• 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 8x20 BCA vs Ultravid 8x20 BR (2 Viewers)

dorubird

Well-known member
Romania
For a very long time I wanted to make this comparison, but I never had the opportunity to look through Ultravid next to Trinovid. My samples are new generations, benefiting from the latest coatings.
Trino vs Ultra introduction.JPG

Design and exterior finishes
Trinovid, in my opinion, has a more mature and pleasant design due to its simplicity and functionality. And the Ultravid has a slightly more elaborate design with beautiful curved and soft lines. But Ultravid armor has some joints lines that give the impression of a rough state, while Trinovid has these armor joints lines well hidden under the hinge. (Trinovid win)
Trino vs Ultra design.JPG
Trino vs Ultra design 2.JPG

Mechanics
Mechanical parts of the two binoculars have fine and precise adjustments (stiff hinges, with precise focus, diopter and eyecup adjustments). (draw)
Focus system

Here we have two different approaches: Trinovid has a minimalist focus wheel, hidden in the volume of the binoculars, serving ideas of the smallest possible volume. It moves precisely without slipping, with a small but pleasant feeling of graininess. Instead, Ultravid has a large and obvious wheel serving ideas of convenience, with an equally precise movement but with a silkier feeling. (Ultravid win)
Trino vs Ultra Focus.JPG

Interior finish is better blackened in Ultravid. Instead, Trinovid uses brighter materials and paints. This generating optical problems (see in the Optics category). (Ultravid win)
Trino vs Ultra interior finish.JPG

Diopter adjustment -+3.5 diopters. vs -+5 dioptr. Here Trinovid leaves a bigger margin for those with larger dioptre differences. (Trinovid win)
Ergonomics
is better at Ultravid due to the larger focus wheel. However, the long habit makes Trinovid comfortable also - "habit is second nature" Blaise Pascal. (Ultravid win)
Waterproof.
Trinovid only splash-proof vs Ultravid 0.5bar (Ultravid win)
Accessory.
Ultravid has raincovers, very useful for protection when the binoculars are hanging around your neck. Trinovid has a strap with quick release (Ultravid win)
Trino vs Ultra accessories 2.JPG

Weight with straps (Ultravid caps) 232g vs 256g. The 24 grams less are not felt in reality, but they are the result of a smaller body of Trinovid. (draw)
Dimensions
at first glance are very similar! But if we put both binoculars next to each other the difference becomes visible. Trinovid is slightly smaller in all directions. The Ultravid no longer fits in the small bag bought for Trinovid!!! (Trinovid win)
Trino vs Ultra dimensions.JPG


Optics

Both have roof prism with phasecorrecting coating P40 and HighLux-System HLS, and lenses with HDC multicoating (provides abrasion-resistance). Only Ultravid has AquaDura coating on outer lenses.
I noticed colors differences in the eyepieces , objectives and prisms coatings. Ultravid also has slightly larger eyepiece lenses diameter (16.5mm vs 15.5mm).
Trino vs Ultra optics 2.JPG
Trino vs Ultra Optics.JPG


Contrast is the main advantage of Ultravid over Trinovid. It is obviously higher, Ultravid having a much more vivid image than Trinovid. (Ultravid win)
Resolution on the center
. After the tests, despite the big difference in contrast, I came to the conclusion that these two binoculars resolve the same number of details. Perfect equality!! (draw)
Resolution on the edges
. Here we can see a big difference. Ultravid 90% of the FOV is clear, while with Trinovid about 80% of the FOV is clear. (Ultravid win)
Glare resistance
. Ultravid's very good glare resistance is what also contributes to the great contrast advantage during the day with strong sun. Compared, Trinovid has lot of glare! (Ultravid win)
White balance
is very similar, the color palette being very similar with pleasant saturation of colors, specified by Leica! (draw)
Brightness.
The visual estimation of the brightness is very subjective and dependent on the conditions and very difficult to appreciate, because other important variables are also involved in this appreciation: the colors and the contrast. The colors of these binoculars being extremely similar with an identical white balance, only the higher contrast of the Ultravid remained to influence my perception of brightness. Due to this strong contrast of the Ultravid, in strong light conditions, it gives me the illusion that it is a little darker than the Trinovid. But this is just an illusion, because the Trinovid has a weaker contrast and seems to have a slightly washed out image. This washing is illusory perceived by my brain as a false brightness. But in conditions of much lower brightness, I struggled a lot to see any difference and I could not distinguish it between the two binoculars! If I had seen some difference in dark conditions, it would seem to be in the advantage of the Ultravid, but honestly I think it is a tie! (draw)
Chromatic aberrations
are minimal and only on the edges. For me, it does not present any kind of problem in both binoculars. But it seems a little better managed aberrations in Ultravid, especially on the edges (Ultravid win)
Geometric distortion
is more pronounced on the edges at Trinovid. But Ultravid also has a bit of distortion. (Ultravid win)
Eye relief.
From the specifications, both binoculars have the same 15mm. But it seems to me that Ultravidul has a very small advantage due to the slightly larger diameters of the eyepiece lenses. To see the entire FOV, I need to press a little less on the glasses than with Trinovid. (Ultravid win)
Field of View
tested on stellar fields is identical in both binoculars (6.5 deg.), resulting same 52 deg AFOV. (draw)
Ultravid can focus
at 1.75m (measured by me) and Trinovid only 2.40m (measured by me) . Competition exemple: Curio 7x21- 2.5m (from specification), Nikon HG L 8x20- 2.4m (from specification), Zeiss VP 8x25- 1.75m (measured by me) (Ultravid win)

Conclusions

These two binoculars optically share the same DNA (colors, FOV, center resolution). But the comparison shows two important differences in optical performance:
1 Overall contrast of the image is much higher in Ultravid (due to the more matte black paint and better coating) and
2 Resolution on the edges is visibly more extended at Ultravid (90% of FOV vs 80% of FOV)
These optic differences make the Ultravid image visible more spectacular than his brother!
But when it comes to dimensions, the Trinovid takes the top prize here (small but visible differences). Also, Trinovid design is more beautiful from my point of view (subjective).
Personally, I'm interested that such binoculars to have double hinge to fold as small as possible, so they can be easily carried in a backpack, belt case or pocket. Pocket binoculars are anyway for promenade or unexpected situations, also having value as an object design.
Trino vs Ultra conclusion.JPG
 
Last edited:
Great comparison!
Would be interesting to know the weight without the straps and the exact measurements. The information on Leicas website seems to be faulty.
 
I am looking for some good small binoculars to always carry with me, random in the country, or city..., and these, Trino or Ultra, could be good options.

Icono de Validado por la comunidad
 
Thank you all!
Great comparison!
Would be interesting to know the weight without the straps and the exact measurements. The information on Leicas website seems to be faulty.
I performed some "quantum measurements" :) ...and here are the results:

WEIGHT without accessories: Trinovid 225g vs Ultravid 242g
WEIGHT.jpg


LENGHT folded eyecups: Trinovid 91mm vs Ultravid 92mm
LENGHT.jpg


WIDTH: Trinovid 62.5mm vs 65mm
WIDTH.jpg


THICKNESS
without focus wheel and strap loop : Trinovid 36mm vs Ultravid 38.5mm
THICKNESS.jpg


The WINNER for "micro quantum measurements results" :)
is Trinovid!!! I hope that the measurement itself did not influence the quantum results too much :)
THE WINNER.JPG
 
For a very long time I wanted to make this comparison, but I never had the opportunity to look through Ultravid next to Trinovid. My samples are new generations, benefiting from the latest coatings.
View attachment 1525077

Design and exterior finishes
Trinovid, in my opinion, has a more mature and pleasant design due to its simplicity and functionality. And the Ultravid has a slightly more elaborate design with beautiful curved and soft lines. But Ultravid armor has some joints lines that give the impression of a rough state, while Trinovid has these armor joints lines well hidden under the hinge. (Trinovid win)
View attachment 1525078
View attachment 1525085

Mechanics
Mechanical parts of the two binoculars have fine and precise adjustments (stiff hinges, with precise focus, diopter and eyecup adjustments). (draw)
Focus system

Here we have two different approaches: Trinovid has a minimalist focus wheel, hidden in the volume of the binoculars, serving ideas of the smallest possible volume. It moves precisely without slipping, with a small but pleasant feeling of graininess. Instead, Ultravid has a large and obvious wheel serving ideas of convenience, with an equally precise movement but with a silkier feeling. (Ultravid win)
View attachment 1525080

Interior finish is better blackened in Ultravid. Instead, Trinovid uses brighter materials and paints. This generating optical problems (see in the Optics category). (Ultravid win)
View attachment 1525081

Diopter adjustment -+3.5 diopters. vs -+5 dioptr. Here Trinovid leaves a bigger margin for those with larger dioptre differences. (Trinovid win)
Ergonomics
is better at Ultravid due to the larger focus wheel. However, the long habit makes Trinovid comfortable also - "habit is second nature" Blaise Pascal. (Ultravid win)
Waterproof.
Trinovid only splash-proof vs Ultravid 0.5bar (Ultravid win)
Accessory.
Ultravid has raincovers, very useful for protection when the binoculars are hanging around your neck. Trinovid has a strap with quick release (Ultravid win)
View attachment 1525087

Weight with straps (Ultravid caps) 232g vs 256g. The 24 grams less are not felt in reality, but they are the result of a smaller body of Trinovid. (draw)
Dimensions
at first glance are very similar! But if we put both binoculars next to each other the difference becomes visible. Trinovid is slightly smaller in all directions. The Ultravid no longer fits in the small bag bought for Trinovid!!! (Trinovid win)
View attachment 1525082


Optics

Both have roof prism with phasecorrecting coating P40 and HighLux-System HLS, and lenses with HDC multicoating (provides abrasion-resistance). Only Ultravid has AquaDura coating on outer lenses.
I noticed colors differences in the eyepieces , objectives and prisms coatings. Ultravid also has slightly larger eyepiece lenses diameter (16.5mm vs 15.5mm).
View attachment 1525096
View attachment 1525088


Contrast is the main advantage of Ultravid over Trinovid. It is obviously higher, Ultravid having a much more vivid image than Trinovid. (Ultravid win)
Resolution on the center
. After the tests, despite the big difference in contrast, I came to the conclusion that these two binoculars resolve the same number of details. Perfect equality!! (draw)
Resolution on the edges
. Here we can see a big difference. Ultravid 90% of the FOV is clear, while with Trinovid about 80% of the FOV is clear. (Ultravid win)
Glare resistance
. Ultravid's very good glare resistance is what also contributes to the great contrast advantage during the day with strong sun. Compared, Trinovid has lot of glare! (Ultravid win)
White balance
is very similar, the color palette being very similar with pleasant saturation of colors, specified by Leica! (draw)
Brightness.
The visual estimation of the brightness is very subjective and dependent on the conditions and very difficult to appreciate, because other important variables are also involved in this appreciation: the colors and the contrast. The colors of these binoculars being extremely similar with an identical white balance, only the higher contrast of the Ultravid remained to influence my perception of brightness. Due to this strong contrast of the Ultravid, in strong light conditions, it gives me the illusion that it is a little darker than the Trinovid. But this is just an illusion, because the Trinovid has a weaker contrast and seems to have a slightly washed out image. This washing is illusory perceived by my brain as a false brightness. But in conditions of much lower brightness, I struggled a lot to see any difference and I could not distinguish it between the two binoculars! If I had seen some difference in dark conditions, it would seem to be in the advantage of the Ultravid, but honestly I think it is a tie! (draw)
Chromatic aberrations
are minimal and only on the edges. For me, it does not present any kind of problem in both binoculars. But it seems a little better managed aberrations in Ultravid, especially on the edges (Ultravid win)
Geometric distortion
is more pronounced on the edges at Trinovid. But Ultravid also has a bit of distortion. (Ultravid win)
Eye relief.
From the specifications, both binoculars have the same 15mm. But it seems to me that Ultravidul has a very small advantage due to the slightly larger diameters of the eyepiece lenses. To see the entire FOV, I need to press a little less on the glasses than with Trinovid. (Ultravid win)
Field of View
tested on stellar fields is identical in both binoculars (6.5 deg.), resulting same 52 deg AFOV. (draw)
Ultravid can focus
at 1.75m (measured by me) and Trinovid only 2.40m (measured by me) . Competition exemple: Curio 7x21- 2.5m (from specification), Nikon HG L 8x20- 2.4m (from specification), Zeiss VP 8x25- 1.75m (measured by me) (Ultravid win)

Conclusions

These two binoculars optically share the same DNA (colors, FOV, center resolution). But the comparison shows two important differences in optical performance:
1 Overall contrast of the image is much higher in Ultravid (due to the more matte black paint and better coating) and
2 Resolution on the edges is visibly more extended at Ultravid (90% of FOV vs 80% of FOV)
These optic differences make the Ultravid image visible more spectacular than his brother!
But when it comes to dimensions, the Trinovid takes the top prize here (small but visible differences). Also, Trinovid design is more beautiful from my point of view (subjective).
Personally, I'm interested that such binoculars to have double hinge to fold as small as possible, so they can be easily carried in a backpack, belt case or pocket. Pocket binoculars are anyway for promenade or unexpected situations, also having value as an object design.
View attachment 1525091
Great comparison, very useful and beautiful pictures as always. Many thanks.
I have both the UV 8x20 and 10x25 in BL and especially (for me) the 10x25 is a super sharp pocket rocket ๐Ÿš€
 
Thank you all!

I performed some "quantum measurements" :) ...and here are the results:

WEIGHT without accessories: Trinovid 225g vs Ultravid 242g
View attachment 1525521


LENGHT folded eyecups: Trinovid 91mm vs Ultravid 92mm
View attachment 1525523


WIDTH: Trinovid 62.5mm vs 65mm
View attachment 1525525


THICKNESS
without focus wheel and strap loop : Trinovid 36mm vs Ultravid 38.5mm
View attachment 1525529


The WINNER for "micro quantum measurements results" :)
is Trinovid!!! I hope that the measurement itself did not influence the quantum results too much :)
View attachment 1525530

Wonderful. Many thanks!
 
I tried the Leica Trinovid binos at a birding event and was not that impressed. I bought instead the Swarovski 10x25 CL binoculars. The 25mm objectives have 56% greater surface area than 20mm objectives and this correlates to light transmission provided. The 10x25 weigh 4 ounces more but I can manage that increase. The Swarvoski 10x25 inside their case fits inside a water bottle pocket on my backpacks or inside a jacket pocket or attached to my belt so they are definitely compact binos.
 
Had been thinking about purchasing something along those lines, so that's an interesting, and very useful comparison - thank you!
 
For a very long time I wanted to make this comparison, but I never had the opportunity to look through Ultravid next to Trinovid. My samples are new generations, benefiting from the latest coatings.
View attachment 1525077

Design and exterior finishes
Trinovid, in my opinion, has a more mature and pleasant design due to its simplicity and functionality. And the Ultravid has a slightly more elaborate design with beautiful curved and soft lines. But Ultravid armor has some joints lines that give the impression of a rough state, while Trinovid has these armor joints lines well hidden under the hinge. (Trinovid win)
View attachment 1525078
View attachment 1525085

Mechanics
Mechanical parts of the two binoculars have fine and precise adjustments (stiff hinges, with precise focus, diopter and eyecup adjustments). (draw)
Focus system

Here we have two different approaches: Trinovid has a minimalist focus wheel, hidden in the volume of the binoculars, serving ideas of the smallest possible volume. It moves precisely without slipping, with a small but pleasant feeling of graininess. Instead, Ultravid has a large and obvious wheel serving ideas of convenience, with an equally precise movement but with a silkier feeling. (Ultravid win)
View attachment 1525080

Interior finish is better blackened in Ultravid. Instead, Trinovid uses brighter materials and paints. This generating optical problems (see in the Optics category). (Ultravid win)
View attachment 1525081

Diopter adjustment -+3.5 diopters. vs -+5 dioptr. Here Trinovid leaves a bigger margin for those with larger dioptre differences. (Trinovid win)
Ergonomics
is better at Ultravid due to the larger focus wheel. However, the long habit makes Trinovid comfortable also - "habit is second nature" Blaise Pascal. (Ultravid win)
Waterproof.
Trinovid only splash-proof vs Ultravid 0.5bar (Ultravid win)
Accessory.
Ultravid has raincovers, very useful for protection when the binoculars are hanging around your neck. Trinovid has a strap with quick release (Ultravid win)
View attachment 1525087

Weight with straps (Ultravid caps) 232g vs 256g. The 24 grams less are not felt in reality, but they are the result of a smaller body of Trinovid. (draw)
Dimensions
at first glance are very similar! But if we put both binoculars next to each other the difference becomes visible. Trinovid is slightly smaller in all directions. The Ultravid no longer fits in the small bag bought for Trinovid!!! (Trinovid win)
View attachment 1525082


Optics

Both have roof prism with phasecorrecting coating P40 and HighLux-System HLS, and lenses with HDC multicoating (provides abrasion-resistance). Only Ultravid has AquaDura coating on outer lenses.
I noticed colors differences in the eyepieces , objectives and prisms coatings. Ultravid also has slightly larger eyepiece lenses diameter (16.5mm vs 15.5mm).
View attachment 1525096
View attachment 1525088


Contrast is the main advantage of Ultravid over Trinovid. It is obviously higher, Ultravid having a much more vivid image than Trinovid. (Ultravid win)
Resolution on the center
. After the tests, despite the big difference in contrast, I came to the conclusion that these two binoculars resolve the same number of details. Perfect equality!! (draw)
Resolution on the edges
. Here we can see a big difference. Ultravid 90% of the FOV is clear, while with Trinovid about 80% of the FOV is clear. (Ultravid win)
Glare resistance
. Ultravid's very good glare resistance is what also contributes to the great contrast advantage during the day with strong sun. Compared, Trinovid has lot of glare! (Ultravid win)
White balance
is very similar, the color palette being very similar with pleasant saturation of colors, specified by Leica! (draw)
Brightness.
The visual estimation of the brightness is very subjective and dependent on the conditions and very difficult to appreciate, because other important variables are also involved in this appreciation: the colors and the contrast. The colors of these binoculars being extremely similar with an identical white balance, only the higher contrast of the Ultravid remained to influence my perception of brightness. Due to this strong contrast of the Ultravid, in strong light conditions, it gives me the illusion that it is a little darker than the Trinovid. But this is just an illusion, because the Trinovid has a weaker contrast and seems to have a slightly washed out image. This washing is illusory perceived by my brain as a false brightness. But in conditions of much lower brightness, I struggled a lot to see any difference and I could not distinguish it between the two binoculars! If I had seen some difference in dark conditions, it would seem to be in the advantage of the Ultravid, but honestly I think it is a tie! (draw)
Chromatic aberrations
are minimal and only on the edges. For me, it does not present any kind of problem in both binoculars. But it seems a little better managed aberrations in Ultravid, especially on the edges (Ultravid win)
Geometric distortion
is more pronounced on the edges at Trinovid. But Ultravid also has a bit of distortion. (Ultravid win)
Eye relief.
From the specifications, both binoculars have the same 15mm. But it seems to me that Ultravidul has a very small advantage due to the slightly larger diameters of the eyepiece lenses. To see the entire FOV, I need to press a little less on the glasses than with Trinovid. (Ultravid win)
Field of View
tested on stellar fields is identical in both binoculars (6.5 deg.), resulting same 52 deg AFOV. (draw)
Ultravid can focus
at 1.75m (measured by me) and Trinovid only 2.40m (measured by me) . Competition exemple: Curio 7x21- 2.5m (from specification), Nikon HG L 8x20- 2.4m (from specification), Zeiss VP 8x25- 1.75m (measured by me) (Ultravid win)

Conclusions

These two binoculars optically share the same DNA (colors, FOV, center resolution). But the comparison shows two important differences in optical performance:
1 Overall contrast of the image is much higher in Ultravid (due to the more matte black paint and better coating) and
2 Resolution on the edges is visibly more extended at Ultravid (90% of FOV vs 80% of FOV)
These optic differences make the Ultravid image visible more spectacular than his brother!
But when it comes to dimensions, the Trinovid takes the top prize here (small but visible differences). Also, Trinovid design is more beautiful from my point of view (subjective).
Personally, I'm interested that such binoculars to have double hinge to fold as small as possible, so they can be easily carried in a backpack, belt case or pocket. Pocket binoculars are anyway for promenade or unexpected situations, also having value as an object design.
View attachment 1525091
Your reviews are always excellent. Always touches on all the relative points, not all but much are subjective opinions that many people can go by. Specs just donโ€™t always tell me what I might experience. And of the course the photos are the icing on the cake. Sometimes your photos make the bins look better than in person. Well done D.

Paul
 
I tried the Leica Trinovid binos at a birding event and was not that impressed. I bought instead the Swarovski 10x25 CL binoculars. The 25mm objectives have 56% greater surface area than 20mm objectives and this correlates to light transmission provided. The 10x25 weigh 4 ounces more but I can manage that increase. The Swarvoski 10x25 inside their case fits inside a water bottle pocket on my backpacks or inside a jacket pocket or attached to my belt so they are definitely compact binos.
Thats all well and good, but I've owned Trinovids, Ultravids, and Swaro CL8x25's. You could argue that 32's have 50% or so greater surface area than the 25's.... where do you stop. Pocket bins are designed to be as small as possible, and the CL's and Zeiss VP's, as amazing as they are, just don't quite cut it for pockets.
Yes the Swaros are very good, but there is a noticeable difference in size, and for pocket bins I would go back to the Leicas.
If I could only have one bino, I would take a 25 over a 20 for sure. The performance, especially brightness will always be better with the 25's... but this is the compromise.
I actually sold my CL 8x25's as they were to 'middle ground' and I am heading back to Leica 20's.
In a jacket or trouser pocket you will notice the difference!
But as a 'pocket pair'.... 2nd pair next to my BN's... the small Leica's win.

Those Curio 7x21's have hit the spot and are also very impressive!!
 
Interesting comparison!

I had Ultravid 8x20 a while, many years ago. It was in every aspect excellent. The sharpest binocular I had own at that moment. But I sold it because I could not be satisfied with the eye relief.
I wish Leica would offer a 6x20 Ultravid. Yes, the AFOV would be narrower but eye relief would be significantly better. And the brightness at low light conditions.
I recently tried Swarovski Curio 7x21, still have it for test. It has sufficient ER for me. I still consider whether I will buy it or not.
 
Could anyone here advise if the lens caps (rain guard) of Ultravid 8x20 can be used on Trinovid 8x20 BCA? I saw Ultravid 8x20 lens caps for sale but not sure if they fit Trinovid 8x20 BCA. Thank you very much to those who has the privilege to own both. Cheers
 
Don't have the Trinovid anymore, but I think You can used Ultravid caps on Trinovid 8x20 BCA!
 
Last edited:
I have taken some advice from another forum member.... I now use a sunglasses drawstring bag when out and about.
I also store them in a Lowepro small bag when not in use.
But the sunglass bag works well to preserve the lenses, without the fiddly caps, or I tuck them inside my top.
Works well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top