Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Old Trinovid and Foton 10x40s

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 4th February 2020, 10:26   #1
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,805
Old Trinovid and Foton 10x40s

Brief Test.

Foton 10x40M BKFC.
Fully multicoated but not phase coated, I think.

One barrel good star images. The other barrel the star images are stretched to one side, maybe from the collimation process.
The good star image side has two largish internal blemishes, which may be balsam separation.
1996.

Trinovid 10x40 122m/1000m
Germany red dot 798xxx.
Not sure of the date.
Leitz Wetzlar red round emblem on front.
Seems to be single coated with one uncoated prism surface.

The Foton is 157mm long and has slightly wider objective tubes.
The Trinovid is 140mm long.

Surprises.
The central resolution of the Foton is clearly better for me hand held centrally compared to the Trinovid.
Two reasons. I can hold the Foton steadier and the Foton seems to be higher magnification. Say 10.5x if the Trinovid is 10.0 times.
Or maybe 10.3x compared to 9.8 times. I haven't tried to accurately measure this.

Despite this, on a bright sunny morning the Foton seems slightly brighter than the Trinovid, even if the Foton magnification is greater.
But the Trinovid needs a service. Although the Foton has the internal blemish.

The field of the Trinovid is much greater than the Foton.

If the new Retrovids had proper wide fields, i.e 7.0 degrees for the 10x40 and corresponding fields for the 8x40, 7x35 and 6x24 I would be very interested.
As it stands the Retrovids don't really interest me.

B.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th February 2020, 14:52   #2
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,805
The Trinovid above weighs 577g.
The Foton 588g.

Looking into the front of the Foton one sees roof lines at opposing angles in the two barrels.
No lines are visible looking into the front of the Trinovid. I suppose different prism types.

B.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 13th February 2020, 00:50   #3
Joker9937
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Fort wayne
Posts: 42
I have the 10x40 Trinovid. It is the made in Germany version with a serial number of 678355. It is in beautiful condition, in my opinion.

The images appeared to have a fogginess, so I checked with a flashlight when I purchased it. They had a film that covered them, but the images were still sharp. The seller provided me with a refund, which was very kind, but appropriate.

I used them like that for awhile, but recently decided to sell them. I described the issue in my ad, and no one seemed interested in them. I decided to give removing the film a shot myself, since I have too much invested in them to warrant spending the money to send them to SOR. (However, I highly recommend them. I just did not want to double or triple my expense).

I am glad I did, because the images are dramatically improved. I really like them a ton, and intend to keep them for much longer, if not permanently. They are beautiful to look at and through.

Besides having the 10x40, the fact that you were comparing them to a Foton brand binocular interested me. I have seen one for sale for quite some time, but dismissed them as being a junky knock-off. If they are comparable to, or in fact superior to, the Trinovids, I might have to give them a shot. I have never heard of that brand, but I am new to binos.

I attached a few shots of my Trinovid.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	20200201_213929.jpg
Views:	46
Size:	173.2 KB
ID:	718039  Click image for larger version

Name:	20200201_214011.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	143.5 KB
ID:	718040  
Joker9937 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 13th February 2020, 16:35   #4
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,805
Thanks Joker.

The Trinovid 10x40 binocular looks to be in fine condition.
Is it the wide angle like mine or the regular angle?

The star images in my Trinovid 10x40 are much better than in the Foton.
However, the Foton 10x40 is not nearly as good as my 5x25 Foton, which is optically superb.

A good Foton 10x40 should be good, but not up to the quality of a good Trinovid.

Regards,
B.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th February 2020, 10:51   #5
Joker9937
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Fort wayne
Posts: 42
Thank you, Binastro. Also, thanks for the review. I have lots to learn, so this type of thread is always good.

My 10x40 is the 122/1000. Is there a wider angle version than this one?

