Trinovid vs Ultravid/ 8X vs. 10X in compacts. (1 Viewer)

Hello,
I'm thinking about buying a compact binocular leica, I still am not clear if there is much difference (except in price) between the model and the Ultravid Trinovid in size and weight, and also in the field of vision and comfort of use, I have one thing clear, I do not like the blackout effect.
If any of them is not shown what.
Worth the price difference between the Trinovid model, and the Ultravid?
And finally, if I may, I have not exactly clear what model to buy, my question is between 8X20 and 10X25.
I will use it for walks in the countryside, casual birding, observation of landscapes, ... a little for everything and who can carry in a pocket.
Thank you very much in advance for your advice
Yours sincerely
Al.

If you search the archive, you will find plenty of comparisons between these. I consider the Trinovid to be a fine pocket bin, but the Ultravid is outstanding (in fact, my favorite by a long measure--my second favorite is the Zeiss Victory). The Ultravid has better handling (esp. better focus knob; hinges with positive stops so you can unfold the bin very quickly and asymmetrically as described in other threads), better eye-relief if you wear glasses, much better close focus, much better contrast, and a larger sweet spot (better sharpness toward the edges of the field of view).

What most sets the Ultravid apart from most other premium pocket roofs _optically_ is its superior contrast, especially when viewing against the light or against bright overcast skies. What most sets it apart from the competition _ergonomically_ is its focus knob. All pocket binoculars will have a problem with blackouts if they are not kept perfectly aligned with your eyes. It takes some practice to use pocket bins precisely, but once you are good at it they can be very comfortable and very capable. If you find pocket roofs too fiddly, try something larger (with a larger exit pupil), like the Swarovski 8x25 or the Bushnell 7x26.

As for the 8x versus 10x question, I don't think it matters much (smaller field of view and depth of field is the main issue optically). Since I use pocket bins at times when I don't want to be carrying a bin at all, I go for the smallest bin possible, so my first choice is the Leica 8x20 Ultravid BL (not BR). I will say, if you want 10x and you are trying to decide between the Ultravid and the Trinovid, I would warn you not to get the Trinovid. The 10x Trinovid has a close focus spec of 5 meters and it really is no better than that (I know because I own one), whereas the 10x Ultravid has a close focus spec of 3 meters and in my experience does better than that. For me, that difference is important when birding in heavy cover since New World sparrows and wood warblers often pop into view at distances under 5 meters. I also like butterflying, so for me the 8x20 is a better choice with its 2 m close focus.

--AP

A quick thought: If you need a broad diopter correction range (more than +/- 3,5 diopters) the Leicas are not for you. In that case you might want to consider the Nikon HG/LXL, either the 8x20 or the 10x25. The Nikons are actually very good, better IMO than the Trinovids and quite close to the Ultravids. Another possibility would be the Swarovski 8x25. There are plenty of posts here on the Nikons and the Swarovski.

I looked at several 8x20s and 10x25s myself a couple of years ago and got the Nikon HG 10x25. It's pretty good optically and mechanically - and it's quite a bit cheaper than the Ultravid. Today I'd also look at the Swarovski 8x25.

Hermann

Alexis pretty well said it all. A friend has the Trinovid 8x20's that I've gotten to use regularly, I had the Zeiss Victory 8x20, and currently have the Ultravid 8x20. The Ultravid is my favorite of the 8x20's, Zeiss 2nd, and the Trinovid would be well below these to my eyes. Best thing about the Zeiss is the single hinge. Otherwise it's Ultravid all the way...

I've had both. The 8x20 Trinovids were a little gem to use but as an eye glass wearer, the eye relief was a tad short. I sold them and bought the 8x20 Ultravids - another little gem but with a much better eye relief for me.

Optically, I was unable to see any difference at all between the 8x42 version of these binoculars. Trinovids were slightly heavier and bulkier, and I wasn't crazy about the lug position for the straps. Otherwise, outstanding in every way.

I have had a pair of 10X25 Trinovids for decades. I loved them.

Then the Ultravids came along, and I got both the 10X25 and the 8X20.

I have found that I seldom use the 10X25s any more. The 8X20s are my absolute favorite binocular, period. There are two reasons they work better for me than the 10X25s. One, I find that the shake factor for me is significantly worse on the 10x than the 8x, and two, 8x are more compact and less obtrusive. They are always with me when I need them. They are perfect for birding, if that's your thing, and perfect for concerts, etc as well. And I like the BR version for their protective covering.

I have people say to me when they see them, "Hey, how can you see anything with those toy binoculars?" Then I have them look through them, and they are amazed.

I would say you need to try them all, so you see what works best for you. For me its the Ultravid 8x20 BR.

A few years ago I bought an Ultravid 8x20. Excellent optics, probably the sharpest optics I have had at the moment. Unfortunately I was quite demanding when it comes to eye relief and was not fully satisfied with eyeglasses on, even if it was the best ever 8x20 for eyeglasses I had ever tried. So I sold it, too much money spent if I am not totally satisfied, I thought.
Since a few months I have new eyeglasses and these let me gain 1,5-2mm of eye relief compared to the old ones. Consequently I am sure the Ultravid 8x20 would work great with my new eyeglasses. I am tempted to get Ultravid again, but the question is if it's better to get the new Swarovski 8x25 instead, these are around the same price.

I would strongly counsel against the trinovids. This week I sampled the 10x42 and was appalled at their edge or even near edge performance. The Nikon monarch 7 10x30 was not quite as bright but who cares as they left them for dead at a quarter the price and being much smaller.

Get an 8x30 monarch 7 and you'd be 1500 bucks better off!

Please be aware that this is just my genuine personal experience.

Cheers

Rathaus said:

I would strongly counsel against the trinovids. This week I sampled the 10x42 and was appalled at their edge or even near edge performance. The Nikon monarch 7 10x30 was not quite as bright but who cares as they left them for dead at a quarter the price and being much smaller.

Get an 8x30 monarch 7 and you'd be 1500 bucks better off!

Please be aware that this is just my genuine personal experience.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Yes your personal experience. Nikon leaving leica for dead that's a laugh :-O

breydon said:

Yes your personal experience. Nikon leaving leica for dead that's a laugh :-O

Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't mean to offend but it was my experience. It could have been a poor sample of the trinovid as it also had a mm or two of slop and free play in the focuser. I assume this is not normal.

I'd like to try the ultravids in 8x32. I like their compact size.

Cheers

Rathaus said:

Sorry I didn't mean to offend but it was my experience. It could have been a poor sample of the trinovid as it also had a mm or two of slop and free play in the focuser. I assume this is not normal.

I'd like to try the ultravids in 8x32. I like their compact size.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Its ok my friend I have a pair of Nikon E11 8x30s superb but love my ultravid 7x42 HDs :t:

My swarovski 8x20 being stolen and no longer manufactured, I bought the leica trinovid, for 345€, which is quite reasonable.
Although having worked in the field of optics for 40 years, I did not find a spectacular difference between the images of the Ultravid and Trinovid, even with a strong light in front. Both are baffling for such a small instrument.
The x1.7 difference in price looked excessive to my budget, despite the significant improvement of nitrogen filling the Ultravid. Indeed, I was curious enough to try and read the DIN 58390-73 prescription that applies to the Trinovid "splashwater resistance". Googling the web with this request brings only Leica notices quotes!
In summary, impossible to know what exactly means "splash resistant", and the Leica website is dumb on this topic. an IP index would have been more explicit.

albatrosviajero said:

Hello,
I'm thinking about buying a compact binocular leica, I still am not clear if there is much difference (except in price) between the model and the Ultravid Trinovid in size and weight, and also in the field of vision and comfort of use, I have one thing clear, I do not like the blackout effect.
If any of them is not shown what.
Worth the price difference between the Trinovid model, and the Ultravid?
And finally, if I may, I have not exactly clear what model to buy, my question is between 8X20 and 10X25.
I will use it for walks in the countryside, casual birding, observation of landscapes, ... a little for everything and who can carry in a pocket.
Thank you very much in advance for your advice
Yours sincerely
Al.

Click to expand...

Between the Ultravid and Trinovid 8x20 I had better luck with the Trinovid. The Ultravid gave me a lot of blackouts and was more finicky to use. The little Trinovid 8x20 is one of my favorite compacts although I don't use compacts at all much anymore because they are all pretty finicky to use. I use mainly 8x32's now. The best compact I ever tried was the Swaro 8x25 CL-P.

I prefer the Nikon HGL over the Trinovid. Similar priced but optically better and they are waterproof.

winwinbino said:

I prefer the Nikon HGL over the Trinovid. Similar priced but optically better and they are waterproof.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree, but will take the 8x20 Ultravid over both.

But the Nikon is a superb instrument, though Nikon's warranty/service record stinks.