Russian wonder. (1 Viewer)

B

Binastro

Well-known member

• May 17, 2016

• #1

Soviet actually.
1975 12x40 Porro.
This arrived several years ago out of alignment, but I never did anything about it.

Today I needed to describe a 12x40 to someone and checked it out. It was still well out of alignment.
I put it down.
After finishing the phone conversation I tried it again.
Lo and behold, the binocular was in excellent alignment and works very well.
For how long I don't know.
The view is excellent. Very little CA. The white pillars are white not yellow. The field is wide. The eyepieces almost distortion free.

What we need is a binocular defibrillator. This is to bring to life dormant binoculars.

Very strange, as I did not bang the binocular.

A broken Rolleiflex was brought in for repair.
The technician went behind the counter to his workshop. He gave the camera a sharp bang in the right place, sat around, and then returned to the customer.
The camera worked perfectly and the repair was paid for.

I must try to take other dormant binoculars that are out of alignment and see if the magic continues.

 

B

Binastro

Well-known member

• May 17, 2016

• #2

The 12x40 has many multicoated and maybe some single coated surfaces including the prisms, although the two barrels have different colour coatings in typical Russian fashion.
One eyepiece surface is uncoated each side, probably the rear eyelens surfaces, either deliberataly or worn off.

For me the binocular is not as well balanced as the 12x45. The 12x40 is shorter.
The 12x40 has high resolution optics. The field is about 6 degrees. I'll measure it.
It still is in alignment.
This is a very good binocular if it stays aligned.

 

Hermann

Well-known member

• May 17, 2016

• #3

Is that the IF version of the 12x40? The one with a reticle?

I've got one of those, and I find it pretty good.

Hermann

 

B

Binastro

Well-known member

• May 17, 2016

• #4

This is a normal centre focus 12x40 without reticle.
Says Made in USSR. Maybe export version. I am surprised how good the coatings are.
I do have a Russian centre focus binocular with reticle from the other factory.
Cloudy I think so I cannot star test the 12x40.

 

B

Binastro

Well-known member

• May 22, 2016

• #5

1975 12x40 882g.
1978 12x40 862g.

1975 Leather case slightly more elaborate than 1978 stamped case.


The 1975 one has the larger eyepieces with reputedly better optics.
The 1978 smaller eyepieces.

The 1975 one has smoother focus but maybe just less use?
Both have good coatings including prisms. But one uncoated surface on each objective and one uncoated surface on each eyepiece.
They both initially look identical, but they aren't actually.

The later 12x45 weighs 816g and is longer and better balanced for me. This has uncoated prisms.

It is cloudy and raining so I cannot star test them and compare.

 

F

fstop

Well-known member

• May 23, 2016

• #6

The trick is knowing where and how hard to hit/kick things to put everything back as it should be. I had a friend who would pop his Triumph carbs in the just the right spot with a lead hammer and everything would work again. But I have to say, I REALLY like your idea of a binocular defibrillator. I hope your magic touch put things back where they should be for good.

 

The-Wanderer

Well-known member

• May 23, 2016

• #7

I was once told that, upon purchase, a professional photographer would drop his Rolleiflex TLR and send it back to Rollei where it would be perfectly adjusted, better than new (?), and returned FOC.

 

Troubador

Moderator

Staff member

Supporter

• May 23, 2016

• #8

The-Wanderer said:

I was once told that, upon purchase, a professional photographer would drop his Rolleiflex TLR and send it back to Rollei where it would be perfectly adjusted, better than new (?), and returned FOC.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of my first binoculars, a pair of Swift Audubons in the early 1970s. We didn't realise they were not really waterproof and used them in bad weather (resulting in fogging) and had to send them to Pyser UK who not only cleaned them but collimated them and by golly they were better than new.

Lee

 

F

fstop

Well-known member

• May 23, 2016

• #9

The-Wanderer said:

I was once told that, upon purchase, a professional photographer would drop his Rolleiflex TLR and send it back to Rollei where it would be perfectly adjusted, better than new (?), and returned FOC.

Click to expand...

I have a Rollei TLR that is my all time favorite camera. I can assure you that Rollei sent out a camera with a highly complex gear train in perfect operating order; butter smooth wind and lens mechanisms, just a pleasure to handle, even without film. I had it CLA'd by a specialist and no surprise, it's exactly as it was -perfect. The pro photographer noted in the quote, was, in my estimation, an idiot. Professional does not always equate with having a functional brain. That's one reason I like this forum, people here use their brains for something other than a door stop.

 

B

Binastro

Well-known member

• May 23, 2016

• #10

Some medium format cameras should not be used without film. I can't remember which ones.

My first good binocular was a Swift 7x50.
It turned out to be useless for astronomy, as it would defocus, with the focuser turning by itself, every time pointed upwards.
I just wrote it off. Never thought of returning it.

My friend was shown a binocular while boating that he realised was out of alignment.
He studied it carefully, gave it a sharp bang against the boat, and hey presto well aligned.

 

B

Binastro

Well-known member

• May 23, 2016

• #11

Optics unmarked, so didn't want to measure directly with vernier calipers.
one penny too big.
Tried 5p.
Measured as 18.02mm (listed 18.0mm).

Eye lens clear aperture.

12x40 1975 estimate 18.5mm. 5p fits nicely.
12x40 1978 guess ~15mm. 5p much too big.

12x45M Bin2 1994 guesstimate ~19.5mm.

Couldn't find a silver threepenny piece. Probably have one somewhere. (16.20mm).

If we left our fallen tooth under the pillow, we got 6d. Not much really for a tooth.

 

B

Binastro

Well-known member

• May 23, 2016

• #12

Initial findings re. the two 12x40s.

Both have almost distortion free eyepieces.

There is a considerable reduction in axial magnification at the edge of the fields.

The edge performance of the 1975 12x40 with the larger eyepieces is considerably better than the 1978 12x40.
The 1978 12x40 is more blurred at the edge.

There is also some kind of vignetting at the edge of the 1978 12x40. This is very noticeable. Also seen as some kind of ring. Maybe the eyelenses are just not large enough or other eyepiece elements.

So although superficially the view is similar, I agree that the 1975 binocular has a considerably better edge performance. Whether this is remarkable I don't know. I have to measure field sizes.
But the 1975 binocular is better so far.

 

F

fstop

Well-known member

• May 23, 2016

• #13

Binastro said:

Some medium format cameras should not be used without film. I can't remember which ones.

Click to expand...

Not to belabor this and I'll say no more about it after this. Thanks for the head's up, some things are like that. I've been using medium and large format for a long time so no problem for the gear I have. Many benefit from being cocked and fired once in a while, especially the LF shutters.

 

B

Binastro

Well-known member

• May 23, 2016

• #14

Hi fstop.
Possibly the Pentacon 6/ Praktisix. But that's understandable.
Possibly Mamiya 645??
I can't remember.
Also maybe Williamson F52 and F24. 7inch and 5inch film.
Cannot remember about Vinten 70mm sprocket film.

It would say in original instructions.

I think the Minolta Autocord TLR ran the film the other way to stop kinks.
Some old Canon 35mm cameras get bent film if stored a long time.

P.S.
One can always use out of date film to test cameras.
The ones that automatically rewind film are a nuisance as 35mm film disappears and APS and other cassette film also gets messed up.
I have a store of different size film in the fridge, but sadly don't use it.
The funny thing is that the only photos really seen are the ones I got printed, either film or digital.
All the rest will end up in the ether.

 

Last edited: May 23, 2016

B

Binastro

Well-known member

• May 24, 2016

• #15

Tested binoculars on Mars at opposition and brightest at magnitude minus 2.1. Also almost full Moon.
Sky very transparent and cloud free for a change.

The 1975 12x40 has better edge performance.
The 1978 12x40 also suffers bright light spill at the right side possibly due to the collimation procedure where one optic is not central. Also the eyepiece being too small enhances this.
The magnification change depends on position angle.
The Moon looks stupid squashed at most edges or minimised at the bottom of the field.

The 1975 edge performance is good but not in the same class as the Canon 15x50 or 18x50, which have 69 deg AFOV compared with 12x40 72 deg??

A 12x40 EII would be much better.


The 12x40s also have ghosting and some veiling flare.

A good larger eyepiece 1975 or earlier 12x40 at £60 is very good value.

The 10x30 Canon IS II is better all round. Better resolution, same 6 deg field and fainter stars.

The 12x45 is a joy to use. Slight pincushion. Moon not squashed at the edge and relaxing for extended viewing.

But some people like distortion free optics and possible rolling ball. Useful for a military binocular maybe. I don't much like it.

 

Last edited: May 24, 2016

B

Binastro

Well-known member

• Jun 7, 2016

• #16

fstop.

I was able to talk to my friend.
He thinks that a Rolleiflex can be tested without film.
Apparently some Bronicas should not be used without film or don't work.
The Kodak Medalist can fail if used without film. I had one.
Pentacon 6s are very fussy. They often give uneven spacing and have to be operated in a certain way. Praktiflexes are worse.

The Konica Autoreflex I find fascinating. You can switch from full frame to half frame when you want, with instructions in the case. Must be a nightmare for D and P people. Some lenses are very good.

I have not had clear enough skies to measure the 12x40 Russian field properly.