• 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.

Zeiss Victory 8x32FL Vs Leica Trinovid 8x32BN ramblings (1 Viewer)

good dude,

thanks for that blow by blow comparison btwn these two fine roofs. one area i am curious about that you did not include is 'distortion'

i've read reports about excessive pincushion in the Trinnies. according to allbinos, in the 8x32 FL straight lines start to bend at 56% out. Arek only reviewed the 10x32 Trinnie not the 8x32. In fact, there are many more 10x bins than 8x reviewed on the site, which is one reason i thought he was an astronomer or hunter.

In the 10x32 Trinnie, lines starting curving at 55% out, so not much difference there, but not an apples to apples comparison, with a smaller FOV than the 8x32, I would expect less distortion.

Anyway, interested to read your comments on the distortion (pincushion) levels on these two roofs.

The Dude (aka "The Big Lebowski")

Unfortunately the Allbinos distortion numbers are only half the picture. With all the bino comparisons I've done over the past few weeks, I honestly believe that it's more important how much distortion a bino has, rather than where it actually starts.

In other words I personally would be more put off by a bino which curved straight lines excessively, even if the distortion started 10% or 20% further out, than a bino with less distortion and hence straighter lines, but started closer in to the sweet spot.
 
Thank's Beethoven for the kind & generous & encouraging words, the 9th Symphony is my favourite.

I suppose all this pincushion mumbo jumbo is a bit like music eh? We all see it differently because our eyes and our brains are all not exactly the same (evolution). My wife has a freckle on her left Retina so quality bins are wasted on her. I however can see a pimple on a Gnats *****!

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Hello Brock and TDIG,

Carefully examining the views from the Bn and from the Fl, I find that both exhibit some pincushion distortion but the less from the Zeiss. However, like TDIG, I do not dwell on what is happening, at the edge. Additionally, since I never pan, when watching birds,I do not experience rolling ball effects.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :news:
Hey Arthur it's good to hear from you again man. As always your views are appreciated and very informative.

The only rolling balls I see are down at the Ten Pin Bowling alley, and most of mine are Gutterballs after too many ales!

CheersB :)
 
Unfortunately the Allbinos distortion numbers are only half the picture. With all the bino comparisons I've done over the past few weeks, I honestly believe that it's more important how much distortion a bino has, rather than where it actually starts.

In other words I personally would be more put off by a bino which curved straight lines excessively, even if the distortion started 10% or 20% further out, than a bino with less distortion and hence straighter lines, but started closer in to the sweet spot.

ab_bee,

you've mentioned this before when you were doing your reviews, and i was hoping that henry or ron or some other expert would chime in and either confirm or deny your supposition.

given that arek and other reviewers put the emphasis on where the first curved line appears, i've always assumed that how far from the center pincushion starts is a measure of how curved 'cupid's bow' will be at the edges. only if there were compound distortion would the rate of curving decrease at the edges.

however, if you're correct about there being a disconnect btwn how far the first curved line starts and the severity of pincushion at the edges, it would explain why sometimes arek's figures don't match my observations.

for example, he rated the 10x42 edg with lower distortion than the 10x42 hgl, which means i should be seeing RB with the edg too, but i don't, in fact, the panning motion is quite smooth.

so i'm eager to get a second opinion on this.

brock
 
It took awhile to get to the meat, but it was a tasty meal all the same. Nice job !

Thanks James.

Well I did say right from the outset it was a ramble!

I've recouped my energy now by making a nice medium Popeseye steak this evening, prime Aberdeen Angus from the Orkney Isles, and damned tasty it was too.

Cheers for the compliments.
 
This is a lovely read. Thank you very much Thisdudeisgood.

The only area that your experience is contrary to mine is in the area of color rendition. I have always found the saturation of the Leica more pronounced than the Zeiss. And with this saturation, a more pleasing picture is observed. The color with the Zeiss could be "truer", and more "honest", but the Leica is more saturated, more contrasty, and somehow to my eyes more pleasing.

By the way, in the old days of film photography and when shooting slide films, a very slight underexposure by 1/3 of a stop or so would produce more color saturated slide (and the opposite is correct--slight overexposure would slightly wash-up the colors). Is it possible that can explain the saturation of Leica being less bright than the Zeiss?

Once more, a very nice read, and thank you very much.
 
TGID,
My experience with the 8x42s is in almost perfect agreement. In some places I think the differences between the two is a little stronger than you say, but in every single case I agree with the winner, or draw.

I sold my BA. The FL beat it, and I didn't need both. But there's something about Trinovids I can't get away from. The optical design is just so very fine. Partly because of my stargazing passtime, I now have a 12x50 BN.
Ron
 
Last edited:
Hello TGID,

I thank you for taking the time to write so extensively, about you binoculars.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 
TGID,

I sold my BA. The FL beat it, and I didn't need both. But there's something about Trinovids I can't get away from. The optical design is just so very fine. Partly because of my stargazing pastime, I now have a 12x50 BN.
Ron

Same here. Despite of the superiority of the newer FL 8x32 vis-a-vis a similar Ultravid and the tremendous joy I get from the Zeiss, I also added a Trinovid 10x32 BA fresh out of full service from Leica. I missed something that I could not identify from an earlier acquisition of a Leica 8x32 BN. Perhaps it is the legendary color rendition of the Leica. What are your thoughts I wonder?
 
Hello TGID,

I like very much your report, thank you!! And, must say, your impression about the differences between the Leica BN vs. Zeiss FL are the same almost to the last detail and perfectly put in words, than mine between my (ex) Leica BA 10x42 and my (present) Zeiss FL 10x42. I sold the Leica and keep the Zeiss. Clearly better, for my taste, optically. I bought the Zeiss FL back in 2004. Pre-Locu Tec, of course. The view was so much better almost in all aspects like: colour fidelity and saturation, contrast, brightness and lack of chromatic aberration. The central resolution was about the same in both, but the view throught the BA was clearly much dimmer and less brilliant than the Zeiss. Definitely!!

PH
 
Hello TGID,

Really enjoyed reading this thread, and IMO it was all the more enjoyable because it was your opinion carried out in real world birding with out all the technical babble.
 
This is a lovely read. Thank you very much Thisdudeisgood.

The only area that your experience is contrary to mine is in the area of color rendition. I have always found the saturation of the Leica more pronounced than the Zeiss. And with this saturation, a more pleasing picture is observed. The color with the Zeiss could be "truer", and more "honest", but the Leica is more saturated, more contrasty, and somehow to my eyes more pleasing.

By the way, in the old days of film photography and when shooting slide films, a very slight underexposure by 1/3 of a stop or so would produce more color saturated slide (and the opposite is correct--slight overexposure would slightly wash-up the colors). Is it possible that can explain the saturation of Leica being less bright than the Zeiss?

Once more, a very nice read, and thank you very much.

Hello Ibramr

No problem, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I can understand why you love the colours of the Trinovid so much as there can be no denying it is superb. I think the superior brightness of the Zeiss is what gives it the edge all round, it certainly adds to the perception of the colours being fresher, if the Leica was as bright maybe it would somehow affect the colours too and the comparison would be a draw? Food for thought.

I'm not very informed when it comes to photography but maybe someone else can give some opinions on that. Your argument there sounds very interesting.

Best regards

Brendan
 
Last edited:
TGID,
My experience with the 8x42s is in almost perfect agreement. In some places I think the differences between the two is a little stronger than you say, but in every single case I agree with the winner, or draw.

I sold my BA. The FL beat it, and I didn't need both. But there's something about Trinovids I can't get away from. The optical design is just so very fine. Partly because of my stargazing passtime, I now have a 12x50 BN.
Ron

Hi Ron

It's good to know that someone with your experience agrees with my ramblings, that is encouraging.

If I had to put my finger on one thing It would be the superior brightness of the Zeiss. Although the Zeiss is technically superior in a number of areas, for me it is this amazing brightness that really put's it at the top of the tree. I was out again today with the Victory for 2hrs and the eye pleacement is getting more natural for me now so I'm happy about that.

Like you I will be selling the Trinovid but its not easy to part with it as I feel purely as an object it looks much more attractive than the Zeiss and it has to be one of the nicest binoculars ever made, a real classic. I've even been tempted just to send it back to Leica for a refurb (not that it really needs it) and then keep in storage just to have a wee peek at it now and then. Ha ha. But then again I need the money (don't we all)!

Your Stargazing thing sounds very interesting although I don't know much about that hobby. Would a telescope not be your best bet for that hobby?

All the best

Brendan
 
Hello TGID,

I thank you for taking the time to write so extensively, about you binoculars.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

Hi Arthur

No problem it was a pleasure to do a comparison between these two fine binoculars. Im glad you enjoyed reading about my ramblings. (Im secretly quite pleased with myself as nobody has disagreed with any of my observations............ yet........... ha ha!)

Best regards & happy bird watching.

Brendan
 
Hello TGID,

I like very much your report, thank you!! And, must say, your impression about the differences between the Leica BN vs. Zeiss FL are the same almost to the last detail and perfectly put in words, than mine between my (ex) Leica BA 10x42 and my (present) Zeiss FL 10x42. I sold the Leica and keep the Zeiss. Clearly better, for my taste, optically. I bought the Zeiss FL back in 2004. Pre-Locu Tec, of course. The view was so much better almost in all aspects like: colour fidelity and saturation, contrast, brightness and lack of chromatic aberration. The central resolution was about the same in both, but the view throught the BA was clearly much dimmer and less brilliant than the Zeiss. Definitely!!

PH

Hello PHA

Its good to hear you had the same experience as me, even though you had the x42. It gives me more confidence in my own observations. That would suggest the differences in optics between the two binoculars must be fairly consistent accross the formats so anyone considering a purchase of the x42 will find your comments interesting. I have still to properly evaluate the claims of this Lotutec lens application, especially in the wet, but I am pretty sure it has no effect on the optical preformance. Rather it is the T* that counts here.

Has anyone done a comparison between the Victory and the New Lecia Ultravid HD I wonder? That would be an interesting comparison indeed.

Best regards & happy birding

Brendan
 
Hello TGID,

Really enjoyed reading this thread, and IMO it was all the more enjoyable because it was your opinion carried out in real world birding with out all the technical babble.

Hello Torview

Good to hear you enjoyed my ramblings, thanks for taking the time to say so.

Happy birding

Brendan
 
and...

Brendan: just wanted to add my thanks as well. I enjoyed reading your report about the two binoculars. Even though I get caught up in the "scientific optic jargon," I often find more value in another person's subjective experience.

john
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top