X hits on this document

Word document

Archives of an email list on the history of binoculars. - page 21 / 150





21 / 150

   An update on our Porro-II binocular project (the first sample of which was passed around at the collector's meeting in February to much enthusiasm).  At present, we're still dickering with the manufacturer and gasping at the tooling costs.  To begin with, tooling costs will be reduced if we go to a IF model, but a 7x50 IF binocular screams for rubber armoring and we're back to a tooling problem.   As an alternative, we could go with a buffed and polished look to create a living room binocular, but the market for such a 7x50 is unknown and somewhat dubious.  Thus, I'm beseeching your readers for feedback:  should we (a) add the IF and armor and position it as a marine glass; (b) add the IF and no armor for astronomers and general use; (c) add the IF and polish for a living room look, or (d) stay with the CF feature for birders and a generally wider appeal?

  On other fronts, our latest (Summer) catalogue is now on-line and will be in the mail shortly.  We've also purchased a small lot of those gorgeous Swiss Army Leicas we've had previously.  This is the light weight 8x30 model with rubber armor and laser protection filters, and these will also include an unusual monopod by Bolex.  You won't see them in the current catalogue, but they'll be available early this summer.  Finally, we still have a handful of the estate binoculars (see list #252) remaining in stock, and I would like to clear the lot.  All reasonable offers considered; please call or e-mail to discuss.  Thank you!       s/ Mike Rivkin        Deutsche Optik


From: Peter Abrahams

  Personally.....I don't like the look of rubber, but it is very helpful in preventing damage from shock.  That makes it a tough choice, unless it was so expensive to tool up for rubber, that you had no choice.  Without rubber you can get a clean high tech machined look that I really like.  Rubber 'hides all faults'.

  I'm not sure what you mean by buffed, but a non reflective dark matte finish is much more practical.  Anything that glints should be avoided.  I think a medium grey would be:  1.unusual, stands out in crowd of binoculars.    2, shows the lines & design of the glass much better than black.   3, doesn't get as hot in the sun which is a big problem with black in my thinking.

  Some list members are the macho types who wouldn't be caught dead with a CF glass.  But my opinion is that you'd eliminate a lot of potential customers with IF.  I personally prefer CF.

CF can be quite water resistant but probably at a cost.      --Peter


From list 255:   >>Thimerosal fungus treatment...... n-butyl methacrylate lens cements

Subject: Thimerosal

From: "peter de laet" <peter-de-laet@___tes.be>

  Thimerosal is a highly toxic mercury contianing compound still used in medicine today. It shouldn't be all to difficult to trace the producers of the stuff. I will try to get my hands on an address, and will keep you posted.

Best regards,     Peter de Laet, MD


Subject: Thimerosal; and Polymethylmethacrylate  (PMM)

From: "Lucas, Gene" <gene.lucas@___ell.com>

  I believe Thimerosal is the active ingredient in some types of contact lens wash solutions.  This presents a problem for some people (including myself), who are allergic to the chemical.  I was having a severe irritation problem with my contacts until I noted that the solution I was using (supplied by the contact lens manufacturer) contained Thimerosal.  My experience was that the sensitivity continued to increase with use, as well. Fortunately, there are other types of contact lens solutions that do not contain Thimerosal. Contact lenses develop a milky coating from prolonged exposure to the wet, bacteria laden environment in the eye, thus the need for daily removal and cleaning.  I would speculate that perhaps a contact lens cleaning solution might be of use in

Document info
Document views581
Page views581
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 06:40:12 UTC 2017