Spent A Week With The 7x35 Retrovid... (1 Viewer)

[Boogieshrew]

I became a fan of 7x because the view was more 3D than my 8x. The view felt more porro-like to me and I like the porro view.
For me, if I could only own one binocular I would choose 7x for that reason.

 

[Trinovid]

Wouldn’t it be interesting if the SF had the 8.1

I'd be all over that if it was a 7.9 instead. Now that I've posted it I'm sure the manufacturers will be racing to see who's first to bringing it to market. How could it be any better? Virtually all of the benefits of an 8x while in actuality being a 7x!

 

[GrampaTom]

I was hoping it wasn’t going to get too kinky. I don’t think I’ve ever heard kinky used on BF before 🤣.

I remember that discussion. I don’t remember your specific points but I do remember how you were lambasted in the posts.

Ive experienced this as well , I think it might possible that many binoculars are slightly off on their stated magnification. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the SF had the 8.1, maybe your choice would’ve been different.

I agree more X is preferable if you can handle it and even if you can , is it more comfortable for you to do so. DOF is something that jumps out at me in 7x , and I like that. Therein lies the problem, I prefer 8x mostly but like the feeling of the 7’s because of that DOF.

Tag your it Tom 🙏🏼

Yea, that was interesting. To be a bit silly about it, I wondered if you deleted magnification from the list, what do you then call the thing? What sort of device could provide FOV, DOV, resolution, immersion, etc. without X?

If you think about it, theres what, something like 25 brands of binoculars listed at Birdforum's binocular sub group. They all list 7, 8, (well 1x8.5), 10, 12. How is that possible? We've actually discussed this some months back, Was it Gijs maybe or John Roberts, maybe Henry? The X rating of a bino is nominal. They vary a bit up down from the named X.

I would not have liked the SF to be 8.1 as there were things I was liking better about the NL and was close to having made up my mind. You already know the outcome, though. The report's coming.

Buying the scope last fall confirmed my need for "speed"/magnification, (to riff on another old line). I've kept my word to chill6x6 and used the 832s to bird exclusively, (with scope), since the first week of January till last week. Combine that with my 2 Cataract surgeries during this same period and whew! Ive some things to discuss...

But 7s?

 

[GrampaTom]

I'd be all over that if it was a 7.9 instead. Now that I've posted it I'm sure the manufacturers will be racing to see who's first to bringing it to market. How could it be any better? Virtually all of the benefits of an 8x while in actuality being a 7x!

Well no, you have to round up!

 

[Paultricounty]

Yea, that was interesting. To be a bit silly about it, I wondered if you deleted magnification from the list, what do you then call the thing? What sort of device could provide FOV, DOV, resolution, immersion, etc. without X?

So your not following my confusion 😂

If you think about it, theres what, something like 25 brands of binoculars listed at Birdforum's binocular sub group. They all list 7, 8, (well 1x8.5), 10, 12. How is that possible? We've actually discussed this some months back, Was it Gijs maybe or John Roberts, maybe Henry? The X rating of a bino is nominal. They vary a bit up down from the named X.

Is it me or was that a little confusing, not sure where you were going with the 25 brands and all the magnifications. How is what possible? I do understand the variation from stated to actual magnification on binoculars.

I would not have liked the SF to be 8.1 as there were things I was liking better about the NL and was close to having made up my mind. You already know the outcome, though. The report's coming.

To me 0.1 or 0.2 deviation on the magnification are barely detectable and only in side-by-side comparison.

Buying the scope last fall confirmed my need for "speed"/magnification, (to riff on another old line). I've kept my word to chill6x6 and used the 832s to bird exclusively, (with scope), since the first week of January till last week. Combine that with my 2 Cataract surgeries during this same period and whew! Ive some things to discuss...

But 7s?

Glad to hear your surgeries was successful and uneventful, that’s the most important thing my friend.

I guess I’m similar to you I certainly like higher power observing tools, but with it comes the lack of depth of field and calmness of the lower magnification‘s that I find very enjoyable to use. But of course you can’t get right on top of objects like you can with a 12 X or of course spotting scopes pushing 60x.

 

[Owlbarred]

Why oh why Leica can you not produce this binocular with a “normal” field binocular housing (rubber armor, larger twist up eye cups, larger focus knob, fully waterproof)??

7x35 is truly the perfect all-around format for birding :/

Well stated. Rubber armor has an obvious benefit. But rubber armor on a Retrovid? Like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa (bad analogy).

As you know, the Retrovid's ancestor was the incredible Leitz Trinvod, an alpha in its day. The 7x35B weighed only 19.6 oz! Back then, for me, the armored (BA version) destroyed the Leitz Trinovid's essence -- their wonderful feel -- their haptics -- and yes, their absolute beauty.

My "unarmored leather" 7x35Bs in the 1970s were "invincible" (exaggeration) -- the abraded paint was a badge of frequent use -- until invaded by internal fungal growth (nasty stuff) when I lived in a subtropical climate.

 

[GrampaTom]

Well stated. Rubber armor has an obvious benefit. But rubber armor on a Retrovid? Like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa (bad analogy).

As you know, the Retrovid's ancestor was the incredible Leitz Trinvod, an alpha in its day. The 7x35B weighed only 19.6 oz! Back then, for me, the armored (BA version) destroyed the Leitz Trinovid's essence -- their wonderful feel -- their haptics -- and yes, their absolute beauty.

My "unarmored leather" 7x35Bs in the 1970s were "invincible" (exaggeration) -- the abraded paint was a badge of frequent use -- until invaded by internal fungal growth (nasty stuff) when I lived in a subtropical climate.

Perfect! You nailed it.

 

[Trinovid]

…the Retrovid's ancestor was the incredible Leitz Trinvod, an alpha in its day. The 7x35B…

I got a mint 7x35b last year and it still seems like an excellent binocular!

 

[John M Robinson]

I got a mint 7x35b last year and it still seems like an excellent binocular!

I had one and used it from 1981 till it bit the dust in the late 90s. I loved it, used it backpacking in the mountains and sailing across the ocean. I did over ten crossings with it. The salt water and being banged around in rough seas did them end. I made the mistake of having them repaired by a shop in San Diego Harbor. When I finally sent them in to Leica ten years later, they were upset that a second party worked on them and quoted $416.00 for them to fix them. I bought a pair of Pentax DCFs for less than that, but missed those old Leitz for ever after. That’s why I jumped for joy when they released the 7x35 Retrovid.

 

[Alaska4me]

I got a mint 7x35b last year and it still seems like an excellent binocular!

They are nothing but fantastic binos, they were then, and still are to this day

 

[Trinovid]

I had one and used it from 1981 till it bit the dust in the late 90s. I loved it, used it backpacking in the mountains and sailing across the ocean. I jumped for joy when they released the 7x35 Retrovid.

I can't believe how good this old Leitz model is, still looks new even, and may someday get the Retrovid for the improved contrast and maybe light transmission too, not to mention the pull up eyecups. I can only imagine how you felt, getting to hold your old favorite configuration in an improved form!

 

[Trinovid]

They are nothing but fantastic binos, they were then, and still are to this day

Absolutely great for Alaskan scenery, especially out on the water!

 

[lmans66]

I have had my retro's for 15-16 months now and have birded plenty of times and am sold on this binocular. I spent yesterday birding a Riparian area in SE Arizona...it wasn't overly hot, ...more mild with a bit of wind. But I used my 7x35. and my wife used her Meostar 8x32. Both enjoyable but to speak to my view, wow...... I know Leica has great contrast and colors but down here in the Arizona habitat, the browns, reds....just pop...just pop. And the willow trees and Cottonwoods with their leaves just beginning to burst out really made for excellent viewing against that green backdrop. I haven't counted the species seen yet, but I know that there wasn't one bird I missed because I had a 7x. Nice bright colors, true....no glare, easy focus etc...so from that standpoint,...just an outstanding day.

Now, from reading the forum I have found three things that people have brought up as possible issues. I will speak to those.

First...the focus wheel and being unpadded and small. Sometime ago I added a 'o-ring' to the focus wheel as recommended by someone on this forum. I can't say it made a huge difference, if any...and I must admit I was in some cases ready to take it off. So I feel Leica had it right by going back to the retro focus design and unpadded and I have thus taken off the o-ring as something that is not needed.

Two...The lack of rubber on the armor (another issue some people bring up) is obviously not an issue in this warmer climate. The grip is solid, the feel of the bins all told... I suppose in a colder climate you might feel the lack of rubber but hey, if you put rubber on this, you add weight, bulk...and you get something that is not a RETRO.

Third...the close focus of 12'. I never ran up against a view where the rather lengthy 12' got in the way. I have birded with retro many times in the past 15 months and have from time to time noticed that I wanted a closer focus. To view butterflies mainly. Now I suppose if I ran up against a rattlesnake, I might want closer to 12' or....I might feel that 12' was what forced me to stay away from it! ...either way, no snakes today and no need for >12'.

All told....the retro is my 'go-to' bin and there are multiple reasons why.

 

[Scott98]

I don't find "the market has spoken" statements relevant or very useful. In today's high-tech, late-stage capitalism world of huge corporations and small business being forced to shut down, choices of what products are sold are just as likely to result from collusion as Adam Smith-style competition.

For example here in the USA, station wagon cars (in UK "estate") have been taken off the market. For example, Volkswagen still sells a complete line of station wagons in Europe, but none in North America. Instead, buyers of new vehicles are forced to choose an SUV. SUV's have high suspension which means uncomfortable ride. SUV"s have 4-wheel drive, which means they burn 15-20% more fuel, which reveals who is probably behind our choices being restricted. After all, this is the country where the government paid to have train tracks ripped out of the ground in the 1940's and 50's.

Another example is the asthma drug Cromolyn Sodium or Intal. Pfizer bought the rights to sell it in the USA and then took it off the market in the 90's, to make way for higher-profit margin inhaled steroids. Now patients are forced to order cromolyn sodium from Canada or Europe. This stuff happens all the time.

 

[lmans66]

America is purely about making money. The government exists for corporations and this dates back to the 1840’s. The Supreme Court has even bestowed the same rights of being a human to corporations. Disgusting.

I just ‘bird’ and enjoy nature with my Retro 7x35 and forget about what country I live in

 

[GrampaTom]

America is purely about making money. The government exists for corporations and this dates back to the 1840’s. The Supreme Court has even bestowed the same rights of being a human to corporations. Disgusting.

That's a shame....

 

[GrampaTom]

I don't find "the market has spoken" statements relevant or very useful. In today's high-tech, late-stage capitalism world of huge corporations and small business being forced to shut down, choices of what products are sold are just as likely to result from collusion as Adam Smith-style competition.

For example here in the USA, station wagon cars (in UK "estate") have been taken off the market. For example, Volkswagen still sells a complete line of station wagons in Europe, but none in North America. Instead, buyers of new vehicles are forced to choose an SUV. SUV's have high suspension which means uncomfortable ride. SUV"s have 4-wheel drive, which means they burn 15-20% more fuel, which reveals who is probably behind our choices being restricted. After all, this is the country where the government paid to have train tracks ripped out of the ground in the 1940's and 50's.

Another example is the asthma drug Cromolyn Sodium or Intal. Pfizer bought the rights to sell it in the USA and then took it off the market in the 90's, to make way for higher-profit margin inhaled steroids. Now patients are forced to order cromolyn sodium from Canada or Europe. This stuff happens all the time.

Why not? They're true.

Its true, capitalism not part of the Declaration or Constitution, has gained a bit too much influence. 200 years is not so late stage though. The thing is still evolving. No one claimed it to be perfect. "In order to form a more perfect union..." Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Paul Samuelson, while influential didnt have it all right. Some have noticed. Behavioral Econ is gaining ground.

Maximizing shareholder wealth the mantra of B schools, aided and abetted by Gordon Gekko-like promotion, is under challenge by the 4 stakeholders. The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

A very good pal, who passed last year was Director of Planning at Saab of America till GM bought it, a Cornell engineer, with Wharton MBA he correctly predicted 40 years ago the trend towards the kind of cars we're buying today. No one imposed these choices. Why lament the passing of station wagons? In fact it would seem SUVs are just modern iterations of these. My high suspended Outback provides a very comfortable ride, and at this point in life getting in and out of that high seat is now my preferred.

Some of what you say is true enough, but not all....

 

[Scott98]

Some of what you say is true enough, but not all....

Said the marketer to the engineer Marketing depts. are certainly good at inventing their own reality

 

[GrampaTom]

Said the marketer to the engineer Marketing depts. are certainly good at inventing their own reality

Im the former and you the latter?
Not in my world.

 

[brocknroller]

I have had my retro's for 15-16 months now and have birded plenty of times and am sold on this binocular. I spent yesterday birding a Riparian area in SE Arizona...it wasn't overly hot, ...more mild with a bit of wind. But I used my 7x35. and my wife used her Meostar 8x32. Both enjoyable but to speak to my view, wow...... I know Leica has great contrast and colors but down here in the Arizona habitat, the browns, reds....just pop...just pop. And the willow trees and Cottonwoods with their leaves just beginning to burst out really made for excellent viewing against that green backdrop. I haven't counted the species seen yet, but I know that there wasn't one bird I missed because I had a 7x. Nice bright colors, true....no glare, easy focus etc...so from that standpoint,...just an outstanding day.

Now, from reading the forum I have found three things that people have brought up as possible issues. I will speak to those.

First...the focus wheel and being unpadded and small. Sometime ago I added a 'o-ring' to the focus wheel as recommended by someone on this forum. I can't say it made a huge difference, if any...and I must admit I was in some cases ready to take it off. So I feel Leica had it right by going back to the retro focus design and unpadded and I have thus taken off the o-ring as something that is not needed.

Two...The lack of rubber on the armor (another issue some people bring up) is obviously not an issue in this warmer climate. The grip is solid, the feel of the bins all told... I suppose in a colder climate you might feel the lack of rubber but hey, if you put rubber on this, you add weight, bulk...and you get something that is not a RETRO.

Third...the close focus of 12'. I never ran up against a view where the rather lengthy 12' got in the way. I have birded with retro many times in the past 15 months and have from time to time noticed that I wanted a closer focus. To view butterflies mainly. Now I suppose if I ran up against a rattlesnake, I might want closer to 12' or....I might feel that 12' was what forced me to stay away from it! ...either way, no snakes today and no need for >12'.

All told....the retro is my 'go-to' bin and there are multiple reasons why.

First... I'm used to narrow wheel focusers from the Nikon SE and E2, they don't bother me, and my index finger falls right on the focuser.

Second... I agree mostly with your "go retro or go home" philosophy, however, I did propose a hybrid whereby Leica would offer aftermarket rubber sleeves to slip over the bottom of the barrels and the objective housings, which are most vunlerable to dings and dents. If you look at Lee's 30-year-old pair, you can see that's what takes a beatin' (though it keeps on tickin') .

Third... I could probably live with the long close focus as a trade off for the better depth of field of a 7x bin, but I do wish Leica had made the closer focus 6 ft like my 8x32 EDG.

Fourth.... The large diopter wheel sticks out in between the barrels. Does it dig into your hands/fingers when they are wrapped around the barrels (assuming you hold them that way)?

Brock