• 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.

Trinovid 8x42 HD (1 Viewer)

jafritten

Well-known member
Hi there, I've been looking around for a pair of 8x42s as I hope, they will give me a better ease of view and better low light qualities than my standard Ultravid HD 10x32. I'd like the 8x42s for use at dusk and dawn and while most people would probably say a pair of 8x42s are bound to give me a better image at dusk and dawn I am not too sure.
I find that flare suppression can be decisive. Now I'm wondering how well the Trinovids would fare in that respect compared to my Ultravids, which I find to have a great flare suppression. Can anyone say anything about The HDs and flare at dusk or dawn?

I've read a lot of rather negative things about the Trinovid HDs on this forum. More often than not, however, people don't expound upon what they think the problem is. Is there a reliable review of the 8x42 HDs somewhere on the internet?

I'd appreciate your comments and replies. Thank you.
 
I havn't compared Trinovid HD with Utravid HD+, but I did compared with my Trinovid non-HD.
They are both very good if you ask me, with the HD's having an edge in sharpness and contrast.
The non-HD have a more true to life, more neutral color fidelity and larger field of view.
I didn't checked on glare but I have a Trinovid HD 8x32 and it shows more than my Trinovid non-HD 8x42.
Most of the time there is no problem but it happened to be bothersome in a few occasions.
Maybe you can see if you can still find some previous Trinovid non-HD model, I think they are very good.
 
Leica Trinovid 8x42 HD

Linear field of view [m/m] 124/1000
Hi master5! Is that what you think the problem is?
This does not really answer your question but the link below takes you to a very favourable review of the 10 x 42 Trinovid which may give a hint as to the qualities of the 8 x 42:

http://scopeviews.co.uk/LeicaTrinovid10x42.htm
Thank you for the link. Very interesting.

It seems, they're quite all right as for flare / veiling glare. Will the 8x42s be similiar or the same in that respect? I'm not an expert on optics but I suppose the only difference between the 8x and the 10x in terms of construction will be the eyepiece which I think has little to do with veiling glare / flare. Am I right?
 
I havn't compared Trinovid HD with Utravid HD+, but I did compared with my Trinovid non-HD.
They are both very good if you ask me, with the HD's having an edge in sharpness and contrast.
The non-HD have a more true to life, more neutral color fidelity and larger field of view.
I didn't checked on glare but I have a Trinovid HD 8x32 and it shows more than my Trinovid non-HD 8x42.
Most of the time there is no problem but it happened to be bothersome in a few occasions.
Maybe you can see if you can still find some previous Trinovid non-HD model, I think they are very good.
Thank you for your reply. I've got the impression that smaller diameters tend to be more prone to glare than larger ones. It's only a very subjective impression. It might account for your x42 non-HDs being better than you x32 HDs.
 
I bought the Trinovid and returned it. If anyone is interested why, the reasons are as follwows. Build quality and stray light control were very good. CA was acceptable. While I thought the FOV was sufficient for my purposes, I found the sweet spot a bit too small when making short distance observations (~15m and less). I also own a Victory FL 8x32 and even though I found the Leicas to be brighter in twilight situations, the difference didn't seem to justify the buy. Neither did the improved ease of view I expected to gain with the Trinovid; it just wasn't any better.... Eventually, I brought my self to spend twice as much for a UVHD+ 7x42. A very wise decision.
 
I have owned Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon binoculars. Recently purchased the Trinovid HD 8x42. FOV of 372’ works fine for me. I have been birding for 30 years and am more adept at getting ticks with a slightly contracted FOV; prefer it in 8x42 format.

The Leica brand does offer a number of advantages that may be important to some birders. The Trinovid build quality is exceptional. In-hand ergonomics are superb and the 8x42 is relatively light at under 26 ounces. The weight is well balanced. Even the neck strap sits on the shoulder blade recesses. In other words, an optical tool that is a joy to use in the field. Many highly regarded alphas are “too much work” in field use. Trinovids are comfortable as a well-worn pair of jeans. They are also relatively compact for 8x42s.

