New 32mm Trinovid binoculars (2 Viewers)

I tried the 8x32 (and 10x32) Trinovid HD the other day.
Same size and feel as the Zeiss Conquest HD which means they are not especially compact or light for a 8x32, but quite nice to hold.

Eye relief is good and is better than on 8x32 Ultravid HD+ that are on the edge for working acceptabel with glasses for me.

Optics and IQ of the Trinovid HD is perhaps slightly above the Zeiss CHD but I suspect that sample variation might play a bigger role here...(the 10x32 Conquest HD felt easier to get into focus than the 8x32 CHD).

CA level seemed to be about the same as Conquest HD and not perfect by any means. The problem with these midrange bins IMO is that they don't snap into focus like alphas do, and your eyes never feel completely relaxed. Too fast and sensitive focusers might be one reason, and the feel I get is that there is something between you and the scene you are looking at. A lack of transparency, where all small aberrations add up. These glimpses of CA you get for example.

Overall I didn't feel any immediate urge to buy the Trinovid HD:s and I wouldn't buy the Conquest HD either, even though they are OK bins for the money, they are not near being alpha replacements, IMO.

The 8x32 (and 8x42) Ultravid HD+ was a pleasant surprise though. Contrast, sharpness and transparency is top notch. HT glass matters is my impression and you get that special sparkle/punch. I really like the package, feel and format of the Ultravids. Eye relief is not super on the 8x32 UVHD+ but might be acceptable considering the small format, low weight and great image quality you get. Price difference to the 8x42 UVHD+ is small though (50€).

Vespobuteo, Is the eye relief "acceptable" for you with the Conquest 32 also? If so are you able to say comparatively whether (1) eye placement and (2) seeing the FOV are easier with the Trinovid 32 than with the Conquest 32? Thanks! Some spectacle-wearers have problems with the Conquest 32. I know that for a given model those two interactions (or maybe they go together?) vary among different spectacle-wearers, but I am going on the idea that the more such people a model works for, and the better it works for some of them, the higher the chance it will for me, in the present state of information.

adhoc said:

Vespobuteo, Is the eye relief "acceptable" for you with the Conquest 32 also? If so are you able to say comparatively whether (1) eye placement and (2) seeing the FOV are easier with the Trinovid 32 than with the Conquest 32? Thanks! Some spectacle-wearers have problems with the Conquest 32. I know that for a given model those two interactions (or maybe they go together?) vary among different spectacle-wearers, but I am going on the idea that the more such people a model works for, and the better it works for some of them, the higher the chance it will for me, in the present state of information.

Click to expand...

Both 8x32-versions of Conquest and Trinovid HD have acceptable eye relief for me with glasses. I normally need nothing less than 16mm. To me the ER seems quite similar between the two, and at least above 16mm.

Usually the 10x versions tend to be more problematic for me. It might depend on the bigger AFOV you get with those models. The Trinovid HD 10x32 felt a bit worse for me than the Conquest HD 10x32 is my impression. To me it seems logical that 10x models might have a bit shorter ER, but (some) manufacturers doesn't bother to tell us this?

With the Noctivid 8x42 and its stated 19mm eye relief, I need to turn the eyecups up to the first click stop, to avoid getting blackouts. To me these have a longer effective ER than Swaro SV, that is stated to 20mm (eye cups are deeper on the Swaro).

The ER of the Ultravid 8x42 HD+ is stated to 15.5mm but works perfectly well for me. So figures are not everything.
(Eye cups are pretty shallow on the UV).

But people (and spectacles) are so different that you really need to try this for yourself.