Trinovid hype (1 Viewer)

[John M Robinson]

When I was a kid, the 1960s, my dad would get the current Eddie Bauer catalog and we would both drool over all the very expensive, super cool stuff. I very clearly remember seeing the Leitz Trinovid’s in the catalog and dreaming of owning a pair. They looked so slim and futuristic, but they were so expensive I could only dream.

Finally, in the mid 80s, I got a pair of 7x35 Trinovids to compliment my 7x50 Fujinon MTRC sailing binoculars. I loved them and didn’t notice any optical weakness, but I wasn’t critical like I am now.

 

[Patudo]

Interesting thread (ahem). I think etudiant nails a lot of it. For a lot of real-world birding weather resistance and handling (weight/bulk/size) are more important than absolute top end optical performance. I'm reminded of one of the late Troubador's posts where he said he started out with Swift porros but moved to a Dialyt after having trouble with them in the rain (as well as noting they took up a lot of space when travelling). A lot of contemporary porros (eg Jenoptems) were similar. I'd also agree that a lot of civilian porros do seem to be more easily knocked out of collimation (*** would no doubt give you chapter and verse).

I've tried a couple of non-phase coated binoculars - a Leitz 10x40 Trinovid GA and an 8x30 no-name Japanese model. Neither were fantastic optically (the 8x30 especially - I don't think Japanese roofs of that era, except maybe the rebadged B&L Elite, were as close to West German roofs as some of their porros were), but were certainly good enough to identify birds with, and handled well. The Trinovid in particular pointed so well, and was so well balanced in the hand - it was an absolute pleasure to use. When I tried it the gentleman at InFocus commented that "even a £300 Opticron is brighter these days". And I'm sure he was correct - but the sheer mechanical finesse of its controls, its balance and handling... I certainly know which I'd rather have.

Hermann mentions in another thread that trying to see tiny field marks on birds is a lot more demanding than reading test charts (which I don't doubt good porros would do better than non phase coated roofs - but to what degree?). I somewhat disagree with this in that many field marks are fairly obvious at typical birding distances, and when a particularly difficult species is encountered, how often do you get a really good look at it such that you could really say that it could not have been identified by a roof but could with a porro? For the really difficult ID jobs you really need a scope (or these days a superzoom or similar camera).

PS. roofs were used in WW2 too - I'm sure I remember seeing (although cannot find a photo) of Rommel using something like the militarized 10x50 Hensoldt Dialyt. But frankly I doubt the average GI or squaddie was too knowledgeable about the optical qualities of porros vs roofs. As for hunters, I think many UK stalkers went over to the rubber armoured Dialyts in the 60s/70s for similar reasons to birders (weather resistance). The really weatherproof porro is a bit of a rare bird (then and even now). It's also worth remembering the 8x30 B Zeiss West porro was more expensive than its roof counterpart (apologies for being unable to provide the source - but I remember seeing price comparisons somewhere).

 

[mwhogue]

Wish I knew how to take better photos.

Top row left to right, Leitz 8x20 C, Leitz Trinovid 8x20 BC, Leica Trinovid 8x20 BC.

Bottom Row, Leitz 10x22 C, Leitz 10x25 BC, Leica UV 8x20 BR included to show relative size differences as most people will be familiar with the BR.

Mike

 

[Mac308]

Whew - for such a goofy original post, a lot of discussion came from it. But I'm in no way surprised - I might as well participate 😀