A2GG
Beth
Thanks LT ...
Wow ... I was beginning to think I was was like one of maybe 10
people who actually purchased it and kept it !
I wonder if there are any other people on this forum who have it and like it.
:/
-
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.
New Leica Trinovid 8x42 - my impressions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter A2GG
- Start date
Thanks LT ...
Wow ... I was beginning to think I was was like one of maybe 10
people who actually purchased it and kept it !
I wonder if there are any other people on this forum who have it and like it.
:/
Annabeth,
I am glad you find the Trinovid preferable to your tastes. I tried the 8x42 briefly and was not a fan, mostly because the narrower FoV than I think that price range warrants, the mediocre close focus distance, and the lowish ER that did not work with my facial/glasses geometry. I did, however, find them as sharp as one would expect a from Leica, and did not find issue with CA.
Enjoy your new binoculars to the fullest extent!
Happy birding and holidays,
Justin
I am glad you find the Trinovid preferable to your tastes. I tried the 8x42 briefly and was not a fan, mostly because the narrower FoV than I think that price range warrants, the mediocre close focus distance, and the lowish ER that did not work with my facial/glasses geometry. I did, however, find them as sharp as one would expect a from Leica, and did not find issue with CA.
Enjoy your new binoculars to the fullest extent!
Happy birding and holidays,
Justin
A2GG
Beth
Thanks Justin. Yes I agree with you on the close focus mainly.
If this was to be my only binocular then I'd have second thoughts
due to the close focus especially. But, the Katmai 6x has 5ft close focus
and this will be my butterfly and wood warbler type of bin. It also has 420ft fov.
I'm the Queen of the narrow fov and don't mind it with the Trinovid.
All of my past bins had under 400ft fov. I'm so used to it and able to adjust.
My first roof bin ever had only 334ft fov and I used that one for a couple of years. The Swaro CL had similar fov to the Trinovid and all others were
relatively narrow (except 6x30 Yosemite).
Annabeth,
I certainly didn't find the Trinovids to have too narrow of a FoV (I'm personally fine with any 8x that has at least 330/1000), just that for their price, it was a bit more narrow than the competitors. Having the ability to utilize your Katmai in apporopiate situation more than makes up for the Leica's close focus capacity, and given that ER/facial geometry are very personalized concerns. I'm sure if they made a Trinovid with 7x magnification and more ER it would be on my shortlist, as the ergonomics and overall brilliance of the view were top notch.
Enjoy your new glass,
Justin
I certainly didn't find the Trinovids to have too narrow of a FoV (I'm personally fine with any 8x that has at least 330/1000), just that for their price, it was a bit more narrow than the competitors. Having the ability to utilize your Katmai in apporopiate situation more than makes up for the Leica's close focus capacity, and given that ER/facial geometry are very personalized concerns. I'm sure if they made a Trinovid with 7x magnification and more ER it would be on my shortlist, as the ergonomics and overall brilliance of the view were top notch.
Enjoy your new glass,
Justin
Greetings.
Encouraged by: a) Annabeth's review of this model, b) PHA and Stet's assertion that the Trinovid is the sharper of the two, and c) complete the assessment of the available 8x42 alphas to make an acquisition, I went to Leica DC store on Tuesday to perform a side-by-side comparison. This comparison would be the third time in the last 9 months or so.
In the previous comparison I did not succeed in seeing a "consistent" difference in the view offered by the two. The term view encompasses color, contrast, light transmission, CA, and the 3 D effect. By consistent, i mean: a) trying to see the difference repeatedly with few minutes time apart between each test, b) compare notes with a second person in the same time, and c) whenever possible, try to identify the model without looking whether it is an Ultravid or a Trinovid. In the three opportunities, the viewing conditions were very good with clear sunny afternoon light, although in an urban setting that somehow prevents effective testing of the FoV difference. The first two tests left me with the finding that you really need to bend-backward to see a difference between the Ultravid and Trinovid. Maybe, and then maybe, if you bend-backward far enough you may see a hint-of-a-hint of more color saturation with the ultravid--specifically with the color black in approximately 60% of the time. View was the same, handling was the same, and light transmission was the same.
The third test two days ago added (and confirmed) the following observations: a) the difference of 1 oz in weight is surprisingly felt this time (not meaningful difference in the field though), b) the Trinovid is indeed sharper than the Ultravid, no doubt (but why I did not see it before?), c) focusing in both models was very similar, but again, so were the handling, lighting and view characteristics. Additionally, I am myopic, and in both models eye relief was very adequate with the glasses on (I cannot use either without glass). Further, you put either on, and "boom" the view is in perfect focus with no need to realign your eyes what so ever -- the same cannot be said for the Zeiss FL 8x32 as there is often the need to realign for perfect view. Could there be lower lighting or other conditions in which the Ultravid would be better? Maybe -- but I did not see it. Would the absence of aquadora coating in the new Trinovid makes a functional difference? Maybe -- but I do not feel it with the older Trinovids I have.
I do not think that the above has added anything new to the discussion--but it confirms, again, that the Trinovid, particularly if purchased at the lower demo price, is an awesome wise acquisition. It will serve its owner tremendously well for many years to come. For me, it is certainly in the race for the 8x42 binoculars I want to buy -- but I am waiting to test the new Swarovski 8x42 before a decision is made.
Enjoy in good health -- and Happy New Year.
PS. The kindness of the Leica DC store staff is acknowledged and much appreciated.
Encouraged by: a) Annabeth's review of this model, b) PHA and Stet's assertion that the Trinovid is the sharper of the two, and c) complete the assessment of the available 8x42 alphas to make an acquisition, I went to Leica DC store on Tuesday to perform a side-by-side comparison. This comparison would be the third time in the last 9 months or so.
In the previous comparison I did not succeed in seeing a "consistent" difference in the view offered by the two. The term view encompasses color, contrast, light transmission, CA, and the 3 D effect. By consistent, i mean: a) trying to see the difference repeatedly with few minutes time apart between each test, b) compare notes with a second person in the same time, and c) whenever possible, try to identify the model without looking whether it is an Ultravid or a Trinovid. In the three opportunities, the viewing conditions were very good with clear sunny afternoon light, although in an urban setting that somehow prevents effective testing of the FoV difference. The first two tests left me with the finding that you really need to bend-backward to see a difference between the Ultravid and Trinovid. Maybe, and then maybe, if you bend-backward far enough you may see a hint-of-a-hint of more color saturation with the ultravid--specifically with the color black in approximately 60% of the time. View was the same, handling was the same, and light transmission was the same.
The third test two days ago added (and confirmed) the following observations: a) the difference of 1 oz in weight is surprisingly felt this time (not meaningful difference in the field though), b) the Trinovid is indeed sharper than the Ultravid, no doubt (but why I did not see it before?), c) focusing in both models was very similar, but again, so were the handling, lighting and view characteristics. Additionally, I am myopic, and in both models eye relief was very adequate with the glasses on (I cannot use either without glass). Further, you put either on, and "boom" the view is in perfect focus with no need to realign your eyes what so ever -- the same cannot be said for the Zeiss FL 8x32 as there is often the need to realign for perfect view. Could there be lower lighting or other conditions in which the Ultravid would be better? Maybe -- but I did not see it. Would the absence of aquadora coating in the new Trinovid makes a functional difference? Maybe -- but I do not feel it with the older Trinovids I have.
I do not think that the above has added anything new to the discussion--but it confirms, again, that the Trinovid, particularly if purchased at the lower demo price, is an awesome wise acquisition. It will serve its owner tremendously well for many years to come. For me, it is certainly in the race for the 8x42 binoculars I want to buy -- but I am waiting to test the new Swarovski 8x42 before a decision is made.
Enjoy in good health -- and Happy New Year.
PS. The kindness of the Leica DC store staff is acknowledged and much appreciated.
Last edited:
A2GG
Beth
Wow awesome review Ibramr; a very thorough comparison.
It's nice to know that it stacks up so well against the Ultravid.
Yesterday morning I had a short window of time to use it at the local
pond in the bitter cold. It was a very cold, dry and sunny day.
While viewing ducks I thought to myself...gee maybe I should change my previous
statement when I said that the Trinovid is not quite "razor" sharp. It was yesterday.
It performs well at farther distances too.
Does it have some type of lens protective coating in the absence of
the top aquadura coating? I'll check the specs again, but don't remember
seeing anything.
It's nice to know that it stacks up so well against the Ultravid.
Yesterday morning I had a short window of time to use it at the local
pond in the bitter cold. It was a very cold, dry and sunny day.
While viewing ducks I thought to myself...gee maybe I should change my previous
statement when I said that the Trinovid is not quite "razor" sharp. It was yesterday.
It performs well at farther distances too.
Does it have some type of lens protective coating in the absence of
the top aquadura coating? I'll check the specs again, but don't remember
seeing anything.
Last edited:
Beth
Can't see anything on the website about an anti-water coating. These coatings tend to work well in medium to heavy rain but not in light fine mist rain.
Looks like you got yourself an awesome piece of kit.
Lee
Hi Annabeth. I'm a bit late to the party but just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your review of the Trinovid. I compared my old 8x42 Trinovid to a 10x42 Ulteavid today whilst out birding with my father. Yes I could see a difference but whether or not it was a g's difference I think not.
Rich
Rich
A2GG
Beth
Thanks for the kind words Rich.
I've never even seen the older Trinovid
model in person. I've heard so many great
things about the previous models. I think I am
now a fan of the Leica brand. I used it bird watching
yesterday and still can't find a darn thing wrong with
it...not that I'm looking
I like so much about it.It has become an instant favorite.
It doesn't seem like many people here on BF
own the new model despite the fact that it has
been out for some time now.
coolhand68
Well-known member
I had an opportunity to test the Trinovid and Ultravid HD side by side this past weekend at CamerlandNY. The Trinovid was the brighter of the two by a narrow margin. The sharpness was about equal to my eyes and the Ultravids felt noticeably lighter. I also tried a pair of Zeiss 8x42 Conquest but the eye relief was unacceptable and I was put off by them right away. I ended up leaving with the Ultravid demo model but now I'm wishing I would have held out for a pair of Swarovski 8x32 EL which are still the best I've tried. I may just take advantage of their ten day exchange policy and go for the Swarovski.
I will add that the difference between these Alphas are extremely marginal when it comes to sharpness, contrast and brightness. Most times it comes down to one over the other by a hair.
I will add that the difference between these Alphas are extremely marginal when it comes to sharpness, contrast and brightness. Most times it comes down to one over the other by a hair.
A2GG
Beth
Hi CH,
Thanks for reporting your impressions.
Whichever you choose in the end, I hope that it may bring you happiness.
brocknroller
porromaniac
A2GG
Beth
coolhand68
Well-known member
I've decided to keep the Leica after all. After further use outdoors during different times of day and in different light, they are still an overall great binocular. BTW, comparing them side by side with my Leica Trinovid 8x32 BN they are about equal in all regards but the Ultravid are just a little brighter. All of this makes me want to have a look through a pair of 7x42s, but unfortunately I cannot find anyone who carries Leica binoculars in New England and the 7x42 is even harder to find among dealers that do carry the brand.
A2GG
Beth
CH,
B&H Photo states 'in stock' for the 7x42 on their site. Maybe you could give them a call
to be certain.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=
Last edited:
i looked at the new trinovid at cabelas. it was nice but i paid $1599.99 for a brand NEW SLC 8x42 and i dont like a thing better about the Leica over the swaro
THey are so close in price, not sure why i wouldnt go with swaro.
its brighter, bigger sweet spot, swaroclean coatings and competes with the Zeiss HT very well, maybe a tad less bright but bigger sweetspot and better edges plus its more compact
THey are so close in price, not sure why i wouldnt go with swaro.
its brighter, bigger sweet spot, swaroclean coatings and competes with the Zeiss HT very well, maybe a tad less bright but bigger sweetspot and better edges plus its more compact
David in NC
Well-known member
I would probably agree with you if I seen the new SLC but remember the OP paid $450 less than that, not to mention tax if you bought on-site. I do agree that Leica's MSRP puts the Trinnie in a precarious place among the Conquest HD, Meopta HDs, Vortex Razors, and teh bottom of the new SLC line.
David
