• 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.

News from Leica (1 Viewer)

Well, the latest version of the Trinovid came in today (8x42).
The first quick conclusions:
Latest model 2 focuswheel turns against 1.25.
Diameter ocular latest model 21mm against 23mm.
FOV of the latest model is about 10% smaller.
Close focus of the latest model 1.25 meter against 3 meters.
No noticeble brightness difference.
Weight is 83 gram lighter on the latest model.
Exact same height.

OK, to put the cock in the henhouse..... observing the inside focussing mechanisme of the Ultravid, the Ultravid HD and +, the Trinovid in both non and HD version against the latest Trinnie version, leds me to believe the origine of this Trinnie is Kamakura (copy of the Conquest and other top lines of Kamakura).

O o, did I really think outloud??

Jan
 
Jan,

A very interesting, if not totally surprising suggestion.

My main gripe about the outgoing Trinovid was that it wasn't as sharp (effective resolution) as I would expect for the price. Not as bad as the Swaro CL, but behind the more obvious competition. I suppose a deliberate differentiator from the Ultravid. Any thoughts on how the new one compares?

David
 
jan van daalen said:
Well, the latest version of the Trinovid came in today (8x42).
The first quick conclusions:
Latest model 2 focuswheel turns against 1.25.
Diameter ocular latest model 21mm against 23mm.
FOV of the latest model is about 10% smaller.
Close focus of the latest model 1.25 meter against 3 meters.
No noticeble brightness difference.
Weight is 83 gram lighter on the latest model.
Exact same height.

OK, to put the cock in the henhouse..... observing the inside focussing mechanisme of the Ultravid, the Ultravid HD and +, the Trinovid in both non and HD version against the latest Trinnie version, leds me to believe the origine of this Trinnie is Kamakura (copy of the Conquest and other top lines of Kamakura).

O o, did I really think outloud??

Jan
Click to expand...

interesting, how is the view?
any Leica vibrant colors left at all?
 
Vespobuteo said:
interesting, how is the view?
any Leica vibrant colors left at all?
Click to expand...

To my 58 years old eyes there is no noticeble difference in colors.
The sharpness of the latest version is fractional less in edge sharpness. Considering this model has also a smaller FOV........

Comparing the Zeiss Conquest (the Trinnie is considered to be the Conquest killer) with the Trinnie, I would give the Zeiss the benefit in sharpness but the balance and weight is in favor of the Leica.

Jan
 
jan van daalen said:
To my 58 years old eyes there is no noticeble difference in colors.
The sharpness of the latest version is fractional less in edge sharpness. Considering this model has also a smaller FOV........

Comparing the Zeiss Conquest (the Trinnie is considered to be the Conquest killer) with the Trinnie, I would give the Zeiss the benefit in sharpness but the balance and weight is in favor of the Leica.

Jan
Click to expand...

I really kind of liked the previous trinnies,
but CA could have been a bit less off axis,
do you see any improvement on CA?
 
Sunny here today but minus 5C this morning. Wind 1 kn. very few clouds.

Jupiter and moons, Saturn and Venus great this morning in 18x50 IS. Just saw Saturn ring gap. My eyes not as good as they used to be.
Didn't use a Leica, though.
 
jan van daalen said:
OK, to put the cock in the henhouse..... observing the inside focussing mechanisme of the Ultravid, the Ultravid HD and +, the Trinovid in both non and HD version against the latest Trinnie version, leds me to believe the origine of this Trinnie is Kamakura (copy of the Conquest and other top lines of Kamakura).
Click to expand...

From what I heard that's not true. What I've been told is that they simplified the focussing mechanism to cut the costs (far fewer parts, much simpler to make) AND made sure there's some obvious difference between the Ultravid and the Trinovid - a clearcut difference in the field of view. The close focus was something they HAD to do to compete against the Zeiss Conquest HD.

That doesn't make it a copy of anything Kamakura makes. BTW, I think the colours are still pretty much the traditional "Leica colours".

Hermann
 
Hermann said:
From what I heard that's not true. What I've been told is that they simplified the focussing mechanism to cut the costs (far fewer parts, much simpler to make) AND made sure there's some obvious difference between the Ultravid and the Trinovid - a clearcut difference in the field of view. The close focus was something they HAD to do to compete against the Zeiss Conquest HD.

That doesn't make it a copy of anything Kamakura makes. BTW, I think the colours are still pretty much the traditional "Leica colours".

Hermann
Click to expand...

Hermann,

I got exact the same reaction (on that occasion from Zeiss) on the moment I stated that de Conquest was a Kamakura built binocular. It was not true.

Time will tell.

Jan
 
NDhunter said:
Herman:

Thanks for the link to that review of the new Leica Trinovid.

I am unable to translate it however, so I am wondering if someone could
offer a translation in English.

Thanks. Jerry
Click to expand...

This might do it.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Trinovid HD, Trinovid and Conquest HD - First Impressions.pdf
    207.2 KB · Views: 834
Hermann said:
Having read quite a few of his reviews I'm quite sure he doesn't have that backwards. The price difference is from what I heard mainly due to the much simpler and easier to manufacture dioptre adjustment mechanism. At least that's what the Leica people told me, and I think that makes perfect sense.
Hermann
Click to expand...
Yes, one can see how that could be a noticeably cheaper mechanism. But I still can't credit a review that says the previous (non-"HD") Trinovid had a problem with stray light, spikes, etc which it does not. (I can in fact see some spikes on bright lights in my 15-yr-old Trinovid BN, but that's a very different glass and not supposed to be the comparison here.)
 
Are the spikes in the viewers eyes or the binocular?

A smaller field of view with less sharp edges suggests a simpler eyepiece and maybe prisms?

For me, large, at least fairly good, field size is near the top of my requirements.

Does it say 'Made in Portugal'?
 
Thanks Vespobuteo.
I wonder how 'Made in Portugal' it is.
100%, 50% or?

I ask, as information on websites is often inaccurate, e.g. re. Canon IS binoculars, and I take possible Japanese input on the Trinovid seriously. Not that it matters.
The FOV is smaller in 10x42 than the HD Conquest. Although the measured field of the latter is larger than stated at 6.65 deg. But the HD Conquest is a bit large physically.
For me the FOVs are a bit small in the new Trinovids, although the size seems good.

Leica had the fisheye, zoom, reflex and some macro lenses made by Minolta. Also some Leicaflex bodies.
And the CL cameras are similar, Leica and Minolta.

The 1950s Leica Xenon f/1.5 lens, which sniffs of Schneider, but was probably made by Leitz was an unlicenced copy of the TTH f/1.5 x ray lens from 1942, which was used in mass x ray for TB. It was supposedly the best lens of its type and designed by Lee. Leitz had to pay TTH royalties when challenged. A sample of the TTH lens now rests in their museum. It may be coated.

So the source of branded items is hard to know for certain.

I hope the new Trinovids do well, wherever they are born.
 
I have recently bought a Trinovid HD 10x42 (I am curious, and also weak...). I own Zeiss, Swaro and Nikon bins but no Leica, the main reason being that the UVs cannot be used w/o glasses by people with myopic eyes like me. The new Trinovid HD has a reasonable travel past infinity even for nearsighted people, which in my eyes it's one of its main pluses (and likely also a main reason why Leica moved the diopter compensation ring).
The optics are good to very good at this price point (except for glare control, see below): the Trinovid HD is quite sharp, has a large sweet spot (about 75%), and CA is well controlled (in the center, but rather visible at the edge) ; I would say that optically it is slightly better than the old Trinovid, and than a few other bins in this price range such as the Razor 10x42 (however the latter has a larger FoV, and for some reason the FoV of the Trinovid HD seemed to me to be even smaller than in the specs).

Will I keep it? I do not think so: rather poor glare control (for me the deal breaker), build quality leaving something to be desired (one eyecup of my unit had 5 stops, but the other only 3 stops; the rubber armor is somewhat sticky and thus a magnet for lint and dust), the mechanics could have been better (stiff and slow focus wheel, but loose hinge and diopter ring), and it is not that light at 760g (according to the booklet that comes with it; 30-40g more than in the initial specs).
 
Last edited:
I forgot to mention two things:
-To my eyes panning with the new Trinovid HD is quite pleasant, due to a well implemented pincushion.
-The adventure strap seems to be an overkill----I guess only those birders crawling in search of that "rara avis", and jumping for joy once they found it, will find it useful.
 
In my "old" (2012-2015) 10 x 42 Trinovid there is no glare at all. For me that's a big advantage. And of course, I've said it before, it is build like a tank and mechanical (focus wheel, diopter, eyecup stops, etc.) everything works 100%.
 
I thought I should add that I have compared the Trinovid HD with the Razor (both in 10x42), and found the Razor to be more to my liking: similar optics, but the Razor has better accessories, better mechanics, and lighter weight (Note: the Razor can be bought for 950$ (shopping around), the Trinovid HD for 1000$). Unfortunately, the Razor also has some glare control issues.
 
I had e razor 10x42 and have the Tinovid (non-HD). I didn't look at them side by side, but from notes on my other reviews. The razor does have a big field of view, is light weight, and is bright. I really didn't like the ergonomics, mainly oddly placed thumb detents. I think the razor needs to work on overall build quality. Rain guards and objective covers felt cheap and had to replace them within a year. The emblem on the focus mechanism fell off and I had to reglue, and paint easily chipped off the body. The eyepieces felt too thin for me too. Vortex has a better reputation for warranty. I was disappointed with CA control for a HD optic.

I feel like the build quality is much better on Trinovid. I really like the natural color rendition of the Trinovid. The weight difference is negligible to me and the Trinovid holds better for me and had better ergonomics for me. I think Leica holds value better than Vortex.

I feel like the Razor is good,but is over priced.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 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.

Similar threads

BruceH
New CEO for Leica - Sept. 01, 2017
Replies
0
Views
2K
BruceH
BruceH
G
Winners Chosen - Next Drawing is April 6th for the new Leica Trinovid HD Binoc's
Replies
0
Views
1K
gr8fuldoug
G
G
News from Camera Land
Replies
0
Views
1K
gr8fuldoug
G
G
2016 SHOT Show report from Camera Land
Replies
0
Views
3K
gr8fuldoug
G
G
Camera Land's Deal of the Day - 9/26/2013
Replies
0
Views
2K
gr8fuldoug
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top