• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

my review of Leica Trinovid 8x42 (1 Viewer)

binomania said:
Hi to all, i've just published the Leica Trinovid 8x42 review on my website
http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/Leica_trinovid8x42/leicatrinovid8x42.php
I hope that you will can use google translate..
Best Regards from Italy
Click to expand...

Pier,

Funny, a few days ago I wrote how the new Trinnies had not received much attention from reviewers, and now here is your review! I agree that at this price point, the minimum AFOV of the Trinny should be 60*. The 8x42 Ultravid almost achieves this with 59.2* AFOV.

Considering the Trinnies are made in Portugal, I would expect a lower price, comparable to the Conquest HD. Moving production to Portugal must have substantially reduced Leica's labor costs.

You seem to be implying that the Ultravid is also made in Portugal. Is that correct? If so, I have to ask WHY2K?

You always have such great photos of the bins you review, the partially submerged Trinny and the bug on top of the eyecups are nice touches! Also, the mud bath test.

Very nice photo of Anna holding the Trinnies. Molto bella! If Leica used that photo in their ads, the sales of Trinnies would probably double! ;)

You certainly put the new Trinnies through the "ringer" with your "tour de force" tests with drops, spills, submersion, and mud baths. Although the Trinnies cost less, Leica hasn't skimped on robustness.

You recently reviewed the new Conquest, how do the new Trinnies and new Conquest compare?

B'rock
 
Hello B’rock , hello James, thanks for your interest.
Ok, well…now I will try to answer you in my bad English :) Excuse me in advance!
The Leica Ultravid is made in Germany. If you visit binomania and the Leica HD Reviews, you’ll notice the inscription “Made in Germany” on the knob of focus.
For example http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/leica8x32hd/leica8x32hd3.jpg
In any case, here in Europe, in some countries it is possible to insert the words "made in.." if there are many hours of labor in that country. For example, if the pieces of the Ultravid are made in Portugal and shipped ,for installation in Germany, they could write "made in Germany".
By the way I will write to Leica Italy today for information
As for the two mid-range binoculars, the conquest HD and Leica Trinovid, in my humble opinion the Leica is "globally" more efficient. For finishing, design and mechanics. The price is different too. With regard to the optical quality I could not make a comparison. "I'm just remembering" so they are only hypotheses. However when I challenged the Leica, after having returned the Zeiss. I preferred the mechanics and construction of the Leica. Obviously I repeat, are two binoculars with a different price

With regard to optical quality, almost all companies are aligned. I assume that suppliers of glass, in the end, are always the same.
In fact, in recent months, I tested some Chinese binoculars with an high optical quality. Some readers of binomania , often, ask me if it is useful to spend more for a famous brand or if it is preferable to buy a Chinese binoculars.

I think there are other factors to consider respect the “optical quality”
. Personally I prefer to buy a pair of binoculars from a company that has been around for years and could provide me a valuable assistance.
A friend of mine, for example, has returned an old Swarovski SLC completely new! It was a very old model and the Austrian company has changed the tire and replaced the lens of the eyepieces that were scratched. all .. free!

For this reason, I prefer to spend “X “more for a reliable company. In Italy three years ago, a new distributor presented a Chinese binoculars 8x42 with a great low dispersion lens.
Currently this distributor has failed and some customers have mechanical problems with their binoculars
I think that with Zeiss, Leica, Kowa, Swarovski, etc, etc will not have these problems .. Minox ,for example, has had some problems here in Italy, with their binoculars produced in Japan. There have been some users with old Minox 15x58ED that needed repair. (collimation and lens scratches) Minox could only replace their old products with a new models . But the new binoculars was not the 15x58ED but the new 15x56.
Minox can do this but a small distributor that fishing from the Chinese market? I do not think
In conclusion, I believe that now there are some good Chinese binoculars with good optical quality, the problem is to see their resistance, after many years of use and will act as the "distributor" with these products in the medium to long term.

