• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Retrovid 7X35 a viable birding binocular? (1 Viewer)

Loddar

Active member
I have hab the Zeiss FL 8*32 some times ago for almost a year.
It is a very nice binocular.
I know ist is difficult to compare binos out of memory.
For me in general it does not make sense to compare binoculars with different magnifications.
But i would not say ist was sharper.
Naturally ist is the better birding binocular just because of its water resistant.
Greetings Loddar
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Are these retro’s usable in the rain ??

Described as Splashproof rather than Waterproof so not nitrogen purged. However, the original models were used in all conditions, just had to pop them back into your wax jacket pocket and let them dry out when you were back inside.

Not waterproof.
 

lmans66

Out Birding....
Supporter
United States
I don't know but I would think Leica of San Francisco aka Camera West could tell you the availability situation:

Sean Cranor
www.leicastoresf.com
www.madeinwetzlar.com
www.camerawest.com
463 Bush St
San Francisco, CA 94108
v 415-801-5066

Chuck...a few things. You mentioned in your initial posting that you got 'on' the bird well but sometimes the focus was slow. And later on someone mentioned about 'traction' on the focus wheel. Do you feel the wheel itself being a bit small and it doesn't appear to be padded (?) is the reason for this? Do you have a Zeiss Dialyt? I am sure you do.....and I know when using that I find the 7x42 I have to be wonderful, all with the exception of the focus wheel, the 'traction' needed to quickly get a bird in focus quickly. ..... Thoughts on that and do the two suffer from the same problem of having that small, non-padded wheel? Otherwise, this retro 'leather or non-leather' look does have the retro feel and I like it.....

Oh...close focus is not good on that bin...13 feet.... Yikes! jim
 
Last edited:

chill6x6

Well-known member
Chuck...a few things. You mentioned in your initial posting that you got 'on' the bird well but sometimes the focus was slow. And later on someone mentioned about 'traction' on the focus wheel. Do you feel the wheel itself being a bit small and it doesn't appear to be padded (?) is the reason for this? Do you have a Zeiss Dialyt? I am sure you do.....and I know when using that I find the 7x42 I have to be wonderful, all with the exception of the focus wheel, the 'traction' needed to quickly get a bird in focus quickly. ..... Thoughts on that and do the two suffer from the same problem of having that small, non-padded wheel? Otherwise, this retro 'leather or non-leather' look does have the retro feel and I like it.....

Oh...close focus is not good on that bin...13 feet.... Yikes! jim

Slow focus....it is compared to some of the other I use. Good thing about 7X, it doesn't have to be focused THAT much. I kinda overcame that issue with continued use. Most of the time that's all it takes...familiarity. I don't have a Dialyt but I do have a Habicht and an E-II....it's similar to the E-II...smallish wheel but very smooth.
 

PhilR.

Well-known member
Hello,
Can you tell me, does it ship with a rainguard? I see you have one there but is that a Leica or third party?
Thanks.

It does ship w/a rainguard. This rainguard does not fit however when the barrels are widely spread apart. It barely fits at my IPD. Most likely the great majority of users will find the fit just fine, but really wide IPD types will not be able to use it until they collapse the barrels slightly when re-casing.
 

Nick k

Well-known member
It does ship w/a rainguard. This rainguard does not fit however when the barrels are widely spread apart. It barely fits at my IPD. Most likely the great majority of users will find the fit just fine, but really wide IPD types will not be able to use it until they collapse the barrels slightly when re-casing.

Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.
 

Boogieshrew

Well-known member
Yesterday I finally got to hold the 7x35s and use them outside for 5minutes or so. Not long to test them out but long enough to know that I want a pair of my own.
The view didn’t give up much at all to my UV+ 7x42s, a bit less bright obviously but that could be a positive on a bright day. Slightly less rich colour. The view was much better than I expected.
Best of all, they are so light and small. A real pleasure to hold. As a dedicated fan of 7x, a small lightweight version is what I have craved for a long time and now they have arrived.
I can’t see why these can’t be a totally viable main birding bin. So long as you don’t get them too wet. Easy for me, as a wearer of spectacles I don’t do much birding in the rain.
A big thumbs up from me.
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Slow focus....it is compared to some of the other I use. Good thing about 7X, it doesn't have to be focused THAT much. I kinda overcame that issue with continued use. Most of the time that's all it takes...familiarity. I don't have a Dialyt but I do have a Habicht and an E-II....it's similar to the E-II...smallish wheel but very smooth.

Just to say I've been using my eBay-bought and then Zeiss-serviced Dialyt recently and while I notice the focus wheel if trying it out before going out, once I'm 'in action' I just don't notice it even though usually I'm using something more modern, maybe the EDG which has the mother of all focus wheels!

Tom
 

GLOBETROTTER

Well-known member
I just joined the 7x35 club.

Today morning i went to the Leica store in Madrid with curiosity and with my 8x25 swarovski to compare the optical performance of the Retrovid.
I was very surprised by the impeccable finish, the feeling of absolute quality, having an iconic binocular with a lot of history in my hands is something unique, the clarity of the image is absolute at the level of the best and a perfect sharpness, I have been able to appreciate the typical leica color but with less tendency to saturate the colors, they are less intense, more real as they are with direct view.
Once at home, I have been able to compare the Retrovid 7x35 with my Noctivid and both binoculars have the same clarity and cristal clear view, an impeccable sharpness and quite good resistance of glare.
The collimation is perfect and the interior cleanliness is absolute, without a speck of dust, you notice a lot of attention to detail, everything is matt, there are no shiny screws inside , the focus mechanism is also matt, not like in the noctivid.
I will sell my Swaroski 8x25 and keep this little gem as my compact binocular.

They are only my first impressions, I will do a more exhaustive test in the open field but for now its performance promises a lot.

Good day.
 

gregkoz1

New member
I’ve got the 7x35s and 10x40. Believe me - they are gorgeous- in appearance and performance. I am a Bino nut - Swaros, Nikons, Zeiss etc. I first had the 10x40s - they were the brightest, sharpest of my 10s. I bought as a lark and never a fan of Portugal. Had previous issues with Portugal - separated elements. Nice rainbows. So so performance. These are top performers. Made me buy the 7x35s. I have 2 mint 7x35 Trins- new ones blow them away. I wanted to test and return. I can’t do that - these will be my go tos. Swaro 10x32s stay home. 7x42 Zeiss Vicotories stay home. These go out with me. Only thing is close focus - not world beaters.
My first fine binocs were Trinivids in the mid 1970s. They popped my eyes out - haven’t had that happen again til now. Cudos to Leica - & Portugal. Hope they last over time.
 

GLOBETROTTER

Well-known member
The optical performance of this retro trinovids is spectacular, the clarity up there with the swaro NL......better don't try them or you will buy one as i did ;)
 

Canip

Well-known member
I agree - very nice review again done by Roger (it's interesting that he thinks the Trinovid is covered in real leather when clearly it is not - it's just leatherette, but a very fine and nice one. The soft case, however, is real leather).

Canip
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
Reading Roger’s review, reminded me of the following information regarding the 7x35 Retrovid’s optical construction
It consists of 9 lenses in 6 groups along with the Schmidt-Pechan prism pair

A) The objective consists of:
A cemented doublet, followed by a single lens and then a seperate focusing lens (2, 1, 1)

B) The eyepiece consists of:
A single field lens, followed by a cemented doublet and then a cemented doublet eye lens (1, 2, 2)

See Jan’s description, along with the images of the eyepiece and prisms at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/what-if.384757/page-13#post-3948513
(some earlier posts were deleted, so my post immediately prior to his is out of context)


John
 
Last edited:

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
And looking at the specifications and images for all three models, it would seem that:
a) the 8x40 and the 10x40 use the same objective
b) the 7x35 and 8x40 use the same eyepiece *
c) the 10x40 has a modified eyepiece, for a shorter focal length

* note both the length of the external portion of the eyepieces, and also the ratio of the fields of view: 123 m ÷ 7 x 8 = 140 m


John
 

Attachments

  • 7x35, 8x40 & 10x40.jpg
    7x35, 8x40 & 10x40.jpg
    258.1 KB · Views: 16
  • Trinovid Specifications 2019.pdf
    280.2 KB · Views: 14

mwhogue

Well Known Member
Supporter
And looking at the specifications and images for all three models, it would seem that:
a) the 8x40 and the 10x40 use the same objective
b) the 7x35 and 8x40 use the same eyepiece *
c) the 10x40 has a modified eyepiece, for a shorter focal length

* note both the length of the external portion of the eyepieces, and also the ratio of the fields of view: 123 m ÷ 7 x 8 = 140 m


John

John

Thanks for the useful info and pictures. One question, is it my lack of math skills or is Leica's spec sheet listing the FoV of all three models incorrectly in terms of feet as opposed to meters? E.G. given the 7x35 at 8 degrees and 140m at 1000m, isn't 420 feet at 1000 yards the correct figure rather than 460 feet? The figures listed for the 8x and 10x in feet appear incorrect as well?

Mike
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top