• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Trinovid HD 10X42 First View (1 Viewer)

Nixterdemus

Well-known member
Before the bin arrived I was looking WWN under a complete low overcast sky w/Minox HG 8.5x52. I noticed some CA whilst looking at a squirrels nest. I looked through 10x40/12x45 Conquest, 8X42 Kruger Caldera, 8.5x45 Weaver Super Slam, 8.5x50 Vortex Viper, 10x45 Optolyth Royal, 15x56 Vortex Vulture HD, 20x56 Nikon M511 und naturally the Leica Trinovid HD 10x42 was dropped off as I finished w/rest.

Super Slammy wins again followed closely by the Nikon w/Trinovid a game third. Oddly enough, to the point I find queer, is the best viewing under CA w/Trinovid HD is dead center [who'd 'ave thunk it] L-R, but slightly elevated above center. There was a reticle years ago that had a fine wire splitting the bottom/top of sphere in the center w/small tapered vertical post that barely went past the horizontal wire leaving a small rectangular nub. Like this:

http://m7.i.pbase.com/o10/70/1271570/1/165794767.aPx1abxl.L25xpc2.jpg

A squirrels nest is larger than a bulls-eye, yet I still need the nest above the nub, so to speak for best control of CA. I tried moving the glass, tilting the glass to no avail.

The Trinovid HD has more PC than I care for, yet it's not that distracting. I do not want globe effect though I wish to be a mite closer. Same goes for the Conquests. I've no clue about the Conquest HD.

On the back deck I could hear geese coming up on me from NNE. They were only around 70' high slicing full bore through the trees. I threw up the Trinovid preceded to bring them into focus. W/o realizing in the heat of the moment that I was at minimum focus. It's amazing how long it can take to spin a focuser two complete turns, all the while attempting to stay on target by homing in on the honking. In retrospect it would've been far easier/much quicker to spin the focus to the end, as I keep an eye on the grey geese, then throw them up needing only a slight adjustment to fine tune.

The Trinovid HD 10x42 is bright. As daylight dwindled it appeared brighter than the 10x40 Conquest w/ABK prism. Not by much though credit newest lens coating I suppose.

Completely overcast all day. Still the little Leica was bright/sharp w/plenty plenty of contrast making for a nice view. The focus isn't nearly as easy as the Zeiss, but does not need the exertion for the Minox, usually.

Speaking of focusing, [780* total 2.2 turns ] 5'/1.5M- 40'/12M 1.8 turns[680*] -50yds/46M 1.9 turns 710*[from there it's .2 turns/75* to the end of travel.

No, the little Leica did not displace the old Weaver in CA control. Yes, it has a wee bit more PC to boot. The focus is always smooth as silk from infinity down CCW. Sometimes from close focus to infinity CW the focus is beyond hard to turn. No feel of being gritty just at least twice as hard as the Minox HG 8.5x52[which is super smooth though requires twice as much force to turn as any of me early Conquests, 8x30/10x40/12x45. Other times it's smooth as can be going from minimum focus to infinity. No rhyme nor reason it would seem.

I had this issue three separate times. Sometimes focus was very hard for half/full turn then it would return to easy motion. Once it was hard all the way from minimum focus to the end of the line. Always when turning CW never CCW. This was within the first thirty minutes. Since then I cannot induce this one way/on occasion hard focus to save me soul. Would seem possessed then changed its mind.

I called Leica they ran the SN. It has never been registered. The skies have yet to clear, so I'm left to guess that infinity is slightly past two turns. As well I've not been able to use them under clear skies. Not a deal breaker as the Royal has over 2.75 turns L-L though I prefer 1-1.5.

I can minimum focus to 4'10" though I wrote 5' as it's an easier number. Still, almost two turns to 50Y/46M is a lot of spinning. Although the vast amount is used reaching 40'/12M. From there to infinity is probably within 0.25 turn. I'll have to wait for clear skies to know.

I tried to back off the eye cups to the 4th setting. No such luck. Even fully extended they could've been a mite longer for me as I prefer to bury me eyes in the cups.

So, it would seem for me w/this sample it is truly a mixed bag. I'm not focusing on the focus. Whatevah/whyevah I'm sure this is an isolated incident. Plus, I wish to peer whilst under clear blue skies.

I'm not going to rush to judgment, but I am going to contact Leica about the focus mechanics. We'll see what shakes, eh mates?

ETA: Infinity is 730* so, 40'/12M 1.8 turns[680*] is 30* from infinity. At 50yds/46M 1.9 turns 710* it's only 20* to infinity.
The focus has no slack, it seems to be a mite easier within .5 turn of Minimum focus listing ever so slightly less effort in CCW movement. Not by very much w/me looking hard for evah so slight irregularity of tension.

Now, past the half turn CW the effort required seems the same whether CW/CCW to lock past infinity. Breaking in?
Perhaps I'm going mad, would be a short trip, as I'm concentrating on the feel of the focus sitting in the dark.

ETA: Thursday morn breaks fully overcast fog just above the trees. The colours of the Trinovid are striking. Again I compare to the older Conquest 10x40 ABK. It is no contest. What surprises me is that the view from the Leica does not appear to be oversaturated. Perhaps a combination of colour/contrast/sharpness. It holds true this afternoon under full sun.

Once more I target the nest. I'm north of a large oak tree bins & I immersed in shade. Same CA that is best resolved w/target right above the horizontal center of view. I change looking due south at another oak. If I side step half a step I'll be looking into the sun. Of course even in the shade under such harsh conditions it is no problem to see CA. What I found interesting is the level, up/down of the bin determines if I see yellow or indigo. And in the middle, just above the center line, is the sweet spot that cancels each out. Not a huge spot though it is there.

As well I'm spotting jets that I cannot render unaided. The view is small at 10X, yet very crisp even hand held. I also saw a very low flying single ross's goose. Quite breathtaking. Didn't hurt that I was looking north w/sun at me back.

The focuser has not stiffened up since the third time yesterday. Effort wise it's twixt the Conquest & Minox HG. The diopter ring moves easy enough, yet it isn't loose or sloppy. Focusing under 5' is unusual. I allow me eyes to drift from a diverged point.
 
Last edited:
I apologize as I'm tired. It's the pincushion distortion added to counteract globe effect/rolling ball. The formula used in the Trinovid HD contains more PC for me than I care for whilst others will not give it a second thought, though most will never see globe effect. I also mentioned that the Conquest bins I own have about the same amount of PC. Not a big deal just more than I care for which may mean nothing for someone else's eyes/mind/perception.
 
Last edited:
OK, thanks. You're actually noticing the pincushion distortion? Viewing what?

This focusing issue you are having is very weird indeed. I have never heard of a Leica product behaving this way. I would not accept that.
 
Last edited:
Trees, lots of them, their limbs for the most part. Chain link fence, a twelve foot rectangle chain link gate at 100 yds plus field fence. No worse than the made in Hungary Conquests from at least six years ago. Perhaps not as bad as I really am not interested in comparing PC. I see it, I determine, from my viewpoint, how much and then go about me rat killin'. It is not extreme though it is a tad more than I care to have. As are a lot of bins.

The wonky focuser will be addressed. I'm sure this is atypical, yet I would be remiss not to mention this abnormally. I do not know enough about the design/implementation to even suspect how this came about. I find it almost impossible to believe that it rolled off the line as such, but how could one damage a focuser to produce the same results? Could it be overtorqued intentionally by a heavy handed saboteur? Why have I only noticed this after coming CCW to minimum focus then moving CW? Only one way, not every time then 'poof' it's gone.

Howevah, whilst I have the bin I do wish to spend some more time viewing under various conditions. It's light, svelte, bright w/o undue CA or PC. It should come as no surprise that I am looking for both under harsh conditions, howevah I do find the view most pleasing. As well I expect it to improve under sunny skies.

