If I understand it, the Trinovids originally came with hard rubber eyecups, then (as my 8x32 non-B) with short flexible rubber eyecups, and finally the B-models came with longer rubber eyecups. The Swaro 8x32 are totally lovely, but where I really notice their superiority is their minimum focus range (2m measured, vs 6m of my Leitz Wetzlar 8x32B) Only in the most difficult seeing conditions (watching birds in very low contrast situations at twilight, for example) do I think my Swarovski 8.5x42ELs really shine. Only considering binocs of the sort named here, size and weight are supremely important. are far less important factors in usability that size, weight, sharpness, contrast, minimum focusing range. I love my Swarovski 8x32 EL, and 8.5x42 EL binocs, but when weight is at a premium, the Leitz are in my pack.
The reason, of course, is the extreme small size and light weight. I have carried my original 8x32B binocs in my pack thousands of miles, even while owning supposedly "superior" instruments. Does this not suggest a fundamentally different prism system? (In my photo, the B-model (130m) is atop the non-B (150m) Trinovid.) If you look into the objective end of these binocs, in the non-B models you see a very fine diagonal line, but not in the B models. It is said without qualification that the Leitz (not Leica) Trinovids used the Uppendahl prism system. It has been often said on this forum that going from the non-B to the B models, Leitz made "minor optical changes" that resulted in more eye relief, but reduced FOV. I still love my original 8x32B Leitz binocs, and would like to understand a couple of details. At various times since I have had or still have a 8x32B (130m)(Portugal), 8x32 (150m)(Wetzlar), a 10x40B (Portugal), etc., not to mention several Swarovskis, a Hensoldt Dialyt, and a couple Zeiss. I have owned a Leitz Trinovid 8x32B (130m)(Wetzlar) since I bought them new in 1975. On a gloomy rainy day, it's nice to sit inside and write my maiden message on BF.
0 kommentar(er)
