• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

new Papilio II (2 Viewers)

Does anybody yet have experience of both the Papilio and Papilio II models? As Samandag points out above, the discontinued ones seem to be available for as little as £80 (compared to £180 for the new model) and the difference is significant to me.

Is the new version a big step up?




my question also
edj
 
That Microglobe price is weird they are still listed as £179 on the Pentax site, doesn't stop me buying a pair, I don't even mind the £8 postage.
 
Nikon had the 10×42 Aculon at about £200, when they were available elsewhere for about a third or a quarter that price.
With care, one can notice and take advantage of such discrepancies.

I have sometimes taken advantage of one fifth of the price and occasionally one 10th of the normal price for normal stock with full warranty. Usually these are clearance lines.
 
Last edited:
There is something a bit suspicious about the "Highlights" text and the "bullet points" for the Papilio II on the Ricoh site. They are the very same ones used as a general description of all the U Series compacts. Also notice that the old Papilio "Highlights" text also claims "fully-multi-coated". Maybe the II has new coatings and aspherical elements or perhaps this is yet another case of sloppy marketing material. Hopefully someone will be able to directly compare the old and new versions.[/QU

It is too common that specifications for one series are crossed to another ,or general features that apply to some models get listed in others..That happened with the Custom Elite too..not sure about the aspherical lenses ,but the Papilio II has "fully multi coated"printed on its body..I kinda think that If it had aspherical lenses would also exhibit the feature in print..
 
..I kinda think that If it had aspherical lenses would also exhibit the feature in print..

The PAPILIO II 6.5x21 Sport Optics from the U-series have the following specifications:

New fully multi-coated optics
Close focus to 50cm for macro observation, unique in the market
Aspherical lens elements providing edge-to-edge sharpness
High Quality B aK4 prism to enhance transmission and resolution
Dual-axis, single body housing with synchronized eye-piece IPD adjustment
Rubber covered body provides protection and grip
Twist-up eyecups
Fine diopter adjustment and fast and easy central fine-focusing

Here : http://shop-uk.ricoh-imaging.eu/dummy-category/papilio-ii-6-5x21.html/

HTH.
 
In the microglobe site also mentions an integrated standard tripod mount for the 6.5 x papilio II...I.wonder where is it located..cant see it in the pictures,but that would be a nice feature..Did the original papilio featured a tripod mount?
 
In the microglobe site also mentions an integrated standard tripod mount for the 6.5 x papilio II...I.wonder where is it located..cant see it in the pictures,but that would be a nice feature..Did the original papilio featured a tripod mount?

My original 8x has an integrated tripod thread located underneath towards the objective end.

Stan
 
. Pentax Papilio II 6.5×21 extremely-close focusing 0.5 m/1.6 feet is what is written on the binocular.

For me, there is slightly too much eye relief with the eyecups fully extended. There is also another click stop with the eyecups half extended. I can just about see the full field of view with glasses, which I don't use normally with binoculars.

The optics are green coated on all surfaces, and mainly the same colour green. So fully multicoated, but I don't know how efficient.
The front optical window has a strange yellow coloured coating.

For me the close focus is about 0.57 m, but I'm longsighted. This is around 23 inches.

The IPD does not alter from distant to closest focus.
Iinside behind the optical window at the bottom there is a very slightly curved track, which is angled about 20°. The objectives move closer as you focus closer. It may be that they remain parallel to the optical window.
Inside behind the optical window on the top there are two thin rods, which the objectives track. There is a tripod socket under the front of the body.

The inside of the binocular, at least this sample, is clean and dust free.
The binocular is marked Made in China.
. The outer box is marked RICOH on the top and Pentax Papilio II 6.5×21on the bottom, and is also marked 0.5 m.

There is very slight pincushion distortion.
The weight is 295 g (294.5).

I will try to measure the field if the sky is clear tonight. And also the optical properties.

The exit pupils are round at nearly every position.

The case is the typical Pentax case for small binoculars. These normally provide good protection.

As the two thin rods at the inside top behind the optical window seem to be parallel, then the objectives would seem to be parallel to the optical window as they move from the distant focus position to the closest focus position.
 
Last edited:
Mine arrived this morning. I'll leave expert reviews to those who know what they are talking about, but my initial response is delight. Collimation is fine as far as I can tell, no sign of dust or of the box having previously been opened.

Thank you so much, Samandag, you just saved me a significant sum of money!
 
. A white pillar looks white in the sunshine.
There is a small amount of chromatic aberration, a bit more noticeable off axis. However, strangely the slight blue fringe to the white pillar is to the left more or less throughout the field of view as one pans left-to-right.
I don't know if this is because of some prismatic effect. I will try to look at star images to see if they are one-sided. In normal use, this effect is not seen. A very small amount of yellow fringing to the right of the pillar. For my purposes the small amount of fringing colour is not significant, but I will leave it to the birdwatching specialists to give a proper review from their perspective.

The pincushion distortion occurs more at the bottom of the field of view than the top, where there is almost no distortion. There is slight pincushion distortion at the left and right edges.
The image is generally good although very near the edges it is unsharp.
For me, the apparent field of view is not very large. However, this binocular is more at home at very close distances, for instance, to look at creepy crawlies. For this it must have few rivals.

At close distances, I get good stereo images, even though the objectives are very close together.

Weighing the binocular again on a horizontal surface I get the weight to be about 294.9 g i.e. 295 g.
The instruction leaflet says that the weight is 290 g. 10.2 oz.
Specifications. Type. Porro prism, centre focusing (Linked-dual-axis).
Real field of view 7.5°.
It gives the eye relief as 15 mm.
Eye width (ocular distance) adjustable range 56 mm to 74 mm 2.2 in. to 2.9 in.
Vergence correcting.. Convergent lens optical system engineering (C.L.O.S.E)

Even though this is a small binocular there are repeated warnings about the Sun.
Firstly, a diagram and a statement. Do not look at the Sun.
Secondly. Warning. Never attempt to look into the Sun with binoculars.
Thirdly. English. Warning. 1. To avoid serious eye damage, NEVER look at the Sun using the binoculars.
Serious damage to the retina, or total loss of eyesight may occur. (I think that total loss of eyesight is unlikely in any normal circumstances).
2. Do not leave the binoculars in location subject to direct sunlight. Sun rays passing through the binoculars will be intensified, and should they focus on flammable materials, fire may occur.

Safety precautions.
4. Do not swing the binoculars by the neck strap, as there is a danger of hurt person. (I suppose that would hurt my feelings also).
 
Last edited:
.The real field of the 6.5×21 being tested is 7.50° +/-0.05°.

The star images are slightly one-sided, which might account for the small amount of false colour being one-sided. This is probably due to sample variation. It does not show up in normal terrestrial viewing.
I was actually using the planet Venus, which is exceedingly bright. With normal second magnitude stars, the star images are actually quite good.

Although the binocular has a tripod socket, it says you really need the U tripod adapter, which may have been around for quite a long time. It might work without this.

The binocular, according to the instruction leaflet, is not waterproof.

The collimation of the binocular is for me excellent.

In very bright sunshine in the afternoon, the view was excellent with no false colour, but my eyes were probably stopped down and the binocular was probably working as a 6.5×15 mm.

I will do further star tests at leisure.
 
Mine arrived this morning, woken by the postman's knock at 8am!

Had a quick look around from the backdoor step seem excellent for the money. Will try to get out tomorrow to put them through their paces.
 
. At 5 AM this morning I tested the 6.5×21 binocular for ghost images and flare.
I used two streetlights, one side on and one shining directly at me.

The binocular is very good regarding ghost images and excellent taking into account the price.
It is as good as many high quality binoculars and compared to some it is even better. This is using the side on street light that I normally use for these tests. It has a rear shade, which the local authorities fitted at my request to stop light intrusion, but the side on lamp is still visible from the kitchen.

Veiling glare is also very good. Some is detectable but at least with the side on streetlight it is very good.

With a very bright streetlight facing me and included in the field, ghost images are visible and intruding, in fact quite a few. The small ones are I think from the optical window, with the others from curved surfaces. But this is an extreme test.

Compared with the Chinese made Pentax 8×25 binocular of about seven years ago, the 6.5×21 Papilio is a revelation.
The Chinese made 8×25 binocular was truly awful regarding ghost images. The salesman, from an astro supplier, who should have known much better, told me that this 8x25 binocular would be superior to a very old Pentax 8×24. The 1960s or 1970s 8×24 is incomparably better than the Chinese awful Pentax 8x25. It seems that maybe Pentax have learned from their mistakes, at least I hope so.
. As to using firms that have sold me lemons in the past, I usually don't use them again.
 
My first trip out with them yesterday so a few observations.

Optically they are a wonder for the price, sure they aren't as crisp as my £500 Opticrons but they were £70. Comparing them to my 6.5 x 32 Vortex Furys the Furys are brighter (21mm v 32mm) but the Furys only have slightly more field of view, (I haven't looked up the figures this is just from my perspective), but the Furys do have noticeably more CA and field curvature. On a sunny day I would pick the Papilios over the Furys for general observation.

Where the Papilios shine is in the close focus, looking a bees and flowers was magic with a great 3D effect you don't get with a hand lens.

The only bad points were in the ergonomics. They are almost too small, sat in a hide with elbows on the shelf my thumbs didn't have enough places to go it was just awkward. The eyecups are also too small in diameter for my eyes not blocking enough stray light from side.

I do have a friend with the old Papilios so next time I meet her I will be able to do a comparison.
 
.This evening, about 20 minutes ago, I looked at a beautiful thin Crescent moon, which was just above the rooftops. This was at 21.16 to 21.18 BST, i.e. 20.16 to 20.18 UTC. The Moon and the earthshine were beautifully seen in the 6.5×21 Papilio. An impressive and clean image. There were many features seen on the Moon's dark portion. All of the major 'Seas' were seen.
This is not an obvious binocular for astronomical observation, but it works very well in this case.

The resolution of this binocular is good, both during the day and now looking at the Moon. It is only at the edge that the image becomes unsharp.
The left and right edges are sharper than the top and bottom edges.
All in all this is a very nice binocular.

I made the field size to be 7.52° or 7.53°, with both barrels seemingly overlapping fully. But I was not able to brace the binocular because of the difficult angle, so I still would like to have another go at this.

Star images are quite good, and even Venus is not bad.

Perhaps in two days time the Moon and Venus might be close together. I'll check.

P. S.
Earlier in the day I measured the focus rotation from the furthest to the closest position and it took 3.1 full rotations of 360° of the focus knob. So there is quite a lot of twiddling to get down to the closest point.
 
Last edited:
I found this picture on flickr, a user has built himself a device to protect against reflexions from the eyepieces.
 

Attachments

  • Pentax_Papilio_Andrew_Ferrari_jiw.jpg
    Pentax_Papilio_Andrew_Ferrari_jiw.jpg
    163.9 KB · Views: 326
. Yesterday I remembered that I had some Pentax tripod adapters. These are from about 10 years ago and made in Japan. They may be the same as the present ones, although I don't know where the current ones are made.
The N adapter is for large binoculars with a tripod mount on the central axle at the front.
The U adapter is for compact binoculars, and is a simple post that weighs 18 g. It is about 6 cm long tapering to the top with a wider base.
I cannot remember which Pentax compact binoculars have inbuilt tripod sockets, whether some of them or all of them I don't remember.

Early this morning, with the sun up in a cloudless sky, I attached the U adapter to the 6.5×21 Papilio.
What surprised me is that, by gripping the post in one fist and resting the binocular on my thumb and forefinger, the binocular was a bit steadier for slightly longer periods than holding the binocular normally with both hands. It was a bit better holding the post in my fist and holding the other hand below and supporting the fist holding the binocular and post.
I was able to detect or glimpse but not certainly, the pimple on the chimney pot at 400 feet distance, which is about 17 arc seconds across. So multiplying by 6.5 that gives about 110 arc seconds resolution. But this is an odd test object and doesn't relate to any standard test.
The binocular is so light and small that it is difficult to keep very steady holding it in both hands.
The post cost me £4.99, but it probably costs more nowadays.

If one uses this post to steady the Papilio binocular then one has to be always aware that the post could unscrew and the binocular could fall to the ground, as there is no locking mechanism.

But it might be a way of using it in a hide to better steady the binocular.

There may be a problem using normal tripods attached directly to the Papilio tripod socket, although something like a Gorillapod or similar should work. It would seem strange to me to have such a small binocular attached to a large tripod, with this setup weighing many times more than the binocular alone and many times bulkier.

Accessory eyecups, such as those from Ace optics, may fit over the eyecups of the Papilio to exclude side lighting. Other firms also sell accessory eyecups.
 
I received mine today and took them for a walk with the dog.
She hated them, because I was constantly on the ground looking at the flowers, instead of walking at the preferred brisk pace.;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top