Trinovid pre HD vs Trinovid HD 10x42 (1 Viewer)

[PHA]

Hello,

I am in a process to buy an almost new Trinovid 10x42. It is the previous Trinovid to the Trinovid HD. I understand they were made for a few years, 2012 to 2015 or so.
I cannot find here comments about one vs. the other, but a few years ago I compared a new Ultravid HD vs a new Trinovid pre-HD, both in 10x42.
To me, between those two samples THAT T was clearly better in therms of sharpness than THAT UVHD (pre HD+).
Thank you for your comments!

Best

PHA

 

[Canip]

My 2 ct:
Go for the (non-HD) 10x42, if you like its image.
I have it and like its image and handling better than the one of the newer HD, despite the slightly larger FOV of the latter.
I also have the 8x42 version of the Trinovid, both HD and the non-HD predecessor, and I prefer the non-HD.
Others may disagree, of course.
Canip

 

[Mark9473]

Some useful comments in this recent thread: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3962308

 

[tenex]

To me, between those two samples THAT T was clearly better in therms of sharpness than THAT UVHD (pre HD+).

I can confirm that impression. The 2011-15 Trinovid (42 BR) has a larger sweet spot than the UV, and a somewhat different optical character. I liked it, and got one. Enjoy yours.

 

[chill6x6]

I've had both of those binoculars....I'd definitely lean toward the pre-HD Trinovid when any optical comparison is concerned. Better optically and better constructed IMO. Central diopter adjustment as well. Except for weight, an all around better binocular IMO.

 

[F88]

I like my 8x42 (12-15 Trinovid), I actually prefer using it than my 7x42 UV HD+.

 

[NDhunter]

I have posted on that earlier thread mentioned, and I will again say that I found the Trinovid HD to be
my preference over the Trinovid (12-15) mentioned.
I also had the Ultravid HD 8x42 at the same time, and that was the best of all three. If you can pony up,
find a UV HD, with the great Leica build.
I found the HD models to be a bit brighter and offered more wow to the view.
The (12-15) was basically just an early Ultravid, and Leica reintroduced it, to offer a lower priced option,
and it is a step behind the UV HD, both optically and otherwise.

The Trinovid HD seems to be similar to the competition, the Zeiss Conquest HD, with bright and sharp HD optics, I like that.

Jerry

 

[Mike F]

I have posted on that earlier thread mentioned, and I will again say that I found the Trinovid HD to be my preference over the Trinovid (12-15) mentioned.
I also had the Ultravid HD 8x42 at the same time, and that was the best of all three. If you can pony up, find a UV HD, with the great Leica build.
I found the HD models to be a bit brighter and offered more wow to the view.
The (12-15) was basically just an early Ultravid, and Leica reintroduced it, to offer a lower priced option, and it is a step behind the UV HD, both optically and otherwise.

The Trinovid HD seems to be similar to the competition, the Zeiss Conquest HD, with bright and sharp HD optics, I like that.

Jerry

Jerry, I agree with all of the above (yes I also think that the 2012-15 is basically an Ultravid BR) except that, like Chuck and others, I also think that it has superior optics, as well as build quality, to the Trinovid HD.

I also appreciate the fact that, as in all of these threads, you note that your opinion is different to just about everybody else!

 

[dries1]

The optics of the 2011-2015 Trinovid are different than the first UV, the image has more of a flat field view, and the optics provide enhanced resolution over a larger area than the original UV (bigger sweet spot). I have both in 8X42, I also have the HD 8X42. I do not have the Trinovid HD, I settled for the Noctivid instead.

Andy W.

 

[PHA]

Thank you all!!!

I am just returned from a VERY HARD trekking with my wife and our eldest son (37 years old, who lives in Europe) started at the Argentine-Chile border at Paso El Leon, to Cochamo, 61 km after 4 days across the Andes passing VERY steep slopes and beautiful lakes and valleys. Awesome!!!! Anyway, I already bought the Trinovid 10x42 pre-HD!! I paid U$ 725, price I think is very good for this almost new binocular. I tested it for a few ours and I think it is a very good instrument, more so at that price!
But....our son fell in love with the Leicas so, they are going back to Europe with him. C'est la vie....

