Curio CL 7x21 and Papilio II 6.5x21 (1 Viewer)

[lilcrazy2]

No, I tried 3 different samples. Beyond 100 yards they seem to have poor resolution IMO. Here are a couple Amazon reviews that concur with me.


Ishop
3.0 out of 5 stars, Poor distance viewing
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on April 7, 2016
Style: Papilio II 6.5x21Verified Purchase
I must have read the description wrong; I thought it would work for long distance viewing as well; but I could not see detail of a bird flying or in a tree in my neighbor's yard.
I had to return the product because it wasn't quite what I wanted; poor distance viewing on the Pentax Papilio ll.


BBMoreB
VINE VOICE
3.0 out of 5 stars, Not As Expected
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on April 2, 2017
Style: Papilio II 8.5x21Vine Customer Review of Free Product( What's this? )
Hubby expected them to be easier to focus and said they are not good for his intended purpose - viewing targets at the gun range. When targets are set at 100 yards, it is difficult to distinguish if he hit the target.

Amazing that out of 1407 reviews with 83% 5 star - 10% 4 star and only 6% 3star and below (and mostly for sample variation quality) you find a couple to suit your opinions and purposes. So, 93 out of 100 find them great. And on the last review you posted, you neglected their last line:
"Hubby expected them to be easier to focus and said they are not good for his intended purpose - viewing targets at the gun range. When targets are set at a 100 yards it is difficult to distinguish if he hit the target.
They are compact and prefect for watching the wildlife in our yard."

Being a member of the shooting sports, I myself would find it difficult to see a quarter inch hole in a black target at 100 yds with any 8 power bino.

 

[dries1]

I thought these verses by Mono were funny and informative.

"All attempts to have them (Papillio) fixed under warranty have met with endless email tennis between the manufacturer and the supplier".

"The Papillos are good optically for the money and the close focus is remarkable but they need treated like cotton wool."

 

[has530]

I have never understood people evaluating optics by saying they are only good to a certain distance. If they can achieve focus at that distance they shouldn't be any better or worse (at further distances at least, close in wonky stuff can happen with parallax and optical aberrations from focusing lenses). Do they just mean that the magnification is insufficient for what they are trying to view at that distance? Is it there are optical aberrations they don't notice when the subject fills the whole FOV but are problematic when the target occupies much less space?

As a side note, I had my Papilios at the Monterey Bay Aquarium this past week and 2 things blew my mind:
The amazing views of jellyfish with the close focus.
The terrible quality of thick tank glass (acrylic?) coupled with water currents means in many cases the binoculars showed no more than the naked eye.

 

[kimmik]

I can also confirm that there is no image degradation what so ever viewing at infinity, compared to close up, with the papilio.

It is a common scenario, that format limitations are mistakenly attributed to a model, and model deficiencies mistakenly attributed to a format - many factors at play that are hard to discriminate.

Build quality is an ongoing question mark and everyone needs to make their own assessment.

 

[Trinovid]

I can also confirm that there is no image degradation what so ever viewing at infinity, compared to close up, with the papilio.

It is a common scenario, that format limitations are mistakenly attributed to a model, and model deficiencies mistakenly attributed to a format - many factors at play that are hard to discriminate.

I'm relieved to hear that, as I hadn't much experience with binoculars in general, and never did look through my Papilio other than indoors. I'll be getting another pair some time soon I imagine, and not for a gift this time.

Come to think of it, it's the search for a gift binocular that both led me here to the forum and eventually the Papilio too.

 

[Binocollector]

I have never understood people evaluating optics by saying they are only good to a certain distance. [...] Is it there are optical aberrations they don't notice when the subject fills the whole FOV but are problematic when the target occupies much less space?

There are a number of things that become more obvious at larger distances like the distortion profile (and I don't really like the distortion of the Papilio) -- the FoV, which might be fine close up but is too small for long range observation IMHO. Even CA can be more obvious on larger distances (not really a problem with the Papilio though).

 

[kimmik]

Come to think of it, it's the search for a gift binocular that both led me here to the forum and eventually the Papilio too.

The version one 8.5x21 was my second bino, after getting started with a porro Nikon aculon 10x42 in 2014. Don’t recall seeing birdforum back then. I think the decision was size and the close focus to complement the big nikon lol.