A strange comparison? Well, maybe. I hope it can be useful and fun (at least as half as much as I enjoyed making it).
I’m a big fan of lower power binoculars (7x, 6x) ever since I discovered the stable and comfortable view. Furthermore, the binoculars I tend to enjoy the more, are those with generous FOV, so the new Kowa was a much anticipated choice.
To complement other reviews by knowledgeable forum members that have given very interesting (and more technical insights) I have made a series of comparisons among some low power binoculars which I enjoy using very much, each for its own reason (mind you, I have no expertise in optics whatsoever other than being very fond of binoculars):
Vixen Atrek 6x30 (sibling of Kowa YF, Leupold Yosemite, etc.): 500 g, 8,0º FOV (140/1000 m), 45,5º AFOV, eye relief 18 mm
Nikon Action Extreme 7x35: 800 g, 9,3º FOV (163/1000 m), 65º AFOV, eye relief 17,3 mm
Zeiss Victory FL 7x42: 740 g, 8,5º FOV (150/1000 m), 60º AFOV, eye relief 16 mm.
Kowa BD XD II 6.5x32: 535 g, 10º FOV (175/1000 m), 66º AFOV, eye relief 17 mm.
As I said previously, this won’t be a technical comparison, but a casual talk about the things that I’ve discovered while comparing the above mention models. Since I know those models are quite popular, I hope to raise some interesting points.
Size, shape, ergonomics.
Very nice, the Kowa seems very well put together (just as their predecessor, which I have in 8x32), the feeling is of something more expensive than 300 €. Actually, maybe because of this subjective “feeling of quality” they felt heavier in the hand than what the specs say.
Two minor comments: I find the rubber to be too grainy. Since the rubber is harder than in other models, it could even feel a bit like sandpaper (well, not that abrasive, but not the most comfortable to touch, IMHO). The strap loops: because the Kowa are very short and stubby, if I hold the tubes with my middle-size hands so that my index finger rests on the focus wheel, the strap loop sinks in the soft flesh of the area where you tweeze/pinch/flex your palm. A little annoying. I have to slip the hand half and inch, but then my pinky has nowhere to rest.
Eyecups and eye comfort.
Impressive. Although I love wide field binoculars I’m usually unable to see the entire FOV of really wide field binoculars (like the 8x30 EII 8,8º or the 9,3º of the 7x35 Nikon AE), as I mentioned on this thread. I don’t use glasses, so I assume it has to do with the features of my face. Well, I can see the entire FOV of the Kowa, which is a really satisfying experience. Happy as a hippo! Furthermore, usually I struggle with narrow-ish eyecups (Meopta Meostar 8x32, Swarovski CL 8x30 -new-, Swarovski Habicht 8x30), but the eyecups in these are wide (and… quite chunky actually, see pictures). Not only is the inner space quite wide, but the entire rubber ring touching your face is wider than other binoculars. So, I didn’t particularly like the point where my hands touch the Kowas, but I love where my eyebrows and eye socket touch them.
Optical performance (to be taken with a grain of salt, just a subjective comparison here).
My first impression, on a bright day was a bit of a letdown. I was a bit underwhelmed by the lack of “punch” of the image. Given the lower power, I had expected a more vibrant and sharper image. I took the Vixen 6x30 and there it was: the image of the bark on a tree appeared way sharper on the Vixen; I could feel the texture of the wrinkles and creases in a more tactile way. And then there was the three-dimensionality. The Vixen first and then the Nikon offered an image where the objects simply popped into your eyes, like in those early XX century steroscopic images where two different images are viewed simultaneously with a weird artifact. The Kowa seemed flat in comparison, which is probably to be expected since it’s a roof. This was especially evident from 5 to, say, 20-25 m, where there was no discussion: the view through the porros was more “pleasurable”. The FL remained somewhere in the middle; probably its brightness and sharpness made up for the loss of three-dimensionality, given this sense of “enhanced reality” that very good binoculars give (I always describe very good binoculars like having a superpower in your eyesight; where you see life “more real than reality itself”.
After this initial disappointment, I have started using the Kowas on their own and the more I use them, the more I seem to like them, and the sharper I find the image. That is to say, if I hadn’t compared them with the small Vixen, I wouldn’t have been that disappointed. But this comes to show how impressive the Atrek/YF/Yosemite are. However, sharp as they are, the small AFOV (45º) on the Atrek really lets them down, since the experience is somewhat spoiled.
On the subject of AFOV and magnification. I think I read somewhere that the magnification on the Kowa is closer to 6x than 6.5x. Well, my experience comparing directly the 6x Atrek and the 6.5 Kowa is that the different is really remarkable. I’d say it is closer to 7 than to 6, to say the least (I’m talking about the subjective impression of magnification to my eyes and brain, obviously). The image on the Atrek appears tiny in comparison. This is all the more obvious when taking into account the AFOV: the image on the Atrek is small… encircled in a small circular FOV; while the image on the Kowa appears bigger and jumps into your eyes, because the image fills your entire FOV.
If I go straight from Atrek (6x) to BDXDII (6.5) to AE (7x), I see the two latter closer between them than the two former. Actually, I’ve experienced (and later on read here on BF) that porros might seem to display a smaller image than a roof of the same magnification, although this is just a psychological effect. So, going from 6.5 roof (XDBDII) to 7x porro (AE), there is a slight difference, but actually very small (the same goes for the FL). Going from the AE to the FL, the latter appears to display a slightly larger image. But then, If I take a 8x, and watch again through the 6.5x Kowa, the difference is really obvious, and appears bigger than the difference I sometimes see between a 8x and a 10x. I wonder if the relationship between two different magnifications (e. g. 6x and 8x or 8x and 10x) is linear or follows another rhythm.
On a separate comment (#2), I’ve attached a picture of a pole and a wire to show magnification (I know it is really difficult to convey anything from pictures through binoculars). No cropping or editing, both magnification, speed, aperture, ISO and white balance are locked. But this is about magnification, so don’t pay attention to the details, only to the size.
Oddly enough, the image on the Kowa seems to show the smallest magnification (maybe due to the huge FOV), but the impression on the filed was that the magnification was way bigger than the 6x Vixen.
While we are talking about wires. That very same wire on the picture made me discover one aspect of the BDXDII that some may find objetable: CA. I don’t care much about CA. Some very nice binoculars I use show CA and I use them with joy. Simply put, these show a reasonable and evident CA when using them in high-contrast situations (like a black wire on a clear sky). Surprisingly, the Atrek showed less than the AE, that showed less than the XDBDII. As was to be expected, the FL stood in this department.
More difficult situations. I tested the binoculars when the sun was setting on a pretty bright day, this gave them a real workout. Surprise-surprise. The Kowa showed a great behaviour, while the Atrek really struggled and showed some glare, as did the AE. Surprisingly, the FL was the weakest (on this particular day with this particular sunset). I’d say the AE was closer to the Atrek. I was really impressed by the little 6.5x32. Wow.
I repeated the experiment another day, but on this occasion it was a pretty gloomy day. Pointing the binoculars towards the West did not produce such a pronounced difference between the four binoculars.
One evening, I tested the binoculars for dusk performance (I’ll omit the FL in this case, for obvious reasons). I chose a heap of branches on my backyard and I waited for darkness to come. By sunset, there was hardly any difference between Atrek, Kowa and AE. 25 minutes after sunset, still clear-ish, enough light to see "well", the Atrek hold its own against the other two binoculars with bigger lenses. It was about 35-40 minutes after the sunset when you could spot a difference; the Atrek started to lag behind. Again, some more time had to pass to see some difference between the 6.5x32 and the 7x35. This was really remarkable: a lighter roof with smaller objectives really its ground against the bigger and heavier porro. I really expected to see more of a difference,
Night finally came, and the difference between the four binoculars was made more obvious. Trying to watch Orion’s sword with the Atrek and the Kowa, the latter showed a clear difference, but then the Nikon performed better than the Kowa. On the one hand the Kowa has a wider FOV and I’d say a wider sweet spot than the Nikon, which is great for stargazing… but on the other hand, the Nikon feel brighter and I found them easier to hold steady. So the softer edges of the Nikon are a tradeoff I would take if I was to choose a binocular solely for stargazing.
One minor detail for night use. While the glare resistance of the Kowa was really remarkable on a bright day, for night use, the light coming from street lights really made the Kowa struggle. The FL was great, no reflections, the AE and Atrek had some minor strange reflections, but the Kowa picked light from lamps out of the FOV and created inner reflections that were quite distracting. I have attached two pictures (post #3); again, don’t pay attention to the quality, but to the reflections. Actually, if you compare the two images of the pole in the darkness, you can see a pretty visible difference in magnification between the 6x30 and the 6.5x32.
Conclusion.
These are some initial findings. Obviously, one needs not only to get acquainted… but to really become intimate with binoculars to really appreciate their virtues and defects. Furthermore, sometimes it is precisely when you don’t have a binocular anymore that you start to appreciate its personality. In short: a little underwhelmed at first. Then, the more I use them, the more satisfied I am.
Overall I think I expected a bit more, especially in terms of sharpness, which is something I usually admire (and look for) in 6x-7x binoculars. But then I’ve realised that most 7x I’ve used have been porro, and part of the magic may lie there. However (I know it is useless to compare by memory), in my memory the 7x33 Celestron Granite ED roof had -on axis- that special “pop” I link to 7x, but then the edges were really poor, so poor that they became a hindrance for the enjoyment of the view. Well, it seems you can’t have it all! Here you have a nice shape and build quality (really handy and nimble), a binocular that is reasonably light and with a huge (and usable!) FOV. Nice.
I’m a big fan of lower power binoculars (7x, 6x) ever since I discovered the stable and comfortable view. Furthermore, the binoculars I tend to enjoy the more, are those with generous FOV, so the new Kowa was a much anticipated choice.
To complement other reviews by knowledgeable forum members that have given very interesting (and more technical insights) I have made a series of comparisons among some low power binoculars which I enjoy using very much, each for its own reason (mind you, I have no expertise in optics whatsoever other than being very fond of binoculars):
Vixen Atrek 6x30 (sibling of Kowa YF, Leupold Yosemite, etc.): 500 g, 8,0º FOV (140/1000 m), 45,5º AFOV, eye relief 18 mm
Nikon Action Extreme 7x35: 800 g, 9,3º FOV (163/1000 m), 65º AFOV, eye relief 17,3 mm
Zeiss Victory FL 7x42: 740 g, 8,5º FOV (150/1000 m), 60º AFOV, eye relief 16 mm.
Kowa BD XD II 6.5x32: 535 g, 10º FOV (175/1000 m), 66º AFOV, eye relief 17 mm.
As I said previously, this won’t be a technical comparison, but a casual talk about the things that I’ve discovered while comparing the above mention models. Since I know those models are quite popular, I hope to raise some interesting points.
Size, shape, ergonomics.
Very nice, the Kowa seems very well put together (just as their predecessor, which I have in 8x32), the feeling is of something more expensive than 300 €. Actually, maybe because of this subjective “feeling of quality” they felt heavier in the hand than what the specs say.
Two minor comments: I find the rubber to be too grainy. Since the rubber is harder than in other models, it could even feel a bit like sandpaper (well, not that abrasive, but not the most comfortable to touch, IMHO). The strap loops: because the Kowa are very short and stubby, if I hold the tubes with my middle-size hands so that my index finger rests on the focus wheel, the strap loop sinks in the soft flesh of the area where you tweeze/pinch/flex your palm. A little annoying. I have to slip the hand half and inch, but then my pinky has nowhere to rest.
Eyecups and eye comfort.
Impressive. Although I love wide field binoculars I’m usually unable to see the entire FOV of really wide field binoculars (like the 8x30 EII 8,8º or the 9,3º of the 7x35 Nikon AE), as I mentioned on this thread. I don’t use glasses, so I assume it has to do with the features of my face. Well, I can see the entire FOV of the Kowa, which is a really satisfying experience. Happy as a hippo! Furthermore, usually I struggle with narrow-ish eyecups (Meopta Meostar 8x32, Swarovski CL 8x30 -new-, Swarovski Habicht 8x30), but the eyecups in these are wide (and… quite chunky actually, see pictures). Not only is the inner space quite wide, but the entire rubber ring touching your face is wider than other binoculars. So, I didn’t particularly like the point where my hands touch the Kowas, but I love where my eyebrows and eye socket touch them.
Optical performance (to be taken with a grain of salt, just a subjective comparison here).
My first impression, on a bright day was a bit of a letdown. I was a bit underwhelmed by the lack of “punch” of the image. Given the lower power, I had expected a more vibrant and sharper image. I took the Vixen 6x30 and there it was: the image of the bark on a tree appeared way sharper on the Vixen; I could feel the texture of the wrinkles and creases in a more tactile way. And then there was the three-dimensionality. The Vixen first and then the Nikon offered an image where the objects simply popped into your eyes, like in those early XX century steroscopic images where two different images are viewed simultaneously with a weird artifact. The Kowa seemed flat in comparison, which is probably to be expected since it’s a roof. This was especially evident from 5 to, say, 20-25 m, where there was no discussion: the view through the porros was more “pleasurable”. The FL remained somewhere in the middle; probably its brightness and sharpness made up for the loss of three-dimensionality, given this sense of “enhanced reality” that very good binoculars give (I always describe very good binoculars like having a superpower in your eyesight; where you see life “more real than reality itself”.
After this initial disappointment, I have started using the Kowas on their own and the more I use them, the more I seem to like them, and the sharper I find the image. That is to say, if I hadn’t compared them with the small Vixen, I wouldn’t have been that disappointed. But this comes to show how impressive the Atrek/YF/Yosemite are. However, sharp as they are, the small AFOV (45º) on the Atrek really lets them down, since the experience is somewhat spoiled.
On the subject of AFOV and magnification. I think I read somewhere that the magnification on the Kowa is closer to 6x than 6.5x. Well, my experience comparing directly the 6x Atrek and the 6.5 Kowa is that the different is really remarkable. I’d say it is closer to 7 than to 6, to say the least (I’m talking about the subjective impression of magnification to my eyes and brain, obviously). The image on the Atrek appears tiny in comparison. This is all the more obvious when taking into account the AFOV: the image on the Atrek is small… encircled in a small circular FOV; while the image on the Kowa appears bigger and jumps into your eyes, because the image fills your entire FOV.
If I go straight from Atrek (6x) to BDXDII (6.5) to AE (7x), I see the two latter closer between them than the two former. Actually, I’ve experienced (and later on read here on BF) that porros might seem to display a smaller image than a roof of the same magnification, although this is just a psychological effect. So, going from 6.5 roof (XDBDII) to 7x porro (AE), there is a slight difference, but actually very small (the same goes for the FL). Going from the AE to the FL, the latter appears to display a slightly larger image. But then, If I take a 8x, and watch again through the 6.5x Kowa, the difference is really obvious, and appears bigger than the difference I sometimes see between a 8x and a 10x. I wonder if the relationship between two different magnifications (e. g. 6x and 8x or 8x and 10x) is linear or follows another rhythm.
On a separate comment (#2), I’ve attached a picture of a pole and a wire to show magnification (I know it is really difficult to convey anything from pictures through binoculars). No cropping or editing, both magnification, speed, aperture, ISO and white balance are locked. But this is about magnification, so don’t pay attention to the details, only to the size.
Oddly enough, the image on the Kowa seems to show the smallest magnification (maybe due to the huge FOV), but the impression on the filed was that the magnification was way bigger than the 6x Vixen.
While we are talking about wires. That very same wire on the picture made me discover one aspect of the BDXDII that some may find objetable: CA. I don’t care much about CA. Some very nice binoculars I use show CA and I use them with joy. Simply put, these show a reasonable and evident CA when using them in high-contrast situations (like a black wire on a clear sky). Surprisingly, the Atrek showed less than the AE, that showed less than the XDBDII. As was to be expected, the FL stood in this department.
More difficult situations. I tested the binoculars when the sun was setting on a pretty bright day, this gave them a real workout. Surprise-surprise. The Kowa showed a great behaviour, while the Atrek really struggled and showed some glare, as did the AE. Surprisingly, the FL was the weakest (on this particular day with this particular sunset). I’d say the AE was closer to the Atrek. I was really impressed by the little 6.5x32. Wow.
I repeated the experiment another day, but on this occasion it was a pretty gloomy day. Pointing the binoculars towards the West did not produce such a pronounced difference between the four binoculars.
One evening, I tested the binoculars for dusk performance (I’ll omit the FL in this case, for obvious reasons). I chose a heap of branches on my backyard and I waited for darkness to come. By sunset, there was hardly any difference between Atrek, Kowa and AE. 25 minutes after sunset, still clear-ish, enough light to see "well", the Atrek hold its own against the other two binoculars with bigger lenses. It was about 35-40 minutes after the sunset when you could spot a difference; the Atrek started to lag behind. Again, some more time had to pass to see some difference between the 6.5x32 and the 7x35. This was really remarkable: a lighter roof with smaller objectives really its ground against the bigger and heavier porro. I really expected to see more of a difference,
Night finally came, and the difference between the four binoculars was made more obvious. Trying to watch Orion’s sword with the Atrek and the Kowa, the latter showed a clear difference, but then the Nikon performed better than the Kowa. On the one hand the Kowa has a wider FOV and I’d say a wider sweet spot than the Nikon, which is great for stargazing… but on the other hand, the Nikon feel brighter and I found them easier to hold steady. So the softer edges of the Nikon are a tradeoff I would take if I was to choose a binocular solely for stargazing.
One minor detail for night use. While the glare resistance of the Kowa was really remarkable on a bright day, for night use, the light coming from street lights really made the Kowa struggle. The FL was great, no reflections, the AE and Atrek had some minor strange reflections, but the Kowa picked light from lamps out of the FOV and created inner reflections that were quite distracting. I have attached two pictures (post #3); again, don’t pay attention to the quality, but to the reflections. Actually, if you compare the two images of the pole in the darkness, you can see a pretty visible difference in magnification between the 6x30 and the 6.5x32.
Conclusion.
These are some initial findings. Obviously, one needs not only to get acquainted… but to really become intimate with binoculars to really appreciate their virtues and defects. Furthermore, sometimes it is precisely when you don’t have a binocular anymore that you start to appreciate its personality. In short: a little underwhelmed at first. Then, the more I use them, the more satisfied I am.
Overall I think I expected a bit more, especially in terms of sharpness, which is something I usually admire (and look for) in 6x-7x binoculars. But then I’ve realised that most 7x I’ve used have been porro, and part of the magic may lie there. However (I know it is useless to compare by memory), in my memory the 7x33 Celestron Granite ED roof had -on axis- that special “pop” I link to 7x, but then the edges were really poor, so poor that they became a hindrance for the enjoyment of the view. Well, it seems you can’t have it all! Here you have a nice shape and build quality (really handy and nimble), a binocular that is reasonably light and with a huge (and usable!) FOV. Nice.
Attachments
Last edited: