Leica Geovid 3200 beam divergence photos!

[CDNsldr]

Using the IR night vision on my surveillance cameras I was able to see the beam divergence on my new 3200.com’s (I also noticed a miss alignment issue)

This test took place at 32.5 meters. Aiming mark was a 6cm x 6cm grid (1.95mils). The circular reticle in the binos is about 2 mils. The beam appears to be about .5mils x 1.5 mils arranged vertically.

As you can see, over 90% of the beam is outside of the aiming mark. I’ve already contacted Leica to see if this is within spec. Awaiting a reply.

 

[waveslayer]

Very interesting

 

[6.5SH]

Clever idea on how to view it, much more accessible to most than NV gear.

 

[CDNsldr]

Using the IR night vision on my surveillance cameras I was able to see the beam divergence on my new 3200.com’s (I also noticed a miss alignment issue)

This test took place at 32.5 meters. Aiming mark was a 6cm x 6cm grid (1.95mils). The circular reticle in the binos is about 2 mils. The beam appears to be about .5mils x 1.5 mils arranged vertically.

As you can see, over 90% of the beam is outside of the aiming mark. I’ve already contacted Leica to see if this is within spec. Awaiting a reply.

I just wanted to add an update to this post.

After some brainstorming I had an epiphany, the beam misalignment issue, is not actually an issue at all. Because the laser emitter is mounted in the bino hinge, there is a mechanical offset of approx 1.5" left and 1.5" up from the reticle location (within the right bino tube). As you can see in my previous post, the laser is impacting almost exactly where it should be. I am speculating that Leica aims the laser to run parallel to your line of sight through the right bino tube, meaning that there will be the 1.5" offset from 0 yards to infinity. At practical ranges for using these (300, 500, 1000, 2000 yds) 1.5" of offset will be non consequential.

Regarding the beam axis being vertical, I'm waiting to hear back from Leica USA, who is waiting to hear back from Germany lol. According to Leica, the beam is suppose to be orientated horizontally.

 

[Jefe's Dope]

Have you tried doing a reticle test by aiming at the edge of objects to find if your reticle is in conjunction with the laser from a user's standpoint behind the binoculars? My Leica monocular laser is near perfect in the reticle favoring the lower left. I've found that doing the test a close range gives exaggerated results. Best to do beyond 25 yards.

 

[Rocky59]

Grab the Strike Eagle best choice for the money in Canada

 

[CDNsldr]

I’ve got wonderful things to say Leica warranty.
Leica USA responded very quickly and offered to exchange my unit with a new one.

It should be noted that my original binos were not actually defective whatsoever. As I already explained, the slight laser offset is due to its mounting position, and should have no actual negative affect at longer ranges.

Leica USA had to reach out to the Product Manager to get an explanation as to why the beam orientation appears vertical. The explanation provided is that when observing the beam at closer ranges it is “hyper focused”. Similar to how a flashlight beam will appear flared when you shine it against a wall at very close range. The beam will be correct at longer ranges.

I’ll be trying to set up a test at 100m plus to see the beam divergence and orientation at that range. Mostly just out of curiosity.

Here is a photo of the beam on the new set of 3200’s. Distance is approx 30m. The aiming box is about 6cm x 6cm.

 

[CDNsldr]

Grab the Strike Eagle best choice for the money in Canada

Ughh wrong thread?

 

[KnowNothing256]

I just noticed at a NRL22 match the other day that my beam placement appears to be consistently on the top left quadrant of the targeting ring, same zone as yours. However, it was consistent at much longer ranges, out to ~180 yds, on 6” plates; placing the upper left ring segment on the target yielded proper ranges, centered in the ring gave me backdrop ranges. I don’t think the 1.5” offset accounts for that, but it’s not unusual to need to precisely determine where your beam actually is.

Thanks for the photos though, and interested to see something at longer ranges when you get a chance!

 

[Jefe's Dope]

I’ve got wonderful things to say Leica warranty.
Leica USA responded very quickly and offered to exchange my unit with a new one.

It should be noted that my original binos were not actually defective whatsoever. As I already explained, the slight laser offset is due to its mounting position, and should have no actual negative affect at longer ranges.

Leica USA had to reach out to the Product Manager to get an explanation as to why the beam orientation appears vertical. The explanation provided is that when observing the beam at closer ranges it is “hyper focused”. Similar to how a flashlight beam will appear flared when you shine it against a wall at very close range. The beam will be correct at longer ranges.

I’ll be trying to set up a test at 100m plus to see the beam divergence and orientation at that range. Mostly just out of curiosity.

Here is a photo of the beam on the new set of 3200’s. Distance is approx 30m. The aiming box is about 6cm x 6cm.

Keep us posted. Love the pics. Very interesting.

 

[CDNsldr]

I was able to do this same test at 173 yards. As expected the laser offset has almost perfectly corrected itself at longer ranges.

The beam pattern does still appear to be more vertical.

For reference, the aiming mark is a standard sheet of printer paper

 

[Hotshot001]

Really informative, been trying to figure out some facts on beam divergence recently and its very eye opening how they vary!

 

[koshkin]

I was able to do this same test at 173 yards. As expected the laser offset has almost perfectly corrected itself at longer ranges.

The beam pattern does still appear to be more vertical.

For reference, the aiming mark is a standard sheet of printer paper

View attachment 7673697

The beam shape is supposed to be vertical for this laser the way it is mounted. That's sorta intentional.
Small solid state lasers used in LRFs do not have a gaussian beam profile shape, so the spot will usually look rectangular and if you look at it with a beam profiler there will be two intensity peaks vertically (in this case) spaced. The small valley between them sorta washes out at long distances since you are far beyond the beam waist.

ILya

 

[CDNsldr]

The beam shape is supposed to be vertical for this laser the way it is mounted. That's sorta intentional.
Small solid state lasers used in LRFs do not have a gaussian beam profile shape, so the spot will usually look rectangular and if you look at it with a beam profiler there will be two intensity peaks vertically (in this case) spaced. The small valley between them sorta washes out at long distances since you are far beyond the beam waist.

ILya

I’m not sure if Leica is over simplifying it, but they’ve stated to me in emails that the beam is suppose to be arranged more horizontal than vertical. They initially believe my laser had been installed 90 degrees off axis. The product manager later confirmed that at closer range the beam pattern will appear vertical but will become wider than tall and longer range.

I don’t exactly buy that explanation, as the beam should change proportionately on both axis, not somehow stretch out.

This could also be an issue with my camera and some type of flaring affect. Who knows.

** So just checking the specs, it indicates beam divergence at 1.2mrad vertical x .5mrad horizontal. So why would Leica tell me it should be wider than tall?? I guess I made a problem out of nothing and Leica went with it.

 

[koshkin]

I’m not sure if Leica is over simplifying it, but they’ve stated to me in emails that the beam is suppose to be arranged more horizontal than vertical. They initially believe my laser had been installed 90 degrees off axis. The product manager later confirmed that at closer range the beam pattern will appear vertical but will become wider than tall and longer range.

I don’t exactly buy that explanation, as the beam should change proportionately on both axis, not somehow stretch out.

This could also be an issue with my camera and some type of flaring affect. Who knows.

** So just checking the specs, it indicates beam divergence at 1.2mrad vertical x .5mrad horizontal. So why would Leica tell me it should be wider than tall?? I guess I made a problem out of nothing and Leica went with it.

1.2mrad vertical and 0.5 mrad horizontal is exactly what it should be. I think the Leica manager misspoke.

ILya

 

[Conqueror]

After some brainstorming I had an epiphany, the beam misalignment issue, is not actually an issue at all. Because the laser emitter is mounted in the bino hinge, there is a mechanical offset of approx 1.5" left and 1.5" up from the reticle location (within the right bino tube). As you can see in my previous post, the laser is impacting almost exactly where it should be. I am speculating that Leica aims the laser to run parallel to your line of sight through the right bino tube, meaning that there will be the 1.5" offset from 0 yards to infinity. At practical ranges for using these (300, 500, 1000, 2000 yds) 1.5" of offset will be non consequential.

This is very familiar to anyone who's ever used a rifle- or spotter-mounted LRF like a Raptar. You try to zero the laser onto the scope reticle at a near-infinity distance (call it "X") like 1000 yards or something. Then you know that the maximum deviation of your rangefinder from your reticle out to 2X range will be the same distance as the mechanical offset between your LRF and your scope which is a fairly trivial amount.