• 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. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Nikon HG 8x42 vs Trinovid HD 8x32 (2 Viewers)

Simon Holby

New member
United Kingdom
I am looking to buy a birding binocular that is relatively lightweight around 750 pounds and I am not sure if I should favour the wider FOV of the Nikon HG which is quite a bit wider than the FOV of the Trinovid. Is the FOV of the Trinovids as restrictive as I have heard it is? Are there any optical differences between the two binoculars, in term of optical quality?
 

dries1

Member
You must be he..l one of strong person to lift that heavy of a glass... (joke). All Kidding aside. there is a large difference in FOV with the 8X32 Leica Trinovid and the Nikon HG 8X42, one that you would notice immediately. Optical quality is good in the Leica, however that FOV to me is restrictive, but it does have a very good close focus.
 

Simon Holby

New member
United Kingdom
😂Yeah I can now see how that could be mistaken, I meant 750 pounds as in the currency here in the UK.
Regarding the FOV, do you think that it is very important for hand held birding to have a good wide FOV, or is it just a nice thing to have that is not something essential?
 

qwerty5

Well-known member
United States
To be clear, comparing an 8x32 to an 8x42 is comparing apples to oranges. The 8x42 will be better optically and produce a brighter image. I've never understood why so many people sacrifice image quality for a smaller binocular
 

Simon Holby

New member
United Kingdom
From what I had read the optical quality in 8x32 binoculars is almost just as good as in their 8x42 counterparts nowadays and the brighter image is not much of an issue for me as I do all my birding during the day.
The wide FOV is the aspect I am inquiring about, is it an extra or essential.
 

mpeace

Well-known member
Large fov isn't essential, but it really adds to the enjoyment of observing and is a big contributor to a binocular's 'wow' factor. This is the immersion in the scene that you feel, which is just observing without being too conscious about the binocular tubes. With modern binoculars a wide field of view is one of the areas that's really been developed and I think for the money you're looking to spend you can expect to have a wide field of view. As others will say it's a good idea to try both yourself and make your own mind up. There's a number of others you can try in this price range such as the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 and for a bit more the Swarovski CL companion 8x30 or even some cheaper ones like Hawke Frontier Apo 8x42 that's light for an 8x42.
 

Simon Holby

New member
United Kingdom
Large fov isn't essential, but it really adds to the enjoyment of observing and is a big contributor to a binocular's 'wow' factor. This is the immersion in the scene that you feel, which is just observing without being too conscious about the binocular tubes. With modern binoculars a wide field of view is one of the areas that's really been developed and I think for the money you're looking to spend you can expect to have a wide field of view. As others will say it's a good idea to try both yourself and make your own mind up. There's a number of others you can try in this price range such as the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 and for a bit more the Swarovski CL companion 8x30 or even some cheaper ones like Hawke Frontier Apo 8x42 that's light for an 8x42.
If that is the case I might opt for the monarch HG, especially for the money I want to pay I can see why the trinovid's FOV is lacklustre. I will see if I can find a place where I can test out the monarchs as with the conquest HD I tested and it just didn't fit my hand properly, it didn't feel right; I have glasses as well so that is another reason why I feel I need to test before buying. The Swarovskis are too expensive for me personally but I'll try the Hawkes as well; thanks for the recommendation and advice.
 

jring

Well-known member
Hi,

if you wear glasses, then I would strongly recommend the Nikon MHG 8x42 due to its almost 18mm ER as compared to the Leica 16mm.

Also here is a review of the MHG by some well-known member here - including a comparison vs the 8x42 Leica Trini HD.


Joachim, who would by the MHG despite not wearing glasses - yet...
 

AlphaFan

Well-known member
United States
I have an 8x42 MHG and It is quickly becoming my “go to” birding binocular. They have a lot going for them - very crisp and vividly detailed image, expansive FOV, very good color, very bright, the focus is a good speed, and at just 23.5 oz they handle more like an 8x32. But don’t be fooled - simple physics give a 42mm binocular an inherent optical advantage over a 32mm glass. I also have the much lauded Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 and it is a spectacular 32mm binocular. But as an everyday glass I prefer the overall package of the 8x42 MHG. They do have a few negatives that I tolerate because of the many things it does very well. I don’t like the diopter as it is too easy to accidentally unlock, the accessories are very basic for a binocular in this class, and the leatherette armor only covers the majority of the barrels - which I believe is more for grip than protection.

The Trinovid is no slouch - upon picking it up this binocular appears very robustly built, the image is very sharp and bright, the color is very true, and all of the mechanics feel precise - IMO the MHG might have just a smidge more CA in the brightest light. The FOV is noticeably narrower than the MHG but in addition so is the “sweet spot.” The Leica has more lens curvature and off-axis aberration than the MHG. The Leica is also heavier in the had than the MHG. But Leica’s warranty and customer service (much improved in recent years) is far better than Nikon.
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
To be clear, comparing an 8x32 to an 8x42 is comparing apples to oranges. The 8x42 will be better optically and produce a brighter image. I've never understood why so many people sacrifice image quality for a smaller binocular
Very easy to understand — it’s all about trade-offs, and the benefit of the weight savings is valued more than the “sacrifice” in image quality. Because in most situations it’s barely a sacrifice optically, if at all.
 

dries1

Member
To be clear, comparing an 8x32 to an 8x42 is comparing apples to oranges. The 8x42 will be better optically and produce a brighter image. I've never understood why so many people sacrifice image quality for a smaller binocular
I am right there with you regarding 8X42, for me much more relaxed with extended viewing.
 

DrewskiMT

Observer
I have an 8x42 MHG and It is quickly becoming my “go to” birding binocular. They have a lot going for them - very crisp and vividly detailed image, expansive FOV, very good color, very bright, the focus is a good speed, and at just 23.5 oz they handle more like an 8x32. But don’t be fooled - simple physics give a 42mm binocular an inherent optical advantage over a 32mm glass. I also have the much lauded Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 and it is a spectacular 32mm binocular. But as an everyday glass I prefer the overall package of the 8x42 MHG. They do have a few negatives that I tolerate because of the many things it does very well. I don’t like the diopter as it is too easy to accidentally unlock, the accessories are very basic for a binocular in this class, and the leatherette armor only covers the majority of the barrels - which I believe is more for grip than protection.

The Trinovid is no slouch - upon picking it up this binocular appears very robustly built, the image is very sharp and bright, the color is very true, and all of the mechanics feel precise - IMO the MHG might have just a smidge more CA in the brightest light. The FOV is noticeably narrower than the MHG but in addition so is the “sweet spot.” The Leica has more lens curvature and off-axis aberration than the MHG. The Leica is also heavier in the had than the MHG. But Leica’s warranty and customer service (much improved in recent years) is far better than Nikon.
I actually prefer birding for an hour or two with my 8x32 Conquests to my 8x42 MHGs. The views are so similar I have a hard time finding preferences between the two optically. I do notice the lighter weight of the 8x32s, and I prefer holding the shorter but thicker Conquest. Haven't spent a longer period observing through them yet. It will be interesting to see how the MHGs grow on me, or not.
 

rpg51

Well-known member
Supporter
We have a pair of Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 in the family. I have used them quite a bit. I like them a lot. No experience with the Trinovid.
 

casscade

Well-known member
Nikon imo, and I’m a huge Leica fan. The MHG 8x42 is a great binocular, first class image and handles as good as anything I’ve used, it’s almost as small as many 32’s. Now add that great fov and it’s hard not to like.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top