• 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.

New Retrovid 7x35 (1 Viewer)

Renze, post 60,
Thank you for your post, I am glad I do not have to look for another job and I appreciate your positive remarks, so no hard feelings.
As I read your comment and I hope to quote you right, the test report in itself was confusing bringing the different models into one story. That was exactly my goal, since I was curious how the performance of the different models developed in time. Yes the 7x35 from 1967 is not in the table, I left it out, since I wanted to compare 1966 en 1967 with regard to transmission only, since the 1966 model showed rather low transmissions. If that is somthing you missed: that is correct. As I wrote I borrowed a number of the historical 7x35's from Jan van Daalen and generally he lets his older binoculars be cleaned by Wim de Boer, who does wonderful jobs with cleaning and restoring binoculars. I was a surprised by the low values of the 1966 Trinovid and added the 1967 Trinovid, to check if that was an anomaly. I could have given more attention to it in the text but I did not afterall it was mainly directed to the permance of the 7x35 Retrovid. Your criticism that I did not discuss it in detail is correct, I could have done that, but I left that out. I hope to get the possibility to investigate that further for the following reasons: ageing of binoculars can lead to a decrease in optical performance apart from lower performance due to the technical developments (some companies do follow this process by investigating it perhaps also to find out how the different glass components and coatings behave with time).
Gijs van Ginkel
 
lmans66 said:
I think if anyone is a Leica-fan-boy in anyway, they owe it to themselves to see the 7x35 in person and decide where it fits in their lineup. I have three Leica's already and have ordered in a 4th with the 10x32, so might have to get the 7x35 too (my 5th), from Duncan I am thinking in the Netherlands. But, I still have reservations----not optically----but more along the lines of; is this a 'birding binocular' or just a 'novelty' .... (which I consider to be the same for the original Zeiss dialyt )....
Worth a shot I suppose, as one can never beat the dopamine effect connected to opening up new optics boxes. :) jim
Click to expand...
While the 7x35 didn't work for me due to the too small diameter eyecups, if one is used to the old school size focuser and not subjecting them to the hard use and conditions some birders put their optics through, I don't see why they wouldn't be a "birding binocular"; the originals certainly were. I just loved the looks and views of the pair I briefly had (along with the 7x42 UV+) but the ergonomics of both just didn't work for me but geez, they make lovely stuff.
 
Last edited:
Gijs van Ginkel said:
Renze, post 60,
Thank you for your post, I am glad I do not have to look for another job and I appreciate your positive remarks, so no hard feelings.
As I read your comment and I hope to quote you right, the test report in itself was confusing bringing the different models into one story. That was exactly my goal, since I was curious how the performance of the different models developed in time. Yes the 7x35 from 1967 is not in the table, I left it out, since I wanted to compare 1966 en 1967 with regard to transmission only, since the 1966 model showed rather low transmissions. If that is somthing you missed: that is correct. As I wrote I borrowed a number of the historical 7x35's from Jan van Daalen and generally he lets his older binoculars be cleaned by Wim de Boer, who does wonderful jobs with cleaning and restoring binoculars. I was a surprised by the low values of the 1966 Trinovid and added the 1967 Trinovid, to check if that was an anomaly. I could have given more attention to it in the text but I did not afterall it was mainly directed to the permance of the 7x35 Retrovid. Your criticism that I did not discuss it in detail is correct, I could have done that, but I left that out. I hope to get the possibility to investigate that further for the following reasons: ageing of binoculars can lead to a decrease in optical performance apart from lower performance due to the technical developments (some companies do follow this process by investigating it perhaps also to find out how the different glass components and coatings behave with time).
Gijs van Ginkel
Click to expand...
Gijs,
Thank you! This is the response I hoped for. So while you compared Leitz Trinovids with the Leica retro (very worthwhile, someone just had to dot it!) something else was in your agenda too. I can relate to that, as this is how the mind works, isn't it. With respect to your concern with the ageing process, keep us updated please. It's Intriguing.
Happy Christmas Gijs,
Renze
 
Renze de Vries, post 31,
Apart from the performance of new binoculars and the technical developments, I am already for a long time interested in the history and technical developments of binoculars and telescopes in time and, if everything goes according to plan, a new report is in the making mixing the investigation of old and very new binoculars, but the corona pandemic makes planning sort of dificult.
I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,
Gijs van Ginkel
 
I took mine online from APM web shop, and I see that Astroshop also sells them online.
I really can't say which other binoculars shop might have them available
 
Last edited:
Samuele said:
I took mine online from APM web shop, and I see that Astroshop also sells them online.
I really can't say which other binoculars shop might have them available
Click to expand...
AFAIK, they don't.
I met APM on a trade fair but understood from them that they don't sell via dealers, only direct to the consumer (and as it now turns out via one dealer).

Jan
 
galazie1 said:
The weak points are in the optics

1. It is a bit difficult to find the perfect focus point. Often turn focuser back and forth to find it. Much more difficult than other quality binos

2. It does not do well in difficult lighting. If the sun is behind you, it works fine. Not much different from my EDG 7x. But if the sun is in front, overhead, or side way, the difference is obvious. It does not handle glare, stray light, and other reflection as good as an alpha
Click to expand...

galazie1 said:
One thing that surprised me. The DOF is considerably shallower than my other 7x bins. I need to change focus much more frequently. In this aspect, the Retrovid behaves like a 8x
Click to expand...

After 2 weeks using the Retrovid, i have grown to be more accustomed to it, and my relationship with the binoculars is now very good.

I should correct my initial impressions.

Shallow DOF: side by side comparison with 8x32s. No the DOF is not like that of 8x32s. It is better. Definitely closer to a 7x binoculars :). But it is still not as good as my EDG 7x42 that i used along side the Retrovid (the DOF of my Nikon SP 7x50 and SLC 7x50 is even better). But ok no problem here

Focus hunting: no. The perfect focus is there. Now i can easily find it. right there. Just that i still somehow FEEL it is not enough. I still want more sharpness (that is the reason for the initial focus hunting)

On sharpness: testing side by side with EDG 7x42 on small objects, i can tell the Retrovid is just as sharp as the EDG. But somehow on the widefield views i still feel the Nikon is sharper. I don't know why. Maybe the Nikon gives a cleaner image due to lower CA, resulting in sharpness impression?

So far the Retrovid performs well in most lighting conditins, except 1 scenario: looking into the shade under a bright sky, there is notably more reflection (of the bright sky) in the lower 50% of the FOV, compared to the EDG. (I understood the EDG is very good in this aspect)
 
galazie1 said:
After 2 weeks using the Retrovid...
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your observations, sir. It's always interesting to see what someone else thinks of a binocular you have tried!

I think the impression of better sharpness from your Nikon 7x42 may be because it's a field flattened binocular. The so-called field flatteners don't seem to get a lot of love here, but in improving sharpness across pretty much the whole image, I think they can give the impression that the image is sharper overall. I've found that after using a flat field binocular a lot (Nikon 10x42 SE), when going back to other binoculars, even very good ones, one of the things that first strikes me is that the outer part of the field of view is not as sharp.

Your thoughts on the 7x35 Retrovid compared to the 8x32 Ultravid are very similar to my own impressions. The 7x35 is sharp enough, but I would say my 8x32 FL is a little sharper yet, and thanks to the 8x magnification also shows more detail. It's superior optically, but it ought to be - it was in a different bracket price wise.

Best regards
P.
 

Similar threads

J
Brief comparison of Leica Retrovid 7x35 vs Leica Trinovid bn 7x42
Replies
11
Views
2K
lmans66
lmans66
chill6x6
A few quick thoughts, 7X35 vs. 8X32
2 3
Replies
55
Views
11K
John M Robinson
J
R
Leica Bins
2
Replies
28
Views
8K
Bentley03
B
H
Ultravid HD+ 12x50 vs Meopta Meostar 12x50 B1 Plus
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
5K
tenex
tenex
Mac308
Spent A Week With The 7x35 Retrovid...
4 5 6
Replies
117
Views
25K
orapple
O

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top