The Trinovid view is characterized by excellent contrast and color saturation, while maintaining clarity across 80% of the visual field with minimal edge res loss. There is no rolling ball effect. These characteristics create a beautiful, 3-d image. I use them for hours at a time with no resulting eye fatigue.

Close focus is about 5.3’; better than the Ultravid. The focus wheel turns smoothly. Although the range of focus is nearly two revolutions of the wheel, usable range of focus for 90% of field requirements is achieved within 1.5 revs. Extended focus “beyond infinity” is available for astronomical observations.

So are the Trinovids perfect? No binocular at the $1k price point is absolutely perfect. Against a bright, high clouded sky there is some CA. I am CA sensitive. The Trinovid level of CA is minimal and unobtrusive to my eyes. The FOV is 372’ while the Noctivid is 400+. Depth of field is not as deep as that viewed through the Noctivid. And while Trinovid eye relief of 17mm exceeds the Ultravid at identical magnification/objectives, it falls short of the Noctivid. But compare the Trinovid and Noctivid side by side, and the beauty of the 3-d image-clarity, contrast, color-is family line obvious. You get 90% of Noctivid visual for $1k; the Noctivid is a $3k binocular.

So is it a Conquest beater? That depends on your eyes and preferences. The Trinovid is built better than Conquest. The eye pieces are superior, offering 4 positive click stops. Conquest may resolve a bit more detail, but the view through Trinovid is more immersive. Let’s draw an analogy to to audiophile gear. Zeiss is digital…more detailed, a bit more neutral, drier overall in presentation. Leica is analog…fuller, richer more colorful but less analytical and detailed. Science vs. art. Stat chasing can become obsessive/compulsive. Sometimes it pays to relax and enjoy the music!

Recently I visited the Cape May Bird Observatory. There is a pond across the way that has an aerator percolating the water to reduce algae accumulation. The bubbles on the water viewed at 75 yards with the Trinovid were three dimensional as if they were blown by a child’s bubble pipe. The color reproduction and contrast were amazing.

I find myself using the Trinovid more and more. They are perfect companions to those well-worn blues.
 
Last edited:
A few days ago I got the opportunity to try Trinovid 8x42 HD and compare it to Zeiss SFL 8x40.
What surprised me was that Trinovid actually is shorter than SFL.
Trinovid is a very nice binocular. It has a warmer image than SFL, which is also earlier reported about Leica. Some like it and this is a matter of personal taste.
But SFL wins when it comes to:
*sharpness
*brightness
*field of view

Yes, SFL is also more expensive, but not that much.
My choice between this binos would be SFL.

By the way: I have had Conquest HD 8x42 and without comparison side by side I think it also optically wins over Trinovid.
 
Last edited:
The Zeiss SFL is priced to compete with the Leica Ultravid ($200 less), not the Trinovid ($800 more). That’s like comparing the Noctivid to the SFL. Trinovid and Conquest are $1k models in their respective lines.

I owned the Zeiss Dialyst 7x42, a classic binocular. Optically it was a superior product to it’s contemporaries. In the field, carrying and using it became “work.” Size, weight distribution and rubber armor grid made this bino less stable in my hands. I found I could hold steady many 10x binos but not the Dialyst 7x. The Dialyst is a superb binocular, even by today’s standards. But the Dialyst is a window sill bino for me.

My earlier post points to considerations that may make a binocular “best” for it’s user. Performance in the field is enhanced by design integration of many factors. A great binocular is one that is USED day in and out. It is a tool. Visually meets user needs and priorities. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it’s also in the way it fits the hands. Call it synergy between user and tool, regardless of brand.

Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica all make great binoculars. Comparing them in a few minutes inside a shop rather than in the field may highlight strengths, but also hide limitations. Environmental variables, lighting, time of day, sales staff, and your own eyes vary day to day. There may be manufacturing variation as well.

The Trinovid was a pleasant surprise and a binocular that is a pleasure to carry and use for hours on end. To revisit the audiophile analogy. Audition a speaker that is revealing and it may well impress. Live with it over time. If it causes “ear burn” and is fatiguing (eye strain) it may be traded for the next latest and greatest. If it requires the listener to sit in a 2x2’ sweet spot (eye placement) to gain sonic nirvana, that restricts musicality. If the speaker disappears and you enjoy the music, that‘s keeper.

