-
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.
Early Leitz Trinovid versions, variations, & arcana (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TonyQ
- Start date
Jring- I would be satisfied with your explanation in #41, save for the fact that it depends on the supposition that the line is visible in the non-B and invisible (because totally out of focus) in the B-type, if I understand you.
However, were that the case, why is the line perfectly visible and sharp if I do the LCD & polarized sunglass test with the B-type?
However, were that the case, why is the line perfectly visible and sharp if I do the LCD & polarized sunglass test with the B-type?
Hi,
that's expected - with the polarizer test you always get to see the dividing line quite clearly in non phase coated roofs.
In this case you don't actually see the roof edge but the effect of the light being reflected on different sides of the roof edge and being phase shifted and filtered out by the polarizer.
Joachim
that's expected - with the polarizer test you always get to see the dividing line quite clearly in non phase coated roofs.
In this case you don't actually see the roof edge but the effect of the light being reflected on different sides of the roof edge and being phase shifted and filtered out by the polarizer.
Joachim
When I named this thread at the beginning, I promised arcana. Here is some, or perhaps, trivia:
Considering the 8x32 (non-B) 150m, various examples on eBay suggest the following sequence:
black rectangular logo, hard eyepieces, studs for straps -- # 656xxx to at least 735xxx
black round logo, short rubber eyepieces, loops for straps -- #755xxx
Next came the 8x32B 130m in two versions
black round logo, tall rubber eyepieces, loops for straps, Wetzlar
red round logo, tall rubber eyepieces, loops for straps, Portugal
Finally, I attach a couple of views of a disassembled 7x42B, which show the prism system clearly.
[Of course all this is trivia, when compared to joy of using these magnificant instruments to observe distant details of scenery or wildlife. Nevertheless some of us want to know every detail. Guilty as charged!]
Considering the 8x32 (non-B) 150m, various examples on eBay suggest the following sequence:
black rectangular logo, hard eyepieces, studs for straps -- # 656xxx to at least 735xxx
black round logo, short rubber eyepieces, loops for straps -- #755xxx
Next came the 8x32B 130m in two versions
black round logo, tall rubber eyepieces, loops for straps, Wetzlar
red round logo, tall rubber eyepieces, loops for straps, Portugal
Finally, I attach a couple of views of a disassembled 7x42B, which show the prism system clearly.
[Of course all this is trivia, when compared to joy of using these magnificant instruments to observe distant details of scenery or wildlife. Nevertheless some of us want to know every detail. Guilty as charged!]
Attachments
Yet another variant
I got my hands on an early non-B 8x32 150m binoc with hard rubber eyepieces, #734xxx.
I was astonished to look into the objective lenses and see no trace of the diagonal line, which is so visible in later non-B models, but never (I think) in B-types.
Can anyone speculate why only some non-B 150m examples show the diagonal line in the objective lenses?
Up to now, I thought it was something that changed between the 150m and the later B-type 130m binocs that made the difference, but now we see that some 150m examples show the line, and some not. My impression is that eye relief of the 150m models whether hard rubber or short soft rubber eyepiece is the same, but can't readily measure it.
I got my hands on an early non-B 8x32 150m binoc with hard rubber eyepieces, #734xxx.
I was astonished to look into the objective lenses and see no trace of the diagonal line, which is so visible in later non-B models, but never (I think) in B-types.
Can anyone speculate why only some non-B 150m examples show the diagonal line in the objective lenses?
Up to now, I thought it was something that changed between the 150m and the later B-type 130m binocs that made the difference, but now we see that some 150m examples show the line, and some not. My impression is that eye relief of the 150m models whether hard rubber or short soft rubber eyepiece is the same, but can't readily measure it.
Hi Tony - thanks for posting about your fine old binos - any chance of some photos? I take it you use all your Leitzes without glasses - will they focus sufficiently beyond infinity to compensate for your vision?
I have only looked through a couple of roof prism binoculars that lacked phase coating, none of them comparable to something like a Trinovid, so your thoughts on phase coating were of great interest - especially since you can compare them side by side against some of the best modern designs. One has to remind oneself, of course, that roof prism binoculars were well on their way to winning the war against porros before phase coating was introduced, so it would seem that ergonomics and weather protection were by themselves sufficient to trump whatever advantages porros were perceived to have. I need to look through one of the great classics someday - it would be interesting to see for myself whether phase coating is a real improvement, or mere BB stacking.
Gijs, have you or anyone you know looked through the Trinovid 1s? I'd love to know how well Leitz handled distortion and other issues in that monstrous field of view.
I have only looked through a couple of roof prism binoculars that lacked phase coating, none of them comparable to something like a Trinovid, so your thoughts on phase coating were of great interest - especially since you can compare them side by side against some of the best modern designs. One has to remind oneself, of course, that roof prism binoculars were well on their way to winning the war against porros before phase coating was introduced, so it would seem that ergonomics and weather protection were by themselves sufficient to trump whatever advantages porros were perceived to have. I need to look through one of the great classics someday - it would be interesting to see for myself whether phase coating is a real improvement, or mere BB stacking.
Gijs, have you or anyone you know looked through the Trinovid 1s? I'd love to know how well Leitz handled distortion and other issues in that monstrous field of view.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Patudo, post 46,
I have looked through all Trinovid-2 models which are made, but not through a Trinovid-1. As an example to answer your question a little bit soe information about the 7x42 Trinovid B (Trinovid-2) with 140m/1000m FOV:
Handling comfort=excellent
Distortion= very low
Hardly any detectable color diffraction
Tiny bit of pincushion but it is very low.
In short: even now a very pleasant and good instrument despite the lack of phase correction coatings.
If I would find a well preserved sample I would immediately buy it.
Gijs van Ginkel
I have looked through all Trinovid-2 models which are made, but not through a Trinovid-1. As an example to answer your question a little bit soe information about the 7x42 Trinovid B (Trinovid-2) with 140m/1000m FOV:
Handling comfort=excellent
Distortion= very low
Hardly any detectable color diffraction
Tiny bit of pincushion but it is very low.
In short: even now a very pleasant and good instrument despite the lack of phase correction coatings.
If I would find a well preserved sample I would immediately buy it.
Gijs van Ginkel
tenex
reality-based
This is a great question, but there are so many variables involved. It would be wonderful to visit a binocular museum with a porch where all these differences were demonstrated with otherwise comparable models.
For a dozen years I used an old Dialyt 8x30 made just before P* coatings. I liked its compactness (as you suggest) and thought it gave a nice view. Its contrast and crispness didn't quite compare with the Leica BN (not to mention HD+) that I've used since, but it was nice enough. The informative comparison would be with another Dialyt made a year or two later with P*, but I never had the opportunity.
Years ago my father had both the 7x42 (also not yet P*) and 7x50 BGAs, and he always carried the heavier 7x50 porro rather than the roof prism. What do you suppose that says?
That he was not a lazy as I am, perhaps! My idea is that the binoc that you WILL carry beats the binoc you don't carry. Looking back over a long life in the outdoors, I have carried binocs generally short of my "best", but good enough. In critical low-light and low-contrast situations, I carry my Swarovski 8.5x42 EL, but not in less demanding conditions, i. e. most of the time.
Last edited:
Own a pair of 10X40 Trinovid BAs. Got them for $800C back in 2014 New In Box.
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Good heavens, the top hinge! I don't see you can have a copy made and replace the broken one. How about glueing? I would locate an industry specialized in bonding metal parts, the aircraft industry for instance.
Renze
Thank you Renze. I will check if it is possible to bond it somehow.
Chris
