Leica Trinovids?

[Bill A]

Hi,

I presently have a pair of Swaro 8x42 EL's that I just couldn't be happier with. The local camera shop has a pair of Leica 8x32 Trinovids at a good price and I've been looking at them, thinking, gosh how nice to have another pair of great binocs for those times I don't want to lug the 8x42's. . . and the wife could use them too! My question to you Leica users is how do the Trinovids stack up to the newer Ultravids? Are the Tri's still considered a first rate binoc? What are the drawbacks to this model, if any?

Any knowledgeable opinion will be much appreciated.

Bill

[Highway Man]

Hi,

I presently have a pair of Swaro 8x42 EL's that I just couldn't be happier with. The local camera shop has a pair of Leica 8x32 Trinovids at a good price and I've been looking at them, thinking, gosh how nice to have another pair of great binocs for those times I don't want to lug the 8x42's. . . and the wife could use them too! My question to you Leica users is how do the Trinovids stack up to the newer Ultravids? Are the Tri's still considered a first rate binoc? What are the drawbacks to this model, if any?

Any knowledgeable opinion will be much appreciated.

Bill

I have had my 8X32's for almost 9 years now and have always found them superb. Recently I purchased a pair of 10X42 Ultravids which are better. The Ultravids are brighter, sharper and better ergonomically though I willl never get rid of the Trinovids other than to pass them on to my daughter eventually, but for now they are semi-retired as my house binoculars.

Regards

Mark

[Bill A]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the info. Any chance the increase in sharpness and brightness is a result of greater magnification and larger objective?

Best,
Bill

[salty]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the info. Any chance the increase in sharpness and brightness is a result of greater magnification and larger objective?

Best,
Bill

possibly, but the optics have had a slight upgrade (new coatings) it's the weight loss that is also most noticeable, very easy on the neck and the balance is superb.

i have the ultravid 10x42 and the drop in weight from my trinovid 10x42 is very noticable. both are still pretty close optic wise, so the trinovids are still a worthy companion (very good infact) i regulary switch between both models.

if you can get a good deal on those trinovids, then snap them up quick - they are already classics! - a very handy second pair or first pair if you ask me ;)

[Highway Man]

if you can get a good deal on those trinovids, then snap them up quick - they are already classics! - a very handy second pair or first pair if you ask me ;)

Agreed Salty

I think Salty answered question Bill.

Mark

[Marley]

Richie,

I have noticed in several posts that you chose a 10x Ultravid. I have a 10x50 Ultravid coming from Eagle Optics next week and I am really looking forward to the increased detail, brightness and magnification.

I just wanted to ask you how easy the 10x is to hold still. I have not noticed a difference between my 7x and my 8.5x, but I have not had much experience with the 10x.

I guess I will know in a few days. I just thought I would ask your opinion.

Thanks for the help!

Rgds,

Steffan

PS Sorry to hijack the thread!

[Bill A]

if you can get a good deal on those trinovids, then snap them up quick - they are already classics! - a very handy second pair or first pair if you ask me ;)[/QUOTE]

Does 895 bucks US sound like a good deal (about 478 quid)?

Bill

[Atomic Chicken]

Greetings!

I went shopping last year for a new pair of 7x42 top-of-the-line binoculars, and considered the Zeiss FL, Ultravid, and Trinovid as the only real contenders. In fact, I considered the Trinovid only "for laughs" as a baseline comparison to the other two. The laughs took on a more serious tone after extensive comparisons, which were not at all what I was expecting.

Here's the essence of it:

Zeiss FL: The Zeiss FL is a magnificent binocular, but for my own purposes the build quality and certain aspects of the optical performance were just not what I was looking for. I was looking for a pair of full size 7x that would perform marvelously in all conditions, and travel the world with me. I felt like the FL was more of a state-of-the-art luxury birding close-to-home binocular as opposed to the voyager "tank" I was looking for.

Ultravid vs. Trinovid: The Ultravid is fantastic. Probably the brightest full size I have ever looked through, and better color rendition and contrast than even the FL. Slightly more CA than the FL, which is not surprising considering that the Zeiss FL was designed mainly for apochromatic purity. However, the Ultravid is quite magnificent in almost all other optical qualities, beating the FL on most counts. HOWEVER....

The Trinovid has better sharpness across the entire field of view. Many other posts on this forum by others have reinforced this opinion, as has my own testing with several different specimens of both binoculars. The Trinovid 7x42 (I won't comment on other configurations having focused my observations on the 7x42) is one of the sharpest binoculars edge-to-edge I have ever examined, beaten only by the Nikon HG 10x25 and equaled by the Nikon HG 8x32. Both Nikon models, on the otherhand, exhibit higher levels of CA than the Trinovid, and lack the overall color purity and brightness of the Trinovid and Ultravid. In the center, the Ultravid is probably a bit sharper, but at the edges, the Trinovid is definitely sharper and clearer.

