• 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.

What if...... (1 Viewer)

I think what is important here is that the original small and slender size of the original Leitz
has been achieved, and that was a very nice thing about the original.

So, there are some changes in the design and prism type, but I think most serious buyers can easily live with that.

The reviews we have seen so far from members here seem very positive.

So lets all look on the bright side. ;)

Totally new binocular models do not come along very often.

Jerry

And, at the end of the day, if they actually out-perform the originals no one will care what prisms are being used......
 
Had the opportunity to make my acquaintance with all three Retrovid models yesterday, on a dreary grey London (mid-)morning, bringing along two binoculars I was very familiar with - 7x42 and 10x40 P model Dialyts - to compare them to. I've lost my home Internet connection, but will post some observations as soon as I get it back...
 
Last edited:
OK, the first findings are known.
Coming Wednesday I'll pick it up and place all the pics from the inside/components.

The reflective side of the SP prism is made longer to make it fit into the smaller housing (normal SP's are to bulky);
No plastic inside;
Sturdy built, but basic;
Focus lens on objective side;
No signs of the regular well known Oriëntal components.

If there are further questions, please make them so I can get the answers coming Wednesday.
Jan

The original Trinovids had a tad larger field of view, that might be because the Uppendahl prisms allow accepting a wider light cone. But this argument holds only for the 7x35. It could also be that the new eyepieces with the movable eyecap are the reason, they need to be slimmer. May be the technican can comment on this question.
 
OK, just got back and pics will follow later.

It turned out I got the ocular design wrong.
It's a three groups design with a cemented doublet eyelens, a cemented triplet middle lens and a singlet field lens.

No comments on the influence of the SP versus Uppendahl and/or eyepiece design.
Create and repair are two different fields of knowledge.

Jan
 
Last edited:
OK, just got back and pics will follow later.

It turned out I got the ocular design wrong.
It's a three groups design with a cemented doublet eyelens, a cemented triplet middle lens and a singlet field lens

Thanks Jan, that's the most interesting information about the optical design to emerge so far. Looking forward to the photos.

Henry
 
OK, just got back and pics will follow later.

It turned out I got the ocular design wrong.
It's a three groups design with a cemented doublet eyelens, a cemented triplet middle lens and a singlet field lens.

No comments on the influence of the SP versus Uppendahl and/or eyepiece design.
Create and repair are two different fields of knowledge.

Jan

Jan,

thanks a lot for all the information and also for the pictures!

Thomas
 
Thanks Jan,

Hopefully, You can get sharper pictures of the eyepiece lenses that show the cement seams clearly. A cemented triplet is an unusual item in a binocular eyepiece.

Henry
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top