Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Had some time with the HT 8x42 this weekend and could compared them with Conquest HD and Leica Trinovids, the outcome wasn't quite what I had expected.
The HT:s excel in brightness, they seem almost illuminated. The focus wheel are very nice, fast and precise, but perhaps a bit too fast for my taste. Ergonomics are also nice but a bit odd and perhaps everyone will not like it.
The weak point of HT:s are the small sweet spot and small EP:s (EP glass diameter is actually smaller than the Conquest HD:s) which makes it a bit harder to get a steady image, despite the good ergonomics. Field curvature might come in play here but also DOF and the ease of eye placement. (HT54 are even more tricky here).
Also the Trinovids appeared sharper to me and snapped easier into focus, might be due to better DOF also. The focuser of the Trinovids are quite nice. Precise and perfect resistance.
I didn't see any color cast in the HT:s, though I'm not very sensitive to that. They do seem very neutral to me with good vibrant colors. They also have the lowest CA of the three that will make the image look nice and clean.
Didn't see much CA in the Trinovids either, even though they are said to be non-HD:s, very nicely done by Leica. Even the ER seemed pretty OK for me. It's not just the spec. (15.5mm) it also the eye cup design etc. that makes the ER. So perhaps one should not rule out Leica on ER by default.
For the price the Conquest:s hold up good, but the difference is significant, but so is the price difference. Less than half the price of the HT:s. Trinovids are about 40% more expensive than Conquests but they also feel more alpha to me. And they look nicer. A bit retro but slim and stylish.
Overall it was the Trinovids that was my favorite.
But with better edge sharpness and larger EP:s the HT:s would be a dream, but that is probably quite difficult to achieve with AK-prisms. Even alpha-bins will always be a compromise. You can't get it all in one binocular.
Perhaps it's time for me to get a pair of Leicas again...
:eek!:
The HT:s excel in brightness, they seem almost illuminated. The focus wheel are very nice, fast and precise, but perhaps a bit too fast for my taste. Ergonomics are also nice but a bit odd and perhaps everyone will not like it.
The weak point of HT:s are the small sweet spot and small EP:s (EP glass diameter is actually smaller than the Conquest HD:s) which makes it a bit harder to get a steady image, despite the good ergonomics. Field curvature might come in play here but also DOF and the ease of eye placement. (HT54 are even more tricky here).
Also the Trinovids appeared sharper to me and snapped easier into focus, might be due to better DOF also. The focuser of the Trinovids are quite nice. Precise and perfect resistance.
I didn't see any color cast in the HT:s, though I'm not very sensitive to that. They do seem very neutral to me with good vibrant colors. They also have the lowest CA of the three that will make the image look nice and clean.
Didn't see much CA in the Trinovids either, even though they are said to be non-HD:s, very nicely done by Leica. Even the ER seemed pretty OK for me. It's not just the spec. (15.5mm) it also the eye cup design etc. that makes the ER. So perhaps one should not rule out Leica on ER by default.
For the price the Conquest:s hold up good, but the difference is significant, but so is the price difference. Less than half the price of the HT:s. Trinovids are about 40% more expensive than Conquests but they also feel more alpha to me. And they look nicer. A bit retro but slim and stylish.
Overall it was the Trinovids that was my favorite.
But with better edge sharpness and larger EP:s the HT:s would be a dream, but that is probably quite difficult to achieve with AK-prisms. Even alpha-bins will always be a compromise. You can't get it all in one binocular.
Perhaps it's time for me to get a pair of Leicas again...
:eek!:
Last edited: