Trinovid hype (1 Viewer)

[Ignatius]

Hmmm ... I remember being quite amazed when I got my 1927 Telexem and looked through it. It was a very sharp clear image and apart from some glare and ghosting at certain angles of incidence these oldies provide an excellent view. A little dark perhabs, but taking into account that they are 97 years and have never even heard of coatings I enjoy them immensely. My immediate thoughts were that a) Zeiss quality was alwas top notch, and b) with my new(ish) Swaros, Zeiss, Mavens etc. I have reached my personal pinnacle as far as modern binos go and I now want to get more into older porros, namely Swaro and Zeiss, where one can get quite a lot of fun for reasonable money. I'd be interested in old Leica/Leitz, too, but since I need a fast and reliable source of production/serial number information when looking to purchase and their data is very restricted, I'd rather not set foot into that quagmire.

 

[Rg548]

This happens in all walks of life with folk who are knowledgeable in their field.

I have a mate who is a competition level cyclist..... his bikes are insanely expensive.
He laughs at my single speed Kona mountain bike.... and certainly wouldn't be seen on it.... but I think it's pretty good, and thoroughly enjoy it.

I know folk who are into Hi-fi.... (i used to be years ago).....
I now bluetooth my music through a JBL speaker.... but 'audiophiles' would kick it over the back fence in disgust and tell me it's crap.... but it's actually quite good.

Likewise, I personally don't see the point in a Rolex/ Breitling/ Panerai..... when my Gshock is a better tool for telling the time... But it would be very easy for me to 'run them down' and take the pleasure from those who do!!!

I think I enjoy being average

 

[Canip]

I was there in the pre-phase correction days of the 1980s when Leitz, Zeiss and Bausch & Lomb roofs were all the rage with birders. I tried to join the party and bought Leitz 8x40 and 7x35 Trinovids and Zeiss 7x42 and 10x40 Dialyts in 1985 and 86. All were serious disappointments, optically inferior to even the most inexpensive Porro binoculars I had at the time.

Only in 1988, when the problem of phase interference had been essentially solved by Zeiss, were we consumers finally allowed to know that there had been a serious problem with roof prisms all along. In my experience back in those days very few folks looked at expensive roof prism binoculars carefully enough to notice that the Emperor had no clothes. I'm amazed to find that even now the legend apparently still lives on at a time when virtually every binocular that isn't a toy is optically superior to the old Leitz Trinovids.

I am 100% with you, Henry - I was also there in the 1970s and 1980s, and I owned (and still do own) roofs from Zeiss and Leitz from the 1970s, such as the Dialyt 8x30 and Trinovid 10x40 (see Zeiss 8×30 B Dialyt – Binoculars Today and Leica “Leitz” Trinovid 10x40B – Binoculars Today).

The Trinovid in particular I had bought based on an astronomy book from the 1980s that had placed the Leitz among „the best currently available binoculars for astronomy“, together with the Tordalk from Beck and Zeiss 15x60.

I at the time also owned (and still own) an old 1950s Kern 8x30 military binocular from my father and a Swarovski Habicht 10x40 (the early version with the blueish coatings on the objectives).

For many many years, I wondered why the the Kern and the Habicht were significantly sharper than my Leitz and Zeiss binoculars. Only much, much later, after about 2000 or so, I learned about the inherent design problem with the roof prisms without phase coating.

Look through the Leitz and the Dialyt now and the lack of phase coating becomes „painfully obvious“, as I tend to say. That doesn‘t mean that I am not fond of them, enjoying their excellent mechanics and wonderful finish and keeping them proudly in my collection. If you have an old Triumph or Alfa Romeo from the 1960s in your garage, you are certainly aware than any midsize car today will be faster on the race track. This doesn‘t prevent you from being the proud owner of a wonderful vintage car!!

A few years ago, I even bought a 1960s Leitz Trinovid from Holger Merlitz (see Leica “Leitz” Trinovid 7×35 B – Binoculars Today) which I enjoy very much, despite it not being phase coated. In many ways still an excellent binocular, I am just not going to do side-by-side comparisons on the USAF 1951 with a current SF 10x42.

And getting older has the wonderful side effect that for my ageing eyes, the difference in sharpness that I perceive between the old Trinovid and the Habicht seems actually to be getting smaller

Canip

 

[Holger Merlitz]

I agree with Canip and Henry. That roof prism binoculars without P-coating could not compete in terms of resolution with Porro-type binoculars of similar quality is a scientific fact that was known to the manufacturers (and to a few scientists) since the 1940s. Pointing out this fact has nothing to do with joy killing. Today I use a modern 7x35 Retrovid, but before that I also enjoyed using the old version without P-coating. Observation is not only about peak resolution and can be fun with any binocular.

If the manufacturers had told us about pros and cons of their products, it would certainly have been easier for us to make the right choices.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Hermann]

I agree with Canip and Henry. That roof prism binoculars without P-coating could not compete in terms of resolution with Porro-type binoculars of similar quality is a scientific fact that was known to the manufacturers (and to a few scientists) since the 1940s. Pointing out this fact has nothing to do with joy killing. Today I use a modern 7x35 Retrovid, but before that I also enjoyed using the old version without P-coating. Observation is not only about peak resolution and can be fun with any binocular.

If the manufacturers had told us about pros and cons of their products, it would certainly have been easier for us to make the right choices.

That's the point. Leica and especially Zeiss knew all along that their roofs were optically clearly inferior to their porros (and indeed any half-way decent porro!). And yet they advertised their roofs as if they were a major advance in binocular design.

That was a clear lie by omission.

Hermann

 

[LCG05]

I love my 8x20 trinovid, I always bring them and therefore I have them with me when the unexpected bird appear. The image is great and they are small! can be in a pocket, unlike a 8x32.

 

[jan van daalen]

In October 29 1999 Peter Abrahams and Richard Buchroeder interviewed David (died in 2005 on the age of 91 years) and Nancy Bushnell in which both gave an insight in the binocular developement after 1947.
I got a transcript of that interview from Peter and it shows that in 1948 David Bushnell met Mr. Matsumoto of Asahi who produced the binoculars Bushnell needed.
In that time "Made in Japan" didnt fell well in the USA so in his need for more binoculars, in 1949, he went to Germany and tried to do business with Hertel&Reuss, Leica and Beck Kassel. He was told by them: "Mr. Bushnell we were making binoculars before you were born. We will make what we feel the market wants".
From Germany he took a plane to Tokyo and the engineer said: "Tell us what you want and we will make it".
Two or three weeks later the prototype was made. A 7x35 Porro with an aluminium body which sold very well carrying the name 'Bushnell'.

Why this story?
Henry doesn't need any defence but he is right.
".......we will make what we feel the market wants...", says it all and that became roof binoculars with all the pro's and contra's.

Jan

 

[Tringa45]

Henry doesn't need any defence but he is right.
".......we will make what we feel the market wants...", says it all and that became roof binoculars with all the pro's and contra's.

Jan

And what the market wants is high magnification, light weight, an ultra-wide field of view, 1 m close focus and anything else that can be expressed in a favourable figure - regardless of the consequences!

John

PS:- Ironic that such a dubious original post has provoked such interesting insights.

 

[tenex]

Only in 1988, when the problem of phase interference had been essentially solved by Zeiss, were we consumers finally allowed to know that there had been a serious problem with roof prisms all along. In my experience back in those days very few folks looked at expensive roof prism binoculars carefully enough to notice that the Emperor had no clothes.

If the manufacturers had told us about pros and cons of their products, it would certainly have been easier for us to make the right choices.

I think this would make a nice digression in the historical introduction to the next edition of Binocular Handbook. It's really a very entertaining story, and many readers will recall how it affected them, as posts here show. (I bought a new Dialyt 8x30 from B&H in 1989 that one would expect to have been phase-coated, but they were dumping older stock on customers who knew no better. A dozen years later I replaced it with a Trinovid BN I tried in my local camera store and was surprised how much better Leicas seemed to have got than Zeiss. I only learned the phase-coating story years later, upon joining this forum, and felt like quite the chump.)

When I'm feeling stupid I can see this from the manufacturers' point of view: they had something to offer that their Japanese competitors didn't. Like so many buyers, I wanted a compact bin and was content with what I got. I was free to make careful comparisons and consciously weigh compactness vs resolution, and didn't. But most often it seems quite dishonest.

Incidentally, I wonder how the solution spread so quickly from Zeiss to Leica?

 

[dorubird]

Yes, the aggressive marketing focused only on the roof binos area, even since the days when phase coating was not invented, leaves us with the impression that porro bino is like a neglected genius child. These days optics performance differences become smaller and smaller between porro and rooof type. But even the marketing continued to be aggresive focusing on roof side, the NEW porro binos system steal has something that roof will never have, no matter how good the roof optics it is help by the new technologies.

 

[jan van daalen]

For those who are interested I included the complete interview.

 

[MiddleRiver]

For those who are interested I included the complete interview.

Fascinating read!

 

[jan van daalen]

Yes it gives a interesting glimp behind the scenes (at least for me).

 

[etudiant]

And what the market wants is high magnification, light weight, an ultra-wide field of view, 1 m close focus and anything else that can be expressed in a favourable figure - regardless of the consequences!

John

PS:- Ironic that such a dubious original post has provoked such interesting insights.

The roofs were more compact and boasted of their water resistance.
Optical performance was not the main selling point, it was left to the customer to assume that 'Zeiss or Leica' it has to be good.
I also believe that there was a perception that roofs were considerably less prone to misalignement than porros. I don't know if that was or is actually the case.

 

[Ignatius]

The roofs were more compact and boasted of their water resistance.
Optical performance was not the main selling point, it was left to the customer to assume that 'Zeiss or Leica' it has to be good.
I also believe that there was a perception that roofs were considerably less prone to misalignement than porros. I don't know if that was or is actually the case.

Finally, a plausible answer to this conundrum of why manufacturers chose to produce roofs at higher cost due to increased complexity than the optically better porros - and market them as superior to the latter.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Although the Trinovids and Dialyts of the 1960s-1980s were not actually waterproof. Surely not better sealed than the Oberkochen Porros. But compactness, or better slim body design, was certainly a selling factor.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Hermann]

I also believe that there was a perception that roofs were considerably less prone to misalignement than porros. I don't know if that was or is actually the case.

I don't think so - provided it is a well-made porro. The great majority of military binoculars were and still are porros. I doubt the military would have gone for a less robust type.

Hermann

 

[tenex]

Finally, a plausible answer to this conundrum of why manufacturers chose to produce roofs at higher cost due to increased complexity than the optically better porros - and market them as superior to the latter.

Fundamentally, late capitalism is all about the power of advertising, so the strategy is really "we can get the market to want what we choose to make", and it worked impressively well here. Zeiss and Leitz raked in the D-marks while Bushnell fumbled around reselling Japanese bins for $50 to hunters without fashion sense. High cost enables high profit, and Dialyts/Trinovids looked so elegant compared to clunky old Porros, which some buyers may even have considered too military-looking after the war. How many would even have thought to carefully compare optical quality?

Of course today (with phase correction) roof prisms really are what the vast majority want. And ironically, the winning advertising with which Swarovski took over the market not only emphasized the importance of sharpness, but even to the very edge of the field -- which has worked unsettlingly well too.

 

[Ignatius]

@ tenex, post 58: agree with you on most points, but just a thought - you mentioned the then recent war, too military looking and not comparing optical quality. Wouldn't most males have experience of top quality optics from the war porros have been asking themselves why they should settle for this new-fangled and obviously inferior rubbish? No matter what marketing twonks (a then new profession I'd imagine) were telling them. And why wouldn't hunters or anyone else spending a lot of time closely watching nature insist on good quality optics, like they used to have until quite recently?
Of course, as you say, those points are moot now. I just still wonder about the march of the roofs.

 

[tenex]

"Most" men didn't fight in the war (not US at least), and "most" soldiers probably weren't using bins, mainly officers. Hunters did keep using nice sharp Porros. Rather than users giving up the superior optics they knew for inferior trendy ones, I think the rise of roofs had more to do with an expanding market after the war, a new demographic of buyers who didn't have or need bins before, but began to find these elegant and desirable. Many experienced users, like those who've posted here, were never won over, at least not until phase coatings appeared.