The other effect that I've noticed with the Trinovid vs. Ultravid is that the Trinivid (to my eyes) appears to have a more "natural" image quality that seems more like looking at the real world with the naked eye. The Ultravid seems "enhanced" artificially... even though the enhancement is for the most part positive. This is a purely subjective observation, which seems to be shared by several people I've talked to about the Ultravid... and most people like it. I find that I personally don't... but I'm definitely in the minority on this one so take it with a grain of salt and make your own observations.

Weight/Ergonomics is the final deciding factor between the 2 - the Ultravid is definitely lighter in weight and has completely different handling characteristics. I personally find the older Trinovid body design to be quite tank/brick/ultimately-solid like - more fitting with my own desires for a bullet-proof world traveling instrument. Most people will undoubtably prefer the Ultravid's lower weight and better handling characteristics - although there have been some complaints about the thumb indents. Again, try them both and make up your own mind.

Final result for me was purchase of the Trinovid, with the closeout sale price helping push me over the decision "edge". While the price did not make the decision for me, all other factors being weighed with far more gravity, it did "sweeten" the deal for me. Overall it was a tough decision, but the Trinovid just ended up meeting my own needs better.

In my opinion, the Trinovid is far from "antiquated" or "obsolete"... they still have a LOT to offer and with the current closeout prices the Trinovid is still worth serious consideration.

Best wishes,
Bawko

[elkcub]

Hi,

I presently have a pair of Swaro 8x42 EL's that I just couldn't be happier with. The local camera shop has a pair of Leica 8x32 Trinovids at a good price and I've been looking at them, thinking, gosh how nice to have another pair of great binocs for those times I don't want to lug the 8x42's. . . and the wife could use them too! My question to you Leica users is how do the Trinovids stack up to the newer Ultravids? Are the Tri's still considered a first rate binoc? What are the drawbacks to this model, if any?

Any knowledgeable opinion will be much appreciated.

Bill

Bill,

This is a somewhat different take. Assuming you're being offered an 8x32 BN (not BA) for $895, a lot depends on whether or not a USA PASSPORT warranty is included. If it's the earlier BA (or ultra) model, or the Passport warranty is not included, the price is questionable, IMO. Leica has been selling off "reconditioned" and "demo" models of the BN with only 1 yr. warranty, which I consider inadequate. Yes, I have personally seen 8x32BNs out of adjustment and also Ultravids with bad eyecups. Nothing made by man is perfect. That's not to knock Leica, but to point out that the warranty is an important part of the package.

The second point is that you already use and like a Swaro EL. For about the same price (~900 USD) you should be able to buy a new Swaro 8x30 SLC with Swarobright, which is currently selling below the SLCnew style that is optically identical to it. Of course, you know the warranty service is superb. Selecting this binocular involves certain tradeoffs against the 8x32BN, but taking them into consideration I wouldn't swap mine given a $100 bonus thrown in. There is something magical about the view from a Swaro.

Again, just my opinions, but enjoy the view whatever you do.

Elkcub

[Bill A]

Hello,

A lot of excellent and knowledgeable advice here, as expected. The binocs in question are the BN with the Passport Warranty.

Elkcub, you raise a good point about the SLC's, and I think I'll take another look at them; I agree, there's something about the view though Swaros. . .

On the other hand, it might be nice to try something different, and Bawko's post is pretty convincing. In the end, it seems to me it's a no lose situation with two such fine instruments in the sub 1000 dollar range.

Thanks again,
Bill

[BMR]

Bawko, I also prefer the Trinovids over the Ultravids. I just could not see any difference in the two optically to justify purchasing the Ultravid. Sure, they are a few ounces lighter, but big deal, that was just a marketing ploy to "update" their binos like Swaro and Zeiss had done! I've carried the 10X50 BN up and down the mountains of Montana for days using bino suspenders and never even noticed they were there. The Trinovids just have a more rugged feel to them, so given the choice if offered either pair for free, I'd take the Trinovid over the Ultravid.

[salty]

Richie,

I have noticed in several posts that you chose a 10x Ultravid. I have a 10x50 Ultravid coming from Eagle Optics next week and I am really looking forward to the increased detail, brightness and magnification.

I just wanted to ask you how easy the 10x is to hold still. I have not noticed a difference between my 7x and my 8.5x, but I have not had much experience with the 10x.

I guess I will know in a few days. I just thought I would ask your opinion.

Thanks for the help!

Rgds,

Steffan

PS Sorry to hijack the thread!

hi, Marley.

the ultravids sit perfectly in my hands (as expected) - very well balanced, and the lighter weight is a real plus point - sometimes even hold them with just one hand!. though your 10x50 will no doubt be slightly heavier, it will no doubt be balanced out by the extra brightness you will be enjoying! - they will be super bright.

the ultravids come into there own when river watching i have found. looking upstream into dark areas of shade etc, they cope extremely well with different shades of light. a superb optic, enjoy ;)

[salty]

if you can get a good deal on those trinovids, then snap them up quick - they are already classics! - a very handy second pair or first pair if you ask me ;)

Does 895 bucks US sound like a good deal (about 478 quid)?

Bill[/QUOTE]

that seems about right i would say - around £450 ish, good value if they have been well cared for. most leicas are well cared for, i think most people keep them along time, prehaps only donating to family members etc after a long life in somebodys hands.

[Bill A]

Does 895 bucks US sound like a good deal (about 478 quid)?

Bill

that seems about right i would say - around £450 ish, good value if they have been well cared for. most leicas are well cared for, i think most people keep them along time, prehaps only donating to family members etc after a long life in somebodys hands.[/QUOTE]

Richie,

Actually, that's the price for a new pair.

Best,
Bill

[Bill Atwood]

The 8x32 Trinovid Ultra BAs were the first premium bins I ever purchased. IMO, the only drawbacks are somewhat short eyerelief and a somewhat ratchety focus.

The eyerelief only became an issue once I was relegated to wearing glasses. However they were still quite usable and I could get full FOV.

I only noticed the focus issue when trying out some newer bins. Its not horrible by any means, just abit bothersome when you try to do some fine tuning.

Mine are available for $500 if you are interested.

[Bill A]

Thanks, Bill;

Decided to order a new pair from Eagle.

Bill

[Keith Reeder]

Just to add...

I've owned and used my 8 x 32 BAs since July '98 and - despite having tried many pairs of excellent bins since - haven't found anything which has made me think "Wow! They're better than my Leicas..!"

Even my mate Alan G's new Swarovskis 8.5 x 42s - superb though they surely are - do nothing except remind me just how good the Leicas are by any comparison.

[gate9797]

I wonder if the 8X devotees would explain why they are wedded to 8X versus 10X. As far as I can see, the claim that 10X is difficult to hold steady is an old wives' tale. Able-bodied folk below are in fact perfectly able to hold 10X steady. Moreover, Nikon makes a 10X with image stabilisation. In view of the fact that the entire point of using optical aids in birdwatching is to enhance the view of the object, why would anyone forgo the enhanced magnification of 10X over 8X? The better you can see the bird the better the experience.

I've been birding for over 40 years and find 10X50 entirely suitable.
Once you try 10X you never go back to 8.

[Keith Reeder]

Hi gate,

for me it's not a matter of image stability - as you suggest, that shouldn't be a problem to most people (it isn't to me).

I simply like the combination of small size, light gathering and all-round effectiveness that 8s (specifically 8 x 32s) will give.

I honestly don't think I've ever thought "if only I had 25% more magnification than I do now..."

If I need to be closer I either get closer - or use the scope!

I've no doubt that if some kind soul was to gift me a pair of 10s I'd get used to them very quickly, but for all-round usability for me, 8s just fit the bill.

[Highway Man]

[QUOTE=gate9797]I wonder if the 8X devotees would explain why they are wedded to 8X versus 10X. As far as I can see, the claim that 10X is difficult to hold steady is an old wives' tale. Able-bodied folk below are in fact perfectly able to hold 10X steady. Moreover, Nikon makes a 10X with image stabilisation. In view of the fact that the entire point of using optical aids in birdwatching is to enhance the view of the object, why would anyone forgo the enhanced magnification of 10X over 8X? The better you can see the bird the better the experience.

QUOTE]

Actually I find my 10X ultravids easier to hold for long periods than my 8X trinovid's, I think this is perhaps because they are better balanced.

Mark

[Bill Atwood]

10x being harder to steady than 8x is not an old wive's tale for most people. I can get more detail from an 8x than 10x when hand holding.

I am tempted to try the Nikon LX 10x32.

[Buster]

Bill Atwood, I sent you a PM.

[Swissboy]

The Trinovid has better sharpness across the entire field of view. Many other posts on this forum by others have reinforced this opinion, as has my own testing with several different specimens of both binoculars. The Trinovid 7x42 (I won't comment on other configurations having focused my observations on the 7x42) is one of the sharpest binoculars edge-to-edge I have ever examined, ....... In the center, the Ultravid is probably a bit sharper, but at the edges, the Trinovid is definitely sharper and clearer.
Bawko

I seem to recall Kimmo saying that nothing has been changed optically. But that there will be individual sample differences. Thus, it might be that you had good Trinovids and "lemon" Ultravids for comparison? At any rate, I suspect that quality control at Leica has suffered lately. At least, that is the only reason I can see for some Ultravids with very rough focus.

The other aspects concerning image quality, should be explainable with the different coatings on the prisms.

I have owned a pair of Trinovid 8x32 BAs for about 8 years now, and I still love the view through them. However, I have never really liked that "brick" feeling, and those ribs still irritate me today! So it's obvious that one should try a model before buying it. At the time, the selection was considerably smaller than today. One thing that speaks for the Zeiss FL - with so many things being a tie (in my opinion) -, is its much better minimum focus.

[gate9797]

10x being harder to steady than 8x is not an old wive's tale for most people. I can get more detail from an 8x than 10x when hand holding.

I am tempted to try the Nikon LX 10x32.

Yes try them. Once you try 10X you never go back to 8X.
Regarding the old wives' tale, the tale is not that 10X is as easy to steady as 8X as your comment assumes, but rather the old wives' tale is that 10X cannot be sufficiently steadied for birdwatching. I claim that 10X can be easily steadied for birdwatching by able-bodied folk.

