Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
New Leica Bino/rangefinder
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ArizonaWildernessHunter" data-source="post: 750396" data-attributes="member: 62354"><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'">Found the patent for the Perger Porro Prism design that is being used in these binos. Here are the most relevant parts with regards to our concerns:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'">"Due to the oblique arrangement of the connecting surface, the central section of the beam path usually no longer passes through said connecting surface perpendicularly. According to some embodiments of the invention, the connecting surface therefore can be used for decoupling and/or coupling part of the light from/into the beam path by making the connecting surface partially reflective. ln this Way, it is possible, for example, to decouple a measuring beam for a measuring instrument from the beam path or to couple an image of a display into the beam path. lf the coupling and decoupling angles are chosen accordingly, it can he ensured that the coupled or decoupled light beam perpendicularly emerges in a lossless fashion from one of the surfaces of the reversing prisms."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'">"Due to the oblique arrangement of the connecting surface, the cross section of the light that respectively is incident on and emerges from the outer (exposed) entry and exit surfaces is preserved While a continuous reduction or narrowing of the beam cross section toward the center of the prism is achieved, Which on the one hand causes the beam offset of the Porro prism to be reduced because the beam cross sections that are narrowed in opposite directions lie closer to one another than in a conventional Porro prism, and on the other hand does not lead to a noteworthy impairment at the conventional installation site of the prism between the lens and the focal point in binoculars or a lightbulb telescope, but merely to a slight decrease in brightness toward the edge of the image field ("vignetting"). Consequently, a reduced beam offset can be achieved without significant disadvantages."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Here is the web address: </span></span><a href="https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US20120140349.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="color: #0000ff">https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US20120140349.pdf</span></span></span></a></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'">Anyways looks like they are able separate out isolated light spectrums independently and add or remove them from the ultimate field of few. If it works as described the display system for readouts should not affect the quality of the image unless the readout is actually appearing at that point in time and able to interfere with other wavelengths of light. The same should also hold true for the laser. The design also allows for HD (fluoride lenses) to be used (the Swarovski el ranges did not work with the HD fluoride lenses and rely on coatings) which should work well at counteracting "vignetting". I know that if you look at the edge of an HD version of a bino that it will be brighter than a non HD. Most of the image will look identical though so you have to have them side by side to ever tell the difference. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'">Seeing the word "telescope" here makes me wonder if Leica will have a new spotting scope for the Shot Show next year. lightbulb</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'">As far as depreciation of value the closest rangefinder available would be the G7 BR2 Rangefinder for $1600. This effectively means that the binocular portion cost $1400 (3000-1600=1400) today; which is an awesome deal for high end optics. If down the road this technology is able to be marketed for a hypothetical $400 then the binocular portion costs $2600. A new pair of ultravid 10x42 hd's costs around $2200 today. If you take $2200 (+some unknown inflation rate and changes in coatings and lenses) and add $400 you are at $2600+. This is only hypotheticals but I think the most would be a $400 "loss" (if inflation counter acted the "used" factor). </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'">The decision is easier for me since I need a new rangefinder anyways & want to upgrade from Leupold Gold ring 10x42 HD binos (clarity excellent but tired of sun halos when glassing in the morning and evening / will be my future backup binos) (Warning: never look through binos unless you can afford them <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> made that mistake. Watch out for your hunting buddy saying "take a look through these"). I am looking at it this way: $2200 ultravids + a $1600 rangefinder = $3800. I am saving $800 by buying them together and don't have to save more money for the bino & rangefinder fund. Now I can start saving for the other wish list items.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'">Hope all this info helps and doesn't confuse. I am personally going to "try" and wait till I can look through a pair and read field test reviews before buying to verify claims of functionality. Too bad they couldn't just let us field test them. </span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ArizonaWildernessHunter, post: 750396, member: 62354"] [SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Found the patent for the Perger Porro Prism design that is being used in these binos. Here are the most relevant parts with regards to our concerns:[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]“Due to the oblique arrangement of the connecting surface, the central section of the beam path usually no longer passes through said connecting surface perpendicularly. According to some embodiments of the invention, the connecting surface therefore can be used for decoupling and/or coupling part of the light from/into the beam path by making the connecting surface partially reflective. ln this Way, it is possible, for example, to decouple a measuring beam for a measuring instrument from the beam path or to couple an image of a display into the beam path. lf the coupling and decoupling angles are chosen accordingly, it can he ensured that the coupled or decoupled light beam perpendicularly emerges in a lossless fashion from one of the surfaces of the reversing prisms.”[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]“Due to the oblique arrangement of the connecting surface, the cross section of the light that respectively is incident on and emerges from the outer (exposed) entry and exit surfaces is preserved While a continuous reduction or narrowing of the beam cross section toward the center of the prism is achieved, Which on the one hand causes the beam offset of the Porro prism to be reduced because the beam cross sections that are narrowed in opposite directions lie closer to one another than in a conventional Porro prism, and on the other hand does not lead to a noteworthy impairment at the conventional installation site of the prism between the lens and the focal point in binoculars or a lightbulb telescope, but merely to a slight decrease in brightness toward the edge of the image field (“vignetting”). Consequently, a reduced beam offset can be achieved without significant disadvantages.”[/FONT][/SIZE] [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]Here is the web address: [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US20120140349.pdf"][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#0000ff]https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US20120140349.pdf[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/URL] [SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Anyways looks like they are able separate out isolated light spectrums independently and add or remove them from the ultimate field of few. If it works as described the display system for readouts should not affect the quality of the image unless the readout is actually appearing at that point in time and able to interfere with other wavelengths of light. The same should also hold true for the laser. The design also allows for HD (fluoride lenses) to be used (the Swarovski el ranges did not work with the HD fluoride lenses and rely on coatings) which should work well at counteracting “vignetting”. I know that if you look at the edge of an HD version of a bino that it will be brighter than a non HD. Most of the image will look identical though so you have to have them side by side to ever tell the difference. [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Seeing the word “telescope” here makes me wonder if Leica will have a new spotting scope for the Shot Show next year. lightbulb[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]As far as depreciation of value the closest rangefinder available would be the G7 BR2 Rangefinder for $1600. This effectively means that the binocular portion cost $1400 (3000-1600=1400) today; which is an awesome deal for high end optics. If down the road this technology is able to be marketed for a hypothetical $400 then the binocular portion costs $2600. A new pair of ultravid 10x42 hd’s costs around $2200 today. If you take $2200 (+some unknown inflation rate and changes in coatings and lenses) and add $400 you are at $2600+. This is only hypotheticals but I think the most would be a $400 “loss” (if inflation counter acted the “used” factor). [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]The decision is easier for me since I need a new rangefinder anyways & want to upgrade from Leupold Gold ring 10x42 HD binos (clarity excellent but tired of sun halos when glassing in the morning and evening / will be my future backup binos) (Warning: never look through binos unless you can afford them :) made that mistake. Watch out for your hunting buddy saying "take a look through these"). I am looking at it this way: $2200 ultravids + a $1600 rangefinder = $3800. I am saving $800 by buying them together and don't have to save more money for the bino & rangefinder fund. Now I can start saving for the other wish list items.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Hope all this info helps and doesn’t confuse. I am personally going to “try” and wait till I can look through a pair and read field test reviews before buying to verify claims of functionality. Too bad they couldn’t just let us field test them. [/FONT][/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
New Leica Bino/rangefinder
Top