[Steve C]

For awhile now, I’ve been working with some compact 6-7x binoculars. The list has grown to include the Leupold 6x30 Yosemite, the Eagle Optics Raven 6.5x32, the Vortex Fury 6.5x32, the Minox 6.5x32 IF, Vortex Diamondback 7x36, Bushnell Archer EX 7x36 Swift Eaglet 7x36, and the Leupold Switch Power 7/12x32. I had hoped to hold off until I got the new ZEN ED 2 7x36. I was not able to get a 6x32 Viper or Katmai.

I have found this size of magnification to be pretty useful, especially when something from the group is paired with a 10x or larger in a combination.

The Leupold was left on 7x. In direct comparisons, the Minox and the rest of the pack were focused on the same object.

Image quality:

This is ranked in order of best to worst. It is a combination of apparent resolution, color, contrast and apparent brightness. The ranking is as follows.

1- Leupold 7x. This is a very good image quality. It will come very close to the alpha glass. Color representation and contrast are very good.
2- Swift 7x36. This was bested by the Leupold by a small amount in contrast. The Leupold held color representation a bit better into twilight.
3- Dead heat with the 6.5x32’s. This is the Raven, Fury and Minox. There seems to be no appreciable difference here. I would have to see it for myself that somebody could consistently separate these based only on the image. Some group separation may be due to the .5x less image magnification.
4- Leupold Yosemite 6x30. The only thing holding this from the 6.5 group is that the image at 6x does look a bit smaller than the 6.5’s. The Raven does seem to have improved the internal baffling and handles stray light better than the Yosemite. The edge of field sharpness is a bit better than the Yosemite. There seems to me no practical need to get rid of the Yosemite for a Raven. That Yosemite is a heck of a deal. The Raven does seem to best it a little
5- Vortex Diamondback and Bushnell EX. These are very good for less than $200 binoculars, but are not quite as bright as the rest, and there is more edge distortion. As far as I can tell, these are the same binocular in different enclosures and different eye cups.

General Characteristics;

Leupold; this is obviously a hybrid of sorts with the dual magnification ability. Nice sturdy compact. It has a very fast focus. It also has interchangeable eye cups. Some will want a wider FOV, but this is certainly adequate for most purposes. Edge sharpness is very good.

Swift; this is another very fast focus binocular. It has barely noticeable image differences with the Leupold. It feels slimmer in the hands than the Leupold or anything else in the comparison.

Vortex Fury; this is a bit bigger binocular than most 32 mm compacts. It has a nice bright image and a very good FOV. It has a slower 1.5 turn focus

Minox IF; this is about the same size as the Fury. I actually like the somewhat boxy feel and the old fashioned fold down rubber eye cups. The only practical difference in these two is the IF/CF. If the Minox had a center focus, it would be pretty hard to tell which one of the two I’d keep. But As good as the Minox may be, it is not any better than the Fury, so it goes back to Doug. I tried to like it enough to keep it, but it was not to be.

Yosemite and Raven; there are more similarities than differences. The Raven is about ½” longer than the Yosemite and feels bigger in the hand, but they are pretty obviously on the same basic frame.

Diamondback and EX; these as, I said above seem to be the same binocular. If you wear classes, the Diamondback may pose some problems. The eye cup, even fully collapsed, sits too far above the lens to allow a glasses wearer to see the whole fov. The Bushnell has exactly the opposite problem. It is fine with glasses, but extends only to some 14mm above the lens and I have to physically hold it away from my eyes to get the full fov. This one is going back. I did not use it much. The advertisements for the EX 7x36 early on indicated it had a fov of 488’. It is, as marked on the binocular, 409’. It is also a bit too small for the open hinge. There is more than enough room between the hinges for one finger, but not enough for two. The focus on both is slower than the rest of the binoculars, about 1.5 turns. The DB I had had extremely stiff focus. It has loosened up some, but I have no doubt some people will have a hard time using it. I do not assume this is typical, so judge the DB not too harshly by this one The focus actually squeaks.

As a general observation there is no apparent difference in the depth of field in any of these binoculars when they are all compared when focused on the same object.

[FrankD]

Steve,

Thank you for sharing further comments on this fine selection of lower powered bins. I have to say that I understand the fascination with this magnification range. The excellent depth of field, the brightness of the image, the easy to use 5 mm exit pupil all combine to create enjoyable images.

My thoughts on the Bushnell Excursion EX tend to mirror yours. I found the image quality to be inconsistent on my unit going from barrel to barrel. If it was more consistent and if the edge distortion was a bit better controlled then I would have no problem picking up another one. Maybe if I find a demo somewhere or one on clearance for $150 or so.

