• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Leica Classic ('Retrovid') Trinovid question (1 Viewer)

Owlbarred

Well-known member
United States
Is there some technical reason why the redesigned Leica Classic ('Retrovids') Trinovids could not nitrogen purged, and thus be waterproof and sealed against fungus. With new prisms and glass, one would think it would be a no-brainer. In 1973, I lived in a hot, humid climate and my beloved Trinovids were ruined by internal fungal growth.

Is there some reason, design-wise, that did not allow a closer minimum focusing distance for the new 'Retrovids'?

Thanks very much.
 
Hola Owlbarred! A warm welcome to Birdforum from all the staff and moderators (y)

I moved your post to the Leica Binoculars section.
 
Hello and welcome.

I imagine they could be nitrogen purged and sealed, or made to do so. My guess is they don't to keep costs down.

In terms of close focusing distance, again my guess is to keep costs down. The closer a pair of binoculars focus, the more expensive they are to manufacture. As closer focus requires a greater degree of precision in regards to alignment of the barrels.

Personally, I too would like both of these things, however I am personally doubtful we will ever see it. They may start to compete to directly with the ultravid line, and/or price themselves out of their current market. If Leica did ever release a pair like this (a special edition perhaps?) I would purchase a pair for my wife. She loves small, lower power (less shake for her) binoculars. They would be perfect for her, and secretly me too. :) Nice and light for backpacking, and all day carry.

Cheers,
Nick
 
Last edited:
Is there some technical reason why the redesigned Leica Classic ('Retrovids') Trinovids could not nitrogen purged, and thus be waterproof and sealed against fungus. With new prisms and glass, one would think it would be a no-brainer. In 1973, I lived in a hot, humid climate and my beloved Trinovids were ruined by internal fungal growth.

Is there some reason, design-wise, that did not allow a closer minimum focusing distance for the new 'Retrovids'?

Thanks very much.
That is the only reason I would not spend $1400-$1500 to own a pair. Close focusing would not factor in my decision to buy but being water/fog proof I would own the 7x35 Retrovid’s right now.
 
In 1973, I lived in a hot, humid climate and my beloved Trinovids were ruined by internal fungal growth.
Did they focus by moving oculars or objectives? (Do the Retrovids?) Fungus would seem unlikely with internal focusing, even if not purged.
 
They focused by moving the first three internal elements of a five element eyepiece, a nifty solution that allowed both internal focusing and simple optics. Too bad the Retrovids abandoned the old design.
 
Nifty indeed, good to know. Never having lived in a tropical climate, I'm surprised that fungus would still be a risk (and suspect there must be other surprises too).
 
They focused by moving the first three internal elements of a five element eyepiece, a nifty solution that allowed both internal focusing and simple optics. Too bad the Retrovids abandoned the old design.

What would the downside be for this arrangement?

I also feel having a negative focus element adds weight and aberration.

Perhaps the eyepiece motion is not precise enough for good synchronised focus? Since the focal length of those elements are likely very short, compared to the objective or the negative front internal focus.

Or maybe there are new aberrations from moving the eyepiece apart.
 
For a well known image showing the optics of the original 7x42 Uppendahl prism Trinovid - including the eyepiece focusing -
see post #5 at: Swarovski New Models 2019 ?

And for more on the focusing mechanics, see Frank's (aka LPT here on Birdforum) photo and explanation (also the 7x42):

(also see the next image in the Flickr sequence).


All of the eyepiece focusing Trinovids had long minimum focus distances. So perhaps an inherent design limitation?

- - - -
And for detail of the optics of the three current Retrovids see posts #138 and 139 at: Retrovid 7X35 a viable birding binocular?


John
 
I live in a relatively dry climate, NW Montana, so hopefully it’s not a problem for me. I still have my 1982 Leitz Trinovid 7x35s and two pair of 2009ish Nikon SEs, no fungus so far. I don’t use them in the rain, but I do in the snow. I have Ultravids for wet weather.
 
I am convinced the risk of internal fogging of the Retrovids is greatly exaggerated.

I have been using my Retrovids as well as many other non-sealed binoculars, such as the Nikon E II (see pic), for many years in bad weather and have in the last 50 years never experienced internal fogging.

I do not deny that people living in the tropics, the Sahara or in Antarctica have good reason to use sealed and nitrogen-purged binoculars. But for people in moderate climate zones, in my experience non-sealed binoculars rarely pose a problem, even when used in humid conditions.

The biggest issue for me with fogging up is bringing binoculars inside into a heated house from a cold outside environment, and that issue usually only concerns external fogging up of the lenses. And there is a method to avoid fogging in such an instance.

Fogging up occurs when a surface cooler than the environment is exposed to warmer air that contains sufficient humidity. Stored in the house at 19 degrees C and at humidity levels around 40-60%, my unsealed binos will not fog up internally when brought outside, whether it is cold outside or warm or humid; moreover, the relatively dry air inside the bino will normally only very slowly be replaced with (humid) outside air.

Funnily, I have seen fungus on sealed binos which had a certain age, but so far never on unsealed binos :oops:

As I told a forum colleague here on BF recently, I would of course not use a bino that is not fully waterproof and sealed
  • on a boat in a storm with waves crushing over the planks
  • on a dog-sled in Antarctica at minus 30 degrees
  • during a thunderstorm in the rainforest at 96 plus degrees
  • during a sand-storm in the Sahara,
but that is sort of common sense, isn't it?

