Curio Whoopsie! (1 Viewer)

[PatR]

I think you will be a bit disappointed after the Curios.
Optically I rate the curios higher.....better fov, brighter, just a better view!
The Ultras, which I have, are superb, and only lag behind on a direct swapping viewing session.
However, those Ultravids are just superbly put together, and have a feel to them that Swaro and Zeiss just don't seem to be able to match.

It will be interesting to compare them. I am very impressed with the Curio's and take them everywhere. As for tactile feel and ergonomics they suit me perfectly and the UV's will have to be exceptional.

As for the differences twixt marques, I know where you are coming from but I have always thought Leica's to be a little old fashioned and tired. But then I remind myself that I used to own a Lada Niva so my judgement is open to question!

(Great little car mind, never ever let me down and as rough as a badgers posterior..... but went everywhere and left LR Defenders struggling...when they were not in the workshop that is).

 

[Trinovid]

My preference still goes with the little Ultravid, even though the Curio is slightly brighter, has easier eye alignment and perfected twist-up eyecups.
Better feel, color, build and focusing goes to the Ultravid.

 

[ReinierB]

A big plus for me is that the Leica's have 8 power instead of 7 power...
That is not often mentioned on thid forum .

 

[Samuele]

Almost all pocket binoculars are 8x or 10x, so this is nothing new.

 

[ReinierB]

Yes, but they are bigger/heavier.

 

[John M Robinson]

A big plus for me is that the Leica's have 8 power instead of 7 power...
That is not often mentioned on thid forum .

Too me, the beauty of the 7x21 Curios is that they seem to find that perfect balance of power, size and particularity, exit pupil. They are by far, the least finicky of the “pocket” binoculars. I have always found the usual 8x20, 10x25 pocket binoculars to be very awkward and uncomfortable. The actual optics were a wonder, but in use they weren’t fun at all. The Curios are much easier to use, they are pure joy to use.

 

[Mac308]

I'm not saying that Zeiss and Leica are not more reliable. I'm just saying that I do not know and that so far, everything I read here so far points more to people "having a feeling" than real knowledge based on facts, figures, etc.

You know as well as I that there are no "facts" - the mfg's are not releasing repair/failure information, so all we have is anecdotal information. If you want to call that a "feeling" you're free to do so. However, in the case of the Curio's, they've been out a couple years and have well documented physical failings. The 8x20 UV's have been out something like 15 years? You just don't see these sorts of problems. Leica has a reputation for building robust binoculars for a reason, even if it's "anecdotal." And, just because data is "anecdotal" doesn't mean it isn't true. Swarovski, at least here where I live, does not have that same reputation, even though, IMO, they are fine binoculars. Deciding on a binocular from the Big 3 comes down to a lot of little details, many of which have nothing to do with the actual view. Robustness is one of those.

 

[John M Robinson]

You know as well as I that there are no "facts" - the mfg's are not releasing repair/failure information, so all we have is anecdotal information. If you want to call that a "feeling" you're free to do so. However, in the case of the Curio's, they've been out a couple years and have well documented physical failings. The 8x20 UV's have been out something like 15 years? You just don't see these sorts of problems. Leica has a reputation for building robust binoculars for a reason, even if it's "anecdotal." And, just because data is "anecdotal" doesn't mean it isn't true. Swarovski, at least here where I live, does not have that same reputation, even though, IMO, they are fine binoculars. Deciding on a binocular from the Big 3 comes down to a lot of little details, many of which have nothing to do with the actual view. Robustness is one of those.

I think it’s safe to say, even though I haven’t witnessed it personally with my year and a half old Curios, that there is a manufacturing or design defect regarding the focus knob. That and all the stories about failures with the new armor formula, are really the only two issues I’ve heard of, but those are both pretty big issues.

Going back to the old ELs or SLCs, I would put Swaraovski’s build quality right up there with Leica. Regarding the newer Swarovski, I think the Curio knob issue is a design defect and Swarovski will come up with a lasting solution. The biodegradable armor, on the other hand, seems like a self inflicted bad decision. An overreaction to a perceived environmental problem, but who knows?

 

[Mac308]

I think it’s safe to say, even though I haven’t witnessed it personally with my year and a half old Curios, that there is a manufacturing or design defect regarding the focus knob. That and all the stories about failures with the new armor formula, are really the only two issues I’ve heard of, but those are both pretty big issues.

Going back to the old ELs or SLCs, I would put Swaraovski’s build quality right up there with Leica. Regarding the newer Swarovski, I think the Curio knob issue is a design defect and Swarovski will come up with a lasting solution. The biodegradable armor, on the other hand, seems like a self inflicted bad decision. An overreaction to a perceived environmental problem, but who knows?

John, I'd put the SLC's on par with Leica build (other than their cold weather performance is mediocre compared to Leica), but not the EL's. For instance, both managers at our local optic's shops reported quite a few failures with the EL's twist-up oculars (ie customers bringing them back with breakage). I have no idea about the NL's, as I quit asking about it since Swaro's post SLC approach to glass doesn't work for me anyway.

I really wanted to get a Curio as I think 7x21 is the "right" compromise for a compact. Stunning glass, twist-up eyecups, what's not to like lol? The fact they let an amateur design them is liekly the real problem. Perhaps Europeans are more impressed with a "name" designer than Americans? Dunno. Rather than designing them for the Opera Crowd, they should have built them with backpackers and climbers in mind like you and I.

 

[pm42]

Perhaps Europeans are more impressed with a "name" designer than Americans?

Are you sure you want to go down this road?
This is even worse than being sure of something without any fact to back it up.

Or maybe you are trying to collect all the known cognitive biases:

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Richard D]

The fact they let an amateur design them is liekly the real problem. Perhaps Europeans are more impressed with a "name" designer than Americans? Dunno. Rather than designing them for the Opera Crowd, they should have built them with backpackers and climbers in mind like you and I.

You really think they let an amateur design the connection of the focus knob? I seriously doubt that the technical details had anything to do with Newson, just the overall look. As to your suggestion that Europeans are more impressed with a "name" designer than Americans - where on earth do you get that idea from?

 

[Mac308]

Are you sure you want to go down this road?
This is even worse than being sure of something without any fact to back it up.

Or maybe you are trying to collect all the known cognitive biases:

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's your response? Take a comment out of context and use it as a condescendingly as a weapon? Don't bother to deal with anything substantive?

You seem to be an angry guy, and I can't help you with that...

What I said in context:

Perhaps Europeans are more impressed with a "name" designer than Americans? Dunno.

 

[Mac308]

You really think they let an amateur design the connection of the focus knob? I seriously doubt that the technical details had anything to do with Newson, just the overall look. As to your suggestion that Europeans are more impressed with a "name" designer than Americans - where on earth do you get that idea from?

I said "Perhaps" and "Dunno" (ie, I don't know). I have seen other Euro brands enlisting name designers for things like hunting knives... that's just not something you typically would see here.

Apparently nuanced discussion is not your thing? Taking offense is certainly easier...

 

[Richard D]

I said "Perhaps" and "Dunno" (ie, I don't know). I have seen other Euro brands enlisting name designers for things like hunting knives... that's just not something you typically would see here.

Apparently nuanced discussion is not your thing? Taking offense is certainly easier...

I wasn't offended - just confused by the wild speculation that didn't appear to have any relation to the reality of product design.

 

[Mac308]

I wasn't offended - just confused by the wild speculation that didn't appear to have any relation to the reality of product design.

So the Curio wasn't designed by a noted designer? It wasn't marketed on that basis? Yes, wild speculation...

 

[Stuarts vision]

So the Curio wasn't designed by a noted designer? It wasn't marketed on that basis? Yes, wild speculation...

Personally I don't like the design.
I prefer the CL over the Curio.

 

[Richard D]

So the Curio wasn't designed by a noted designer? It wasn't marketed on that basis? Yes, wild speculation...

If you wish to believe that Newson was likely to be behind the focuser connection rather than just the overall physical look that's entirely up to you - yes I would call that wild (and extremely unlikely) speculation based on my experiences with product design, and your proposal that this was the likely cause of the problem is therefore also wild speculation.

 

[Mac308]

If you wish to believe that Newson was likely to be behind the focuser connection rather than just the overall physical look that's entirely up to you - yes I would call that wild (and extremely unlikely) speculation based on my experiences with product design, and your proposal that this was the likely cause of the problem is therefore also wild speculation.

I never said Newson designed the focuser, nor did I imply that (wild speculation on your part lol). But he did design the housing that surrounds it. Is it possible that his design forced an in-house Swarovski designer to make some compromises in order to accommodate his design? Or is Swarovski in-house design just that bad?

Lot's of questions, none of which reflect well on Swarovski...

 

[Mac308]

Personally I don't like the design.
I prefer the CL over the Curio.

100% agreement.

 

[Richard D]

I never said Newson designed the focuser, nor did I imply that (wild speculation on your part lol). But he did design the housing that surrounds it. Is it possible that his design forced an in-house Swarovski designer to make some compromises in order to accommodate his design? Or is Swarovski in-house design just that bad?

Lot's of questions, none of which reflect well on Swarovski...

"The fact they let an amateur design them is liekly the real problem."

Firstly Newson is not an amateur designer he's a professional designer.

There is nothing particularly unique about the way the focusing knob is recessed - why is it likely to be the real problem? The recessing wouldn't stop the manufacturer adding a spline or going for a square spindle inside the knob? I honestly can't see that the design of the body could force a compromise on the designers in any way - certainly I would not use the word likely.

Do you have any engineering or product design background, to make the assertion that Newson's overall design is likely to be the real problem?

We don't even know whether it's a design fault or simply materials failure - glue can occasionally fail under quite low torque. Other binoculars have the same issue, particularly smaller ones (there are similar reports about Zeiss Victories for example). It could even be a batch issue with the adhesive.