One cannot have everything especially w/this stab at the Trinovid HD in attempt to offer as much w/o offering too much for the price point. For what it is worth the Minox HG 8.5x52 has more CA, but it is also light w/small diameter, at least the grip, though 10mm more objective.

I have no vendetta agin Leica. I do not wish to undermine the Trinovid HD nor speak in unwarranted critical tone. Zeiss apparently didn't quite hit the mark w/original Conquest thus Conquest HD. Whether Leice hits the mark w/Trinovid HD is only for time to tell. In depth reviews by knowledgeable individuals w/experience und professionalism to leave bias at the door is all I ever have to go on.

I may not be right, perhaps expect too much for too little, but I honestly attempt to share my perceptions. Should others see different then more power unto them.

I do not see meself at early morn, upon fog drenched moor field of honour, accompanied by valet w/loaded dueling pistolets demanding satisfaction for perceived slight to character.


As always YMMV ...
 
Last edited:
I've had the Trinovid HD 10X42 for ten days now. Colour saturation is boosted across the spectrum. Makes for a nice view. Could of done w/less PC, but it doesn't stand out. As to the control of CA I give it a C. Which at this price point is sad. For what it's worth I rate the Minox HG 8.5X52 CA at a D.

Still, the HD is light/short/small it's just in the winter you should take care in looking south especially under overcast skies.

ETA: I thought this morn I'd pit the little Leica HD against an oldie from nineteen und ninety. In this corner w/respectable FOV of 5* tiny objectives stretching only to 36mm sportin' roof prisms weighing in at a svelte 20.8 oz w/almost more PC than the law allows at a penetrating 12X the Nikon Annihilator.

Handicap match looking through double pane glass door to the WWS then stepping outside for a peek.

Round 1: KO as the Leica nevah laid a glove on the Nikon much less spar toe to toe. Not even a hint of CA in the petite 12X36.

Round 2: TKO Step outside w/10X42 HD. You can maintain a CA free zone in the very center, but it is quite noticeable outside of that small sweet spot. To add insult to injury the 5 click eyecup adjustment, very solid build, is three clicks shy of being long enough to rest the cups in me sockets. This is counterproductive to a steady view that is needed to prevent CA in the middle. A bit of movement in any direction w/or w/o tilting will summon the CA demons.

The most interesting interpretation was from inside the center readily showed CA whilst the edges did not, yet from outside the edges showed CA w/center restrained if you can hold them steady. So poor was the CA performance of the Leica that I came on in declaring a TKO for the Nikon w/o comparison.

Allegedly this Nikon was built before phase correction was implemented in the same model, '91?, a few SN down the road. Looking at a Male cardinal defending black sunflower seeds on the ground, this side of the feeder, shows me no difference in the 12X36 Vs. Conquest 12X40 28.57 oz again looking through dbl pane glass. When I stretch it out to 100yds the legs of the Abbe-Koeing Zeiss, plus 4 extra mm objective, are apparent w/brighter view/more colour saturation.

Did I mention the Nikon weighs a mere 20.8oz and also is a proper CW focus to infinity?

As always, YMMV...
 
Last edited:
The eyecups lack enough retraction to accomodate my non-spectacle features. I have commented harshly at times remarking I was experiencing blackouts. Blackout is not the proper description. I see pieces of black as crescents, located according to tilt, because I cannot hold the bin steady enough w/o being able to rest them in me normal fashion.

It is so annoying that I lose concentration. Only in that aspect does it black out my view. I'm right there at the edge/outside looking in. Actually, w/cups all the way in I still see the center half of view nice, round w/o appearing crescents. I suppose if there was one more click setting out I would be good to go. Or if Leica, in their infinite wisdom, offered slightly longer cups.

As well I did not plan to nitpick the HD to death. In a moment of frustration I take swings at any potential target regardless of how plausible those targets may be. I wish the eyecups retracted further or there was an option of longer eyecups. The claim in OM is 15.5mm. I also would appreciate the CA being more well corrected.

I could become accustom to holding the bins, though I wouldn't care for that option, but the blatent lack of CA control is most bothersome. Today w/clear skies most of the CA I saw whilst draped in overcast haze is nowhere to be seen. As a purchaser I reserve me right to critique the performance of the bin hopefully w/o being overcritical.

The Trinovid HD is entry level for Leica. I feel as if they put little thought/effort into controling CA. Almost as if an entry level buyer would be more of a fair weather participant. They spent their time on a view w/little more pop in a small tidy package.
 
Last edited:
I sent the small HD back from whence it came. I wanted to hang on to it, yet in the end the biggest difference in it & 10x40 Conquest, other than prisms/coatings, was close focus. And even though the close focus was nice for static views there was what seems as tonnes of focus knob twirling.

I thought the Leica handled CA a bit better than the old 10x40 though on the last comparison twixt the twain the Conquest prevailed in showing less on a bird in a tree to me east. In dim light or overcast skies looking hundreds of yards through heavy woods lacking foliage the Abbe-Koenig center view prevailed in light & detail by a hair.

Earlier comparison had the Leica showing better under overcast sky, howevah that was closer proximity. And as previously noted the Leica colour was more saturated. Made for a very pleasant view. They were so close to each other in many ways that I could not detect enough of a difference to justify keeping the Trinovid HD.

In part that conclusion was tempered by the very stiff focus I first encountered. It did smooth out somewhat, somewhere between the Conquest very light touch and Minox 8.5x52 super smooth though requiring more of a firm hand. Were it not for that unpleasant original encounter perhaps I would have been persuaded to keep the HD.

It was lighter than the Conquest and although both lost to the Weaver Super Slam in control of CA at 8.5 X 45 the almost decade old Super Slam is a hog. If memory serves 'round 1.5X the weight of the HD. If I didn't own the lightweight Minox, the well managed CA Weaver or the center view of the the A-K prism Conquest I would've been encouraged more.

One of these days I may well look back wishing I had kept the HD Trinovid.
 
The eyecups lack enough retraction to accomodate my non-spectacle features. I have commented harshly at times remarking I was experiencing blackouts. Blackout is not the proper description. I see pieces of black as crescents, located according to tilt, because I cannot hold the bin steady enough w/o being able to rest them in me normal fashion.

This is good to know. I just got a pair of Zeiss Conquest 8x42, and I have this same issue. It is as if the eyecups doesn't come out far enough. It's very annoying. I was thinking about swapping them for a pair of Trinovids, but it sounds like those might have a similar issue.
 
This is good to know. I just got a pair of Zeiss Conquest 8x42, and I have this same issue. It is as if the eyecups doesn't come out far enough. It's very annoying. I was thinking about swapping them for a pair of Trinovids, but it sounds like those might have a similar issue.

You can get extended eyecups from Zeiss free of charge for the Conquest to sort this out. Highly recommended.

Lee
 
"I have this same issue"

I wouldn't place a lot of stock in my face being as yours. But, the extended eyecups seem as a sound solution for the Conquest HD. Too much ER prohibits me from enjoying well made/solid eyecups. Plus I prefer to sink 'em all the way in the back of the sockets. To me that is a significant part of the bino immersion experience.

I wanted to keep the Trinovid HD. It did under most conditions have a very relaxed/pleasing view. More ER than I needed along w/not being able, for me, to distance itself from an original/non-HD 10x40 Conquest fairly well sealed the deal. I'm aware of the edges, most notably in heavily wooded pan/scan, though for the most part I'm a centerview only kinda guy.

Everything a trade-off/compromise as the 10x40 has tonnes of PC, but I wanted an example w/Abbe-Koenig prism. I wish the Trinovid HD had a little less ER/PC/CA. Howevah, I base judgment partially on having bins w/similar traits. Now I look at bins that fit a particular niche or contains qualities that I feel come close in a collective manner.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top