-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Halina (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter solium
- Start date
. Hi solium,
. Halina is not noted for high quality.
I think the name may originally have Australian roots with products made in places like Hong Kong. Presumably the 8×30 Discovery is a normal Porro prism binocular, possibly partly single coated, maybe 1960s or 1970s.
If you could post some photographs it would help.
A Halina camera that I tried to repair was probably one of the worst cameras I've ever seen.
But some of their products may be better.
. Hopefully, your binocular is one of the better products.
. Halina is not noted for high quality.
I think the name may originally have Australian roots with products made in places like Hong Kong. Presumably the 8×30 Discovery is a normal Porro prism binocular, possibly partly single coated, maybe 1960s or 1970s.
If you could post some photographs it would help.
A Halina camera that I tried to repair was probably one of the worst cameras I've ever seen.
But some of their products may be better.
. Hopefully, your binocular is one of the better products.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Halina is a brand name from the Hawking company (Hong Kong), founded in 1956 by Dr. Haking Wong (1906-1996). The company has been a prolific manufacturer of cameras for nearly half a century. Most cameras are sold under other labels including the name Halina. Halina binoculars may also have been made by this company, although I could not find information about it.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
iveljay
Well-known member
The Halina website seems to have been updated last in 2013 when they were still producing binoculars. Amazon UK stopped selling them sometime after 2006.
As an owner of a Halina 35X camera from new (about 1960) they represented a step up from many basic 35mm at the time and were capable of surprisingly good results. It was apparently derived from an earlier Japanese design. A Super model that was more user friendly came later. It is fair to say that quality varied, but some products were quite remarkably good. As Kodachrome film had an ISO rating of 12 at the time, a sharp lens, a tripod mount and a cable release counted more than many other features.
I would not want to attempt to repair many of the basic early low cost 35mm cameras as the most likely problems are fungus infected lenses and corroded leaf shutters (even Leica aperture controls can size up through neglect - but worth fixing). The worst camera I ever tried to repair was Russian - excellent lens module, but the leaf shutter and all mechanics based on steam locomotive valve gear linkage technology.
As an owner of a Halina 35X camera from new (about 1960) they represented a step up from many basic 35mm at the time and were capable of surprisingly good results. It was apparently derived from an earlier Japanese design. A Super model that was more user friendly came later. It is fair to say that quality varied, but some products were quite remarkably good. As Kodachrome film had an ISO rating of 12 at the time, a sharp lens, a tripod mount and a cable release counted more than many other features.
I would not want to attempt to repair many of the basic early low cost 35mm cameras as the most likely problems are fungus infected lenses and corroded leaf shutters (even Leica aperture controls can size up through neglect - but worth fixing). The worst camera I ever tried to repair was Russian - excellent lens module, but the leaf shutter and all mechanics based on steam locomotive valve gear linkage technology.
Last edited:
. Thanks for the photographs solium.
It looks like a standard medium quality partly single coated binocular as I thought.
The condition seems to be good.
Although not shown properly I would guess that the field of view is the standard 7.5° and not the wide-angle 8.5°.
If it is well collimated and free of fungus and I would think it is worth about £20, at least in the UK.
It looks like a standard medium quality partly single coated binocular as I thought.
The condition seems to be good.
Although not shown properly I would guess that the field of view is the standard 7.5° and not the wide-angle 8.5°.
If it is well collimated and free of fungus and I would think it is worth about £20, at least in the UK.
