Tenex,
When I have some time I will compare the Trinovid 8X42 and the Ultravid 8X42 HD. Off the bat the Trinovid has a slightly smaller FOV.
Andy W.
"Read some of those and learn more."
A bit blunt tonight eh?
Andy W.
Curiously, nobody seems to comment on the unusual (for Leica) optical design of the 2011-15 Trinovid which is what struck me most about it. It offered a somewhat flatter field than the Ultravid, at the cost of worse falloff near the edges and a mildly odd effect when panning (surely less obvious than the infamous RB of early Swarovision). I thought it was a promising experiment for such a conservative company, though Leica clearly decided otherwise.
Leica have long espoused that some pincushion distortion and field curvature help give a three dimensional and transparent view.
"Read some of those and learn more."
A bit blunt tonight eh?
Andy W.
This Trinovid seems to be simply a reincarnated Ultravid BR, with similar optics.
I have had both and I feel the Swarovski SV 10x50's are definitely better because of the perfectly sharp edges and they are going to be brighter because of better glass and dielectric prism coatings. But that being said you said you tried the SV's and you didn't feel they were worth the extra money so you have made the decision yourself. There are diminishing returns in the performance of binoculars and the Trinovids are already very good binoculars . IMO there is not a lot of difference between the Trinovids and the Ultravids within the Leica line. The SV 10x50's are probably the best binocular in the 10x50 format. It all depends if you have to have the best or is very good, good enough.