Leica Hdplus 7x42 vs Trinovid 7x35 (1 Viewer)

[blake69]

Good day from Italy. I would like to know who tried them both from - Leica HDPLUS 7x42 vs Trinovid 7x35 - what are the differences. Especially brightness, 3D view, micro-contrast, colors. I just bought the Trinovid 7x35 and in the past I had the HD + 7x42 (sold for the Zeiss FL 7x42 due to the field, glasses, brightness). Basically: is HD + better than Trinovid?

 

[KC Foggin]

Can't help you with your bins but I would like to extend a warm welcome to you from those of us on staff here at BirdForum.
We're glad you found us and please join in wherever you like

 

[John Frink]

Good day from Italy. I would like to know who tried them both from - Leica HDPLUS 7x42 vs Trinovid 7x35 - what are the differences. Especially brightness, 3D view, micro-contrast, colors. Basically: is HD + better than Trinovid?

I have both, and in my opinion the HD+ is a bit better than the Trinovid. But just a bit - given its price point, I think the new Trinovid is a screaming bargain, and well worth consideration by anyone interested in an alpha 7x. Bright, clear, compact, and it has the "Leica view".

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Blake,

For some more detail . . .

Although it's a long thread, see Chuck’s comments in the initial post along with those in posts #57, 89, 125, 145, 155 and 177 at: Retrovid 7X35 a viable birding binocular?

Roger Vine has reviewed both, though without direct comparison, at: Binocular Reviews

One of the aspects of the Trinovid that's hard to appreciate is just how small it is, not only compared to the x42 Ultravid but also the x32 Swarovski EL SV, as is shown in the images with Chuck’s first post.

And more detailed information about the 7x35, along with comment on the small diameter of the eyecups - which has been a problem for some - can be found at: Leica Retrovid 7x35 vs Swarovski 8x32 EL SV


John

 

[blake69]

Thanks for the welcome and help.


I had already read the reports, but I have never found a direct, specific comparison. I am a wearer of glasses. If possible I would like to know which of the two is more forgiving. And again: The micro-contrast for the small details, the color saturation, the transparency, the 3D view, the brightness and the ergonomics. Thanks to anyone who can help me.

 

[dries1]

Since you wear glasses, you should try both, then make a decision. ER and ergonomics sometimes will make the decision for you. You will not find the answer you are looking for in your last post, since many here will have different opinions.

 

[blake69]

You are right. But I remember very well that I wore the HDPLUS better with eyeglasses. As well as ergonomics. What most perplexes me is the optical quality. The trinovid is great, but is HDPLUS better?

 

[John Frink]

What most perplexes me is the optical quality. The trinovid is great, but is HDPLUS better?

I have them both here, one in each hand. Focusing on the most distant and detailed target I can find, I cannot discern a difference in their views; they are equal, and superb, in my opinion. Intentionally looking for lateral CA at the edge of the field, I can see that the purple and green edges on a high-contrast target are <very> slightly more prominent in the Trinovid than the HD+. For my practical uses I consider them equal and interchangeable; one is lighter and more compact, the other is heavily armored. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[blake69]

Now I own both of them too.With glasses I am better off with the trinovid, which I find brighter with better focus and a washed view that I like less than HD +

The more intense color saturation in HD + and lower vibration too.

 

[casscade]

Washed view, as in washed out low contrast view or the Slc/Zeiss ht washed clean view with contrast to spare?

 

[Blue72]

Do the 7x35 have a blue tint when viewing through them?

 

[yarrellii]

Do the 7x35 have a blue tint when viewing through them?

I'd say that the opposite is actually true (at least to my eyes). The image is rich, saturated, full of contrast and, should I describe a predominant colour I'd say it's more reddish/warmish than blue. I hope that helps.

 

[blake69]

Washed clean like zeiss HT. The trinovid in my eyes is brighter: the bushes light up, with neutral colors, but the saturated colors and microcontrast provide a superior alchemy in HD + which makes me say: it's a premium view!

barks of trees, the grain of the paintings in the houses, the hair of the cats are more real. In the trinovid I see something artificial. A prostitution of the image. Beautiful, but not real.

Trinovid is the WOW effect of surfaces. HD + settles into deep memories.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Blue72]

I'd say that the opposite is actually true (at least to my eyes). The image is rich, saturated, full of contrast and, should I describe a predominant colour I'd say it's more reddish/warmish than blue. I hope that helps.

Thanks…..Just making sure. Because, I bought a Leica rangefinder last year and it had a slight blue tint…but maybe that was a coating for the laser readout

 

[casscade]

Funny thing is my 2000 model ba 10x50’s gives an extremely vivid Zeiss like HT view, the washed clean look as many describe, they also happen to be one of the brightest binos I own, actually being brighter than my new UVHD plus 10x50’s, still haven’t figured that one out because it theoretically makes no sense.

Personally I think it’s more sample variations than anything, I’ve had warn tone Leica’s and I’ve have vivid almost Zeiss FL like leicas, all of the same model. The trend tends to lean that Leica is generally more of a warm tone binocular but it’s no guarantee.

 

[tenex]

barks of trees, the grain of the paintings in the houses, the hair of the cats are more real

I know what you're talking about here with UVHD+, and see it in my 10x32 even compared to the earlier BN model. It's a fineness of texture involving contrast, not just resolution. I first noticed it looking at rock outcrops, whose layers of different shades of grey (or brown) were more clearly distinguished. Presumably this is some well-kept secret of recent Leica coatings.

 

[b-lilja]

I like my 7x42 HD+ better visually - contrast, saturation, 3d - EXCEPT there is something about how crisp tight image of the Trinnies...perhaps its ultimate resolution is better. And that counts for a lot.

It is a darn shame Leica doesn't just advance this bin with full waterproofness - it might otherwise become my everyday (tradeoffs of size, weight, image, etc.)

 

[CharleyBird]

Interesting comparison and not one I'd naturally do, due to the point b-lilja raises. My first consideration of binoculars is checking them as waterproof or not.
I'd therefore probably compare the 7x35 trinovid with (something as different as) the latest Nikon E11 8x30. Or the older Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt.
Apples and oranges they maybe, but it's the way I think these days.

 

[dorubird]

Like CharleyBird suggested, I'm also curious if anyone compared Nikon E2 8x30 with the new Leica Trinovid 7x35!

 

[blake69]

yes, a friend who owns both. Leica on Nikon undoubtedly for optical quality. Three-dimensional and field - Nikon