I am guessing that this binocular is my age or older, but I really enjoy the old versions. I mentioned it elsewhere, but I also have a 6x24. They are my only two Trinovids. I am possibly picking up a 7x42B. It is a Portugal produced model. I wonder how the quality will compare to the two German models.

I apologize, because I know you did not intend to have a Trinovid thread. It caught my eye, because, after cleaning the innards (which I think I could even improve further), I started falling in love with my 10x40. Seeing your comparison caught me off guard to think that the Foton was a strong competitor.

Almost everything I have amassed, which is far more than is logical, is the old porro type. The Leitz Wetzlar are my first roofs. Well, actually, I had a Steiner Merlin 10x42 a few years ago. I bought it for cheap on a clearance website. I purchased them for hunting. I sold them later, and before I started dabbling in binoculars as a hobby in and of itself. I believe they were roofs too. Anyway, I am not sure that I can ever dismiss the porros, but these Trinovid roofs sure are comfortable.
Joker9937 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th February 2020, 11:29   #6
jring
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,250
Hi,

my example of the Leitz Trinovid 7x42BA is made in Potugal and quality is just fine. Unlike with the higher magnifications, with 7x the lack of phase coating is not that terrible. I certainly would not consider a 10x roof without for actual use.

Joachim
jring is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th February 2020, 12:19   #7
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,805
Joker,
Your 10x40 Trinovid is the wide angle one.
I wish mine was in such good condition.

I also wish I had the 6x24.

For astronomy, I would very happy to use both without phase coating.

Regards,
B.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th February 2020, 16:11   #8
Joker9937
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Fort wayne
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jring View Post
Hi,

my example of the Leitz Trinovid 7x42BA is made in Potugal and quality is just fine. Unlike with the higher magnifications, with 7x the lack of phase coating is not that terrible. I certainly would not consider a 10x roof without for actual use.

Joachim
Thanks. Does the "BA" indicate a different coating, or something?

I hope to snag a pair of modern binos with phase coating at some point. I know what it is, but not really what it does. So, I will meander along in ignorance for now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Joker,
Your 10x40 Trinovid is the wide angle one.
I wish mine was in such good condition.

I also wish I had the 6x24.

For astronomy, I would very happy to use both without phase coating.

Regards,
B.
Thanks. I thought that they were the same. I was not sure. Yes, I was lucky to buy one in this condition. The internals were fogged, but most of that is gone now. It took a good effort to recover the light. I think they could be improved further, but they rank right up there with some of my porros. However, I do not have an exact match, magnification and aperture, with which to compare.

Since I cleaned the prisms, I only had a very brief glance at the sky. However, the very few dim stars that I could grab looked very promising. I am sure modern coatings would make the image brighter, but these look very sharp. They are bright enough for me, at least, for now.

I am only using old stuff, though. The newest binocular I have is a Swift Audubon ED. Maybe I just need to learn to be more critical, but these are still "bright enough", in my opinion.
Joker9937 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th February 2020, 19:33   #9
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by jring View Post
Hi,

my example of the Leitz Trinovid 7x42BA is made in Potugal and quality is just fine. Unlike with the higher magnifications, with 7x the lack of phase coating is not that terrible. I certainly would not consider a 10x roof without for actual use.

Joachim
Back in the mid 1980s when I first tried Leitz Trinovids and Zeiss Dialyts I was perplexed to find that the worst image quality came when my eye pupil was perfectly centered in the exit pupil and improved when I decentered my pupil up or down. I couldn't explain it at the time, but now I realize that the worst destructive interference occurs when the roof line perfectly bisects the objective light cone when the eye's pupil is centered. When the roof line is moved closer to the edge of the light cone by decentering the pupil the interference gradually decreases until it reaches zero when the roof line reaches the edge of the exit pupil or eye's pupil, whichever is smaller.

The large exit pupil of the 7x42 combined with a small eye pupil in daylight probably allows the roof line to be completely removed from the part of the exit pupil that actually enters the eye so that only light from one face of the roof prism is able to enter. There should be a kind of sweet spot in pupil positioning where the destructive interference is largely neutralized while the pupil decentering is simultaneously not too damaging to the image, a glimpse of what a phase corrected Trinovid would be like.

Henry

Last edited by henry link : Friday 14th February 2020 at 19:59.
henry link is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th February 2020, 20:04   #10
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
Back in the mid 1980s when I first tried Leitz Trinovids and Zeiss Dialyts I was perplexed to find that the worst image quality came when my eye pupil was perfectly centered in the exit pupil and improved when I decentered my pupil up or down. I couldn't explain it at the time, but now I realize that the worst destructive interference occurs when the roof line perfectly bisects the objective light cone when the eye's pupil is centered. When the roof line is moved closer to the edge of the light cone by decentering the pupil the interference gradually decreases until it reaches zero when the roof line reaches the edge of the eye's pupil.

The large exit pupil of the 7x42 combined with a small eye pupil in daylight probably allows the roof line to be completely removed from the light cone with enough pupil decentering so that only light from one face of the roof prism can enter the eye. There should be a kind of sweet spot in pupil positioning where the destructive interference becomes largely harmless while the pupil decentering is simultaneously not too damaging to the image, a glimpse of what a phase corrected Trinovid would look like.
Henry: That's exactly the effect Weyrauch/Doerband referred to in their article on phase-coatings (Deutsche Optikerzeitung 4/1988). They wrote:

"Bei Ferngläsern mit großen Austrittspupillen gelingt es gelegentlich, sich an an dem bildverschlechternden Phaseneffekt vorbeizumogeln. Bei guter Beleuchtung kann der Beobachter seine nunmehr kleine Austrittspupille exzentrisch zur Fernglaspupille, also in eine Pupillenhälfte legen. Somit bemerkt er nichts von dem kontrastverschlechternden Einfluß der anderen Pupillenhälfte. Allerdings ist ein Fernglas für eine derartige Benutzung nicht ausgelegt, geschweige denn optimiert."

Sorry about the German, I'm too tired to translate the quote as I'm recovering from a serious illness at the moment.

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th February 2020, 20:17   #11
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,545
I'm very sorry to hear that, Hermann. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Henry
henry link is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th February 2020, 21:02   #12
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
Henry: That's exactly the effect Weyrauch/Doerband referred to in their article on phase-coatings (Deutsche Optikerzeitung 4/1988). They wrote:

"Bei Ferngläsern mit großen Austrittspupillen gelingt es gelegentlich, sich an an dem bildverschlechternden Phaseneffekt vorbeizumogeln. Bei guter Beleuchtung kann der Beobachter seine nunmehr kleine Austrittspupille exzentrisch zur Fernglaspupille, also in eine Pupillenhälfte legen. Somit bemerkt er nichts von dem kontrastverschlechternden Einfluß der anderen Pupillenhälfte. Allerdings ist ein Fernglas für eine derartige Benutzung nicht ausgelegt, geschweige denn optimiert."

Sorry about the German, I'm too tired to translate the quote as I'm recovering from a serious illness at the moment.

Hermann
Get well soon Hermann.

translation:

"With binoculars with large exit pupils, it occasionally succeeds in muddling past the image-worsening phase effect. With good lighting, the observer can now place his now small exit pupil eccentrically to the binocular pupil, that is, in one pupil half. So he does not notice the contrast-impairing influence of the other pupil half. However, binoculars are not designed for such use, let alone optimized. "
wdc is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th February 2020, 22:45   #13
Tringa45
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posts: 367
Best wishes, Hermann for a speedy and complete recovery.

The original versions at least of the Carl Zeiss Jena/Docter/Noblex 7x40 B/GA also lacked a phase coating.
Does anyone know if this is still the case?