Year’s back, Ralston Purina ran a dog food commercial. The theme was “my dog is better than your dog.” Put the dogs aside and take an extended trial with the Trinovid. If it’s attributes fit your needs, it will be a keeper. Trust your eyes to decide rather than a marketer’s copy/stats.
 
Last edited:
I have owned Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon binoculars. Recently purchased the Trinovid HD 8x42. FOV of 372’ works fine for me. I have been birding for 30 years and am more adept at getting ticks with a slightly contracted FOV; prefer it in 8x42 format.
Same here, 8x42 seems to be a great all around platform, imo. But I’m going to pick on you about, no disrespect intended.
The Leica brand does offer a number of advantages that may be important to some birders. The Trinovid build quality is exceptional. In-hand ergonomics are superb and the 8x42 is relatively light at under 26 ounces. The weight is well balanced. Even the neck strap sits on the shoulder blade recesses. In other words, an optical tool that is a joy to use in the field. Many highly regarded alphas are “too much work” in field use. Trinovids are comfortable as a well-worn pair of jeans. They are also relatively compact for 8x42s.
Not sure what you mean by “work in the field” , I’ll throw this out. The UV’s , SFL’s and FL’s to name a few are least the same in platform (SFL even more so ) weight, size and handling characteristics, and of course superior an optical image quality than HD’s. No argument from me though when it comes to the 8 x 42 Trinovid HD being one of the best of the $1000 upper mid grade Binos.
The Trinovid view is characterized by excellent contrast and color saturation, while maintaining clarity across 80% of the visual field with minimal edge res loss. There is no rolling ball effect. These characteristics create a beautiful, 3-d image. I use them for hours at a time with no resulting eye fatigue.
There is no more 3D effect from one roof prism bino from another, you may be mixing up immersive for 3D.
Close focus is about 5.3’; better than the Ultravid. The focus wheel turns smoothly. Although the range of focus is nearly two revolutions of the wheel, usable range of focus for 90% of field requirements is achieved within 1.5 revs. Extended focus “beyond infinity” is available for astronomical observations.

So are the Trinovids perfect? No binocular at the $1k price point is absolutely perfect. Against a bright, high clouded sky there is some CA. I am CA sensitive. The Trinovid level of CA is minimal and unobtrusive to my eyes. The FOV is 372’ while the Noctivid is 400+. Depth of field is not as deep as that viewed through the Noctivid. And while Trinovid eye relief of 17mm exceeds the Ultravid at identical magnification/objectives, it falls short of the Noctivid. But compare the Trinovid and Noctivid side by side, and the beauty of the 3-d image-clarity, contrast, color-is family line obvious. You get 90% of Noctivid visual for $1k; the Noctivid is a $3k binocular.
Basically there is no difference in DOF from one 8x from the another. Again your mixing up 3D effect ( more a porro characteristic) with immersive-ness , is that a word🤔? Most all binoculars fall short when comparing to Noctivids, imho.
So is it a Conquest beater? That depends on your eyes and preferences. The Trinovid is built better than Conquest. The eye pieces are superior, offering 4 positive click stops. Conquest may resolve a bit more detail, but the view through Trinovid is more immersive. Let’s draw an analogy to to audiophile gear. Zeiss is digital…more detailed, a bit more neutral, drier overall in presentation. Leica is analog…fuller, richer more colorful but less analytical and detailed. Science vs. art. Stat chasing can become obsessive/compulsive. Sometimes it pays to relax and enjoy the music!
I agree the Leica is built better, it’s probably built better than most all binoculars. Absolutely love the audiophile analogy, that hits the bullseye perfectly, well done🙏🏼.
Recently I visited the Cape May Bird Observatory. There is a pond across the way that has an aerator percolating the water to reduce algae accumulation. The bubbles on the water viewed at 75 yards with the Trinovid were three dimensional as if they were blown by a child’s bubble pipe. The color reproduction and contrast were amazing.
There you go again with that 3D thing 🤪. I think the beauty and the pop (no pun intended) would be just as nice if not better in UV’s and Noctivids, but as you say they are $3000+ , and you pay for what you get, not always but most of the time.
I find myself using the Trinovid more and more. They are perfect companions to those well-worn blues.
Paul
 
I have expanded upon my original post which may or may not address some comments. My remark on the Dialysts being ”too much work in the field” relates to ease of use in my hands.

There are many factors that enhance a perceived 3-d image. Resolution alone may result in a clear but flat image. Contrast and color perception add to the effect. You may recall some of the visual puzzles that create a 3-d image on a flat piece of paper. Those often employ contrast and color as well.
What I mean by immersive is the image you are viewing draws you into the scene to the point where the binoculars disappear. Similarly there are audio systems that draw you into the music. Once that happens you find yourself listening to music rather than obsessing over sonic details. You may surmise that I am a reformed audiophile, or is that audioholic? My Threshold T-200: Audible Illusions Modulus and Dynaudio floorstanders are long gone. Sadly, I stream music on my Hegel thru more compact studio Monitors. Not nearly as immersive! 😉 But now I listen more And do not sweat the details.

The Noctivid is certainly superior to the Trinovid. Comparing them as I did viewing the aerated, bubbling pond, you clearly see the family visual connection as well as the obvious Noctivid upgrade in image. For 1/3 the price, the Trinovid is visually satisfying for me and a value. The $2k I saved is funding birding trips by car to extend the season and budget.🤗

Regarding depth of field in 8x42 bino comparisons, when a bird goes back and forth there is a need to adjust focus for clarity in some binos, while others do not require adjustment. I am not sure about the physics involved, but perhaps the quality of the glass and focus mechanism play a role here? Clue me in please!

I recently purchased, reviewed and returned a pair of Steiner Peregrines. Optically, they were near alphas…very sharp and crystal clear. But using them over several weeks time wore me down. The ergonomics, especially small size and weight distribution along with the one rev fast focus and precise eye placement proved fatiguing. The Trinovids are simply a joy to use in field (vs showroom) and offer an image that is…well you already know! 😂My 10x42s are Nikon SE CF poros. If and when I upgrade, the 10x42 Noctivid is on my short list.

Hey, thanks for your comments which are part of my continuing education on the Forum and much appreciated! I am not a well known member but the birds in PA and the surrounding 4 states know me well!
 
Last edited:
I have expanded upon my original post which may or may not address some comments. My remark on the Dialysts being ”too much work in the field” relates to ease of use in my hands.

There are many factors that enhance a perceived 3-d image. Resolution alone may result in a clear but flat image. Contrast and color perception add to the effect. You may recall some of the visual puzzles that create a 3-d image on a flat piece of paper. Those often employ contrast and color as well.
What I mean by immersive is the image you are viewing draws you into the scene to the point where the binoculars disappear. Similarly there are audio systems that draw you into the music. Once that happens you find yourself listening to music rather than obsessing over sonic details. You may surmise that I am a reformed audiophile, or is that audioholic? My Threshold T-200: Audible Illusions Modulus and Dynaudio floorstanders are long gone. Sadly, I stream music on my Hegel thru more compact studio Monitors. Not nearly as immersive! 😉 But now I listen more And do not sweat the details.

The Noctivid is certainly superior to the Trinovid. Comparing them as I did viewing the aerated, bubbling pond, you clearly see the family visual connection as well as the obvious Noctivid upgrade in image. For 1/3 the price, the Trinovid is visually satisfying for me and a value. The $2k I saved is funding birding trips by car to extend the season and budget.🤗

Regarding depth of field in 8x42 bino comparisons, when a bird goes back and forth there is a need to adjust focus for clarity in some binos, while others do not require adjustment. I am not sure about the physics involved, but perhaps the quality of the glass and focus mechanism play a role here? Clue me in please!

I recently purchased, reviewed and returned a pair of Steiner Peregrines. Optically, they were near alphas…very sharp and crystal clear. But using them over several weeks time wore me down. The ergonomics, especially small size and weight distribution along with the one rev fast focus and precise eye placement proved fatiguing. The Trinovids are simply a joy to use in field (vs showroom) and offer an image that is…well you already know! 😂My 10x42s are Nikon SE CF poros. If and when I upgrade, the 10x42 Noctivid is on my short list.

Hey, thanks for your comments which are part of my continuing education on the Forum and much appreciated! I am not a well known member but the birds in PA and the surrounding 4 states know me well!
There are numerous discussions and threads that cover DOF in more technical jargon than I. DOF is simply the distance from the near focused image to the furthest object that is still in focus. For example in a 10x lets say you focus on an object 50 feet away, the object 30 or so feet behind the object will need to have the focus adjusted. In the 8x in the same example the object 30 feet behind will be in focus and not need to be adjusted. The 7x takes it even further and you could have the focused object 50 feet away and 50 feet behind it is still in focus.

If you take five 8x42 binoculars side by side and focus them all on the same object 50 feet away the object furthest away that is still in focus will be the same for all five binos, give or take a tiny bit for other reasons, which can be read about in some of those in depth discussions I’ve mentioned.

And $3000 for binoculars is disgusting 🤢. But some of us want the best or the perceived best 🤪.

Paul
 
Stand corrected, I should have said “perceived DOF.” From what I have read, there are several factors that can affect perceived DOF.
Magnification is key as you point out, and the great equalizer at the same magnification. So yes, DOF for 8x should be equal. However, magnification appearing as a squared quantity results from the fact that longitudinal magnification is the square of the lateral magnification. So in theory, the angle of view, spacing of objectives impacts the perceived DOF.

Lens curvature (the astronomers nemesis) can make closer objects in the outer edges of the fov appear to be in focus. So a flatter objective may result in shallower perceived DOF.

Lastly, if your eyes are the camera, your pupils serve as the F-stop. In bright light, pupil diameter contracts as the “camera that is your eyes” stops down the pupil opening. That impacts the perceived DOF.

Everyone’s eyes are different to a degree. Some may be more sensitive to these subtle variations in DOF.

Paul, your comments encouraged me to do the homework. 🧐My eyes have noted slight differences in DOF. These were perceived DOF differences. Reminds me of the audio controversy over how cables and speaker wire affect the sound. Physics makes their impact unlikely to minimal at best. Changing cables and doing blind A/B comparisons may suggest otherwise.

And nothing wrong with wanting the best and spending the most. But the Crusade is often strewn with the carcasses of unsatisfied zealots. As John Sebastian crooned in the song ”Did you ever have to make up your mind”…

Sometimes there’s one with blue eyes, cute as a bunny
With hair down to here, and plenty of money
And just when you think she’s that one in the world
Your heart gets stolen by some mousy little girl. 😍

P.S. It is amazing how the subjects of forum threads can bend and twist in the wind of comment. This may morph into a DOF discussion! The Trinovid 8x42 is still a terrific field binocular! 🙃👍
 
Last edited:
However, magnification appearing as a squared quantity results from the fact that longitudinal magnification is the square of the lateral magnification.
How's that again? What have you been reading?
So in theory, the angle of view, spacing of objectives impacts the perceived DOF.
No, and no. You seem to be confusing the notoriously vague "3D-perception" with depth of field which has a precise definition.
Lens curvature (the astronomers nemesis) can make closer objects in the outer edges of the fov appear to be in focus. So a flatter objective may result in shallower perceived DOF.
No. Field curvature doesn't correspond to objective curvature, it's related to eyepiece design.
Lastly, if your eyes are the camera, your pupils serve as the F-stop. In bright light, pupil diameter contracts as the “camera that is your eyes” stops down the pupil opening. That impacts the perceived DOF.
No, this is not a real issue, because the effect is the same for every 8x binocular you try.
My eyes have noted slight differences in DOF.
How exactly do you imagine you can detect or measure such "slight" differences at all?
Reminds me of the audio controversy over how cables and speaker wire affect the sound.
No, there is no component of a binocular that is mistakenly thought to have no effect on the view. In fact you're doing the opposite, imagining a difference in DOF for which there is no cause, and admiring the subtlety of your perception.
This may morph into a DOF discussion!
This happens regularly because there is so much misunderstanding of DOF. The confusions above just keep recurring (although the curvature one may be unique, congratulations).
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top