.....
.....
.....
What is sorely needed are unbiased comparisons of their specifications, inner workings and views while in practical use as birding tools!
Bob
Such comparisons will come with time, just be patient ... (see below the end of my post
)
btw., I had some business in town yesterday and some spare time, and as I walked past the local Leica Store, they had several Retrovids in the shop window, so I went in and had a look.
Turns out they so far only got the 8x40 model (but quite a number of them, several were on display). This is perhaps the model that will raise the least interest of the three.
They didn't know when the 7x35 and 10x40 will become available.
Anyway, since I was there, I spent half an hour with the 8x40, inside and outside the shop, and they gave me a Trinovid 8x42 HD (which I own myself and know quite well) for side by side comparison.
This confirmed the excellent impression from my short time in Germany in December with the 7x35 and 10x40 regarding the build quality and finish of the Retrovid. All samples I saw yesterday were impeccably finished, I am not sure I have ever seen better finish quality in binoculars (the Trinovid HD looked almost "cheap" in comparison).
The 8x40 (and, I guess, the same might be true for the 7x35 and 10x40) are probably NOT primarily targeted at the birding community.
Here is why I think that: the 8x42 Trinovid HD requires a 3/4 turn of the wheel to focus from 4m to infinity. The Retrovid 8x40 requires double that, almost 1 1/2 turns, so has a very slow focuser, like the old-time Leitz Trinovids! This allows very precise focusing action, but appears less useful when trying to follow a flock of birds flying off.
However, the focuser worked very well in all samples, precise and smooth, no play. The dpt adjustment goes goes quite hard, but again with precision.
The image in the 8x40 appeared bright, clear and very "steady", with good central sharpness and contrast, almost crisp. Sharpness goes out very far, probably more than 80% or more from the image center, only the very edge appears slightly blurred, but even that blurriness was not horrible.
Image characteristics appeared quite similar to the Trinovid HD (e.g. when panning), even perhaps a tad brighter in the Retrovid, and while the image of the Trinovid HD seemed to exhibit a slight reddish or yellowish hue, the Retrovid exhibited a very neutral image.
CA appeared slightly better controlled in the Retrovid than in the Trinovid HD; there is still some left, but quite acceptable in the center, a bit more towards the edge.
The size of the field of view in the Trinovid HD (124m) and the Retrovid (123m) is virtually identical; that's not very much in either of them, but the nice image quality of the Retrovid almost made me forget that (I have to disclose here that I tend to prefer an evenly sharp image in a smaller field of view over an "unsteady image" with varying sharpness in a widefield bino).
The Retrovid showed clearly less spikes on bright light sources (shop LED's) than the Trinovid HD. Looking from the front end through the tubes in the Trinovid HD against a bright background, I could spot the roof edge as a very fine line; I couldn't see that in the Retrovid, which tells me that their roof edge seems very properly ground / polished.
Comparing the handling of the Retrovid in the shop with the Trinovid HD, the Ultravid HD+ and the Noctivid (I know all three very well, and the shop had all of them in store), everything felt right about the Retrovid - size, weight, shape, haptics, everything. The other three are all rubber armoured, of course, and I am pretty sure they are better suited for rough use, but the Retrovid has this special feeling of a very fine quality instrument about it (I know Leica is good and famous for creating that kind of impression, esp. also with their cameras).
So, overall even the "least interesting" of the Retrovid models, the 8x40, made a positive impression on me (things like stray-light suppression or ghosting could not properly be explored in the shop, but I could not detect any immediate big flaws there).
Are the Retrovids too expensive ? Hard to say. But after comparing one side by side with the same size Trinovid HD, I would accept that it has to cost more than the latter. Of course, only longer term experience will tell whether that impression is justified or not.
I admit that I really start to like the Retrovids :C
Do I need one? Definitely not!
Do I want one ? Hmm ... :eek!:
