rings have been rotated from a placement that accurately reflects focus. I am not sure how widespread the problem is in new binoculars, but I'm sure it can be found. --Peter
Subject: Moeller, Wedel
From: Stephen Sambrook <scsambrook@___co.uk>
I wonder if anyone has any knowledge of Moeller's early activities ? When digging in the Barr & Stroud archives a few months ago, I came across a reference to Moeller in connection with photographic means of producing scales for graticules. In 1915, Martin Strang, one of B&S's staff, wrote of a visit he had made to Moeller's works in Wedel before the Great War began (1914). Moeller, presumably Herr Moeller, had been very reticent about the means used to produce very fine scales. Strang noted that Moeller 'did a great deal of work for Zeiss, and probably did the rangefinder scales', meaning the ones for the stereoscopic rangefinders. What intrigues me just a little is the notion of Zeiss using sub-contractors. Perhaps Moeller had a patented or secret process for making very fine scales . . . any details or ideas will be most welcome. Stephen
The relationship between Moeller & Zeiss is convoluted & legalistic. Jack Kelly contributed the most detailed (English language) account: 'Moller and Zeiss Compact Binoculars'; Zeiss Historica, Spring 1999. He wrote that Moeller proposed that Zeiss be licensed to manufacture Moeller designed products, but as events transpired, Zeiss soon gained control over the Moeller company and designs. I believe that if Moeller was at one time a subcontractor for Zeiss, that would be news (at least in the English references.) --Peter
There has been some mention on the list of the 'limiting magnitude' of binoculars used for astronomy: determining the dimmest star that is visible at a certain aperture & magnification. A good reference is:
Carlin, Nils. Estimating the Limiting Magnitude of Binoculars http://w1.411.telia.com/~u41105032/visual/limiting.htm
Binocular List #264: 8 August July 2003
Subject: Eastern European optics
The continued fascination with the yellow tint on Eastern European optics is perhaps because of its obscure nature. As we have discussed in earlier letters, the explanations are many. Impurities seem unlikely from Schott glass, the supplier for many of the binocs in question. Tinting for haze and comfort in long term glassing may be true. While annoying when first using, after awhile your brain cancels out the hue and they are very easy on the eyes! The addtion of salts to prevent damage in a radiological battlefield is perhaps the most exotic and not without some rationale. Pre-nuclear age Russian glasses don't have the tint! As far as their presence in "civilian Binoculars" it is important to again point out that there was really no such thing as civilian production in the USSR-it is not surprising that basic items such as lenses would not be specially produced for nonmilitary application. The little 6x24 alluded to may have been replaced by the currently available 6x30 extrawide field-12.5 degrees. This is available from Kalinka optics.
I believe Helios was the same line as Kronos but distributed in the UK.
The actual plant of manufacturing may have varied-KOMZ or ZOMZ. In the USSR the marketing names varied-for example the Tento name was an export organization for the procucts of many factories. Recently there have been some mergers and rationalization of product lines-so the blood