• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Retrovid 8x40: A brief review (1 Viewer)

Troubador said:
………….. Look at the picture and you can see how the paint has worn away around the objectives and hinge, but there is no sign of wear on the 'leather'. It seems likely to me that this is because the material isn't leather at all.

Lee
Click to expand...

I can confirm this. I just recently sold my 1976 model 10x40B on the internet and was puzzled myself when I took pictures for the purpose. It had been my standard and well used model for close to 20 years. After that it mostly spent its time on a shelf in the attic for those rare occasions that I would observe something from the attic window. So here too, the metal parts show much more wear than the "leather" cover.

The foldable rubber eyecups were close to falling off, though that does not show here.
 

Attachments

  • P1090716.jpgred2500.jpg
    P1090716.jpgred2500.jpg
    185.3 KB · Views: 174
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Do you think Leica would use faux leather on a $1400.00 binocular?
Click to expand...

If the alternative material is longer lasting and if leather would look beat-up in a compartively short time and customers would be banging on the Leica front-door saying 'hey I want my money back because this $1400 bino looks like junk after just one trip up the Amazon and only 2 trips to Antarctica', then yes, I would think Leica would use faux leather, just like they did the first time.

And there is nothing disgraceful about providing a longer-lasting covering that is animal-free.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
If the alternative material is longer lasting and if leather would look beat-up in a compartively short time and customers would be banging on the Leica front-door saying 'hey I want my money back because this $1400 bino looks like junk after just one trip up the Amazon and only 2 trips to Antarctica', then yes, I would think Leica would use faux leather, just like they did the first time.

And there is nothing disgraceful about providing a longer-lasting covering that is animal-free.

Lee
Click to expand...

It's never been a secret that the material covering the Leica cameras - certainly M4-P and M6 etc is called Vulcanite. i would say from looking at the ones I have that the basic material hasn't changed significantly since 1984 - I give that date as it's the earliest possible date for my M4-P, though from memory (which can be risky) I would say that the 1950s/60s M3 I used to have was similarly 'bound'. In my experience the Vulcanite is hard-wearing and looks pretty similar to what's under discussion over these Leitz binoculars.

From time to time they have changed the pattern/texture slightly (for instance on M4 and M6 it is more knobbly-looking than on the first digital version, M8, but without checking on more detail differences I can confirm the camera covering, Vulcanite, does a good job and stays tightly fitted at least on all the Leicas I have ever used. I'd be very happy to have that on binoculars too.

Tom
 
SeldomPerched said:
It's never been a secret that the material covering the Leica cameras - certainly M4-P and M6 etc is called Vulcanite. i would say from looking at the ones I have that the basic material hasn't changed significantly since 1984 - I give that date as it's the earliest possible date for my M4-P, though from memory (which can be risky) I would say that the 1950s/60s M3 I used to have was similarly 'bound'. In my experience the Vulcanite is hard-wearing and looks pretty similar to what's under discussion over these Leitz binoculars.

From time to time they have changed the pattern/texture slightly (for instance on M4 and M6 it is more knobbly-looking than on the first digital version, M8, but without checking on more detail differences I can confirm the camera covering, Vulcanite, does a good job and stays tightly fitted at least on all the Leicas I have ever used. I'd be very happy to have that on binoculars too.

Tom
Click to expand...
Vulcanite! It sounds like Kryptonite. Superman better not buy a Leica!
 
[email protected] said:
Do you think Leica would use faux leather on a $1400.00 binocular? It has to be the real thing. It smells like leather. Maybe you are right. It is a new super durable faux leather.
Click to expand...

Leica replied about the covering: "The leather is an artificial material with leather structure. The base material is a specific PVC. We use the same material on our cameras."

I am sure this is far more durable than actual leather.

Lee
 
You show ocular covers for the Retrovid... did these come with the binoculars?

Others here (chill6x6) have reported they were not included.
 
Renze de Vries said:
Is this meant as negative? I think that's not necessarily so. One could very well argue that the Ultravid was a good design from the start, so good in fact that only incremental changes were needed to keep the model up-to-date. Or is the HD+ an obsolete design?

Renze
Click to expand...
Remember… in cameras, the M3 design was from the early 1960’s…. And it was so successful that even today Leica film cameras are almost exactly the same and the digital version keeps the same footprint. Leica must have as their philosophy that there is no reason to re-invent the wheel if the wheel is the best one can buy. So given the Ultravid line, why change something that is close to perfection? Simply update the coatings etc. The Noctivid pushed Leica to the top level but the Ultravid line is the M3 camera equivalent in bins.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

chill6x6
A few quick thoughts, 7X35 vs. 8X32
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
John M Robinson
J
R
Leica Bins
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Bentley03
B
John A Roberts
Roger Vine's review of the Retrovid 8x40
Replies
3
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
John A Roberts
Roger Vine’s review of an original Leitz Trivovid 7x35
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Holger Merlitz
H
A2GG
Impressed with Trinovid HD
Replies
13
Views
3K
A2GG
A2GG

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top