Leica Trinovids - Old vs Recent (1 Viewer)

[Trinovid]

Regarding 8x20 UV vs Trinovid i found the UV brighter and it’s waterproof. Wouldn’t mind to own a 8x20 Trinovid though in addition to my 10x25 UV. They are a fraction smaller and I like the design of the small Trinovid.

Is the little Trinovid not waterproof then? Good that I keep that in mind, as I have a tendency to walk into rivers, ponds and saltwater whenever I have the chance, which tends to stuff in my pockets getting wet at least a couple times a year. Ultravids can stay in my pocket and the Trinovid in the car or truck.

You're definitely a more experienced binocular comparator than I am and for my eye, the difference was so slight (as is the size difference too) as to be not enough to merit decision making, at least until adding in the better diopter adjuster and the waterproofness. I like my Ultravid 8x20!

 

[Thotmosis]

Is the little Trinovid not waterproof then? Good that I keep that in mind, as I have a tendency to walk into rivers, ponds and saltwater whenever I have the chance, which tends to stuff in my pockets getting wet at least a couple times a year. Ultravids can stay in my pocket and the Trinovid in the car or truck.

Now you start me doubting if the Trinovid is waterproof or not 🤔 I thought the 8x20 and 10x25 Trinovids are not waterproof.

You're definitely a more experienced binocular comparator than I am and for my eye, the difference was so slight (as is the size difference too) as to be not enough to merit decision making, at least until adding in the better diopter adjuster and the waterproofness. I like my Ultravid 8x20!

I doubt that I’m a more experienced binocular comparator than you, also i didn’t compare them side by side. I compared them separately with an old Eschenbach Club I had and found the Trinovid much better and the Ultravid even more better. And I like the focus knob much better on the UV. I like my Ultravid 10x25

EDIT: the Ultravid is much, much, much betterer than the Trinovid 😉

 

[Mike F]

The Trinovid 8x20 and 10x25 are not waterproof. I compared my Trinovid 10x25 BCA's with a 10x25 UV BR a few years ago and it was my assessment that the UV was slightly brighter and more contrasty with a better diopter and waterproofing. The Trinovid is slightly smaller with a nicer design and the view is indistinguishable except by careful direct comparison. If you need them to be waterproof then you have no option except to go for the UV, but if not the Trinovid has much to offer (and will still withstand the occasional downpour) and is considerably better value for money.

 

[Trinovid]

...and found the Trinovid much better and the Ultravid even more better. And I like the focus knob much better on the UV. I like my Ultravid 10x25 😉

It's hard to resist betterer, every time!

 

[Thotmosis]

It's hard to resist betterer, every time!

Haha just rub it in my friend …

 

[Thotmosis]

The Trinovid 8x20 and 10x25 are not waterproof. I compared my Trinovid 10x25 BCA's with a 10x25 UV BR a few years ago and it was my assessment that the UV was slightly brighter and more contrasty with a better diopter and waterproofing. The Trinovid is slightly smaller with a nicer design and the view is indistinguishable except by careful direct comparison. If you need them to be waterproof then you have no option except to go for the UV, but if not the Trinovid has much to offer (and will still withstand the occasional downpour) and is considerably better value for money.

Value for money … yes i tend to agree but it also depends where you use it. I’m in Nepal at he moment and it’s monsoon period, everything’s becomes wet and humid. I prefer waterproof BUT good chance that the Trinovid would do just fine here. I used my old -not waterproof!- Swift Porro many years in the Swiss Alps in heavy rains and it never gave me any problems.

 

[Mac308]

I’m in Nepal at he moment and it’s monsoon period, everything’s becomes wet and humid. I prefer waterproof BUT good chance that the Trinovid would do just fine here. I used my old -not waterproof!- Swift Porro many years in the Swiss Alps in heavy rains and it never gave me any problems.

Ah, Nepal in monsoon season - I remember it well!

I have to say, I think waterproofing isn't really about heat/humidity or even rain. I think it's about having your binoculars in a canoe that ends upside down. Aside from ending up at the bottom of a stream or lake, "splashproof" would be more than enough for even all of my crazy days in the mountains here in the Central Rocky Mountains of Montana. I think the original 7x35's of the 60's and 70's more than proved that truth.

 

[Hermann]

My oldest Leitz binoculars are still very nice to use in many lighting situations, but in other settings there is a night and day difference to my Leica BN. Pretty much anything that says Leitz will have much older coating technology and lack dielectric mirroring too.

Older Leica/Leitz binoculars (made before the BA/BN series) will also have no phase coatings. Phase coatings were the single most important advance in the design and manufacture of roof prism binoculars. It's best to see any old roof without them as "nice old binoculars", optically they can't compete with the newer offerings.

Hermann

 

[Trinovid]

Older Leica/Leitz binoculars (made before the BA/BN series) will also have no phase coatings. Phase coatings were the single most important advance in the design and manufacture of roof prism binoculars. It's best to see any old roof without them as "nice old binoculars", optically they can't compete with the newer offerings.

Being fairly new to all this I always include the phase coating under the general heading of lens coatings, with not much of an idea of how the phase coating, dielectric and other surface coatings ranked in order of importance, not to mention higher grades of glass.

So, is the dielectric then less important than the phase coating?

 

[Hermann]

Being fairly new to all this I always include the phase coating under the general heading of lens coatings, with not much of an idea of how the phase coating, dielectric and other surface coatings ranked in order of importance, not to mention higher grades of glass.

The phase coating isn't a lens coating, it's a coating on parts of a roof prism: Roof prism - Wikipedia. The article in the German Wikipedia is somewhat better: Phasenkorrekturbeschichtung – Wikipedia

So, is the dielectric then less important than the phase coating?

Yes, definitely. Dielectric coatings increase the transmission of roof prism binoculars by a few percentage points. That's always nice, but not a dramatic difference. Most people can live with that.

A roof prism binocular WITHOUT phase coatings on the other hand loses quite a bit of contrast and resolution. This becomes quite obvious if you compare otherwise identical roof prism binoculars with and without phase coatings. I did that when phase coatings first came onto the market (Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 BGAT* vs. 10x40 BGAT*P), and the differences were very obvious.

Hermann

 

[Trinovid]

The phase coating isn't a lens coating, it's a coating on parts of a roof prism

That's what I thought too, which is why I simply referred to it as a surface coating.

Yes, definitely. Dielectric coatings increase the transmission of roof prism binoculars by a few percentage points. That's always nice, but not a dramatic difference. Most people can live with that.

Does that mean then that the dielectric advance was not necessarily that big of a deal?

A roof prism binocular WITHOUT phase coatings on the other hand loses quite a bit of contrast and resolution. This becomes quite obvious if you compare otherwise identical roof prism binoculars with and without phase coatings. I did that when phase coatings first came onto the market (Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 BGAT* vs. 10x40 BGAT*P), and the differences were very obvious.

I'm guessing that explains a lot of why my oldest Leitz suffer so badly in direct comparison with my BN and UVHD+ models, or is it a combination of all of the above?

 

[dorubird]

I'm looking for a pair of compact binoculars and have more-or-less settled on the Leica Trinovids. They would seem to have the compactness and performance that I'm looking for. Here in Canada, new ones are going for around $1000 ($775 USD) or so. However, there are lots of used Trinovids for sale here for about half that price.

I'm wondering whether I'd lose out by picking up a pair of used ones (assuming, of course, that there were no structural or optical defects present). Many I've seen have the label "Leitz" as opposed to "Leica," and I gather that the older ones used the Leitz labelling before the point when everything Leica made had the Leica label. So a couple of questions:

1. Are the recent ones that much better optically? Better lenses, lens coatings?

2. Would a pair of the older ones provide sufficient optical quality for general outdoor use--hikes, nature walks, viewing animals at a distance, etc.?

Any help will be much appreciated!

Here I made a presentation to the three Trionvids.

The three Trinovids battle

When we refer about the compact Trinovid series we have to refer to exactly which model we are referring to, because they are very different optically due to the improvements of the anti-reflection layers over the years. It's like some old Swarovski models: with or without Swarodur coating. All...

www.birdforum.net

to me the king is Trinovid

 

[Hermann]

Does that mean then that the dielectric advance was not necessarily that big of a deal?

It isn't as big a deal as the presence/absence of phase coatings. However, dielectric coatings improve the transmission and possibly also the contrast, and if you've got two binoculars of similar optical quality the one with the dielectric coatings will have some advantage. In addition well-made dielectric coatings seem to have pretty good long-term stability, whereas silver coatings do fail sometimes (and turn blind).

I'm guessing that explains a lot of why my oldest Leitz suffer so badly in direct comparison with my BN and UVHD+ models, or is it a combination of all of the above?

All of the above. If I had to rate the different factors in order of importance, my rating would look like this:

1. phase coatings (any roof prim binocular without them is right out as far as I'm concerned)
2. lens coatings (technology improved quite a lot over the years, with higher transmission and so on)
3. dielectric coatings
4. availability of new glass types with better transmission

However, if the binoculars in question are not quite "clean" (haze on the lenses and prisms inside the binocular) things will be quite different obviously. Most old Leitz/Leica roofs are pretty clean though.

Hermann

 

[Trinovid]

All of the above.

I expected that answer, but I like how you actually put it all in perspective as far as order of importance goes.

...if the binoculars in question are not quite "clean" (haze on the lenses and prisms inside the binocular) things will be quite different obviously. Most old Leitz/Leica roofs are pretty clean though.

I was so impressed at how clean the view was through the Leitz but they stopped getting used the moment the night-and-day-difference BN showed up.

 

[Mike F]

I'm probably in a minority, but I still get just as much enjoyment and use from my 10x25 BCA's despite now having a 7x42 UVHD+ 10x42 NV and 12x50 UVHD+. Their small size and EP doesn't in any way detract from their appeal, and I'm just as impressed with their performance (perhaps even more) as I was before I bought the latter three binoculars.

 

[NDhunter]

I'm probably in a minority, but I still get just as much enjoyment and use from my 10x25 BCA's despite now having a 7x42 UVHD+ 10x42 NV and 12x50 UVHD+. Their small size and EP doesn't in any way detract from their appeal, and I'm just as impressed with their performance (perhaps even more) as I was before I bought the latter three binoculars.

Very interesting. I find the small pocket types very fiddly and not very useful for regular use.
I do think you are in the minority.
Jerry

 

[Trinovid]

I find the small pocket types very fiddly and not very useful for regular use.
I do think you are in the minority.

They're actually more useful than you might think, especially once you spend some time with them.
Some people feel the same way about cars, yet us cyclists still manage to get around too, without feeling deprived.
I can even use both, though I don't feel much temptation to carry anything larger than my x32 binoculars.

 

[ZDHart]

The following is simply my personal perspective on 8x20 binoculars.

Yes, 8x20 can be used for whatever purpose you have in mind. But I'd go for recent model production or new. The older ones aren't quite up to the newer versions. (See Herman's post #33).

But, 8x20 binoculars (I have had Trinovid 8x20BCA since about 1988) would be my last choice of use, unless it was simply impossible/impractical for me to employ my Zeiss Terra ED 8x25, which would be my second-to-last choice, for general use. Much of this comes down to ease-of-use/size/ergonomics. I consider the 8x25 a much more suitable general use binocular than 8x20.

If "pocket size" was a requirement, I would take the 8x20 Trinovids to the symphony (that's precisely what I bought them for in 1988), but today, I'd much rather have my Terra ED 8x25 or especially, my UVHD+8x32s, if the somewhat larger size wasn't any issue.

We're all different, in our needs, applications, and desires, so this is purely personal... but my smallest preferred (though not really pocketable) binoculars are the superb and compact Leica UVHD+ 8x32. These are magnificent alpha grade, which becomes quite obvious when you hold them and put them to use. And, they're still remarkably compact! If I were to have but one pair of binoculars that would be for all purposes... the UVHD+ 8x32 is most definitely my choice - and I'd gladly part with, once again, the $2100 for a pair of these.

If pocket size is not an absolutely essential feature... you should at least consider the Zeiss Terra ED 8x25. They are quite compact, have very good performance, and are priced very affordably. Many, here on the forum, are fans of this particular binocular.