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.

What if......

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Saturday 4th January 2020, 03:01   #126
John A Roberts
Registered User
 
John A Roberts's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Perth
Posts: 427
To expand on Binastro's point in post #121, as to the 24x36 mm film format not originating with Oskar Barnack,
earlier today I posted the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John A Roberts View Post
. . .
Of course it’s unknowable who first thought of using 35 mm motion picture stock in this manner, and then took an image using either a modified or prototype camera
And while we do know that Barnack built his first 24x36 mm prototype in around 1913 - commercial production did not commence until 1925 with the Leica I Model A

In contrast, as early as 1913 or 1914, Simplex of New York marketed a camera taking 24x36 images on 35 mm stock
And another early commercial offering was the Furet by E. Guerin & Cie of Paris which dates from around 1923
(e.g. see pages 210 to 214 of the book Camera by Todd Gustavson, Sterling Innovation New York 2009)

One of Barnack’s great accomplishments was to popularise the format

John

Last edited by John A Roberts : Saturday 4th January 2020 at 09:05.
John A Roberts is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th January 2020, 03:38   #127
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 6,810
Talking

John - I think this conveys something like the conundrum !


Click image for larger version

Name:	20200104_143218.jpg
Views:	58
Size:	202.0 KB
ID:	714072

Chosun
Chosun Juan is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 4th January 2020, 17:49   #128
Rico70
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Italia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan van daalen View Post
The hinges weren't loose like one should imagine.
When you took both tubes in both hands there was a free play/friction in the hinge. The hinge itself, holding the tubes at its place, was stiff. There was only free play in the hinge. Not so bad that you could look straight forward with one tube and around the corner with the other one.......
Maybe now I understand the flaw. Not the hinge hinges, but the hinge supports on the pipes were loose.
If so, I agree that professional technical intervention was needed.
Rico70 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th January 2020, 18:11   #129
jan van daalen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: maarssen holland
Posts: 1,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico70 View Post
Maybe now I understand the flaw. Not the hinge hinges, but the hinge supports on the pipes were loose.
If so, I agree that professional technical intervention was needed.
jan van daalen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th January 2020, 22:11   #130
Rico70
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Italia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
Hi Mike, where are the official documents? (post link if you can)
I quickly found that our friend Gijs van Ginkel is talking about the Trinovids here
https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.p...74&postcount=3

... but then he is sure only of the Conquest Zeiss (of which I already knew)
https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.p...33&postcount=8
Rico70 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 4th January 2020, 22:50   #131
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico70 View Post
Hi Mike, where are the official documents?
You mean from Leica? In which they say that one of their products is actually manufactured in Japan and only assembled in Portugal or Germany?
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 5th January 2020, 00:25   #132
Rico70
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Italia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
You mean from Leica? In which they say that one of their products is actually manufactured in Japan and only assembled in Portugal or Germany?
Yes! Do not they exist at Leica?
Seems to me, Zeiss admit it! Gijs also confirms this.

Last edited by Rico70 : Sunday 5th January 2020 at 00:27.
Rico70 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 5th January 2020, 08:48   #133
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico70 View Post
Yes! Do not they exist at Leica?
Seems to me, Zeiss admit it! Gijs also confirms this.
Hi Rico,

The subject of where binoculars (and many other consumer products) are manufactured, and what companies have to do in order to claim that a product has been ‘Made in .....’ has been the subject of much discussion on this forum in the recent past. With regard to the Trinovid HD it seems to me that if it is mechanically and optically similar or the same as other bins made in Japan for other companies, then it is more likely than not that Leica has done the same. Leica only need assemble or reassemble something manufactured elsewhere in order to state that it has been ‘Made in’ Portugal or Germany. This is common practice for manufacturers of all manner of products. Some are more transparent about the actual country of manufacture than others.

