Curio CL 7x21 and Papilio II 6.5x21 (2 Viewers)

[kimmik]

These are the smallest binoculars I have, with similarities that make them almost identical yet differences that ensure each is irreplaceable. This post is not going to be comprehensive, so please read the excellent comparison by Gijs on the following link.

https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/THE-NEW-SWAROVSKI-7X21-CURIO-def.pdf

First the similarities:
Looking through them one after the other into the distance, there are far more similarities than differences. Center resolution and contrast is just about equally excellent, with FOV and magnification in close accordance to specification. Both have around 3mm exit pupil, and both focus to infinity in clockwise direction, with a light and accurate center knob. Both have smooth and accurate hinges for IPD adjustment. If you are starting out with binoculars and wanted something smaller, either one will give you much entertainment and day to day use.



Now the differences:
Optically, these use rather different means to achieve their 50-ish degree AFOV. The Papilio view is slight narrower and lower in magnification, and achieved it with porro prisms in a reverse porro configuration, and moving objectives which commanded a larger outer shell. Still the overall size is impressively small, with a volume probably 50% larger than the Curio, and weight 15% heavier. Waterproofing is better in the Curio given the lack of externally moving optics.

What surprised me was the lateral chromatic aberration - the Papilio definitely better here, with mild lateral CA to the edge, while Curio had moderate lateral in the same location.

Distortion was similar, both having mild pincushion. Field curvature was present in the Papilio but not in the Curio.

Close focus is the title feature of the Papilio, and at the closest point it magnifies an appreciable amount even for young eyes, compared to moving closer with the eyeball. Exit pupil shrinks a bit at closest point, perhaps to 8x magnification.



In summary:
FOV - slightly better Curio
AFOV - slightly better Curio
Brightness - noticeably better Curio
Magnification at infinity - slightly better Curio
Close focus - 0.5m vs 2m
Colour balance - neutral Curio, pinkish Papilio
Weight - slightly better Curio
Volume - noticeably better Curio
Lateral CA - noticeably better Papilio
Axial CA - slightly better Papilio
Contrast - slightly better Curio
Eye relief - slightly better Curio
Dioptre - noticeably better Curio
Focus knob - slightly better Curio
IPD adjust - slightly better Papilio

 

[rdnzl]

There is a slight price difference between those two.

 

[Mono]

I also own both but wouldn't dream of comparing them. They are chalk and cheese. The Papillo are small as binoculars go but I wouldn't describe them as pocket binoculars, unless you have very big pockets and you don't mind them being filled. The Curios are genuine pocket binoculars, you can even just stick them in a normal trouser pocket.

Optically the Papillos are great for their price but the pop you get in the view from the Curios is superb. The Papillos have the amazing close focus but I feel they are a one trick pony.

The build quality of the Papillos, well my pair at least, has been shocking. One of the eyecups broke; when you focus from close up to infinity the collimation goes out, you have to focus back and forth until you reach an acceptable view; then the focus knob snapped off. All attempts to have them fixed under warranty have met with endless email tennis between the manufacturer and the supplier. In the end I just fixed the eye cup and focus knob myself. I haven't had the Curios long enough to judge their long-term solidity but in the hand they feel a world apart from the Papillos.

The Papillos are good optically for the money and the close focus is remarkable but they need treated like cotton wool. The Curios are the most expensive pocket binoculars you can buy and have a build quality and optical quality that matches the price tag.

Chalk and cheese.

 

[rdnzl]

White chalk, or pastel?

 

[[email protected]]

This thread was interesting, but I knew what the outcome would be. It is like comparing apples and oranges. The Curio is 8x as expensive, so there is no way the Papillo can compete with it outside of it's unusually close focus ability. It is logical that the Curio would come out on top in 75% of the categories. It is interesting though that the Papillo controlled CA better than the Curio. I think it could be it's reverse porro design that enabled it to control CA better than the roof prism in the Curio. Usually a porro will control CA better than a roof, and it doesn't need ED glass to do it.

 

[Pinewood]

White chalk, or pastel?

Blue cheese or blue chalk?
Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[cytherian]

While the Curio is 8x the cost of the Papilio, what would be something hitting in at 3x or 4x the cost of the Papilio while enjoying performance about midway between the two?

 

[PW42]

While the Curio is 8x the cost of the Papilio, what would be something hitting in at 3x or 4x the cost of the Papilio while enjoying performance about midway between the two?

Leica Trinovid 8x20 perhaps

 

[[email protected]]

While the Curio is 8x the cost of the Papilio, what would be something hitting in at 3x or 4x the cost of the Papilio while enjoying performance about midway between the two?

Leica Trinovid BCA 8x20. Exactly my thoughts.

 

[lilcrazy2]

While the Curio is 8x the cost of the Papilio, what would be something hitting in at 3x or 4x the cost of the Papilio while enjoying performance about midway between the two?

Two small double hinge binos like the Curio that I could recommend in the $300-$350 range would be the Zeiss Terra ED 8x25 or the Leica Trinovid BCA 8x20.
Some members have been talking up the Maven C2 7x28 single hinge for less than $200, but I have never tried them.
And for less than $100 the Nikon Trailblazer 8x25 is decent for less than $100 with a large FOV.
But I will never get rid of my 6.5x21 Papilios for their capabilities. Sure they don't measure up to the Curios or Victory Pocket 8x25's, but they are still a very capable performer out to 100 yds or so.

 

[kimmik]

It is normal for porro to outperform roof in some areas. Don’t get too hung up on price guys.

 

[lilcrazy2]

It is normal for porro to outperform roof in some areas. Don’t get too hung up on price guys.

In your comparison you left out "cool color factor". Although I am a big Clemson fan (orange), blue is my favorite color.

 

[kimmik]

In your comparison you left out "cool color factor". Although I am a big Clemson fan (orange), blue is my favorite color.

I like it! Though Blue and Orange are chalk and cheese, they are both nice colours if you ask me!

 

[Trinovid]

While the Curio is 8x the cost of the Papilio, what would be something hitting in at 3x or 4x the cost of the Papilio while enjoying performance about midway between the two?

Leica Trinovid 8x20 or better yet, a used Ultravid. I have all of the above Leicas and the Curio 7x21 as well.

 

[Trinovid]

It is normal for porro to outperform roof in some areas. Don’t get too hung up on price guys.

The talk of prices came in with the request for a more affordable Curio (roof) alternative.

I really like the Papillio II, but would not be able to carry it in the same pockets that will easily take a small roof prism.

Really nice write-up by the way.

 

[pat mitchel]

That is one thing I never liked about the Papilio. Beyond 100 yards, the resolution seems like it really falls. It is more of a short rage specialized binocular for looking at things close up.
Sample variation possibly? Pat

 

[Trinovid]

IPD adjust - slightly better Papilio

Just curious about this detail as the Curio seems fairly effortless in this regard.

 

[kimmik]

Just curious about this detail as the Curio seems fairly effortless in this regard.

Curio ipd adjust is great for a two hinge especially with the 3mm pupil when other 20mm models are generally smaller. But me being pedantic prefers the synchronised ipd adjustment of the Papilio and single hinges in general at the cost of less compactness.

 

[Trinovid]

Curio ipd adjust is great for a two hinge especially with the 3mm pupil when other 20mm models are generally smaller. But me being pedantic prefers the synchronised ipd adjustment of the Papilio and single hinges in general at the cost of less compactness.

I’m going to have to get a couple single hinge binoculars so i can experience it for myself, and i already know what they are; Zeiss Victory 8x25 and a replacement for the Papilio II which i only has for a very short time.

 

[lilcrazy2]

But me being pedantic prefers the synchronised ipd adjustment of the Papilio and single hinges in general at the cost of less compactness.

While I own a few small double hinge compacts, I have always felt they were a solution to a problem I don't have. I guess like others, I will always prefer a single hinge bino. If I need small, I'll probably take one of my FMC 7x26 Bushnell Customs.