 

[PHA]

Hello,

Some pictures of the Trinovid pre-HD 10x42. Like new.
Thank you all for your comments and advises.

Best Regards

PHA

 

[PHA]

Another two.

Almost new!

Best!

PHA

 

[jafritten]

....
I also have the 8x42 version of the Trinovid, both HD and the non-HD predecessor, and I prefer the non-HD.

Canip, can you give reasons for that? This seems to be a widely shared opinion. But no one ever says why they like it better. I'd happily order a unit of both, if only it was possible, try them out and return the one I like less. I am considering the HD model which I'd use for general wildlife watching in low light.

 

[Canip]

Tks, jafritten.

Three simple reasons why I prefer the older, non-HD version:

• CA seems not better, possibly even worse in the new version despite ED (HD) glass
• field of view is marginally smaller in the new version
• dpt. adjustment knob is on the central hinge in the old version, like with the Ultravids, and I find it easier to operate than the one in the new version which sits on the right tube below the eyecup

Just my 2 ct, and not everyone will see it the same way.

Canip

 

[jafritten]

Tks, jafritten.

Three simple reasons why I prefer the older, non-HD version:

• CA seems not better, possibly even worse in the new version despite ED (HD) glass
• field of view is marginally smaller in the new version
• dpt. adjustment knob is on the central hinge in the old version, like with the Ultravids, and I find it easier to operate than the one in the new version which sits on the right tube below the eyecup

Just my 2 ct, and not everyone will see it the same way.

Canip

Thank you, Canip. I'm not really bothered about the diopter adjustment knob. CA is what I expected people to come up with... Can you say anything about the HD and flare, veiling glare or clouding in twilight settings? This is the quality I'm most interested in. I'd use it for watching mammals active at twilight. Mainly below horizon observation. That is why I'd put up with some degree of CA. Thank you

 

[NDhunter]

I was able to compare those 2 directly, and included the UV 8x42 HD.

You can find my post from a couple of years ago, if you do a search.
I found the newer Trinovid HD was brighter by a tad, and it seems to be just like the newer
Japanese made midrange models in that respect, sharp, bright and contrasty.
The UV HD was better than the others, and I raanked them, UV HD, Trinovid HD, then older Trinvoid.

It does seem that some see things differently, and it takes days and some time to compare.
I hope this helps.

Jerry

 

[Canip]

Thank you, Canip. I'm not really bothered about the diopter adjustment knob. CA is what I expected people to come up with... Can you say anything about the HD and flare, veiling glare or clouding in twilight settings? This is the quality I'm most interested in. I'd use it for watching mammals active at twilight. Mainly below horizon observation. That is why I'd put up with some degree of CA. Thank you

The HD version is overall better than the non-HD version regarding several aspects of straylight.

In my comparisons, reflections from bright light sources outside the field of view are more pronounced in the non-HD version.

Veiling glare appears more frequently and a bit stronger in the non-HD version. Also, the famous roof prism "spikes" (reflections on the roof edge) are quite visible in the non-HD version, but almost inexistent in the HD version.

 

[dries1]

The HD version is likely the only choice since the non-HD version is quite difficult to find these days, the 10X pop up now and then, however the 8X42 is rare.

Andy W.

 

[jafritten]

The HD version is overall better than the non-HD version regarding several aspects of straylight.

In my comparisons, reflections from bright light sources outside the field of view are more pronounced in the non-HD version.

Veiling glare appears more frequently and a bit stronger in the non-HD version. Also, the famous roof prism "spikes" (reflections on the roof edge) are quite visible in the non-HD version, but almost inexistent in the HD version.

Canip, thank you very much for your reply. I am not comfortable buying a pair of bins online and take them to the woods in order to find out about possible straylight issues and then return them. That's why I appreciate your reply very much. Cheers!

 

[jafritten]

The HD version is likely the only choice since the non-HD version is quite difficult to find these days, the 10X pop up now and then, however the 8X42 is rare.

Andy W.

True, Andy. I've just ordered a pair of HDs.