On a recent little stay in San Francisco, I found the big red spot store directly across the street from our hotel. I have long craved a nice roof prism 8x32, and planted that seed in my wife's mind to grow. I had decided the Ultravid HD plus was probably the one for me. But in the store, I found to my surprise the Trinnie to be its equal, image quality wise, and although 4 oz. heavier at 22 oz. (the instructions say it's constructed of Aluminum, rather than magnesium as every advertisement I've seen has claimed, and the weight is the same as that of the early Trinovid BA/BN), half an inch longer, single eyepiece diopter adjustment, and with 8% smaller true field, it cost only $899, vs $1999 for the Ultravid. It also sports 4mm greater eye relief (17mm), which I thought would be very handy since I often wear sunglasses, and half the Ultra's minimum focus distance at 1 m, which is probably a dubious advantage for my use. It had been years since I got a new binocular, and this extreme hardship has been relieved at last by buying not one of these but two, one for my wife, and I'm still $200 richer than I had feared.
Although having quite different SNs, the two units are as alike as peas in a pod, right down to the lettering on the focus knob being oriented the same at infinity focus. Every time I've thought I saw a difference, it did not stand up to repeated comparison. That gives me some confidence that Leica is at least building what it intends to build.
The at-store impression of image quality has held up under field use. Central sharpness is all you could want I think, edge sharpness is very good indeed, although not like a Swaro EL. I've noticed hardly any CA even under tough conditions (branches against snow), and the brightness, color presentation, and contrast are typical Leica: Not as illuminated looking as the Zeiss FL, but with greater color saturation. It is noticeably clearer looking than my Ultravid BR. When I watch the exit pupil in the eye lens and tilt the binocular, I see the exit pupil deform towards a football shape, and as it is eclipsed by the field edge, it is still a healthy 70% of its size when circular, implying an imperceptible dimming at the field edge, which lends to the overall good impression of brightness.
Glare resistance is very good: when viewing near the sun or at deep dusk under a bright sly, I will see glinting artifacts, but these can be avoided by judicious moving of the eyes off to one side a little, and, that done, the view is surprisingly free from the general cloudiness that plagues every other binocular that I've used.
The focus knob takes a lot of cranking to go from 1 m to infinity, but most of that is at the close distance. Indeed the angular rotation needed in going from 10 ft to infinity is the same as on the famously quick 8x42 FL, and the HD's smaller focus wheel diameter gives a faster ratio when finger travel is considered. The focus knob turns more heavily however than on the Zeiss, although without a hint of play or stiction.
The combined modest field and long eye relief make for a comfortable view with glasses on. I can see the entire field with my small reading glasses on, and with my rather bulbous sunglasses more like 97%, enough to keep the eye confidently centered. I need the eyecups fully up for viewing without glasses, with the cups nestled fairly snugly in my eye sockets. I have to be careful not to adjust the IPD too wide, or I find myself in brow-propping territory. If you are socket-crammer like me, this is the one thing I'd say look out for with this binocular.
There's a hint of pincushion to keep rolling ball in check, but hardly noticeable. A small circular object, moved from the center to the edge of the field, suffers a tiny squashing as though being mashed against the field edge, not nearly as strongly as seen in a Swaro EL, suggesting a little more pincushion might be required to perfectly conquer rolling ball, but I think it's a good compromise, certainly given the relatively narrow field.
I am satisfied with these binoculars! No doubt other people will prefer the Conquest HD, the Monarch 7, Swaro CL, or some lesser known brand, and I don't argue with those choices at all. But I think, consistent with what I learned from being around astronomical telescopes, the little Trinnie's extra optical length, modest field of view, sturdy construction, and simple mechanics (single eyepiece focusing) amount to a design in which very high quality and ease of use can be attained rather easily and therefore cheaply.
Ron
Although having quite different SNs, the two units are as alike as peas in a pod, right down to the lettering on the focus knob being oriented the same at infinity focus. Every time I've thought I saw a difference, it did not stand up to repeated comparison. That gives me some confidence that Leica is at least building what it intends to build.
The at-store impression of image quality has held up under field use. Central sharpness is all you could want I think, edge sharpness is very good indeed, although not like a Swaro EL. I've noticed hardly any CA even under tough conditions (branches against snow), and the brightness, color presentation, and contrast are typical Leica: Not as illuminated looking as the Zeiss FL, but with greater color saturation. It is noticeably clearer looking than my Ultravid BR. When I watch the exit pupil in the eye lens and tilt the binocular, I see the exit pupil deform towards a football shape, and as it is eclipsed by the field edge, it is still a healthy 70% of its size when circular, implying an imperceptible dimming at the field edge, which lends to the overall good impression of brightness.
Glare resistance is very good: when viewing near the sun or at deep dusk under a bright sly, I will see glinting artifacts, but these can be avoided by judicious moving of the eyes off to one side a little, and, that done, the view is surprisingly free from the general cloudiness that plagues every other binocular that I've used.
The focus knob takes a lot of cranking to go from 1 m to infinity, but most of that is at the close distance. Indeed the angular rotation needed in going from 10 ft to infinity is the same as on the famously quick 8x42 FL, and the HD's smaller focus wheel diameter gives a faster ratio when finger travel is considered. The focus knob turns more heavily however than on the Zeiss, although without a hint of play or stiction.
The combined modest field and long eye relief make for a comfortable view with glasses on. I can see the entire field with my small reading glasses on, and with my rather bulbous sunglasses more like 97%, enough to keep the eye confidently centered. I need the eyecups fully up for viewing without glasses, with the cups nestled fairly snugly in my eye sockets. I have to be careful not to adjust the IPD too wide, or I find myself in brow-propping territory. If you are socket-crammer like me, this is the one thing I'd say look out for with this binocular.
There's a hint of pincushion to keep rolling ball in check, but hardly noticeable. A small circular object, moved from the center to the edge of the field, suffers a tiny squashing as though being mashed against the field edge, not nearly as strongly as seen in a Swaro EL, suggesting a little more pincushion might be required to perfectly conquer rolling ball, but I think it's a good compromise, certainly given the relatively narrow field.
I am satisfied with these binoculars! No doubt other people will prefer the Conquest HD, the Monarch 7, Swaro CL, or some lesser known brand, and I don't argue with those choices at all. But I think, consistent with what I learned from being around astronomical telescopes, the little Trinnie's extra optical length, modest field of view, sturdy construction, and simple mechanics (single eyepiece focusing) amount to a design in which very high quality and ease of use can be attained rather easily and therefore cheaply.
Ron
Last edited:
