Trinovid vs Ultravid (1 Viewer)

[Alf King]

A simple question for the experts from a simple person:

Specifically from a birdwatching perspective what is the difference between the 10x42 Ultravid and Trinovid binocular, besides the price that is?

 

[Torview]

Do you mean the new Trinovid ?

 

[Hermann]

Do you mean the new Trinovid ?

I assume Alf means the new Trinovid. And that's a very good question indeed, albeit one I don't have an answer to. I've *heard* the Trinovid is astonishingly close to the Ultravid, but I didn't have a chance to do some real comparisons myself.

Did anyone do a thorough comparison of the two?

Hermann

 

[ronh]

Alf,
The new Trinovid is still too new to have been much discussed much here. The previous Trinovid, model BA or BN, compared to the Ultravid, is a bit dimmer due to its earlier coatings, heavier, and bulkier, but the glass and mechanics are top notch. It retains quite a few fans here. The yet previous "Leitz Trinovid", well, enough already.
Ron.

 

[Alf King]

Do you mean the new Trinovid ?

Sorry, yes I should have made that clearer, I meant the new Trinovids.

I currently use some BA 10x42 which have given me great service over the years but had decided to replace them this year. I have always liked Leicas so my obvious choice would seem to be the Ultravids, then they brought out the Trinovids which made me pause for thought. At around £500 cheaper in UK what is the real difference between them specifically from a birding viewpoint?

 

[John Cantelo]

Not too long ago I compared my 8x42 Zeiss FLs with the much cheaper Hawke ED 8x42s and found very little difference. Yes, in direct comparison the Zeiss were better, but, frankly, it was marginal and I very much doubt that it would have made much difference in the real world. I doubt that I would have missed any birds, plumage detail, etc had I been using the cheaper optics. I see no reason to expect that the difference between the new Trinovids & Ultravids would be much different. At this level I suspect ergonomic preferences and mechanical reliability are just as important. As I've observed elsewhere I think the smarter move would to spend the cash on the cheaper model and use any remaining money to get a supplementary glass of a different specification. The most important thing is, of course, you'd still be enjoy the cachet of a pair of Leica round your neck! ;-)

 

[newfie ghost]

I tried the new trinovid briefly and thought it was nice. Has the classic Leica view, high contrast and great color. I never had my ultravid hd for a direct comparison, so I am reluctant to say how good the new trinnie is. The price seemed high on the trinnie. Leica should have made it cheaper like zeiss did on the hd.

At the time I did compare the Steiner peregrine, kowa genesis, vortex razor and the nikon premier to the trinnie. I left with the premier or hgl. I was comparing the 8 powers.

Check this link though, they claim trinne is as good as the ultra

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2012highendbins/review.html

 

[BruceH]

Alf King ........ Forum member Gorgo started a new thread yesterday informing everyone that the Porters published a new review of high end binoculars.

That thread .... http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=230533

The timing is almost perfect for your question because they directly compare the new Trinovid 42 to the Ultravid HD 42, but at 8 power.

Comparision ...... http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2012highendbins/review.html

In summary, they were basically the same optically. The Ultravid was better in the specs, such as field of view, focus distance, weight, etc. They both ended up with the same score of 4.86. Read the Trinovid individual review for the discusion on the differences between the two. They concluded the Trinovid was a best buy among the top five scorers.

 

[John Cantelo]

Alf King ........ Forum member Gorgo started a new thread yesterday informing everyone that the Porters published a new review of high end binoculars.

That thread .... http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=230533

The timing is almost perfect for your question because they directly compare the new Trinovid 42 to the Ultravid HD 42, but at 8 power.

Comparision ...... http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2012highendbins/review.html

In summary, they were basically the same optically. The Ultravid was better in the specs, such as field of view, focus distance, weight, etc. They both ended up with the same score of 4.86. Read the Trinovid individual review for the discusion on the differences between the two. They concluded the Trinovid was a best buy among the top five scorers.

The 10x42 Trinovids might not be a 'Best Buy' or good value at £999, but they sure make the Ultravids (£500 more) more look like a vanity buy than a sensible purchase,

 

[brocknroller]

Alf King ........ Forum member Gorgo started a new thread yesterday informing everyone that the Porters published a new review of high end binoculars.

That thread .... http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=230533

The timing is almost perfect for your question because they directly compare the new Trinovid 42 to the Ultravid HD 42, but at 8 power.

Comparision ...... http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2012highendbins/review.html

In summary, they were basically the same optically. The Ultravid was better in the specs, such as field of view, focus distance, weight, etc. They both ended up with the same score of 4.86. Read the Trinovid individual review for the discusion on the differences between the two. They concluded the Trinovid was a best buy among the top five scorers.

Other reviewers might score field of view, focus distance, and weight, but even if they did, the differences are fairly small. Only the difference in FOV -- 7.1* vs. 7.4* -- caught my attention.

An essential problem with full sized roofs seems to be their limited FOV. It's gotten a bit better at the top, but still too moderate, IMO. WIDER IS BEDDER.

Why not 8.2* FOV like the 820 Audubon? Well, the roofs' barrels would go from Sabrett hotdogs to kielbasa.

It's also the reason why a lot of non-alpha midsized bins have undersized prisms. Keep 'em light, keep 'em slim.

Brock

 

[awhitehead2011]

It seems the new Trinovid is "AS GOOD" optically as the Ultravid HD!!!
OK.
FOV similar, not the best but good enough IMO.
Ace cameras selling 8x42's for £949 AND offering minimum £350 for your old Trinnies?
Tempting?

...or wait for the 8x32's?

...or keep your old Trinnies?!

Good fun :t:

 

[Alf King]

Excellent info everyone, many thanks.

I reckon a new pair of Trinovids are for me, possibly 8X are more suitable now as I enter my dotage and weight is an issue. I think I'll wait until the BirdFair to have a good look before buying as there are no stockists anywhere around here.

B

 

[awhitehead2011]

Excellent info everyone, many thanks.

I reckon a new pair of Trinovids are for me, possibly 8X are more suitable now as I enter my dotage and weight is an issue. I think I'll wait until the BirdFair to have a good look before buying as there are no stockists anywhere around here.

B

If weight is an issue Alf you definitely want to wait for the inevitable 32's. Also, I read on good authority that once you past 50, 42's show you no noticeable improvement in view. :t:

 

[joe101]

i tested both out for about 20 mins and found that the trinovids had less distortion but more CA and the build was not as good

 

[tpcollins]

I've owned both. The 8x20 Trinovid was like a peice of jewlery. Tiny, extremely well made, and a gem to look thru. However, as an eyeglass wearer, the eye relief was always a bit short so I sold them.

I was able to pick up a used 8x20 Ultravids in mint condition for around $300. They had the rubber coating that does make them thicker than the camera case finish on the Trinovids. The view of the Ultravids is outstanding and the sufficient eye relief makes the rubber coating less of an issue. Because they are so light, they are my turkey and early bow season optic.

 

[ceasar]

You can get the rubber coverings on the Trinovid too. I have one. Personally I prefer the leather covered ones. Style and panache is all in this instance!:king:

Bob