Leica wanted me to do this test because they wanted to show that the TRINOVID has good mechanics and is well sealed. I maybe I should do it with a Chinese high-end to see the results after three months of use. Thanks Leica now Docter has allowed me to do a similar test with is robust DOCTER®7x40 B/GA
I will do a test at low temperatures below zero .. Guys, here ,I am really enjoying it, too bad you are so far away ..
Monday should arrive, for a test, the new Zeiss HT. If you want some pictures of the Zeiss HT I be able to do as a preview. Please let me know..
There's a guy in the binomania forum who have already bought it. Here you will find some pictures and the first impressions
http://www.binomania.it/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2590
 
Last edited:
To save people time, here's Ugo's review in English.

Dear friends binofili,
I try to give my very first impressions on the Zeiss Victory 8x42 HT.
I state that I had very little time and tomorrow I leave for the Czech Republic for a week.
I'll take 'to follow my good binoculars instead of the usual small traveling companion who is the Leica Ultravid 8x32 HD, but the real field test the lighthouse' in about ten days in Val di Fiemme.
Already the instrument case looks good, two-color (brown, brown / black).
At first glance, the HT has all the improvements I expected. :thumbup:
Compared to the Zeiss FL, HT occurs in the meantime with a line more modern and aggressive and I personally like the most (Marco Ghirardi know that now hate me). :D
The hull is made of magnesium and no longer polyamide, in line with the competition.
Gives the impression of actual strength (and it is not only impression).
The rubber is more pleasant to the touch and is definitely more effective as anti-slip material.
The ergonomics is improved. The binocular is well balanced and sits very well.
The focus ring is smooth and precise as in the previous model FL.
The design features looks excellent.
From the optical point of view I think that, apart from the declared better brightness, remain excellent optical performance of the previous model.
The color rendition is perhaps always a bit 'on the chilly. Personally I prefer the color rendering of the Leica and Nikon EDG.
However, in fact, the brightness is impressive, sharpness and contrast are excellent in center field, as well as the anti-reflective coating.
Unfortunately I have no more the availability of its predecessor and so I try to go to remember.
I initially wondered why Zeiss would further increase the brightness of the FL model that was already winning against all the other top of the line.
I think Zeiss has wanted to create a pair of binoculars in a classic format, bringing together the weight and size of a 42 with a brightness but 'a good 50.
This reminds me of the need for hunters who are always looking for maximum brightness, but at the same time the lowest possible weight.
In fact, 3 or 4 points in brightness more than the competition if they are not relevant in the field of daytime, twilight can make a difference.
However, the Zeiss HT I really like and I think that will suit every type of use.
Some maybe more will marvel at the previous model (as often happens), but in my humble opinion the HT as part of the previous FL, and perhaps more, in the group of 5/6 best roof prism binoculars available on the market.
Kudos to Zeiss. :clap::clap: I can not wait to compare it with the Swarovision.
At the moment are not able to tell another. These are just my personal impressions.
I need time to prove it on the field.
Now look to the HT arrive at Pier and hear his impressions.
Enter a couple of pictures. I put the HT also close to my little Leica.
Do not laugh for the photos, I made the flight last night and bad.
Hello to all.
Ugo
 

Attachments

  • Zeiss 8x42 HT and Leica 8x32 HD.JPG
    Zeiss 8x42 HT and Leica 8x32 HD.JPG
    297.4 KB · Views: 2,163
Last edited:
binomania said:
Hello B’rock , hello James, thanks for your interest.
Ok, well…now I will try to answer you in my bad English :) Excuse me in advance!
The Leica Ultravid is made in Germany. If you visit binomania and the Leica HD Reviews, you’ll notice the inscription “Made in Germany” on the knob of focus.
For example http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/leica8x32hd/leica8x32hd3.jpg
In any case, here in Europe, in some countries it is possible to insert the words "made in.." if there are many hours of labor in that country. For example, if the pieces of the Ultravid are made in Portugal and shipped ,for installation in Germany, they could write "made in Germany".
By the way I will write to Leica Italy today for information
As for the two mid-range binoculars, the conquest HD and Leica Trinovid, in my humble opinion the Leica is "globally" more efficient. For finishing, design and mechanics. The price is different too. With regard to the optical quality I could not make a comparison. "I'm just remembering" so they are only hypotheses. However when I challenged the Leica, after having returned the Zeiss. I preferred the mechanics and construction of the Leica. Obviously I repeat, are two binoculars with a different price

With regard to optical quality, almost all companies are aligned. I assume that suppliers of glass, in the end, are always the same.
In fact, in recent months, I tested some Chinese binoculars with an high optical quality. Some readers of binomania , often, ask me if it is useful to spend more for a famous brand or if it is preferable to buy a Chinese binoculars.

I think there are other factors to consider respect the “optical quality”
. Personally I prefer to buy a pair of binoculars from a company that has been around for years and could provide me a valuable assistance.
A friend of mine, for example, has returned an old Swarovski SLC completely new! It was a very old model and the Austrian company has changed the tire and replaced the lens of the eyepieces that were scratched. all .. free!

For this reason, I prefer to spend “X “more for a reliable company. In Italy three years ago, a new distributor presented a Chinese binoculars 8x42 with a great low dispersion lens.
Currently this distributor has failed and some customers have mechanical problems with their binoculars
I think that with Zeiss, Leica, Kowa, Swarovski, etc, etc will not have these problems .. Minox ,for example, has had some problems here in Italy, with their binoculars produced in Japan. There have been some users with old Minox 15x58ED that needed repair. (collimation and lens scratches) Minox could only replace their old products with a new models . But the new binoculars was not the 15x58ED but the new 15x56.
Minox can do this but a small distributor that fishing from the Chinese market? I do not think
In conclusion, I believe that now there are some good Chinese binoculars with good optical quality, the problem is to see their resistance, after many years of use and will act as the "distributor" with these products in the medium to long term.

Leica wanted me to do this test because they wanted to show that the TRINOVID has good mechanics and is well sealed. I maybe I should do it with a Chinese high-end to see the results after three months of use. Thanks Leica now Docter has allowed me to do a similar test with is robust DOCTER®7x40 B/GA
I will do a test at low temperatures below zero .. Guys, here ,I am really enjoying it, too bad you are so far away ..
Monday should arrive, for a test, the new Zeiss HT. If you want some pictures of the Zeiss HT I be able to do as a preview. Please let me know..
There's a guy in the binomania forum who have already bought it. Here you will find some pictures and the first impressions
http://www.binomania.it/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2590
Click to expand...
\

piergiovanni,

Awhile back I read that Germany planned to change the law regarding how "Made in Germany" products could be labeled because of these loopholes. We went through a simiar thing in the US when NAFTA was pending. There was a "Buy American" campaign, which I wrote about. As it turned out, many of the items that people thought were "Made in the USA" were only assembled here and contained components from more than one country. Now the law requires that U.S. content must be disclosed on automobiles, textile, wool, and fur products. But nothing else.

Of course, there's always a way to weasel around the law. For example, if a steering column is made in the US, it can contain mostly parts made in other countries, and yet be counted as a US part because of the housing.

Now that foreign automakers such as Kia and Toyota are making vehicles in the US, and US automakers are manufacturing cars in Canada and Mexico, the line between what's "Made in the USA" and what's "foreign" has blurred.

It sounds as if Leica is justified charging more for the Trinovid than Zeiss does for the Conquest due to the Trinny's more "robusto" build quality.

You make good points about Chinese-made bins, which we've discussed here on Birdforum. Some of the Chinese ED bins are starting to become competitive optically with Japanese and European optics, but so far, the build quality and "fit and finish" has not come up to speed. Whether all these new Chinese bin companies that sprung up seemingly overnight will endure the test of time remains to be seen, but for many of us on a budget, that's less consequential in the short term than what our budget can afford at the present time.

This is why most of my bins are porros - Nikon SE series and EII series -- and a couple of older porros - Celestron Nova and Swift 804 Audubon. You can get more quality for your money with porros.

I look forward to your review of the DOCTER®7x40 B/GA (I usually see them labeled "Jena Analytic"). One of our members, StarFarmer, owns these and has praised them on the forums. They look "battle worthy" but I can't understand Docter's decision to not to make them phased coated. Even cheap Chinese roofs have phase coatings these days, why not a $1,200 German roof? I'd be interested in reading what you find out.

B'rock
 
brocknroller said:
\

piergiovanni,

Awhile back I read that Germany planned to change the law regarding how "Made in Germany" products could be labeled because of these loopholes. We went through a simiar thing in the US when NAFTA was pending. There was a "Buy American" campaign, which I wrote about. As it turned out, many of the items that people thought were "Made in the USA" were only assembled here and contained components from more than one country. Now the law requires that U.S. content must be disclosed on automobiles, textile, wool, and fur products. But nothing else.

Of course, there's always a way to weasel around the law. For example, if a steering column is made in the US, it can contain mostly parts made in other countries, and yet be counted as a US part because of the housing.

Now that foreign automakers such as Kia and Toyota are making vehicles in the US, and US automakers are manufacturing cars in Canada and Mexico, the line between what's "Made in the USA" and what's "foreign" has blurred.

It sounds as if Leica is justified charging more for the Trinovid than Zeiss does for the Conquest due to the Trinny's more "robusto" build quality.

You make good points about Chinese-made bins, which we've discussed here on Birdforum. Some of the Chinese ED bins are starting to become competitive optically with Japanese and European optics, but so far, the build quality and "fit and finish" has not come up to speed. Whether all these new Chinese bin companies that sprung up seemingly overnight will endure the test of time remains to be seen, but for many of us on a budget, that's less consequential in the short term than what our budget can afford at the present time.

This is why most of my bins are porros - Nikon SE series and EII series -- and a couple of older porros - Celestron Nova and Swift 804 Audubon. You can get more quality for your money with porros.

I look forward to your review of the DOCTER®7x40 B/GA (I usually see them labeled "Jena Analytic"). One of our members, StarFarmer, owns these and has praised them on the forums. They look "battle worthy" but I can't understand Docter's decision to not to make them phased coated. Even cheap Chinese roofs have phase coatings these days, why not a $1,200 German roof? I'd be interested in reading what you find out.

B'rock
Click to expand...


hello B'Rock
Thanks for the translation of the Ugo's text and for the information you gave me.
You're right, the porro prism are still the best tools in their price range.
In this period I own an exemplar of swarovision 8.5x42 but every time I use the Nikon SE of a friend of mine, I am always pleasantly surprised.
I really love the porro prism binoculars. I've had owned and tested several, in these years..
My Valley is full of deer and I spent happy times, at dusk, with the Docter 8x56 Nobilem :)
Fans, now ,have become addicted to the prices of roof prism binoculars,but with 1/3 of the money it would be possible, with the current technology, to have a nice porro prism.
I have owned for two years the Docter Aspectem ED 80-500 40X (porro II Prism) but now I own a Kowa Highlander Fluorite 32x82 .. The Docter has optical performance that I can define "comparable" to Kowa but at half the price.
Often the companies are venturing into difficult designs when a simple porro binoculars could save client bank account:)

Two months ago I had the opportunity to speak with one of the young engineers of Swarovski.
http://www.binomania.it/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2410
I told him if Swarovski will present a binoculars with porro prism. I would like to see a remake of the Habicht .He said me "we do not think this, because, now, we are specialized in roof prism". I think he was sincere ..

I also think that if companies were planning a porro prism binoculars, they would build it with the correct specification for the hunters.
We love nature..but we are a small niche .. unfortunately
Regarding the coating phase of the Docter B/GA I will inform you in the next few days.
Have a nice week end!
 
Brock, and any Docter EDF users out there,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we actually know that the EDF lacks phase coating, but only guessed that from its mediocre advertisements of intrinsic resolution. (something to marvel at in and of itself whatever the numerical claim may be.) My recollection is a claim of 5 arcsec for the 10x42, and 7 for the 7x40. I am not real sure of the numbers, but I know they fall short of the 3-4 arcsec that the best 40mm binoculars might manage.

So, is the proudly proclaimed mediocrity due to a lack of phase coating in which case we might expect every unit to be so, or merely a guarantee against a worst case scenario? There are plenty of things besides a lack of phase coating that could cost resolution, after all. Having tried one, although only briefly, and thinking the performance satisfactory, I can say that without a doubt, it beats me.

I hope an owner can answer the question however, and it can be done simply and enjoyably, if you have an ounce of Boy Wonder blood flowing in your veins. Hey, even girls might have 1 ounce! Find a white field on your computer monitor screen, which is a polarized light source. Hold the binocular up to the monitor, and look backwards through it, facing the objectives. The prism is split into two halves, which without the coating will transmit differently polarized light out towards you. With phase coating, however, there will be no difference in the polarization of the two sides. Now use a polarizing sunglass lens to test whether there is a difference. Hold the sunglass between your eye and the objective. Rotate the binocular. If there are no phase coatings, one side will grow dark while the other side grows bright. If the coatings are present, and well done, only the faintest of hues will distinguish the sides from one another, and two halves will grow bright and dark together.
Ron

PS. Thank you for your review of the new Trinovid, Pier. I enjoy all your reviews.
 
Last edited:
ronh said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we actually know that the EDF lacks phase coating, but only guessed that from its mediocre advertisements of intrinsic resolution. (something to marvel at in and of itself whatever the numerical claim may be.) My recollection is a claim of 5 arcsec for the 10x42, and 7 for the 7x40. I am not real sure of the numbers, but I know they fall short of the 3-4 arcsec that the best 40mm binoculars might manage.
Click to expand...

Ron,

I don't have the EDF myself, but I'm quite familiar with the 7x40. I'm quite sure it doesn't have phase-coating. I also asked Docter a few years ago about the EDF, and no, they said it didn't have phase-coating at the time. There's a trade fair near where I live in a few weeks time, and Docter (as well as Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski and a few other European manufacturers, probably also Nikon) will be there, so I'll ask them again if they changed something.

Anyhow, the lack of phase-coating is much more obvious in binoculars with large magnifications and small exit pupils in my experience, so the EDF 7x40 should do quite well, although of course not as well as a phase-coated 7x42 of very high quality. I think the image of the EDF is pretty good, even without phase-coating. I don't know who they measure resolution, but the pairs I've seen were pretty sharp. I reckon their resolution numbers are, shall we say, "very conservative". Too conservative, perhaps.

Hermann
 
Hi,

I did compare an HT vs. a Swarovision in 10x42 about October 14 at a Birdwatchers shop in Barcelona.
Being a Zeiss fan I was expecting the HT being superior, clearly, to the SS. For me it was otherwise. Clearly. A big surprise must say...The "easy" and relaxed view with the SS, the slightly BETTER colour and contrast and the same central resolution, keep me out of buying the HT. A pitty because HT was around U$ 400 cheaper than the SS. So I keep my FL and will wait for a SS 10x42. Or, perhaps a 10x50...

Regards

PHA
 
PHA said:
Hi,

I did compare an HT vs. a Swarovision in 10x42 about October 14 at a Birdwatchers shop in Barcelona.
Being a Zeiss fan I was expecting the HT being superior, clearly, to the SS. For me it was otherwise. Clearly. A big surprise must say...The "easy" and relaxed view with the SS, the slightly BETTER colour and contrast and the same central resolution, keep me out of buying the HT. A pitty because HT was around U$ 400 cheaper than the SS. So I keep my FL and will wait for a SS 10x42. Or, perhaps a 10x50...

Regards

PHA
Click to expand...

"Easy and relaxed view" is how some users described the old 7x42 Dialyt and even the 7x42 FL. Ditto for the 8.5x44 804 Audubon porros.

How the Wizards of Absam managed to package those same qualities into an 8.5x roof format goes beyond scientific reasoning and into the realm of the black arts. Some sort of perceptual alchemy, I guess.

In comparing the 8.5x EL WB to my 804 Audubon, the Audubon still won for "easy and relaxed view". The greater depth perception and 3-D effect of the porro achieved that for me. I have to go down to 7x or even 6x in a roof to get close to that same feel.

As far as a higher magnification companion, you might like to read this article on the 12x50 SV EL (also some info on the 10x50). Nice narrative too. I particularly like when he describes his friend Floyd, who insisted that 7x was the ultimate for hawk watching:

"One of the things I’d learned about Floyd in the autumn of 1975 was that he, and the Almighty, shared similar opinions on almost every subject. To gainsay Floyd was to question Divine Proclamation." ;)

Here's the review:

http://www.featheredgeoptics.com/productreviews_Swarovski50ELs.htm

<B>
 
Last edited:
ronh said:
Brock, and any Docter EDF users out there,

I hope an owner can answer the question however, .....Ron
Click to expand...

Ok, ok, .... call of duty.

Tried the method, nothing happened. Then tried again wearing polarized glasses ...... very revealing!

The EDF showed distinct split prisms.

So does my older Trinovid BA.

So does my little Zeiss 3x12 opera glass.

Can't see split prisms with the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt. Nor the Zeiss FLs.

Now, a curious thing .... my little older Zeiss 10x25 T* with Z hinge, which was made in Hungary, and stamped T*P with red letters, did show split prisms. Now I wonder what that P stands for.

Separately, I have done extensive A/B comparison between the EDF and the Dialyt. The Dialyt seems to have very slightly higher resolution. The EDF gives significantly more contrast due to its yellow tint, and more comfortable viewing (if you don't mind the individual focus, that is).
 
Star Farmer,
Thanks for trying the method, and for the report. As you figured out, I screwed up the description.
Ron
 
Hermann said:
Ron,

I don't have the EDF myself, but I'm quite familiar with the 7x40. I'm quite sure it doesn't have phase-coating. I also asked Docter a few years ago about the EDF, and no, they said it didn't have phase-coating at the time.

Hermann
Click to expand...

Hi Hermann , and hi to all.
I'vee just published the review of Docter BGA 7x40. Last week i've received directly from the Docter engineers the confirm that the Bga has not phase-coating.
I have written in my little article too.
Here's the link
http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/docterBGA/docterBGA7x40.php
have a nice week end!
 
Tried out a friend's pair of the new 8x42 Trinovids - ergonomics are impressive, but no wow factor for me I'm afraid.....shame as my first pair of alpha bins were the bombproof 8x 42 BA Trinovid.
 
Pyrtle,
My experience and sentiments exactly. I thought the Conquest HD was the optical winner. I wish Leica had simply improved the coatings on the old Trinovid and left it at that.

But you know what they say, "you can't go baacka". The single exception I can think of is the Royal Enfield motorcycle reissue, hardly a raging success. Yep, I want one!
Ron
 
ronh said:
Pyrtle,
My experience and sentiments exactly. I thought the Conquest HD was the optical winner. I wish Leica had simply improved the coatings on the old Trinovid and left it at that.

But you know what they say, "you can't go baacka". The single exception I can think of is the Royal Enfield motorcycle reissue, hardly a raging success. Yep, I want one!
Ron
Click to expand...

Hi Ron

I saw one of these the other day (the Royal Enfield, not the bins) in company with a modern Triumph Bonneville that had an 850cc engine and fuel injection.

Both very nice.

Prefer my HTs though, I don't fall off them too often....

Lee
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

kkokkolis
How much for a Leica Trinovid 10x42 BA?
Replies
5
Views
578
Slc88c
S
S
Some thoughts on Leica's Trinovid HD 8x32 and dreaming a little...
2
Replies
20
Views
6K
ArchStanton
A
binomania
My video review of Nikon Monarch M5 12x42
Replies
1
Views
827
Ignatius
Ignatius
A
Leica trinovid HD 8x42 question
Replies
5
Views
2K
asr3510
A
O
Comments please on Leica 8x40 trinovids, AKA "retrovids"
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
chill6x6
chill6x6

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top