Bob I'd be surprised--and pleased! However pl. see post #19 (yesterday) in this other thread about the new Retro Trinovid (in 7x35). That may be the first actual report in this forum on these mystical instruments?
-
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.
So, which 10x Trinovid? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mark9473
- Start date
Hermann
Well-known member
Hermann
Well-known member
I'm not sure they even *need* to be better than the Trinovid HDs. I think their main selling points will be size, weight and shape, and, unless Leica made a terrible mistake, the quality of the focuser. The "classic" Trinovid was at the time one of the lightest, smallest and most elegant roofs on the market, and the focuser was smooth, very precise and held up for decades without any problems whatsoever.
I fooled around with one of those old Trinovids just last weekend, a 10x40 my mother used as her only binocular for something like 15 years in all kinds of weather, until she retired it in favour of the Leica 8x32 BA. That old Trinovid, made in 1981, is still perfectly collimated with no dirt or dust inside, and the focuser is, well, just what it was like when she got it as a present from my late father.
Hermann
March 2012 according to the spec sheet, a 4 year production run.
Yes, I know.
What I meant is that wide field eyepieces cost more than regular eyepieces did at that time and they still do.
Bob
They were very solid and well designed binoculars.
I have an old Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA (Green Armored) from 1983 that is still in perfect working order. I did have to get replacement eye cups for it to replace the ones I wore out. Leica charged me $25.00 a piece for them. They are fold down rubber eye cups that have a screw in base attached to them. I wonder if the eye cups on the new version have the same screw in base?
These Leitz 7x42 binoculars were the largest binoculars in the Leitz Trinovid line up and they are slimmer than any of the recent 7x42 binoculars still in use and still being sold. They have the standard 8º FOV found on 7x42 binoculars.
Bob
Last edited:
Mark9473
Well-known member
Thanks for your comments, Jerry.
Having just paid a €1520 car repair bill, I'm in no hurry to spend anything.
I also continue to be on the lookout for a high quality 12x42; that would be my dream spec.
tenex
reality-based
I must not have been paying attention, and took them for new when I first noticed them in 2015. They're surely not FL, though I'm not really bothered by CA and have to look for it. But how would you know they're not ED, which would surprise me in any higher-end glass today? Leica never says anything about that.
ED is Nikon's term for extra low dispersion glass, something they have used for years. The Trinovids use glass of a similar Abbe number possibly made by Corning, Hoya, Schott amongst others. It's a shame Allbinos never tested the Trinovid or the current Japanese made HD model. Instead they seem obsessed with testing cheap Pentax models and the like...
More expensive Ultra low dispersion types with fluorite crystal in the glass mix and you need to pay alpha money. Nikon call this FL glass. See their subsidiary Hikari Glass Co. http://www.nikon.com/products/glass/lineup/materials/optical/index.htm
I would guess the 2015 Trinovid has a similar performance to the Ultravid BR but with updated colour correction and better eyepiece glare control https://www.allbinos.com/143-binoculars_review-Leica_Ultravid_10x42_BR.html
A full test measuring resolution and transmission compared to the Zeiss Conquest and others can be found here:
https://www.all4shooters.com/en/Shooting/optics/binoculars-roundup/
Last edited:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I have also had both together, and in my comparison, the HD version has
a wider sweet spot and is slightly brighter.
Jerry
I don't know WHICH I'd RATHER have. :brains:
Optically.....I just can't tell a lot of difference either way.
1. I DO appreciate that the Trinovid HD is a little lighter and a little smaller overall. Actually, that's the primary reason I bought it.
2. I also think the case/strap thing of the Trinovid HD is a waste. Bought a case for it from Cabela's.
3. I DO appreciate the central diopter adjustment of the previous Trinovid, the best in the business.
4. I honestly USE the Trinovid HD more....mainly because of it's weight/size.
5. Anyone is in a no-lose situation if having to pick between these two IMO.
Optically.....I just can't tell a lot of difference either way.
1. I DO appreciate that the Trinovid HD is a little lighter and a little smaller overall. Actually, that's the primary reason I bought it.
2. I also think the case/strap thing of the Trinovid HD is a waste. Bought a case for it from Cabela's.
3. I DO appreciate the central diopter adjustment of the previous Trinovid, the best in the business.
4. I honestly USE the Trinovid HD more....mainly because of it's weight/size.
5. Anyone is in a no-lose situation if having to pick between these two IMO.
Attachments
wdc
Well-known member
Chuck, Have you tried the 8x32 Trinovid HD? Same FOV as the 8x42 in a smaller package. Admittedly, less than class leading in that category, but a nice handling bin nonetheless, imho.
-Bill
Hi Bill
I bought a Trinovid HD for my wife as back-up to her Ultravid HD 8x32 (she is a Leica girl) and I even bought one for myself because it is very nice to handle and has a nice view.
However, if it comes to serious nature observation then I would take Zeiss FL 8x32 and if the habitat was full of butterflies and dragonflies then I would go with Chuck's choice: Conquest HD 8x32 due to its focus speed, fov and high quality image. In fact I would take Kowa 8x33 Genesis in preference to the Trinnie and would consider Meopta's MeoStar 8x32 as well.
However the Trinovid has one trick up its sleeve and that is a close focus of about 1 metre and if you are using this to look at static subjects such as lichens, fungi and mosses, flowers and grasses, then the Leica makes a case for itself.
These preferences are personal and to a large extent subjective.
Lee
I bought a Trinovid HD for my wife as back-up to her Ultravid HD 8x32 (she is a Leica girl) and I even bought one for myself because it is very nice to handle and has a nice view.
However, if it comes to serious nature observation then I would take Zeiss FL 8x32 and if the habitat was full of butterflies and dragonflies then I would go with Chuck's choice: Conquest HD 8x32 due to its focus speed, fov and high quality image. In fact I would take Kowa 8x33 Genesis in preference to the Trinnie and would consider Meopta's MeoStar 8x32 as well.
However the Trinovid has one trick up its sleeve and that is a close focus of about 1 metre and if you are using this to look at static subjects such as lichens, fungi and mosses, flowers and grasses, then the Leica makes a case for itself.
These preferences are personal and to a large extent subjective.
Lee
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
So many Trinovid HD/Pre-HD/Before pre-HD threads. What's a poor schmuck to do? Then youse have the Conquest HD or the Nikon HG for comparison. No sign of allbinos coming to the rescue any time soon either.
Of course for those requiring little nudge there is Outdoor Life, Editor's Choice 2016, along w/American Hunter and the unnamed 8.5X42 alpha from six years prior as a standard from which to judge. R-i-g-h-t...
I try not to read too much into such. Especially since me auld eyes might not be sharp enough to distinguish differences nor mind quick to recognize a carnival barker's spiel. Some rags nevah ran across a product they didn't love or would criticize.
W/EP of 5.25 or larger it takes a bit to fully acclimate. At 4.2 I'm fairly spot on from the get-go. Plus, lately I've been enjoying 8.5X45 7* FOV. A nice change of pace from 12X-22X. The 10X42 HD lists right at 6.5* FOV w/extra 1.5X punch.
Whilst perusing vendors I noticed a Trinovid 10x42 HD listed as very good condition w/damaged package. I presume a return never registered. At $770 + tax it didn't appear to be much of a deal. I passed, but came back this morn. They dropped to $735, still w/tax, but offered free two day shipping and 5% back on the CC.
Now I'm under seven & half bills thinking this might be a decent deal. Dependent on the shape of the bin which I expect to be immaculate or thereabouts. Of course, I would be banking on being the only owner to register the bin as second garners no extended protection. What else would I snag, a Tract Toric splurging the diff at a steakhouse? Three-fourths of a G is me limit.
Even if it isn't the highly touted nearly religiously vaunted 2011-2015 "real" Trinny Leica I wouldn't lose any sleep over lack of merit. I'd return the bin before breakin' a sweat worrying about how well it stack up against older models.
Besides, I can see advantage in 5.3 ft/1.6 m minimum focus weighing in at 25.75 oz / 730 g.
As to the original topic the 10X42 HD for me as it's light enough plus short minimum focus. The small amount of fov is a wash one way or the other. Doesn't hurt I suppose that it was the only one I ran across fitting the budget.
ETA: So I do not embrace the center diopter focus of lore. I've no bias as I've never owned a Leica. [I borrowed a peek one time from an older gent that first asked, "You're not going to run off w/them are you"? Ha!] As long as it works properly it's fine by me.
The light weight, the 15mm ER, [I've come to loathe high ER as I feel as if I'm looking through two toilet paper rolls] along w/close focus. Not as close as the 32mm models, yet close enough for the extra EP. Plus, extra 5* afov[simple method 64.5 Vs. 59.5] & 1.5X over the Super slammy.
Plus, I wish to view this entry level 10X42 Trinovid against the 10x40 Conquest ABK, 8.5X52 HG Minox [especially low lying overcast daytime] a somewhat aging 10x45 Optolyth Royal B/GA & from the Royal era, yet another example of Japanese craftsmanship in the heavy metal Weaver Super Slam 8.5X45 [almost 32 oz & only 6-7mm shorter than the ABK 10X40] that save for the edge is most oblivious to CA whilst walking 'er 'round winter sun.
Dimensions (W x H x D) Trinovid HD 42mm
4.6 x 5.5 x 2.6 in
140 x 117 x 65 mm [should be 117 x 140 x 65 ]
I presume height [eyecups collapsed to end beyond objectives] is 140 mm/5.5", so Conquest 10x40 is 153/6" leaving the SS right at 160 mm/6.3".
The bin must show me more than sportin' a red dot on top of a barrel to hang around. I'll wager it fares well w/CA against the ABK prisms both 10X, most certainly better than the HG, but falls short agin the 1.5X less SS that's going on nine years of age. Interestingly enough the SS originally sold for around a grand though many didn't sell. If one gent is to be believed, that no longer haunts the forum, it was one run und done.
Surely mucho bin de las tres novalties will have no problem sparring w/7* 8.5X45 hunting bin w/almost a decade under its technological belt, eh? As a tribute to Leica the SS has an oval brass tag on top of the right barrel towards the objective. No, it isn't rouge, but it proclaims, Weaver. A tip o' the hat perhaps w/wish of being associated w/alpha brand.
Now, the red dot follows the rising sun to the Pacific rim.
https://us.leica-camera.com/Company/Press-Centre/Press-Releases/2015/Press-Release-New-Trinovid-HD
The benefits at a glance
- Outstanding optical performance
- Compact and lightweight
- Extremely robust
- Perfect ergonomics
- Attractive design
- Excellent value for money
I'll take 1 & 6 over 2 though low weight/small size is certainly advantageous. Besides, the portly SS certainly cannot compete at #2. 3
All in fun as the Trinovid HD should show superiority everywhere, except perhaps CA, to the SS. There are no credible reviews of the SS that I can find save me eyes. But, will the ayes have it?
Come to think of it there's neither such review of the Trinovid HD 42 & they have been out for about roughly two years?
Of course for those requiring little nudge there is Outdoor Life, Editor's Choice 2016, along w/American Hunter and the unnamed 8.5X42 alpha from six years prior as a standard from which to judge. R-i-g-h-t...
I try not to read too much into such. Especially since me auld eyes might not be sharp enough to distinguish differences nor mind quick to recognize a carnival barker's spiel. Some rags nevah ran across a product they didn't love or would criticize.
W/EP of 5.25 or larger it takes a bit to fully acclimate. At 4.2 I'm fairly spot on from the get-go. Plus, lately I've been enjoying 8.5X45 7* FOV. A nice change of pace from 12X-22X. The 10X42 HD lists right at 6.5* FOV w/extra 1.5X punch.
Whilst perusing vendors I noticed a Trinovid 10x42 HD listed as very good condition w/damaged package. I presume a return never registered. At $770 + tax it didn't appear to be much of a deal. I passed, but came back this morn. They dropped to $735, still w/tax, but offered free two day shipping and 5% back on the CC.
Now I'm under seven & half bills thinking this might be a decent deal. Dependent on the shape of the bin which I expect to be immaculate or thereabouts. Of course, I would be banking on being the only owner to register the bin as second garners no extended protection. What else would I snag, a Tract Toric splurging the diff at a steakhouse? Three-fourths of a G is me limit.
Even if it isn't the highly touted nearly religiously vaunted 2011-2015 "real" Trinny Leica I wouldn't lose any sleep over lack of merit. I'd return the bin before breakin' a sweat worrying about how well it stack up against older models.
Besides, I can see advantage in 5.3 ft/1.6 m minimum focus weighing in at 25.75 oz / 730 g.
As to the original topic the 10X42 HD for me as it's light enough plus short minimum focus. The small amount of fov is a wash one way or the other. Doesn't hurt I suppose that it was the only one I ran across fitting the budget.
ETA: So I do not embrace the center diopter focus of lore. I've no bias as I've never owned a Leica. [I borrowed a peek one time from an older gent that first asked, "You're not going to run off w/them are you"? Ha!] As long as it works properly it's fine by me.
The light weight, the 15mm ER, [I've come to loathe high ER as I feel as if I'm looking through two toilet paper rolls] along w/close focus. Not as close as the 32mm models, yet close enough for the extra EP. Plus, extra 5* afov[simple method 64.5 Vs. 59.5] & 1.5X over the Super slammy.
Plus, I wish to view this entry level 10X42 Trinovid against the 10x40 Conquest ABK, 8.5X52 HG Minox [especially low lying overcast daytime] a somewhat aging 10x45 Optolyth Royal B/GA & from the Royal era, yet another example of Japanese craftsmanship in the heavy metal Weaver Super Slam 8.5X45 [almost 32 oz & only 6-7mm shorter than the ABK 10X40] that save for the edge is most oblivious to CA whilst walking 'er 'round winter sun.
Dimensions (W x H x D) Trinovid HD 42mm
4.6 x 5.5 x 2.6 in
140 x 117 x 65 mm [should be 117 x 140 x 65 ]
I presume height [eyecups collapsed to end beyond objectives] is 140 mm/5.5", so Conquest 10x40 is 153/6" leaving the SS right at 160 mm/6.3".
The bin must show me more than sportin' a red dot on top of a barrel to hang around. I'll wager it fares well w/CA against the ABK prisms both 10X, most certainly better than the HG, but falls short agin the 1.5X less SS that's going on nine years of age. Interestingly enough the SS originally sold for around a grand though many didn't sell. If one gent is to be believed, that no longer haunts the forum, it was one run und done.
Surely mucho bin de las tres novalties will have no problem sparring w/7* 8.5X45 hunting bin w/almost a decade under its technological belt, eh? As a tribute to Leica the SS has an oval brass tag on top of the right barrel towards the objective. No, it isn't rouge, but it proclaims, Weaver. A tip o' the hat perhaps w/wish of being associated w/alpha brand.
Now, the red dot follows the rising sun to the Pacific rim.
https://us.leica-camera.com/Company/Press-Centre/Press-Releases/2015/Press-Release-New-Trinovid-HD
The benefits at a glance
- Outstanding optical performance
- Compact and lightweight
- Extremely robust
- Perfect ergonomics
- Attractive design
- Excellent value for money
I'll take 1 & 6 over 2 though low weight/small size is certainly advantageous. Besides, the portly SS certainly cannot compete at #2. 3
All in fun as the Trinovid HD should show superiority everywhere, except perhaps CA, to the SS. There are no credible reviews of the SS that I can find save me eyes. But, will the ayes have it?
Come to think of it there's neither such review of the Trinovid HD 42 & they have been out for about roughly two years?
Last edited:
