X hits on this document

Word document

Archives of an email list on the history of binoculars. - page 29 / 150

381 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

29 / 150

deco committee, but are quite comfortable to hold.  I like it, but I'm not sure anyone would want to replicate it!

  The Deutsche Optik design is more of a classical 'tuna can' Porro II.  Somehow no good photos of it were taken at the Feb. meeting.

  I don't find any background on the Kershaw Vanguard; I know they were make in 7x, 10x, & 12x; and that internal focus would make for a very interesting disassembly.      --Peter

====================================================================

====================================================================

Binocular List #258: 03 June 2003

==================================================

Subject: Substandard products

From: afeldman <afeldma1@___ay.rr.com>

  I found Earl Osborne's mentioning about the "parts '15x110'" binocs coming out of Russia a little "deja vu."  I recall back in the middle 1990's, there was an influx of 85 size Russian nautical Chronometers.  Here too they tended to look cosmetically okay at first glance, but even a less than careful examination revealed exactly the same things as Earl found, i.e. incorrect screws, wrong parts, and in general, to use Earl's comment, "floor sweepings."  I later found out from reliable sources that there was a small "cottage industry" Poland that specialized in cobbling together all manner of fakes, including, but certainly not limited to, WWII German Military "Leica" cameras made from Russian Zorkis(?).  Interestingly enough the industry is alive and well and still produces counterfeit orders and medals, of rather good quality actually. However, I suppose due to the "nature of the beast," I cannot recall ever having seen any quantity of counterfeit items of an "optical" nature. Obviously opportunity and the "demand" will always engender such ...

Cheers,       Allen

===================================================

Subject: Porro II from D.O.

From: Arthur Tenenholtz

  It would seem to me that very few birders would be interested in a 7x50.

  Birders may go for a 7x42, but seem to prefer an 8 power with large objectives. Those who mentioned that 7x50 is generally overkill are supported by RoyBishop in his article on binoculars for astronomy in the current OBSERVER'SHANDBOOK of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada.  However, Bishop holds that the excess of the exit pupil size, over the maximum pupil diameterof the over thirty set, provides a "picture window," which allows for finding or holding a target or ease for those who are on a moving platform. This is especially useful for the marine set and not without value for others.

  Of course, I cannot understand why anyone would want a new Porro II 7x50when the British #5 glass is available from Deutsche Optik for $200, unless modern coating , and a Porro II design, promise to make a spectacularly contrasty and bright image. Is this theoretically the outcome of such a design? Would not such a glass have to be at least 40% brighter than the current Fujinon Polaris or the Zeiss 7x50 BGA glasses, for anyone to really notice?

  As for configuration, I would opt for the most secure prism mountings, the Achilles' heel of any Porro compared to a roof prism glass; individual focussing, for their watertight integrity, and a nice retro pebbled finish in shade lighter than black. This might appeal to backyard astronomer or to a hunter, as well as a yachtman. Of course, someone would still have to convice me why I should buy this binocular in addition to my modern 7x50 glass and my reliable Leitz Marseptit.

  I should note that Fujinon, on the registration card, asks how large is their boat, of the purchasers of its porro glasses. Well, occasionally, I do ride the Staten Island Ferry which must be nearly 100 meters long...

Arthur Tenenholtz

Document info
Document views381
Page views381
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 01:29:24 UTC 2016
Pages150
Paragraphs3634
Words73788

Comments