I've never found a binocular I liked better than the 8x32 UV HD or 7x42 UV HD. Their compactness is fantastic and the optics are of course top of the line. The 8x32 SV are nice but I seem to have a propensity to suffer from the "rolling ball" effect produced by them, and it was a huge detractor from the overall quality of the binoculars; the open hinged design is also not to my or many other's preference.
-
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.
Trinovid 8x32 ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter A2GG
- Start date
dalat
...
Or perhaps those that find "it's too big" simple didn't buy it.
Unlike sharp edges, size is a feature that can be appreciated rather quickly
....I'm waiting for binoculars to be made small enough to store in a coin purse
(just kidding)
~ Beth
The best you can do if it has to fit into some smallish purse would be Leica ULTRAvid 8x20. I have the slightly larger 10x25 and think they are great for their size. Just limited by FOV and under darkish conditions. But at least excellent optical quality and nevertheless VERY compact.
Additionally, they are also attractive pricewise.
Last edited:
A2GG
Beth
I liked the FL when I tried it at the store. It's very nice. If it wasn't for the UV I may have already purchased the used green body FL at the nature store. It was a decent price and I would get my 10% Audubon discount as well. I still think of just grabbing it since I have the little vintage Jenoptem and it would be nice to have the old and the new. It's true that the FL is not large in size, but it has a big feel to it compared to the UV. I'm sure I could get used to the handling over time (and it is indeed nice and light), but I like the handling of the UV better and feel it's more attractive, sleeker than the stubby, ribbed FL. I normally don't like a huge focus wheel, but the FL feels so nice and smooth that it's totally forgiveable due to its comfort. It's close, but I like the UV a little better. The FL has a nice easy view though.
That's where I am right now, but I've been known to change my mind
Pilly, that is most certainly correct - the 8x32 SV is hardly "massive" - in fact, those who like open bridge designs, or those with 'larger' hands may prefer it, for the 'greater real estate' offered - those lucky ones can have their cake and eat it too :eat:
It's just that Beth expressed her desire for something lobbing squarely on the compact and light side of the equation, though with 'alpha' sharpness - hence the UV.
Had to chuckle out loud :-O at your "Ultravid is a great 'starter' binocular. I remember a few owners over the years 'seemed' to enjoy them". line ......
yeah, I 'spose they'll do until the 8x32 HT comes along! 3
Chosun :gh:
Open bridge construction in 32mm binoculars is not all that accommodating to those of us with "larger" hands. I have a 10 x 32 Nikon EDG I which I suspect is larger than the equivalent Swarovision. I also have large hands which require XXL gloves. There really is not much room to move ones fingers between those two hinges. I barely have room for for the ends of my ring and pinky fingers in that space. The others are fiddling for space on the focus wheel or the small rear bridge. I prefer the old long center bridge along the back and center of the hinge.
The front hinge does add to the structural integrity to the binocular though. Two times I dropped my EDG I from a distance of about 3 feet onto a parquet wood floor where it landed on the rim of the objective barrel without any damage resulting. Although there were some skid marks on the rubber rim. My heart recovered after a short time.:eek!:
Bob
eitanaltman
Well-known member
I drop everything. That's why I prefer binoculars with "no fault" warranties
eitanaltman
Well-known member
while the "on paper" length and weight specs indicate that the FL is only slightly larger, the FL feels MUCH chunkier in the hand with those thicker barrels and the "ribbed for your pleasure" design. I can understand why a small handed lass would prefer the feel of the Ultravid in the hand.
A2GG
Beth
Yes, the FL is def. chunky. I think the FL fit my hands ok in general though. But, once I compared to the UV I felt the small overall package was real nice and I preferred it. I don't have teeny tiny hands. I have long-ish fingers. I'm about 5'9"...at least I thought I was up until I was measured at the doctor's office about a month ago when they measured me at 5'8". I might be shrinking already and I'm only in my forties ! :eek!:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
You could always neatly, surgically remove the rubber ribs with a scalpel - that would go some way to even the sizes up.
Or you could remove the rubber armouring forward of the focuser altogether, and replace it with some stylish perforated leather in the colour of your choice - now that would be flash!
I was mainly interested in Beth's optical comparison between the two though ......
Chosun :gh:
P.S. Bob, I was thinking of someone with long slender girlie fingers - not some ruddy great bear paws stuck in a honey pot! |
|
A2GG
Beth
I was mainly interested in Beth's optical comparison between the two though ......
|
doh ! sorry. I felt the FL was better optically. It's brighter overall which was noticeable and made an impression pretty quickly. I did notice some CA in the UV as people have pointed out. I didn't feel it was too bothersome, but on the other hand I sorta think that it should be even more subtle (better controlled) in such an expensive bin. I felt both the FL and UV had very nice color rendition; quite rich and both had nice sharpness as well. I can't give you an in depth technical comparison (like you are able to do). If I try to get technical you'll know I'm full of it right away !
btw...do you think a new UV version will ever come out? It's been quite a while...no?
Last edited:
CloseFocus
Well-known member
I had the 8x32 Trinovids, but I eventually switched to the 32 Ultravids for the exact same reasons you have - ergonomics and compactness. Every time I tested a pair of UV's I would think how much better they fit my hands than the TV's I had, and other brands I tested. Actually, I didn't have to think, I just knew. It's not the kind of thing you have to justify, you just have to trust your instincts. Ergonomics can't be analyzed like optics - it's totally dependent on your own sense of comfort. But if your fingers are shrinking along with the rest of you, that's something you might want to take into consideration.
A2GG
Beth
I totally agree. Optical quality of course is the priority, but ergonomics is very important as well to me. When I'm out for several hours at a time the handling , weight and such is important. There may be some people who don't place too much emphasis on ergo aspects and only focus on the view however.
brocknroller
porromaniac
If you can't hold a bin comfortable or steady because it's too heavy or the ergonomics don't mesh well with your hands/face, then you could have the best optics in the world and unless you are willing to mount the bin, it's going to ruin your observing experience.
This is the reason why roofs never appealed to me until the open bridge design and now the high-bar "HT' design were introduced.
Most traditional "H" body closed bridge roofs are so narrow and have no thumb rests or have thumb rests that are in the wrong place for my thumbs that I'm forever fiddling with trying to find a grip that is comfortable and stable. Once in a while, I will come across a traditional style roof with ergonomics that I can hold if not comfortably, at least steady... ergo the Celestron 8x42 Regal LS...ergo Vortex 8x42 Fury...ergo Pentax 8x36 NV....ergo Nikon 10x42 Prostaff 7.
With the exception of the 8x32 EL WB, even with open bridge designs, I've found that I'd still rather be holding a porro. I need the girth and width for my large hands. The Nikon EII is about as long as most full sized roofs are wide so it's relatively small for a porro but it's width is wider than all but 56mm roofs, and that's what makes the difference for me, having enough "real estate" in the bin's width to get a good grip. Without room to wrap my hands around the bin, the image is shaking or my hands start cramping (ala the original Nikon LX series).
Then there's the downgrade from 3-D to 2-D with roofs, which to me doesn't look very natural (others have argued the opposite, and I can understand their argument with porros at close range but not at medium or even long distances). As someone once commented, might have been Kimmo, he could even notice the 3-D effect in a 15x porro at long distances vs. a 15x roof.
Thus all this excitement over this new roof or that new roof eludes me for the most part unless the series contains a 7x model, which at least mimics some of the 3-D effect of a porro.
Back on ergos.. when it comes to hand held optics, ergos rank at the same level as the optics for me. If I can't hold a bin comfortable and steady, it's not worth using. So I can understand why ergos are so important to Beth.
<B>
This is the reason why roofs never appealed to me until the open bridge design and now the high-bar "HT' design were introduced.
