Trinovid vs Ultravid Binocs

Hi, I hope this is not off topic. I was looking at a 8x42 BN Trinovid Binoc

that was on sale and I wondered what the difference between them & Utravids

were. I could use a pair of 8x42s and these are half the price of Ultavid 8x42s

and seem just a little heavier. I have a pair of Swarovski 8x30. Any body have

an idea how these three compare? Thanks! Jim (M & R user)

The 8 x 42 has an exit pupil of 5.25mm, compared to 3.75mm for the 8 x 30. That makes the 8 x 42 useable at a lower light level. It probably also makes the positioning of the eyes behind the binoculars less critical. To be as bright as possible for night use, the exit pupil should be the same diameter as the pupil of the eye when fully dilated: 7mm for most adults. That calls for a 7 x 35 or an 8 x 50. For daytime use, the 8 x 42 or larger is bulkier than really necessary.

 

Swarovski is a good brand. Are you finding them inadequate in some way? What do you want to accomplish by changing binoculars?

Hi Jim

 

I have had the older model 7x42 BA Trinos for four years. They are sharp as a tack and well built. When I take them to a large stadium event and I loan them for a look see people often say "wow" or "oh they are so sharp!"

Hi Jim. My experience is on 10x25 binos, the 8x42`s could be different. I have used both 10x25`s Swarovski and Leica Trinovid. I found a very subtle difference between them, the Leica Trinovid was a little bit more contrasty on shadow areas. The Swarovsky was prefered by most people because is nitrogen filled (the Trinovid don`t). When the Ultravid version appeared, I checked both Leicas and I prefered the Ultravid, which is also nitrogen filled, with a more convenient focusing knob; new better coatings (I don`t remember a big optical difference over the Trinovid). My Ultravids have some plastic parts (perfectly functional) and are also more lightweight.

Read some of the bino threads on cloudynights.com. Astronomers are very discerning when it comes to optics. Leicas usually trail the pack; fujinons usually lead at half the price.

Jim-

 

The difference between the Ultravid and the Trinovid is that in addition to the high degree of Leica lens multi-coating, the Ultravids also have a highly reflective prism/mirror coating. Side by side, the Ultravids will be a bit brighter. Optical clarity/resolution is the same. Trinovids have an aluminum body, Ultravids are magnesium and lighter. Both are a phenominal piece of glass. Which ever way you chose, you will not be disappointed.

 

Arpad Balogh Jr.

Contrary to Jose's statements to the contrary, both the 8x42 and 10x42 Trinovids ARE nitrogen filed. Check the specs on the Leica site.

Yes, I have already confirmed on the Leica site that Trinos 10x25 are not nitrogen filled.

The original Trinovids, of the sixties to the eighties were not nitrogen filled. They were "spritzwasser pruf" (spray proof) not water (immersion) proof. The new Trinovids of the eighties were waterproof and nitrogen filled, but unfortunately heavier and bulkier than the older version. The Ultravids are a significant improvement over the late Trinovids, but are still much heavier than the original Trinovids. I have six, eight, and ten power versions of the earlier Trinovids and prefer the eights. The tens are just too difficult to hold steady for any sustained viewing. I know guides in Alsaka who still highly value their original Trinovids because of their light weight and compactness, and they will still compare favorably with later "improvements". The Swarovskis seem to have caught the favor of Alaska hunters and guides who value their compactness. Helmut Swarovski makes (or has made) regular trips to Alaska and often tips his guides with a pair of his later model.

I'm no binoc expert, by a long sight, but I have explored optics for high powered rifles. A

retailer who handles all brands in his shop told me he considers Swarvoski to be the real

innovator in the field and values their scopes above all others. He has used all brands and

mounted them for customers. Believes that they set a standard for the other makers to reach

for.

 

Just for what ever it's worth. I can't vouch for his expertise. Personally, I see little difference

among the major premium brands and in the past have been well satisfied with both Nikon

and Zeiss long range optics.

Thanks a lot! I still have not decided but I was interested in more low light ability than my 8x30. My Swarovski 8x30 are very very good but could use a little more brightness when used at dusk. Jim

Check <a href="http://www.betterviewdesired.com/">this site</a> for some reviews. Birders are known to be among the pickiest clients for binoculars. Their <a href="http://www.betterviewdesired.com/RefSet.html"> reference set</a> is quite helpful.

Check out the 8x42 Nikon Monarch ATB. It's fully multicoated, nitrogen filled, waterproof, armored, tack sharp, lifetime guaranteed and just $289 US when I bought them at Binoculars dot com. Best regards, Bill

I've had a pair of 7x42 Trinovids for almost 20 years and have been very satisfied with them. If money is no object go for the Ultravids. However, you won't be disappointed with the Trinovids. There is a valid reason that the Leica and Swarovski binoculars are more expensive. In the long run you get what you pay for. I doubt that people buy binoculars as status symbols.

Birders have different criteria for the "best" birding binos, size and weight being important. Mariners and astro buffs don't care so much about weight but value light transmission, color fidelity and resolution.

 

Studies I have seen show Fujinon FMTR-SX binos measure 96% light transmission, Zeiss, Nikon in the low 90's, Leica usually about 85%.

 

I have Fujinon binos and have tested them against other brands including Leica. In my opinion, there is nothing better and they cost less than half Leica and Zeiss.

When someone is primarily talking about 8x magnification in binos, I assume hand-holdability is critical to them. Swift made a great move by producing the "ideal compromise" 8.5x magnification binos in their Audobon. I have their 8.5 x 44 version and is stunning (no, I have not gone around comparing them to others).

 

If I were in the market for binos today, I would take a serious look at Canon's Image Stabilized offering. With these, you can easily get away with 10x maginification while hand-holding.

Anyone who doubts Canon's IS binos performance is welcome to check out several online resources for reviews and particularly Amazon.com for user reports.

Yeah Nels, but everyone knows the canon's have crap bokeh - so no need to even consider

them. Also, I think charts showing MTF curves would be most helpful in making a decision...

Disappointingly enough, that great Leica sage Erwin doesn't test binos. I wish he did though. I'd love to see colorful kaleidoscopic and psychedelic-hypontic charts with four different quadrants measuring four different things in each chart. I think I'm becoming a huge fan of this new method of Erwin's.

Better View Desired, linked to above, has Nikon SE (porroprism) and LX (roofprism) as the reference standard to judge all comers against in 8x32 and 10x42 standard size, whether ya all Leica that or not!

Yes, but BVD didn't test Fujinons.

I looked at any number of binoculars before I bought my 10x42 Trinovids. I liked the Swarovski and the Zeiss that I tried. I didn't rate the Fujinons much. I went to a group of bird watchers and asked their opinions. They almost to a man said they had or would have Leica if they could afford them. They also especially spoke highly of the 62 APO Televid but not so highly of the 77. Swarovski were also well regarded. I then contacted a local 'star gazer' mainly with a view to a scope and again he said Leica or Swarovski but also Zeiss. Only once were Fujinons mentioned but there were quite a few using the more usual binoculars from Nikon etc. Of course this is not a proper survey but it directed me towards Leica as aginst other makes. I liked the feel of the Leicas. One guy was critical of recommendations on web sites saying that he suspected some were funded by manufacturers. I don't know how true this is. I'm happy with my Leica binoculars and am contemplating a Zeiss scope.

I'm stoked w/ my new 7x50 waterproof Steiner/Merlins. Previously owned 10x50 Zeiss but got tired having to hold them absolute still because of its narrower field of view.

 

Made the trade off of power vs wider FOV. The glass is absolutely fabulous.

<<-Only once were Fujinons mentioned ->>

 

Fujinon does a lousy job of marketing to the mass market, but they are well known in maritime and astronomy circles. It's hard to find a source for their professional FMTR-SX series.

 

I dropped my 15 year old Fujinons early last summer, knocking them out of alignment. I thought about getting a new set of binos so I ordered Nikon, Leica and Leupold models that were highly rated by the Cornell Ornithological Lab.

 

Then I spent an afternoon on my front porch, looking through them across a salt marsh, testing primarily for color, resolution and eye relief. I came to the conclusion none of them equaled my old Fujinon FMTR-SX's so I sent them all back and had the old Fuji's repaired by Baker Marine in San Diego.

 

Why Fuji's aren't more popular with birders is a mystery to me. It could be the weight, they tend to be a bit heavy due to thick rubber armoring, or maybe people just don't do their homework.

 

Incidentally, no roof prism bino will ever match a poro prism. If you're concerned about image quality, get poro's.

 

Zeiss makes a nice pair of poro's, but they're more than twice the price of Fuji's.

 

Different eyes will see different things. Just be sure your vision isn't clouded by marketing hype or preconceived opinions abot "quality" brand. Just because it costs more doesn't mean it's better.

I dropped my 25-yr-old 10x40 trinovids and they didn't get knocked out of alignment