New Old Trinovids (1 Viewer)

Renze de Vries said:

……….., while in fact – as any expert would tell you – they were optically worse than their predecessors…………... Those Trinovids were aimed at a completely different crowd than the customers of the past: hunters, soldiers, ornithologists. Of course those Trinovids could be used as birding binoculars with good results, but the fact was, nobody did. That is, with a few exceptions here and there: excentrics.
……………...
Renze

Click to expand...

I do not consider myself an excentric, and I know quite a few that used one of those roofs, be it Leica or Zeiss in the birder community, if they could afford one. The models looked more convenient and the shortcomings only showed themselves over time. Particularly as one usually upgraded from rather cheap porros. In my case, it took quite a while before I realized that my wife's medium range porros were actually much better than my Leica 10x40 roof model. And it took another two decades or so until I found out through BF why this was the case. Phase coating was of course unknown for a long time, and manufacturers sold their roofs on the hype that their modern design was what it was all about.

Renze de Vries said:

I’m immensely enjoying this discussion. Especially for the contributions by F88 and Paskman. They motivated me to really question my opinions, judgements, loyalties, taste and all kinds of other motives in play here.

Also, I was reminded of the past, going back to the early nineteensixties when the Leitz Trinovid series was introduced to the market. It looks like history repeats itself. At that point Leica completely stopped production of their porro line, including the wonderful 8x30 Binuxit, and promoted their Trinovids as the last word in optical design, while in fact – as any expert would tell you – they were optically worse than their predecessors. How about that! Of course what was happening was that Leica had sensed a demand for luxury items, things to simply enjoy, things to be used as toys instead of tools. Those Trinovids were aimed at a completely different crowd than the customers of the past: hunters, soldiers, ornithologists. Of course those Trinovids could be used as birding binoculars with good results, but the fact was, nobody did. That is, with a few exceptions here and there: excentrics.
So indeed, nothing much has changed. Not in the Leica policy at least. I happen to see some consistency.

Renze

Click to expand...

In fairness, optical performance was not necessarily the key issue. Iirc the roofs were not only more compact, but also materially more robust and waterproof as well, features the porros were very slow to match.
Miscollimation is common with older porros, maybe 30% of the 40 odd Ebay units I've handled. I think that is much worse than with older roofs. Porros are surely cheaper to fix, but for many buyers, one bad experience taints the entire line.
It is surely possible to envision a basic modern porro, but I don't believe they would find a good market, as their principal remaining optical advantage would be the 3D effect. As is, Canon's IS line is the modern porro variant.

Renze de Vries said:

I’m immensely enjoying this discussion. Especially for the contributions by F88 and Paskman. They motivated me to really question my opinions, judgements, loyalties, taste and all kinds of other motives in play here.

Renze

Click to expand...

I very much agree - it's a discussion that tells us more about us posters than about the binoculars, thus far, but enjoyable despite (or because of) that...

Some off the cuff thoughts (getting way past my bedtime), careering randomly from prisms to ergonomics to eccentrics:

- Do Uppendahl prisms offer any optical (or other) advantages over modern day Schmidt-Pechans? Neither have total internal reflection like Abbe-Koenigs; both will require reflective coatings, and the Uppendahl advantage of having fewer air to glass surfaces is largely negated by modern multi-coatings.

- It's possible to make a superb binocular with the Schmit-Pechan system; that's what's used in most of today's alphas, after all...

- The view through the new old Trinovids should be (and ought to be) better than any of the originals, what with phase-coated prisms, modern multi-coating and all. (Did the Leitz Trinovids ever get multi-coated? It would seem from trawling previous BF posts that they were never phase-coated.)

- The body/ergonomics of the new old Trinovids should be comparable to the originals, regardless of the prism system in them; and...

- I'd agree with the two previous commentators that roof prism binoculars handle better, generally speaking, than porros - less so perhaps for things like 8x30s, but in the 40x and x50 sizes it becomes more marked. After noting Stephen Ingraham's comments about porros instinctively promoting a more fatiguing "elbows out" stance (which elucidated aspects of physiology and ergonomy I'd only been sub-consciously aware of), I have tried to keep my elbows in when using all binoculars, which helps with steadiness and fatigue - but I still find small, compact roof prism binoculars handle and "point" in a most natural and effortless way that even the best-packaged porros can't quite match. Frank L I think expressed it very well in his flickr pages covering the 8x32 and 7x35 Leitzes - "Although the non-phase coated Trinovids did not optically match the superb Porro I binoculars they replaced, they were remarkably light-weight and compact and were a pleasure to hold with a streamlined gracefulness to their appearance which made them one of the most ergonomically and visually pleasing binoculars ever made and heralded the demise of Porro prism binoculars to the overwhelming popularity of roof prism models (even though Porro’s are an optically more efficient and less costly design than roofs)."

- I'd say the Leica Trinovids (BA/BN) were a pretty mainstream choice amongst birders in the 90s, certainly not just used by eccentrics. Being fully sealed, with twist up eyecups and slightly larger objective sizes (x42 and x32 versus x40 and x30 - BF member temmie has pointed out that a x42 has 10% more surface area than a x40), they had certain advantages over Zeiss's Dialyts. They too are classics in their own right and I still see them around today.

I remember reading somewhere in this website about Bushnell (I think) roof prism binoculars which used Uppendahl prisms that had phase coatings. Also, didn't some late model Leitz binoculars with Uppendahl prisms made in the late 1980s also have phase coatings?

My Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA (armored) was made in 1983 but the binocular was still being made in 1990 according to Allbinos: https://www.allbinos.com/1653-Leitz_Trinovid_7x42_BA-binoculars_specifications.html

Does anyone have information about phase coatings being on the prisms of Trinovids made from 1988-90?


PS
Here is a thread about Uppendahl prisms from Cloudy Nights. It seems that Swift and Bushnell also had binoculars that used them.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/421836-uppendahl-prisms/

Another Bird Forum link about them can be found in the Cloudy Nights Thread (see above) at post #14. It has 4 pages of information.

And the most recent ones (later discontinued) were discussed here on Bird Forum in September 2017:https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=349675

Patudo said:

- Do Uppendahl prisms offer any optical (or other) advantages over modern day Schmidt-Pechans? Neither have total internal reflection like Abbe-Koenigs; both will require reflective coatings, and the Uppendahl advantage of having fewer air to glass surfaces is largely negated by modern multi-coatings.

- It's possible to make a superb binocular with the Schmit-Pechan system; that's what's used in most of today's alphas, after all...

Click to expand...

A quote from one of Holger Merlitz' articles from his website, on the reasons why Nikon used AK prisms in it's WX:

"I rather believe that it is a fundamental difficulty with the SP setup, which made them choose the optically superior, but much heavier AK system: As demonstrated by Swarovski's optical designer Konrad Seil in 1991, the SP system is losing contrast as a result of its antireflection coating (pp. 55-56). A fully multi-coated SP prism has an MTF value which is, at a spacial frequency of 25 lp/mm, easily half as high as a prism with single layer coating. Therefore, the SP prism sacrifices either light, or contrast, and this fact is entirely unrelated to its mirror layer. It is a consequence of the fact that the SP prism uses one and the same surface as entrance resp. exit surface, as well as for total internal reflection. The coating supports the former, but has a damaging effect on the latter." (Source: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/nikon_wx/nikon_wx.html)

There is a link to Konrad Seil's paper in Holger's article.

The conclusion is that SP prisms are *not* the best choice, even among roof prisms, when it comes to top performance in binoculars. And yes, the Uppendahl doesn't have these problems at all.

Hermann

Well, it seems the news of the SP prisms in this newly resurrected binocular are a concern.

I suppose we need to see how the size of the new one compares to the old, the optics should
be much better or why bother. The size should be as slim, and no waterproofing not good, there is the
UV BL model if you like leather.

If only available at the Leica store, that is very bad. If I was a Leica retailer I would be very disappointed
in Leica, as mentioned above.

Jerry

Hi,

Hermann has very nicely explained the crux of the SP prisms - it's not that there is a few surfaces more (which are indeed a moot point with MC) but the fact that two surfaces are used in reflection and transmission and thus letting the designer decide what to optimize. It has been found that single coating them is the least bad solution, but that's why AK or Uppendahl prisms would be a better solution...

Of course Porro would be best, but those are not fashionable any more...

Joachim

Patudo said:

……………...
- I'd say the Leica Trinovids (BA/BN) were a pretty mainstream choice amongst birders in the 90s, certainly not just used by eccentrics. Being fully sealed, with twist up eyecups and slightly larger objective sizes (x42 and x32 versus x40 and x30 - ……………………..

Click to expand...

The discussion is not really about the BA/BN tank type models. It is about their predecessors, the x40 types etc. But those earlier ones were also not only used by eccentrics. And they were definitely not sealed.

I have to say this has been a fascinating thread. I very much appreciate being a part of this forum and benefiting from the knowledge and experience of many of the contributors here. I consider myself to be a simple layman when it comes to binoculars - someone who enjoys using them for what they are and being fascinated by the way that they present the world to one’s eyes, but without any special knowledge as to how they work.

Speaking as such, I would like to say two things. The first is that I’m very sure, for the vast majority of potential customers, the construction and type of optics and prism in use will be a non-issue. It seems to me that the only thing that will matter will be that the optical performance is at least equal to the optical performance of the originals even if it could have been a lot better with, for example, the original prisms and modern coatings. The second thing is that, although I understand why Leica’s decision to sell them only through Leica stores has annoyed people, I have to say that as an ordinary customer I understand the decision. It seems to me that Leica are not considering these binoculars as being part of their normal range. In selling them only through Leica stores they are, it seems to me, acknowledging that these are a boutique item which is not supposed to compare or compete with their other products - or indeed anybody else’s. They are what so many things are (as many people have pointed out in this thread) these days, i.e. just a boutique retro item that induces a feeling of nostalgia. I think that Leica’s decision not to sell them through dealers just underlines this fact.

It’s a shame that Leica hasn’t produced something that will excite knowledgeable enthusiasts, but one can at least hope that the profit they will undoubtedly make from these will go towards continued innovation and production of the high-end products which made their name.

Mike F said:

I have to say this has been a fascinating thread. I very much appreciate being a part of this forum and benefiting from the knowledge and experience of many of the contributors here. I consider myself to be a simple layman when it comes to binoculars - someone who enjoys using them for what they are and being fascinated by the way that they present the world to one’s eyes, but without any special knowledge as to how they work.

Speaking as such, I would like to say two things. The first is that I’m very sure, for the vast majority of potential customers, the construction and type of optics and prism in use will be a non-issue. It seems to me that the only thing that will matter will be that the optical performance is at least equal to the optical performance of the originals even if it could have been a lot better with, for example, the original prisms and modern coatings. The second thing is that, although I understand why Leica’s decision to sell them only through Leica stores has annoyed people, I have to say that as an ordinary customer I understand the decision. It seems to me that Leica are not considering these binoculars as being part of their normal range. In selling them only through Leica stores they are, it seems to me, acknowledging that these are a boutique item which is not supposed to compare or compete with their other products - or indeed anybody else’s. They are what so many things are (as many people have pointed out in this thread) these days, i.e. just a boutique retro item that induces a feeling of nostalgia. I think that Leica’s decision not to sell them through dealers just underlines this fact.

It’s a shame that Leica hasn’t produced something that will excite knowledgeable enthusiasts, but one can at least hope that the profit they will undoubtedly make from these will go towards continued innovation and production of the high-end products which made their name.

Click to expand...

Great post that sums up my opinions exactly.

I think people here are missing the point; these are not targeted at them, there are targeted at a different market. I know that people fantasise about the originals being reintroduced with the original prisms etc, but that would not be economically worthwhile for Leica As far as their target audience is concerned, they will be getting a modern binocular, with modern eyepieces etc, that will give far better views than the original, but that outwardly looks classic. They fully cater for the enthusiast/birder etc - Ultravids, Noctivids..... Although you would all like an update of the original, you are not their market in this case, so it is pointless moaning about the fact that the SPs and not as efficient as the UPs, the bottom line is the SPs are there and will be a lot cheaper for Leica to fit than updating 40 year old designs. the end result will still be a binocular that gives a far better view than the original. There are sound financial reasons why SPs rule the roost!

As to the assertion that it would be uneconomic to produce these Trinovids with the original Uppendahl prisms - or alternatively, that S-P prisms are cheaper to produce
- I’m not sure what the basis for such claims is

I'd be eager to see any definitive information in this regard
And I'd add the caveat that what once might have applied during the original production from the 1960’s through the 1980’s,
is far less likely to be so in the current era of computer controlled automated machining

It should be noted that Leica does currently produce binoculars with Uppendahl prisms - the 2nd generation Geovid rangefinders that have been in production since 2004
The Geovids use a 2 piece prism assembly, rather than the 3 piece one on the original Leitz v2 Trinovids e.g. see the image from the patent application


John

If it was cheaper don't you think they would do it?

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

Paskman said:

If it was cheaper don't you think they would do it?

Click to expand...

Accepting that hunters / marksman and wildlife watchers are already catered for as mentioned above, I'm sure that the head honchos at Leica take all these factors into account before trialling and producing a new product. Why on earth would they want to take account of a few old relics here on BF?

Their targeted market for these Retros could be very different indeed from birders. I think post #51 sums it up from my perspective.

P

Hermann said:

A quote from one of Holger Merlitz' articles from his website, on the reasons why Nikon used AK prisms in it's WX:

"I rather believe that it is a fundamental difficulty with the SP setup, which made them choose the optically superior, but much heavier AK system: As demonstrated by Swarovski's optical designer Konrad Seil in 1991, the SP system is losing contrast as a result of its antireflection coating (pp. 55-56). A fully multi-coated SP prism has an MTF value which is, at a spacial frequency of 25 lp/mm, easily half as high as a prism with single layer coating. Therefore, the SP prism sacrifices either light, or contrast, and this fact is entirely unrelated to its mirror layer. It is a consequence of the fact that the SP prism uses one and the same surface as entrance resp. exit surface, as well as for total internal reflection. The coating supports the former, but has a damaging effect on the latter." (Source: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/nikon_wx/nikon_wx.html)

There is a link to Konrad Seil's paper in Holger's article.

The conclusion is that SP prisms are *not* the best choice, even among roof prisms, when it comes to top performance in binoculars. And yes, the Uppendahl doesn't have these problems at all.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Hi Hermann,

We're mostly in agreement about the optical limitations of SP prisms, but Uppendahls don't quite escape without any of the same problems. The Seil article didn't consider Uppendahls or Abbe-Konigs. If it had it would have noted that while SPs have a total of three prism faces that must function for both reflection and transmission, Uppendahls have two such faces. Only AKs have no faces doing double duty.

In addition AKs have two fewer internal reflections than SP or Uppendahl and they can be cemented like Porros and Uppendahls, although, like Porros, it seems they seldom are. And while we're splitting hairs at least one prism of an AK cluster can achieve TIR using a lower refractive index glass than Porro, Uppendahl or SP, thus reducing chromatic and spherical aberrations.

Henry

Looking back on the first binocular WOW moment I had back in either 1969 or 70, the moment was mainly due to the form factor and overall size of the 7x35 Trinovid binocular I was handed. The thing could fit in a pocket of either my favorite field jacket or vest. It made my Swift Nighthawk porro seem like a brick, in spite of the many decent attributes of the old Swift, which I still have. Its optics were pretty good, at least for the time and for my 50+ years younger eyes.

So from a more practical user standpoint, I suppose I really could care less about the fact this one seems destined to see life with SP prisms. This is not to say the inner Luddite in me would not like to see Uppendahl prisms as in the original. I understand the differences and that from the standpoint of pure optical efficiency, the SP is not the best thing. However, the eye of a user sees an image that either suits them, or does not. Likewise the ergonomics either suit them, or they do not. Likewise I can say I like the idea of new, more modern twist out eye cups. The old rubber fold up/down things wore out pretty quickly.

I wonder some about the SP prism. The top tier makers seem to be lauded for being on the forefront of innovation. There has been a century and a couple of decades come and go since the SP first saw life. Did we see a new, innovative Zeiss SF prism, a Swarovski SV prism, or a Leica UV prism? Nope, the SP prism from 1899 is still with us, changed a bit from the original I will admit, but still the SP prism system. There has to be a reason for that. If the Uppendahl is enough better, why so few modern examples?

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.

I will take Leica to task for selling only through the Leica Stores. Bad move, unless they know already this will not be a big seller.

Steve C said:

I wonder some about the SP prism. The top tier makers seem to be lauded for being on the forefront of innovation. There has been a century and a couple of decades come and go since the SP first saw life. Did we see a new, innovative Zeiss SF prism, a Swarovski SV prism, or a Leica UV prism? Nope...

Click to expand...

The general lack of technical innovation over the years is my primary impression here. Only regarding coatings (and to some extent glass types) do I see real improvement, and still problems are allowed to persist like phase interference that even the alphas left quietly unsolved for decades, and dual-duty prism surfaces that coatings can't fix. Even Zeiss who were applying AK prisms widely have backed off from them now, which is my criticism of the SF, which is easily large enough to accommodate them. I suppose the obvious conclusion is that most consumers, even those looking for top-tier instruments, don't really know or care about these things, or they value convenience (perhaps even appearance) more, so manufacturers have to act accordingly. But I don't think that theory has ever been tested very well, simply because technically superior alternatives aren't produced, so instead it's more of a doubtful assumption. One certainly doesn't hear a lot of complaints about the size of the FLs or HTs...

Hello,

Perhaps Leica is using the same prisms that they use in their Ultravid binoculars for the "new / old" Trinovids , and they do not want to change the setup of their production lines , it would be much cheaper for Leica to do this.

Or , they cannot make , or source Uppendahl prisms at this time.

I agree that the "new/old" Trinovids do not appear to be targeted towards knowledgeable binocular users , but towards the "Glitterrati" , witness the sales outlets.

o o o

Cheers.

Steve C said:

It should be easy enough to water proof this new/old Trinovid. I do wonder about the degree of water proofing though. Slight contradiction, no? Should be "easy" but not totally proof, puzzling.

I will take Leica to task for selling only through the Leica Stores. Bad move, unless they know already this will not be a big seller.

Click to expand...

An exercise similar to Nikon and the WX porro, 1000 units in each configuration, most sold to collectors and optic enthusiasts. I'm sure the 7 x 35 will sell well wherever it is offered.

I once looked through a very good 7 x 35 Trinovid, but didnt purchase it but a colleague who did, uses them every day as his back garden bino.

P

tenex said:

The general lack of technical innovation over the years is my primary impression here. Only regarding coatings (and to some extent glass types) do I see real improvement, and still problems are allowed to persist like phase interference that even the alphas left quietly unsolved for decades, and dual-duty prism surfaces that coatings can't fix. Even Zeiss who were applying AK prisms widely have backed off from them now, which is my criticism of the SF, which is easily large enough to accommodate them.

Click to expand...

Reasons why most manufacturers use SP over AK:

- SP allow for a shorter, more compact binocular.
- SP are lighter than AK (check Holger's article on the Nikon WX: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/nikon_wx/nikon_wx.html)

Another reason may be that SP are readily available from different manufacturers, you can basically buy them off the shelf. At least that's what I read somewhere.

tenex said:

I suppose the obvious conclusion is that most consumers, even those looking for top-tier instruments, don't really know or care about these things, or they value convenience (perhaps even appearance) more, so manufacturers have to act accordingly. But I don't think that theory has ever been tested very well, simply because technically superior alternatives aren't produced, so instead it's more of a doubtful assumption.

Click to expand...

Quite right. There's still no birding binocular with Perger prisms ...

Hermann

Hermann, Henry - thanks for your informed observations. I've re-read Holger's writeups on his site and in Birdforum and in particular, where he notes that multi-coating the prism faces of the Schmidt-Pechan separated by that narrow air gap reduces contrast; single-coating results in the best contrast, but at a small cost in transmission (apparently something like 2%, since only two surfaces are in play).

The next question I'd like to ask is - are those differences in contrast and/or transmission evident under field conditions when those prism systems are installed in binoculars of comparable build quality? The impression I have is that contemporary users considered the great rival of the Leitz Trinovid - Zeiss's Dialyt - quite well-matched optically... maybe this was because only single coatings existed in that era, and the small differences in contrast and transmission between the Leitz's Uppendahl system and the Schmidt-Pechan system in the 10x40 and 8x30 Dialyts might not have been apparent given that max transmission of the Dialyt 10x40 was only 80% (per allbinos) and the Trinovid probably not much more (do any figures exist - maybe from Gijs's data?). Whether today's more advanced coatings would show up differences that might not have been apparent when single coatings were all that was available is another interesting avenue of speculation...

I do agree with everyone that my inner binocular geek would love to see these "new old" Trinovids with the original prism system (which would also hit the right elitist notes!). I wonder why the Uppendahl system was not more used - are Uppendahl prisms really as expensive to manufacture as the (in)famous web review by Ken Rockwall suggests?

PS. John, thanks also for your Geovid diagram. I'd thought that series were all Perger prismed, but it would seem not so?