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.

 

[Andrecouty7]

Hi, My guess is that the papilio is better at close distance ( up to 15 meters??) the wider field of view and the viewing comfort is the reason for many to go with the curio..(?) the leica's has the best contrast (????) and build quality. (?) thanks for the tip. ( and correct me if I am wrong )

 

[Andrecouty7]

Sorry. I have the papilio 6.5x 21. My thinking is that the papilio is specially made for close distance . For longer distance I think it loose it charm.the only thing left is only the wider field of view . By views longer then 15 meters...it will " blow away " by the curio and the Zeiss-yes they may have some CA due to the better glasses.....Thanks for tip!!

 

[albie...]

Sorry. I have the papilio 6.5x 21. My thinking is that the papilio is specially made for close distance . For longer distance I think it loose it charm.the only thing left is only the wider field of view . By views longer then 15 meters...it will " blow away " by the curio and the Zeiss-yes they may have some CA due to the better glasses.....Thanks for tip!!

I used to have the Papilio 6.5x21 , I sold it and bought the Papilio 8.5x21 . If I were using the papilio for birding and or just general viewing I would have kept the 6.5x21 . I realized that the Papilio's strength is in it's closeup viewing capabilities so I use it mostly mounted on a small tripod . I don't believe I have seen a binocular that's as small as a Papilio with a tripod mount . I have another binocular that's more appropriate for birding and or general viewing . I think everyone that enjoys binoculars should buy a Papilio just for the wonderful closeup views it provides and it's relatively low price . Considering it's price it is a huge bargain . I also believe it was made for closeup viewing hence the butterfly name Papilio.

 

[mwhogue]

One thing to add, both the Papilio 6.5 and the Curio are excellent for use indoors in historic buildings and in museums where the Papillo has an advantage in terms of its better close focus when viewing small objects like jewelry displayed in cases.

Mike

 

[Andrecouty7]

I agree that the papilio is good for closer distance and perfect close up's the price also won't hurt much. I also agree that the 6.5 x was my preferred choice- I sold the 8.5x . So, the papilio 6.5x and 8.5x42 Swarovski could be a nice combination to have for more ways of use ...but 🧐

 

[Alexis Powell]

...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...

That sounds terrible and very bad luck. I've not had any such issues with the several 6.5x21 Papilio units that I and family own. I use my unit very heavily, and have been using it since the Papilio was first released. I have a Papilio II in storage as a back-up. It has noticeably better coatings, but since I use these bins almost exclusively for butterflying (i.e. under bright light, usually sunny conditions), the improvement isn't enough for me to bother with swapping them. I hope the Papilio II isn't somehow more fragile than the original. I think, based on lack of similar reports from others, you got a lemon and that the problems you've experienced are not typical. If you still have issues with collimation as you focus far to near, I'd continue to pursue a warranty claim. You shouldn't have to put up w/that sort of performance.

--AP