John
Tringa45 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 15th February 2020, 00:47   #14
Joker9937
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Fort wayne
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
Henry: That's exactly the effect Weyrauch/Doerband referred to in their article on phase-coatings (Deutsche Optikerzeitung 4/1988). They wrote:

"Bei Ferngläsern mit großen Austrittspupillen gelingt es gelegentlich, sich an an dem bildverschlechternden Phaseneffekt vorbeizumogeln. Bei guter Beleuchtung kann der Beobachter seine nunmehr kleine Austrittspupille exzentrisch zur Fernglaspupille, also in eine Pupillenhälfte legen. Somit bemerkt er nichts von dem kontrastverschlechternden Einfluß der anderen Pupillenhälfte. Allerdings ist ein Fernglas für eine derartige Benutzung nicht ausgelegt, geschweige denn optimiert."

Sorry about the German, I'm too tired to translate the quote as I'm recovering from a serious illness at the moment.

Hermann
Get well soon!
Joker9937 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 15th February 2020, 13:17   #15
jring
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker9937 View Post
Thanks. Does the "BA" indicate a different coating, or something?

I hope to snag a pair of modern binos with phase coating at some point. I know what it is, but not really what it does. So, I will meander along in ignorance for now.
Hi,

as with a lot of older german binoculars, B stands for Brille, german for glasses and A stands for Armiert, german for well, armoured.

Or for a Zeiss BGAT*P - Brille, Gummi Armiert, T* coating, Phase coating. So it's a rubber armoured (Gummi Armiert) version with eyepieces suited for use with glasses (Brillentraegerokulare) and T* multicoatings and phase coatings.

Phase coatings are needed to combat a loss of microcontrast seen around the roof edge which is caused by destructive interference between the two half-beams reflected on different sides of the roof edge. This reflection l leads to a phase difference between the two half beams and thus destructive interference. Phase coating will change the phase difference in a way that the interference is less pronounced.

PS: All the best, Hermann - get well quickly!

Joachim
jring is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 15th February 2020, 15:53   #16
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,911
[quote=Joker9937;3959101]Thanks. Does the "BA" indicate a different coating, or something?

I hope to snag a pair of modern binos with phase coating at some point. I know what it is, but not really what it does. So, I will meander along in ignorance for now.

.......................................

Hello Joker,

The "B" as I understand it is for "Brille" which means it is suitable for people wearing glasses and the "A" indicates that it's covering is armored.

MY Leitz Trinovid 7x42 BA which was made in 1983 has green armoring. I did use it while wearing glasses with the eye cups folded down. I eventually had to

purchase new screw on eye cup replacements from Leica. They cost $25.00 each. I doubt if they are still available.

Anyway, I've had Cataract surgery since then which also corrected my vision to 20/20.


https://www.allbinos.com/1653-Leitz_...fications.html

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Saturday 15th February 2020 at 16:11.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 00:21   #17
Patudo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker9937 View Post

I hope to snag a pair of modern binos with phase coating at some point. I know what it is, but not really what it does. So, I will meander along in ignorance for now.

...I am sure modern coatings would make the image brighter, but these look very sharp. They are bright enough for me, at least, for now.

I am only using old stuff, though. The newest binocular I have is a Swift Audubon ED. Maybe I just need to learn to be more critical, but these are still "bright enough", in my opinion.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss. If the best optical performance you can afford is vital for you to fully enjoy your birds, or to hunt in difficult conditions, etc., that's one thing. But if you are happy with the views your current binoculars are giving you, which it sounds as though you are, you might be well advised to steer clear of the modern stuff - for it could forever change your opinion of what you now love.

PS. One might assume from the two posts (#9 and #10) below your last post that roofs without phase-coating are nigh on unusuable - but the following quote, from a thread back in November 2017 discussing phase coating, provides some useful perspective:

I was around in the days before p-coating. My memory is that very few people realized they were sacrificing any optical quality at all when they bought a high priced Leitz or Zeiss roof. Magazine reviewers used the same superlatives to describe the image quality of roof prism binoculars then as now.

"Looking through these binoculars is like having a little light bulb illuminate a perfect image". That's a quote describing the #1 rated Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt from a Cornell Lab "Living Bird Quarterly" group test of binoculars in 1988. It wasn't that the testers lacked Porros for comparison. That test contained some noteworthy Porros, like the Swift Audubon and the CZJ Octarem...
Patudo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 00:47   #18
Joker9937
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Fort wayne
Posts: 42
[quote=ceasar;3959427]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker9937 View Post
Thanks. Does the "BA" indicate a different coating, or something?

I hope to snag a pair of modern binos with phase coating at some point. I know what it is, but not really what it does. So, I will meander along in ignorance for now.

.......................................

Hello Joker,

The "B" as I understand it is for "Brille" which means it is suitable for people wearing glasses and the "A" indicates that it's covering is armored.

MY Leitz Trinovid 7x42 BA which was made in 1983 has green armoring. I did use it while wearing glasses with the eye cups folded down. I eventually had to

purchase new screw on eye cup replacements from Leica. They cost $25.00 each. I doubt if they are still available.

Anyway, I've had Cataract surgery since then which also corrected my vision to 20/20.


https://www.allbinos.com/1653-Leitz_...fications.html

Bob
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patudo View Post
Sometimes ignorance is bliss. If the best optical performance you can afford is vital for you to fully enjoy your birds, or to hunt in difficult conditions, etc., that's one thing. But if you are happy with the views your current binoculars are giving you, which it sounds as though you are, you might be well advised to steer clear of the modern stuff - for it could forever change your opinion of what you now love.

PS. One might assume from the two posts (#9 and #10) below your last post that roofs without phase-coating are nigh on unusuable - but the following quote, from a thread back in November 2017 discussing phase coating, provides some useful perspective:

I was around in the days before p-coating. My memory is that very few people realized they were sacrificing any optical quality at all when they bought a high priced Leitz or Zeiss roof. Magazine reviewers used the same superlatives to describe the image quality of roof prism binoculars then as now.

"Looking through these binoculars is like having a little light bulb illuminate a perfect image". That's a quote describing the #1 rated Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt from a Cornell Lab "Living Bird Quarterly" group test of binoculars in 1988. It wasn't that the testers lacked Porros for comparison. That test contained some noteworthy Porros, like the Swift Audubon and the CZJ Octarem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jring View Post
Hi,

as with a lot of older german binoculars, B stands for Brille, german for glasses and A stands for Armiert, german for well, armoured.

Or for a Zeiss BGAT*P - Brille, Gummi Armiert, T* coating, Phase coating. So it's a rubber armoured (Gummi Armiert) version with eyepieces suited for use with glasses (Brillentraegerokulare) and T* multicoatings and phase coatings.

Phase coatings are needed to combat a loss of microcontrast seen around the roof edge which is caused by destructive interference between the two half-beams reflected on different sides of the roof edge. This reflection l leads to a phase difference between the two half beams and thus destructive interference. Phase coating will change the phase difference in a way that the interference is less pronounced.

PS: All the best, Hermann - get well quickly!

Joachim
Binastro, I did not intend to take the thread off track. I hope I can help get it back. However, this information is very helpful.

Thanks to both of you guys for breaking that info down for me. I have bought and sold a ton of binoculars in the last couple of years, and much of what I learned was the hard way. I went through a few old Zeiss porros. A couple of them have been mentioned on this website. But, I have been chicken to try anything else, because I haven't figured out what the "BGAT", etc, mean(s).

So, regarding personal standards, I get the idea of being happy and enjoying what you have. I am sure that I will transition into the newer stuff at some point, but for the time being, all of this is fun enough.

I do hunt, and awesome glass that is water proof, etc, would be good. I have one set that are waterproof, so I am good for now. But, they are porros and a little heavy. They will be find for awhile.

Thank you for explaining all of that.
Joker9937 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:41   #19
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patudo View Post

PS. One might assume from the two posts (#9 and #10) below your last post that roofs without phase-coating are nigh on unusuable - but the following quote, from a thread back in November 2017 discussing phase coating, provides some useful perspective:

I was around in the days before p-coating. My memory is that very few people realized they were sacrificing any optical quality at all when they bought a high priced Leitz or Zeiss roof. Magazine reviewers used the same superlatives to describe the image quality of roof prism binoculars then as now.

"Looking through these binoculars is like having a little light bulb illuminate a perfect image". That's a quote describing the #1 rated Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt from a Cornell Lab "Living Bird Quarterly" group test of binoculars in 1988. It wasn't that the testers lacked Porros for comparison. That test contained some noteworthy Porros, like the Swift Audubon and the CZJ Octarem...
That quote seemed a bit familiar. Turned out it was from me. My intention was not to suggest that non-phase coated binoculars are nearly as good as phase corrected ones, but rather to point out how Leitz, Zeiss, Bausch & Lomb and others managed to bamboozle people (including reviewers) into believing marketing poop rather than their own eyes.
henry link is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:51   #20
Joker9937
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Fort wayne
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
That quote seemed a bit familiar. Turned out it was from me. My intention was not to suggest that non-phase coated binoculars are nearly as good as phase corrected ones, but rather to point out how Leitz, Zeiss, Bausch & Lomb and others managed to bamboozle people (including reviewers) into believing marketing poop rather than their own eyes.
By "marketing poop", are you saying that the old ones are no where as good as the p-coated ones, or that there was so much marketing hype about phase coating that it creates unreasonable expectations...or, both?

Again, not to keep going in a direction that Binastro did not intend (if I need to start a different thread, please, delete), but while I really like the old Trinovids, porros, bins like the Rangemaster, etc, they are all, for the most part, older than I am. So, while I have only had one "modern" pair of binoculars for hunting (gone now), I would love to have the best of the best for daily use.

Meanwhile, I would continue dabbling in the beautiful old classics. Not just for their cosmetics, but for their shocking optical quality too. I am not ready, mentally or financially, to drop a couple grand on a Zeiss Victory, or something. But, I have liquidated a boatload of project binoculars, and given away a good number too. So, I am trying to keep a few bucks back for snagging a good deal on an alpha bin or something close.

On the Trinovid path, would a cosmetically-challenged Leica Trinovid in the 8x50 configuration be a step-up? It would be around $300. No case or caps, or anything, but still functionally in good shape.

For background, reference the "step-up", I am still learning the fine details of the physics and coatings, etc, but I am, at least I think I am, pretty lucky or good at finding "deals". So, I have a group of really nice porros at pretty comfortable prices. Plus, I have the two Leitz Wetzlar Trinovids that I mentioned. The porros include Mk 43s, Rangemasters (FPO and Tamron), Swift Audubons (HR/5 and 820ED).

So, if the Trinovids would be comparable, or better than any of these, and the price is not horrible, I might jump on it.

Any opinion?

Or, would I be better to buy a Foton that I found for $150?
Joker9937 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:54   #21
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,805
Joker,
It is pretty much on track for me.

A secondhand Foton at $150 is a bit pricey unless immaculate.

Whatever is bought it is the condition that is important and also it has to be well aligned, have good star images and resolution.
Really, one needs to try it.

B.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:15   #22
Joker9937
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Fort wayne
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Joker,
It is pretty much on track for me.

A secondhand Foton at $150 is a bit pricey unless immaculate.

Whatever is bought it is the condition that is important and also it has to be well aligned, have good star images and resolution.
Really, one needs to try it.

B.
Thanks. I didn't want to turn it into something different than intended.

So, the Foton is probably out for me. It doesn't appear to be in excellent shape.

What about the Leica? Would it be phase coated? Are the chances that it would be superior to the older versions be high?

I think it could be purchased for between $200 and $300. Is that cheap enough to take a chance?

Again, it's solid functionally and optically, but a bit rough, and missing the caps and any case. 8x50BA is the version.

Neither is available to try. But, I did scrutinize and quiz, so until they would arrive, that's all I have.
Joker9937 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:58   #23
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker9937 View Post
By "marketing poop", are you saying that the old ones are no where as good as the p-coated ones, or that there was so much marketing hype about phase coating that it creates unreasonable expectations...or, both?

Again, not to keep going in a direction that Binastro did not intend (if I need to start a different thread, please, delete), but while I really like the old Trinovids, porros, bins like the Rangemaster, etc, they are all, for the most part, older than I am. So, while I have only had one "modern" pair of binoculars for hunting (gone now), I would love to have the best of the best for daily use.

Meanwhile, I would continue dabbling in the beautiful old classics. Not just for their cosmetics, but for their shocking optical quality too. I am not ready, mentally or financially, to drop a couple grand on a Zeiss Victory, or something. But, I have liquidated a boatload of project binoculars, and given away a good number too. So, I am trying to keep a few bucks back for snagging a good deal on an alpha bin or something close.

On the Trinovid path, would a cosmetically-challenged Leica Trinovid in the 8x50 configuration be a step-up? It would be around $300. No case or caps, or anything, but still functionally in good shape.

For background, reference the "step-up", I am still learning the fine details of the physics and coatings, etc, but I am, at least I think I am, pretty lucky or good at finding "deals". So, I have a group of really nice porros at pretty comfortable prices. Plus, I have the two Leitz Wetzlar Trinovids that I mentioned. The porros include Mk 43s, Rangemasters (FPO and Tamron), Swift Audubons (HR/5 and 820ED).

So, if the Trinovids would be comparable, or better than any of these, and the price is not horrible, I might jump on it.

Any opinion?

Or, would I be better to buy a Foton that I found for $150?
I meant the former. Phase correction was not marketing poop. It was a genuine step forward.

All of the Leica Trinovids are phase corrected, but early ones (BA) were not very bright or color neutral due to the Leica multi-coating of the day and the use of silver mirror coating in the prisms. You need only spend $300 or $400 wisely on new binoculars now to do better optically.
henry link is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 21:32   #24
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,805
Joker,
Why buy anything rough from someone unknown, when something bought from a collector or enthusiast or a known binocular repairer will be better?
And probably a fair price if they have duplicates.

I only bought from reputable dealers or collectors, or at a very low price from charity shops after a quick inspection.
I have sometimes taken risks, but usually at prices I can afford to write off.

Everything shiny isn't gold.

Regards,
B.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:55   #25
Joker9937
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Fort wayne
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Joker,
Why buy anything rough from someone unknown, when something bought from a collector or enthusiast or a known binocular repairer will be better?
And probably a fair price if they have duplicates.

I only bought from reputable dealers or collectors, or at a very low price from charity shops after a quick inspection.
I have sometimes taken risks, but usually at prices I can afford to write off.

Everything shiny isn't gold.

Regards,
B.
Good points, Binastro.

I am backing off of that particular bin, unless he comes back at half that price or so. On looking at it a second time, it might be a newer version than I first thought.

Regardless, I see your points, and agree. I was wondering, at first, if that price was a very good price. But, your and Henry's point(s) ($300 to $400 spent wisely) about caution in that regard makes sense.

Thank you.
Joker9937 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
5x25 Visionking and Foton compared Binastro Others 13 Thursday 12th July 2018 12:50
choice of 2 inexpensive 10x40s slingworks Binoculars 10 Tuesday 28th June 2016 14:55
B&L Autubon 10X40s ? Penwolf Bushnell - Bausch & Lomb 19 Monday 8th August 2011 01:52
Foton binoculars badger1962 Others 21 Sunday 21st December 2008 21:00

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19055009 seconds with 40 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:26.