• 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.

Trinovids (1 Viewer)

The Trinovid HD seems to be another model that divides opinions.

I first tried a Trinovid HD 8x32 as an afterthought after spending some time comparing the Monarch HG, and new Swaro CL compared to the likes of the Razor HD, Kowa Genesis, Kite Bonelli and Conquest HD as well as a few cheaper models form Opticron, Vortex, and Kowa. I was really surprised how poorly they compared in terms of colour, contrast, resolution and sharpness to any on that list. Since then I've only managed to compare the x42s against the Ultravid HD and Noctivid but saw no reason to doubt my first impressions. Of course, other opinions will differ..... they always do on the forum. ;)

David

David

I absolutely agree with your assessment of Trinovid HD compared with Kowa Genesis and Conquest HD and IMO Meopta's MeoStar trumps it too. For us the short close focus is very handy and we use it a lot but it isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Lee
 
Following, what I wrote about the Trinovid 8x42 HD in German some time ago:

Optics: "Really sharp almost up to the border of the picture. But that comes quite early: 124 meters are not a top value but only middle class. The glass compensates for this with a brilliant, contrast-rich image and with leicatypically rich colours. Even in critical backlighting situations the view remains almost unclouded, only the two top lenses are better. Color edges on chiaroscuro edges are not an issue either".

Ergonomics and more: "The Leica fits well in the hand right away, the rubber coating is handy but not sticky, the eyepieces are soft and have 5 exact click stops. The center drive has a bit too much resistance but runs exactly without bucking. For far-sighted spectacle wearers, 17 mm AP distance can be close, so try to see if the field of view is not too lush anyway! For the price there is a real small piece of jewellery.
 
David

I absolutely agree with your assessment of Trinovid HD compared with Kowa Genesis and Conquest HD and IMO Meopta's MeoStar trumps it too. For us the short close focus is very handy and we use it a lot but it isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Lee

Hey Lee,

If you're only using the Trinovid for close focus perhaps the Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 (or 8x)would be better for the purpose. You could save some money swapping out the Trinovid HD's for the Papilio. You can still look at birds with the Papilio if you need to use for close observation and then switch to birds or farther subjects.
 
Hello, I agree with OhWeh above. However, concerning the eye relief, I found that the 17 mm on the 8x42 work well for me. Conversely, I tried a Swarovski with a 20mm eye relief and struggled to see the whole field of view. Binoculars with even longer eye relief have caused blackouts. For me, wearing glasses, the right relief is key to comfort, and the eye relief on the 8x42 fits me well. I guess that specifications cannot easily be used to predict personal fit and comfort and, imo, this binocular is worth a try even if you wear glasses.
 
Hey Lee,

If you're only using the Trinovid for close focus perhaps the Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 (or 8x)would be better for the purpose. You could save some money swapping out the Trinovid HD's for the Papilio. You can still look at birds with the Papilio if you need to use for close observation and then switch to birds or farther subjects.

Hi GiGi
We did consider this option but on holiday when our binos get used most intensively we are usually next to the sea with possibilities of otters, dolphins/porpoises, seals, loons etc and especially at this time of year, the light can be quite dim with overhead cloud, shorter day length, so we opted for 32mm instead. We have had them for a couple of years and they work fine. We don't use them everyday though, it depends on the habitat we are visiting.

Lee
 
Hello All,

Something that has struck me on reading through these forums , (although I have not read everything yet).

It seems to appear that the forum members do not really like the NEWER Leica Trinovids , but owners of the OLDER Trinovids seem to really love and prize theirs.

Is there any reason for this ?.

Cheers.

I've had a Trinovid HD 8X42 since they came out. Checking my records I've had it since 08/2016. I also had the previous Trinovid. I've used it a lot and compared it to many. It's a nice, lightweight 8X42. For an eyeglass wearer, a good bit of ER. It features very nice ergonomics, small frame(as is typical of Leica's), nice bright optics, very close focus, and nice smooth focus adjustment.

A few things I'm NOT crazy about....the case, or the absence of one. It comes with an "Adventure Strap," case and strap in one. Useless IMO. I bought a case AND a harness. The diopter adjustment is moved from the central location to under the right eyecup. It's easy for it to move inadvertently. Lastly is FOV which getting towards the low end of acceptable IMO.

Nowadays I'd probably lean towards the Monarch HG 8X42 which is about the same weight/size, more FOV, locking diopter adjustment, and conventional case/strap as a recommendation in this price/frame.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3183.JPG
    IMG_3183.JPG
    100.3 KB · Views: 119
  • IMG_3194.JPG
    IMG_3194.JPG
    95.7 KB · Views: 125
  • DSC_0068.JPG
    DSC_0068.JPG
    58.5 KB · Views: 133
I've had a Trinovid HD 8X42 since they came out. Checking my records I've had it since 08/2016. I also had the previous Trinovid. I've used it a lot and compared it to many. It's a nice, lightweight 8X42. For an eyeglass wearer, a good bit of ER. It features very nice ergonomics, small frame(as is typical of Leica's), nice bright optics, very close focus, and nice smooth focus adjustment.

A few things I'm NOT crazy about....the case, or the absence of one. It comes with an "Adventure Strap," case and strap in one. Useless IMO. I bought a case AND a harness. The diopter adjustment is moved from the central location to under the right eyecup. It's easy for it to move inadvertently. Lastly is FOV which getting towards the low end of acceptable IMO.

Nowadays I'd probably lean towards the Monarch HG 8X42 which is about the same weight/size, more FOV, locking diopter adjustment, and conventional case/strap as a recommendation in this price/frame.

Great pics Chuck, as usual. Looks like you gave them some spit and polish before the photo taken next to the lake. Great stuff.

Lee
 
Chuck, That's a good assessment of the character of the binocular, with its pluses and minuses. I'll confess that mine was an impulse buy on a vacation, further sweetened by the dealer dropping the price, as it was the floor model.

The 8x32 Trinnie does not come with the wildly popular adventure strap that you speak so highly of... ;-)
Instead it has a small, form-fitting pouch of the same material, that you can thread conventional straps through,
making for an easy, unobtrusive carry on a walk through a city, where the odd bird might be about. I do have better bins for strictly birding, and the Nikon Monarch HG is a good example of what's out there in the same ballpark, price-wise, with some better features.

It still comes with me on trips, and also is one of my primary loaner bins.

-Bill
 
Last edited:
A few things I'm NOT crazy about....the case, or the absence of one. It comes with an "Adventure Strap," case and strap in one. Useless IMO.

I totally agree, Chuck. Absolutely useless.
 
I have tried several of the Trinovid 2011 series recently, they seem marginally better than my UV HD 7x42. Clearer. And very easy on the eyes. I especially liked the 10x model. Also a bit heavy. My own new-old-stock UV retailed for the same price as old-stock Trinovids are selling for.

Some people have said there is a field flattener in this model.

The new Trinovid HD seems to be a nice japanese binocular specced not to compete with the UV; as usual with luxury branded midrange products it’s a bait and switch: Experts and 1 percenters go online or boutiques, pay the reasonable price for the alpha, and get an alpha, everyone else is told “this is just the same thing but without the center diopter” by some retailer, and they get a japanese midrange product with a Leica label and price.

Basically, Leica moved their existing Trinovid design into a higher price bracket, and called it Ultravid, buying the old version for cheap is exactly as dumb as buying last year’s 300m F2.8 Canon super telephoto for $1K :)

People who want top performance from a tech brand need to buy the brand’s top range. In old days it was not so because a company would put the same base tech in all its products. Nowadays, they buytheir cheaper ranges rather than make them.

Edmund
 
Last edited:
I have tried several of the Trinovid 2011 series recently, they seem marginally better than my UV HD 7x42. Clearer. And very easy on the eyes. I especially liked the 10x model. Also a bit heavy. My own new-old-stock UV retailed for the same price as old-stock Trinovids are selling for.

Some people have said there is a field flattener in this model.

The new Trinovid HD seems to be a nice japanese binocular specced not to compete with the UV; as usual with luxury branded midrange products it’s a bait and switch: Experts and 1 percenters go online or boutiques, pay the reasonable price for the alpha, and get an alpha, everyone else is told “this is just the same thing but without the center diopter” by some retailer, and they get a japanese midrange product with a Leica label and price.

Basically, Leica moved their existing Trinovid design into a higher price bracket, and called it Ultravid, buying the old version for cheap is exactly as dumb as buying last year’s 300m F2.8 Canon super telephoto for $1K :)

People who want top performance from a tech brand need to buy the brand’s top range. In old days it was not so because a company would put the same base tech in all its products. Nowadays, they buytheir cheaper ranges rather than make them.

Edmund

+1

I think the problem with the 2011-2015 Trinovid was that it was too close in performance to the UVHD. The difference was so small that most people, unless they had excellent acuity, and/or wanted the slightly wilder FOV or slightly lighter weight or just plain wanted an alpha for the sake of it, probably just went for the Trinovid.
I’m sure that is at least one of reasons why Leica introduced the Trinovid HD; a much cheaper (although still excellent) product that doesn’t compete with their top tier binoculars.
 
Sent them back!!

I bought a pair of Trinovid's in January, 10x42. I've just sent them back to the retailer for them to test. They were plagued by colour fringeing across the FOV. Around the edges would be acceptable I suppose but it was so bad that it was an annoyance when in the field. Something I was not expecting, I had Hawke Sapphire Ed's prior to the Leicas and the image from those was very good in comparison.
Has anyone else experienced this with the new Leicas?
 
I bought a pair of Trinovid's in January, 10x42. I've just sent them back to the retailer for them to test. They were plagued by colour fringeing across the FOV. Around the edges would be acceptable I suppose but it was so bad that it was an annoyance when in the field. Something I was not expecting, I had Hawke Sapphire Ed's prior to the Leicas and the image from those was very good in comparison.
Has anyone else experienced this with the new Leicas?

Leica aren't known for controlling CA the best.
I'm not familiar with the Trinovid HD but from what I understand it's an Asian catalogue type design with a Leica badge on it. This statement is not intended to be derogatory rather than an observation. Zeiss likely did the same with the VP 8x25 which many, including myself, like.
I haven't read of CA being a big problem with the HD.
My Trinovid are the previous model with centre diopter that usually go by the name of BR or 2011-2015 model. These have quite a bit of CA and while I don't like CA (who does?) I find them perfectly usable with qualities fine enough to redeem itself.
I'm assuming since you bought them recently you're talking about the HD model?
 
Leica aren't known for controlling CA the best.
I'm not familiar with the Trinovid HD but from what I understand it's an Asian catalogue type design with a Leica badge on it. This statement is not intended to be derogatory rather than an observation. Zeiss likely did the same with the VP 8x25 which many, including myself, like.
I haven't read of CA being a big problem with the HD.
My Trinovid are the previous model with centre diopter that usually go by the name of BR or 2011-2015 model. These have quite a bit of CA and while I don't like CA (who does?) I find them perfectly usable with qualities fine enough to redeem itself.
I'm assuming since you bought them recently you're talking about the HD model?

I’ve seen UV samples with and without CA on the same model; I wonder how CA appears - maybe that helpful guy Bill, WJC or whatever will tell us whether it’s fixable, when he takes a break from his collimation opus.

Edmund
 
Leica aren't known for controlling CA the best.
I'm not familiar with the Trinovid HD but from what I understand it's an Asian catalogue type design with a Leica badge on it. This statement is not intended to be derogatory rather than an observation. Zeiss likely did the same with the VP 8x25 which many, including myself, like.
I haven't read of CA being a big problem with the HD.
My Trinovid are the previous model with centre diopter that usually go by the name of BR or 2011-2015 model. These have quite a bit of CA and while I don't like CA (who does?) I find them perfectly usable with qualities fine enough to redeem itself.
I'm assuming since you bought them recently you're talking about the HD model?

Yes they are the HD version. Had a reply from the retailer saying they've had a look through them. As I expected, they are saying that the CA is not excessive. CA? In the middle of the FOV? From a supposed "premium" brand not excessive?
Don't know if I would get any further sending them back to Leica.
:C
 
Eye position is very important if you want to avoid CA. Having your eyes off the optical axis is likely to cause CA to appear even in the centre field. If you find CA appearing, make a few small adjustments to your eye position and watch what happens to the CA.

Lee
 
Eye position is very important if you want to avoid CA. Having your eyes off the optical axis is likely to cause CA to appear even in the centre field. If you find CA appearing, make a few small adjustments to your eye position and watch what happens to the CA.

Lee

I'm going to add a couple of things to add to Lee's post here. I have said before that I am not particularly sensitive to CA, but I can induce it when reviewing a binocular. A couple of thing to watch. One is the IPD adjustments. I think people tend to set this just a tad bit wider than truly optimal. The other is diopter adjustment is pretty critical. So I suggest that you try these two, particularly the diopter. If there is anything funky with the image, try tweaking the diopter with both eyes open. Both of these are things I do to induce CA when reviewing.
 
I'm going to add a couple of things to add to Lee's post here. I have said before that I am not particularly sensitive to CA, but I can induce it when reviewing a binocular. A couple of thing to watch. One is the IPD adjustments. I think people tend to set this just a tad bit wider than truly optimal. The other is diopter adjustment is pretty critical. So I suggest that you try these two, particularly the diopter. If there is anything funky with the image, try tweaking the diopter with both eyes open. Both of these are things I do to induce CA when reviewing.
:t:
 
Hello All,

Something that has struck me on reading through these forums , (although I have not read everything yet).

It seems to appear that the forum members do not really like the NEWER Leica Trinovids , but owners of the OLDER Trinovids seem to really love and prize theirs.

Is there any reason for this ?.

Cheers.

this is why many were waiting Leica to bring out the promised original leitz type trinovid with new phase coatings and waterproofing....they dropped the ball....big time....:smoke:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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