Leica Trinovid 8x42 very Leica Ultravid HD Plus (1 Viewer)

[Petrus82]

In 2012 I read a comparison of the Trinovid and the Ultravid HD (Non-Plus). In this review, on Birdwatching website, it said that no matter how hard they tried,they could detect no difference. I found this hard to believe, but last night I spent two hours comparing the Trinovid to the Ultravid HD Plus. This is what I found.

The Ultravid HD Plus is better. I can't deny that. However, the improvement was very small. I tried them in bright sunshine and on low light.

The Ultravid has a more grippy armouring. It's also a little lighter. However, the Trinovid feels better in my hands. I disliked the bulky, plastic central hinge on the Ultravid. The Trinovid's hinge was partly covered with armouring. Focus was more pleasing to me on the Trinovid. Both samples had a tiny amount of play, more noticeable on the Ultravid. The Trinovid focus seemed smoother whilst the Ultravid's was lighter. Both were acceptable.

The Ultravid is a little brighter and a little more sparkly. This was only really noticeable in low light and I only came to this conclusion after a couple of hours. Sharpness is subjective unless you indulge in resolution testing but I could not detect any difference between the two. I tried very hard but they seemed equally as sharp. For me, the Trinovid had a slightly warmer colour bias and reds, yellows etc really stood out.

I guess my conclusion is the Ultravid is better. However, with the Trinovid on offer at £599 is the Ultravid worth paying the £900 more? I don't think so.

 

[dalat]

Hi, to which Trinovid you have tested? The current version, called Trinovid HD, or the former one (called Trinovid, without HD) that was discontinued about a year ago? The previous one was a little more expensive than the the current version.

Here a pic of the discontinued Trino: http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/Leica_trinovid8x42/New_leica_trinovid003.jpg

And here the new one (Trinovid HD): https://en.leica-camera.com/Sport-Optics/Leica-Hunting/Binoculars/Leica-Trinovid-HD

 

[Uhu74]

A couple of months ago, I compared the "old" trinovid with the UHD (not plus).
Sharpness was on a par for my eyes, but the part the UHD stood out was control of CA.
The Trinovid (which I owned one for a couple of months) showed quite a bit more CA compared to the UHD.
Finally, that was my reason to sell it, when I was tracking birds in flight, i found the CA to be too bothersome.
A pity actually, because the rest of this bino was very good.

 

[bigjim]

Hi, to which Trinovid you have tested? The current version, called Trinovid HD, or the former one (called Trinovid, without HD) that was discontinued about a year ago? The previous one was a little more expensive than the the current version.

Here a pic of the discontinued Trino: http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/Leica_trinovid8x42/New_leica_trinovid003.jpg

And here the new one (Trinovid HD): https://en.leica-camera.com/Sport-Optics/Leica-Hunting/Binoculars/Leica-Trinovid-HD

Pretty sure it's the Trinovid (2012-2015).

 

[Petrus82]

Yes it's the 2012 model.

 

[bigjim]

I read from various sources that CA control is a bit lousy on the Trinovid 10x42 model when comparing 10x42 Ultravid HD (or plus). OP, what's your observation of CA on the Trinovid 8x42 model, compared with Ultravid plus 8x42?

 

[Uhu74]

I read from various sources that CA control is a bit lousy on the Trinovid 10x42 model when comparing 10x42 Ultravid HD (or plus). OP, what's your observation of CA on the Trinovid 8x42 model, compared with Ultravid plus 8x42?

My opinon, post 3
I didn't compare it with the plus, but if my memory serves me well, the difference in CA control between the UHD and UHD+ is not big.

 

[bigjim]

My opinon, post 3
I didn't compare it with the plus, but if my memory serves me well, the difference in CA control between the UHD and UHD+ is not big.

Is CA noticably worse in the center of view for Trinovid, or it's only noticable in the outer region of view?

 

[Uhu74]

Is CA noticably worse in the center of view for Trinovid, or it's only noticable in the outer region of view?

When looking through the optical center of both barrels of the Trinovid, the CA control is OK. BUT...... when this isn't the case, and it often is with a 5.25mm exit pupil, I found out there is quite some distracting CA, even in the center of view.
That is also the only reason I've sold it, because to me, it was just too distracting.

CA control seems not to be Leica's strongest point, the new Trinovid HD is also showing some CA, even in the center of view.
I compared the new Trinny with a Meopta Meopro HD and the Meopro was the clear winner regarding CA control.

To come back to the OP, In this case I do not agree with the Porters, and I can see differences between the view of a Trinovid and a UHD.

 

[bigjim]

Thanks for the comment. Meopro HD has schott fluoride hd glass, which should put it among the best of CA control.

 

[dwever]

I guess my conclusion is the Ultravid is better. However, with the Trinovid on offer at £599 is the Ultravid worth paying the £900 more? I don't think so.

Provacative post. Buy what you want for sure.

I may have unnecessarily spent hundreds more than I needed to on the UVHD+ just as you may be utterly kidding yourself that you almost bought at the same level.

 

[bigjim]

Just placed an order of the now discontinued Trinovid 8x42 with EuroOptic this afternoon. I don't know how long will it stay in stock before it's gone forever, better act sooner than later. Currently I have a quite nice pair of Leupold Golden Ring (non HD) 8x32, can't wait for the arrival of my first ever Leica binoculars.

 

[Petrus82]

Provacative post. Buy what you want for sure.

I may have unnecessarily spent hundreds more than I needed to on the UVHD+ just as you may be utterly kidding yourself that you almost bought at the same level.

It's not really provocative. With the Trinovid was heavily discounted it changes things slightly. At the discounted price it's a steal.

The Ultravid HD Plus is a very good binocular but not perfect.

 

[Petrus82]

Just placed an order of the now discontinued Trinovid 8x42 with EuroOptic this afternoon. I don't know how long will it stay in stock before it's gone forever, better act sooner than later. Currently I have a quite nice pair of Leupold Golden Ring (non HD) 8x32, can't wait for the arrival of my first ever Leica binoculars.

I don't think you will be disappointed.

 

[chill6x6]

Just placed an order of the now discontinued Trinovid 8x42 with EuroOptic this afternoon. I don't know how long will it stay in stock before it's gone forever, better act sooner than later. Currently I have a quite nice pair of Leupold Golden Ring (non HD) 8x32, can't wait for the arrival of my first ever Leica binoculars.

I think you made a fine choice. It certainly holds it's own with binoculars costing much more. I bought a couple at EuroOptics a few months ago. Build quality probably second to none, compact size, and great optics for less than $900. I think it's a best buy at that price point.

 

[Petrus82]

I think you made a fine choice. It certainly holds it's own with binoculars costing much more. I bought a couple at EuroOptics a few months ago. Build quality probably second to none, compact size, and great optics for less than $900. I think it's a best buy at that price point.

I agree. Provided you get one that has good focus. I have tried a few with jittery focus. The one I tested this week has good focus.

 

[Jinty85]

The focus issue has been perhaps minor but systemic. Although a Shotshow refugee, I returned an 8x42 UVHD+ to cameraland for slop in the mechanism. The 10x50 (sold), 8x42, and 7x42 were all very close to perfect but each focusing mechanisms action discernibly different. The 8x42 is perfect. The 7x42 has a wee bit of extra resistance when focusing to infinity, and the 10x50 focused just perfectly from infinity to close up, but then would bind up just a bit at the end of it's return back to infinity. While the variances were negligible as not to amount to anything close to a warranty claim, one nevertheless wonders how in the age of CNC machining and the resulting microscopic tolerances that you get these variances.

I'll not complain though because other alpha manufacturers also struggle, some significantly. I probably expect to eventually return my Swarovski scope in for warranty work on the zoom mechanism down the road based on other owner's experiences posted with the ATX and STX.
***********

I think you are right. I had a Swarovski SLC with gritty focusing and a ZEISS HT with loose play.

 

[dwever]

It's not really provocative.

The original post is a five paragraph optical, ergonomic, and industrial design position that firmly concludes the UVHDPLUS is not worth the additional money over the currently heavily price-discounted Trinovid. To take one's position in a way that arguably by inference characterizes current UVHDPlus purchasers as unnecessarily spending piles of additional money, especially under the current aggressive Trinovid pricing, is certainly your position to take, and arguably provocative. No worries. B

Secondly, I made it quite clear that:

1. The Ultravid HD Plus is better.
2. My conclusion that the difference wasn't that great was in relation to the heavily discounted price for the Trinovid. Is the Ultravid HD Plus worth an extra £900 ? Absolutely not. I'm sure even the most ardent lover of the Ultravid HD Plus would agree with that.

Like I said, no worries. I edited my recent post to reflect the context of the price break.

At the moment the Ultravid HD Plus meets my international traveling needs the best but I'm not a UVHD+ ardent lover; as I've mentioned before on this forum numerous times the Zeiss HT has a better image though slight. Having said that, when considering Leicas, I would say that the UVHDPlus is certainly worth the extra £900 over the Trinovid. I think it partially boils down to whether one can financially accept and consider it worth it even with the law of diminishing returns that attaches itself to these kinds of distinctions made.

I'm starting to wonder if the Ultravid HD Plus 7x42 with the 17 mm and 140m FOV might be even better than the 8.

Both Torview and I own the 7x42, it is a remarkable binocular.

 

[Petrus82]

The original post is a five paragraph optical, ergonomic, and industrial design position that firmly concludes the UVHDPLUS is not worth the additional money over the Trinovid. To celebrate one's purchase in a way that arguably by inference characterizes the forum's UVHDPlus purchasers as unnecessarily spending piles of additional money is certainly your position to take, and arguably provocative. No worries. B

To be honest, you've missed the point on a number of levels. I don't own either binocular. I have two models to compare. So I wasn't "celebrating a purchase".

Secondly, I made it quite clear that:

1. The Ultravid HD Plus is better.
2. My conclusion that the difference wasn't that great was in relation to the heavily discounted price for the Trinovid. Is the Ultravid HD Plus worth an extra £900 ? Absolutely not. I'm sure even the most ardent lover of the Ultravid HD Plus would agree with that.

 

[Torview]

The Trinovid plays at a very high level, and with current discounts is a great value.

I do find differences though, the fov is a little less, CA is more pronounced, in fact the HD+ is a noticeable improvement over the HD IMHO, the close focus is longer and although the centre is equally as sharp, IMO the fall of comes sooner and given the narrower fov overall the Ultravid is the better binocular.

Of course only you can decide if the Ultravid + is worth the extra, but for me the Schott HT glass lifts it ahead of the Trinovid.