Leicas Ultravid HDs, new Trinovids and other brands from the BirdFair (1 Viewer)

Hello everyone,

i am not sure weathe ri should post it here or elsewhere, because i add my personal imperssions to other models as well, although the comparison is with Leicas as well.

I had the chance to look through the new Trinovids (8x42 and 10x42) and compare them to the Ultravids HD (all models) at BirdFair in August.

Well, i have to admit, although i never was attracted by Leica, and before the Fair i only had the chance to see and 'test' only 3 different models (Geovid 10x42, Trinovid BN 8x42, an old Trinovid 8x32).
What i noticed from those 3 models was that the construction of the Leicas was really top quality. I definitely liked them more than my Zeiss FL in that aspect.
But optically, the Trinovid BN was very good, but didn't impress me really.
The Geovid was nice, but it had a 'warm' color bias to my eyes. Slight, but noticeable (the comparison was with my FL). Although heavy, it was very well balanced and felt lighter than it is, focus wheel great, close focus very bad, at 5m about.

When testing the new Trinovids and Ultravids HD, i was really suprised.
Construction and design were great of course. I really liked their focusing wheels and diopter mechanism.
Optically, i won't get into many details, they were super. Well, i didn't like much the Ultravid 8x32, as the others, and in comparison with my Kowa Genesis 8x33. For me the latter was better and noticeably brighter.

But the 7x42, 8x42, 10x42 and 10x50 Ultravids HD were outstanding optically, I couldn't see any color bias (which i thought they should be 'warm'), they were quite neutral i would say, to me eyes of course. They were very sharp, very well handled and balanced (only the 10x50 was big and heavy - still lighter than it really is) and provided a very relaxed view.

I excluded the 10x42s and 10x50 from my choices, because 10x magnification was shaky and so not so useful for me. But the 7x and 8x were very good.

Now the new Trinovids, were so identical to the Ultravids. Both physically, but optically as well. I was trying to see where is the HD better, but the view was identical. The Ultravid had a slighly wider field of view, but i had to compare them thoroughly to see that.

What i would prefer, is a closer focus ability. At 3 and 3,5m (Ultravid HD and Trinovid respectively), is not that close for me and people who want to watch reptiles, insects, butterflies, amphibians and other 'macro' wildlife.

Does anyone knows the precise close focus of these 2 models? Because i read somewhere that they have closer focus that the one that the company shows at specs.

In general, and after testing all the 'top' brand models (Swarovski EL Sv and SLC HD, Zeiss Conquest HD and HT, Nikon EDG, Kowas Genesis, Steiner Discovery, Vortex Razor HD) i came to the conclusion that optically are almost the same. At least when refering to sharpness or resolution. All of them were really good, differences including field of view, easy of view, handling were the most prominent and the most important to notice.

I don't need to mention that the Swarovskis (SLC HD and EL) and Zeiss were superb optically, but the biggest suprises were the 2 Leicas, Nikon EDG, Steiner Discovery, Vortex Razor HD.

2 words for what impressed me from each (besides the Leicas).

Nikon EDG.
Probably the one with the best handling. Super focusing wheel, optics and no visible color bias.
I am a little cocerned about the quality of the body after reading many reviews with problems (loose hinge, external wear). Too expensive though.

Steiner Discovery.
Along with Leicas it had the best construction. It's optical quality was on par with the other 'top' binoculars.
Super focusing wheel, very well handled despite it's weight, great eye relief with very nice and relaxing view.
Probably the best (value and quality) choice with the Trinovid and the Vortex Razor HD.

Vortex Razor HD.
That was the biggest suprise for me. Great optics and handling. The only 10x42 i could hold steady (totally) was that one. Wide field of view for a 10x42 was prominent. Construction looked to be very good, design was perfect i would say.
Not so suprisesed with the 8x42, althoug it was very good too.
10x50 was the lighter in its category. I was feeling i was holding a normal 8x42 pair. I didn't compare it next to the EL or Ultravid the same time, but as far as i remember i couldn't say one of them was better for sure.

Kowa Prominar 8,5/10,5 x 44.
Their optics were very good (again on par with the best) but they had a very noticeable restricted field of view. Weight was too much for my taste, although they kept a good balnce in the hand.

The Genesis 8x33 (which i own now too and had it with me at the Fair) is optically great in my opinion, on par with the very best.


I have to add (again) that the comparison (of different brands) was not done side by side, it was in mid day (during cloudy and sunny weather - not in really lowlight conditions), my opinion is subjective of course, and that most top brands are so close optically (resolution or sharpness? wise) that there is not really a reason to bother about that aspect.
Most important thing was the handling between them, the fov, eye relief, mechanics, color bias and the total feeling that they represented.

I am convinced that the top priced models are way overpriced, (ELs, SLCs, HT, EDG, Ultravid HDs) for the optical quality they offer against other high end competitor optics.
Even if they are better to lower priced models, the differences are so small.

Among the top priced models i would consider the Ultravid HD (7x42 or 8x42), from the 'lower' priced the Steiner Discovery (8x44) and the Vortex Razor HD (10x42 or 10x50) and the Leica Trinovid (8x42).

Now, i want to try to sell my FL and replace it with one of the above, along with my Genesis 8x33...

George

I pretty much agree with everything you said, George. I had a similar experience at the San Diego Bird Fair optics show a few months ago.

Although people love to champion the latest and greatest, the Ultravids are still phenomenal optically and like ALL of the "alphas" provide lovely optics, with the differences much more about personal preference, field of view, ergonomics and handling, etc. The 7x42 Ultravid specifically was glorious. They may not have field flatteners or the best transmission %, but the Ultravids are still fully competitive optically with ANYTHING.

I also agree there wasn't much optically between the new Trinnie and the UV. Other tests have agreed: http://birdwatching.com/optics/2012highendbins/review.html

Leica’s new Trinovid tied on every score with its flagship Ultravid. We compared the two Leicas carefully for brightness, color saturation, clarity, and resolution. To keep ourselves honest, we masked off all the external clues. We mounted the binoculars side by side and tried to tell their images apart.

We couldn’t. After many tries, even magnified with two doublers, increasing the power to 32x, we could we not see a difference in the optical quality of the two.

Click to expand...

This always makes me a bit curious as to why the new Trinnie's get so little love on this forum, but I have to think the price point being too close to the $2k tiers is the problem. It makes them less competitive with Zeiss' Conquest HD line specifically, which has generated a LOT more interest and buzz. If Leica had put these new Trinnie's at the $900ish price point alongside the Conquests, I think they wouldn't have laid such an egg.

The only thing that gives me pause on the Leica's is the poor reviews of their warranty service.

eitanaltman,

Different oculars and design would explain the smaller FOV. And Leica saved money in their construction too. The Ultravids have magnesium housings and titanium focusing rods. Leica does not mention what materials are used in their Trinovids and they only come in 42mm.

The Trinovids don't have FL glass either so let us assume that Leica uses the best coatings on the best glass they can get otherwise and go on from there.

If the average people who compared these two distinctly different binoculars can't tell the difference between their views despite the use of FL glass in the UV, except for their FOVs and close focus, what does this tell us about the actual (real) worth of these differences in the view when we exclude the factor of the public's demand for this "improvement?"

It does seem that Leica should sell the Trinovid for less money but then that would hurt the sales of the Ultravid even more. Certainly the people who demand FL and HD glass would not flock to the Ultravid to save it.

Now, with that in mind, how is Swarovski handling it with their Swarovision and SLC? They are selling "flat field" in the Swarovision which complicates things somewhat, but they still have simplified their SLC versions as Leica has done and still have kept their prices high but are not being criticized for it like Leica.

Zeiss has made a careful distinction between their HDs and HTs and this is reflected by a large difference in their costs. But they are also making them in 42mm and 32mm.

Same with Nikon and their EDGs. They merely assigned their old 1st Line HG/Ls to 2nd line status which includes one 8 x 32 model and two 42mm models.

Bob

Hi George,

I have just compared both the Ultravid HD and the New Trinovids. Yesterday at Buenos Aires. In 10x42, my prefered configuration.
I used and loved the Trinovid BA from the late 90´s, also a 10x42. And presently, I have a Zeiss Victory FL 10x42 (pre Locu Tec, bought in 2004), a Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W GA, the last version and a Meopta Meostar 8x32.
The big surprise, for me came from looking side by side the Uv HD and the new version of the Trinovid...That sample of the Trinovid had a clearly better view than the sample of Uv HD y tested. No doubts about this. Better center resolution and the same colour fringing just outside the center of the field of view in the Trinovid. Period!! Not even close to the Victory FL nor the Habicht!!! I repeat, it was a surprise to me! In the shop there was a Trinovid BA, used, I also compared. I think that BA´s were great binoculars in their times and are very good today!!! Great resolution and relaxed view but not so bright and contrasted than the ZV FL, so I sold mine in 2003 to buy the Victory FL because the fenomenal view in the late. But I miss the construction of the BA. I must say in 10 years I have not have ANY problem with the FL, after a really tough life of them!! Still perfectly collimated and working as new! The same I must say about the Swarovski Habichts. Perhaps one of the better made binoculars today. As in the old times I would never change a Victory FL or a modern Swarovski Habicht for a Ultravid HD......!!!!

Ah! By the way, I also compared an old Leitz Trinovid 10x40 BGA. One of the last just before the Trinovids BA. The ones without the phase coatings. The sample is one of the Portugal Made. My memory of that binocular was from the ones I saw in the lates 70´s. This one I saw yesterday was incredible good, in spite of not being phase corrected!!!! No too bright like the actual roof prism binoculars but with a very good resolution, much, much better than the old ones of the 70´s...! This sample was in perfect shape with very little use. They want U$ 1000 so I pass. But for 500 they were mine today!!! Nice piece.....

Best Regards!

PHA

This is interesting. It's nice to hear these positive reviews of the new Trinovid.
I have read some mixed reviews here on BF lately and some suggested the new Trinnies
sort of missed the mark and are not up to par. However, I also read a professional review that was very positive. I'd like to take a look through one sometime. Only thing disappointing from the specs is the 11ft close focus. But, I do like the look of them and hope they come out with a 32mm Trinovid someday. I would be very interested in a 32.

Hi guys,

PHA, you say the Habicht and FL was clearly better than the Leicas in center resolution and color fringing outside the center of the view?

I couldn't bring my FL with me to compare it with other binos. But even the new HT and EL Sv didn't suprise me so much compared to others i referred before, to say these pairs are better.
What i remember, i was suprised by the Leicas construction, style and size and optical quality of course, which was as good as of the best.

Annabeth, best way is to try them and get your own impression. As i realized, people's opinion, vary greatly as their needs and expectatiuons vary.

Maybe some users or people who tested them can inform what's the real close focus of the new Trinovids and Ultravids HD?

Thanks for your input,

George

P.S.: What i also noticed, not related with optics quality, was that many people were testing different pairs, without adjusting the diopter, or looking if the diopter is already at 0.
For example, i looked through few pairs which their optical quality was not as good as others (referring to the same model!). That someone could call it sample variation, but no, it was simply that the diopter adjustment was not set right for me. After setting the diopter, the view was as good as the other!

So, i have my hesitations about all these sample variations, that (at least some of them) they could simply be not right adjusted to the viewer eyes...
Just my opinion..

Hi George,

Exactly! And I agree with you about the careless diopter adjustment! Even very small misadjustment have a lot to do !!!
And I also agree the Leicas Uv are the most elegant, stylish and smallest of the 42 mm. And their diopter adjustment is, for me, the best sistem. The same as the Trinovid BA and BN and the new Trinovid. But, say again, the optics, in the samples I have seen, are a little behind the Zeiss HT, FL, and all the Swarovskis EL, SLC and Habicht.

Best Regards

PHA

PHA said:

Hi George,

Exactly! And I agree with you about the careless diopter adjustment! Even very small misadjustment have a lot to do !!!
And I also agree the Leicas Uv are the most elegant, stylish and smallest of the 42 mm. And their diopter adjustment is, for me, the best sistem. The same as the Trinovid BA and BN and the new Trinovid. But, say again, the optics, in the samples I have seen, are a little behind the Zeiss HT, FL, and all the Swarovskis EL, SLC and Habicht.

Best Regards

PHA

Click to expand...

PHA,

Well, being a porro, the Habicht was better than roofs 60 years ago, it just needed new AR coatings, the rest of the models you mentioned except the FL are the latest offerings, so I would expect them to be better than the UVs since unlike porros, roofs need more tweaking than just AR coatings to come up to speed.

No doubt, Leica engineers have already designed the Ultravid's replacement and the company is waiting for the right time to launch its new line. Then there can be a true apples and apples comparison (and a peach, the Habicht).

Besides, after using the 8x30 CLs, I'm sure Annabeth will find the 8x32 UV quite sharp!

BPH

I do not agree that the ultravid are better built than any of the competition. I have seen many cases of either failure of being waterproof, bad adhesion of armor etc. (maybe even more than in FL, Swaro).
So yes they are nice, but the only real well-build is, in my opinion, the old Trinovid. Nothing can beat those. (and that is why they are heavy as a brick!)

brocknroller said:

PHA,


No doubt, Leica engineers have already designed the Ultravid's replacement and the company is waiting for the right time to launch its new line.

BPH

Click to expand...

Brock

The right time might come sooner than you think.............

Lee

Temmie,

The Trinovids have Aluminum bodies, a steel focusing rod and corrugated rubber coverings. The Ultravids have Magnesium bodies, titanium focusing rods and smooth rubber coverings. Those are the main reasons they are lighter in weight.

Bob

In a weight difference of less than 20grams for the 8x42s (Uv HD 791 vs Trinovid 810) and 45grams for the 10x42s (Uv HD 750 vs Trinovid 795) it doesn't really matter.
The handling and balance should be important though, but they share very similar behavoiur on those aspects.
Close focus could be something to take in consideration for people who want a short close focus (like me).
Sorry i am repeating my self, but nobody knows the exact close focus of the 2 models??!!

As far as for the fact that Leicas are not as good as the Zeiss and Swarovskis, sorry but for me they were in the same class. You have to challenge them to say the one is better than the other.
Of course every person sees and needs other things than on other (person).
I don't care about field flatteners (i can't use them anyway), and if the image quality is so close, i would prefer then one that feels better on my hands and eyes.

George

george-spiridakis said:

In a weight difference of less than 20grams

Click to expand...

Hi George, I guess they were talking about the old Trinovids, which are clearly heavier than the Ultravids or new Trinovids.
The old Trinovids look indestructible, the Ultravids much more delicate, but that has more to do with the impression the design gives than with real build quality.
Both for build quality and optics, the Ultravids are certainly on par with Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikon. They may be a little bit behind as for the latest trimmings of the optics, but that matters only to the optics nuts here. These differences are minime, as you say, it's other things like the general feel of the binoculars in hands and at the eye that matter much more for the average user, and here, for many people (including me) the Ultravid still wins.

brocknroller said:

PHA,

Besides, after using the 8x30 CLs, I'm sure Annabeth will find the 8x32 UV quite sharp!

BPH

Click to expand...

I compared the UV to my CL a while back at the store. The UV is sharper, but I was surprised at how well the CL held up against the high end bins. I thought the CL would look bad against the big three 8x32 models, but it is pretty decent in comparison...not as good as the others of course. One thing that stood out was the brightness of the CL for a 30mm.

Well, I'm not even sure now if I will be able to make the big bin purchase this year. I have a couple of big bills coming up which puts the bin purchase lower on the priority list.

Annabeth2 said:

Well, I'm not even sure now if I will be able to make the big bin purchase this year.

Click to expand...

Cheer up Beth, next year is not far away o

Leo

I'm a bit late coming to this discussion but I also checked out an Ultravid and Trinovid 8x42 at BirdFair. The thing that was most struck me was the Trinovid was significantly less sharp than the Ultravid. The Leica guy demonstrating was surprised at my comment but checked for himself and agreed with me. I expect there were other samples on the stand.

David

george-spiridakis said:

Sorry i am repeating my self, but nobody knows the exact close focus of the 2 models??!!

Click to expand...

George,

Close focus specifications are largely theoretical. I assume that they are for "parallel rays" emanating from the eyepiece, i.e. infinity focus for the human eye.
Most users will reach closer focus than that specified, particularly the near-sighted (without glasses) and those with good accommodation, so it is quite sensible for Leica to quote "ca. 3,5 m".

John

My focus accommodation sure ain't what it used to be and I'm no longer near-sighted due to presbyopia, but I still found that the close focus on most of my Nikon porros was closer than specified. My guess is that Nikon takes into account what John was talking about above and purposely under specs the close focus knowing so that those who can't reach close focus at a shorter distance will not think they have a bad sample.

Tere is also sample variation with the bins. One of the 12x50 SEs I had close focused at 16', which is where the 10x42 model is supposed to close focus, the 12s are specked at 24'.

OTOH, I had one sample 8x32 SE that close focused at 12.5' when the list is 9.8' and another 8x SE sample that hits the mark at 9'. I've found SEs to be about as consistent as bins get in every other aspect, having tried or owned 9 samples including each model - 8x, 10x, and 12x.

I would guess that at the lower price level, you might find even more variation since the tolerances aren't as tight.

Brock

Not being able to detect differences between certain models doesn't mean the differences aren't bonafide - just not detectable by that individual.

Could be eyesight, experience etc.

james holdsworth said:

Not being able to detect differences between certain models doesn't mean the differences aren't bonafide - just not detectable by that individual.

Could be eyesight, experience etc.

Click to expand...

James:

I agree with you, I find it terrible, that some here will question the
ability of some of us to see differences when comparing optics.

I do trust your recommendations, and I do know I trust mine.

Jerry