The EO Raven continues to impress. I thoroughly enjoy using the 6.5x version and don't really feel the need to have more magnification for most of the applications I have put it through. The 8.5x is a little lower on the totem pole simply because of the increase in magnification and yet I do not believe I would have a problem using it for almost everything but a full time binocular...the smaller exit pupil is pretty much my only really complaint.

I look forward to the Zen ED 7x36 as well. Hopefully it will give that Leupold a run for the money.

[dustyview]

Thanks Steve. I'm hoping my Raptors arrive today and I can test them in person. I see you didn't include your last generation Custom Compact in there. Did it not measure up, in your opinion?

Frank mentions the upcoming 7x36 Zens, which sound interesting but will be 5 oz. heavier than the Yosemites and Raptors/Ravens. One of the main things I like about the Yosemites is the size/weight ratio. It made them very comfortable for me. The 7x36 Zens may be close to a standard 8x roof in handling.

[Steve C]

Actually, the Custom Compact ranks maybe between the Swift and the group of 6.5x binoculars. It is the best reverse porro compact available, and aside from the more easily portable aspect and durability of the alpha pocket roof class, it certainly rivals the image of that class of binocular.

[blizdas]

I think this thread is interesting in that it touches upon an aspect of binocular use that most people tend to overlook. This would be the binoculars "user-friendliness". The lower power bins are so comfortable to look through, especially when you are trying to observe objects like birds which are constantly on the move. Too often people assume that lower power means that they will see less which is generally not the case, at least within the context of birdwatching. A wide field of view and good depth of field will help most birders more than that extra 2-3x.
It would be nice to see a resurgence in the popularity of these lower power models.
Ben Lizdas
Sales Manager
Eagle Optics
www.eagleoptics.com

[HoosierGuy]

Originally Posted by blizdas

I think this thread is interesting in that it touches upon an aspect of binocular use that most people tend to overlook. This would be the binoculars "user-friendliness". The lower power bins are so comfortable to look through, especially when you are trying to observe objects like birds which are constantly on the move.

Well said. I bought an 8x Nikon Monarchs back in March. A few months ago I wanted a good 10x and bought the Zen Ed's 10x. Although the Zen Ed's are sharp the Monarch 8x are more user friendly because of a more stable image. I can enjoy the wide field of view more on the 8x. I'm starting to see 10x binos as a specialty binocular. It does bring things in closer than an 8x, but that's all it does - bring things closer. I don't think you can enjoy the scenery and scan the scenery with a 10x like you can an 8x.

I'm happy with both of my binos. But when I get another pair it's going to be another 8x or 7x with a super wide field of view, not another 10x or 12x. And if I was every going to spend $2000 on alpha binos, I would definitely get an 8x.

After saying all that, I'm about to head to some wet lands for a few minutes and I'm taking the 10x. Got to have that 10x to look at the far edges of the ponds.

[FrankD]

And if I was every going to spend $2000 on alpha binos, I would definitely get an 8x.

Don't rule out those Alpha 7x either.

[dustyview]

I've just spent an hour or so in the back yard with the new 6.5x Raptors. Two observations so far:

1) This is a great binocular for the money, seems solidly built (although a little rough here and there - sand cast parts?), and is quite sharp in the middle 50+% of the image. Brightness and ergonomics are very good.

2) The Raptor I received has a kind of "shoulder" effect in the FOV and quickly goes quite blurry. There is also a little bit of abberation in the overall view, but it doesn't effect sharpness. A bit like a subtle wave in the image. Unlike SteveC's experience, I would rate them as slightly less sharp than the Yosemites I tried (and the one I bought), and a little less "comfortable" of an image. There is no comparison to my Bushnell E2s, though. The E2s are about as bright, sharper overall, with a gentler transition from center to edge, sharper edge, and less CA. The image in every way (except brightness - a tie) head and shoulders above the Raptor. Of course they are also considerably smaller.

After I've used them a few days I'll post more.

More (before I forget, or have to take notes... ) :

I took the Raptors out at dusk tonight, along with a couple of other pairs of binoculars. There is a sign about 400m from my front porch, and it has two sizes of text on it. It is lit most nights, but not until fairly late, so in its unlit stage (up until about 10pm this time of year) it's a good basic measure of relative brightness and sharpness after sunset. In near-dark conditions tonight, the Raptor was noticeably behind the E2 in sharpness (could barely read the smaller text, whereas w/the E2 I could read it fine), but a bit brighter and more contrasty. Still, the small amount of light-gathering gain isn't really worth it to me of the resolution isn't there. For reference, the 6.5x Raptor, in the center of the image, was about as sharp as my 10x ZRS.

EDIT: At lunch today, I viewed the same sign. The Raptors are much better in daylight, when my pupils are contracted. The smaller text seemed crisp and clear. Also, the distortion "shoulder" between the center and edge is only on the right side (I checked separately with both eyes), so probably poor QC. Careful viewing through the left side only reveals a potentially sharper binocular with less edge softness and no abrupt falloff.

[FrankD]

dustyview,

Raptor or Raven?

I am doubting there is a difference between the two in general but I thought I would check regardless. Steve and I have the Raven.

[dustyview]

Raptor. Check the small metal rings under the eyepieces.... do you see casting lines/texture? Just curious. I will be happy to provide some pictures, too, but I bet they're exactly the same binocular.

Originally Posted by FrankD

dustyview,

Raptor or Raven?

I am doubting there is a difference between the two in general but I thought I would check regardless. Steve and I have the Raven.

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by dustyview

I took the Raptors out at dusk tonight, along with a couple of other pairs of binoculars. There is a sign about 400m from my front porch, and it has two sizes of text on it. It is lit most nights, but not until fairly late, so in its unlit stage (up until about 10pm this time of year) it's a good basic measure of relative brightness and sharpness after sunset. In near-dark conditions tonight, the Raptor was noticeably behind the E2 in sharpness (could barely read the smaller text, whereas w/the E2 I could read it fine), but a bit brighter and more contrasty. Still, the small amount of light-gathering gain isn't really worth it to me of the resolution isn't there. For reference, the 6.5x Raptor, in the center of the image, was about as sharp as my 10x ZRS.

How do your Yosemites do in this same test?

[dustyview]

The 8x Yosemites were able to resolve the smaller text better under the same conditions, but two caveats: 1) they were the 8x30 (I've tried the 6x in a store but never owned one); 2) this was based on a sample of one.

The bottom line is that if I were to buy another 6x/6.5x small porro to keep, at this point I would bet on the Yosemite being slightly better, but that's based on looking through one Raptor and three Yosemites, and only really spending extended time with one.

For me this is all a moot point, though. The E2 7x26s may have a slightly smaller FOV but the usable FOV seems about the same, and they are overall sharper and have more of that "porro effect" I like, despite the fact that the objectives are closer together (so I guess, for me, it's not enhanced "binocular vision" but something else). The Raptors are a bit brighter in twilight, but not enough to really matter for my uses. I was hoping the Raptor's image quality would be closer to the E2, in which case they would make a great knock-around pair for the house, but since I'm keeping the E2s anyway, the Raptors have been (as they say in England) made redundant and will be going back. I don't want to seem to be slamming them too hard, though. If a person didn't have a low-powered pair for back yard/woodland/other close-in birding, these would be OK, and if Vortex can work with the manufacturer to eliminate that abrupt focus fall-off about 2/3-3/4 out from the center they would be great for the price. Like the Yosemites, they are comfortable to hold and pretty user-friendly overall, although w/glasses I can get small blackouts more easily than with the Yosemite.

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

How do your Yosemites do in this same test?

[FrankD]

DV,

I don't seem to see the marks in question. The lighting is not that good where I am at right now though so I hope to comment more later.

...and, FWIW, I understand your reasoning. I felt much the same way about the Bushnell EX 7x36. If someone did not have a decent bin to start with then they are a very nice addition. Even as a backup bin they would be great. Still, they did not really break into any new areas that weren't handled by another model/configuration.

[Steve C]

DV,

What you see in edge distortion in the Raptor sounds worse than what I see in the Raven, or for that matter in either of my Yosemite's. Call and talk to Vortex, send it to them and see if there is something wrong with it. There is edge distortion, to be sure, in the Raven, but it is certainly no worse, and in the case of mine, it seems a bit less than the Yosemite.

Again, I will give my 7x26 an edge in image sharpness over both the Yosemite and the Raven. But that may be a bit of an apples to oranges thing. When we get to separating finer details at closer distances, the effect of magnification becomes more apparent, and we are dealing with magnification increments of .5x with each of the three. That may or may not mean anything. The best way I can see to check it is to see how far away each binocular will separate the text on the sign and divide the distance by the magnification and see if that gives you some idea. Steve Ingraham did that in a modification of his NEED test one time on BVD.

I don't think it is necessary for Yosemite owners to hit the run button and trade off the Yosemite for a Raven or a Raptor, but my Raven is a slightly better binocular than my Yosemite. I admit that since the 6.5x image of the Raven looks to me just a bit bigger than the 6x of the Yosemite, that that may be part of the reason.

As for the casting marks, I really don't see what you are referring to in the Raven or in either Yosemite.

[dustyview]

Frank and Steve: The casting marks are present at a couple of points, but the most visible is on the ring below the diopter adjuster. Here are a couple of quick and dirty macro pics:

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h2...a/IMG_1096.jpg
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h2...a/IMG_1098.jpg

The Yosemite showed more careful finishing. For that matter, so does my pair of Vortex Hurricanes (also an inexpensive Chinese-made binocular, for those who haven't seen them).

Also, I forgot to mention that while the diopter arrow correctly aligns with the detent (equal focus), the painted scale is off. The pictures show correct diopter alignment for equal vision in both eyes.

[dustyview]

I agree 100%. A comfortable image is worth a lot, especially if you're using your binoculars for hours.

Originally Posted by blizdas

A wide field of view and good depth of field will help most birders more than that extra 2-3x.

[Steve C]

Dusty,

Well I confess that level of imperfection of exterior finish is a total non issue with me. My thought is let them spend the effort on the optics and it is OK with me for some levels of imperfection such as these to show up. This is about what the Raven shows, and the Yosemite too. But, since they don't hit my radar screen, don't interpret this as a dig at you.

As long as they don't bite from sharp edges when you hold them, or have the armor loose, or the eye cups fall off, or the focus wheel on crooked, at this price they suit me fine. Now add some money to get to a higher quality overall glass, then I'm still mostly with the "innards", but will be more careful about the exterior as well.

As long as the diopter setting stays put, I'm OK as well, but that does seem that even with a more inexpensive glass, the alingment there on the diopter scale should match.

[dustyview]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Dusty,

Well I confess that level of imperfection of exterior finish is a total non issue with me.

I'm with you here, Steve. I don't really care about that level of finish if it doesn't effect function. I just wanted to note it as part of my report. I added a bit more to my original post (#8).

[dustyview]

Originally Posted by FrankD

...and, FWIW, I understand your reasoning. I felt much the same way about the Bushnell EX 7x36. If someone did not have a decent bin to start with then they are a very nice addition. Even as a backup bin they would be great. Still, they did not really break into any new areas that weren't handled by another model/configuration.

I think a legitimate question would be are the Raptors/Ravens worth 33% more than the Yosemites (even if that 33% is only $40). Right at this moment I'd wager that the coatings are better on the new models, but I'm sure that over time Leupold will also upgrade the small things that can be improved without changing their price point, and the Yosemite will stay very competitive.

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by dustyview

I think a legitimate question would be are the Raptors/Ravens worth 33% more than the Yosemites (

With the Ravens and Yosemite's I have, I would say yes the Raven is probably worth it. If my Raven appeared to me the same way your Raptor appears to you, it looks like the answer would be no. So the question becomes; in the world of the Raven and Raptor, which one (yours or mine) is most representative of the average? I tend to think mine is. I still think you need to send yours back, it somehow does not sound quite "right".

I agree with you that there is no reason to think the Yosemite will not remain competitive. I has a couple of years head start as the poster child for the "really good inexpensive binocular for everybody" category.

[FrankD]

I would second Steve's comments. The optical improvements in my Raven (in comparison to the Yosemite) seem fairly easily noticeable. I would pay the extra $40 considering the improvements plus the already inherent appeal to these bins.

[dustyview]

I'll definitely take your (and Steve's) word for it. If the right side was as good as the left they would be winners. Even so, viewing individual tubes it seems like the E2 still wins in overall image quality, and it's certainly smaller, so the Raptors are going back today. I imagine if I want to try them again at some point in the future they (or an improved version) will still be around.

Originally Posted by FrankD

I would second Steve's comments. The optical improvements in my Raven (in comparison to the Yosemite) seem fairly easily noticeable. I would pay the extra $40 considering the improvements plus the already inherent appeal to these bins.

[FrankD]

Quality control at the lower price points is always suspect (heck, even the higher price points at times). I would not doubt that you have a "bad" barrel. Why not send them in to be looked at as Steve suggested?

[Kevin Purcell]

There is also the issue of early in the production run so there may be production issues they haven't ironed out ("What do you mean they don't know how tight to make that screw ... you do it just so").

The rule of never buy version 1.0 of anything applies!

[FrankD]

The rule of never buy version 1.0 of anything applies!

We all bought Zen ED gen 1's.



Yeah, yeah, I know. :-)