etc
Well-known member
Leica Trinovid 8x42 BA vs. Swarovski 8.5x42 EL. The Leica is one of the last "BA" models from 2000, while Swarovski is circa 2007.
I know it's not a fair comparison as the Trinovid is one generation behind it seems but it's a fine binocular and deserves to be tested against the latest and greatest. Furthermore it's all just my non-expert opinion.
Optical performance:
I did not find the Swaro to be that much brighter - it's barely noticeable and you have to look hard. However, Swaro EL 8.5x42 does represent colors better, very slightly. Sharpness: Leica is very, very sharp. However, Swarovski is just as fantastically sharp. If I had to use a sharpness reference standard, it would probably be Leica however, but it might be due to the many hours I spent with it. They are dead even with regards to resolution sharpness.
Chromatic abberation: I haven't seen any in Leica. I have not seen any *yet* in Swarovski.
Edge to Edge sharpness is most excellent in Leica and just as good in Swaro.
So optics-wise, it's a win for Swarovski by a slim margin. I really expected more brightness from Swaro.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Swarovski has an extra 0.5 power over Leica and it does resolve objects better albeit without increased shake as holding it is easier. I haven't been able to run tests with regard to Field of View and Depth of Field. It seems what one does - so does the other.
Weight
Leica has a reassuring weight to it. It's a bit on the heavy side. I don't mind, as I think quality optics should weight something. If you want something light, get a sub $100 commodity optics from a major retailer. When I hold Leica, I don't think - oh , how heavy. I think, this is a wonderful quality bino. Swarovski however has perfect weight - not too heavy, not too light, just perfect. So here Swarovski wins, slightly.
Ergonomics
This is where Swarovski totally dominates Leica. The EL split design is so much easier to use. One thing I find questionable in Swarovski design is some metal on the inside part of the barrel. I wonder why they choose not to put the armor around it. It does get cold if you have to hold it in the winter. However, if it's that cold, should use gloves anyway.
The eye piece cover is nicely designed and almost identical to Leica's. One huge bonus over Leica is the objective cover. It's amazing Leica doesn't come with an objective cover to protect it against rain, snow, dust and damage. It's a no-brainer. The strap is longer in Swarovski than Leica. There is but one plus in Leica over Swarovski's ergonomics - Leica is considerably shorter in length and therefore more compact. Longer length of Swaro is not necessarily a problem, it's actually easier to hold.
Ergonomics and user interface is a sound win for Swarovski.
Build quality and longer-term reliability
Build quality seems basically identical but I would have to give a slight edge to Leica. There is just something intangible about it. I haven't dived under water with either, nor have I put them in a bucket of icy water for extended periods of time. Both are supposed to be waterproof, fogproof and shock proof. I know that Leica fulfils these claims while Swaro EL is a fairly new model. Leica's armor is thicker, applied better and more damage resistant.
Focus
The focus is much smoother, lighter and without backlash in Swarovski. It's easier to dial in to the right focus without having to go back and forth like I do with Leica. Swarovski's focus seems to be slower. I always found Leica's focus just a bit too fast. Focus override past infinity: Big win for Swarovski, it can focus past infinity to -6D while Leica can only do -4D. This means if you have myopia of -5D, you won't be able to use Leica without eyeglasses, but Swarovski you can. Swaro has twist-up eyecups which stay raised. Leica has pop-up eyecups which provide just the right amount of eye relief in either position (down for glasses, up for usage without glasses.) I think Swaro's eye cups are superior as there is no possibility they will be accidently pushed down.
Eye relief is adequate in both Swaro and Leica. They both can be used with eyeglasses.
Cleaning:
SwaroDur coating on the objective and eye lense ends do help with cleaning, dirt doesn't seem to stick to it. Another bonus is that they seem harder to scratch.
Weak spots
Leica: The hindge cover is plastic and seems like it would break if hit with something at just the right angle. Lack of objective covers. Weights slightly more than it should, although not really a problem. Ergonomics. Holding 8x42 Trinovid feels like holding a shoe box. It gets better with time.
Swarovski: The hindges are metal and seems like paint will eventually come off. Leica has armored the entire surface leaving no exposed metal parts, Swarovski should have done the same. The case that it comes with is totally worthless and doesn't support the binos plus the strap, plus raised eyecups. (Leica's soft leather case is better. It actually offers next to no protection but when not in use, it can be rolled up and put in a pocket.)
Value
Swarovski is considerably more expensive than Leica Trinovid. I paid twice as much for Swaro EL as for the Trinovid. Trinovid, while optically very slightly inferior - and even then equal to Swaro resolution or contrast wise but with poorer color representation, IMO. In terms of pure value, Swarovski is a poor deal while the Trinovid is a fantastic deal.
Conclusion:
Swarovski wins but not due to optics IMO, but due to better ergonomics, better focus, having objective covers and slightly better color representation (I reserve the right to revise this view upon more tests)
The Trinovid however remains very capable even against the best, and a great buy at half the cost of Swaro. I prefer Swaro but if the Trinovid was the only binocular I had to use I would not be all that disappointed.
I know it's not a fair comparison as the Trinovid is one generation behind it seems but it's a fine binocular and deserves to be tested against the latest and greatest. Furthermore it's all just my non-expert opinion.
Optical performance:
I did not find the Swaro to be that much brighter - it's barely noticeable and you have to look hard. However, Swaro EL 8.5x42 does represent colors better, very slightly. Sharpness: Leica is very, very sharp. However, Swarovski is just as fantastically sharp. If I had to use a sharpness reference standard, it would probably be Leica however, but it might be due to the many hours I spent with it. They are dead even with regards to resolution sharpness.
Chromatic abberation: I haven't seen any in Leica. I have not seen any *yet* in Swarovski.
Edge to Edge sharpness is most excellent in Leica and just as good in Swaro.
So optics-wise, it's a win for Swarovski by a slim margin. I really expected more brightness from Swaro.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Swarovski has an extra 0.5 power over Leica and it does resolve objects better albeit without increased shake as holding it is easier. I haven't been able to run tests with regard to Field of View and Depth of Field. It seems what one does - so does the other.
Weight
Leica has a reassuring weight to it. It's a bit on the heavy side. I don't mind, as I think quality optics should weight something. If you want something light, get a sub $100 commodity optics from a major retailer. When I hold Leica, I don't think - oh , how heavy. I think, this is a wonderful quality bino. Swarovski however has perfect weight - not too heavy, not too light, just perfect. So here Swarovski wins, slightly.
Ergonomics
This is where Swarovski totally dominates Leica. The EL split design is so much easier to use. One thing I find questionable in Swarovski design is some metal on the inside part of the barrel. I wonder why they choose not to put the armor around it. It does get cold if you have to hold it in the winter. However, if it's that cold, should use gloves anyway.
The eye piece cover is nicely designed and almost identical to Leica's. One huge bonus over Leica is the objective cover. It's amazing Leica doesn't come with an objective cover to protect it against rain, snow, dust and damage. It's a no-brainer. The strap is longer in Swarovski than Leica. There is but one plus in Leica over Swarovski's ergonomics - Leica is considerably shorter in length and therefore more compact. Longer length of Swaro is not necessarily a problem, it's actually easier to hold.
Ergonomics and user interface is a sound win for Swarovski.
Build quality and longer-term reliability
Build quality seems basically identical but I would have to give a slight edge to Leica. There is just something intangible about it. I haven't dived under water with either, nor have I put them in a bucket of icy water for extended periods of time. Both are supposed to be waterproof, fogproof and shock proof. I know that Leica fulfils these claims while Swaro EL is a fairly new model. Leica's armor is thicker, applied better and more damage resistant.
Focus
The focus is much smoother, lighter and without backlash in Swarovski. It's easier to dial in to the right focus without having to go back and forth like I do with Leica. Swarovski's focus seems to be slower. I always found Leica's focus just a bit too fast. Focus override past infinity: Big win for Swarovski, it can focus past infinity to -6D while Leica can only do -4D. This means if you have myopia of -5D, you won't be able to use Leica without eyeglasses, but Swarovski you can. Swaro has twist-up eyecups which stay raised. Leica has pop-up eyecups which provide just the right amount of eye relief in either position (down for glasses, up for usage without glasses.) I think Swaro's eye cups are superior as there is no possibility they will be accidently pushed down.
Eye relief is adequate in both Swaro and Leica. They both can be used with eyeglasses.
Cleaning:
SwaroDur coating on the objective and eye lense ends do help with cleaning, dirt doesn't seem to stick to it. Another bonus is that they seem harder to scratch.
Weak spots
Leica: The hindge cover is plastic and seems like it would break if hit with something at just the right angle. Lack of objective covers. Weights slightly more than it should, although not really a problem. Ergonomics. Holding 8x42 Trinovid feels like holding a shoe box. It gets better with time.
Swarovski: The hindges are metal and seems like paint will eventually come off. Leica has armored the entire surface leaving no exposed metal parts, Swarovski should have done the same. The case that it comes with is totally worthless and doesn't support the binos plus the strap, plus raised eyecups. (Leica's soft leather case is better. It actually offers next to no protection but when not in use, it can be rolled up and put in a pocket.)
Value
Swarovski is considerably more expensive than Leica Trinovid. I paid twice as much for Swaro EL as for the Trinovid. Trinovid, while optically very slightly inferior - and even then equal to Swaro resolution or contrast wise but with poorer color representation, IMO. In terms of pure value, Swarovski is a poor deal while the Trinovid is a fantastic deal.
Conclusion:
Swarovski wins but not due to optics IMO, but due to better ergonomics, better focus, having objective covers and slightly better color representation (I reserve the right to revise this view upon more tests)
The Trinovid however remains very capable even against the best, and a great buy at half the cost of Swaro. I prefer Swaro but if the Trinovid was the only binocular I had to use I would not be all that disappointed.
Attachments
Last edited:
