New Swarovski 7x Binocular (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

Well not what was I was expecting . . .
The latest binocular from Swarovski is the 7x21 CL Curio pocket model!
It’s offered in all black or burnt orange and silver, see at: CL Curio
And it will be available from October.

As can be seen from the specifications, it has 10 optical elements per side. So the same number as the original Pocket 8x20 that was made from 1989 to 2013
(and also the 10x25 version that was added in 1992).


John

 

[Mono]

Looks interesting. Have to see them in the hand to see if they as truly pocketable as my Trinovids. Like the idea of a bit of extra exit pupil.

 

[Aotus]

better field of view than the 8x25 CL pocket and the leica 8x20 ultravid with bigger exit pupil than the latter. a hair larger and heavier but measurements suggest as pocketable as the leica. leica pockets have a challenger!

 

[Ries]

Smart move, I think there's quite the market for pocket bins. Hikers that don't want to lug big gear but also don't want to miss a bird or a great view. Nice config and specs too. How is the price?

 

[John A Roberts]

As indicated in the specifications, there are 10 optical elements per side; so 2 prisms and 8 lenses.

An image of a unassembled CL Curio shows:
• An objective of two groups (a 2 lens achromat and 1 focusing lens; for 3 lenses in total?), and;
• An eyepiece of 4 groups (3 single lenses and 1 lens pair; for 5 lenses in total?).

In contrast, the original Pocket model had:
• An objective of the same pattern (2 and 1), and;
• An eyepiece with the same number of lenses but in 3 groups (2, 1, 2).


John

 

[Aotus]

I'm new to this, can you explain what the significance is to the number of optical elements? Added technological complexity and value, or 'mo parts mo problems'?

thanks.

 

[Maljunulo]

Manufacturers do not add optical elements in order to make things more complicated.

 

[Aotus]

Manufacturers do not add optical elements in order to make things more complicated.

Brilliant and helpful comment, thank you.

That was not my suggestion. I assume that additional complexity in new models reflect changes to how particular issues were addressed. The hope would be that this would be beneficial, but then again, there might be higher risk of damage with more small and/or moving parts, and more gas to glass glass surfaces that need to be treated. I don't know why I have to spell this out, my question would be answered if more knowledgable people would (please) sum up their take on the changes in these components, having listed them above.

 

[jan van daalen]

Smart move, I think there's quite the market for pocket bins. Hikers that don't want to lug big gear but also don't want to miss a bird or a great view. Nice config and specs too. How is the price?

Price will be 720,00 euro.

Jan

 

[Maljunulo]

I'm new to this, can you explain what the significance is to the number of optical elements? Added technological complexity and value, or 'mo parts mo problems'?

thanks.

Are these not your words?

 

[normjackson]

Fingers and legs crossed that fancy designer fella hasn't tried anything rad with the dioptre adjustment.

 

[Aotus]

Are these not your words?

yes - but it was your assumption that I was asking whether complexity itself was the point of the addition, and not the result of new and important innovations. You can assume I'm an idiot all you want, it doesn't hurt me at all, but it doesn't advance the conversation at hand either.

 

[Aotus]

Fingers and legs crossed that fancy designer fella hasn't tried anything rad with the dioptre adjustment.

I think that's the wheel toward the objective end, accessible from underneath only. Seems accessible while out of the way.

 

[dries1]

I'm new to this, can you explain what the significance is to the number of optical elements? Added technological complexity and value, or 'mo parts mo problems'?

thanks.

The field of view is 7.7 degrees/almost 8, most in that format are 6 to 6.5 degrees. If the field is corrected to the edge, then all the more complex eyepiece/objective lens required/ and keep it small in stature. The SF 8X32 has a more complex eyepiece than the 8X42, to stretch a FOV to almost 9 degrees, in a smaller format.

 

[BabyDov]

A deal breaker for me would be the the long, close focusing distance of 13ft. While that's not a problem for most birding, or taking in landscapes,it really limits it's versatility for other things, such as looking a bit closer at just out of reach flowers, butterflies, etc. In a 7x compact binocular, I would have expected much better in this regard.

 

[GrampaTom]

Short focus is 8.2’

https://www.swarovskioptik.com/us/en/outdoor/products/binoculars/cl/tech-spec/cl-curio-7x21

 

[Canip]

Why hasn‘t anybody mentioned glare yet?

 

[Ries]

Price will be 720,00 euro.

Jan

That's good!

 

[Rotherbirder]

I can't quite see the merits of this model yet; obviously Swarovski know their market. Drop the best selling, arguably giant-killing 8x32EL FP and introduce yet another pocket CL!?

RB

 

[quincy88]

Woah. Swarovski is going nuts. So many new models and configurations I can barely keep up. These 7s have me pretty excited.