 8x40 Trinovid.
Was there another version with a smaller field using conventional optics?
All 8x40s and 8x42s should have 9 to 10 degree fields.
Thanks Gijs for the Komz 6x24 transmission.
I thought that my Komz 6x24 might be a little brighter than that, but maybe not.
I did recall a 10 degree field for an 8x40 Trinovid.
Was there another version with a smaller field using conventional optics?
All 8x40s and 8x42s should have 9 to 10 degree fields.
Thanks Gijs for the Komz 6x24 transmission.
I thought that my Komz 6x24 might be a little brighter than that, but maybe not.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
"All 8x40s and 8x42s should have 9 to 10 degree fields."
This is not going to happen, for many reasons.
It seems you are stuck in time, back 30-60 years ago. So enjoy those
old ones.
Jerry
Among Roof Prisms, are Uppendahl prisms more suitable for making wide field binoculars than SP prisms or AK prisms are?
http://en.leica-camera.com/Company/...elease-Binoculars-icon-with-modern-technology
https://www.google.com/search?q=upp...eAhXRtVkKHWFRCbgQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1280&bih=594
Bob
http://en.leica-camera.com/Company/...elease-Binoculars-icon-with-modern-technology
https://www.google.com/search?q=upp...eAhXRtVkKHWFRCbgQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1280&bih=594
Bob
Last edited:
Elmer Fudd
Well-known member
Comparing the Trinovids of the pre-BA/BN era (the one that will or will not soon to be re-introduced as the retro-Trinovid) with the BA/BN-type is there any significant difference in the picture or in other words is there an even slight hue to be recognized?
I remember fairly well that back in the 1980s in the pre-phasecorrected era a look through a Zeiss 10x40 T* without P delivered a yellowish hue.
I remember fairly well that back in the 1980s in the pre-phasecorrected era a look through a Zeiss 10x40 T* without P delivered a yellowish hue.
John Frink
Well-known member
At one time I had two 6x24 Trinovids - 712959 and 775878; the later one had short fold-down rubber eyecups, though the eyepiece itself seemed identical to the earlier one. Very nice little binos!
John
Yes, I am stuck back in time for some binoculars.
But I have been using Canon IS binoculars for almost twenty years, and I think bird watchers are often too conservative and stuck back in time also.
It is unlikely that wide angle binoculars will become available as modern products, but there may be some maker who understands their benefits.
It may surprise some here, but the current movie makers have asked and got the old Hollywood movie lenses.
These were designed in the 1920s and optically they are the same as the updated 1950s movie lenses.
They are also low priced at £8,700 each, whereas the more modern movie lenses are £11,000 to £72,000 each.
But a full set of Classic lenses will still set one back almost £100,000.
When I look at many modern movies the lenses produce high detail but flat images.
The Classic lenses appeal better to many, and obviously to younger viewers also.
But I have been using Canon IS binoculars for almost twenty years, and I think bird watchers are often too conservative and stuck back in time also.
It is unlikely that wide angle binoculars will become available as modern products, but there may be some maker who understands their benefits.
It may surprise some here, but the current movie makers have asked and got the old Hollywood movie lenses.
These were designed in the 1920s and optically they are the same as the updated 1950s movie lenses.
They are also low priced at £8,700 each, whereas the more modern movie lenses are £11,000 to £72,000 each.
But a full set of Classic lenses will still set one back almost £100,000.
When I look at many modern movies the lenses produce high detail but flat images.
The Classic lenses appeal better to many, and obviously to younger viewers also.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Lee, post 30,
Just an hour ago two test reports of:
-1- the "old"Leitz Trinovids and
-2- binoculars with very large FOV
are on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
Some of your questions may be answered there.
Gijs van Ginkel
Just an hour ago two test reports of:
-1- the "old"Leitz Trinovids and
-2- binoculars with very large FOV
are on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
Some of your questions may be answered there.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Binastro, post 32,
I will give it a try, but it is a very long link:
https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Letz-Trinovid-kijkers etc.
Hope it works,
Best regards,
Gijs
I will give it a try, but it is a very long link:
https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Letz-Trinovid-kijkers etc.
Hope it works,
Best regards,
Gijs
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Binastro,
The next link may be faster:
https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/
Gijs van Ginkel
The next link may be faster:
https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/
Gijs van Ginkel
Thanks Gijs,
They both say 403 forbidden, so I'll look for it.
Not being computer literate I don't know what 403 means.
P.S.
Looking for it myself, independently, I still get 403 forbidden by administrative rules.
I don't know, whose rules, or what this means.
Very strange place, this internet.
They both say 403 forbidden, so I'll look for it.
Not being computer literate I don't know what 403 means.
P.S.
Looking for it myself, independently, I still get 403 forbidden by administrative rules.
I don't know, whose rules, or what this means.
Very strange place, this internet.
Last edited:
Fwiw, the first link says 'can't be found', but the second works fine for this US based user.
John A Roberts
Well-known member
UPDATED TABLE OF CHANGES BY SERIAL NUMBER
I had time yesterday to update the table of changes by serial number to version 2 Trinovid binoculars. I’ve gone through my observations in detail to confirm their accuracy. There’s now sufficient information to date a unit by it’s serial number to within three years or less.
I’ve also attached a slightly modified version of the introductory table, to help those who are not Leitz aficionados easily recognise the various v2 Trinovid models and changes.
With both tables, I’ve assumed the primacy of Gary Hawkins’ data about introductions and changes (from post #2 by Gijs).
Needless to say, my list by serial number of when the changes occurred, reflects the limitations of what I’ve observed - verses factory data about production changes, which I believe Gary had access to.
Having said that, there are two striking discrepancies between Gary’s information and what I’ve observed:
- it’s clear that there was a second production run of 6x24’s following their original 1965 discontinuation, and;
- production of 7x35 B’s did not stop in 1984, but recommenced then.
I’ve both restated the reasons in relation to the 6x24’s (together with more information from this thread), and explained my conclusions regarding the 7x35 B’s below.
I’ve also provided some observations about the information in the serial number table.
INITIAL PRODUCTION
The earliest observed numbers for the first 3 models are:
- 8x32 - 626k;
- 10x40 - 630k;
- 6x24 - 631k.
6x24 PRODUCTION
6x24 production was initially to 651k (which corresponds to 1965). And although Gary indicates that production ceased in 1965, it’s clear that there was at least one production run after that time. Additional observed production is from 710k to 711k (which dates to 1968 or 1969), and the new production was the subject of a 1967 Leitz advert cited in my previous post.
(and also see posts #23 and #28 in this thread for references to a 710k, 712k and 775k! unit - the last would date to 1972-1973, and indicate a third production run)
By observation, it’s clear that 6x24 production was far more limited than that of the 8x32 and 10x40 models, with the 8x32 being most frequently observed.
While Gary indicates that the production to 1965 may have been as few as 500 units, it’s apparent by the spread of serial numbers from 631k to 651k that production was not in one batch (and of course the 8x32 and 10x40 units were also numbered in this range).
Small scale production of the 6x24 would have been easy, as all three models appear to use the same eyepiece unit and vary magnification by changing the length of the objective housing.
7x35 B PRODUCTION
As I’ve previously indicated, the very first units are marked ‘7x35’ but are also marked with the 150 m/ 1000 m FOV of the 7x35 B configuration
i.e. although it’s been speculated about on several occasions, there’s no indication that optically a 7x35 version briefly preceded the 7x35 B one.
Although Gary indicates a break in production starting in 1984, the initial numbering I’ve observed only goes to 780k which would date to 1972 or 1973. Production then resumes by 901k - which would be around 1984. So again a discrepancy.
RUBBER ARMOURED UNITS
The earliest observed RA units in Green and Black respectively, are:
- 8x40 B - 867k/ ???k;
- 10x40 B - 868k/ 945k;
- 7x42 B - 874k/ 887k;
- 7x35 B - ???k/ 907k;
- 8x32 B - 935k/ 944k.
As I’ve only observed a relatively small number of units, the numbering is necessarily somewhat ‘rubbery’ ( . . . I just couldn’t resist!).
TOTAL PRODUCTION
The span of the observed number range is from 626,312 to 990,375, which indicates a potential maximum production of around 364,000 units.
However, this assumes:
- the accuracy of the start and end points;
- and far more significantly, that all the numbers in the range were both assigned and then resulted in a finished unit leaving the factory.
So a rounded maximum figure of 350k (i.e. 96% of the maximum range) is perhaps close but slightly generous.
I hope the above is both informative and useful.
