I agree Andy. I'm probably going to just look the other way where Retrovid purchase is concerned. As far as 7X is concerned, I'm covered.
-
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.
New Old Trinovids (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Paskman
- Start date
I agree Andy. I'm probably going to just look the other way where Retrovid purchase is concerned. As far as 7X is concerned, I'm covered.
Hahaha - I would use the money to buy all Leica products from Jan that he has not been able to sell otherwise
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Hahaha - I would use the money to buy all Leica products from Jan that he has not been able to sell otherwise
CANIP FOR PRESIDENT:t::t:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Bob, I appreciated your post but I have to agree w/Kevin that Canip's "Retrovid" nickname is useful and appropriate. In my experience, it is quite common for enthusiasts to use nicknames for particular models within confusingly or awkwardly named product lineages. I don't see this phenomenon much w/bins, but one example that comes to mind is Swarovski EL SV. Swarovision isn't in these models' official names or their product codes, nor is "SV" an official abbreviation for it, but we use that shorthand very regularly on BirdForum. Same for FP.
By recycling inconic names, Leica has created plenty of potential confusion. The original Leica (i.e. not Leitz) roof-prism models, as I recall, were originally marketed as the Leica Ultra line. However, to my knowledge, the name "Ultra" was never printed on the binocular, whereas "Trinovid" appeared on the eyecup. A few careful writers continued to refer to those bins as the "Trinovid Ultra" but over time, it seems the "Ultra" name was forgotten so by the time the BA version was replaced by the BN, it was simply discussed as the "Trinovid BA" being replaced by the "Trinovid BN". Of course, Leica next confused things by naming the successor models the "Ultravid" line. Try doing a Google search (even using advanced tools) for the original Leica Ultra Trinovid BA without getting lots of Ultravid results or without excluding most web pages with the desired information. I guess for Leica this is no big deal because naming practice is about marketing what is on shelves _now_, not doing product historians favors.
--AP
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
The name Trinovid came into being around 1953 and it stood for TRI=Three, NOV =Novelties and VID (video= to see) information to be found in booklet by Gary Hawkins from 2007. That original series of binoculars is now changed a little bit and introduced as Trinovid-new or better (in my view) Retrovid.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
I wonder if the Lost Creek Shoe Shop in Mifflintown, PA, USA will agree to carry them under the Retrovid name?
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=99221
Bob.
Last edited:
Hmm maybe some here are worried the binocular might be confused with a coloscopy device if we refer to it as Retrovid.
3
Edmund
Leitz/Leica has had a long history of selling differently constructed binoculars with very similar names in sizes and powers that duplicate each other.
I own and still use on occasion a Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA (Armored) that was made in 1983. (I would like to see Leica make a so called "Retro" Version of it.) It has UP Prisms. I purchased it new from a Dealer in Toronto in 1989 for $500.00 and used it hard enough to require a new set of screw-in eyecups from Leica. As expected it has old coatings.
https://www.allbinos.com/1653-Leitz_Trinovid_7x42_BA-binoculars_specifications.html
I also own a Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN I purchased new from Cabelas in 2004. It has SP prisms and I still use it on occasion. Coatings are newer on this binocular and it is brighter. The first version of it was designated as a Trinovid BA. The 2nd version BN has closer focusing than the BA has.
These Leica binoculars use SP Prisms. Compare them and one can see that these Leicas are Squatty and bulkier and heavier than the long, lean, Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA with its UP Prisms. Weights are 890 grams for the Leica to 660 grams for the Leitz and they both have the same 8º FOV.
https://www.allbinos.com/628-Leica_Trinovid_7x42_BN-binoculars_specifications.html
As you can see they do not look alike at all.:eek!: Maybe that is why Leica is fooling around with small prisms on small binoculars in order to build these new Retrovids?
Bob
I own and still use on occasion a Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA (Armored) that was made in 1983. (I would like to see Leica make a so called "Retro" Version of it.) It has UP Prisms. I purchased it new from a Dealer in Toronto in 1989 for $500.00 and used it hard enough to require a new set of screw-in eyecups from Leica. As expected it has old coatings.
https://www.allbinos.com/1653-Leitz_Trinovid_7x42_BA-binoculars_specifications.html
I also own a Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN I purchased new from Cabelas in 2004. It has SP prisms and I still use it on occasion. Coatings are newer on this binocular and it is brighter. The first version of it was designated as a Trinovid BA. The 2nd version BN has closer focusing than the BA has.
These Leica binoculars use SP Prisms. Compare them and one can see that these Leicas are Squatty and bulkier and heavier than the long, lean, Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA with its UP Prisms. Weights are 890 grams for the Leica to 660 grams for the Leitz and they both have the same 8º FOV.
https://www.allbinos.com/628-Leica_Trinovid_7x42_BN-binoculars_specifications.html
As you can see they do not look alike at all.:eek!: Maybe that is why Leica is fooling around with small prisms on small binoculars in order to build these new Retrovids?
Bob
Last edited:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Yes indeed. Check out this list of Leitz and Leica models. Note that it correctly lists the original Leica models as Ultra. However, the cutaway photo of the 1981-1990 Leitz Trinovid 7 x 42 BA is incorrect (it is a cutaway of the Leica Ultra 7x42 BA).
