Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Leica and chromatic aberration

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Monday 1st October 2018, 10:29   #51
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,195
Perhaps there could be a sub-forum where some folks could discuss the rings in the tree (the specifics about the characteristics a glass in micro detail), or their bionic eyes. I for one enjoy nature observation with my glass, and enjoy that part of the forum with general observations/discussions about glass.
Everyone has their own likes and dislikes even with glass, like their food or cars for example, but that does not mean that some have to invoke their knowledge and opinion to others as a lecture.

I know there is an ignore button, and I am going to use it, I did not want to, but now understand why it was invented.


Andy W.
dries1 is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 1st October 2018, 15:19   #52
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
This would answer the question of whether a particular bino has CA or not, which would be good to know, but it wouldn't answer the questions: how much CA in the fov centre is necessary to make a significant impact on identifying birds and at what distances, nor would it answer why so many people can tune out a certain (undefined) level of CA and still identify the birds they want to without impairing their enjoyment.

For example, Conquest HD 8x32 has a certain amount of CA but that hasn't stopped it becoming a firm favourite of yours, mine and Chuck's.

Clearly CA isn't to be welcomed in any bino, and clearly many of us see a certain level of it in Leicas, but equally clearly many also enjoy their Leicas and don't find the CA a problem in their bird identification or general nature observation.

Lee
All subjective stuff with no real answers. All we can do is ascertain which bins have it, to what extent, and then the rest will always be subjective impressions.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 2nd October 2018, 06:11   #53
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
All subjective stuff with no real answers. All we can do is ascertain which bins have it, to what extent, and then the rest will always be subjective impressions.
That's exactly the point, isn't it? We know that all binos have CA to a greater or lesser extent and that can be measured objectively, but the only thing that matters in reality is how much CA people see subjectively and how it affects their intended use. That they will only know by using a particular bino.

It would be interesting to have CA measurements for all binos but that wouldn't, I suspect, help people to choose which bino they might like overall, or would suit them in the field in practice.
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 9th October 2018, 04:24   #54
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
adhoc, is it possible that seeing CA is made more likely by some forms of loss of acuity? I don't know - it's just a thought.....

I'm 55 and have very good acuity AFAIK. At least opticians always talk about the fact that I have very good 'correctability' by which they mean that I have almost 20/20 vision which the right prescription. I'm am very slightly short sighted (-1.00) and have a slight astigmatism in both eyes, but otherwise no problems. I have my eyes checked regularly because there is a history of glaucoma in my family.

I can certainly induce CA in my 7x42 UVHD+ but I never see it in normal use. I've always thought that CA was largely a function of poor IPD and focus, but I'm no expert and defer to those who are. However, my only bin for years and years was a 10x25 BCA and I think that because of my experience of using that bin I am good at setting the IPD correctly. After all, if you don't set it right with a bin with an exit pupil of 2.5, you know about it pretty soon!
Mike, Sorry about the very long delay in responding! I was away much that weekend and a few days after. Then there were various involvements (BTW including birds and conservation). Also I needed to read/re-read up some optics material before answering. I thought a couple times before to write and send this but could (did!) not get down to it.

CA due to loss of acuity in the user of a binocular. I am not aware if that is known. I am afraid I am not able to figure that out. May be it is possible due to some change in the shape or the material of the lens of the eye.

20/20. This figure was first assigned to this acuity in the past in circumstances that I cannot remember too well but explained this forum. Acuity sharper than that is common/very common. It seems to me that several/many who write on here are at about 20/15 or better. I had thought that correcting mild or middling myopia (short-sightedness) to one's "potential" acuity with glasses or contact lenses is always possible if no other problem intervenes. It seems that most opticians in many countries routinely do not test beyond 20/20. If this is so in your case then your acuity may be better than that.

CA due to incorrect IPD or focus. Mention of it in these forums is seldom due to those reasons!

Where I am it is difficult or impossible to sell a very pricey binocular if you do not like it. I have read a lot about CA in Leicas and before buying an Ultravid HD+ 7x42 wish to know some more about CA in it. I was particularly scared by Quincy88's "green fog of chromatic aberration"! Hence this thread.

My acuity is about 20/15. Among regular writers here in several/many it is keener and in several/many it is less keen than that. If that is not known and stated then (a) there is endless argument at cross purposes about sharpness of a given binocular, and (b) I am left not knowing if it will be sharp enough for me. That is why I have been proposing that reviewers state their acuity (and other relevant vision conditions).

I linked the two, CA and VA, in my last post above because I think that CA in some binocular, longitudinal as explained by Typo/David, and lateral as very fine fringing, may be visible only to those with better acuity than me.

David, thank you very much, for your explanation in my "absence", knowing of a risk in this situation, which was in fact realized. I appreciate this as I do your knowledge. Your response is of course more valuable than mine.

My thanks also to everyone who responded to me with their experiences and useful ideas. It seems to me that now, after this thread began, in other threads also CA has also been addressed more than usual, which I believe will be of help to many.

Personally, I had thought I may possibly be neurotic about CA (neurotic, Merriam-Webster basic: "often or always fearful or worried about something : tending to worry in a way that is not healthy or reasonable"). In my last "review", of the Zeiss Victory 8x25 I set down FWIW: "I am sensitive to color fringing in that it can be 'provoked' easily and here that occurs less than 1/2 way from the center of view. In actual use it was never obtrusive or even noticeable." Now I know that in the Ultravid 7x for me it will be. I may still go for it hoping I will be able to sum up as in one post above (Gilmore Girl) that I: "need and desire CA to be controlled reasonably well and I think it is in the 7x42 plus model"!

Last edited by adhoc : Tuesday 9th October 2018 at 04:36.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th October 2018, 09:16   #55
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
adhoc, no problem with the delayed response. I'm having trouble keeping up with everything at the moment and I haven't even been away!

I appreciate your comments regarding 20/20. I have to admit that I mistakenly thought when I posted my acuity as 20/20 that is was perfect vision, but I now realise that it's just a standard that opticians use that they aim to give everyone when they correct vision with glasses and they are probably not concerned with giving you the best possible correction, and certainly not concerned with finding out what your actually acuity is. As long as they can get you to 20/20 they're happy (and tell you that you should also be, hence the comments I remember). I do though also remember being able to read smaller lines of letters underneath the line which they seemed concerned that I could read, and when I read them received comments like, 'yes, very good', or, 'you don't have to be able to read that line'. Sorry for my ignorance - I'm here to learn! :)

I've been given some pointers by a member here on how to ascertain what my actual acuity is, and I'm going to look into that (excuse the pun) when I get the chance.

Your best bet with the 7x42 UVHD+ would be to somehow try before you buy, but living as I do in a (beautiful) part of Finland many miles from any major city, I appreciate that that can be easier said than done! All the best.

Michael.
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th October 2018, 17:36   #56
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
... Now I know that in the Ultravid 7x for me it will be. I may still go for it hoping I will be able to sum up as in one post above (Gilmore Girl) that I: "need and desire CA to be controlled reasonably well and I think it is in the 7x42 plus model"!
Don't put too much stock in my experience. I don't think I'm nearly as picky as you when it comes to choosing a binocular (based on your posts I've read over time). My hunch is you'll see some CA in the 7x42 and won't tolerate it.
For me, it's minimal and I have no issues with it. I would move on from the Ultravid and save yourself the time and energy of having to return it. I could be wrong about that and probably shouldn't discourage. I just think if CA is a big deal for you then staying away from Ultravids and Noctivids is a good idea.

Try to find a Zeiss FL 7x42 which will have the best CA control, is still relatively light weight and has a great focus action. I only have experience with 8x32 FL and really liked it. CA control lived up to the hype here on the forum. That was one of the first things I checked for. There was very subtle fringing (barely noticeable) on the very outer edge and I couldn't detect any in the sweet spot. If I didn't have to wear glasses I'd probably have the FL 8x32 right now. Unfortunately, I don't find any 8x32 comfortable enough (for me) with glasses after using the 7x42 for so long now.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 04:05   #57
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 469
Gilmore Girl, thanks, that is useful to clarify my thinking at present. The Zeiss is too big though as I very much like smallness. Maybe I should go for the Opticron Discovery 7x42, USD 210 in UK/250 in US, much shorter than (even) the Uv. (link, comparison photo) and await a new smaller Nikon EDG 7x. If after some time there is no other small "alpha" 7x then it might be the Uv. despite that CA!
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 12:40   #58
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
Gilmore Girl, thanks, that is useful to clarify my thinking at present. The Zeiss is too big though as I very much like smallness. Maybe I should go for the Opticron Discovery 7x42, USD 210 in UK/250 in US, much shorter than (even) the Uv. (link, comparison photo) and await a new smaller Nikon EDG 7x. If after some time there is no other small "alpha" 7x then it might be the Uv. despite that CA!
I didn't know another requirement for your 7x42 consideration is small-ish size.
The 42 FL's are long. I've never looked through any of the bigger FLs. I wouldn't mind trying the 7x42 sometime just out of curiosity. I also like smaller binos.
Unfortunately, there's very little choice in 7x now. How about 6.5x32 Meopro? They're hard to find now, but I saw one last year on eBay. Good luck on your search. You could still try the Uvid for a couple days and return if you can't tolerate the CA levels. I don't think it's bad at all, but sounds like you're pretty sensitive to it.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 17:31   #59
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 469
Thanks, but, copying from 2 fairly recent posts by me in BirdForum:

6.5x: "I was rather thrilled by the view of the Kowa YF 6x30 (porro, "clones with" Leupold Yosemite, very good optical quality, at less than USD 100) in a woodland setting due to its depth of field and 8.0-8.1 deg. FOV. You could see so much of birdlife, that is, different species and their movements, in one view. But I felt its 6x was inadequate for detail of the birds. Since then I have been hoping for such a view at 7x from some model of good optical quality. I would also, as you might remember, like a binocular to be smaller!"

Testing and returning: "Where I am it is nearly impossible to look for binoculars, getting one (from abroad) is a long process, returning is complicated if possible at all, and selling here is uncertain (finding takers for a model, even if the unit is in perfect order), and will be at a much lower price. (I have gone through that n times!)"
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 17:48   #60
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
Thanks, but, copying from 2 fairly recent posts by me in BirdForum:

6.5x: "I was rather thrilled by the view of the Kowa YF 6x30 (porro, "clones with" Leupold Yosemite, very good optical quality, at less than USD 100) in a woodland setting due to its depth of field and 8.0-8.1 deg. FOV. You could see so much of birdlife, that is, different species and their movements, in one view. But I felt its 6x was inadequate for detail of the birds. Since then I have been hoping for such a view at 7x from some model of good optical quality. I would also, as you might remember, like a binocular to be smaller!"

Testing and returning: "Where I am it is nearly impossible to look for binoculars, getting one (from abroad) is a long process, returning is complicated if possible at all, and selling here is uncertain (finding takers for a model, even if the unit is in perfect order), and will be at a much lower price. (I have gone through that n times!)"
Ok, got it...returns sound like a major hassle and I can't blame you for being careful to avoid them.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 13th October 2018, 00:05   #61
F88
Registered User
 
F88's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: East Coast
Posts: 79
Love the Trinovid 8x42 (second most recent with centre diopter) but in challenging conditions CA is evident, not a big deal but would be better if not there. Apart from that the view is really nice.
It seems the UV HD+ 7x42 has a bit of a cult following and is said to control CA much better.
So tell me, how much more would I love the 7x42? Hmmmm depth of field, low CA, brighter and so on.
F88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 13th October 2018, 01:06   #62
Lightbender
User
BF Supporter 2018
 
Lightbender's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Northern Germany
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
Testing and returning: "Where I am it is nearly impossible to look for binoculars, getting one (from abroad) is a long process, returning is complicated if possible at all, and selling here is uncertain (finding takers for a model, even if the unit is in perfect order), and will be at a much lower price. (I have gone through that n times!)"
Where do you live?
:-)
__________________
Zum Sehen geboren, zum Schauen bestellt. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
Lightbender is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 13th October 2018, 02:21   #63
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by F88 View Post
Love the Trinovid 8x42 (second most recent with centre diopter) but in challenging conditions CA is evident, not a big deal but would be better if not there. Apart from that the view is really nice.
It seems the UV HD+ 7x42 has a bit of a cult following and is said to control CA much better.
So tell me, how much more would I love the 7x42? Hmmmm depth of field, low CA, brighter and so on.
Hi F88,

I had the same Trinivid model and agree CA is controlled much better in the 7x42 Plus. I like my 7x42 + quite a bit more than that model Trinovid. You may not have the same experience, but thought I'd share my 2 cents.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 13th October 2018, 04:04   #64
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightbender View Post
Where do you live?
:-)
Copying from my post after the second post above in that same thread:

"I have to apologize for still wishing to remain anonymous, which is the reason I assumed a forum name, and for still wishing to reveal the minimum about me otherwise, which is why I also prefer not to state my location! Please see how far you can tolerate weirdos: maybe you can stretch it a bit more!"
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 13th October 2018, 19:30   #65
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by F88 View Post
Love the Trinovid 8x42 (second most recent with centre diopter) but in challenging conditions CA is evident, not a big deal but would be better if not there. Apart from that the view is really nice.
It seems the UV HD+ 7x42 has a bit of a cult following and is said to control CA much better.
So tell me, how much more would I love the 7x42? Hmmmm depth of field, low CA, brighter and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilmore Girl View Post
Hi F88,

I had the same Trinovid model and agree CA is controlled much better in the 7x42 Plus. I like my 7x42 + quite a bit more than that model Trinovid. You may not have the same experience, but thought I'd share my 2 cents.
I own both, and agree with GG about the CA. Personally though I still really appreciate the Trinovid 8x42 in it's own right. However, you are correct about the things that you would expect to be better in the 7x42 UVHD+ (add FOV and noticeably lighter weight to that list), and if I could only own one of the two it would definitely be the 7x42.
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 13th October 2018, 23:59   #66
F88
Registered User
 
F88's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: East Coast
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
I own both, and agree with GG about the CA. Personally though I still really appreciate the Trinovid 8x42 in it's own right. However, you are correct about the things that you would expect to be better in the 7x42 UVHD+ (add FOV and noticeably lighter weight to that list), and if I could only own one of the two it would definitely be the 7x42.
Yes, the FOV was another thing I was aware of and that's a bonus.
I find it interesting that you still appreciate the Trinovid. Tech specs aside, is this due to aspects of it's view and how it renders?
F88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 14th October 2018, 00:03   #67
F88
Registered User
 
F88's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: East Coast
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilmore Girl View Post
Hi F88,

I had the same Trinivid model and agree CA is controlled much better in the 7x42 Plus. I like my 7x42 + quite a bit more than that model Trinovid. You may not have the same experience, but thought I'd share my 2 cents.
I can partially blame you for my interest in the UV 7x42
I've read the glowing reports from you and others.
Recently found a really good deal on a new set, which I can't really afford but plan on thinning the collection to off set.
F88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 14th October 2018, 11:29   #68
Patudo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightbender View Post
Where do you live?
:-)
I think Lightbender might have asked this question partly in jest; but given how individual purchasing binoculars is, if you're unable to try out binoculars yourself, you're operating under a considerable handicap. Your vision and individual facial "fit" is your own, and reviews and online commentary can, in the final analysis, only get you so far. If you feel you can disclose the city/region or country of residence I'm sure some of us will be able to recommend an optics store where binoculars can be tried out, or offer their own binoculars for you to look through (you're welcome to try any of mine if you are in/near London).

Last edited by Patudo : Sunday 14th October 2018 at 11:33.
Patudo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 14th October 2018, 11:53   #69
F88
Registered User
 
F88's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: East Coast
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patudo View Post
I think Lightbender might have asked this question partly in jest; but given how individual purchasing binoculars is, if you're unable to try out binoculars yourself, you're operating under a considerable handicap. Your vision and individual facial "fit" is your own, and reviews and online commentary can, in the final analysis, only get you so far. If you feel you can disclose the city/region or country of residence I'm sure some of us will be able to recommend an optics store where binoculars can be tried out, or offer their own binoculars for you to look through (you're welcome to try any of mine if you are in/near London).
I'm in a similar unfortunate situation where it's either difficult or impossible to try binoculars out before buying them as there's simply no stores to just drop into and try them.
I will however be testing the UV HD+ 7x42 soon and comparing them to my benchmark Fujinon 7x50, not apples with apples and quite unfair to many binoculars as they are just so good, obviously the Leica would be more versatile image quality aside.
F88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 14th October 2018, 14:11   #70
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by F88 View Post
Yes, the FOV was another thing I was aware of and that's a bonus.
I find it interesting that you still appreciate the Trinovid. Tech specs aside, is this due to aspects of it's view and how it renders?
To fully understand why I bought the 8x42 Trinovid when I already had the 7x42 UVHD+ I'd have to bore you with the whole story of how I came to buy them, but suffice to say that I paid only a third of what a new 7x42 costs (they were an ex-dem item). However, the fact is that 8x is 8x, and not 7x(!), and whilst I'd happily give up a little detail retrieval for the benefits of the 7x42 it's nice to have an 8x format bin as well. In addition I like the ergonomics of the Trinovid. I have no problem with the extra weight and the armouring feels slightly nicer to me. The UV's armour has a slightly 'sticky' feel which offers more grip, but I just like the feel of the Triny a bit more. I also slightly prefer the focusing mechanism which, because it has a stainless steel mechanism instead of titanium, feels a bit smoother. At the end of the day the view from the 7x42 is better in every way, but the 8x42 Trinovid still has that lovely Leica view, comparable by all accounts to the original UV, and I simply couldn't pass up the opportunity to own the best iteration of the Trinovid in a format (8x) that I wouldn't otherwise have.
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 14th October 2018, 14:37   #71
F88
Registered User
 
F88's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: East Coast
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
To fully understand why I bought the 8x42 Trinovid when I already had the 7x42 UVHD+ I'd have to bore you with the whole story of how I came to buy them, but suffice to say that I paid only a third of what a new 7x42 costs (they were an ex-dem item). However, the fact is that 8x is 8x, and not 7x(!), and whilst I'd happily give up a little detail retrieval for the benefits of the 7x42 it's nice to have an 8x format bin as well. In addition I like the ergonomics of the Trinovid. I have no problem with the extra weight and the armouring feels slightly nicer to me. The UV's armour has a slightly 'sticky' feel which offers more grip, but I just like the feel of the Triny a bit more. I also slightly prefer the focusing mechanism which, because it has a stainless steel mechanism instead of titanium, feels a bit smoother. At the end of the day the view from the 7x42 is better in every way, but the 8x42 Trinovid still has that lovely Leica view, comparable by all accounts to the original UV, and I simply couldn't pass up the opportunity to own the best iteration of the Trinovid in a format (8x) that I wouldn't otherwise have.
Thanks for your story Mike, I like it.
I bought my Trinovid new and I'll be paying about that plus a bit over a third more for the UV, a really good deal considering they are also new.
Looking forward to comparing them.
F88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 14th October 2018, 17:30   #72
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 469
Patudo, I hope that no resentment can be read into my reply to Lightbender!

Thank you for offering to suggest a shop/s I could reach to try a range of good binoculars. But, for my location, as for much of the world, that is simply impossible.

Thank you very much for the kind offer to a stranger (a weird one at that!) to test the view through your binoculars. But it looks like I will decide about the Ultravid 7x and if buying it do so before I am next in the UK!
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 14th October 2018, 23:46   #73
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by F88 View Post
I can partially blame you for my interest in the UV 7x42
I've read the glowing reports from you and others.
Recently found a really good deal on a new set, which I can't really afford but plan on thinning the collection to off set.
Oh no ... I'm a bad influence:) I paid full price when the Plus came out and now they're a bit cheaper. I really paid too much, but I'm happy with it. I think in Jan it will be 3 years with it. If you really like your Trinovid then it stands to reason you'll be very happy with the ultravid+ I remember my Trinovid having very nice smooth focus and ease of view with glasses despite shorter ER (15.5 I think).
The 7x42 has 17mm ER and the 6mm EP makes it great(!) with my eyeglasses.
I had the Trinovid for about a year I believe. I found it too heavy after awhile.
Previously I was using 30/32mm bins so the weight increase was a bit too much for me.
The 7x42 is slightly lighter than the 8x42 Plus according to the specs I recall.
I think it was Chuck who weighed his 7x42 at about 26.5 oz with no caps/rainguard. At this weight it's manageable for me, but of course I wouldn't mind it being lighter. Let us know how you like it if you get it someday.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 15th October 2018, 13:25   #74
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
I'm 55 and have very good acuity AFAIK. At least opticians always talk about the fact that I have very good 'correctability' by which they mean that I have almost 20/20 vision which the right prescription............
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
I appreciate your comments regarding 20/20. I have to admit that I mistakenly thought when I posted my acuity as 20/20 that it was perfect vision...........

I've been given some pointers by a member here on how to ascertain what my actual acuity is, and I'm going to look into that (excuse the pun) when I get the chance.
So, as I previously stated my acuity, I feel that I should give an update. Typo, (David) has very kindly given me some advise and guidance on the subject of acuity and how to properly establish what mine is with the Snellen eye test chart.

https://www.allaboutvision.com/eye-t...llen-chart.pdf

The chart is designed to be used from 10 feet with the bottom line corresponding to 20/20, so I did the test from 20 feet and halved the second number accordingly. The bottom line would then be 20/10. I found that I could read all of the letters on the second from bottom line (line 8, or 20/25 at 10 feet) with my left eye with no problem and even a few on the bottom line. I made one mistake on line 8 with my right eye (mistook an E for a Z). Both eyes together was no problem at all on that line and I could read about half of the letters on the bottom line with both eyes together.

So my actual acuity is around or a bit better than 20/12.5. Just for the record!
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 25th October 2018, 01:20   #75
F88
Registered User
 
F88's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: East Coast
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
To fully understand why I bought the 8x42 Trinovid when I already had the 7x42 UVHD+ I'd have to bore you with the whole story of how I came to buy them, but suffice to say that I paid only a third of what a new 7x42 costs (they were an ex-dem item). However, the fact is that 8x is 8x, and not 7x(!), and whilst I'd happily give up a little detail retrieval for the benefits of the 7x42 it's nice to have an 8x format bin as well. In addition I like the ergonomics of the Trinovid. I have no problem with the extra weight and the armouring feels slightly nicer to me. The UV's armour has a slightly 'sticky' feel which offers more grip, but I just like the feel of the Triny a bit more. I also slightly prefer the focusing mechanism which, because it has a stainless steel mechanism instead of titanium, feels a bit smoother. At the end of the day the view from the 7x42 is better in every way, but the 8x42 Trinovid still has that lovely Leica view, comparable by all accounts to the original UV, and I simply couldn't pass up the opportunity to own the best iteration of the Trinovid in a format (8x) that I wouldn't otherwise have.
I can really relate regarding the Trinovid now, I actually like it even more now....

So I've had the 7x42 HD+ for a few days now.
Here's some initial thoughts compared to the 8x42 Trinovid (second most recent, centre diopter).
It's a bit brighter, has less CA but still can be seen, is noticeably wider in FOV and a bit more DOF. Regarding the Trinovid it has a much smoother focusing wheel, feels better in my hands and handles better, while being a touch less bright I can actually see more detail with it even in shadows or low light due to the higher mag (did some flying fox watching in low light late evening).
So what's to gain... well nothing really, on that note I can see why they dropped this particular Trinovid so soon as it's excellent and must be extremely similar to the 8x42 UV. I had intended to sell my Trinovid in as new condition but I can't do it and actually like it even more after the 7x42HD+ comparison.
In summary, 7x42HD+ gives a bit of extra FOV, DOF and less CA, mildly brighter.
8x42 Trinovid feels much better in my hands, focuses much more smoothly and feels more precise accordingly, shows more detail with the extra mag (quite noticeable between the 7 and 8x, this is also a bit of a toss up as it's basically a matter of a bit brighter and a bit more steady vs closer view with the higher mag), can show CA more readily but likely only when searching for it particularly in difficult lighting.
They are both good but surprisingly I can't say the 7x42HD+ is better, just different. Without comparing I'd hazard a guess that the 8x42HD+ would be very similar to the Trinovid if not identical to the HD or BR.
I'll go as far, at this point which may change in time, that I'd even favour the 8x42 Trinovid over the 7x42HD+ but they are different enough to hang on to both.

Last edited by F88 : Thursday 25th October 2018 at 02:07.
F88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chromatic Aberration ... MagpieCorvidae Binoculars 20 Sunday 25th May 2014 11:49
Causes of Chromatic Aberration angelo225544 Others 6 Friday 11th October 2013 17:39
Chromatic aberration in ATM 65 HD + 25-50x andrea86bert Swarovski 2 Monday 26th November 2012 18:14
Chromatic Aberration 7D Barred Wobbler Canon 7 Tuesday 19th April 2011 03:44
Chromatic aberration ? AZRim Camera Settings 7 Wednesday 21st November 2007 23:37

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24414611 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:29.