David in NC
Well-known member
THIS^^^
-
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.
What the late Trinovid 42 was about (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tenex
- Start date
THIS^^^
CloseFocus
Well-known member
I don't know if the field of view crippled the Trinovid - 378 versus 389 feet field of view in the 8x42 model isn't that much of a difference. 11.4 versus 9.8 feet close focus is also not that significant. They both have a 15.5 mm eye relief. However, the 8x42 Trinovid is on sale at Eagle Optics for $949.00. The Ultravid HD is going for $1,799.00, and the HD Plus is $2,149.00. Now those are some significant numbers.
Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
... that´s so great about the Ultravid: It sparkles in the sunshine, it glows on a dull day, and it shines in the twilight. And no batteries involved.
Someone once wrote about the last Leica R 50/1.4: A glass so cool it must have been invented for the NASA. Fits the HD Plus, too.
Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
Hm. Both the latest 8x42 and 8x32 look very similar in field curvature and distortion to me. Are you sure you did not have the EDG in your hands? 3
Sorry, I still disagree. It is the fabulous coatings and the HT glass, plus the old Ultravid design that manages to keep veiling glare levels in the image center low for superb macrocontrast, and of course great microcontrast due to design and manufacture.
In fact I found the warping when panning worse in the Ultravid than in the HT, so I checked again, and it is strong pincushion through and through, and definitely no flatfield in the 8x42. Quite the contrary, a rather small sweet spot.
With the 8x32 I first had the impression of a flatter field, but could not confirm it. Actually I suspect the baffling might be so tight in the 8x32 that the effective aperture even with closed pupil might be slightly smaller than in the 8x42, increasing depth of field. The 8x32 always looks a bit darker and therefore contrastier than the 8x42. The stronger vignetting in the 8x32 might affect perception, too...
tenex
reality-based
I entirely agree. Leica has already compromised FOV in all their 42mm models in favor of compactness, and any further difference between the Trinovid and Ultravid is slight.
tenex
reality-based
You're absolutely right about that. However, living in sunny Colorado I have to weigh how much difference it makes to me, and the price... I'm not sure whether I'll want to keep it. I'm already enjoying the added brightness in the Trinovid BR, with the same dielectric coatings.
tenex
reality-based
Correction: after several days with this Ultravid HD+, I've concluded that I had a bad case of "believing is seeing" from my own theory. I've now come to agree with the Eagle salesmen: I really see very little (if any) difference in field correction between the HD+ and older Leica models, from my old Trinovid BN to the previous HD model. It's all classic pincushion distortion. (I'm not sure how to explain the comment I quoted from binomania.it; perhaps he was just saying that he likes that, as it avoids any rolling-ball effect.)
So anything I've said about liking a new eyepiece design applies only to the recent Trinovid BR 42. The revised story would be that Leica experimented with this flatter-field formula in the Trinovid... and then decided not to implement it in the Ultravid series after all. The BR 42 is a complete orphan in this respect, which anyone who would prefer it may want to acquire while they can.
I do notice one distinctive thing about the HD+: it has what lens geeks call "busy bokeh". In both my Trinovids, old BN and new BR, out-of-focus objects like tree branches are rendered in a smooth blurry fashion that grows sharper as they come into focus. In the HD+ they look like superimposed multiple images that come together into a single one. This is common in Leica's ASPH camera lenses that boast of employing aspherical elements, and makes me wonder whether the Ultravids may now have those too. (It's curious that they would call attention to it in one case, and not the other.) I don't know how long this has been so; I didn't think to check it in previous Ultravids I've seen. Perhaps it's new in the HD+, and Leica decided to get a sharper image this way instead?
So anything I've said about liking a new eyepiece design applies only to the recent Trinovid BR 42. The revised story would be that Leica experimented with this flatter-field formula in the Trinovid... and then decided not to implement it in the Ultravid series after all. The BR 42 is a complete orphan in this respect, which anyone who would prefer it may want to acquire while they can.
I do notice one distinctive thing about the HD+: it has what lens geeks call "busy bokeh". In both my Trinovids, old BN and new BR, out-of-focus objects like tree branches are rendered in a smooth blurry fashion that grows sharper as they come into focus. In the HD+ they look like superimposed multiple images that come together into a single one. This is common in Leica's ASPH camera lenses that boast of employing aspherical elements, and makes me wonder whether the Ultravids may now have those too. (It's curious that they would call attention to it in one case, and not the other.) I don't know how long this has been so; I didn't think to check it in previous Ultravids I've seen. Perhaps it's new in the HD+, and Leica decided to get a sharper image this way instead?
tenex
reality-based
Sorry, I almost overlooked this message. You're right of course, I was mistaken about curvature in the HD+ as I just explained. But I was looking only at the 8x32, and also had the impression of good overall sharpness. Isn't it just the case that this is more easily and commonly achieved in smaller binoculars?