[gate9797]

Hi gate,

for me it's not a matter of image stability - as you suggest, that shouldn't be a problem to most people (it isn't to me).

I simply like the combination of small size, light gathering and all-round effectiveness that 8s (specifically 8 x 32s) will give.

I honestly don't think I've ever thought "if only I had 25% more magnification than I do now..."

If I need to be closer I either get closer - or use the scope!

I've no doubt that if some kind soul was to gift me a pair of 10s I'd get used to them very quickly, but for all-round usability for me, 8s just fit the bill.


Hi Keith: In most conditions in which 10X affords a more detailed view than 8X it is not possible to get close enough quickly enough to compensate for the lower magnification of 8X. In addition, scope viewing is slow and cumbersome compared to binocular viewing and cannot be considered a practical alternative to the use of stronger handheld binoculars.

Regarding your comment on the qualities of size, light-gathering, etc., size and weight used to be determining factors when considering 10X in the days when effective light-gathering 10X meant huge and very heavy glasses, but this is no longer the case.

Certainly 10X will be larger than 8X, all things being equal, but within an acceptable range of size/weight increase it is reasonable to give priority to the increase in clarity of vision afforded by 10X over issues of size/weight. The size/weight factor gains importance under certain conditions pertaining to activities such as light-weight backpacking, but I don't wish to go into all these conditions for the purposes of the present more general argument.
(Indeed there are very small and lightweight 10X25 bins out there). Of course, my comments are made in the context of serious birding which places a premium on the viewing of details and naturally if someone isn't interested in seeing details then the importance of powers of magnification dwindles.

[Buster]

Certainly 10X will be larger than 8X, all things being equal, but within an acceptable range of size/weight increase it is reasonable to give priority to the increase in clarity of vision afforded by 10X over issues of size/weight. The size/weight factor gains importance under certain conditions pertaining to activities such as light-weight backpacking, but I don't wish to go into all these conditions for the purposes of the present more general argument.

The magnification/power of a binocular has absolutely no bearing on it's physical size. Take a full-size Leica 8x42 BA/BN and compare it side-by-side to a 10x42 BA/BN and they'll be exactly the same in physical size and weight. The biggest factor when it comes to size and weight is the diameter of the objective lenses, which is pretty much common sense; a 10x50mm is going to weigh more than a 10x32mm.

Also, a 10x50 will gather just as much light as an 8x40/42mm because the exit pupil is the same..5mm. Where 10x binos sometimes suffer is in the field of view FOV.

[elkcub]

... Certainly 10X will be larger than 8X, all things being equal, but within an acceptable range of size/weight increase it is reasonable to give priority to the increase in clarity of vision afforded by 10X over issues of size/weight. The size/weight factor gains importance under certain conditions pertaining to activities such as light-weight backpacking, but I don't wish to go into all these conditions for the purposes of the present more general argument.
(Indeed there are very small and lightweight 10X25 bins out there). Of course, my comments are made in the context of serious birding which places a premium on the viewing of details and naturally if someone isn't interested in seeing details then the importance of powers of magnification dwindles.

For a given objective size there isn't much difference in size or weight, but I think it is true that folks tend to select smaller objective sizes with the lower magnifications (all other things being equal). I share your opinions about 10x providing more detail at a given distance, being easy enough to control, and the general utility of the 10x25 design (which pretty much all manufacturers produce in spite of BF leanings towards the tiny 8x20s). I find it interesting that many of the folks who exhort using 8x or 7x binocs, and suggest getting closer to the bird for detail, are also the ones who covet and assign priority to extremely short-focusing binoculars in order to see it larger than life. Is a puzzlement.

-elk

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Gate,

I can see all the detail I've ever needed to see with 8x bins, and in fact is there not a school of thought that lower power optics can actually resolve better?

Anyway, suffice to say that my "serious" birding has not been diminished one iota by using "only" quality 8x bins, nor has there ever been even the vaguest impression in my mind that I'm missing out on detail as a result of my choice.

[Atomic Chicken]

Greetings!

I'm with blythkeith on this one - almost all of my current birding is done with 7x42 or 8x32 optics - and I never think to myself "I wish I had 25-30% more magnification". Many people are convinced that 10x optics are the only way to see all the detail, because after all, the bird IS bigger in 10x isn't it?

However, magnification is not the whole story. 7x, 8x, and 10x binoculars manufactured to current optical standards all provide MORE detail at the eyepiece than the eye can use, a fact that is easily proveable with a resolution test chart and an optical doubler. The fact that the bird is smaller in 7x and 8x optics vs. 10x does not necessarily mean that you will see fewer feathers or miss markings that larger magnification optics will reveal... it just means that you will be seeing a smaller image of the bird. Some people are comfortable with this, some are not.

On the otherhand... there are many advantages to lower power optics that are not commonly considered, or are even misunderstood by proponents of 10x and greater optics. The first of these is field of view (FOV). With lower power optics, you just see a larger picture - no debate, no argument, it's a demonstrable fact. A larger FOV picture means you will often see birds at the edges of the field that you would have missed if you were using 10x optics - or movement at the edge to which you can rapidly pan for further investigation.

Second, you ALWAYS get a greater depth of field with lower power optics - allowing you to see a "deeper" picture at the focus point you have picked, with more "in focus" area in front of and behind the current point of focus. This can be amazingly useful when watching flocks of birds on the ground, where you can pull more birds into focus and see more of the flock activity. Also when viewing into trees, you can see deeper into the branches in focus and sometimes notice birds perched behind or in front that would have been blurred through more powerful optics. Again, depth of field is a physical fact, unarguable and unassailable.

Third, you gain stability with lower powered optics. This is FAR from an old-wives tale, it is a very real phenomenon that is based on the lever and fulcrum principle of physics. The same amount of unwanted hand movement or tremor in lower powered optics will produce less of an overall image movement than it will in higher power optics. This is compensated in part by the steady holding habits that are developed by users of higher-magnificiation optics, but at the end of the day I personally have found that I am more tense and tired after birding with 10x optics than with 7x - it's just more "relaxing" to not need so much rigidity and attention to grip and arm stability that 10x requires. This is probably the most contentious point between proponents of high-power vs. low-power optics, many 10x users will go out of their way to claim there is no difference and that they can hold 15x optics perfectly still... which is fine... who can argue? It is a very subjective thing, many people have no problem whatsoever with holding high magnification optics and the more power to them. However, I'm not one of them and I'm glad there are lower magnification options for me personally to choose from.

Regarding the issue of "low power makes you get closer to the bird" that some people on this forum have mentioned, I have a few things to say. While it is true that low-power optics might make you want to physically move closer to the bird or develop your field-craft to the point you can sneak up on wary birds, the fact of the matter is that this argument should not be taken seriously and is NOT a good reason to choose low-magnification optics. Often you only get ONE VERY BRIEF chance to view a bird for a few seconds, and your optics better be up to it because that bird is NOT going to wait around for you to get closer. If you can't see what you need to with 7x or 8x, choose 10x instead - but chances are you won't get that much more out of the scene with the larger magnification anyway... it's more likely that your identification techniques need improvement or you are in a "too far away" situation that often occurs.

I'm one of the outspoken fans on this forum of low-power optics, but ironically I own just as many 10x binoculars as I do 7x and 8x. I feel they both have their place, and both have their advantages. 10x is CLEARLY superior at detail resolution under low-light conditions, and compact 10x25 binoculars are superior in almost every way to compact 8x20 models. For all around birding, however, 7x and 8x just suit me better - and I'm thankful that we have so many wonderful low AND high magnification options to choose from.

Best wishes,
Bawko

[Rico]

If 7x blocks my membership to the Power Birding Club, then so be it. |8|| My disable-bodied self prefers a relaxed walk and a relaxed view to match. Part of that relaxed view is a larger exit pupil for the weight, versus a 10x.

[Keith Reeder]

An analogy exists in photography, which ties in precisely with Bawko's comments.

I've been experimenting with different zoom settings recently in order to maximise the image quality/reach equation, and one unavoidable by-product of this experimentation is that what you usually get is two bird images with exactly the same amount of detail, but in which one bird is slightly bigger than the other!

The larger image has no more information in it, it's just larger.

I can't see how the differerence between 8x and 10x bins can be considered in any other way than this - a slightly larger bird, but with no more detail or information presented to the observer.

Of course, right at the limit of resolution (where the bird is little more than a dot through bins) then the extra magnification might provide an advantage: but then you're likely to be up against more than just the distance of the bird - atmospheric disturbance for example, is more than likely to entirely negate any "benefit" granted by looking at the bird with 10x magnification.

I'll say it again: if I'm that desperate for more reach, I'll use my scope.

[Wehr]

I can't see how the differerence between 8x and 10x bins can be considered in any other way than this - a slightly larger bird, but with no more detail or information presented to the observer.

Hello Keith,

sorry but you are a little bit on the wrong track. Let's speak about two binoculars with similar high quality optics, one with 8x32 and the other with 10x32. Both present the same detail/information to the observer (as you mentioned) with a resolution of round about 4". But the observers eyes can only see structures of at least 60" and above.

So looking through a low magnifying optical instrument we are specially bound to the resolution of our eyes. All the beautiful information, which is not presented with at least 60" to the eyes (by the instruments magnification) is not perceptible.

Therefore the same observer perceives different resolutions: namely with the 8x32 structures with a resolution of 60"/8 = 7.5" (and above) and with 10x32 structures with a resolution of 60"/10 = 6" and above.

So definitely there is a (slight) difference in the usable resolution analogous to the (slight) difference in magnification. In other words you will see more detail with a 10x32 compared to a 8x32, because your eye is the limiting factor (and not the instrument).

Calculating with a 16x32 and a 20x32 instead, it can clearly be seen, that then the bins become the limiting factors and the bird only varies in height with no change in detail or usable resolution.

Analogy in photography is true (playing with magnification and observation distance of a picture) - and it works the same way.


Walter

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Walter,

I still think my point stands that it is not true to argue that a bigger image invariably means more useful information being available to the observer.

I accept that my analogy isn't a perfect one, but - I hope - it still gets the idea across that just because the image presented to the viewer is larger in one picture than another, there is exactly the same amount of usable detail in each.

Therefore, it seems to me, it follows that - all other things being equal - a similar argument will apply to the observable differences between the same bird viewed at 8x and at 10x (which in truth, is a pretty small difference).

Bawko ("Atomic Chicken") makes the same point - probably more eloquently than I did - and I remain persuaded that this is the reality of the situation.

[elkcub]

... sorry but you are a little bit on the wrong track. Let's speak about two binoculars with similar high quality optics, one with 8x32 and the other with 10x32. Both present the same detail/information to the observer (as you mentioned) with a resolution of round about 4". But the observers eyes can only see structures of at least 60" and above.

... Therefore the same observer perceives different resolutions: namely with the 8x32 structures with a resolution of 60"/8 = 7.5" (and above) and with 10x32 structures with a resolution of 60"/10 = 6" and above.

Walter

Walter,

I was composing a similar statement, but find yours very accurate. There are two connected issues: (1) the physical resolving power of the optics, and (2) the resolving power of the eye. The bottom line is that a small target must be resolved first by the optics and then projected onto the retina with sufficient size for it to resolve relevant detail. At the threshold of visual perception power can make a critical difference as you mentioned. For less critical viewing, however, even if two retinal images of different size contained the same ID information (which is subject to debate) we still can not conclude there is no difference. Just as smaller print is harder to read than large print, so smaller bird images are also harder to appreciate. Fewer retinal sensors are involved and the brain has to work harder for comprehension (which in my case is truly a serious issue). I've had a lot of experience comparing 8x with 10x images over the years and find that the 10x view is simply less stressful.

Getting back to the question of equality of ID information in two images of different retinal size, we are potentially dealing with many perceptual discriminations of a very complex target. These include variously shaped body parts and features, as well as continuous color shading and other gradations. It may be that certain gross field marks are readily identified in either case, but more subtle differences are not. To council that "smaller is just as good," therefore, is simply not correct in my opinion. Try that idea out on scope enthusiasts and see where it gets.

Now I am the first to admit that target retinal size is not the only consideration, and agree with Bawko that 8x or 7x binoculars as a rule have more general utility. But to poo-poo the very real advantage of greater power and bigger juicy images is not accurate.

Elkcub

[Keith Reeder]

Nobody's "poo pooing" anything, Elkcub, but we're not talking about order-of-magnitude differences in image size, we're talking about tiny real differences in what reaches the retina.

To use your print size analogy, you'd need to have very marginal eyesight to be able to read 10pt arial comfortably and yet struggle with 8pt, and - for most people, most of the time - the difference in the amount of available information with the kind of size difference we're talking about is surely going to be insignificant, which is the only point I'm trying to make.

Interesting that you mention scopes too.

I routinely and intentionally use my Zeiss zoom at the lower end of its magnification specifically because I've realised that I can, as a rule, get just as much detail and information from that approach (a smaller but extremely well-resolved image) without losing any other the other benefits of lower magnification, as I can by ramping up the magnification and losing light and FOV.

I've written to that effect on here more than once and - for me - it's the absolute truth.

Light loss in particular can offset any additional resolution that higher magnification can provide, and this is just as true of bins.

Just my entirely unscientific but empirical take on things...

[Bill A]

Hey guys, remember the subject of the thread? Leica Trinovids? Since you've highjacked it, let me weigh in on Keith's side. I have the identical Zeiss scope and have the same experience: I usually use the lower powers because of the greater light and therefore better (small) image.

By the way, I sprang for a new pair of 8x32 Trinovids, and they seem GREAT.

Bill (thread originator)

[elkcub]

Keith,

I should have used the words downplay or overreach rather than "poo-poo." It was in reference to statements like these:

The fact that the bird is smaller in 7x and 8x optics vs. 10x does not necessarily mean that you will see fewer feathers or miss markings that larger magnification optics will reveal... it just means that you will be seeing a smaller image of the bird...
and

... but - I hope - it still gets the idea across that just because the image presented to the viewer is larger in one picture than another, there is exactly the same amount of usable detail in each.

The first statement (Bawko's) circumvents the essential advantage of a larger target image, which as I mentioned makes it easier for the brain to evaluate. The reason some people are more comfortable with small images may have more to do with what they are doing while birding.

The second statement (yours) glosses over the fact that the retina and brain must extract the "usable detail," and this is done more easily (and quickly) with a larger image. In short, the detail is only potentially usable until extracted.

The ratio of retinal sensors available to interpret a projected target image is a function of the square of power because we are dealing with areas. So, they would not be in the ratio of 7:10 but 49:100. In other words, an increase of more than twice the number of retinal sensors would be involved in going from a 7x to a 10x image. This is not insignificant and certainly consistent with finding 10x target viewing less stressful and demanding.

Anyway, that's my take on the situation and I apologize for poo-pooing your views. ;)
Elkcub

[elkcub]

Hey guys, remember the subject of the thread? Leica Trinovids? Since you've highjacked it, let me weigh in on Keith's side. I have the identical Zeiss scope and have the same experience: I usually use the lower powers because of the greater light and therefore better (small) image.

By the way, I sprang for a new pair of 8x32 Trinovids, and they seem GREAT.

Bill (thread originator)

Bill,

Congratulations on your new Trinovids. Sorry about deviating your thread from its intended course.

Elkcub

[Leif]

I agree with much of what has already been said, but I too think that in practice an 8x binocular does not necessarily show less than a 10x one, and in many respects shows more. As far as resolution is concerned, the difference is not significant unless the binocular is held steady. I can hold a 10x bin steady, but it is harder work than an 8x one. In other words hand shake reduces the actual useable detail. Then there are the issues of contrast, depth of field, and field of view. The lower magnification instrument produces (assuming equivalent optical quality) a brighter more contrasty image which might sometimes compensate for the lower resolution. I would be curious to know which is best in low light e.g. dusk and dawn. Common sense suggests the 8x is better, but then again common sense is so often wrong. The 8x instrument also has greater DOF and FOV, meaning that I get less eye strain and can lock on to a bird much more rapidly. I find it very hard to localise sounds, and hence a wide FOV is needed.

Anyway, back on the ranch, clearly the Leica Trinovids are still among the best. I find it amazing that in the US a new pair are so cheap compared to the UK. But then again, I recently bought a stovetop espresso maker from the US. Despite the fact that it was made in Italy, it was still cheaper to buy from the US, and pay the shipping costs. This must be crazy given the thousands of extra miles travelled.

Leif

[Bill A]

Hi Leif,

What is an average price for the 8x32 Trinovids in the UK?

I've been using mine fairly heavily for the last couple of days since I got them, and agree that they are very good.

Bill

[elkcub]

I agree with much of what has already been said, but I too think that in practice an 8x binocular does not necessarily show less than a 10x one, and in many respects shows more. As far as resolution is concerned, the difference is not significant unless the binocular is held steady. I can hold a 10x bin steady, but it is harder work than an 8x one. In other words hand shake reduces the actual useable detail. Then there are the issues of contrast, depth of field, and field of view. The lower magnification instrument produces (assuming equivalent optical quality) a brighter more contrasty image which might sometimes compensate for the lower resolution. I would be curious to know which is best in low light e.g. dusk and dawn. Common sense suggests the 8x is better, but then again common sense is so often wrong. The 8x instrument also has greater DOF and FOV, meaning that I get less eye strain and can lock on to a bird much more rapidly. I find it very hard to localise sounds, and hence a wide FOV is needed.

Anyway, back on the ranch, clearly the Leica Trinovids are still among the best. I find it amazing that in the US a new pair are so cheap compared to the UK. But then again, I recently bought a stovetop espresso maker from the US. Despite the fact that it was made in Italy, it was still cheaper to buy from the US, and pay the shipping costs. This must be crazy given the thousands of extra miles travelled.

Leif

Leif,

I'll keep it short since I'm leaving on a trip. No argument about practical aspects and the need to steady the instrument. That's one reason I'm so pleased with the low-cost FISMO device. But, that said, the facts concerning target retinal image size can't be denied, and the more sensors involved the easier and quicker the brain can process (i.e., extract) detail information. One of the factors never discussed on BF to my knowledge is speed of apprehension — basically the time required for basic perception, awareness, and understanding. IMO, this factor accounts for a lot of personal preferences.

-elk

[kabsetz]

Elk and all,

A "speed of apprehension" test with different-magnification binoculars hand-held would yield highly interesting and meaningful results. This could be done in some fashion by reading text and recording how many words/characters/random numbers one would be able to (correctly) read per minute with each magnification. Results might and probably would also differ by viewer. I have conducted hand-held bar target resolution distance tests with 8x, 10x and 15x magnifications in conjunction with testing the Canon 15x50 some years ago. Time was not a factor in that test, since the testers could use as much (within a minute or two) time as they needed to determine whether or not they could resolve the target. In that test, higher magnification outperformed lower magnification by more than the ratio of magnifications. I found this result counterintuitive at the time, but have since found that unprejudiced experimentation with other binoculars supports it. In any case, if the binocular is supported by a tripod and we have equal quality for different magnifications, the results in anything approaching normal daylight will be very close to being directly proportional to magnification.


Kimmo

[Leif]

Leif,

I'll keep it short since I'm leaving on a trip. No argument about practical aspects and the need to steady the instrument. That's one reason I'm so pleased with the low-cost FISMO device. But, that said, the facts concerning target retinal image size can't be denied, and the more sensors involved the easier and quicker the brain can process (i.e., extract) detail information. One of the factors never discussed on BF to my knowledge is speed of apprehension — basically the time required for basic perception, awareness, and understanding. IMO, this factor accounts for a lot of personal preferences.

-elk

Elk: I was not discounting or disagreeing with your technical arguments, merely stating that hand shake enters the equation, and I believed that hand shake would cancel out the advantages of greater magnification. However, Kimmo's tests seem to support the claim that as far as resolution goes 10x beats 8x even when hand held, and I will happily concede that I am mistaken on that issue. It is curious that he finds that 10x outperforms 8x by a greater margin when hand held compared to tripod mounted. That certainly is counter-intuitive.

Leif

[salty]

my trinovids are for sale in the classifieds.

[elkcub]

... It is curious that he finds that 10x outperforms 8x by a greater margin when hand held compared to tripod mounted. That certainly is counter-intuitive.

Leif

Hi Leif,

I'm back. I agree that it's counter intuitive a priori, although post hoc it might be explained by differences in the vibration spectra — assuming the greater mass of the 10x dampens higher frequencies.

My main point, however, is that at a fixed viewing distance a larger target area necessarily involves more retinal receptors as a function of (power)^2. Hence, the perceptual system has significantly more to work with, and various target discriminations are easier to make. This probably shows up in in the form of perceptual speed, and is my rationale for generally prefering a 10x over an 8x.

Kimmo made an interesting suggestion about developing a speed reading test to measure this aspect of binocular use.

Regards,
-elk

[AUDIE]

Greetings!

I went shopping last year for a new pair of 7x42 top-of-the-line binoculars, and considered the Zeiss FL, Ultravid, and Trinovid as the only real contenders. In fact, I considered the Trinovid only "for laughs" as a baseline comparison to the other two. The laughs took on a more serious tone after extensive comparisons, which were not at all what I was expecting.

Here's the essence of it:

Zeiss FL: The Zeiss FL is a magnificent binocular, but for my own purposes the build quality and certain aspects of the optical performance were just not what I was looking for. I was looking for a pair of full size 7x that would perform marvelously in all conditions, and travel the world with me. I felt like the FL was more of a state-of-the-art luxury birding close-to-home binocular as opposed to the voyager "tank" I was looking for.

Ultravid vs. Trinovid: The Ultravid is fantastic. Probably the brightest full size I have ever looked through, and better color rendition and contrast than even the FL. Slightly more CA than the FL, which is not surprising considering that the Zeiss FL was designed mainly for apochromatic purity. However, the Ultravid is quite magnificent in almost all other optical qualities, beating the FL on most counts. HOWEVER....

The Trinovid has better sharpness across the entire field of view. Many other posts on this forum by others have reinforced this opinion, as has my own testing with several different specimens of both binoculars. The Trinovid 7x42 (I won't comment on other configurations having focused my observations on the 7x42) is one of the sharpest binoculars edge-to-edge I have ever examined, beaten only by the Nikon HG 10x25 and equaled by the Nikon HG 8x32. Both Nikon models, on the otherhand, exhibit higher levels of CA than the Trinovid, and lack the overall color purity and brightness of the Trinovid and Ultravid. In the center, the Ultravid is probably a bit sharper, but at the edges, the Trinovid is definitely sharper and clearer.

The other effect that I've noticed with the Trinovid vs. Ultravid is that the Trinivid (to my eyes) appears to have a more "natural" image quality that seems more like looking at the real world with the naked eye. The Ultravid seems "enhanced" artificially... even though the enhancement is for the most part positive. This is a purely subjective observation, which seems to be shared by several people I've talked to about the Ultravid... and most people like it. I find that I personally don't... but I'm definitely in the minority on this one so take it with a grain of salt and make your own observations.

Weight/Ergonomics is the final deciding factor between the 2 - the Ultravid is definitely lighter in weight and has completely different handling characteristics. I personally find the older Trinovid body design to be quite tank/brick/ultimately-solid like - more fitting with my own desires for a bullet-proof world traveling instrument. Most people will undoubtably prefer the Ultravid's lower weight and better handling characteristics - although there have been some complaints about the thumb indents. Again, try them both and make up your own mind.

Final result for me was purchase of the Trinovid, with the closeout sale price helping push me over the decision "edge". While the price did not make the decision for me, all other factors being weighed with far more gravity, it did "sweeten" the deal for me. Overall it was a tough decision, but the Trinovid just ended up meeting my own needs better.

In my opinion, the Trinovid is far from "antiquated" or "obsolete"... they still have a LOT to offer and with the current closeout prices the Trinovid is still worth serious consideration.

Best wishes,
Bawko My feelings too. Having owned most of the top end binoculars at one time or another including 7x42 and 8x42 FLs the latter being very nice indeed. I have also had a pair of 8x42 ultravids which showed unacceptable CA. With all these bins I found them to be too bright in full sunshine,(not that we get much of that in our part of cornwall) I have just purchased a pair of 8x42 trinovids,and i'me most impressed with them, they have that natural walk into view are sharp,have no halo around the edge,something I find very distracting,and very little CA,far,far less than the ultravids. Is it any wonder Bill Oddie keeps reverting back to his trinovids.Leica have taken a backward step image wise at least.