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Roof-Prism_Leica_Binoculars
--AP
Last edited:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Hi Henry,
Just bought it and it will be taken apart next week of which pics will be made.
For answers on your questions see What if thread, last post.
Jan
I had some time today so I was comparing all my binoculars. I have 12 pairs right now(which can change on a moments notice). The Zeiss Conquest HD 8x56, Zeiss FL 8x42, Zeiss FL 8x32, Nikon EDG 8x42, Nikon EDG 8x32, Canon 10x42 IS-L, Swarovski Habicht 10x40 , Swarovski Habicht 8x30, Swarovski Habicht 7x42, Nikon 8x30 EII, Leica Ultravid HD 7x42 and Leica Retrovid 7x35. I decided I liked the view through the Leica Retrovid 7x35 better than the Leica Ultravid HD 7x42 and it's a lot lighter and smaller. The FOV on the Retrovid seems a bit larger than the Ultravid although I didn't measure it and the Retrovid seems to have better edges and is sharper and the focus is smoother than the Ultravid. The Retrovid IMO has really good optics. For seeing detail the Canon 10x42 IS-L is the king with the IS. Overall the #1 binocular for quality of view because it is the clearest and has the least aberrations and has the most comfortable eye placement and seems the most like you are not looking through a binocular is the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x56. I tried to get an 8x56 FL because I wanted a big aperture low light binocular but you can't find the 8x56 FL's anymore in like new condition. I bought the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x56 new for $1200.00 which was a good deal. Anyway Allbino's say's the 8x56 FL and HD Conquest are very close with only 2 points separating them. The FL has a little bigger FOV and a little better CA control but the Conquest HD's is a little better than the FL on distortion. The Conquest HD has a smoother focus IMO. Both good binoculars for low light.
Last edited:
This is terrible, you seem to have an opinion based on first-hand knowledge. I think that may be against unwritten forum rules
The Ultravid should win on aperture alone though ...Maybe this explains why we are seeing low prices on the 7x42 as indicated in another thread.
I can vouch for one thing, based on my own experience, even in mediocre light my Zeiss 8x25 Victory is very well ahead on detail over my UVHD 7x42. Whether this is due to sample variation or design I don't know. I may not purchase another full size binocular as I have developed some shoulder issues recently and wish to travel light
Edmund
PS If just watching birds fly is your thing, 7x is lovely. I spent hours watching gulls over a cliff.
Last edited:
Dennis,
You are going to have to do better than this to convince people that the new (but elusive) Leica 7x35 Retrovid is better than Leica's 7x42 Ultravid HD.
You know very well that Allbinos does not analyze, rate and rank 7x42 or 7x35 binoculars and as far as I know there is nowhere else the public can go to get a professional opinion of them
Why don't you keep your new Leica 7x35 Retrovid and use it for a year or so before you rate it?
Bob
Last edited:
Bob. That is just my opinion but it is a side by side with the Ultravid. I am sure once more members get the Retrovid their opinions will vary. Everybody has different preferences and likes and dislikes. For a niche binocular as everybody is calling it it does have a good view. They are really not elusive. You can buy therm now right here.
https://leicacamerausa.com/leica-trinovid-7x35.html
https://leicacamerausa.com/leica-trinovid-7x35.html
Last edited:
No. I think the 12x50 SV is the best of it's type but when I personally tried to use it in the field I had a hard time holding it steady. Everybody is different though. You may be able to use 12x. What I gained in magnification I lost in resolution. I am kind of moving away from 10x for the same reason and back to 7x and 8x. I can hold them steadier and for that reason I get more resolution. I always thought 7x was weak but I am noticing I can ID a bird or actually see about as much detail because the view is steadier plus the other advantages of lower magnification like DOF I find helpful. Of course I still have the Canon 10x42 IS-L for long distance detail. Today when I compared all my binoculars I really noticed how the on-axis view of the 8x56 was superior to the smaller apertures so I understand now why you like bigger apertures if you can carry the weight. It has less aberrations on-axis than the smaller apertures and super easy eye placement with no blackouts because of the huge exit pupil. The 8X42'S are superior to the 8x32's for the same reasons but I still like to have some 8x32's for their small size when I don't want to carry a lot of weight. I like the porro's for the fact that the view is different than a roof with more 3D and for their high transmission especially the Habicht's although they are not as comfortable to use as the roof's. The new Retrovid is nice because even though it is a smaller aperture of 35mm with the 7x it has a 5mm exit pupil so it is bright and has comfortable eye placement similar to an 8x42 with less magnification plus less weight. For some reason the Retrovid has a nice view because the edges look really sharp when you are looking at the whole FOV and the on-axis view is really sharp. When you look closely at the edges though you can see they are not as sharp as an SV. The Retrovid also has one of the best focusers I have seen on a Leica. Better than a Noctivid or the Ultravid. It is very smooth and it has perfect tension with no stickiness or play. I received some 42-44mm Opticron Objective covers on Amazon.com today and they fit the Retrovid 7x35 perfectly with the looser fit like I like so they are not fiddly to remove. It makes me wonder why 7x35's have been dropped. Probably because most people prefer the extra magnification of the 8x.
Last edited:
Dennis,
please be more careful when quoting people.
I never said that.
Canip
