I think the theory espoused in post 78 is precisely what goes on - and not just with binoculars.Maljuno, post 80,
That is a wise decision.
Gijs van Ginkel
Absolutely right Patudo.There's a lot of beauty in common birds that we tend to overlook because they are so commonplace. There's a bird feeder not far from my flat that is popular with goldfinches (European goldfinch, Carduelis carduelis) which I've viewed with most of my binocular collection and each time found myself admiring their beauty and vivacity. Even something as plebeian as a feral pigeon can show beautiful iridescent hues on its neck - and I honestly believe it isn't necessary to look through something as undeniably excellent as a SF to notice it.
So if I were going to have ONE birding binocular to cover EVERY possible scenario it probably wouldn't be the Trinovid 7X35. And the main two reasons would be waterproofness and armoring. You all ready have an Ultravid so you have your waterproof binocular if you go birding where/when you might want more of a waterproof binocular. Most times of course it's not an issue. Don't get me wrong...I'm not downplaying how good of a binocular the Trinovid 7X35 is but it's not waterproof and I'm kinda careful with mine within reason not to mess up the finish.Chuck, thanks for your reply. As you may know from my scribblings here, I was quite excited for the 7x35 Retrovid when it was announced several years back. Initially Leica was going to release it with rubber armoring, and I just assumed it would be waterproof too. Wrong on both counts!
I had been lobbying the Big 3 for a 7x32/35mm binocular for a log time. I owned a Swarovski 7x30 SLC back starting in 1997 and just loved it, but eventually moved into better optics (a series of Leica 8x32's). BUT, I prefer a 7x35!
Anyway, now I think my initial prejudice against a non-armored, non-waterproof bin is waning. As long as I can get drop down ocular covers and a better Leica BN-style objective cover to fit the 7x35 I think I'll be an owner.
I suppose the one question I have is why would you consider the Zeiss 8x32SF more of a birding bin than the 7x35 Retrovid... is it just an armoring/waterproof thing, or something more?
Allbino's always has some critical remarks but....does the average person, or even 9/10 people really notice those same lab-test flaws in their birding experiences which Allbinos brings up? I never doubt the validity of the lab test itself and findings, but feel that for the average Joe, those tests are somewhat meaningless . For example:They top the ranking, but with some critical remarks.
The EPs are not perfectly circular, and while the deviation from a perfect circle is very small (about 1-2%) it is visible in the photo on the site. Truncated EPs are caused by undersized prisms. Will that affect the view thru the binos? I do not think so, given the fact that it's only a very slight truncation..Thanks to everyone who's reviewed these binoculars, even though they ended up costing me $2k. Nice to see the review from Allbinos, but as others have mentioned, some of what they say may not be an issue. One thing I completely fail to understand is this;
That's one of the most common complaints they have and yet even after researching it a bit I still have no idea how it effects my view. I have compared them to my Nikon SE 8x32 and older Nikon HG 8x32 and I'm very happy with my purchase. Is it worth spending $2k for these? Of course not, but I really like them.
- truncated exit pupils
Thanks for the heads-up and the link, and welcome to the BF! What's a bit curious about the ranking of the 8x32 binos is that Allbinos has never reviewed the Swaro 8x32 SV or FP. It would be interesting to see if, in their opinion, the SV/FP top the 8x32 category.Allbinos has the SF 8x32 test published today: https://www.allbinos.com/index.php?test=lornetki&test_l=361
They top the ranking, but with some critical remarks.
Pretty sure Henry has debunked this...truncated ep’s are the result of collimation, not undersized prisms.The EPs are not perfectly circular, and while the deviation from a perfect circle is very small (about 1-2%) it is visible in the photo on the site. Truncated EPs are caused by undersized prisms. Will that affect the view thru the binos? I do not think so, given the fact that it's only a very slight truncation..
Both undersized prisms and eccentric collimation rings are usually cited, so pick the one that you like. But I have to agree that the latter (possibly in combination with the former) appears to be the more likely cause for truncated EPs.Pretty sure Henry has debunked this...truncated ep’s are the result of collimation, not undersized prisms.
A very interesting (to me) point, and thank you for saying that.I suppose it could be argued that a proper sized prism aperture would be large enough to encompass the entire potential eccentricity that might be required for collimation, but I don't think that's ever done. This is just one of several examples in Allbino's tests that treat a sample variation as if it were a design characteristic.