• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Please compare the 2012-2015 Trinovid to the new Trinovid HD (1 Viewer)

John M Robinson

Well-known member
Hello old friends, I've been gone for a few years just using and enjoying my Ultravid BR's and 8x32 SE's. I became addicted to this site and obsessed with ever decreasing, minute differences between new binos. I finally realized that the binos I had in hand were great, and actually using them in the field was much more fun than arguing about them. Not saying that's wrong, I just felt better personally.

All that said, last year I went hunting with my professional dog trainer who I have known for over 20 years. He was using total junk, old dirty 10x42s, so I lent him my 8x42 ultravids. He was blown away and has been pining away for some good optics since. This weekend I talked my wife into us buying him some good binos as a gift. I was originally thinking the Zen Ray Primes as I remember them being good value, but I saw the new Leica's at $945.00, so went to check them out.

What I found was last year's model Trinovid for $860.00. My first thought was to wait for the new HD's, but the more I read about the older ones, the more it seemed they were better. Comparing the 8x42 Trinnie's to my Ultravids, I really couldn't see a difference.

Here's what I've read; Nobody knows what they mean by HD. The reviewers speak about a cheaper glass in the new HD's. The older model was about $1,500 compared to $945.00 for the new HD's. I think both are built in Portugal. The diopter is traditional on the old one, moved to the eyecup on the new. I ended up buying those $860.00 Trinnie's, but I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has tried both side by side.

thanks, John
 
I have a 2013 Trinovid and a new Trinovid HD, both in size 8x42.
I did a first impression review early this year side by side, also including the Conquest HD, here
http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,430056,430056#msg-430056
(sorry, it's in German, you will have to use Google Translator).
Since that review, I have used both the Trinovid and the Trinovid HD a lot and have slightly "adjusted" my view about the HD version and am today a bit less positive.
Ultra compact personal opinion on the optics: whereas the HD is slightly sharper (but does not match the central sharpness of the Conquest HD) than the previous Trinovid, the field of view is narrower, and it appears actually even narrower than the spec would suggest. Moreover, the extremely good "ease of view" ("Einblickverhalten", ability to easily see the entire field of view when putting the glass before your eyes) of the old Trinovid is not matched in the HD version. In many ways, I prefer the old Trinovid despite the fact that its central sharpness is slightly worse than the HD.
The HD version looks a bit better and has a "premium" feel about it (new armor, etc.).
I guess the narrow field of view has to mark distance to the Ultravid, since in the past the huge price difference between Trinovid and Ultravid seemed not always justified.
For what it's worth.
 
I have investigated the Trinovid HD recently (the testreport is published in Dutch on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor). Everything pointed in my opinion to the following: Like the Conquest HD's the new Trinovid HD is completely made in Asia, most likely in Japan and is, like the Conquests, assembled there, taken apart in easy to re-assemble parts, so the re-assembling in Portugal is an easy job and can be done quickly.
Leica is responsible for service and repairs. I am looking forward to solid facts that prove that our conclusions are wrong.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
I have investigated the Trinovid HD recently (the testreport is published in Dutch on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor). Everything pointed in my opinion to the following: Like the Conquest HD's the new Trinovid HD is completely made in Asia, most likely in Japan and is, like the Conquests, assembled there, taken apart in easy to re-assemble parts, so the re-assembling in Portugal is an easy job and can be done quickly.
Leica is responsible for service and repairs. I am looking forward to solid facts that prove that our conclusions are wrong.
Gijs van Ginkel

Naughty Leica (if indeed true).

Who or what can you trust nowadays?

It doesn't sound like that great a buy anyhow. At least with a Chinese bin like my UK Hawke you know it's Chinese, ok with a UK design, maybe.

Anyhow the Chinese make very good bins now so where it's made doesn't really matter as long as it's good. I have several Chinese bins and they really are excellent for the money though having been an industrial engineer at one time I do lament the loss of manufacturing in Europe but there you go, bye bye jobs to China long since, hello poverty and unemployment. Once we become a third world we might get some crumbs back.
 
Last edited:
I have investigated the Trinovid HD recently (the testreport is published in Dutch on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor). Everything pointed in my opinion to the following: Like the Conquest HD's the new Trinovid HD is completely made in Asia, most likely in Japan and is, like the Conquests, assembled there, taken apart in easy to re-assemble parts, so the re-assembling in Portugal is an easy job and can be done quickly.
Leica is responsible for service and repairs. I am looking forward to solid facts that prove that our conclusions are wrong.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs,

Why on earth would they assemble it in Asia and then take it apart, ship it to Portugal where it is then re-assembled? This is hardly cost effective!

Bob
 
Gijs,

Why on earth would they assemble it in Asia and then take it apart, ship it to Portugal where it is then re-assembled? This is hardly cost effective!

Bob
So it can be "made" within the EU? May not make business sense (in terms of cost of doing business) but may make legal (and marketing) sense. I've not noticed the EU being much better than anyone else on the laws of unintended consequences...

...Mike
 
I have investigated the Trinovid HD recently (the testreport is published in Dutch on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor). Everything pointed in my opinion to the following: Like the Conquest HD's the new Trinovid HD is completely made in Asia, most likely in Japan and is, like the Conquests, assembled there, taken apart in easy to re-assemble parts, so the re-assembling in Portugal is an easy job and can be done quickly.
Leica is responsible for service and repairs. I am looking forward to solid facts that prove that our conclusions are wrong.
Gijs van Ginkel

If the "Made in Germany" label is used, most vital parts (lenses) must be made in Germany and the final product assembled in Germany, but the housing and some internal parts might be made in Asia and even in China.

Some info and examples here:

1. "A company produces objectives for cameras. The lenses are manufactured in Germany. The extremely complex assembly requiring maximum precision takes place in Germany. The housing is supplied from abroad.
This product may bear the “Made in Germany” seal if the valuation of the product results from the quality of the lenses and the assembly."

2. "A company produces DVD recorders. The electronic compo- nents are supplied from abroad. The final assembly of the
units takes place in Germany. This product is not allowed to bear the description “Made in Germany” as the product was only assembled in Germany."

http://www.parchim-airport.com/upfiles/Guide to Made in Germany by IHK.pdf
 
Last edited:
Vespobuteo, post 7,
From different reliable sources we (not me alone) were informed about the procedure followed for the production of the Zeiss Conquests and that procedure was exactly as I have described in my post 3, whatever your examples tell.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Maybe some kind of tax thing?

As I said, what difference does the labeling make? My Nikon and Kowa are also Chinese and they are perfect.

In case anyone hasn't noticed the Chinese are I think the largest manufacturers in the world and that includes things like man made island military installations, your iphones, all computers etc did you see the Olympics they put on?

I'm sure they've got the hang of making a binocular.
 
At one time, we were told that Zeiss only affixed the eye-cups and Kamakura assembled everything else. Seems that can't be true if they have the ''made in germany'' label.
 
I actually now have them both in 8X42. I have "compared" them for only one birding outing so really insufficient time to really have a worthy comparison BUT I'll give a few observations...

I bought the Trinovid HD basically to be the smallest, lightest 8X42 available to travel with. A larger exit pupil is helpful when wearing glasses and basically I was to determine if the larger exit pupil of the 8X42 Trinovid HD could unseat my standard travel binocular, the SV 8X32.

Comparing the Trinovid vs. Trinovid HD...
FOV is close to the same. I'll be more exact later, but not a WHOLE lot of difference. Optically not a lot if difference. Eye relief- the Trinvoid HD has noticeably more, more difference than specs indicate. Weight: Trinovid-28.5 ounces, Trinovid HD- 26 ounces. Length: Trinovid- 5.79 inches, Trinovid HD- 5.55 inches(both measured with a caliper). So yes. the Trinovid HD IS the smallest, lightest 8X42 I've ever owned...

Construction...
Eyecups- Both are typical Leica with four stops and excellent. The best! Focus adjustment- both very good but can't comment any more than that. Of course the diopter adjustment of the Trinovid is second to none, the Trinovid HD, not so much. In fact Leica dropped the ball here on the Trinovid HD. The diopter adjustment is now on the right barrel under the eyecup as is typical of most binoculars. In contrast to every other binocular I've ever used with this type of adjustment the adjustment turns WAY too freely and to my surprise, doesn't lock in any way, shape, form, or fashion that I can see. It CAN move and DOES move under normal usage. This was observed in only a couple of hours of birding. IMO this is completely inexcusable. Although I haven't determined the final verdict, I'm more than a little disappointed with the Trinovid HD due to this.
 
In fact Leica dropped the ball here on the Trinovid HD. The diopter adjustment is now on the right barrel under the eyecup as is typical of most binoculars. In contrast to every other binocular I've ever used with this type of adjustment the adjustment turns WAY too freely and to my surprise, doesn't lock in any way, shape, form, or fashion that I can see. It CAN move and DOES move under normal usage. This was observed in only a couple of hours of birding. IMO this is completely inexcusable. Although I haven't determined the final verdict, I'm more than a little disappointed with the Trinovid HD due to this.

I would send it back unless the optics more than made up for this and it does unseat your SV with the extra exit pupil and even then I'd ask them about it. It must be faulty surely?

If it isn't a faulty diopter setter then that is just plain rubbish. My Hawke, Nikon and Kowa (all made in China) have this type of diopter and they stay put. Never any of them moved from where set once, ever, and I would also note that the focusing accuracy on all three is some of the best of any bins I've ever owned.
 
Bob, post 5,
I do not know the answer to your question, but the spokespersons who told us this procedure were very clear: the instruments were fully assembled in the Far East and then taken apart in only a few parts, which are labelled, so re-assembling is very easy done.
In principle there is nothing wrong with it, but since the label "Made in Germany" is considered to be a label of top quality it is quite understandable that European producers try to find ways to use this label in compliance with European rules, since that label attracts customers to buy the instruments and that yields profits, important for the existence of that company.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
At one time, we were told that Zeiss only affixed the eye-cups and Kamakura assembled everything else. Seems that can't be true if they have the ''made in germany'' label.

James

Without knowing who was the original source of the info (or the circumstances) one can't be sure that misunderstandings or mischief didn't play a part. For myself I have always thought the 'eyecups' quote to which you refer, sounded rather mischievious.

In addition, from my own business experience, I know that when someone who does not have English as their first language says 'and then the components were assembled' you need to make sure whether they meant the product was built or only that the parts were gathered together.

Moving on to the notion that bins might be built, then partially or mostly disassembled for shipment as a kit, it might seem a waste of labour time, but where labour is the cheapest cost, it might make sense to do this to ensure each kit has every last part needed to build a pair of bins.

And finally the assembly of bins isn't just a case of bolting stuff together. There is certainly critical collimation to be done and the setting of infinity on the focus, zero on the dioptre and adjustment of the tension on the focus and hinge.

Lee
 
"Current rules mean that products can be labelled as “Made in Germany” even if more than 90 percent of the work in making them takes place in other countries."

"But the European Commission plans to limit claims of origin to products of which at least 45 percent of the value was created in Germany,"

I guess that didn't happen...

http://www.thelocal.de/20120116/40137

Wonder how the new Gavia scope is labeled.
 
"Current rules mean that products can be labelled as “Made in Germany” even if more than 90 percent of the work in making them takes place in other countries."

"But the European Commission plans to limit claims of origin to products of which at least 45 percent of the value was created in Germany,"

I guess that didn't happen...

http://www.thelocal.de/20120116/40137

Wonder how the new Gavia scope is labeled.


VB It isn't just rules in the EU that have to be considered. I don't have my old files but when I looked into this a few years ago I remember drawing the conclusion that the rules for statement of origin are tougher in the USA than they are in the EU.

Lee
 
Vespobuteo, post 15,
The Conquest Gavia?? Look at the Hawke telescope and find the differences. Any chance that they share the same maker?
Gijs van Ginkel
 
This discussion pops up once in a while.

AFAIK the EG rule is: The object must to be made functional in the country of origine.

The eyecups story, regarding the Conquest, came from the former Dutch Zeiss rep.

From several sides we heard that the new Trinnie was oriental made, but (when asked) Leica states it is Made in Portugal. So we had one opened to look at the used parts and how it was put together and (at least) the parts are the same as used in Japanese high level bins.

Kahles bins are "Made in Austria" but are 100% made in Japan and assembled (read: made functional) in Austria.

It is clear that there is nothing wrong with these (Japanese) bins but Made in Austria/Germany/Portugal still gives more trust to the customer than Made in Japan and assembled in...... in the price segment round 1.000,00 euro.

It's all about perception.

Jan
 
I actually now have them both in 8X42. I have "compared" them for only one birding outing so really insufficient time to really have a worthy comparison BUT I'll give a few observations...

I bought the Trinovid HD basically to be the smallest, lightest 8X42 available to travel with. A larger exit pupil is helpful when wearing glasses and basically I was to determine if the larger exit pupil of the 8X42 Trinovid HD could unseat my standard travel binocular, the SV 8X32.

Comparing the Trinovid vs. Trinovid HD...
FOV is close to the same. I'll be more exact later, but not a WHOLE lot of difference. Optically not a lot if difference. Eye relief- the Trinvoid HD has noticeably more, more difference than specs indicate. Weight: Trinovid-28.5 ounces, Trinovid HD- 26 ounces. Length: Trinovid- 5.79 inches, Trinovid HD- 5.55 inches(both measured with a caliper). So yes. the Trinovid HD IS the smallest, lightest 8X42 I've ever owned...

Construction...
Eyecups- Both are typical Leica with four stops and excellent. The best! Focus adjustment- both very good but can't comment any more than that. Of course the diopter adjustment of the Trinovid is second to none, the Trinovid HD, not so much. In fact Leica dropped the ball here on the Trinovid HD. The diopter adjustment is now on the right barrel under the eyecup as is typical of most binoculars. In contrast to every other binocular I've ever used with this type of adjustment the adjustment turns WAY too freely and to my surprise, doesn't lock in any way, shape, form, or fashion that I can see. It CAN move and DOES move under normal usage. This was observed in only a couple of hours of birding. IMO this is completely inexcusable. Although I haven't determined the final verdict, I'm more than a little disappointed with the Trinovid HD due to this.

Thank you, just the bino to bino comparison I was looking for. I took my buddy in with a $1,000 budget. We limited ourselves to the two Trinovid 42's, 8 and 10, and the 8 and 10x42 Conquest. Neither of us wear glasses, so eye relief wasn't a factor, though I have deep set eyes and got blackouts with the 10x42 Conquest. This was for Eric though. After trying all four for an hour in fading daylight, to his eye the 8x42 Trinnie was the clear winner. That's when I asked about the new Trinovid HD which this store didn't have yet.

At that point the store dropped the price for the old 8x42 from $945 to $860 and the 10x42 from $999 to $900 even. I didn't realize the older version was much more expensive, and that this was a considerable discount. In reading various online reviews, they mention the new HD's using a slightly cheaper glass, but perhaps better coatings? Regardless, we both really liked that 8x42 so I bought it for him. I haven't tested them extensively side by side, but at first look that Trinnie is very close if not equal to my beloved 8x42 Ultravid BR's.

The store still has one remaining 10x42 at $900.00 if anybody is interested. I don't need it, have a nice Nikon 10x42 SE, but for that price I might not be able to resist.

Regarding the built in Japan, disassembled and reassembled in Portugal, that's weird, but Japanese optics are very good, so I wouldn't care either way.
 
Thank you, just the bino to bino comparison I was looking for. I took my buddy in with a $1,000 budget. We limited ourselves to the two Trinovid 42's, 8 and 10, and the 8 and 10x42 Conquest. Neither of us wear glasses, so eye relief wasn't a factor, though I have deep set eyes and got blackouts with the 10x42 Conquest. This was for Eric though. After trying all four for an hour in fading daylight, to his eye the 8x42 Trinnie was the clear winner. That's when I asked about the new Trinovid HD which this store didn't have yet.

At that point the store dropped the price for the old 8x42 from $945 to $860 and the 10x42 from $999 to $900 even. I didn't realize the older version was much more expensive, and that this was a considerable discount. In reading various online reviews, they mention the new HD's using a slightly cheaper glass, but perhaps better coatings? Regardless, we both really liked that 8x42 so I bought it for him. I haven't tested them extensively side by side, but at first look that Trinnie is very close if not equal to my beloved 8x42 Ultravid BR's.

The store still has one remaining 10x42 at $900.00 if anybody is interested. I don't need it, have a nice Nikon 10x42 SE, but for that price I might not be able to resist.

Regarding the built in Japan, disassembled and reassembled in Portugal, that's weird, but Japanese optics are very good, so I wouldn't care either way.

John,

You are absolutely right.
It's just that, me telling you it's made in..... while I know better, is a different story.

Jan (Dutch for John)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top