New Release of Leica Trinovids? (1 Viewer)

[ArchStanton]

I see that now. it's not mentioned under the 8x42 but it is mentioned for both the 8x32 and 10x32. I assume they forgot to add the blurbs under the 42 version.

to me it seems my 8x32 does have the coatings. I never get any fogging and seems very easy to wipe clean.

You may be correct, and it was an error on Leica's part.

 

[Thotmosis]

I am considering buying a pair of Leica Trinovid HD 8x32, and was wondering if Leica would be introducing a new pair "soon"... I'd be willing to wait ~6 months if something new was in the works.

The HDs were introduced in 2015, and now have been in production for over 7 years. (based on what I can find on the internet.) Zeiss recent introduced their Conquest HDX, after ~12 years of the Conquest HD (2012 => 2024).

The BAs and BNs were in production for 7-8 years... so I wonder will Leica will be introducing a new pair soon, since the HDs will soon reach the 8 year mark.

- -

Trinovid Chronology I found:
1993-2000 Trinovid BA - 7 years of production
2000-2008 Trinovid BN - 8 years of production
2012-2015 Trinovid
2017-2025 Trinovid HD - 7+ years of production

Basically you can’t go wrong with any Leitz/Leica, just my highly biased opinion.

 

[has530]

You are incorrect. Exit Pupil size has more effect on blackouts and ease of eye placement than Spherical Aberration. A Nikon 8x32 SE that is known for having high levels of Spherical Aberration will still have easier eye placement than a Leica UV 10x20 because the exit pupil is twice the size. Spherical Aberration does have an effect on eye placement and blackouts, but it is not the primary factor. I will take a binocular any day with a 5mm EP and a little Spherical Aberration over a binocular with a 3mm EP and no Spherical Aberration. Also, practically no high quality modern binoculars use spherical lens anymore. Almost all of them are aspherical, so Spherical Aberration is not a problem. It is only the cheap, low-end binoculars that might use a spherical lens.

The audacity to get proven wrong, reply "You are incorrect", and then prattle on with more incorrect information. I could go point by point but this is just exhausting so I will just say you clearly don't understand spherical aberration, many high-end binoculars don't use aspherics, and in those that do most lenses are still spherical.

For OP, I wouldn't wait on updated versions. Leica is a camera company first with sport optics being a secondary business. They do not generally make frequent major changes to their optics and if you want the Trinvoid HD just go and get them! People here will complain about any binocular to no end. The reality is Leica makes very fine binoculars among the best in the world. They are a joy to use so just enjoy them and don't get bogged down by the opinions of others which range from just wrong to having a different set of priorities in binoculars than what Leica has chosen to prioritize.

 

[NDhunter]

This is a 2016 allbinos review. A very old review!! Leica optics have moved on since then, but allbinos old reviews database hasn't presented us a Leica model for about 10 years!

And the reason Allbinos has not had any recent Leica reviews, is that they reported they are not waterproof in
a well discussed review. That was widely talked about on this site. Go back and find it.
Jerry

 

[dorubird]

Yes, I know the article since it appeared. It was followed by an official Leica report at that time.

 

[ArchStanton]

Binoculars with HDC coating

• Leica 8x42 Trinovid HD: Waterproof and fog-proof binoculars with HDC-coated lens surfaces
  
  
• Leica 10x32 Trinovid HD: Binoculars with HDC anti-reflection fully multi-coatings and AquaDura coating on outer lens surfaces
  
  
• Leica Trinovid 8 x 20 BCA: Compact binoculars with HDC lens coating
  
  
• Leica 8x32 Trinovid HD: Binoculars with objective lenses that are fully multi-coated with HDC coatings

Where did you find this information? Thanks

 

[Paultricounty]

You are the one that is misleading people. You're the "Pied Piper" of Leicas leading poor unfortunate, unknowing birders down the road of ruin into the mediocre world of Leica binoculars. As far as being obnoxious as you say yourself it takes one to know one.


Follow me, my poor unfortunate fools, and you will be delivered into the wonderful world of Leica with their tiny FOV, high distortion, dim image and soft edges!
View attachment 1629217

The only thing I can say for sure, and every member here knows, is you’re not selling any Leica’s this week. New members beware.

 

[has530]

I understand spherical aberration. I think you are overestimating the importance of it in modern binoculars. EP size is more important now because spherical aberration is largely a problem with cheaper binoculars and is not a common problem anymore with high-end binoculars that use more complex lens designs to control it. I guarantee you, NL's and SF's do not have spherical aberration because their complex eyepieces control it. As far as Leica binoculars being the best in the world, that depends on what your priorities are. If you like a large, bright FOV with highly corrected edges, and a flat field. Leica's are definitely not the best in the world. If you like warm, saturated colors, high distortion, soft edges, less brightness and a small FOV they might be the best for you. It just depends on what your priorities are in a binocular.

Yes, spherical aberration is often a noticeable problem with cheap binoculars, as the lower quality lens design in budget optics usually doesn't adequately correct for this optical aberration, resulting in blurry image edges and reduced overall sharpness, especially when looking towards the periphery of the view field.

Key points about spherical aberration in cheap binoculars:

• Cause:
  Light rays hitting the edges of a spherical lens are refracted differently than those hitting the center, causing them to focus at different points, leading to a blurry image.
• Impact:
  Cheap binoculars often have significant spherical aberration, making the image appear sharp in the center but blurry at the edges.
• Solution in high-end binoculars:
  Higher quality binoculars use more complex lens designs, including aspherical lens elements, to minimize spherical aberration and provide a sharper image across the entire field of view.

You are conflating spherical abberation of the entrance pupil with that of the exit pupil. I don't know why I even try to help.

AI. HaHa!

That tracks that you would like "AI" given all either of you do is spew word salads parroting the words of others out of context without understanding the meaning of them. At least AI comes with a disclaimer that the output may be inaccurate.

 

[henry link]

You are conflating spherical abberation of the entrance pupil with that of the exit pupil. I don't know why I even try to help.
View attachment 1629220


That tracks that you would like "AI" given all either of you do is spew word salads parroting the words of others out of context without understanding the meaning of them. At least AI comes with a disclaimer that the output may be inaccurate.

Alas, in post #33 Dennis managed to find someone or some thing to act as his authority on spherical aberration who knows even less about it than he does. The "Key points about spherical aberration in cheap binoculars" in that post demonstrate some serious ignorance of the subject and come closer to a slightly off description of field curvature, not spherical aberration. Unlike field curvature SA makes the center of the field just as blurry as the edge and it's just as much present in expensive binoculars as in cheap ones.

As "has530" has already pointed out, what Dennis has supplied is the wrong definition of the wrong type of spherical aberration from what is supposedly being discussed here. Spherical aberration of the exit pupil doesn't cause any loss of sharpness anywhere in the field.

Back on the Ignore List.

 

[tenex]

Alas, in post #33 Dennis managed to find someone or some thing to act as his authority on spherical aberration who knows even less about it than he does.

Several posts seem now to have been deleted. But working from has530's quote of the former #33, the usual method of googling phrases fails to identify a verbatim source. Therefore it seems highly likely that Denco actually is now using ChatGPT, or rather, it is using him. Quite the introduction to BF for a new member's first post.

 

[Jos Stratford]

While AI/ChatGPT etc are undoubtedly powerful and useful, Birdforum is a channel for human communication 🙂

It is poor form to use these AI tools to generate a page of repeated and lengthy posts to labour a point, even labelling them as AI generated. Apologies, they have been deleted.

 

[tenex]

I don't think I quite understand this. The offense here was merely posting text generated by AI? Constantly repeating this or similar material, including objectively false and misleading statements, is otherwise perfectly acceptable as "human communication", "expressing views"? By what definition of "communication", or "views"?

 

[John M Robinson]

IMHO a 1k pair of binoculars should have hydrophobic coatings, and one shouldn't have to spend 2k.

The 7x35 Retrovids I bought a few years ago came with Aquadura coatings and are every bit a good optically as my Ultravids.

 

[eronald]

I think if you want an Alpha you should pay whatever Swaro or Zeiss or Leica demand, and if you want Kamakura optics with a western wrapper design and European assembly and QC you can get Conquest or Trinovid HD, but you might as well get Nikon. Great optics but lacking the clarity and immediacy of the top bunch. Apart from that, I think the old Trinovid just before the Ultravid may have had a field flattener. I tried some and they were sharper than my Ultravid HD but horribly heavy. The latest Ultravid HD+ I saw at the Leica store seemed better in low light somehow, I think the coating has been improved at some point in the past ten years ...

Edmund

 

[eronald]

The 7x35 Retrovids I bought a few years ago came with Aquadura coatings and are every bit a good optically as my Ultravids.

Agreed. They are surprisingly good and much lighter.

Edmund