Canip
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1896r.jpg
    IMG_1896r.jpg
    831.3 KB · Views: 72
I live in a relatively dry climate, NW Montana, so hopefully it’s not a problem for me. I still have my 1982 Leitz Trinovid 7x35s and two pair of 2009ish Nikon SEs, no fungus so far. I don’t use them in the rain, but I do in the snow. I have Ultravids for wet weather.
I’ve had a total of four Leitz binoculars with none of them showing any internal problems and agree that non-waterproofed binoculars can still be great.

On the other hand, I also think that Leica should have gone ahead and waterproofed them for the price they’re at, and lacking the additional feature, should have been sub-$1,000 range.

So, I have my Leitz 7x35 and Ultravid 7x42 bookending the Retrovid, which I’ll probably never buy, as I’m pretty happy with these two.
 
I greatly appreciate all the replies.

Like many, I dearly loved the great 60s-70s Trinovids and nothing since has ever felt as natural, light, or comfortable in the hand -- a bigger deal now that I'm 70 years old. Thus my great interest in the new Classic Retrovids.

My Leitz Trinovids were perfect for 5 years, but when I moved to the FL Keys -- where I had huge ceiling fans but no AC -- mold (fungus) appeared on the glass/ prisms. My fault for no AC and not knowing I should have used a dessicant. Leica removed the fungal growth under warranty though it reappeared 6 months later. It truly broke my heart.

My problem, as I learned later, was not certainly unique in such a climate.

With so many lesser-quality, cheaper binocular brands now purged with dry gas (waterproof and internally fog-proof) and o-ring sealed-- with the Retrovids it seems not a cost issue, but rather a design issue.
 
Last edited:
You would think there would be a cheaper alternative way to solve this problem ? Like maybe a clear transparent chemical film applied to their insides inhibiting Fungal Growth all together. We too live in Florida but near the Georgia border where the humidity problem is less but if we still lived up north about a 100 miles from the Canadian Border I’d reconsider buying the Retrovid.
 
I greatly appreciate all the replies.

Like many, I dearly loved the great 60s-70s Trinovids and nothing since has ever felt as natural, light, or comfortable in the hand -- a bigger deal now that I'm 70 years old. Thus my great interest in the new Classic Retrovids.

My Leitz Trinovids were perfect for 5 years, but when I moved to the FL Keys -- where I had huge ceiling fans but no AC -- mold (fungus) appeared on the glass/ prisms. My fault for no AC and not knowing I should have used a dessicant. Leica removed the fungal growth under warranty though it reappeared 6 months later. It truly broke my heart.

My problem, as I learned later, was not certainly unique in such a climate.

With so many lesser-quality, cheaper binocular brands now purged with dry gas (waterproof and internally fog-proof) and o-ring sealed-- with the Retrovids it seems not a cost issue, but rather a design issue.
I wouldn't assume a 40 year old Leitz is of the same build-design as the current Retrovid, nor would have the same issue as you had.
 
I greatly appreciate all the replies.

Like many, I dearly loved the great 60s-70s Trinovids and nothing since has ever felt as natural, light, or comfortable in the hand -- a bigger deal now that I'm 70 years old. Thus my great interest in the new Classic Retrovids.

My Leitz Trinovids were perfect for 5 years, but when I moved to the FL Keys -- where I had huge ceiling fans but no AC -- mold (fungus) appeared on the glass/ prisms. My fault for no AC and not knowing I should have used a dessicant. Leica removed the fungal growth under warranty though it reappeared 6 months later. It truly broke my heart.

My problem, as I learned later, was not certainly unique in such a climate.

With so many lesser-quality, cheaper binocular brands now purged with dry gas (waterproof and internally fog-proof) and o-ring sealed-- with the Retrovids it seems not a cost issue, but rather a design issue.
You live in Florida in the keys and you have no air conditioning, is that right? And your worried about fungus on $1000 binoculars. Sell the Leica’s , buy a window air condiioner and get a used Trinovid. Problem solved 😜.

Sorry couldn’t resist. ✌🏼
 
Last edited:
I’ve had a total of four Leitz binoculars with none of them showing any internal problems and agree that non-waterproofed binoculars can still be great.

On the other hand, I also think that Leica should have gone ahead and waterproofed them for the price they’re at, and lacking the additional feature, should have been sub-$1,000 range.

So, I have my Leitz 7x35 and Ultravid 7x42 bookending the Retrovid, which I’ll probably never buy, as I’m pretty happy with these two.
I’ve had my 7x35 Retrovids about nine months now. I can honestly say I’ve used them almost exclusively over my 8x32 SEs and 8x42 Ultravids. Ive e even used them sailing, no rain but hunting in blizzard conditions, I love them, no issues so far. I think splash proof is ok, I’ll try not to drop them underwater the way Ultravids can apparently survive.
 
Last edited:
I’ve had a total of four Leitz binoculars with none of them showing any internal problems and agree that non-waterproofed binoculars can still be great.

On the other hand, I also think that Leica should have gone ahead and waterproofed them for the price they’re at, and lacking the additional feature, should have been sub-$1,000 range.

So, I have my Leitz 7x35 and Ultravid 7x42 bookending the Retrovid, which I’ll probably never buy, as I’m pretty happy with these two.
Actually there’s another way to look at it. For the price point It could be said that it’s ultravid optics in a non-waterproof aluminum body. I also wonder how they’d have to change the focuser weight if they waterproofed it. Right now it’s light, small and buttery smooth.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 2 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