-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Anyone using the new Leica Trinovid HD? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Dialyt
- Start date
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Dialyt, post 1,
Yes I have used and investigated the Trinovid 8x42 HD, the report will be published soon. The binocular is rather different from the "standard" Trinovid and it seems not fair to compare both, since the HD is of such a different construction and has almost "non-Leica"characteristics.
Gijs van Ginkel
Yes I have used and investigated the Trinovid 8x42 HD, the report will be published soon. The binocular is rather different from the "standard" Trinovid and it seems not fair to compare both, since the HD is of such a different construction and has almost "non-Leica"characteristics.
Gijs van Ginkel
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
Thanks. So optically it seems better than even the Trinovid BN, which was excellent, but build quality is poorer.
Where will I be able to read that?
GLOBETROTTER
Well-known member
GT
It is great that you are so excited by your Ultravid HD+ but this thread is about Trinovid HD.
Lee
CloseFocus
Well-known member
I don't know that I would describe using less expensive materials as poorer build quality. The one I tested felt very solid and focused very well, it just didn't have the high end touches (or price) of the Ultravid models.
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
The prospect of sticky rubber armouring on the Trinovid HD puts me off. It gathers dust.
D
Your nostrils and ears gather dust too and if you wear baggy shorts things could get even worse.
Sticky rubber could prevent the bins slipping out of your hands and landing in something even more distasteful than dust :eek!:
Lee
GLOBETROTTER
Well-known member
Optically they are almost the same....
The rubber is not sticky. Both versions do not gather dust.
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
Somebody mentioned that problem in one of the linked reviews, above.
As an extreme example, many years ago Doctor Optic released a 32mm Binocular with armour that attracted and retained dust. Terrible. I'm not even sure if would have come off with a damp cloth.
All I can tell you is that we have used both the new version and the recently-discontinued version, own the discontinued version, and that our evaluation comes from actual experience with the actual product.
I dislike sticky rubber too. I have a Bushnell LASER rangefinder whose rubber has deteriorated into a dust-collecting mess. Our Trinovid is nothing like that. In fact, I really like the texture and overall quality of it's rubber armor.
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
Does the new Leica Trinovid HD have 'Aqua Dura' coating?
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
From what I am hearing, they are as good as each other. The Trinovid HD comes with a daft strap/pouch thing. If you want a proper cordura pouch, it costs £59. The Zeiss is cheaper and they give you a case. If Leica are reading this, you need to give people a proper case! I only found one online retailer actually selling the case. The only thing the Leica has going for it over the Conquest HD is a cleaner, classier design.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
And both are made in Japan:smoke::smoke:
Conquest is an excellent instrument but if you can find a good FL then go for the FL, it is significantly better.
Lee
So, if I understand correctly, yesterday´s alfas (Victory FL) are still better than todays' top of the sub-alfas (Trinovid HD)? I guess one day the main stream must catch up, like how a cheap modern car can perform better on the road than an old sports car (But, still, new cars tend to die after 10yrs...)
I am worrying that maybe I put all my money in something that is about to be outdated, the FLs. But I have had some bad experience with the mechanics of mid-level binoculars. They have been excellent optically, and mechanically at first, but then the diopter begins to drift, or focus screw develops a play, or grease comes into the tubes etc. Maybe that would not happen to a Leica Trinovid HD, I guess it is above mid-level. But it seems to have a construction that much resemble almost every other sub-alfa or mid-level binocular. The few reviews I have found talk about their very nice optics (although with cheaper glass that the Ultravids) and a robust feel. But for how long?
Second hand 10x42 ultravids is no option for me as they have too long min focus distance for my purpose. And I worry about Leica, I had a pair of ultravid 10x25, made in Portugal, but the color flaked off and they did not feel as quality. I sold them. But I have always liked the view through Leica, nice colors and contrast. Some say the Victory FLs are a bit washed out in the colors and low contrast. Is that true?.
I also see that used Swarovski SLC HD sells for about this price, and have the same specs. Are they a generation more modern than the Victory FL?, and is that to their advantage?
Best would of course be to to look through all the models side by side, but they are hard to find in shops nowadays, especially the FLs.
I hope I am not drifting off from the original thread by these questions. But I think it is about comparing the new Trinovids with the various better known reference binoculars in the same price range.
Difficult to choose...
I have two lower power binoculars (Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 and Nikon Eii 8x30) so I am aware of that "old" can still be good. But so much is happening in glass, coatings etc right now.
I am worrying that maybe I put all my money in something that is about to be outdated, the FLs. But I have had some bad experience with the mechanics of mid-level binoculars. They have been excellent optically, and mechanically at first, but then the diopter begins to drift, or focus screw develops a play, or grease comes into the tubes etc. Maybe that would not happen to a Leica Trinovid HD, I guess it is above mid-level. But it seems to have a construction that much resemble almost every other sub-alfa or mid-level binocular. The few reviews I have found talk about their very nice optics (although with cheaper glass that the Ultravids) and a robust feel. But for how long?
Second hand 10x42 ultravids is no option for me as they have too long min focus distance for my purpose. And I worry about Leica, I had a pair of ultravid 10x25, made in Portugal, but the color flaked off and they did not feel as quality. I sold them. But I have always liked the view through Leica, nice colors and contrast. Some say the Victory FLs are a bit washed out in the colors and low contrast. Is that true?.
I also see that used Swarovski SLC HD sells for about this price, and have the same specs. Are they a generation more modern than the Victory FL?, and is that to their advantage?
Best would of course be to to look through all the models side by side, but they are hard to find in shops nowadays, especially the FLs.
I hope I am not drifting off from the original thread by these questions. But I think it is about comparing the new Trinovids with the various better known reference binoculars in the same price range.
Difficult to choose...
I have two lower power binoculars (Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 and Nikon Eii 8x30) so I am aware of that "old" can still be good. But so much is happening in glass, coatings etc right now.
