Trinovid vs Ultravid Binocs

Did you drop them off a porch rail 12 feet to a concrete driveway?

Bernard, don't let brand loyalty cloud your vision.

Douglas, I try not to. I also try not to get into this my binoculars/camera/car/etc is better than yours thing. All I can do is tell you my experiences and the conclusions I have reached. :)

Likewise Bernard. I just reported my experience.

And I respect your right to report your experiences, Douglas, and I respect the conclusions you have reached and the decisions you have made. Just because you came to the wrong conclusion and made the wrong decision and bought those crumby, overpriced Trinovids is perfectly understandable since you obviously didn't do your homework. LOL :)

Just curious, Bernard: when you were testing and comparing binocs, how did you compensate for your eyes' and more importantly brain's self-calibration to the binocs you'd been using for years? I know that when I get new prescription glasses they look really crappy for a few days before my brain re-calibrates, and when I use my wife's Nikon binocs the view looks really bad because I'm not calibrated to them; I know they're good binocs.

Every time I switch binoculars I always seek counseling first, to clear the brain and prepare it for the new experience.

 

I have to go now, Douglas.

One last note - here is an interesting article:

 

http://cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=197

 

Granted, these Fuji's are $6,000 25x150 bino's, not your average birder's cup of tea, but the quality of the optics in the smaller FMTR-SX series is similar.

The Zeiss 10x50 costs circa $1500. My Steiners 7x50 $400. They are totally awesome and the cost reasonable for high quality binos. Armored, caps for all glass.

 

In the rainforest most everything is close quarters anyway and 7x mag is most suitable.

bernard says he's written his final note - we'll see about that - here's mine:

<P>

I was mistaken about the age of my trinovids, I've had them for nearly 30 years, not

25<p>

among the factors I considered when choosing binocs was that given how I use binocs,

porro prisms binocs are unacceptably bulky and heavy<p>

another factor is manufacturer support for old products: Leica's track record is among the

best<p>

life cycle cost is far more important than initial cost: if the trinovids were now worthless I'd

have spent $15/year on them plus the time value of money, however they are now selling

used for more than I paid for them new.<p>

 

Given my use of binocs, the high image quality, low life-cycle cost, and manufacturer

support, I'd make the same choice now as I did 30 years ago.

No mention of image quality? You lug around big glass and prism design concerns you? BTW, I own the first Trinovid: 6X24, 1963, bought at a yard sale for $20. I recently sold an 8X42 version here.

Stephen, here's what I wrote: "<I>Given ... the high image quality</I>"

<P>

The bulk and weight of porro prism designs is an issue <B>because</B> I lug around big

glass. There's only so much I can cram into a backpack all at once.

Out shopping with my wife in the Galleria mall tonight. We wandered into the Swarovski store. Though the store was mostly filled with glass ornaments, crystal I imagine, I spotted three binoculars in the showcase. The saleslady was kind enough to let me look through them, and we talked for awhile about binoculars. I got to check out the Swarovski 8 x 32; the 10 x 42; and the 7 X 50.

 

All the binoculars were crystal clear, like none I've seen before. Now, I've only looked through Nikon, and other brands in that price class. I have not had the opportunity to try out Leica or Zeiss. My own binoculars are inexpensive ones--in fact, I paid something like $22.00 for a used pair of 7 x 35's in a little country store. And I've always felt they were fine, for anything I could need them for.

 

But these Swarovskis were Crystal clear. Magic glass. Brilliant. Nothing in the way between me and the objects I was looking at. Not only that, but the 7 x 50's had such excellent eye relief that I could hold them back 1/4 inch from my eyeglasses, and still see the whole field. Like a Nikon High-eyepoint finder on an F3 HP.

 

So. I can't compare them with Steiner, Leica, or Zeiss--so I hope this is still a worthwhile contribution to the thread, in some way. But it was an experience that helped me understand why some people will spend that kind of dough for a pair of binoculars. And it left me eager to have a look through a pair of Leicas and a pair of Zeiss, when I get the chance.

If you can't stand a narrow field of view, find a NOS pair of Zeiss ClassiC Dialyt 7x42 T*P*

binoculars: huge FOV!

Slightly OT:

 

I had a set of Leitz 7x50 porroprsim Marsept binocs, made in early 1945 for Waffen SS tank commanders and forward spotters. Lightweight and excellent - - even though they had minimal lens coating. I had the Leitz factory in Wetzlar install a special "Range and Elevation" mil finder in the left section. Unfortunately, my Marsepts were stolen in the mid '80s.

 

Now, I have a pair of the Trinivod 8x50BA as replacement. Although the roof prisms and the multicoated lenses give about the same transmission at the older Marsepts, they are MUCH heavier, and the exit pupil is smaller.

 

IF, and I repeat, IF I decide to give the Trinivods to my grandson, I'll go back to a set of 7X50's with porro prisms. The twilight vision, IMO, is superior, and the increase in exit pupil really makes a difference.

 

Brand? I'll have to look - - - no pun intended.

 

The Trinivods and all of the Leica binocs are superior in workmanship, alignment, and durability; however, there are other choices in ther porroprism genre that cost less and have equal or better eye relief and light gathering capabilities.

 

George (The Old Fud)

Correction: I wrote my Steiners Merlins were 7x10. The correct nomenclature should have been 8x10. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

 

(not bad for $400 and change!)

Paul: 8 x 10? I'll bet your Steiners are 8 x 50, no? An 8 x 10 would have an exit pupil of only 1.25mm and would be terribly hard to see through. They would be compact, though!