Previous Gen Alpha "Mystique" (1 Viewer)

james holdsworth said:

The only ''old'' optic I know that nearly matches new, optically, is my mid-90's Zeiss 7x42 BGAT/P. Just as bright as an FL, great contrast and sharpness, great colour fidelity, great on glare. Just a bit more CA / soft edges than the best modern stuff but a wider field than almost anything out there currently.

Click to expand...

:t::t::t::t:

jremmons said:

Patudo - those are my thoughts as well, you just wax poetic a whole lot better than me, haha.

There's certainly nothing 'wrong' with the older generation, and they are still fine optics in their own right, so if you want to pay the premium, go for it. I just have personally stopped recommending them to colleagues as I know that current second-tier/sub-alpha models are optically superior and under full warranty, etc. for the same (or practically so) price.

Click to expand...

I agree. Most any $500 glass nowadays has better optics than anything made 20+years ago.

Maybe.
A month ago I had the opportunity to compare my trusty Leica Trinovid 8x42 BA that I bought new in 1993 to the current Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD. OK, 42 is more than 32 but I expected the modern bino to be clearly superior. To my surprise, the opposite was true: the topic Trinovid 8x32 showed strong CAs and disturbing kidney beaning and the mechanics were not convincing in regard to its 25 years old predecessor. Of course there may be better contenders out there, maybe in the 500€ class. But I am pretty sure that a current Trinovid - a budget bino in the Leica lineup - still is no match for my old Trinovid that was an "alpha" in its time.

Patudo:

Well said, I agree with your thoughts about the older alpha models. There are things about
build quality, glass and coatings that are still at a high level.

Jerry

forent said:

Maybe.
A month ago I had the opportunity to compare my trusty Leica Trinovid 8x42 BA that I bought new in 1993 to the current Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD. OK, 42 is more than 32 but I expected the modern bino to be clearly superior. To my surprise, the opposite was true: the topic Trinovid 8x32 showed strong CAs and disturbing kidney beaning and the mechanics were not convincing in regard to its 25 years old predecessor. Of course there may be better contenders out there, maybe in the 500€ class. But I am pretty sure that a current Trinovid - a budget bino in the Leica lineup - still is no match for my old Trinovid that was an "alpha" in its time.

Click to expand...

Could the CA be a product of a shorter focal length, and the kidney beaning an issue of too much eye relief for you? I wonder how much is built into the design spec. with different goals than the original model, such as more compact, lighter weight, closer focus, and accommodation for eyeglasses. Yes, and cheaper too...

I agree that there is some CA in the 8x32 Trinovid. I've got one! But it sure is portable, fits my eyes well with my glasses on (no kidney beaning for me), and focuses inside of 3 feet.

The 8x42 BA weighs half a pound more, minimum focus is over 15 feet, and it would likely leave some eyeglass wearers out in the cold with less then 16mm of eye relief.

I think we're comparing apples and oranges, even though they're both labelled Trinovid. Since the current Trinovid model occupies the bottom rung on a multi-tier platform, there may be some truth about robustness of build, as well as visual quality with respect to its venerable predecessor of the same name. Still, its a handy, grab and go travel bin.

-Bill

Just had a deal for a pre-swarovision EL 10x42...then things fell through.

Back to searching for a previous gen alpha, and hopefully - through someplace other than eBay.

wdc said:

Could the CA be a product of a shorter focal length, and the kidney beaning an issue of too much eye relief for you? (...)

I think we're comparing apples and oranges, even though they're both labelled Trinovid. Since the current Trinovid model occupies the bottom rung on a multi-tier platform, there may be some truth about robustness of build, as well as visual quality with respect to its venerable predecessor of the same name. Still, its a handy, grab and go travel bin.

-Bill

Click to expand...

Bill, I didn't want to cavil at the Trinovid 8x32 HD. It surely is a very nice bino and you praise it for good reason. And I guess you are right with your assumption of too much eye relief. I referred my findings only with regard to the question whether a modern mid class bino is necessarily superior to an alpha of yesteryear which I doubt.

jremmons said:

I just have personally stopped recommending them to colleagues as I know that current second-tier/sub-alpha models are optically superior and under full warranty, etc. for the same (or practically so) price.

Click to expand...

I agree the binocular one might, in the very best of faith, recommend to others might not be that which one might choose for oneself. I would be very interested to read your (and other) assessments of today's second tier glass in comparison with former alphas. I didn't think to look through the demo binoculars from Kowa, Meopta etc at the UK Birdfair last year (something I plan to remedy this year), nor do I have wide experience of former alphas except for the 10x42 and 8x32 FLs. One second tier glass I did look through was the Conquest HD, which I did think was very good indeed - certainly brighter, and, I feel pretty confident in saying, a bit sharper than my 10x40 P* Dialyt. But I'm not sure it would outperform the equivalent FL or other former alphas optically. Could anyone with experience of both possibly weigh in?

My issue (and opinion) with the new glass, well the optics have evolved, but build quality has gone down, tolerances are accepted whereas years ago they would not be accepted.
The birding industry has driven the new binos to be lighter, (sales person in New Jersey Audubon) said many will not even look at a glass unless less than 28 OZ. The Zeiss FL was a true advancement bring lightweight with premium optics, but it was well built and tough, (years of use and experience have proven it).
So we have lighter glass today from many manufacturers, lets see if some of the new constructed glass will last as long as the older ones.

Andy W.

Modern man overall is not strong enough anymore to lift over 27 ounces.8-P

black crow said:

Modern man overall is not strong enough anymore to lift over 27 ounces.8-P

Click to expand...

Post-modern man gets around this by only using binos that are weighed using grams because as everyone knows each gram weighs next to nothing so even a big pile of them is easy to lift. :-O

Lee

Patudo said:

I agree the binocular one might, in the very best of faith, recommend to others might not be that which one might choose for oneself. I would be very interested to read your (and other) assessments of today's second tier glass in comparison with former alphas. I didn't think to look through the demo binoculars from Kowa, Meopta etc at the UK Birdfair last year (something I plan to remedy this year), nor do I have wide experience of former alphas except for the 10x42 and 8x32 FLs. One second tier glass I did look through was the Conquest HD, which I did think was very good indeed - certainly brighter, and, I feel pretty confident in saying, a bit sharper than my 10x40 P* Dialyt. But I'm not sure it would outperform the equivalent FL or other former alphas optically. Could anyone with experience of both possibly weigh in?

Click to expand...

I think you make an interesting point about comparing old with new versions. It would certainly help people like me whose budget won't stretch to a new alpha but could possibly afford a "pre-loved" version.

For obvious reasons its not always possible to do side by side in the s/h market

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

jremmons said:

Watching old alpha models sell has always been interesting to me. Outdated glass, such as the Trinovid BN, SLC, original EL, etc. always still seem to sell for prices nearing $1000, despite newer, lower tier models (such as the Vortex Viper, Zeiss Conquest, Etc.) having superior optical performance. These models are still competitive and solid options, but why pay $1000 when you can pay half the price for better performance?

I'm guessing it just comes down to brand reputation and general 'awe' of these models?

Click to expand...

I've got three Zeiss FLs(4 counting a still in production 8X32) 7X42, 8X42, and 10X42. Consider the 7X42 was made somewhere between 2004 and 2006. It's at LEAST 12 years old. Really, nothing current will really BEAT it. You might get a little this here a little that there but...still among the highest transmission available and largest FOV available. Today, it functions AS NEW. I paid right at $1200. Not a BARGAIN but 7X42 FLs don't grow on trees either. The 8X42 FL....same can be said for it. An even newer model. I didn't want one really but literally AS NEW...$725. I won't sell it for that for sure! Same can be said for the 10X42 although I paid a pretty price for it as it was NIB. All these were discontinued somewhere around 2011 as the HT was introduced in 2012. So all of these FLs are at least six years old and are a model removed from current. Literally still state of the art. I can't think of any sub $1000 binocular that will beat them let alone a $500 one. All have well documented transmission values too....not "seems like" or "about," etc. Documented track record of reliability too. One item of note... I never noticed this until I took these pictures today...there is a size difference in the pre-lotutec 7X42 and the other two. Also some changes in the eyecups. ALSO VICTORY FL is on the left side of the hinge on the two newer models!

Another previous generation "alpha" binocular I have is a Leica BN 7X42. Let's see...it's a LOT of generations ago. Allbinos says the transmission value is 88% of a 10X42 BN, about like the Ulravid and maybe Ultravid HD. It's not state of the art but it's not far from it.. FOV is 400ft. Current Meopta B.1 is 411ft, UVHD+ 420ft. So...right in there. Quite honestly, using it is a joy. The focus is smooth as can be. Image can be described as crisp and nice. It's small and compact though a little on the heavy side. Really, it's still a great binocular. I bought this one NIB a year ago or so...about $900 I think. There aren't that many BNs out there and even fewer 7X42s which is what I wanted. I wonder how old this one is? Probably at least 10 years old and probably older. IDK of another 7X42 that comes close to it for the price except the B.1 Meopta

If one owns any of the above binoculars, they really don't "need" a new one. I find no reason to NOT buy them...NOW. Still competitive and have a history with them to boot. For sure, quality never goes out of style.

Chuck,

You have some NICE GLASS, and yes the 7X42 is beginning to look like an endangered species, the format appears to be made by only one major company, which is the Leica Ultravid, and if I see a 7X42 FL mint, I will pay for it. I lucked out with my FLs 8X42 and 8X56, FL the 8X56 new in box and the 8X42 mint, stored since the owner got the 8X32 at the same time, and just kept the 42 in storage, the date of 2011 still on the box. I paid less than 1100 for the 8X42 and a bit more for the 8X56. Unfortunately I paid almost retail for the 8X32, but for me the easiest glass to travel with. To get these, (not including the 8X32) in mint condition or new, is not easy.
The BN is one I would like to view in 7X42.

Regarding the 7X42 FL, I think the size is the same for Loutec 7X42, and it is shorter than the 8X42 likely by design.
I truly enjoying viewing with these FLs.

Andy W.

Hello Andy,

I own the 7x42BA, a nice glass, but I would rather use my 7x42 Zeiss ClassiC. The Leica BN may have easier focussing, closer focussing and be reliably watertight but the view of the Zeiss is better in FOV and sweet spot. I have not had any problems with chromatic aberrations which suggests that I would see no improvement with the 7x42FL.

One of my happy uses for the ClassiC was seeing a crescent Venus.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

dries1 said:

...Regarding the 7X42 FL, I think the size is the same for Loutec 7X42, and it is shorter than the 8X42 likely by design...

Click to expand...

Yes, that's right.

--AP

Chuck,

Re your Post #73.

The FOV of the Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN is 8º or 420'@1000yds. I have had one for at least 10 years. I purchased it from Cabelas as a discontinued item at a good price. According to Company 7 it was phased out in 2007 after the Ultravid was introduced. Mine came with that fine little zippered leather case which I keep on it and use instead of the objective covers and rain guard.

http://www.company7.com/leica/binoculars.html

I couldn't find anything on Albinos about the transmission for the 10x42 Trinovid.


Bob

Chuck,

You have some NICE GLASS, and yes the 7X42 is beginning to look like an endangered species, the format appears to be made by only one major company, which is the Leica Ultravid, and if I see a 7X42 FL mint, I will pay for it. I lucked out with my FLs 8X42 and 8X56, FL the 8X56 new in box and the 8X42 mint, stored since the owner got the 8X32 at the same time, and just kept the 42 in storage, the date of 2011 still on the box. I paid less than 1100 for the 8X42 and a bit more for the 8X56. Unfortunately I paid almost retail for the 8X32, but for me the easiest glass to travel with. To get these, (not including the 8X32) in mint condition or new, is not easy.
The BN is one I would like to view in 7X42.

Regarding the 7X42 FL, I think the size is the same for Loutec 7X42, and it is shorter than the 8X42 likely by design.
I truly enjoying viewing with these FLs.

Andy W.

Click to expand...

Thanks Andy.

I didn't know that about the FLs. Obviously! Thanks for pointing that out to me.

ceasar said:

Chuck,

Re your Post #73.

The FOV of the Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN is 8º or 420'@1000yds. I have had one for at least 10 years. I purchased it from Cabelas as a discontinued item at a good price. According to Company 7 it was phased out in 2007 after the Ultravid was introduced. Mine came with that fine little zippered leather case which I keep on it and use instead of the objective covers and rain guard.

http://www.company7.com/leica/binoculars.html

I couldn't find anything on Albinos about the transmission for the 10x42 Trinovid.


Bob

Click to expand...

Hi Bob,

I wrote the above on MEMORY. HAHA! No ideal where I got that. Thanks for correcting me. So 420ft....still competitive. I keep mine in the little leather case too. Makes for a nice little compact package. Really it's just a nice little binocular.

Here's the link for the review: https://www.allbinos.com/148-binoculars_review-Leica_Trinovid_10x42_BN.html.

Chuck,

Thanks for that transmission info. I don't know how I missed it. :h?:

Bob