• 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.

Trinovid bn 8x32, are they still worthy? (2 Viewers)

[email protected] said:
"In birdwatchers normal conditions these glare, ghosting and flare problems clearly don't matter."

Exactly my point. For birdwatching you will get more performance for the dollar from a modern binocular than you will an old classic like the BN. The things that matter in birding like contrast and brightness are clearly superior in modern binoculars.
Click to expand...

This has been a very interesting thread. I have no axe to grind here, but I feel compelled to point out that Yuk (who this thread has been about since he revived it in post #30) stated in that post that he was not a birder! He's looking for a nice all-round bin and the only thing, probably, that doesn't matter to him is what makes a bin good for birding!

I think he should buy the Leica and be very happy. I also agree with those that say that the actual differences in performance between a 10-20 year old binocular and one of the latest alphas is, in reality, small. It all depends on what scale you use. The differences can seem huge if you zoom in on them enough and make the scale very big, but in reality the differences are actually quite small.

I say this as someone who owns a current alpha as well as a few older bins from the same company, and also another modern far Eastern made bin from other manufacturer. I can clearly see (and appreciate) the differences between them, but in reality they are not the sort of differences that anyone but those with a well trained eye and a lot of viewing experience would notice without a direct A-B comparison.
 
"I can clearly see (and appreciate) the differences between them, but in reality they are not the sort of differences that anyone but those with a well trained eye and a lot of viewing experience would notice without a direct A-B comparison."

I don't know about that. Give 10 inexperienced people a Leica 8x32 BN and a Swarovski SV 8x32 and have them pick their favorite. I bet 80% would pick the SV. I see it at Cabella's when somebody compares binoculars. They are looking through a Bushnell and then the salesman shows them a Swarovski and I usually can hear the WOW from 10 feet away. Maybe it is because they saw the price tag though. Just saying.
 
Last edited:
"The Ford may be faster, corner better, have better fuel economy etc. But the Rolls Royce will get you to your destination refreshed and effortlessly. In fact I'd rather drive an excellent 50 year old Rolls Royce Silver Cloud than a modern Ford."

You better have a good AAA membership.
 
Pinewood said:
Hello Lee,

That is impressive! :king:

I thought that one had to be named either Charlotte or Henry to drive an RR.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur
Click to expand...

Hi Arthur

Our Skoda has been to the south of France 4 times and to Scotland 20 times. It has just brought us home after 1595 miles during a Scottish holiday in the Western Isles. We love it to bits and it suits our needs perfectly. The pic below shows her (she is called Crumpet) on machair on the north coast of North Uist in the Western Isles.

Lee
 

Attachments

  • Uist_2014_Jul_7872.jpg
    Uist_2014_Jul_7872.jpg
    158.7 KB · Views: 78
I used to work on old Rolls Royce hearses as a trainee mechanic (Post 100).
I wouldn't like to end up in one either. :)

The opulent over the top larger Rolls are not for me either, but the everyday Rolls was a joy to drive.
It was liking sitting in an armchair and a five hour drive was effortless.

As to binoculars, there is a lot more than brightness of the image that is important to me.
 
Lee, your almost brand new looking Skoda is impressive.

Our 1985 and 1992 Saabs have done about 240,000 miles each.

An AA man in Scotland was called out to fix a a 1950s, I think, Bentley, a Rolls Royce clone.
It was broken down by the roadside.
He fixed it on the spot with a part he had carried for about 40 years.
He said that he always knew that one day it would be needed.

My friend still drives his open top 1964 British Ford Corsair.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
The Leica Blacklines are an Ultravid HD in sheep's clothing without the water repellent coating on the lenses. I bet Leica has updated the Blackline's coatings over the years also because they still will do a production run of them. Also, the Blackline's have Dielectric Prism's which the BN's do not. I have not tried Blackline's but I would guess they are almost identical to Ultravid's HD. I wouldn't be surprised if they were brighter than the Nikon HG.
Click to expand...


The issue was whether or not your statement that "the things that matter in birding like contrast and brightness are clearly superior in modern binoculars," was true. And the Monarch HG is one of those modern binoculars. Just like your new favorites, the Tract Torics are.

If all you can come up with is that the Ultravid Blacklines don't have water repellent coatings you have lost the argument.

And if you are going to quote from one of my posts, quote the entire post because I gave 4 reasons why the Monarch HG was not clearly superior to older binoculars like the Leica Ultravid Blackline with old coatings.

You can bet all you want that Leica has updated the Blacklines coatings over the years but you can't prove it.

I have better things to do now.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Mike F said:
This has been a very interesting thread. I have no axe to grind here, but I feel compelled to point out that Yuk (who this thread has been about since he revived it in post #30) stated in that post that he was not a birder! He's looking for a nice all-round bin and the only thing, probably, that doesn't matter to him is what makes a bin good for birding!

I think he should buy the Leica and be very happy. I also agree with those that say that the actual differences in performance between a 10-20 year old binocular and one of the latest alphas is, in reality, small. It all depends on what scale you use. The differences can seem huge if you zoom in on them enough and make the scale very big, but in reality the differences are actually quite small.

I say this as someone who owns a current alpha as well as a few older bins from the same company, and also another modern far Eastern made bin from other manufacturer. I can clearly see (and appreciate) the differences between them, but in reality they are not the sort of differences that anyone but those with a well trained eye and a lot of viewing experience would notice without a direct A-B comparison.
Click to expand...

Mike, I agree with your thoughts, and that is why there are many options
available. I also wish Yuk well with his decision in the Leica, it is a very
nice binocular as I have said in an earlier post.

I have been around the block a time or two, with experience with most of
the newest models. I now have come around to appreciate older models
and like to go back 20-30 years, and the quality and optics of some of
these models are very respectable today.

There are lots of new optics companies selling very nice binoculars, as
far as optics. But consider long term, some of these china made binoculars
fall apart within a short time. No warranty, no company, Zenray is an example.

Jerry
 
Binastro said:
Thank you Bob for your comments in post 93.

The 8x32 BA is quite different to the Leica 8x42 Ultravid.
I haven't seen or tried the Leica 8x42 Ultravid, but the Ultravid binoculars so far as I can see do not have room in the barrels for the old type BA baffling.
That is why I haven't gone for a smaller body Ultravid without first testing.
By careful design an Ultravid may be good but small barrels suggest this is difficult.

My 12x50 Ultravid about 10 or 11 years old is very good regarding flare.

The 8x42 Nikon Monarch HG that I have, clearly is a bad example.
But there are large arcs of glare from a streetlight at night in addition to other ghost images. Nearing the Sun it is terrible.
I suspect that Nikon told the Japanese maker to get this binocular right before introducing it in the U.S. market.

The 10x42 Conquest HD that I have is superb in the freedom from ghosts and flare.
However, the 8x32 Conquest HD has a problem unless the bottom 4.5mm of the objectives is cut off by masks.

In birdwatchers normal conditions these glare, ghosting and flare problems clearly don't matter.
But I am using these binoculars for scientific studies of faint noctilucent cloud. It is unacceptable to use binoculars where ghost images of streetlights, car headlights etc give false results.

Some of the binoculars that I use are worse than the 8x32 Conquest HD or even my poor example Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG regarding flare. But I don't use these for critical detection of faint extended sources like noctilucent clouds.
For instance the Swift 8.5x44 HR/5 is poor regarding flare and ghosts and some other binoculars are terrible.

The point about the Leica 8x32 BA is that it is good for any type of observation despite not being as bright as more modern lower priced binoculars.
I would much rather drive an excellent condition 20 year old Rolls Royce than a modern Ford.
The Ford may be faster, corner better, have better fuel economy etc. But the Rolls Royce will get you to your destination refreshed and effortlessly.
In fact I'd rather drive an excellent 50 year old Rolls Royce Silver Cloud than a modern Ford.

I have as new Leica and Swarovski 10x25s, but don't use them as they flop about hopelessly because of the mechanical design.
The old much used Docter 10x25 is a joy to use as it stays exactly where it is opened to after thousands of uses. The Docter is not as bright, but it is the Docter that I use whereas the Leica and Swarovski stay in their boxes.
Click to expand...


Binastro,

Thank you for your reply and your comments about the versatility your Leica 8x32 Trinovid BA has because of its old type baffling. I guess the reason for its absence in the Ultravids was in the interest of saving weight. It reminds us that an "improvement" in one area of a binocular can often result in different problems in the new version.

If the interminable rain we are having here in North East Pennsylvania ever lets up and the sun returns I am going to test my Monarch 8x42 HG and Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline for glare or flare near the sun against my old Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN to see if it is better at handling it. I've never tried this on my neighborhood streetlights and I may do it out of curiosity. Any hints or advice you can give me will be appreciated.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Bob. I think one big reason the Leica BN is not as bright as the Leica Blackline or Nikon HG is it has the older silver prism coatings instead of the newer dielectric coatings like the Blackline and Nikon HG have. Even you said there was a big difference in the two in the Dielectric Prism Coatings thread. I have observed my self that Dielectric Prism Coatings make a big difference in brightness. Another good reason to get the newer Trinovid. It has Dielectric Prism Coatings.

"Everything else being equal get the one with the dielectric prisms. They really do make a difference in brightness. I can attest to that. I have the new Nikon 10 x 32 EDG with dielectric prisms and it is much brighter than my older silver coated prism Nikon 10 x 32 LX L which it replaced. You can readily tell the difference in twilight conditions and these binoculars have a small exit pupil compared to the ones you are inquiring about."


https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=187325
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Bob. I think one big reason the Leica BN is not as bright as the Leica Blackline or Nikon HG is it has the older silver prism coatings instead of the newer dielectric coatings like the Blackline and Nikon HG have. Even you said there was a big difference in the two in the Dielectric Prism Coatings thread. I have observed my self that Dielectric Prism Coatings make a big difference in brightness.

"Everything else being equal get the one with the dielectric prisms. They really do make a difference in brightness. I can attest to that. I have the new Nikon 10 x 32 EDG with dielectric prisms and it is much brighter than my older silver coated prism Nikon 10 x 32 LX L which it replaced. You can readily tell the difference in twilight conditions and these binoculars have a small exit pupil compared to the ones you are inquiring about."


https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=187325
Click to expand...

Dennis,

There is some confusion here about the binoculars I was comparing.

I know dielectric prisms are brighter than Silver coated prisms but I was not comparing the Monarch HGs with the old Leica Trinovids which have Silver coated prisms.

I was comparing the brightness of the new Monarch HG 8x42 to the Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline which, (along with the Silverline) has dielectric prisms but still has the original earlier dated coatings on the lenses that the rest of the Ultravid line no longer has.

Leica's Technical Data Chart which is found in its Nature Observation Catalogue for 2016 and 2017 states under "Coating" that the Blacklines have only HDC Multi Coating while the rest of the Ultravid line has HDC plus Multi Coating and Aqua Dura. Under "Transmission" it states that the Blacklines are 89 and for the rest of the Ultravids it is 92. Allbinos gives the Transmission of the Monarch HG 10x42 as 90. Allbinos has not tested the 8x42.

That is one of the reasons why I have made the argument that the new Monarch HGs are not "clearly superior" to the earlier Ultravids with their original coatings.

I am not arguing that one should not purchase the Monarch HGs because of this because they are much less expensive than than the Blackline versions are but they do have other issues that I outlined earlier in another post.

Bob
 
I have to agree with the pro Leica BN crowd. The 7X42 BN I have offers a very nice view and according to allbinos the 10X42 BN offers a very contemporary 88% light transmission. I'm also trying to think of a binocular I currently have that is built any better. I don't think I have one or ever have. The UVHD+ main advantages are probably lighter weight, handier design, more eye relief, and improved eyecups. The BNs are probably not as adaptable to as wide of a group of users but otherwise they are pretty dang competitive with current binoculars. I see a lot of birders with both BAs and BNs that have seen no reason to upgrade after many years of use. That's a pretty good testimony.

Comparing my BN 7X42 to a more recently manufactured Meopta B.1 7X42 shows more similarities than differences. Both weigh within an ounce of two pounds. Both have eyecups that feature only two positions, in and out. Both have center diopter adjustment. The BN has MORE FOV. According to allbinos the B.1 offers 85% light transmission although more recent test have it listed closer to 90% so both are in the same ballpark probably. So, IMO not as large of gap as one might think if any.

YMMV...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0693.jpg
    IMG_0693.jpg
    63.6 KB · Views: 84
  • IMG_3520.jpg
    IMG_3520.jpg
    51.7 KB · Views: 82
  • DSC_0114.jpg
    DSC_0114.jpg
    72.4 KB · Views: 78
Hi Bob,
Make sure the sun is hidden behind a building when testing optics near the sun.
Also be aware that the sun moves its own diameter every two minutes.

This also applies when trying to find the planet Venus in daylight.

My main streetlight is about 15 yards from me and has a special black rear mask that was fitted by the local Council within a few days of my request. It cuts down the light by about 90% to the bedroom, but the side light is visible from the kitchen, my test site.

The sky above this is where I search for noctilucent cloud and possible aurorae.
Moving the street light within the field, most binoculars show various ghost images from prism faces and lens surfaces and bright unshielded glitter points, sometimes from lack of paint or just poor design.
Also general veiling flare.

The 8x42 Monarch HG has rifled baffles, but these are inadequate and in my sample painted shiny black instead of matt.
In addition this binocular has uncontrolled large arcs from the streetlight. From memory these occur with the streetlight just outside the field stop. They are bad. I don't know if U.S. samples are improved.

So basically one just moves the streetlight all around the field and then explores the much larger area outside the field of view.
One can never cover the whole area up to say 30 degrees off axis.

I find that cars going past at night with their moving headlights show up ghost images, which are not easily found by scanning.
In addition double glazing presents its own problems as ghost images come from these surfaces.

Some binoculars are exemplary. But I think any binocular will show ghost images if the light source is bright enough.

In Britain the sky is rarely clear enough to have a danger nearing the sun, as flare intrudes.
However, in some countries the air is so clean and moisture free that one gets no warning. So here one must be extra vigilant exploring the area near the sun.
 
I feel without Dielectric Prism coatings and HD or Schott glass the BN will always be one step down from modern binoculars. These two features regardless of what some say do make a difference and I personally notice them. The manufacturers wouldn't make these improvements if they didn't think they made a difference. If you don't notice the difference get the BN. I prefer modern binoculars because for the dollar they have a better view.
 
Last edited:
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

mgp13
Leica Trinovid HD appreciation thread
Replies
12
Views
2K
Rg548
R
chill6x6
A few quick thoughts, 7X35 vs. 8X32
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
John M Robinson
J
B
Choosing 8x32 vs 7x42 vs 8x25
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
Blastermaster
B
S
IPD and folks who own the Trinovid HD in 8x32...
Replies
0
Views
678
sope0018
S
A2GG
Impressed with Trinovid HD
Replies
13
Views
3K
A2GG
A2GG

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top