I have the 2012-15 Trinovid and have compared it directly with the HD. They are physically and mechanically quite different, as is the view. The older Trinovid is however extremely similar to the Ultravid, both in design and quality of view. Given those facts and the reduction in price that Leica achieved with the HD it seems more than reasonable to suppose that the HD is actually manufactured in Japan, especially when it bears such striking resemblances to other bins known to be manufactured there.
Please note that I am NOT saying that the HD is an inferior product, or that Leica is doing anything wrong. However, this is not the subject of this thread! If you have any further questions about this I suggest that you post them in the appropriate threads or send PM’s to people who have more first hand experience.

Best wishes, Michael.
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 5th January 2020, 17:14   #134
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,914
I have a Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline. It says right on it that it is made in Portugal. It is a very good binocular. It was introduced by Leica in 2003. It is a strikingly handsome binocular in an understated way and if you were wearing a Tuxedo at a fancy outdoor party it would fit right in as an appropriate accessory!

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Sunday 5th January 2020 at 17:33.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 5th January 2020, 21:55   #135
fazalmajid
Registered User
 
fazalmajid's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: London
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canip View Post
That you were not impressed with the Noctivid and prefer the Victory 8x25 over the UVHD 8x32 is absolutely understandable.

But let me remind you of what you wrote that caught my attention:

„the Leica offerings are not competitive with Swarovski Zeiss or Nikon, possibly even Meopta“

I still find that a very interesting statement ....
Well, let's turn that around. What Leica alpha class binocular do you consider competitive with the Swarovski EL SV or Zeiss SF? Or is it my throwaway mention of Meopta that irks you? I'll admit my experience with them is mostly with their spotting scopes, not their binoculars.
fazalmajid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 5th January 2020, 22:55   #136
Rico70
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Italia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
The older Trinovid is however extremely similar to the Ultravid, both in design and quality of view.
Questo l'ho visto anch'io. Molto buoni i "vecchi" Trinovid.
The affirmation of "Made in Japan" remains a little strange, without declarations, more official than a sensation. Which I understand and which I can also believe easily. I am trusting your (and others) impression of comparison between Trinovid and TvHD.
Rico70 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 5th January 2020, 23:36   #137
fazalmajid
Registered User
 
fazalmajid's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: London
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
I have a Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline. It says right on it that it is made in Portugal. It is a very good binocular. It was introduced by Leica in 2003. It is a strikingly handsome binocular in an understated way and if you were wearing a Tuxedo at a fancy outdoor party it would fit right in as an appropriate accessory!
Yes, it looks great, even better IMO than the Retrovids or the original Uppendahl Trinovids they are inspired from. It is also more compact than the other alpha 8x42. The strap design is outstanding, no untidy loose ends hanging, and the hard leather case is very classy (but apparently has been replaced by the mediocre cordura pouch of the BR models in newer versions).

Mine from 2008 says "Made in Germany" on the hinge cap, however. It also has the old US Passport lifetime warranty. Just one of many reasons why I am keeping it.
fazalmajid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th January 2020, 13:34   #138
jan van daalen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: maarssen holland
Posts: 1,957
A small update.
The Retrovid is currently under examination and will be fully stripped to see what type of ocular, prism housing, objective lens, focus lens and system is used and to measure the exact exit pupil to check if it is a 7x35.
This will tell us whether the used components are also found in Far East origin bins and/or in what price class they belong. 1.450,00 euro is still a lot of money for a bin which has no extra costs like margins for the country importer and the dealer.

Jan

Last edited by jan van daalen : Monday 6th January 2020 at 13:37.
jan van daalen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th January 2020, 17:44   #139
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by fazalmajid View Post
Well, let's turn that around. What Leica alpha class binocular do you consider competitive with the Swarovski EL SV or Zeiss SF? Or is it my throwaway mention of Meopta that irks you? I'll admit my experience with them is mostly with their spotting scopes, not their binoculars.
Well, if you want to „turn that around“, let me do the same.
What current Swarovski EL SV or Zeiss SF binocular of size 7x42 or 8x50 do you consider competitive with the Leica UV HD+ 7x42 or 8x50?

Last edited by Canip : Monday 6th January 2020 at 17:46.
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th January 2020, 18:43   #140
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by fazalmajid View Post
Well, let's turn that around. What Leica alpha class binocular do you consider competitive with the Swarovski EL SV or Zeiss SF?
Fazalmajid, I respect your preferences, but surely they are just that. I’ve compared the NV to the SV, and to me the SV has a slightly green tinted, lifeless, flat image, with nausea inducing rolling ball effect whenever I’m panning. It’s also bigger. How is that competitive with a smaller binocular that has a gorgeously rich, natural, and involving view which doesn’t make me feel sick whenever I move it?
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th January 2020, 18:49   #141
dries1
Registered User
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,916
I have the EL SV 8.5X42, Noctivid 8X42, and have owned the SF 8X42. IMHO the Noctivid 8X42 is very much competitive with both, the SF is however is clearly the winner with respect to FOV, and both the SV and SF are flat field. If one prefers a flat field, then go with the SV/SF, if not, the Noctivid. At this level it is clearly an ergonomic preference issue.

My favorite Flat field is the Nikon EDG, no one does a flat field glass like Nikon, no one, just my 2cts.

Andy W.

Last edited by dries1 : Monday 6th January 2020 at 21:18.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 6th January 2020, 19:11   #142
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
...My favorite Flat field the Nikon EDG, no one does a flat field glass like Nikon, no one, just my 2cts...
Agreed that Nikon can do a wonderful flat field (and wonderfully low astigmatism) binocular, but not all such Nikon binoculars are equally good. Ever try a Nikon 10x42 LX? Major rolling ball along with Nikon's equivalent of the "Absam ring".

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th January 2020, 19:25   #143
jan van daalen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: maarssen holland
Posts: 1,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
Agreed that Nikon can do a wonderful flat field (and wonderfully low astigmatism) binocular, but not all such Nikon binoculars are equally good. Ever try a Nikon 10x42 LX? Major rolling ball along with Nikon's equivalent of the "Absam ring".

--AP
AFAIK and been told by the Nikon rep in Holland the EDG series, both in scopes and bins, are made by Nikon. All the other (the latest Porro wasn't there at that time) models are outsourced to OEM's. That explains the variation in quality.

Jan
jan van daalen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th January 2020, 20:40   #144
dries1
Registered User
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,916
Nikon LX

You mean this one below LX10X42, I also recently picked up one in 8X42. They are the heaviest 10X42 and 8X42 I own. I have no problems with either of them. Still enjoy the views.

Jan,

I believe Nikon actually made the glass them selves for the EDGs, and likely for these LX also.

Andy W.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCF2429.jpg
Views:	30
Size:	221.1 KB
ID:	714324  Click image for larger version

Name:	Nikon HG 8X42ed1.jpg
Views:	30
Size:	93.8 KB
ID:	714325  
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 6th January 2020, 21:07   #145
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
You mean this one below LX10X42, I also recently picked up one in 8X42. They are the heaviest 10X42 and 8X42 I own. I have no problems with either of them. Still enjoy the views...
Yes, that's the one, and yes they are heavy, and unfortunately a bit high in CA. Otherwise, great bins with superb eye-relief and close focus in a 10x (esp. against the competition of the day). You must be very immune to rolling ball. I use the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV without even noticing rolling ball most of the time, but it gets my attention in the Nikon 10x42 LX even when I try to ignore it. More bothersome to me is the low point in resolution about 4/5 of the way from the center to the edge.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th January 2020, 21:08   #146
jan van daalen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: maarssen holland
Posts: 1,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
You mean this one below LX10X42, I also recently picked up one in 8X42. They are the heaviest 10X42 and 8X42 I own. I have no problems with either of them. Still enjoy the views.

Jan,

I believe Nikon actually made the glass them selves for the EDGs, and likely for these LX also.

Andy W.
Hi Andy,

Can't help you here.
Nikon and we departed some years ago and this is what us was told.
In that time we sold this bin also.

Jan
jan van daalen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th January 2020, 21:16   #147
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
Yes, that's the one, and yes they are heavy, and unfortunately a bit high in CA. Otherwise, great bins with superb eye-relief and close focus in a 10x (esp. against the competition of the day). You must be very immune to rolling ball.
Same here. I find the 8x32 and the 10x32 of that series a lot better with regard to CA and rolling ball.

BTW, I'm quite sure these binoculars were also made by Nikon, just like the original Fieldscopes (with the exception of the ED50) and the Nikon SE. I'm also sure that the Nikon Monarch HG and the Monarch scopes were at least designed by Nikon. They are not typical run-of-the-mill OEM products. The angled Monarch scopes for instance also seem to have the oversized Schmidt prism that was so typical of the Fieldscopes.

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th January 2020, 21:43   #148
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan van daalen View Post
AFAIK and been told by the Nikon rep in Holland the EDG series, both in scopes and bins, are made by Nikon. All the other (the latest Porro wasn't there at that time) models are outsourced to OEM's. That explains the variation in quality.

Jan
Hmm...I've no information as to whether Nikon's binoculars up through the EDG (whether flat field, or not) were made in a Nikon-owned factory, but what _is_ clear is that they are (to my recollection) _all_ unique-to-Nikon designs, with no obvious relationship to any other binoculars, whether with respect to their glass design or to their housing components. They must have been made to Nikon's specifications, so I can't accept differences in manufacturing facility as an explanation for differences in the exact details of their flat-field performance.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th January 2020, 21:44   #149
dries1
Registered User
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,916
When I was a kid I was visiting my fathers hometown in Enschede Holland, we were out side and there was a binocular on a table, I got curious and picked them up and remembered looking at a tree trunk which was straight but looked curved looking through the glass, (there is a pic in the first book by Bill Cook explaining distortion which reminded me of it).
My uncle Franz says now after you focus turn really fast while looking through the binocular, I did and will never forget it, very uncomfortable and dizzy at the same time.
The only glass recently that gave me a partial memory of that day was panning with with the SLC 15X56, not to the level but a reminder of it.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 6th January 2020, 23:30   #150
John A Roberts
Registered User
 
John A Roberts's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Perth
Posts: 427
Hi Alexis (post #148),

It’s a widely mistaken belief that the premium Nikon roof prisms have unique optical designs (and it’s what I too initially thought)

The reasons are because:
- the cross-section views seem to show the use of fewer but thicker elements than in other premium designs, and
- Nikon does not state the number of lenses in their designs

However, I’ve managed to find some cut away images that show more detail and that somewhat disappointingly they are very conventional designs!

In chronological order:
A) HG - showing only groups
B) HG - lenses and groups
C) HGL - lenses and groups (i.e. the light weight version of the HG, with the same optical construction)
D) EDG - showing only groups


As can be seen the HG/ HGL construction is:
Objective 4 lenses in 3 groups (2, 1 + 1 focusing); Eyepiece 6 lenses in 4 groups (1, 2, 2, 1)

And the EDG construction is:
Objective 4 lenses in 3 groups (1, 2 + 1 focusing); Eyepiece 6 lenses in 4 groups (1, 2, 2, 1)

So notably there is a reordering of the objective construction. And most likely the details of the lenses (thickness, curvature, composition and spacing) differ between the two lines


John


p.s. the HG is also known as the LX in the North American market
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	HG - typical cross section.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	107.6 KB
ID:	714342  Click image for larger version

Name:	8x42 HG - showing lenses.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	83.3 KB
ID:	714343  Click image for larger version

Name:	8x42 HGL - with lenses.jpg
Views:	32
Size:	126.7 KB
ID:	714344  Click image for larger version

Name:	EDG - typical cross section.jpg
Views:	37
Size:	56.2 KB
ID:	714346  

Last edited by John A Roberts : Monday 6th January 2020 at 23:42.
John A Roberts 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

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.18458295 seconds with 39 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:29.