6x Yosemite vs. Katmai, image quality

[jedku]

Has anyone had the chance to compare the view through the 6x30 Yosemites with the 6x32 Katmais?
I am not asking about differences between roof and Porro prisms, parallax, near focus, nor handling, ruggedness, price, specs, etc. Simply want to know the difference in overall image quality. For those who have used both, are they equal?
Thanks.

[MacGee]

Has anyone had the chance to compare the view through the 6x30 Yosemites with the 6x32 Katmais?
I am not asking about differences between roof and Porro prisms, parallax, near focus, nor handling, ruggedness, price, specs, etc. Simply want to know the difference in overall image quality. For those who have used both, are they equal?
I was really hoping someone would answer this, because I have the Yosemites and am fancying the Katmais. But Katmai questions get very few answers in general. Is this just because of the relative unpopularity of 6x for adult bins?

Michael

[jedku]

I found this blog which reviews several bins. Towards the end the author briefly compares the image of the Yosemites and Katmais. He concludes that he cannot see a difference in the image quality. But he does not seem to be a birder nor very experienced with quality binoculars. At least there are some nice photographs including a side by side of the 2 models.
For what it is worth:
http://portlandhikers.com/forums/thread/22228.aspx
Scroll down to the Leopold reviews at the bottom of the page.

Michael,
While we wait for someone who has compared them maybe you can tell us why you are looking at the Katmais even though you have the Yosemites now. Any problems with or comments on the Yosemites?

Thanks,
Marc

[MacGee]

While we wait for someone who has compared them maybe you can tell us why you are looking at the Katmais even though you have the Yosemites now. Any problems with or comments on the Yosemites?
The only problem I have with the Yosemite is the close focus. I want binoculars to be able to focus on my boots. I'm fed up having to take several steps back when I want to look at a butterfly or dragonfly on the path.

I find the review in your link very useful. I had doubts about the Katmai's ergonomics and the picture of the Katmai and Yosemite side by side made me think it might suit me very well. The problem is it's hard to come by in this country.

Michael

[APSmith]

Marc/Michael,

I have looked through both of these, outside, in various conditions, but not side by side.

The 6x specimen of Yosemite I tried was not a good one, at least in comparison to the 8x version which I tried alongside. It seemed like a collimation issue; all I know for sure is that it really strained the eyes trying to get a good image. However, the 8x specimen was quite impressive, especially for the money. Image wise, I did note that they exhibited some undesirable effects in challenging lighting situations; it was not an extreme negative, just some noticeable glare/ghosting from streetlights for instance.

The 6x Katmais were very nice binoculars to my eyes. The only real issue was that I just couldn't seem to see enough detail. It could've simply been the 6x power. It could've been the BAK7 glass. Either way, I was still impressed enough to strongly consider the 8x version. The only problem was the narrow FOV. Stray light, back-lighting, etc was NO problem with the Katmais. The size is very handy and (for me) still very easy to focus, etc.

In comparison, given choice between the two, I would go with the Katmais in either power version, as long as price was not a consideration. The quality/price of either model seems reasonable. If the Katmais had a wider FOV in 8x, I would probably own a pair.

FWIW: It seems like most here have preferred the 6x EO Ranger Platinums. I've not looked through those to compare.


Hope this helps, APS

[Swedpat]

Jedku,

I have tried both these binos, but with more than a year apart. What I recall the Katmai 6x32 is a great binocular with a sharp and clear image, but not to the very edges. According to as well the technical specifications and my experience the eye relief is a bit longer with the Yosemite.

Though I have not compared them side by side I am sure that the optical performance is very equal, and that the Yosemite offers much better optical value for the money than the Katmai.
But Katmai is a roof (always cost more for the same optical performance) and is more compact and reliable than the Yosemite 6x30. These properties MAY be worth to pay for.

I am very satisfied with my recently bought Yosemite, however.

Regards, Patric

[BobinKy]

Although I have never looked through the Yosemite 6x32, I do own the Katmai 6x32 and want to offer the following comments.


The newer models are made with BAK7 glass.

They offer a quick easy view and are good for birdwatching in limited distance situations, such as birding in forests and fields. They are also very comfortable to carry and look through. I do not notice any eye strain.

They are very good in low light situations, such as forests, dawn, and twilight.

They are very rugged and have become my most frequently used binocular. However, I still use my 8x33 and 8.5x44 models from different manufacturers.

They work well in most types of birding when paired with a spotting scope. This overcomes the "lack of detail" some experience with a 6x binocular.

They work well in closeup situations, minimum closeup is 4.9 feet (1.5 meters). I have used them extensively for butterfly watching this summer.


I hope the above comments help.

--Bob
Kentucky, USA

[Swedpat]

Bob,

The Yosemite 6x30 is advertised as the "family binocular" and especially suited for children. That I agree with. But actually the Katmai would be an even better choice for children with the internal focusing and more reliable performance. I think the reason the Katmai isn,t advertised as a binocular suited for children is the price tag. Few people want to pay 1/2-1/3 of a monthly salary for a binocular to a 7 years old child. I GUESS!

Regards, Patric

[pw53]

Hello Jedku,

I re-read the review swedpat wrote recently regarding his experience with the Yosemites which is as far as I remember a confirmation of previous posts reg. these bins. I am considering a pair as a "walk around all day at work with pair". I have however no personal experience with them. I did buy a pair of 6x32 Katmais a while back and was disappointed primarily because they didn't seem to be as sharp as I expected. My main bin is the SE 8x32 which I find to be a great bin inspite of it's user unfriendliness reputation. I do not intend to compare the two but the Katmais are too expensive for what they optically give. Ergonomically they are great and very easy to have with you due to their size. I returned them because of the optical quality.

[Alexis Powell]

The Yosemite 6x30 is advertised as the "family binocular" and especially suited for children. That I agree with. But actually the Katmai would be an even better choice for children with the internal focusing and more reliable performance. I think the reason the Katmai isn,t advertised as a binocular suited for children is the price tag.

No, the problem with the Katmai for many children and even some adults (especially women) is that is has a minimum interpupillary setting of 57 mm. The Yosemite adjusts down to 50 mm.

As for the price tag, here in the states they sell for about $300. That's not cheap, but it isn't anything close to 1/3-1/2 of a month's salary for a typical individual in the binocular buying demographic (more like 1/10 or far less!).

--AP

[Swedpat]

Alexis,

Yes you are right, the prices in the states are about the half of the prices here in Sweden and Scandinavia, and my statement isn't really corresponding to the states.

About the interpupillary setting the difference of 7mm doesn't seem big, but I understand that may play a decisive role for small children.

Regards, Patric

[oleaf]

I have a pair of 6x30 Yosemite (daughters pair) and today received the
Katmai (bought for my dads upcoming birthday)

I like the Yosemite a lot. But I think the one with the better view is
the Katmai. Is it worth 3 times ($89 vs $289) paid for the Yosemite?

If the binos would live at the living room window, then I go with the Yosemite

If I had to chase down birds in the field and use them daily the Katmai would win hands down. They're kind of close optically, but other than that they are much different in handling.

FOV: Both are wide... Katmai seems a little more like 6.5x. Could be better resolution
or sharpness. Katmai has more usable field. The view is same as full size bino.
both have great depth of field.

Build: Katmai. Seems very solid. I thought it would be lighter

Handling: Katmai. No contest. Yosemites focusing is slow and squishy. Katmai
is nice and smooth and fairly quick. Very easy to get on birds fast.

Back to the original question.
Katmai has a better, easier, view with better eye relief and a full sized bino view.
I think it's sharper... further to the edge. Much, much more relaxed to use.
Eye relief is more forgiving as well.

3x the price for the Katmai is the question. If you had them both in your hands and could afford both the Katmai is the best in every way... no question.


Hope this helps.

[Swedpat]

Thanks Oleaf for your report!

I agree about the focusing of the Yosemite. But I am surprised you find the eye relief better with the Katmai. As well the technical specs and my memory points to the opposite. But I could be wrong, one and a half year ago since I tried the Katmai may be too long time.

Regards, Patric

[oleaf]

Hi Swedpat,

For the time being (until the Katmai's go to my dad) they are sitting side by side.

I'm not sure if its because of the slightly larger exit pupil or not... but instantly they are more comfortable than the Yosemite. The Eye relief specs are so close it's not a case of one being 12mm and one being 20mm. They are 19.4 vs 20mm. 1/2 a mm is not much to be concerned with. It’s easy to get lost in the spec of something and loose sight of the real world application. Specs don't tell the whole story here. I wear glasses too, so eye relief has always been something I struggle with.

The FOV is more sharp and usable to the edge than the Yosemites.

The Katami is nice to use in the field and at a couple hundred more $$ it had better be easier to use. If it just boiled down to price/performabnce the Yosemites don't have competition as far as I'm concerned. But if you're in the marsh... the brush... really using binoculars in the field the Katmai is the choice. And if you can comfortably spend the extra money it is well worth it. At the $289 price they cost in the states this is a very good bargain in a small bino with a full size view.

I must say, all the photos of the Katamai on the web make it look like a cheap toy.
This is not the case in hand. The build is better than the Yosemite.

As a complete package the Yosemites are not the equal of the Katmai. I think the bigger question is how the person will actually use the binoculars. This will determine if they are worth the extra money.

Cheers

[Swedpat]

Oleaf,

The stated eye relief of the Katmai 6x32 has earlier been 16mm (I think it was 16,6mm). Now I see the number of 19,2mm. I suppose that the eye relief may be improved?


Regards, Patric

[oleaf]

Swedpat,

I don't think it's 16. The box says it's 19.2

Today I spent an hour really looking between the two.

Katimai has more FOV in focus. And you can really "look around" the veiw.

But, The Yosemite has better contrast and could be a little sharper in the middle.
For sure it has better contrast. The view starts to distort sooner towards the edge.

I really think this Katmai is 6.5x or even 7x. (maybe just one one I have?)

And boy... I can get on birds FAST with the Katmai!

The Yosemite is really, really nice though.

Splitting hairs on the view... both are great.

Cheers

[Swedpat]

Oleaf,

I am not surprised of your impression of the on-axis sharpness and contrast of the Yosemite, who I find be very good. As I mentioned in my review of the Yosemite, the on-axis sharpness is better than my Pentax 8x43 DCF SP. A binocular I THINK is in every respect in par to the Katmai.

But as you mentioned; sharpness strongly worsens at the outer part (maybe beyond 70%) of the FOV. The Pentax 8x43 is much better in this respect. A person who are used to have sharpness to the edges likely will instantly react against this, but I don't. I only notice it sometimes when panning and when looking at objects who fills upp the most of, or, the entire FOV.


Regards, Patric

[Robert / Seattle]

Hello all,

It may instructive to note that the Katmai 6x32 was the top ranked binocular in it's price range, according to the Cornell Review (scroll to the bottom of the article and see "Mid Price" in the chart summary):

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/Winter2005/Age_Binos.html

I must admit to not being the least bit surprised. A friend of mine has the 8x32 Katmai and that is one very sharp and well-built peice of equipment.

Cheers,

Robert

[Swedpat]

Thanks for the link Robert!

I am surprised that as well the Katmai 6x32 and Swift 8x44(roof) receive higher rates of the image quality than Pentax 8x43 DCF SP.

This isn't the impression you get when reading the rewiews of http://www.optics4birding.com/RevPentaxDCFSP.aspx.
Check out the summary: Overall, the Pentax DCF SP line is very impressive. This is top-of-the-line optical performance in binoculars at half to two-thirds of the price normally charged for this level. These are serious binoculars for serious birders, and we expect to see quite a few of them in the field.

At the review of the Katmai's the summary is: Good optics in a highly portable package – Leupold may well have re-invented a niche here! (http://www.optics4birding.com/leupold-Wind-River-Katmai-review.aspx)

The rating of this forum isn't either bad: (http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/111/cat/9)

[Robert / Seattle]

Patric,
You are more than welcomed. Let me just say that my favorite binocular is the Leica Ultravid x32. But IF I was not in a position to own one because of financial considerations, my first choice would probably be the Katmai in an 8x32. Solid and impressive little unit, it is.
Cheers,
Robert

[Swedpat]

This week I purchased the Katmai 6x32 and just have to say that I am highly impressed!

Because of rainy weather several days in row I have not been able to make a serious outdoor comparison. But until now I understand that the Katmai 6x32 is something like the optical class of the Yosemite 6x30, but in a more compact and reliable roof performance. This is the perfect allround binocular; for a small sacrifice of magnification you have the brightness of an 8x42 in a size not much larger than a typhical 8/10x25.

Regards, Patric

[brocknroller]

Thanks for the link Robert!

I am surprised that as well the Katmai 6x32 and Swift 8x44(roof) receive higher rates of the image quality than Pentax 8x43 DCF SP.....



Someone on another thread theorized that stretching the image to the edges makes the lens less sharp at the center
.
In this thread, Steve Ingraham seems to agree with this idea:
http://www.zbirding.info/zbirders/forums/thread/669.aspx

The poster replied "this was written two years ago". Not sure what his point was except perhaps that other premium roofs have appeared since then (Ingraham said that only one other premium bin had a wider sweet spot than the FLs).

I've compared my Nikon SEs with other bins of the same configuration, and they do not appear to be less sharp on center than the other bins.

So this may have more to do with how a particular EP's lenses are designed and figured rather than a general principle.

For example, if Swift had added a field flattener element to the 804 Aubudon's EPs, would they have needed to reconfigure the EP's other elements such that the centerfield resolution would no longer be as sharp as it was w/out the field flattener?

I'll leave that puzzle for the experts to ponder.

Brock

[MacGee]

I've compared my Nikon SEs with other bins of the same configuration, and they do not appear to be less sharp on center than the other bins.

The word "flattener" in the term "field-flattener" would seem to imply that the field is levelled, the edges being improved at the expense of some degradation of the centre. The Nikon SE, being a high quality porro, was presumably so sharp in the centre that its designers felt they had room to sacrifice some of that sharpness for a flat field. And maybe, having the porro's inherent advantage, it was able to sacrifice centre sharpness and still be on a par with top roofs. As someone who doesn't care about the flatness of fields, I wonder what it would be like to look through an SE without the field-flattener.

Michael

[Kevin Purcell]

The word "flattener" in the term "field-flattener" would seem to imply that the field is levelled, the edges being improved at the expense of some degradation of the centre. The Nikon SE, being a high quality porro, was presumably so sharp in the centre that its designers felt they had room to sacrifice some of that sharpness for a flat field. And maybe, having the porro's inherent advantage, it was able to sacrifice centre sharpness and still be on a par with top roofs. As someone who doesn't care about the flatness of fields, I wonder what it would be like to look through an SE without the field-flattener.
Michael

A field flattner doesn't imply any such thing.

A (perfect) field flattner lens converts a spherical field at the focus (from a spherical lens) to a flat (planar) field. It's not redistributing any resolution from the center to the edge.

It's changing the shape of the field so the occular that designed to expect a flat field can show the whole image in focus at the same.

Of course depending on how accurately the field flattner is constructed it may or may not affect the resolution anywhere in the field. It also affects how flat the field is and how the distortion changes across the field. But you can build a field flattner with a doublet close to the objective focus. But where you place it is problematic (the closer to focus the more likely imprefections in the lens are to mess up the image) so it's placed a little way toward the objective which means you need to make the objective and the flattner lens a little stronger which increases spherical abberation and longitudinal CA.

So for Nikon and Zeiss (and the others) I suspect they may use a aspherical lens in the field flattner to compensate for some of these issues.

The redistribution argument applies to how you design the ocular to match the field presented by the objective and which trade-offs you make with the lenses you can manufacture (spherical or aspherical) across a whole host of parameters. Like all curve fitting you can decide how to constrain the fit: do you want the best fit (in a least squares sense) over the whole field or do you want the sharpest possible fit in the center and a reduced fit at the edge. How do you trade of distortion across the field? And CA? And then you do that for all foci of interest (or according to SI Zeiss only do it for infinity but others may tweak for closer focus too).

Plus there are the complications in manufacture (another doublet or aspherical lens to make and install and keep aligned). Another two glass/air transitions to loose a little bit of light from.

Binocular design (all optics design!) is all about trade-offs and I'm not so sure I believe SI's view that this is the "best possible result (because it's the best Zeiss bin ;) ). The measured results may actually be true (at that time) but is it "the best"?

I think sharpness at the edge of field is often "overrated" because we point the bins to the target and ours eyes have a limited high resolution field of view. But there are edge of field distortions I really dislike too (that aren't sharpness related). But then again people paying almost $2000 for their bin want "perfection" even though it can't actually be done. At least until they have to pony up for the next "best" set of bins in a few years.

Different manufacturers like to make this trade off in different ways too e.g. the Canon IS bins al have a doublet field flattner lens (to help make the IS system work, I think, by having a flat field at the plate they use to shift the image). This gives them edge to edge sharpness but a narrower field of view. That's their trade off but they need for the IS to work and perhaps also to help the perception of sharpness overall of the bin when IS is on (another design goal).

It's all trade offs ... even Steve says this about the FLs in another earlier post:

http://www.zbirding.info/zbirders/forums/thread/54.aspx

[Swedpat]

Here is my impression of the Leupold Yosemite 6x30 vs Katmai 6x32 , and a comparison to the Swarovski SLC 7x42:

The very first impression of the Katmai 6x32 is a quality instrument. And so it is, as well optically and mechanically. The Katmai 6x32 can be described as a small version of a fullsize glass. Or a large compact...

The length is only 105mm, which is about the same as a typical 10x25. The diameter of the eyecups are 41mm, however, which is equal size as fullsized glasses. This means that the Katmai 6x32 provides the viewing comfortability and brightness like an 8x42, but with the portability like a much smaller glass.

The image is clear and sharp and the the holding comfortability is much better than compacts due to the thicker barrels. The diameter of the eyelenses is nearly 20mm. The eye relief is great and works well with eyeglasses for me. The focus knob is fullsized and works well without a play.

Well; how it compares to the Yosemite 6x30?

Both of them are in a rubbered waterproof performance with a very equal image as well magnification and FOV.
Though the stated eye relief is 16,6mm for the Katmai it works as good as the Yosemite (with stated ER of 20mm) with eyeglasses on.
Katmai is sharp, but the Yosemite actually provides an even sharper image, as I mentioned before of high-end class.
The TFOV is stated as 8.0 deg for both. When I compare edge sharpness I have problem to decide which is best, I discovered it depends of the distance to the object and where at the field I look at; the edge performance isn't even around the field, which according to my experience is usual for the most binoculars.
Image performance actually is very close between the Katmai and Yosemite. One advantage the Katmai has in comparison to the Yosemite is the inner reflections and ghost images. These come up much stronger in the Yosemite.
Katmai has significantly larger exit pupil, because of as well larger aperture and the fact that the aperture is stopped down to around 28mm of the Yosemite.
At the sky I experience both of them show pinpoint stars.
In my opinion the holding comfortability is better with the Yosemite. The size of the Katmai is a bit too small to provide the holding comfortability of larger roof glasses.

How then compares the Swarovski SLC 7x42 to these? The TFOV of the SLC 7x42 is equal as the Katmai 6x32. The SLC 7x42 provides the best viewing comfortability and enjoyment of these three. There are two reasons:
1: the larger AFOV of 56deg in comparison to around 48deg of the other.
2: the sweet spot is also larger

When panning I be aware of the unsharpness of the edges with both the 6x Leupolds. But never with the SLC 7x42. The field appears to be very flat and the slight unsharpness of the edges really becomes noticable if one try to look for it.

One typical property of roof glasses is the "star-filter effect" which comes up across the field when looking at strong light sources, especially with dark background. This effect is significantly stronger with the Katmai 6x32 than the SLC 7x42.


Conclusion:

The Swarovski SLC 7x42 has the best holding comfortability of these three glasses. It has the best total image quality and provides the best viewing enjoyment. When it comes to image sharpness on-axis the Yosemite comes no to short in comparison to the Swarovski. The SLC 7x42 and Katmai 6x32 are very similar when it comes to inner reflections, very good performance and much better than Yosemite in this respect.

The Katmai has the worst holding comfortability of these three, as well as the worst sharpness. But it's probably the binocular I would choose if I had to choose just ONE of these, YES, IF I HAD TO CHOOSE ONE BINOCULAR AT ALL!. It's a great binocular in my opinion, and worth it's price. The Yosemite is surely even more priceworthy. But the porro design has it's strong shortcomings with the outer focusing system, which is a very fragile part of the instrument. Also the porro design in it self is more fragile and more easily get out of collimation. It's not a very suitable glass to bring with you for backpacking or tours in the mountains. For this purpose the Swarovski SLC 7x42 is too large and heavy, in my opinion. Then the Katmai 6x32 is the perfect choice! It's a great compromise between size and brightness, nearly a compact glass providing a very clear image even at low light conditions. Yes, it may fail to unveil some details which is possible with higher power glasses. But it will provide a steady image even when you are tired in your arms after a long way skiing. When the size and weight doesn't matter I take the Swarovski 7x42, but when I really get out in the field or a holiday trip I will bring with me the Katmai 6x32. As a binoholic I love all these three glasses. They all have their charm....

Regards, Patric

[oleaf]

Hi Patric,

Very good review and real world opinion. I believe we spoke about this before... the Katmai is the one to use in the field. I purchased a pair for my father a year ago and every time I visit I take these out in the woods.

This 6x Katmai is a binocular that after you use for a while you question the more expensive options. Yes, it has shortcomings but the benefits are many. A very good example of a binocular doing what it promises for the price.

Also, like my personal 7x Meoptas, the lower magnification and larger exit pupil offer
benefits you will grow to love. Anyone who is a critic of lower magnification should spend a month with a pair of 7 or 6x. The wide views and ease of use are addicting!

all best