If anyone has a v2 Trinovid, could you please check it’s features and serial number against the table, and if that shows information that can help clarify the data please contribute. It should be easily possible to refine the numbering differences between the ‘Not Observed’ and ‘First Observed From’ categories.
As a final note, while the serial number table should address the vast majority of v2 Trinovid production, I would be surprised if there are not limited production rarities and other ‘anomalies’ that don’t precisely fit the basic patterns on the table.
John
I had time yesterday to update the table of changes by serial number to version 2 Trinovid binoculars. I’ve gone through my observations in detail to confirm their accuracy. There’s now sufficient information to date a unit by it’s serial number to within three years or less.
I’ve also attached a slightly modified version of the introductory table, to help those who are not Leitz aficionados easily recognise the various v2 Trinovid models and changes.
With both tables, I’ve assumed the primacy of Gary Hawkins’ data about introductions and changes (from post #2 by Gijs).
Needless to say, my list by serial number of when the changes occurred, reflects the limitations of what I’ve observed - verses factory data about production changes, which I believe Gary had access to.
Having said that, there are two striking discrepancies between Gary’s information and what I’ve observed:
- it’s clear that there was a second production run of 6x24’s following their original 1965 discontinuation, and;
- production of 7x35 B’s did not stop in 1984, but recommenced then.
I’ve both restated the reasons in relation to the 6x24’s (together with more information from this thread), and explained my conclusions regarding the 7x35 B’s below.
I’ve also provided some observations about the information in the serial number table.
INITIAL PRODUCTION
The earliest observed numbers for the first 3 models are:
- 8x32 - 626k;
- 10x40 - 630k;
- 6x24 - 631k.
6x24 PRODUCTION
6x24 production was initially to 651k (which corresponds to 1965). And although Gary indicates that production ceased in 1965, it’s clear that there was at least one production run after that time. Additional observed production is from 710k to 711k (which dates to 1968 or 1969), and the new production was the subject of a 1967 Leitz advert cited in my previous post.
(and also see posts #23 and #28 in this thread for references to a 710k, 712k and 775k! unit - the last would date to 1972-1973, and indicate a third production run)
By observation, it’s clear that 6x24 production was far more limited than that of the 8x32 and 10x40 models, with the 8x32 being most frequently observed.
While Gary indicates that the production to 1965 may have been as few as 500 units, it’s apparent by the spread of serial numbers from 631k to 651k that production was not in one batch (and of course the 8x32 and 10x40 units were also numbered in this range).
Small scale production of the 6x24 would have been easy, as all three models appear to use the same eyepiece unit and vary magnification by changing the length of the objective housing.
7x35 B PRODUCTION
As I’ve previously indicated, the very first units are marked ‘7x35’ but are also marked with the 150 m/ 1000 m FOV of the 7x35 B configuration
i.e. although it’s been speculated about on several occasions, there’s no indication that optically a 7x35 version briefly preceded the 7x35 B one.
Although Gary indicates a break in production starting in 1984, the initial numbering I’ve observed only goes to 780k which would date to 1972 or 1973. Production then resumes by 901k - which would be around 1984. So again a discrepancy.
RUBBER ARMOURED UNITS
The earliest observed RA units in Green and Black respectively, are:
- 8x40 B - 867k/ ???k;
- 10x40 B - 868k/ 945k;
- 7x42 B - 874k/ 887k;
- 7x35 B - ???k/ 907k;
- 8x32 B - 935k/ 944k.
As I’ve only observed a relatively small number of units, the numbering is necessarily somewhat ‘rubbery’ ( . . . I just couldn’t resist!).
TOTAL PRODUCTION
The span of the observed number range is from 626,312 to 990,375, which indicates a potential maximum production of around 364,000 units.
However, this assumes:
- the accuracy of the start and end points;
- and far more significantly, that all the numbers in the range were both assigned and then resulted in a finished unit leaving the factory.
So a rounded maximum figure of 350k (i.e. 96% of the maximum range) is perhaps close but slightly generous.
I hope the above is both informative and useful.
If anyone has a v2 Trinovid, could you please check it’s features and serial number against the table, and if that shows information that can help clarify the data please contribute. It should be easily possible to refine the numbering differences between the ‘Not Observed’ and ‘First Observed From’ categories.
As a final note, while the serial number table should address the vast majority of v2 Trinovid production, I would be surprised if there are not limited production rarities and other ‘anomalies’ that don’t precisely fit the basic patterns on the table.
John
Last edited:
John A Roberts
Well-known member
UPDATED TABLE OF CHANGES - OVERLAPPING SERIAL NUMBERING
A brief look at the updated table of serial numbers shows that there are frequent numbering overlaps. And while this appears contradictory and seems to cast doubt on the accuracy of the data, it’s both:
- an unintended effect, and;
- a necessary consequence;
of number assignment where the production was done on a batch basis.
n.b. as I explain below in post #41, the overlapping of the serial numbering - because of numbers being used in batches - does not mean that there are duplicated serial numbers.
THE OVERLAPS
The overlaps show up in several ways:
a) On a New Introduction
With both the 7x35 B and the 8x40 B, their numbering on introduction appears to be ahead of the chronological order (653k/ 640k and 732k/ 730k)
b) On a Change to a Particular Model
With the change from the 8x32 to the 8x32 B design, the Old/ New version numbering overlaps (792k/ 789k)
c) On a Universal Change
Most obviously with the change from Proprietary Strap Lugs to Standard Strap Loops, where there is the largest overlap (744k/ 730k)
BATCH PRODUCTION
The advantages of batch production include allowing for:
- the production of a variety of models while using a production line to maximum capacity, and;
- the varying of the production of a given model to take into account anticipated demand.
However, this flexibility means that on a production line at any one time, there’s likely to be:
- different models (each in their own batch), at various stages of completion, and even;
- different batches of the same model, at various stages of completion.
Consequently when a change is introduced - and depending on at what stage of the production line it’s applied - models in production may not receive the change.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
To put the above in perspective, over the life of the v2 Trinovid the average production was around 14,000 units per year. So even the most significant overlap as in c) above, relates at most to a 12 month period, and might make a 1 year difference to dating.
The takeaway point I’d make is that:
While technically interesting, the unintended effects of batch production on numbering are not significant in dating a unit.
As a practical example:
Would you date a 7x35 B unit with a 660k number as 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 or 1968? - I’d be inclined to split the difference, and move on to other things.
John
A brief look at the updated table of serial numbers shows that there are frequent numbering overlaps. And while this appears contradictory and seems to cast doubt on the accuracy of the data, it’s both:
- an unintended effect, and;
- a necessary consequence;
of number assignment where the production was done on a batch basis.
n.b. as I explain below in post #41, the overlapping of the serial numbering - because of numbers being used in batches - does not mean that there are duplicated serial numbers.
THE OVERLAPS
The overlaps show up in several ways:
a) On a New Introduction
With both the 7x35 B and the 8x40 B, their numbering on introduction appears to be ahead of the chronological order (653k/ 640k and 732k/ 730k)
b) On a Change to a Particular Model
With the change from the 8x32 to the 8x32 B design, the Old/ New version numbering overlaps (792k/ 789k)
c) On a Universal Change
Most obviously with the change from Proprietary Strap Lugs to Standard Strap Loops, where there is the largest overlap (744k/ 730k)
BATCH PRODUCTION
The advantages of batch production include allowing for:
- the production of a variety of models while using a production line to maximum capacity, and;
- the varying of the production of a given model to take into account anticipated demand.
However, this flexibility means that on a production line at any one time, there’s likely to be:
- different models (each in their own batch), at various stages of completion, and even;
- different batches of the same model, at various stages of completion.
Consequently when a change is introduced - and depending on at what stage of the production line it’s applied - models in production may not receive the change.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
To put the above in perspective, over the life of the v2 Trinovid the average production was around 14,000 units per year. So even the most significant overlap as in c) above, relates at most to a 12 month period, and might make a 1 year difference to dating.
The takeaway point I’d make is that:
While technically interesting, the unintended effects of batch production on numbering are not significant in dating a unit.
As a practical example:
Would you date a 7x35 B unit with a 660k number as 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 or 1968? - I’d be inclined to split the difference, and move on to other things.
John
Last edited:
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Version 1 TRINOVID PATENT
In post #10 Gijs makes reference to the original v1 Trinovid patent. For those technically inclined, I've attached a copy of the US version which was lodged in January 1955. It in turn refers to the German version with a priority date of May 1954.
John
In post #10 Gijs makes reference to the original v1 Trinovid patent. For those technically inclined, I've attached a copy of the US version which was lodged in January 1955. It in turn refers to the German version with a priority date of May 1954.
John
Last edited:
