Nope. AFOV is stated as 52° for 8x25, 51° for 7x21, just as they all seem to be except the Victory. And once again, tiny eyecups aren't going to work well for those who don't wear glasses. But there does still seem to be a market for a true pocket instrument, and having switched from 8x20 to 25, it makes a lot of sense to fill back in with 7x21 instead of 8x20 again.Interesting to me —- especially if the FOV is noticeably (i.e. in the field) better than the CL 8X25 which is a bit ‘tunnel like’
Hi Tim,Wonder why they opted for a 21mm objective instead of 25.....It would have been far brighter..
Cheers
Tim
Yes and maybe they could have tweaked out a larger ocular lens for easier eye placement too.Wonder why they opted for a 21mm objective instead of 25.....It would have been far brighter..
Cheers
Tim
Yeah, why didn't they just go with 42mm objectives? Much brighter!Wonder why they opted for a 21mm objective instead of 25.....It would have been far brighter..
Cheers
Tim
Nah.... They should have gone with a 70mm objective ...Yeah, why didn't they just go with 42mm objectives? Much brighter!
Is that real?Hi Steven and ticl,
Funny that you should say that . .
See an Optisan Britec 7x21 that grows up to be a 10x32 - though of course much bigger would be much better!
View attachment 1404437
Thanks to Norm for the idea in post #6 at: Optics for a sea kayaker?
John
I do like the design of the burnt orange Jan...Hi Tim,
That's the choice.
Lightweight 21mm or weight like the CL25s. If the latter became the choice Swarovski just had to bring a 7x to that line.
Being a 7x man myself, Christmas came early this year,
Jan
Actually.Yeah, why didn't they just go with 42mm objectives? Much brighter!
ThanksNope. AFOV is stated as 52° for 8x25, 51° for 7x21, just as they all seem to be except the Victory. And once again, tiny eyecups aren't going to work well for those who don't wear glasses. But there does still seem to be a market for a true pocket instrument, and having switched from 8x20 to 25, it makes a lot of sense to fill back in with 7x21 instead of 8x20 again.
With respect to the Swaroclean coating I have mentioned in another threat that Swarowski made the following statement to me personally when I asked them about the Swaroclean coating:A Fact Sheet (a pamphlet with specifications) for the CL Curio has become available at: My Service
It can be had in English, German, Italian, French and Spanish.
In terms of lens coatings, the Techinal Data indicates the presence of Swarotop (Swarovski's main multi-layer anti-reflection coating)
and Swarodur (the hard external lens coating), but not Swaroclean (the low friction external lens coating).
So the same as with the larger CL x25 Pocket models.
There is also an image of the carry case and strap for the Curio.
View attachment 1404727
John
I assume the uneven heights of the oculars / eyecups is not a design specification…A Fact Sheet (a pamphlet with specifications) for the CL Curio has become available at: My Service
It can be had in English, German, Italian, French and Spanish.
In terms of lens coatings, the Techinal Data indicates the presence of Swarotop (Swarovski's main multi-layer anti-reflection coating)
and Swarodur (the hard external lens coating), but not Swaroclean (the low friction external lens coating).
So the same as with the larger CL x25 Pocket models.
There is also an image of the carry case and strap for the Curio.
View attachment 1404727
John
Would the new "Swarovski 7x21 CL Curio" folded size the same (or bigger than?) as the "Leica 8x20 Ultravid BR" when folded?
Thank you so much for your measurement! The CL 7x21mm is even "thinner" than the Leica UV 8x20mm!Measuring my SW 8x20B and referring to John's technical sheet for the new SW 7x21 in post #54, the two are identical in all dimensions. Comparing the 8x20B with the UVBR, when fully folded they are exactly the same length with the UV being @ 1mm wider and 2mm taller or "thicker".
Mike