Upgrading from Trinovid BA to Ultravid HD (1 Viewer)

[brocknroller]

Excessive pincushion was a complaint in the Trinnies..
You don't say. I'm not smart enough to know how that affects my view of the bird.

It's not a matter of smarts, but of aesthetics. Here's what Stephen Ingraham had to say on the subject:

"The Leicas still have considerable distortion at the edges of the field. Straight lines bow quite noticeably. This is either a flaw or a feature, depending on who you talk to. Leica claims that the distortion is intentional: there to smooth out the "fun house" effect you often get when panning across a field of birds. I find the Leica's distortion disconcerting in many birding situations."

Did Leica change the distortion parameter?
You got me. I just took my 8x32 Trins and 7x42 Uvids out to have a look. They both have some pincushion, and very un-scientifically, seems about the same.
Of course they are completely different types of bins so weight that as you will.

Someone posted somewhere, I think on BF, that the Ultravids had less pincushion than the Trinnies so I wanted to get a second opinion on that. For me, too much pincushion can be as distracting as too much "rolling ball".

If so, how about posting the value in between the circle and tangent condition for each model, and a checkerboard graphic to illustrate the difference for those of us who think visually rather than mathematically?
You're kidding, right?

For you, yes. For Holger, Henry, and Ron, no.

French phrase du jour: You can't put a price on je ne sais quoi since you can never know what it is.

So true, so true. I'm sure there are many here on BF that can cite why the Trinovids are now inferior and I'm in no position to dispute them. In this case, I suppose, ignorance truly is bliss.

Though "quants" might not like to admit it, there are perceptual aspects of using optics, when the optics and the eyes and the brain all come into play in actual use, as opposed to photographing the view through the optics at 64x, which are difficult if not impossible to quantify.

And even if those perceptual aspects could someday be quantified, I think Henry has already shown that people's eyes differ (barrel distortion) so that what one photographs through the lens of a camera may not be what one sees through the "camera" of their own eyes and brain.

People's eyes/brains also vary in their sensitivity to pincushion, CA, brightness, color rendition, color saturation, edge sharpness, etc., etc.

So while a lot of aspects of binoculars can be measured, those measurements won't necessarily tell you what you want to know or substitute for actually looking through the binoculars yourself, which lends a hint of irony to the quote in my signature.

BTW, regarding your signature Brock...
My favorite Lord Kelvin quote is:
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement." c. 1900

I pulled that quote from Thomas S. Kuhn's book, The Essential Tension. It opens Chapter 8, which is titled "The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science". Lord Kelvin's famous dictum is inscribed on the facade of the Social Sciences Research Building on the campus of the University of Chicago.

Kuhn asks, "Would that statement be there if it had been written, not by a physicist, but by a sociologist, political scientist, or economist?"

He suspects "No." I suspect if the answer had been "Yes," the world would be a less colorful place except for colorized fractals.

http://www.backtoessentials.com/inspiration/100-beautiful-and-brilliant-fractal-images/

 

[Kevin Conville]

It's not a matter of smarts, but of aesthetics. Here's what Stephen Ingraham had to say...

Just my little way of saying I don't give a %#@$. I'll have to assume from here on you are likely to read things literally.
BTW, if you want any point you make to sound more credible, don't quote Ingraham. Even back in his heyday the man was mostly a chucklehead. He made a career out of contradicting himself.

People's eyes/brains also vary in their sensitivity to pincushion, CA, brightness, color rendition, color saturation, edge sharpness, etc., etc.

Right. I get a chuckle whenever someone around here declares, with conviction, the pinnacle of bino bliss has been attained!

Yeah, I got the irony in the Kelvin quote in your signature Brock.
Come to think of it, these responses of yours are sounding a little condescending.

About Kelvin, he was an interesting mix of brilliance and arrogance and short sighted-ness.

 

[Patrick Michael]

Richard,
It was not my intention to imply that there is anything at all inferior regarding the construction of the swaros. They are exceptional in themselves to be sure. However, the leicas, for me, exude a robustness that is incrementally beyond that of SV. I do reserve partiality towards leica and this precludes any objective deduction from myself. I do believe that I am not alone, though, in attesting that the leica ultravid hd construction is the apex within the concernment of binoculars.

 

[ronh]

Patrick,
An enviable choice! Leica just keeps getting better, in little bitty steps.
Ron

 

[brocknroller]

It's not a matter of smarts, but of aesthetics. Here's what Stephen Ingraham had to say...

Just my little way of saying I don't give a %#@$. I'll have to assume from here on you are likely to read things literally.
BTW, if you want any point you make to sound more credible, don't quote Ingraham. Even back in his heyday the man was mostly a chucklehead. He made a career out of contradicting himself.

People's eyes/brains also vary in their sensitivity to pincushion, CA, brightness, color rendition, color saturation, edge sharpness, etc., etc.

Right. I get a chuckle whenever someone around here declares, with conviction, the pinnacle of bino bliss has been attained!

Yeah, I got the irony in the Kelvin quote in your signature Brock.
Come to think of it, these responses of yours are sounding a little condescending.

About Kelvin, he was an interesting mix of brilliance and arrogance and short sighted-ness.

Kevin,

I will have to remember in the future that you tend to confuse parody with condescension.

For a good example of condescension read Ron H's post #25 on the Nikon Premier LX Japan leaded glass? thread:

I quote: "We are supposed to know a little bit about basic optics here. If you don't believe the numbers in the glass tables describe the passage of light through the material, but that there are angels or devils at work in addition, you have not quite arrived. Let's get past superstition, is all I'm saying."

I don't think Ron meant to be condescending, he's a good guy, and I will address his post with a thoughtful reply on the original thread when I get the chance (busy week ahead), I just saw it (when I get busy writing about the "angels and devils" of business, I don't read BF for a day or two, and threads I had been following drop to the bottom and I lose track of them).

Actually, I thought my remarks above were deferential, admitting that measurement plays a critical role in optics (tweak a parameter like pincushion, and the entire view of the world changes). No math = no optics.

My overarching point on this thread and others has been that the emphasis on measurement when taken to the extreme can become condescension (how ironic!). Your quote from Lord Kelvin exemplifies that perfectly, particularly the last part: "All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

I'm not sure if that's why you think he was arrogant, but if so, then the "two cultures" are finally in agreement.

Perhaps, he was just naive. When the universe was thought to be purely mechanistic, you can understand how someone would come to such a conclusion. Or perhaps being knighted by Queen Victoria might have swoll3n his head, but whatever the case, I certainly hope you wouldn't call him a chucklehead.

 

[brocknroller]

I have only briefly tried an Ultravid, never an HD. But, as a user two 8x42s, a Trinovid BA and a Zeiss FL, I can say that for me at least, the Trinovid is somehow greater than the sum of its individual characteristics.

The Zeiss is lighter, focuses easier, handles better, is brighter, essentially free from CA, and tack sharp. So, what is left to like about the Trinovid? It is something deeper. The view it presents of natural scenes with lots of vegetation is somehow "beautiful", if not clinically accurate. The feel and weight inspire confidence.

If you never tried anything "better", you could get through life thinking your Trinovid was the best binocular in the world, and see every bird just about as well as anybody.

Brock, regarding the Trinovid's pincushion, when I look at a small circular object at the edge of the field, it appears, although blurred, perfectly circular. This implies that the pincushion is just the amount needed to completely counteract "rolling ball". If somebody complains about a distortion, that is very personal of course--there's just no arguing about what bugs somebody. I would say, don't pay much attention to other peoples' assessments of such things.
Ron

Thanks for that advice, Ron, I won't! My philosophy is "Seeing is Believing". Learned that lesson the hard way, with a couple of misguided deep-pocket purchases.

My crude estimation of how much pincushion a bin has is to center the view on a telephone pole and then slowly move off axis and see how far off center the pole starts to bend and how much it bends. If the pole starts doing the "Limbo Rock" not far off axis or looks like a sail at the edges, the pincushion is probably going to bother me.

Another thing that "chucklehead" Ingraham reported about the Trinnies was a "hot spot" at the center. Not sure what he meant by that now. I will have to dig it out when I have the time.

In any case, I hope to get my hands on a Trinny someday and find out for myself what the fuss is all about (or isn't).

Not sure about the pincushion, but I think I might like the brick oven ergonomics -- lots of bridge to hold on to for the BiG handed vs. the two skinny telescopes stuck together Ultravid design. This is especially true of the Ultraslim BL, which reminds me of a poodle after its hair has been "groomed". Elegant looking, but if I held them in my hands, I'd probably be asking, Where's the beef?

The Trinnies lack of shallow thumb groves might be a turnoff. The full sized LX/LXL had plenty of bridge and barrel to grab, but no way to support the bin from underneath except to use my thumb tips or fold my thumbs under the barrels, nether of which were comfortable.

Yes, the Trinnies feel and weight inspire confidence, all right, particularly when confronted by a mugger!

Although the Trinnie has its detractors, what got me curious about them is the diehard loyalty they inspire (not to mention the French phrases . It reminds me a bit of SE devotees.

Given the mass extinction of quality porros (except in Japan, apparently, and those few hard to find Austrian dinosaurs), I can understand why the SE would have such diehard fans, but for a roof w/out ED/HD/FL glass, w/out dielectric coatings, and w/out long ER, magnesium body, etc. to have such a following when there are ChinBin's with more advanced features makes me think they must be something really special.

And the price on the used market is also appealing!

 

[ronh]

I can explain everything. Lord Kelvin is, like, my main man!
Ron

 

[Kevin Conville]

My overarching point on this thread and others has been that the emphasis on measurement when taken to the extreme can become condescension (how ironic!). Your quote from Lord Kelvin exemplifies that perfectly, particularly the last part: "All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
My point as well. There are things we can sense that don't neatly fit into a chart or graph or spec sheet.

I'm not sure if that's why you think he was arrogant...
... I certainly hope you wouldn't call him a chucklehead.
I wouldn't call Kelvin a chucklehead in this lifetime. He was a brilliant man. He also occasionally made proclamations and drew conclusions that later proved to be embarrassing.

 

[John M Robinson]

This debate reminds me of the early Stereo Review magazines almost total reliance on engineer measurements of different electrical criteria in their analysis of audio components. It got to the point that numbers don't lie, if say one transistor amp had incredibly low distortion, say .01%, all things being equal, in their mind that was clearly better than some other high end tube amp that measured in with over ten times the distortion, regardless the fact that most actual listeners much prefered the more "musical" tube amp.

Back in the seventies I bought into the measured perameter approach to buying stereo equipment, and I had some killer gear that sounded great. Then one day I bought an old, dusty Dynaco amp in a garage sale for $25.00. I brought it home and cleaned it up, then plugged it into my system and was blown away at the sound! It was a tiny thing, but it was a magic amp. I would take it into high end stereo stores and blow away the salesmen. That's when I re-evaluated my pure numbers approach to audio eqipment. I now have some very nice old McIntosh tube amps that are as musical and as impressive to listen to as anything I have heard, there is more to it than simple numbers.

Since I have gotten into optics I notice that there are certain signature views, such as Leica and Nikon, that I prefer over others. Now the reality may be that the views I prefer are not as accurate as maybe a Zeiss or Swaro, I don't know, and don't really care, the Leica view works for me in a subjective way that brings a smile to my eyes. Not to discount objective measurements, I imagine others prefer other products for the same subjective reasons.

John

 

[ronh]

The supremacy of the subjective view over the measured view, I appreciate, and in fact enjoy very much. The reason for binoculars is to please us, not to prove science. But science is at their core.

Lord Kelvin was half right, in his advice for progress through refined measurement. The next great wrinkles in physics, quantum mechanics and relativity, were first glimpsed through odd little departures in measurements, performed with masterful precision, from expectation. Not by naysayers who idly speculated that since science sucks, then it must be wrong.
Ron

 

[Dean L]

This debate reminds me of the early Stereo Review magazines almost total reliance on engineer measurements of different electrical criteria in their analysis of audio components. It got to the point that numbers don't lie, if say one transistor amp had incredibly low distortion, say .01%, all things being equal, in their mind that was clearly better than some other high end tube amp that measured in with over ten times the distortion, regardless the fact that most actual listeners much prefered the more "musical" tube amp.

Back in the seventies I bought into the measured perameter approach to buying stereo equipment, and I had some killer gear that sounded great. Then one day I bought an old, dusty Dynaco amp in a garage sale for $25.00. I brought it home and cleaned it up, then plugged it into my system and was blown away at the sound! It was a tiny thing, but it was a magic amp. I would take it into high end stereo stores and blow away the salesmen. That's when I re-evaluated my pure numbers approach to audio eqipment. I now have some very nice old McIntosh tube amps that are as musical and as impressive to listen to as anything I have heard, there is more to it than simple numbers.

Since I have gotten into optics I notice that there are certain signature views, such as Leica and Nikon, that I prefer over others. Now the reality may be that the views I prefer are not as accurate as maybe a Zeiss or Swaro, I don't know, and don't really care, the Leica view works for me in a subjective way that brings a smile to my eyes. Not to discount objective measurements, I imagine others prefer other products for the same subjective reasons.

John

John, as an audiophile for over 30 years, can I ever relate to your comments regarding measurement vs. sound; and I, too, have been seeing a high correlation between audio gear and binoculars as it relates to measurement vs. perception. That said, I do feel measurement of optical parameters in binos correlates more highly to perception than measurement of audio parameters correlates to sound, but still...

While I am really a novice with respect to birding and binoculars, I have quickly learned that, as in audio, there is no perfection, but rather tradeoffs. I presently own a pair of Nikon 8X32 SEs, a pair of Canon 10X42Ls, and most recently (this past weekend) acquired a pair of Leica 12X50 Ultravids (non-HD). To my eyes (so far), both the Nikons and the Canons have lower distortion, and I suspect this perception relates to the edge sharpness that both embody. However, the Leicas mesmerize with their fantastic contrast, color rendition, and center sharpness. While they have more CA than I would have preferred (hey, I can't afford the HD version), I have found that I can always, in any situation, eliminate the CA by repositioning the object of my affections within the field of view--something that I couldn't always do with the two pairs of Nikon 12X50 SEs that I had tried.

A principal measurement vs. perception area that I am confused by relates to resolution measurements vs. the perception of sharpness. I do know that greater power, all other things being equal, will yield greater resolution. But from the standpoint of perception, I've felt that my Nikon 8X32 SEs had greater sharpness than either pair of 12X50 SEs that I tried (perhaps they were both duds) despite the fact that on far away objects I could resolve the letters and numbers on a license plate more easily with the 12X50s. On closer objects, however, the definition of fine detail was superior on the 8X32s. Can anyone help me to understand this perceptual conflict?

I've also been confused by the techies procedure of taking a group of different manufacturer's binoculars of, let's say 10 power, measuring the resolution of each, and then doing the same thing at 6 times the power. Lo and behold, certain brands resolution increases more at 60 power than other brands. I know I'm showing my ignorance, but why would I care what happens at 6 times the native power of the binocular under test when I will always use it at its given power? Will this difference at 60 power actually be observable at 10 power? Aren't most modern optics capable of greater resolution than the human eye? Just asking:h?:

Dean

 

[John M Robinson]

Dean, my 8x32 SEs are my absolute favorite binocular. They seem very sharp and contrasty, actually very much like my Leica BRs in color, contrast and sharpness, but also a very relaxing view. I find myself concentrating on the view when I look through Swaro, Zeiss and my Ultravids, but just relaxing and enjoying the view with my SEs.

John

 

[NDhunter]

Dean, my 8x32 SEs are my absolute favorite binocular. They seem very sharp and contrasty, actually very much like my Leica BRs in color, contrast and sharpness, but also a very relaxing view. I find myself concentrating on the view when I look through Swaro, Zeiss and my Ultravids, but just relaxing and enjoying the view with my SEs.

John

John:

I just wanted to affirm your opinion on the Nikon SE 8x32, as it mirrors yours, now that winter is breaking here in ND, I am able to watch the wildlife that are now coming alive.

Today, I saw my first Canadian goose coming home for nesting. I usually rotate
what bin that I take on my walks, and the Nikon SE just really satisfies.

Sorry to hijack the Leica thread, this post shoud be over on the Nikon forum.
For those reading this, there is just something special about the Nikon premium porros, they are really that good. ;

Jerry

 

[rdspalm]

Choices, Choices

Some of you guys are way too technical for my old eyes! I know that I've grown very attached to the 10 x 42 Trinovids. They are very comfortable to use apart from being a little on the heavy side.

If I'm to upgrade to a pair of Ultravids has anyone done a good comparison between them and the new Swaro's? I would also consider the Zeiss Victory FL. How do they compare with the Ultravids?

 

[pdh]

The best comparison will be with your own eyes and hands ... FWIW I tried both 8x42 Ultravid HD and 8.5x42 Swarovision recently and came away with the HD because they felt better in my hands and more relaxing to look through; but I felt the sharpness clarity and contrast of the Swarovski was extraordinary.

 

[nostromo]

Hi everyone...for what its worth I thought I would share my rescent experiences with a range of binoculars. I am no expert a so please bear with me....I had bought a pair of 8x32 trinovids about 3 years ago and loved them, the general feel, touch ...weight plus a fantastic view meant I kept them for some time. However having an interest in binoculars I thought there must be better binoculars available and so I followed various threads on the net and after reading many articles I decided Zeiss 7x42 fl were for me. I sold the Trinovids ( big mistake) and purchased the Fls.They were probably a tad sharper, colours were excellent and very much brighter, however I just did not like them, they were very sharp in the centre and this soon disappeared....and having such a wide FOV....it seemed to constanly draw my eye out to the blurry bits and I experienced eye strain with them allthough they were perfectly collimated....very disappointing as they were really excellent otherwise. So I sold them on for some Nikon 8x32 se....the view was super bright, super sharp...but the ergonomics were just not right....so yes I sold them on and purchased some Ultravids 8x42 br. There is just something about the Leica view like no other binocular....the 8x42 format gave me a brighter view, super sharp , great colours....but you have guessed it, I just dont like them as much as my original Trinovid 8x32...which are to me 95% -98% as good optically and just right for me in terms of handling, weight, feel. So I have bought another pair of Trinovid 8x32 ba at a good price £260 on e bay ( they are like new) and will be selling my Ultravids very shortly
Thats my lot for what its worth. ( Hi to John Robinson..see you have kept your Ultravids)

 

[DHB]

Nostromo - Been there - Done that. That is my take on the Trinovids. There are brighter bins, slightly sharper bins, Lighter bins, smoother focusing bins but for some folks like you and me they just fit and SNAP into focus.

Count me as a permanent Trinovid user..........

 

[rdspalm]

Last month I was over in Norfolk for a few days. On a wet Friday morning I went to Cleyspy to look at the Ultravids. I took a pair of 10 x 42's out to the door along with my Trinovids. The Ultravids were lighter, brighter but I had to say to myself, wait. Are these bins going to give me enough improvement to provide value for the £1469 they were asking? That's a question I don't yet have an answer for.

I'll have to borrow a pair and field test them in Scotland next month.

My friend has a pair of Zeiss FL's but still prefers his old Dialyt 10 x 50's.

 

[brocknroller]

My overarching point on this thread and others has been that the emphasis on measurement when taken to the extreme can become condescension (how ironic!). Your quote from Lord Kelvin exemplifies that perfectly, particularly the last part: "All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
My point as well. There are things we can sense that don't neatly fit into a chart or graph or spec sheet.

I'm not sure if that's why you think he was arrogant...
... I certainly hope you wouldn't call him a chucklehead.
I wouldn't call Kelvin a chucklehead in this lifetime. He was a brilliant man. He also occasionally made proclamations and drew conclusions that later proved to be embarrassing.

Kelvin was wrong about airplanes not being possible and in thinking that x-rays were a hoax. Of course, you can understand how he could easily arrive at the second conclusion since Marie Curie was such a prankster. She once x-rayed a Polish sausage and told her friend the picture was a part of Pierre's anatomy.

Some think that even when Kelvin was wrong, he was usefully wrong:
http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/01/01/lord_kelvin_and.html

I think the real reason you like Kelvin is because his name sounds like Kevin.

Ron will see what I mean about diehard enthusiasm of Trinnie owners from the posts on this thread. Trinnie owners recognize their je ne sais quoi yet they admit that the Ultravids (or on eBay, Ultrabids) are brighter, sharper, and lighter, but many question whether those attributes are worth the price of admission to the UltraLeicasphere.

Which makes me wonder if Ultravids weren't twice the cost even when comparing the prices of Trinnie and Ultravid demos, but only $400 or $500 more, if that je ne sais quoi would appear much less exotic?

I think we might find out the answer to that question next month after Mr. Smith Goes to Scotland and traipses up and down the Scottish Highlands with a Trinnie and an Ultravid in his rucksack.

Only one bin will come down the mountains with him, the other will be eaten by mountain goats with expensive taste.

Tune in next month for the final episode of "Leica: Survivor".

 

[brocknroller]

Last month I was over in Norfolk for a few days. On a wet Friday morning I went to Cleyspy to look at the Ultravids. I took a pair of 10 x 42's out to the door along with my Trinovids. The Ultravids were lighter, brighter but I had to say to myself, wait. Are these bins going to give me enough improvement to provide value for the £1469 they were asking? That's a question I don't yet have an answer for.

I'll have to borrow a pair and field test them in Scotland next month.

My friend has a pair of Zeiss FL's but still prefers his old Dialyt 10 x 50's.

Richard, Did you mean your friend's Dialyt 10x40s or these?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/-WW2-10X50-German-Dialyt-binocular-bmj+_W0QQitemZ320467586453QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxq20091228?IMSfp=TL091228168001r17632

Are you going to Scotland with your club? I'm guessing the Northern Ireland Ornithologists Club is a group of amateurs, correct? In the US, we call amateurs "birders" and professionals "ornithologists".

I've only seen the Highlands through a bus window on our way to Edinburgh.

Hope you get to see a Golden Eagle while you're there. I've yet to see a wild Bald Eagle (I've seen them only in captivity) even though there have been reports of Bald Eagles spotted in Pennsylvania (USA), the closest being in Huntingdon County, which is south of where I live (where my friend Steve - mooreoreless -- lives).

I will look for photos of your trip on your blog and see which pair of Leicas you are holding in your hands.