Most traditional "H" body closed bridge roofs are so narrow and have no thumb rests or have thumb rests that are in the wrong place for my thumbs that I'm forever fiddling with trying to find a grip that is comfortable and stable. Once in a while, I will come across a traditional style roof with ergonomics that I can hold if not comfortably, at least steady... ergo the Celestron 8x42 Regal LS...ergo Vortex 8x42 Fury...ergo Pentax 8x36 NV....ergo Nikon 10x42 Prostaff 7.
With the exception of the 8x32 EL WB, even with open bridge designs, I've found that I'd still rather be holding a porro. I need the girth and width for my large hands. The Nikon EII is about as long as most full sized roofs are wide so it's relatively small for a porro but it's width is wider than all but 56mm roofs, and that's what makes the difference for me, having enough "real estate" in the bin's width to get a good grip. Without room to wrap my hands around the bin, the image is shaking or my hands start cramping (ala the original Nikon LX series).
Then there's the downgrade from 3-D to 2-D with roofs, which to me doesn't look very natural (others have argued the opposite, and I can understand their argument with porros at close range but not at medium or even long distances). As someone once commented, might have been Kimmo, he could even notice the 3-D effect in a 15x porro at long distances vs. a 15x roof.
Thus all this excitement over this new roof or that new roof eludes me for the most part unless the series contains a 7x model, which at least mimics some of the 3-D effect of a porro.
Back on ergos.. when it comes to hand held optics, ergos rank at the same level as the optics for me. If I can't hold a bin comfortable and steady, it's not worth using. So I can understand why ergos are so important to Beth.
<B>
Last edited:
A2GG
Beth
I agree with your first paragraph. I like the thumb rests a lot and actually feel a little dissapointed when models don't have this. Neither the UV nor the FL have the thumb indents which is a bit of a bummer.
A2GG
Beth
Although it's chunky it's not all that big and I'm sure I could get used to it.
Nice that it fits you so well. It's such a nice binocular.
Weird thing about the UV: the first time I tried it at the store it was a little tedious lining up to the EP to get the full image and then had to make sure it was held a little farther out from my eyes. I thought perhaps the ER was not enough. So, I thought maybe this would be a deal killer and I would end up purchasing a different bin. However, about a month later I tried it again and I didn't have the same problem. I cannot explain why this is...it's baffling. I had no problems this second time. I even twisted the cup down to the second stop and it still was fine. Maybe that first time I tried a full size binocular before I looked through the little UV...I don't know. weird.
The FL had a nice easy view and it was perfect on the second/middle stop.
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Hi Beth, thanks for your thoughts on the optics of the FL and UV.
What's most important is what your eyes tell you, some of the jargon less so! |8.|
I don't have any secret inside "sauces" or "mail", let alone concrete facts, though here's my take on how things will pan out ..... :brains:
The "Big" focus at the moment seems to be the "Giants" ie. new Swaro ABK x56mm's, and from the hints dropped and competitive imperative, I'd expect Zeiss to respond with x56 HT's (and maybe even x50 HT's too).....
Leica has the "Perger Prism" innovation, but they don't strike me as a dynamic, lead from the front company (seem to be lacking a bit of financial sports optics clout compared to the other two .....). If anything new crops up from them, I'd think it possibly to be a 'Perger' x56mm class - wouldn't expect that next year, or the one after though .......
As for the x32's , well I'd say Zeiss 8x32 HT (with S-P prisms, and FL-type form) will make an appearance as an incremental upgrade, but only after all the "Giants" have stomped about next year. The Leica UV 8x32 HD already uses "fluoride" glass, but perhaps a higher grade can be used, along with 'HT'-type glass, and more efficient dielectric coatings and indexing, all in the existing form factor ...... I would think it would be *years* before Leica did anything like this though - perhaps your 8x32 Trinnie would show up first? - don't hold your breath! (o)<
Mind you all that could be entirely wrong! :scribe:
But I would think x32 choices in the near term are only between what's in front of us now .......
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Beth,
You still sound a bit torn between the UV (ergo's strengths) and the FL (view strengths). Close Focus makes a good point about "shrinking hands" (which goes along with diminishing strength /flexibility, etc), so something to consider very carefully. I'd say that in the absence of "The Holy Grail" (which all us nutters seek in vain ......), that your choice is becoming a bit more polarised:-
Go with the nice in the hand, diminutive UV, with it's less than sublime focuser, and optics compromises (CA plagues me, so that is something that even if I initially viewed through rose coloured glasses in an effort to ignore, I'm sure would increasingly frustrate and annoy me over time .....), and hope they don't grow to grate on you as time goes on ....
Or, go with the optically nice and naturally pleasing FL, though with it's second-place-getter chunky ergo's, and perhaps seriously consider modifying it by either cutting off the ribs, or by going the whole hog and removing all the rubber armour to be replaced by thin perforated leather which could have 'gel' pads placed under to suit you. I'd suggest having a careful, sneaky peek under the rubber armour next time you handle one to see exactly how much is to be gained (size lost!) by such an exercise ......
btw, have you seen these before ?
Chosun :gh:
You still sound a bit torn between the UV (ergo's strengths) and the FL (view strengths). Close Focus makes a good point about "shrinking hands" (which goes along with diminishing strength /flexibility, etc), so something to consider very carefully. I'd say that in the absence of "The Holy Grail" (which all us nutters seek in vain ......), that your choice is becoming a bit more polarised:-
Go with the nice in the hand, diminutive UV, with it's less than sublime focuser, and optics compromises (CA plagues me, so that is something that even if I initially viewed through rose coloured glasses in an effort to ignore, I'm sure would increasingly frustrate and annoy me over time .....), and hope they don't grow to grate on you as time goes on ....
Or, go with the optically nice and naturally pleasing FL, though with it's second-place-getter chunky ergo's, and perhaps seriously consider modifying it by either cutting off the ribs, or by going the whole hog and removing all the rubber armour to be replaced by thin perforated leather which could have 'gel' pads placed under to suit you. I'd suggest having a careful, sneaky peek under the rubber armour next time you handle one to see exactly how much is to be gained (size lost!) by such an exercise ......
btw, have you seen these before ?
Chosun :gh:
Greetings. The discussion in the thread distilled opinion to the very nice choices of either FL or UV (8x32). Chosun, and actually most of respondents here, tried to strike a reasonable balance between optics and handling. For ergonomics the discussion referenced size, feel...etc.
I was exactly in this juncture two years ago--i.e., the decision point between the UV and FL. What really tipped the balance--and categorically--for the FL was its vastly superior treatment to the myopic users. Of course, part of this treatment is related to the difference in eye relief, but the Zeiss' ability to focus beyond infinity allowed me to use the binoculars without the glasses on, if I so wish. Using the binoculars without the glasses on provide a brighter image than when glasses are on (one element less). This choice was not possible with the optically superb Leica; there, the glasses must be used to obtain the full optical performance. For this crucial difference, I went for the FL. Therefore, if the user is myopic and who prefers to use her/his binoculars without prescription glasses some of the time, the choice is clearer.
To communicate the experience in full, it must be said that I did not regret the FL choice for one moment. However, I missed my earlier Leica BN 8x32 for its characteristics (though it can not be used without glasses, but it has perfect eye relief). Maybe I missed its older sunny days..dunno really (this model is perfect for "je ne sais quoi" statement), anyhow, I bought a like-new sample back--and now I have both for alternate use as the case maybe.
The Forum provides excellent threads for the comparison between FL and UB, between the FL and BN 8x32 and between the BN and the UV. Either the FL or the UV will provide wonderful service for many, many years.
Enjoy in good health.
Last edited:
