New Swaro Pockets (1 Viewer)

Binomania said it was the best compact available. I have little doubt that it is.

Comparing it to full-sized top of the line binoculars, in lousy weather at Rutland--well, no compact is going to look that great.

Here's the part I find most intriguing: in the EO youtube video on them, Ben Lizdas states that they have a "large, easy to find eyepoint." Not exactly sure what that means but I suspect Swaro may have pulled off something pretty neat. The 8x32 SV has an amazingly easy view for a 32mm objective. Just slap them to your face and it's right there, no fuss. And that's unlike any other 32mm I've used.

If Swaro can make that happen at 25mm--well, count me in. My 8x20 Ultravid is always fussy. Here's a link to the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gEIk99BOAg

Bob, I too had that Columbia 8x25, but I'm afraid I was not much impressed. In the end I gave it away. Nice accessories though as I recall.

The new compacts should be stateside in a few weeks. Then we'll see what they can do.

Mark

The Leica 8x20 Ultravid has not been "defeated", at least in its class, because the new Swarovski is large and heavy in comparison. I use my Leica 8x20 BL (the faux leather covered version, which is lighter and slimmer than the clunky rubber armored version most people choose) when I want the absolutely smallest bin possible, and in my experience, it comes at only barely compromised optical performance compared to my 2/3 and full-sized alpha bins from Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss, and Nikon. The new Swarovski 8x25 might be attractive as a pocket bin for users who for some reason can't manage bins with small exit pupils, or for folks who have a really large 8x32 model (like the Swarovision EL), but I think if I were going to carry something with that pack size, I'd go for a small x32 model, like the Leica Ultravid HD or the Zeiss FL.

The most surprising thing to me about these new Swarovski pocket CL models is their apparently mediocre ergonomics. I haven't seen anyone else address this. Swarovski really nailed the ergonomics with the new SLC, EL Swarovision, and x30 CL models, so why did the design team for this bin adopt the (in my strong opinion) inherently awkward body design of traditional pocket-roofs? (It also seems odd from a marketing standpoint--these bins are boring and conventional looking, so they aren't likely to attract much attention to their innovative features, like being the first alpha 8x25 roof bins). The focus wheel looks small and is imbedded in the hinge, preventing a wrap-around finger roll, and probably making them harder to use with gloves. Also, the hinge extends along most of the barrels, preventing the wrap-around grip possible with the 8x30 CL, 8x32 EL, and the Leica 8x20 Ultravid. In the pocket CL Youtube video, the hinge tension looks way too low--I like a pocket bin with very tight hinges (like my 8x20 Ultravid) to hold the interpupillary setting securely.

For anyone who finds 8x20 bins fiddly, I think the key to success is having the right grip. Also, wearing a hat helps (by shading the oculars), as does wearing glasses (so you don't have to stick the ridiculously undersized eyecups into your eye sockets, which is very disturbing to comfortable vision) so long as your bin has good eye relief. I don't find the 8x20 Ultravid awkward to hold or look through at all. I use the "solidarity clasp" grip with them, same as for other bins, as described and illustrated here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2439175&highlight=solidarity+clasp#post2439175

--AP

ceasar said:

Opinion from Europe is skeptical!

Here is Typos's report on the new Swarovski 25s from the Bird Fair in Rutland on the 16th:

"They also had the Swarovski Pocket x25s. Not sharp, and together with the narrow view made it a disappointment."


http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2801148&postcount=2

Not overwhelmed by the 15 x 56 either.

But what do they know?:smoke:

Bob

Click to expand...

OK, I admit I was being restrained. I've mentioned a few times here that in direct comparison a £100 Chinese made 6.5x32 out guns the 8x30 CL. The Pocket doesn't come close to even the CL on sharpness. I tried two pairs and the bridge flopped around all over the place, made the 8x20 seem child's play.

I don't regard myself as a Swaro basher. The ELSV 8x32 is really first class, admittedly I don't like the 8.5x42, but donate me a cherry SLC 8x42 and and I'd be in heaven!!!

David

typo said:

OK, I admit I was being restrained. I've mentioned a few times here that in direct comparison a £100 Chinese made 6.5x32 out guns the 8x30 CL. The Pocket doesn't come close to even the CL on sharpness. I tried two pairs and the bridge flopped around all over the place, made the 8x20 seem child's play.

I don't regard myself as a Swaro basher. The ELSV 8x32 is really first class, admittedly I don't like the 8.5x42, but donate me a cherry SLC 8x42 and and I'd be in heaven!!!

David

Click to expand...

David, do you regularly use compacts? Anyone who does can tell you they are a compromise. My guess is you don't use them. Guess I'll wait to see the CL Pocket myself.

OK, the hinge tension was low, looks low in that youtube video as well. Preproduction samples. Hardly rocket science to fix it.

Alexis, anyone who describes the 8x32 SV as "really large" in comparison with the 8x32 FL simply doesn't have them side-by-side. The only dimension that's bigger is length. The FL is fatter and chunkier every other way. Weight difference .75 ounce. Put them around your neck or in your pack and you'll never know the difference. The SV is considerably better, optically. If someone can't see that, I'm really not sure what they're looking at.

And it's not that I "can't manage" bins with small exit pupils. Been doing it for years and years. They are still a pain and they don't get better. And of course I still really like the 8x20 UV, but let's face it: it is what it is. It's a compromise.

Mark

typo said:

...The Pocket doesn't come close to even the CL on sharpness. I tried two pairs and the bridge flopped around all over the place, made the 8x20 seem child's play..

Click to expand...

Hmm...floppy hinge, just as is visible in the Youtube video. You meant 8x25, not 8x20, right?

--AP

Sorry Mark and AP, I should have been clearer. I considered the older pocket 8x20 optically good, but rather fiddly to use with the small EP and tiny controls. The new CL Pocket 8x25 I consider poor on sharpness, and with the floppy bridge, much more difficult to use.

David

Kammerdiner said:

...Alexis, anyone who describes the 8x32 SV as "really large" in comparison with the 8x32 FL simply doesn't have them side-by-side. The only dimension that's bigger is length. The FL is fatter and chunkier every other way. Weight difference .75 ounce. Put them around your neck or in your pack and you'll never know the difference. The SV is considerably better, optically. If someone can't see that, I'm really not sure what they're looking at.

Click to expand...

I'm just reporting my experience. I agree on the weight--the SV (and previous EL) are comparable to the Zeiss and Leica x32 models in that respect, so if one is choosing an 8x32 for the weight, the SV is a very attractive option. With respect to pack size, the FL is not significantly fatter or chunkier than the objective end of the SV. In fact, the FL will squeeze into the zipper pouch for the old Leica BN or the case for the Leica Ultravid, both of which get top honors for small size in a premium 8x32 roof. I can fit the FL (in a leather case) in lots of pockets (in my jacket, camera bag, side accessory pocket of my day pack) that I can't fit the Swarovski (which packs into the same space as a Leica 8x42), so I find the pack size difference significant. My point was that owners of the 8x32 SV might be interested in also buying the 8x25 CL for times when they need something smaller, but that owners of the Leica or Zeiss 8x32 models would be less tempted, and if they needed something smaller would likely be more interested in the premium 8x20 roofs.

Kammerdiner said:

And it's not that I "can't manage" bins with small exit pupils. Been doing it for years and years. They are still a pain and they don't get better. And of course I still really like the 8x20 UV, but let's face it: it is what it is. It's a compromise.

Click to expand...

That comment wasn't targeted at you specifically. There are a lot of folks who don't seem to know how to use pocket roofs, are convinced based on their limited experience (and maybe only with cheap ones) that the view is not sufficient for birding, and who dismiss them entirely. But I don't find the Ultravid to be "a pain." For some trips, where I knew I wouldn't be in deep forests (e.g. in the grasslands and deserts of the Great Plains and southwestern USA), I've chosen it as my only bin, and it's never let me down. Normally, I use x32 or x42 bins, but the main reason is that I like the larger FOV (of the models I own) and because the larger exit pupil allows me to look off-axis around the view. But when it comes to getting on a bird that I've already spotted, and IDing birds that I've got in view, whether warblers in the trees or ducks on the far side of the lake, I rarely feel hindered in the slightest by the 8x20 format, at least in the case of the Ultravid (I didn't feel the same about the Trinovid, or quite the same about the Zeiss Victory).

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

...
But when it comes to getting on a bird that I've already spotted, and IDing birds that I've got in view, whether warblers in the trees or ducks on the far side of the lake, I rarely feel hindered in the slightest by the 8x20 format, at least in the case of the Ultravid (I didn't feel the same about the Trinovid, or quite the same about the Zeiss Victory).

--AP

Click to expand...

Wow, fair enough. For me compacts are always a compromise, not first choice. Mostly backpacking and walks about town when I'm not really expecting much in the way of birds. Found a Chimney Swift today while perambulating, too weak/injured to fly. Carried it to a nice spot, but it won't live. Amazing look in it's coal-black eyes.

No binos needed.

Mark

Kammerdiner said:

Binomania said it was the best compact available. I have little doubt that it is.

Comparing it to full-sized top of the line binoculars, in lousy weather at Rutland--well, no compact is going to look that great.

Here's the part I find most intriguing: in the EO youtube video on them, Ben Lizdas states that they have a "large, easy to find eyepoint." Not exactly sure what that means but I suspect Swaro may have pulled off something pretty neat. The 8x32 SV has an amazingly easy view for a 32mm objective. Just slap them to your face and it's right there, no fuss. And that's unlike any other 32mm I've used.

If Swaro can make that happen at 25mm--well, count me in. My 8x20 Ultravid is always fussy. Here's a link to the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gEIk99BOAg

Bob, I too had that Columbia 8x25, but I'm afraid I was not much impressed. In the end I gave it away. Nice accessories though as I recall.

The new compacts should be stateside in a few weeks. Then we'll see what they can do.

Mark

Click to expand...

Mark,

I had the Columbia 8 x 25 out today just to check it out again. It was an overcast day with some drizzling. Not many birds around but I did watch a Turkey Vulture with it for about 5 minutes. As I noted I bought 2 of them at close out prices for 80 bucks a piece. I was so surprised at how good it is that I'm sorry I didn't buy 4.

It is a single hinge 8 x 25 and it's a fat, squat binocular but it's optics are outstanding. Bright and sharp with 360'@1000yard view along with a large impressive sweet spot and nice comfortable eye cups and eye relief.

I don't know if I ever will be able to try it out with the new Swarovski 8 x 25 because I really want one of those new Nikon 8 x 30 Monarch 7s now!

Bob

I have not tried the new Swaro 8x25's but found the Kowa 8x25's very good optically and a good value.
The Leica Ultravid and Nikon LXL 8x20's are excellent optically for such a small size and fit in a shirt pocket or even in a pants pocket (albeit a tight fit).
That small size and 'always have them with you' are what make them so desirable.
I normally go up to my Swaro 8x30 SLC's, 8x32 EL's or Zeiss 8x32 FL's when larger is required or all the way to my Leica 7x42 Ultravid's.
The little glass's have seduced me though, love the handiness and they work so well for just walking about and having them always there.
Swaro still needs to upgrade their 8x20's which fill a different niche than the 8x25's.
Art

ceasar said:

Mark,

I had the Columbia 8 x 25 out today just to check it out again. It was an overcast day with some drizzling. Not many birds around but I did watch a Turkey Vulture with it for about 5 minutes. As I noted I bought 2 of them at close out prices for 80 bucks a piece. I was so surprised at how good it is that I'm sorry I didn't buy 4.

It is a single hinge 8 x 25 and it's a fat, squat binocular but it's optics are outstanding. Bright and sharp with 360'@1000yard view along with a large impressive sweet spot and nice comfortable eye cups and eye relief.

I don't know if I ever will be able to try it out with the new Swarovski 8 x 25 because I really want one of those new Nikon 8 x 30 Monarch 7s now!

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob,

Yes indeed, the 8x30 Monarch has my attention too, even more than the Pocket CL.

I suppose my Columbia 8x25 sample may have been subpar. I had it beside the Leica 8x20 and the Bushnell 7x26, and it wasn't in the same league, nor should it be for the price I guess. I'll try to borrow it back from my sister-in-law and have a second look. She said it was amazing how good it is, but her old pair literally fell apart at the hinge so the Columbia was definitely a step up.

Mark

Alexis Powell said:

The most surprising thing to me about these new Swarovski pocket CL models is their apparently mediocre ergonomics. I haven't seen anyone else address this. Swarovski really nailed the ergonomics with the new SLC, EL Swarovision, and x30 CL models, so why did the design team for this bin adopt the (in my strong opinion) inherently awkward body design of traditional pocket-roofs? (It also seems odd from a marketing standpoint--these bins are boring and conventional looking, so they aren't likely to attract much attention to their innovative features, like being the first alpha 8x25 roof bins). The focus wheel looks small and is imbedded in the hinge, preventing a wrap-around finger roll, and probably making them harder to use with gloves. Also, the hinge extends along most of the barrels, preventing the wrap-around grip possible with the 8x30 CL, 8x32 EL, and the Leica 8x20 Ultravid. In the pocket CL Youtube video, the hinge tension looks way too low--I like a pocket bin with very tight hinges (like my 8x20 Ultravid) to hold the interpupillary setting securely.

--AP

Click to expand...

In the few minutes I looked at the 8x25s at the Tucson Bird Festival I had problems with the floppy hinge. I picked the glasses up with my right hand, my left was filled with catalogs and such, the left ocular slumped down and I was unable to see through both lenses. I had to set my stuff down and hold it in my left hand. When I did that I was able to hold them one handed.

Chad

Alexis Powell;2802725

....For anyone who finds 8x20 bins fiddly, I think the key to success is having the right grip. Also, wearing a hat helps (by shading the oculars), as does wearing glasses (so you don't have to stick the ridiculously undersized eyecups into your eye sockets, which is very disturbing to comfortable vision) so long as your bin has good eye relief. I don't find the 8x20 Ultravid awkward to hold or look through at all. I use the "solidarity clasp" grip with them, same as for other bins, as described and illustrated here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2439175&highlight=solidarity+clasp#post2439175

--AP

Click to expand...

I think you must be a double-jointed contortionist to fit those BIG thumbs :t::t: under that tiny hinge.

I'm sending the photos to Ripley's.

<B>

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

The most surprising thing to me about these new Swarovski pocket CL models is their apparently mediocre ergonomics. I haven't seen anyone else address this. Swarovski really nailed the ergonomics with the new SLC, EL Swarovision, and x30 CL models, so why did the design team for this bin adopt the (in my strong opinion) inherently awkward body design of traditional pocket-roofs? (It also seems odd from a marketing standpoint--these bins are boring and conventional looking, so they aren't likely to attract much attention to their innovative features, like being the first alpha 8x25 roof bins). The focus wheel looks small and is imbedded in the hinge, preventing a wrap-around finger roll, and probably making them harder to use with gloves. Also, the hinge extends along most of the barrels, preventing the wrap-around grip possible with the 8x30 CL, 8x32 EL, and the Leica 8x20 Ultravid. In the pocket CL Youtube video, the hinge tension looks way too low--I like a pocket bin with very tight hinges (like my 8x20 Ultravid) to hold the interpupillary setting securely.

--AP

Click to expand...

Dear Alexis,

As a long time user of the 10x25 SLC, I must disagree completely and emphatically!! Although I haven't tried them out yet, the new 10x25 appears to have just about everything I need: greater eye relief, more weight for stability, and increased FOV. More than half of my life list was acquired with an old 10x25 SLC, and it accompanied me on many world trips, sporting events, shows, range spotting, etc. Unfortunately, inadequate eye relief was its undoing, so I've had to make do with a diminutive and fiddly Leica 8x20 Ultravid that I'd just as soon give to my wife so she can lose it in her purse.

What exactly do you mean by "mediocre ergonomics"? They appear to have the same svelte design as my 8x42 HD, and the protected, i.e., embedded, focus control has been moved to the back where some people thought it belonged in the first place. Based on the Binomania Review in every other respect it appears to put Swarovski in the lead position for pocket bins...too.

Regards,
Ed

lf manufacturers were to add a set of adapter to their pocket binos, to beef up the eyepieces, those compacts would be a lot easier to use. I had to use self-adhesive foam for this purpose and it worked fine.

I've gotta think about this ...

With spectacles this may be more beef than I need. :brains:

elkcub said:

Dear Alexis,

As a long time user of the 10x25 SLC, I must disagree completely and emphatically!! Although I haven't tried them out yet, the new 10x25 appears to have just about everything I need: greater eye relief, more weight for stability, and increased FOV. More than half of my life list was acquired with an old 10x25 SLC, and it accompanied me on many world trips, sporting events, shows, range spotting, etc. Unfortunately, inadequate eye relief was its undoing, so I've had to make do with a diminutive and fiddly Leica 8x20 Ultravid that I'd just as soon give to my wife so she can lose it in her purse.

What exactly do you mean by "mediocre ergonomics"? They appear to have the same svelte design as my 8x42 HD, and the protected, i.e., embedded, focus control has been moved to the back where some people thought it belonged in the first place. Based on the Binomania Review in every other respect it appears to put Swarovski in the lead position for pocket bins...too.

Regards,
Ed

Click to expand...

Ed,

I haven't tried the new Swarovski yet, but have to agree with your assessment of the ergonomics of the Ultravid. I have had one for about five years now, and although the optics are superb, I dislike using them. The handling is indeed fiddly, mainly due to the diminutive size, and what is worse, for me the 2.5mm exit pupil is simply too small for satisfying views. For that reason, I'm eager to try the 8x25 version of the Swaro, since the 3+mm exit pupil should be just this side of adequate.

Kimmo

Oetzi,

You can make a removable "beef-up" mod by getting some rubber foam gasket strip and super-gluing rings that stretch tightly over the eyecups. These will go on and off in a matter of seconds, and will not leave ugly glue marks on the eyecups.

Kimmo

elkcub said:

...What exactly do you mean by "mediocre ergonomics"?...

Click to expand...

Ed, Brock, and Kimmo,

Obviously, as we all know, different folks have different tastes, so I'm glad if the traditional pocket bin ergonomics of the new pocket CL works for you. For me, it seems like a missed opportunity for Swarovski to once again crush the competition with an innovative approach to the design of the whole optical and ergonomic package (Hey Swarovski, if you are reading this, I'm still waiting for that variable-rate focus that I hope to see some day on the 8.5x SV!).

By mediocre, I mean just what I said before--I don't like small hidden focus wheels, floppy hinges (of course that should be correctable), and I don't like traditional (nearly full length) hinges on any bin (including pocket bins) that prevent using a wrap-around grip.

As for pocket roofs being fiddly--that is the way I feel about designs that prevent a wrap-around grip and that don't allow me to focus them as if they were a full-sized bin. But the Ultravid does not have those limitations, so for me, there isn't anything inherently fiddly about its ergonomics. I hold them pretty much the way I hold all bins, and I feel I'm able to achieve a relaxed but very secure wrap-around grip (look how my fingers curl all the way around the barrels). It's like holding on to the 8x32 EL or the steering wheel of my car--I could do it all day (Incidentally, I dislike fat steering wheels or the accessory covers that one can buy to increase their diameter, because I feel most secure and relaxed when something I am gripping is imbedded in my fist).

Yes, my thumbs are big, but no, I'm not a contortionist, and my IPD is 61 mm (fairly narrow), so how do I fit my thumbs between the barrels? One key to my success is getting the BL version of the Ultravid, because it is slimmer (for such a light-weight bin that is easily tucked into a soft pocket when not in use, I don't miss rubber armoring). Another is my asymmetrical unfolding technique which (1) is faster than folding out both sides evenly, (2) once IPD is set, automatically achieves a consistent unfolded form that one can gain familiarity, unlike if the amount each side is folded out varies a bit each time, (3) gives my right hand lots of room, and (4) positions the focus wheel properly so it can be used like a real bin, rolled easily, with the pad of my finger, not the tip of my finger.

Seriously, I'd love to see some photos from other folks showing how they _can't_ hold the Ultravid securely. Guess that would belong in a different thread in a different subforum, but you know how these threads evolve...sorry!

--AP

PS: One thing I also do to make my pocket bins less fiddly is to remove all the buckles etc from the neck strap. I just find a comfortable length, knot the ends, and cut off the excess with hot shears. For some reason, the usual neck strap setup using buckles and doubles-over ends drives me crazy with these little bins--the ends of the strap get tangled up in things or on themselves like out of control spaghetti noodles, or hair, or something, and I'm always worried that the buckle is going to scratch the optics when I tuck them into a pocket.

I'm largely in agreement with Alexis on this one. I don't find the 8x20 UV "fiddly" in terms of ergonomics. I actually like the way your fingers wrap around the open barrels. I tend to pinch the focus knob between right thumb and forefinger though, unlike Alexis. Overall, it has a pretty cool, undercover, 007 kind of feel in the hand. Works great.

I guess if you lack opposable thumbs or still use those giant Kindergarten pencils to write your name it might be a problem.

As for the ergonomics of the new Swaro, well, I don't know. I have far fewer ergo-issues than most as far as I can tell. My theory: you've got the most dexterous biological appendages in the known universe, just USE them.

Where Alexis and I disagree is on the exit pupil. I have never gotten used to that 2.5mm exit pupil. It's just fiddly and it won't get better. I wear glasses, though, so maybe that makes a difference.

Many have suggested in the past that a 3mm exit pupil is the threshhold for "non-fiddly." I would agree, based on my ongoing experience with the 8x25 format. That's why I find the new Swaro intriguing. That plus the possible presence of whatever kind of eyepiece voodoo magic they did to the 8x32 SV. If they applied that juju to the 8x25--well, stand back.

Mark