• 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 (1 Viewer)

dries1 said:
The EL SV 10X50 is a good glass, but to me it is not the brightest glass, and it does suffer from ghosting at night. Just because it has a flat view and sharp edge to edge does not make it the best for everyone. The Leica UVHD+ handles ghosting and stray light better and provides a great immersive view IMHO.
I have several Swarovski glass, and they are excellent, but there has been no decision that they are the best hands down. I am sure the BA 10X50 is also a great glass, I would totally enjoy it as a 10X50.

Dennis not everyone wants a FLAT VIEW all the time like you, so stop stacking BBBBBBBBBBs

Andy W.
Click to expand...

dries1 said:
Just a follow up without editing my previous post. It really depends what one uses the glass for, everyone likes a flat view for the night sky, I am in that camp, however for terrestrial the Leica UVHD+ is a great glass providing views comparable with the best, and if one is not susceptible to CA, they also handle really well. Just try before you buy.

Andy W.
Click to expand...

[email protected] said:
Andy. I agree with you. I edited my post. I forget sometimes that the flat field of the SV is not for everybody. I like the Leica view also and your correct in that it is immersive and probably a little better for stray light. The 10x50 SV is pretty immersive though with it's big 66 degree AFOV for a 10x which is the same as the UVHD and handles stray light a little better than it's smaller siblings and CA a little better than the UVHD. I also agree that the SV with it's flat field is better for astro use than the Leica UVHD +. One thing I like about Leica's is their saturated colors. Like Gilmore Girl says the view is pretty. That description is perfect.
Click to expand...

kabsetz said:
To my eyes, the 10x50 has been the best Leica binocular since the introduction of the Trinovid BA. It has a wide, sharp view and much better edge performance than the 42mm models or the 8x50. It is quite close in performance to modern top guns, with the main difference being in lower light transmission and somewhat less neutral colours.

If you were to "upgrade" to an SV 10x50 you would notice incremental improvements in colour, brightness and contrast, and some improvement in edge sharpness but with the tradeoff of somewhat less natural feeling view. If you were to upgrade to the Canon 10x42 L IS, you would get the benefit of a superb image stabilisation system along with marginal improvements in colour, brightness and contrast. For me, IS is such a huge benefit that I would not consider a non-stabilised binocular for my primary use any longer, but peoples' preferences vary. I see 30-40% more detail with the IS L than with any non-stabilised glass, and that seals the deal for me.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

Wow! You guys are AWESOME! This is all extremely helpful and fills in gaps in my knowledge. I'm pleasantly surprised that the Canon 10x42 L IS offers improvements over the Leica Trinovid BA 10x50 in color, brightness and contrast. What about field flatness for the Canon 10x42 L IS; is it as good as that of the Trinovid 10x50 BA?

I had been confused by the (very consistent) reports of Leicas in general having problems in field curvature. To my eyes, there's maybe a little bit of this at the edge of the field but not much at all. Now Kimmo's comment that the 10x50 has "much better edge performance than the 42mm models or the 8x50" provides a potential answer to why my observation about excellent field flatness of the Leica Trinovid 10x50 BA seemed to run counter to conventional wisdom, with said wisdom being expressed by a fairly discerning crowd. The answer would seem to be that the 10x50 is a standout performer in the Leica line.

One last general question (and I really don't know, so it really is a sincere question):
"Dennis not everyone wants a FLAT VIEW all the time like you..."
I'm like Dennis because one of the first things I look for in any binocular is flatness of field. I find field curvature in any binocular (or spotting scope) to be a particularly irksome trait, especially in the higher priced units. Is there some merit to field curvature that I'm unaware of? Why would anyone NOT want a flat field of view through a binocular or any other optical device? I've read that field curvature does indeed add to perceived 3 D performance, but I don't understand how this would work. How does field curvature add to the perceived 3 dimensional performance?
 
Last edited:
saidentary said:
...why my observation about excellent field flatness of the Leica Trinovid 10x50 BA seemed to run counter to conventional wisdom, with said wisdom being expressed by a fairly discerning crowd. The answer would seem to be that the 10x50 is a standout performer in the Leica line.
Click to expand...
The 10x32 Leicas, which I've used for 17 years, show very little curvature, probably least of all. I know the 42s have much more, and extrapolated that the 50s would be similar or worse. But perhaps the 42s are the outlier, one more sign of the strain of trying to keep that glass so small. And of course most people use the 42s, hence the conventional wisdom.
 
Field curvature and edge sharpness are not the same thing...but, in the words of the Hammy Hamster narrator...''but that's another story...''
 
saidentary said:
Where can I find an explanation that is reasonably concise yet accurate and isn't expressed solely in terms of mathematical formulas?
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is the field curvature being discussed, but "pincushion curvature" found towards the edge of the view in wide field binoculars like the Nikon 8x30 EII can be focused into sharpness. Of course that results in the center of the view going out of focus.

Bob
 
Saidentary

Regarding flat fields vs field curvature. Firstly, as with chromatic aberration, not everyone notices or is bothered by, curvature. Secondly, some folks characterise flat-field binos as having an image that is like a flat poster on a bill board and they find it unnatural and unattractive. Many people love flat-fields and sharp edges of course but equally many others centre the subject in the field and don't prioritise what is happening in the outer field, just so long as their peripheral vision can pick up objects and movement there.

As usual personal tastes and preferences are greatly influential here.

Lee
 
The Zeiss 20x60S has probably the best central resolution of any hand held binocular.
Yet the field is very curved.
Why, I don't know.

Although flat field elements would add cost and probably reduce the almost astro quality image.

Generally, Canon IS binoculars have flat fields and small stars, rather than the bloated stars of some binoculars, at least the more expensive Canon IS.
 
saidentary said:
Where can I find an explanation that is reasonably concise yet accurate and isn't expressed solely in terms of mathematical formulas?
Click to expand...

See my post 42.

Remember field curvature is the plane of focus not a geometric distortion. The Canon 10x42 L for example, has a flat plane of focus. The edges focus at the same point as the centre.
It also has pincushion distortion. Off-axis straight telegraph poles will bend in at the centre. This is deliberate in many binocular designs to aid panning and transparency of view. Now, on a design with a narrower field of view pincushion and field curvature may not be particularly noticeable, particularly if a small focus movement brings the corner into acceptable sharpness.

On the other hand, a binocular like the old Zeiss FL has field curvature that cannot be bought into focus. Astigmatism levels are to high to bring vertical and horizontal focus together at the same point. Zeiss probably left this uncorrected because of the way most people use a binocular is point and look at the centre of the image and are not concerned about the corners.

The Swarovski Swarovision design has no field curvature, no pincushion and a decently wide FOV. It suffers from globe effect or rolling ball. Some people don't mind that but others feel sick when panning. The Nikon EDG line is similar but less extreme.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 2 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.

Similar threads

M
Is new Trinovid coming soon?
Replies
0
Views
867
mhasman
M
A
Leica trinovid HD 8x42 question
Replies
5
Views
1K
asr3510
A
A
Leica Trinovid BN diopter problem
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Binastro
B
O
Comments please on 8x40 Trinovids, AKA "Retrovids"
Replies
3
Views
786
MiddleRiver
MiddleRiver
dorubird
Trinovid 8x20 BCA vs Ultravid 8x20 BR
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top