• 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.

Leica Trinovid worth it ? (1 Viewer)

Hi,

after a lot silent reading here I am about to purchase my first good set binoculars. Had the Nikon m7 8x30 for a few moments but I could see massive veiling glare right away so it went back to the shop.

I really would like to buy the old Trinovid 8x42 which was made till 2015. It looks stunning and should be very well build. Some folks got a very good discount price as I remember correctly but everyone in Europe would like to sell them for at least arround 1000 Euro ! Most of them demos etc.

Do you guys think these bins are still worth 1000 euros ? I know they may have some CA and they may not compete with the real Tier one binoculars but they look fantastic !

I don't know ... Some are selling their Ultravid hd plus because they are too weak in controlling CA and glare or they miss the ease of view with the Leicas. I fell in love with Leicas design and build quality but are they just highly overpriced for what you get ? Is the new Nikon Monarch HG maybe a saver buy ?

I only have my old mans Dialyt 7x42 t*p for comparison and the new one has to be that kind of level. He never gives it to me longer than a few days :)
 
In my view, the Trinovid is a very well built, robust binocular with excellent mechanics and a good optical performance. I actually like it even better than the newer Trinovid HD; the latter is a bit sleeker and more "modern", but despite its HD glass, shows similar amounts of CA, has a slightly narrower field of view and does not reach the excellent "ease of view" ("Einblickverhalten") of the older model. Again, that's my personal view (I own both).
Is it worth €1'000? That depends on how much you like it. For that amount, you get some other very good binos (incl. the Conquest HD), and for less than that, you could buy the new Nikon Monarch HG, which I find a fabulous binocular. The Dialyt 7x42 of course marks a very high standard, and I doubt that you would find the Trinovid's image as sharp as the Dialyt's. But if, as you say, you like the look of the Trinovid and the Leica design and build quality - I agree that the Leicas do have a very special "appeal" about them - then there is nothing wrong going for a Trinovid.
 
The Nikon Monarch HG is down to 700 here in Germany. I may go to the Leica Store in Munich next week to check out every Leica binoculars. That's the only thing that helps ... Having a look through all of them.
 
The Nikon Monarch HG is down to 700 here in Germany. I may go to the Leica Store in Munich next week to check out every Leica binoculars. That's the only thing that helps ... Having a look through all of them.


Yep, that's exactly right :t:

But beware: you might fall in love with an HD Plus or a Noctivid, an affair you might not recover from ... ;)
 
Last edited:
Just bought a pair of Trinovid 8 x 42 HD and paid £760, they are lovely to use and having compared them at the time to a pair of 8 x42 Ultravid HD which were double the price of the Trinovids, i could barely make out much difference in clarity, I think your best bet is to compare several and then look at your budget, I was able to purchase a nice new tripod for my scope with the spare change !

Mark
 
The Nikon Monarch HG is down to 700 here in Germany. I may go to the Leica Store in Munich next week to check out every Leica binoculars. That's the only thing that helps ... Having a look through all of them.

If it actually came down to a 1000 Euro Trinovid or a 700 Euro MGH, then I would certainly go for the Nikon. The Trinovid really doesn't do anything better than the Nikon, other than showing off a (IMO) prettier face. If used next to each other, it becomes immediately and greatly apparent that the Nikon has a much wider FOV, and is much lighter in weight. The Nikon's focus wheel is smoother to roll and completely devoid of any backlash/slop. The Trinovid's focus wheel does not turn as smoothly, has a very small amount of backlash, but does take less torque to turn.

What takes a little more time to discern is that the Nikon's color is a bit more warmish. Oranges and reds pop just a tiny bit more with the MHG than does the Trinovid's. The Nikon's view is a bit brighter too, although not to any extent that would make a practical difference.

As far as I can tell in the limited time we have owned the 10x42 MHG, I cannot tell any difference in resolution in the central area as compared to the Trinovid. Both are very good in that aspect. Also, although I'm not the best person to ask about CA, it seems that the MHG has less CA than the Leica.

I would not say that one is better than the other, as their positives and negatives more or less balance out. But once you put a 300 Euro price difference in the mix, it would become a very simple choice for me.
 
Thx Phil, I asume you are talking about the old till 2015 Trinovid which I am interested in. The new HD I don't know ... I want that Leica feel and do not care much about weight. Oh those pretty things ! Wish I had more cash to spend :)
 
I really would like to buy the old Trinovid 8x42 which was made till 2015. It looks stunning and should be very well build. Some folks got a very good discount price as I remember correctly but everyone in Europe would like to sell them for at least arround 1000 Euro ! Most of them demos etc.

Do you guys think these bins are still worth 1000 euros ?


Yes, those older Trinovids are worth 1000 Euro's, but you can easily get them for much less, say between 490 and 750 Euro's.
Have a look at eBay, and don't forget those listed in the UK.

Renze
 
I never came across one of the 2012 - 2015 Trinovids for such a price. Searched the whole EU ...

I paid £700 GBP for my new 2015 Trinovid 10x42.

The focus wheel has no backlash and is quicker than the Nikon. It doesn't have that well oiled feeling though, because, as I understand it, it runs without lube to maintain consistent feel in low and high temperatures. Mine worked the same at -15 degree c. as at 28 c.

Japanese made roof Nikons are superior to the Chinese ones in terms of QC IMHO. I tested 6 of them and they all went back.
The cheap Action EX porros are the exception, the ones I've looked at have all been remarkable consistent and a bargain for the money being asked.
 
Last edited:
Hello everybody,

went to town today and what can I say ... almost everything was there to try !

I began with the Swarovski CL Pocket 8x25. These are some very impressive binoculars !!! Very easy on the eyes for the size, bright, sharp, well made and again so easy to look through. Very impressive !!!

Next was CL Companion 8x30, I really liked the size and feel in hand but naaaah, optics not so much. I just found them not sharp enough and the perfect focus point was very tiny. Hard to discribe ...

Leica Trinovid HD 8x42: It just wasn't impressive at all. Somehow not as sharp and again not the easiest to get a clean focus. More like the CL 8x30.
Leica Ultravid 7x42 HD plus: Very good ER and ease of view, optics were ok but I couldn't make a difference to the let's say Conquest HD 8x42. At least no big one.
I must admit I love the 7x42 optics and that was a huge plus for the Leica. Very expensive binoculars though.
Next Leica booom Noctivid 8x42. This thing looks amazing, feels amazing and the optics are a step forward compared to the Ultravids. There is something different, everything looks a tad more colored and clean. Just a premium view compared to the others. Hefty price tag !!!
Leica Trinovid (2015) 8x42: Built like a tank, optics ok, not much difference to the Ultravid. The thump rests on the Leicas are a bit anoying. Loved the Leica built quality.

The biggest hit gave me the zeiss SF 8x42 (grey version). That thing blew me right out of my shoes. Sharp as hell, everything within the FOV right in my face. I had to put it down ... It was too much ! I didn't ask to try an EL SV :)

They had used and new 8x32 EL to try, feels very nice in the hands, nice optic but I don't trust the EL's anymore after reading so much about glare issues with them.
Zeiss Conquest HD was nice, no complains.

After one hour testing I can say: Swarovski can't produce a proper focus wheel ! They all felt poor and cheap. Except the 8x25. Zeiss seems to have something for everyone, all well built and nothing to complain. Leicas has too many similar performing binoculars. Can anyone tell me a difference between Trinovid 2012/2015, Ultravid HD, Ultravid HD+ ? I can't sorry. They have a nice 7x42 and the amazing balanced and stunning Noctivid. They only should have named it Noctovid !

I take a break and decide next week or so. It was fun but maybe too much after all.

Cheers Max
 
You have certainly tried a great number of quality binoculars. Sounds like fun, and
it is good if you wait a bit before you decide.

Now, it is a personal decision, and that is what counts.

Good luck with your choice, and let us know how it goes.

Jerry
 
Hi Max,

Glad you finally got to get out and try some of these top binos. Surprised to hear Trinovid HD isn't sharp to your eyes. The one thing I've been reading that it has going for it optically is sharpness on axis. I've read several reviews stating it's impressively sharp. So, it's interesting your take, but we all have different eyes.

I owned the 2015 Trinovid model for a year and I thought it had a very nice view, but I have to say I think the UV+ is a noticeable step up to my eyes. The difference is a cleaner image and some describe it as "washed clean". It has sort of a "smoother" (if that makes any sense) and prettier quality to the view. I don't know exactly how to put it in words, but the presentation is overall just more pleasing and cleaner. The color is more towards neutral in the Uvid+ whereas the Trinovid and Uvid HD's are warmer. The Trinovid had pretty bad CA off axis compared to my 7x42 Uvid+ which has minimal (much cleaner) and the 7x42 is brighter of course. 1x less power should show less CA and also appear brighter, but I think the Schott HT glass helps here too.

Sounds like Zeiss SF may be the one for you and I can't fault you at all on this choice. I was super impressed with the 10x42 I got to try outdoors. It has really nice feel and balance, smooth focus and great Zeiss view.
 
Last edited:
One thing to add about trying new binos: I always need some hours or like a weekend outdoors bird watching to get a good idea of the quality of the optics. I didn't see all of great qualities of the optics in my Uvid + right away. After a weekend I decided it was a great buy. But, first time out of the box looking out my back door for about 20 minutes it seemed bright, but I didn't get much else out of the first look. I needed more time with it. Then the beauty of the image came to me after some hours the first day out.
 
Good point, proper evaluating a binocular takes days, under many light conditions to properly
get acquainted. It is easy to find those you just can't get along with, as far as ergos. and handling.

Jerry
 
Good point, proper evaluating a binocular takes days, under many light conditions to properly
get acquainted. It is easy to find those you just can't get along with, as far as ergos. and handling.

Jerry

Jerry,

Your point about ruling out binoculars in a shop based on ergonomics and handling is right on. Similarly, if there is a mechanical or optical QC problem (.e.g. collimation) you can spot that pretty quickly. But it definitely takes some time in the field to appreciate what the optics can or cannot do, and how they work for your eyes in a variety of conditions.

I remember when I first got my 15x45 IS binoculars I was disappointed that they were not as bright as my 7x50s at night. Not surprising really with a decrease in exit pupil from 5mm to 3mm. Yet, with more time, I found that I was seeing deeper (fainter magnitude stars) and I was seeing more detail in extended objects. So while the IS created a poorer aesthetic initial impression, it was definitely allowing me to see more.

Alan
 
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