Hi,
I've posted recently regarding my decision to buy a pair of 8x32 Trinovids as a second pair (or third, really, since I've got a pair of Zeiss 8x20's) to back up my Swaro 8.5x42 EL's (and for the wife and kids to use, ha ha). Let me very quickly admit to no particular expertise when it comes to optics--I'm just sorta the average birder: Anything I have to say will be very old news to many who read and post here.
After a few days only, here are some comparisons:
The view: Both are just razor sharp. I really can't tell any difference in resolution. I'm not aware of CA. There is more flare with the Leicas, typical in my experience of all glasses with smaller objectives. The eye relief with the Swaros is very long (18mm) and with the Leicas quite short (I've seen it listed at various places as 13mm, 14mm, 16mm). I'd guess 14 is about right. I wear eyeglasses, and although I would be happy with another mm or two, I have no real problem with the short eye relief of the Leicas. As far as brightness is concerned, I have to disagree with some postings I've read that argue that 32mm binocs are essentially as bright as 42mm. With an exit pupil of 4.9 vs. 4.0, the Swaros are notably brighter in poorly-lit conditions.
The ergonomics: Both of these glasses feel great in my hands. The Leicas are of course smaller and handier, and seem built like a tank (not that the Swaros are delicate). There've been a lot of justified complaints on the Swaro forum about the crappy soft case that comes with the very expensive binoculars; the Leica case is much better--well made and leather. The Leicas for some damn reason come without objective lens covers--I've had to order some from Eagle Optics, where I bought the binocs. In contrast, the Swaros come with good tethered covers. The eyecups on the Swaro are superior twist up rather than the pull-ups on the Leica, which have an irritating way of pulling up when you take off the rainguard.
The focus: My Swaros are the old slow (or fine) focus models. I've always defended this feature, but I'd begun to wonder if I was doing so for the right reasons. Now I can say with confidence I really do like the Swaro focus. A lot of the birding I do is in pretty dense cover, and there's nothing like the Swaro focus to move leaf by leaf through this kind of habitat. That's not to say I wish the Leicas had slow focus--the faster focus is fine with me too, and can be faster getting on a bird. But it seems a little easier for me to get a perfect focus with the Swaros. Of course, I'm very used to them by now.
The bottom line: These are both outstanding binoculars. The Leicas will not replace the Swaro 8.5x42's as my main binoc, but for a 32mm glass to carry in my briefcase or to take along when I expect a lot of hiking, the Trinovids are great. Oh yes, the wife and kids love them too. I read a lot of scathing back and forth Swaro vs. Leica vs. Zeiss etc., but I have to say that--excepting the occasional lemon that no doubt comes down the pike now and then--anyone would be extraordinarily satisfied with either of these.
Bill
I've posted recently regarding my decision to buy a pair of 8x32 Trinovids as a second pair (or third, really, since I've got a pair of Zeiss 8x20's) to back up my Swaro 8.5x42 EL's (and for the wife and kids to use, ha ha). Let me very quickly admit to no particular expertise when it comes to optics--I'm just sorta the average birder: Anything I have to say will be very old news to many who read and post here.
After a few days only, here are some comparisons:
The view: Both are just razor sharp. I really can't tell any difference in resolution. I'm not aware of CA. There is more flare with the Leicas, typical in my experience of all glasses with smaller objectives. The eye relief with the Swaros is very long (18mm) and with the Leicas quite short (I've seen it listed at various places as 13mm, 14mm, 16mm). I'd guess 14 is about right. I wear eyeglasses, and although I would be happy with another mm or two, I have no real problem with the short eye relief of the Leicas. As far as brightness is concerned, I have to disagree with some postings I've read that argue that 32mm binocs are essentially as bright as 42mm. With an exit pupil of 4.9 vs. 4.0, the Swaros are notably brighter in poorly-lit conditions.
The ergonomics: Both of these glasses feel great in my hands. The Leicas are of course smaller and handier, and seem built like a tank (not that the Swaros are delicate). There've been a lot of justified complaints on the Swaro forum about the crappy soft case that comes with the very expensive binoculars; the Leica case is much better--well made and leather. The Leicas for some damn reason come without objective lens covers--I've had to order some from Eagle Optics, where I bought the binocs. In contrast, the Swaros come with good tethered covers. The eyecups on the Swaro are superior twist up rather than the pull-ups on the Leica, which have an irritating way of pulling up when you take off the rainguard.
The focus: My Swaros are the old slow (or fine) focus models. I've always defended this feature, but I'd begun to wonder if I was doing so for the right reasons. Now I can say with confidence I really do like the Swaro focus. A lot of the birding I do is in pretty dense cover, and there's nothing like the Swaro focus to move leaf by leaf through this kind of habitat. That's not to say I wish the Leicas had slow focus--the faster focus is fine with me too, and can be faster getting on a bird. But it seems a little easier for me to get a perfect focus with the Swaros. Of course, I'm very used to them by now.
The bottom line: These are both outstanding binoculars. The Leicas will not replace the Swaro 8.5x42's as my main binoc, but for a 32mm glass to carry in my briefcase or to take along when I expect a lot of hiking, the Trinovids are great. Oh yes, the wife and kids love them too. I read a lot of scathing back and forth Swaro vs. Leica vs. Zeiss etc., but I have to say that--excepting the occasional lemon that no doubt comes down the pike now and then--anyone would be extraordinarily satisfied with either of these.
Bill
