John Frink
Well-known member
I agree. I have the 8x42, and in my opinion the view is very nearly as good as the HD+, with just a touch more lateral CA at the edge. I got mine from someone in Australia, as I recall.
-
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.
Trinovid 10x42 (2012-2015 edition) impressions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter eitanaltman
- Start date
I agree. I have the 8x42, and in my opinion the view is very nearly as good as the HD+, with just a touch more lateral CA at the edge. I got mine from someone in Australia, as I recall.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
Couple of quick questions for those of you who have Ultravid HDs as well as this generation Trinovid...
Does the AquaDura prevent fogging of the oculars on a cold misty morning? It’s not a frequent issue here in San Diego but it happened to me last week when I was out early chasing a county record Glossy Ibis.
Do the UV 42 feel any slimmer/lighter in the hand or is the feel basically the same? I was browsing some specs and it looks like the 7x42 is even a wee bit lighter, I assume due to having fewer glass elements in the optical chain?
I’ve always had an itch for a really good 7x for that big exit pupil and huge DOF. I’ve used the 6x32 Viper, 6.5x32 Vortex Fury, and have a 6x30 Leupold Yosemite. 6x is a bit too low mag for my tastes... but using my wife’s 8x32 UVHD it’s obvious that extreme optical quality makes the magnification “play up” (ie, an alpha 8x will often outresolve a mediocre 10x in the field) so I’m bettering an alpha 7x would work well for general use and then the 10x would be for long distance stuff. I would snag a Zeiss FL 7x42 if I could find one but they are like unicorns on the used market.
Hmmmm.... lighter weight, wider field, 7x..... do I need to try the 7x35 Retrovid??
Does the AquaDura prevent fogging of the oculars on a cold misty morning? It’s not a frequent issue here in San Diego but it happened to me last week when I was out early chasing a county record Glossy Ibis.
Do the UV 42 feel any slimmer/lighter in the hand or is the feel basically the same? I was browsing some specs and it looks like the 7x42 is even a wee bit lighter, I assume due to having fewer glass elements in the optical chain?
I’ve always had an itch for a really good 7x for that big exit pupil and huge DOF. I’ve used the 6x32 Viper, 6.5x32 Vortex Fury, and have a 6x30 Leupold Yosemite. 6x is a bit too low mag for my tastes... but using my wife’s 8x32 UVHD it’s obvious that extreme optical quality makes the magnification “play up” (ie, an alpha 8x will often outresolve a mediocre 10x in the field) so I’m bettering an alpha 7x would work well for general use and then the 10x would be for long distance stuff. I would snag a Zeiss FL 7x42 if I could find one but they are like unicorns on the used market.
Hmmmm.... lighter weight, wider field, 7x..... do I need to try the 7x35 Retrovid??
eitanaltman
Well-known member
The bigger exit pupil of an 8x42 makes it significantly more comfortable viewing with glasses compared to an 8x30 which I'm using now. It would be very nice someday to see a top tier 8x42 at 22 ounces or so. But, I'm so spoiled now with the little CL at only 17 ounces. o
I'm lucky to not need glasses, and not have any back / shoulder type issues that make carrying weight a problem. So I wouldn't need one as light as 22oz, that's a nice solid 8x32 weight for me.
What would be really cool is an alpha 8x36 with a big FOV. An 8x36 would give a bit more light gathering and exit pupil vs an 8x30 / 8x32 while keeping the size/weight down from the 42mm standard, and (for me) the slight increase in size and weight vs an 8x30/32 is a positive for extra room to grip and keeping it steady while scanning.
Of course this is just a pipe dream, but it would be cool. The 7x35 Retrovid seems like the closest match to this fantasy.
The Monarch HG 8x42 is very intriguing for the combination of huge FOV, good optics, and a size/weight barely larger than the chunky end of 8x32s. My biggest concern there is CA which I've heard is mediocre, I don't need perfection but I do like it to be as minimal as possible.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
Sorry to keep babbling, but I was thinking about the "bulk" of the Trinovids this morning and analyzing how I hold them. I've come to the realization that it's NOT the barrel diameter that's the issue, it's the closed central hinge/bridge obstructing my ability to wrap my non-focus fingers around the barrel.
If you look at the Trinovid, the bridge is shifted closer to the objective ends to allow the double-length focus knob to sit more centrally. This makes for a very ergonomic focus finger position with the thumbs behind the bottom ridges, however the hinge/bridge plus the large protruding tripod hole cover means there's just a sliver of open barrel available at the very end.
Furthermore, my IPD is on the narrower side (~59mm) so the barrels are naturally pressed closer together, which means the solid bridge sticks up pretty far above the barrels.
So the sense I get that they are too "bulky" is because my last two fingers have nowhere else to go but sitting high up on the bridge, which feels a bit awkward with it being raised up the way it is. If the Trinovids had a narrower "high bridge" design (like the Nikon EDG or HG) where bridge didn't obstruct the full length of the barrels, I could wrap the extra fingers around more comfortably.
Perhaps this is another point for the Monarch HG.
If you look at the Trinovid, the bridge is shifted closer to the objective ends to allow the double-length focus knob to sit more centrally. This makes for a very ergonomic focus finger position with the thumbs behind the bottom ridges, however the hinge/bridge plus the large protruding tripod hole cover means there's just a sliver of open barrel available at the very end.
Furthermore, my IPD is on the narrower side (~59mm) so the barrels are naturally pressed closer together, which means the solid bridge sticks up pretty far above the barrels.
So the sense I get that they are too "bulky" is because my last two fingers have nowhere else to go but sitting high up on the bridge, which feels a bit awkward with it being raised up the way it is. If the Trinovids had a narrower "high bridge" design (like the Nikon EDG or HG) where bridge didn't obstruct the full length of the barrels, I could wrap the extra fingers around more comfortably.
Perhaps this is another point for the Monarch HG.
Attachments
A2GG
Beth
59mm is also my IPD from what I remember when they measured my IPD at my eye place.
It can make some binoculars less comfortable to hold. When I had the Vortex Viper HD 32 I had the bino folded all the way closed because minimum IPD was 59. It made holding it a bit awkward.
This is one reason I like the Swaro CL. It has great ergonomics for me.
I also appreciated the Zeiss FL 32 for having a wide IPD range. It was less awkward than the Viper.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
I hear you, I used to also have the Viper HD 8x32 which was really great glass for the money (IMO it's my favorite of the MiJ Viper HD line), but also a bit awkward ergonomically for me. The thing that bugged me more than anything was the tripod screw hole cover on the front of the bridge, the Viper's version has these finely ridged edges and that's exactly where my pinky finger would end up resting and it drove me crazy feeling the rough edges.
The narrower IPD thing also hurts the ergos of some of the bigger open bridge models, when the barrels get closer together you can run out of space for the fingers to go in between which eliminates the benefit of the open bridge allowing you to wrap your hands around.
Oh well.... OCD problems....
The narrower IPD thing also hurts the ergos of some of the bigger open bridge models, when the barrels get closer together you can run out of space for the fingers to go in between which eliminates the benefit of the open bridge allowing you to wrap your hands around.
Oh well.... OCD problems....
A2GG
Beth
I hear you, I used to also have the Viper HD 8x32 which was really great glass for the money (IMO it's my favorite of the MiJ Viper HD line), but also a bit awkward ergonomically for me. The thing that bugged me more than anything was the tripod screw hole cover on the front of the bridge, the Viper's version has these finely ridged edges and that's exactly where my pinky finger would end up resting and it drove me crazy feeling the rough edges.
The narrower IPD thing also hurts the ergos of some of the bigger open bridge models, when the barrels get closer together you can run out of space for the fingers to go in between which eliminates the benefit of the open bridge allowing you to wrap your hands around.
Oh well.... OCD problems....
I remember the tripod cover with its rough edges, but thankfully it never got in the way for me.
Yep, the Viper was a very good one in that price bracket. It's a shame they discontinued the 32 mm Viper.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
A while back, you can find my post about my comparison of the Trinovid you have, along with the new Trinovid HD and the Ultravid HD. I found the 2012 Trinovid behind both in brightness and overall view.
The new Trinovid HD has a very pleasant view, and the UV HD beats all 3 in
my preference.
So enjoy your binocular it is a good one. We all have our preferences.
Jerry
John Frink
Well-known member
They seem pretty much the same to me in the hand; there's a slightly different "feel" to the armoring, and the contour of the armoring where it meets the hinge is different, but the overall shape of the barrels is very similar, and the thumb ridges are in the same location. Just now I noticed that the eyelens of the UV is 1mm larger in diameter than the Trinovid.
Leica specs say that the 8x42 weighs 790g and the 7x is 770g; the 10x is 750g.
Last edited:
eitanaltman
Well-known member
Thanks John, that's what I suspected. Interesting that the 10x is the lightest! A 40g difference between the 8x and 10x is pretty substantial.
Mike F
Well-known member
John, you’re right, Leica do say that, but surely it must be a mistake? Leica isn’t known for the accuracy of their published technical specifications.........
Edit: The 10x32 is slightly heavier than the 8x32, as would be expected, at 565 and 535 grams respectively, but in any event the 7x42 must be the lightest of the three 42mm's because it has fewer glass elements than the 8x and 10x.
Last edited:
eitanaltman
Well-known member
Back to the ergonomic nitpick with the bridge I noted before.... I got the Tract Toric back yesterday and holding it confirmed my suspicion of what was bugging me. I took a couple of photos to illustrate the difference in how much “taller” the Leica bridge is and how the Tract has more open barrel to wrap around at the objective end.
Unfortunately the Tract focus issue was not fixed; but that’s a story for another thread. When I can get sharp focus however they confirm my original impressions of outstanding optical quality. They are slightly brighter and whiter than the Leicas, almost as sharp, with a wider more relaxed FOV. The Leicas however have superior contrast and vibrancy which enhances perceived sharpness / microcontrast and gives the image more depth and richness and that elusive alpha “pop”, whereas the Tracts feel slightly flatter and more “sterile”. It’s subtle but the Leicas have that little extra special something that makes them sparkle and pop despite the Tracts being objectively brighter and more neutral. Which to me is the real difference between the true alphas and the $1k Kamakura class.
Unfortunately the Tract focus issue was not fixed; but that’s a story for another thread. When I can get sharp focus however they confirm my original impressions of outstanding optical quality. They are slightly brighter and whiter than the Leicas, almost as sharp, with a wider more relaxed FOV. The Leicas however have superior contrast and vibrancy which enhances perceived sharpness / microcontrast and gives the image more depth and richness and that elusive alpha “pop”, whereas the Tracts feel slightly flatter and more “sterile”. It’s subtle but the Leicas have that little extra special something that makes them sparkle and pop despite the Tracts being objectively brighter and more neutral. Which to me is the real difference between the true alphas and the $1k Kamakura class.
Attachments
Mike F
Well-known member
Although initially appealing I have often found that to mean less contrast, as you note yourself.
Last edited:
Mike F
Well-known member
I believe I’ve said this before, but I think I have an unusual way of holding binoculars. However I find this grip extremely comfortable and stable/steady on all my bins, from x25 to x50.......
Attachments
Last edited:
tenex
reality-based
A good review Eitan, and glad you're enjoying your new Trinovid. I still like it myself. A few random notes:
Eyecups -- I can't use the Ultravid 42 because they're not deep enough; with this Trinovid they just work. To your comments about steps I'll add that you can even rotate a bit beyond the top one to get a bit more extension; the eyecup could now be pulled straight out to remove it (the serial number is under the right one) but that takes considerable force, so it's safe to use.
Weight -- The UV 42 is 1-2oz lighter but a titanium focus axle instead of steel is the only documented difference. They feel quite the same in hand.
Optics -- I notice a distinct difference (have you?) between this model and other Leicas. The sweet spot seems modestly larger, and there's less pincushion distortion so lines stay straighter but panning gets a bit more interesting. I like this. (I always assumed it was an experiment that Leica decided against, and part of the reason these were 42s only and then discontinued.)
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
The bigger exit pupil of an 8x42 makes it significantly more comfortable viewing with glasses compared to an 8x30 which I'm using now. It would be very nice someday to see a top tier 8x42 at 22 ounces or so. But, I'm so spoiled now with the little CL at only 17 ounces. o
Beth,
I know they are substantially bigger but have you tried a Zeiss SF 8x42? I don't know whether your shoulder just feels the weight per se or if the faceward balance of the SF would make it easier to heft. I only had one for 10-14 days as it was a loan scheme from Zeiss to give would be customers a chance to try one out seriously but I remember it was very comfortable. Much lighter feeling because of the balance than say an EL 8.5x42.
Tom
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
Hi Eitan,
Congratulations on your 10x42 purchase: I nearly pulled the trigger on the very same example from Andy but having just bought a 10x42 SLC which ticks all my boxes I'm pleased the Trinovid has gone to a good home and is well appreciated.
You ask about the 7x42 -- I have the Ultravid HD Plus from new a year ago. By chance I have been using it all day today and only now logged on to Birdforum for the first time in a week and read through all your thread. I can be a bit weight-sensitive in general but soon get used to it: thinking mainly my 8x56 T*FL -- now that is unbeatable and so worth the extra press ups and weight training ;-)
The 7x42 UVHD Plus to me is perfectly balanced and I have never even given weight a thought with it, so it must be a non-issue. You will hate me for the next revelation. I also have a 7x42 Victory T*FL and the same applies there: the ergonomics are perfect. Once again I have never given the weight a thought. Add to that the reduced shake with a 7x bin and both of those are winners. They are not the same, so IF you are inclined to look for the faults more than the goodies don't get both or you'll never stop comparing them and you'll never decide which you prefer. I love both and don't often notice the downsides or dwell on them at all. You will read of astigmatic horror at the fringes of the Zeiss and a bit the same with the Leica as with your newly acquired Tv as far as flare / glare goes. Colour varies too but I expect you are familiar with these manufacturers' colour tendencies. If I had to part with one I couldn't make up my mind rationally or emotionally: I might keep the Zeiss for its AK prisms. The eyecups are equally comfortable, which I was interested to read about from your post; this is what I was thinking coincidentally today in extended use with the Leica.
Don't get the 7x42 L or Z if it's going to put you off the weight you mentioned in the Tv!
Sorry I can't compare the 7x42s with the Trinovids (I have never tried or used one) but as said you are unlikely to notice the weight with either L or Z 7x. Beth had a 7x42 like mine, I think, but in her case if I recall correctly she downsized to an EL 8x32 for the specific reasons she has mentioned -- Beth, correct me / excuse me please if I have got this all wrong
Best wishes,
Tom
Last edited:
A2GG
Beth
Yes, I tried one briefly, but I have no interest anymore in going back up to 42mm binos. I think it will be smaller lighter-weight from now on.
I'm happy with the original CL 8x30 right now and don't see anything else I want except for the Ultravid HD+ 8x32 , but ER is very short unfortunately on the little Uvid.
