Tried the new Trinovid today (1 Viewer)

brocknroller · Feb 13, 2012

ronh said:
It is pretty funny how the mostly imaginary Conquest HD is so badly out-buzzing the similar Trinovid neu. The Zeiss may be better, who knows, but we seem to have been taken in by the magical phrases ED, Lotutec, and a more detailed first impression. If you still get what you pay for, the Leica should be better, being roughly $1300 vs the Conquest's $900. In my little bit of experience, it seems that Zeiss wins on technology, but Leica on old fashioned precision setting of the optics. Zeiss is killer bright and clear, Leica killer sharp. This is going to be fun, and it's not over yet.
Ron

Not necessarily ED glass, Ron, the magical phrase with the new Zeiss "HD" glass is "a brand new high quality Schott glass." No mere mortal knows what it is, and Wizards of Absam and their cohorts aren't saying.

My eyes ain't what they used to be, I need killer bright and clear AND killer sharp. IOW, a porro!

Brock

temmie · Feb 13, 2012

Just to say something, Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski all use Schott glass in their top end bins. Schott brings out new glas regularly, so it is quite 'normal' to use a new type of glass.

etc · Feb 13, 2012

The overdrive past infinity is still only 4 diopters, which means it's out for me as I have 5 diopters of myopia...
I prefer Leica optically but my realistic choices are Swarovski and Zeiss with their greater focus past infinity for myopic users who don't want eyeglasses.

henry link · Feb 13, 2012

ronh said:
It is pretty funny how the mostly imaginary Conquest HD is so badly out-buzzing the similar Trinovid neu. The Zeiss may be better, who knows, but we seem to have been taken in by the magical phrases ED, Lotutec, and a more detailed first impression. If you still get what you pay for, the Leica should be better, being roughly $1300 vs the Conquest's $900. In my little bit of experience, it seems that Zeiss wins on technology, but Leica on old fashioned precision setting of the optics. Zeiss is killer bright and clear, Leica killer sharp. This is going to be fun, and it's not over yet.
Ron

Ron, did you notice that the new Trinovids appear to have 6 element eyepieces, one more element than the 8x42/10x42 Ultravids. Six elements, in the right design, ought be enough for some very good off-axis corrections.

Henry

ronh · Feb 13, 2012

Henry,
No I didn't. A little known fact here, Leica can do sharp to the edge--I saw it in the admittedly narrow (about 55deg) 8x+12x42 Duovid, and was surprised and delighted. Edge sharpness is the hot thing, and given the just plain Trinovid's modest field, it's likely your suspicion will be borne out. Personally I hope they keep the pincushion distortion.

Also, I'd like to see an ascessory kit to add lead weights, and glue big polyeurethane ribs all over the place. If you can't have an old one recoated, you can go the other way...
Ron

temmie · Feb 14, 2012

ronh said:
Edge sharpness is the hot thing,

It's not for 99% of birdwatchers. It's a gimmick, a marketing-thing.
And field flatteners absorb all the precious light that needs to go to your eyes.
So no edge sharpness required when compromising other, more important parameters, thank you!

henry link · Feb 14, 2012

You've been misinformed. Field flatteners add one or at most two elements to the eyepiece. The light loss is likely to be 1-2%.

temmie · Feb 14, 2012

henry link said:
You've been misinformed. Field flatteners add one or at most two elements to the eyepiece. The light loss is likely to be 1-2%.

What exactly have I written that sound like I am misinformed?
You just confirmed my statement about field-flatteners: they deliver more edge sharpness but limit light transmission, so be free and happy to pick what you prefer for your application...

JabaliHunter · Feb 14, 2012

temmie said:
What exactly have I written that sound like I am misinformed?

This bit

temmie said:
And field flatteners absorb all the precious light that needs to go to your eyes.

Perhaps you meant some of the light...
Someone on another thread asked a question as to whether a 1-2% increase in light transmission was even visible to the eye...

In a binocular with excellent light transmission of 90+%, a loss of 1-2% due to a field flattening eyepiece element(s) would still likely result in a binocular that has higher light transmission than much of the competition.

henry link · Feb 14, 2012

temmie,

I think you're getting carried away by a difference that isn't large enough to be significant. In the photo below I'm holding a multi-coated doublet from a binocular eyepiece in front of a white piece of paper. That's about how much light is lost from the addition of a field flattener.

Henry

temmie · Feb 14, 2012

@ Henry: Perhaps field flatteners are not significantly adding anything to a binocular that a birdwatcher needs (except for some companies asking top prices because they can market this gimmick to the average Joe)?
@ Jabalihunter: Perhaps you shouldn't read everything that is written literally? And why would you give up any of that transmission % in a top-binocular, especially if it doesn't really seems to improve the views? For me, it's a design flaw and nothing more.

hinnark · Feb 14, 2012

Temmie,

due to advanced multi-coatings, the times of avoiding every non-essential piece of glass in the name of transmission have long gone.

A wide and sharp field of view gives my eyes a more relaxed view. It prevents the eyes of getting tired early, especially after a long day of birding.

Steve

temmie · Feb 14, 2012

hinnark said:
due to advanced multi-coatings, the times of avoiding every non-essential piece of glass in the name of transmission have long gone.

That's a bold statement.

In fact, binocular producers spend decades of time and lots of money to improve coatings and, at the same time, to optimize transmission curves to gain 0.1% after 0.1%.

So putting a non-essential (at least for me!) piece of glass in there, reducing transmission with 2% and marketing it as the new hype is just not what I am buying in to. If you do, fine!

hinnark · Feb 14, 2012

So, in consequence of your opinion, do you use only binoculars with cemented objective lenses and three element eyepieces? BTW, I don't think the lost of light would be as much as 2 %. More likely it's less than 1 %. Be that as it may, I doubt that anybody is able to notice the difference in brightness if a field flattener is put into the lightpath.

Steve

pimpelmees · Feb 14, 2012

temmie said:
What exactly have I written that sound like I am misinformed?
You just confirmed my statement about field-flatteners: they deliver more edge sharpness but limit light transmission, so be free and happy to pick what you prefer for your application...

my swarovsion has enough light transmission i think :t:
and i love that edge scharpness !

henry link · Feb 14, 2012

Steve,

I agree that 1% or less is more like it. I was really bending over backwards in conceding a 2% loss by assigning a conservative 99.5% transmission per surface to an air spaced doublet like the one in the Swarovski SV. Certainly the Nikon EDG has to be less than 1% since the eyepiece only has 4 groups. They couldn't get by with less than 3 without a flattener, so the flattener adds essentially one multi-coated singlet to a "normal" 5 element eyepiece. In reality, the Swaro is probably closer to a 1% loss and the Nikon 0.5%.

Henry

Alexis Powell · Feb 14, 2012

temmie said:
It's not for 99% of birdwatchers...

If that's true, thank goodness (for once!) for marketing to the whims of the average joe, because I'm one of the 1% of serious birders who really enjoys a flat and astigmatism free field. I also like a wide field, but these new Trinovids are nothing better than conventional in that respect.

--AP

temmie · Feb 14, 2012

Alexis Powell said:
If that's true, thank goodness (for once!) for marketing to the whims of the average joe, because I'm one of the 1% of serious birders who really enjoys a flat and astigmatism free field. I also like a wide field, but these new Trinovids are nothing better than conventional in that respect.

--AP

If you read my quote correctly, you could see I wrote: "It's not a hot thing for 99% of birdwatchers." I stand behind that.
Before Swaro coming up with flat field, 99% of birdwatchers never mentioned their need for flat field, so no, it was not a hot thing.

On the other hand, people who suffer from one or the other form of astigmatism can benefit from a flat field binocular more than from one with designed astigmatism, but those are still a minority.

Kammerdiner · Feb 14, 2012

temmie said:
If you read my quote correctly, you could see I wrote: "It's not a hot thing for 99% of birdwatchers." I stand behind that.
Before Swaro coming up with flat field, 99% of birdwatchers never mentioned their need for flat field, so no, it was not a hot thing.

On the other hand, people who suffer from one or the other form of astigmatism can benefit from a flat field binocular more than from one with designed astigmatism, but those are still a minority.

Well, lots of serious birders have been using Nikon SE's since the 1990's, including me. Really, once you live with a flat field for a while you won't go back. Is it "necessary" for birding? Nope. Will you give it up if you don't have to? Nope.

Mark

ceasar · Feb 15, 2012

Kammerdiner said:
Well, lots of serious birders have been using Nikon SE's since the 1990's, including me. Really, once you live with a flat field for a while you won't go back. Is it "necessary" for birding? Nope. Will you give it up if you don't have to? Nope.

Mark

Doesn't the SE use fewer lens elements to get that flat field along with the rest of it's "legendary" view than a roof prism binocular needs to match it?

Bob

Tried the new Trinovid today (1 Viewer)

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Natural history enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread