• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Swarovski 7x Binocular (1 Viewer)

Gijs van Ginkel said:
Alexis Powell, post 278,
I do not know how you use your binoculars, but I prefer them equipped with raincover and strap attached. When you use the raincover of the 25 mm Swarovski binocular: that fits perfectly on the Curio and it keeps the Curio in perfect position flat on the body, so no reason to accuse Swarovski of a complete failure.
Gijs van Ginkel
Click to expand...
Adding a rain cover makes using a bin inconvenient and too slow to deploy when birding, so I have rarely (if ever) found them useful, even in the days before bins were available with rain-shedding coatings. These days, with water-shedding coatings (except, I have heard, on the most recent Swarovski bins), covers are unneeded trouble. When I use a pocket bin, I am especially interested that it be as light and compact as possible, so rain covers are certainly not welcome. In my experience, for a bin of any size to carry well, it should hug the body. That is something that Nikon, B&L/Bushnell, Swift and other Japanese brands often got wrong in the past, but it is something that I have taken for granted as being done right by the premium Euro-brands. Sorry but I consider having poor "hang" an epic failure on Swarovski's part when it comes to this bin. If that is the case, I'm not accusing, but rather considering them tried and convicted. No need to make excuses for something that could have been done better.

--AP
 
Alexis Powell said:
Adding a rain cover makes using a bin inconvenient and too slow to deploy when birding, so I have rarely (if ever) found them useful, even in the days before bins were available with rain-shedding coatings. These days, with water-shedding coatings (except, I have heard, on the most recent Swarovski bins), covers are unneeded trouble. When I use a pocket bin, I am especially interested that it be as light and compact as possible, so rain covers are certainly not welcome. In my experience, for a bin of any size to carry well, it should hug the body. That is something that Nikon, B&L/Bushnell, Swift and other Japanese brands often got wrong in the past, but it is something that I have taken for granted as being done right by the premium Euro-brands. Sorry but I consider having poor "hang" an epic failure on Swarovski's part when it comes to this bin. If that is the case, I'm not accusing, but rather considering them tried and convicted. No need to make excuses for something that could have been done better.

--AP
Click to expand...
Did you find the way they hang that objectionable? Whilst they don't lie perfectly flat, I'm surprised anyone would describe the way they hang as particularly poor, particularly if you wear them high on your chest. Swarovski use similar water repelling to other manufacturers - I've not seen any sources suggesting they're any worse than any others, I don't know where you got this information.
 
One person's bad hang is another person's easy grip. For me, such small, not to say tiny, binos would be difficult to grab if they were flat against my chest. I like the slight angle they're at as this sort of presents them to my hands - easy grip of thumbs behind and fingers on the front, index fingers on the metal pipes between body and eyepiece. Horses for courses and binos for individual preferences.
 
Canip, post 280,
I agree that it is annoying that the Curio does not hang flat, I do not like that also, but there is a good solution and it does not cost a penny, since as far as I know the raincaps that Swarovski supplies for its 8x25 are supplied without any costs. Even the historical Habicht raincaps can do the job, but not everybody has a supply of raincaps as we do.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Alexis Powell said:
Adding a rain cover makes using a bin inconvenient and too slow to deploy when birding, so I have rarely (if ever) found them useful, even in the days before bins were available with rain-shedding coatings. These days, with water-shedding coatings (except, I have heard, on the most recent Swarovski bins), covers are unneeded trouble. When I use a pocket bin, I am especially interested that it be as light and compact as possible, so rain covers are certainly not welcome. In my experience, for a bin of any size to carry well, it should hug the body. That is something that Nikon, B&L/Bushnell, Swift and other Japanese brands often got wrong in the past, but it is something that I have taken for granted as being done right by the premium Euro-brands. Sorry but I consider having poor "hang" an epic failure on Swarovski's part when it comes to this bin. If that is the case, I'm not accusing, but rather considering them tried and convicted. No need to make excuses for something that could have been done better.

--AP
Click to expand...

AP,

I honestly envy people like you who are fastidious enough to use bins without a rain guard. But like the "Pig Pen" character from the old Peanuts comic strip, I can't do that because my lenses get too dirty too fast. But for those interested, and as several others here mention, I have tried several rain guards all of which help the Curio lie flatter on the chest. Especially I prefer a trimmed down Opticron compact rain guard - see the pic in my post #156 above showing the trimmed cover when it was attached to my SW 8x20. At my IP setting, it stays on the Curio reliably in use but is loose enough to pop back on with one hand and falls away immediately when the bins are raised to the eyes resulting in no delay.

Mike
 
Richard D said:
...Swarovski use similar water repelling to other manufacturers - I've not seen any sources suggesting they're any worse than any others, I don't know where you got this information...
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that, at the present time, Swarovski is not using those coatings because the manufacturing process that they used to make or apply Swaroclean involved the use of PFAS. They don't apply Swaroclean to the NL Pure line and it was my understanding that they had also ceased applying them to new production EL and other bins.

--AP
 
In relation to the discontinuation of Swaroclean across the Swarovski product line, see the following from way back at post #55 on this thread:

retired2021 said:
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:

quote - SWAROVSKI OPTIK gives top priority to sustainable products and the reduction of environmental impact during their manufacture. Therefore the SWAROCLEAN coating is no longer applied to all SWAROVSKI OPTIK products. With this step all coatings become PFC-free. This change does not affect the optical quality of the product or its service life.
The NL PURE series has been without SWAROCLEEAN since the beginning of production.
For the EL binoculars, the coating was changed over in the course of 2020. - unquote
Click to expand...


John
 
The complete communication that I had with Swarowski at the time about the discontinuation of Swaroclean is in the following comment, which I copied from a comment in another thread:

Fascinated by the condensation “issue” and possible explanations I approached Swarovski directly and asked the question about SwaroClean and possible changes in condensation properties..
The answer was:
-quote - Swarovski gives top priority to sustainable products and reduction of environmental impact during their manufacture. Therefore the SWAROCLEAN coating is no longer applied to all SWAROVSKI OPTIK products. With this step all coatings become PFC-free. This change does not affect the optical quality of the product or its service life. The NL PURE series has been without SWAROCLEEAN since the beginning of production. For the EL binoculars, the coating was changed over in the course of 2020. – unquote-.

Condensation is obviously not an "optical property", hence I zoomed into the condensation properties in a follow-up question and directly asked to comment on effects from the change on possible condensation .

The answer was
-quote- According to our research and development department, it is assured that there are no optical disadvantages in quality or life time of lenses through this devoid of PFC. There are no consequences of more condensation with proper use and stocking. -unquote-

Anyone can draw their own conclusions from the answers of Swarovski.
PFC are fluorocarbons. This type of chemistry is in industry known amongst others for potentially creating hydrophobic (water repellant) properties to surfaces. The interesting point of Swarovski’s answer: “There are no consequences of more condensation with proper use and stocking” to me is the last part: “with proper use and stocking”…..
Does “proper use” mean “use under conditions when there is no condensation”?

We “birders” are all nature lovers that should be concerned about environmental issues that threat our beautiful planet.
Personally I’m more than happy “to possibly pay a small price of some condensation in certain situations” to gain in the environmental area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
retired2021 said:
We “birders” are all nature lovers that should be concerned about environmental issues that threat our beautiful planet.
Personally I’m more than happy “to possibly pay a small price of some condensation in certain situations” to gain in the environmental area.
Click to expand...
Likewise, but my next thought is to wonder whether all hydo/oleophobic coating technologies depend on PFC or whether alternatives exist (perhaps already being used by other manufacturers) that do not. These coatings can be super useful in some birding situations.

--AP
 
Alexis Powell said:
Likewise, but my next thought is to wonder whether all hydo/oleophobic coating technologies depend on PFC or whether alternatives exist (perhaps already being used by other manufacturers) that do not. These coatings can be super useful in some birding situations.

--AP
Click to expand...
I suspect other manufacturers still use PFC. Outdoor clothing manufacturers have been struggling to find alternatives that give as good a performance for a few years, with wax based coatings the main eco-friendly route, but I don't think they'll bond with glass.
 
Richard D said:
I suspect other manufacturers still use PFC. Outdoor clothing manufacturers have been struggling to find alternatives that give as good a performance for a few years, with wax based coatings the main eco-friendly route, but I don't think they'll bond with glass.
Click to expand...
I have a (technical) background in the (retro) reflective sheeting industry from which traffic signs are being made. A main issue with traffic signs is that under many (humid) conditions dew is being formed on them, as a result of which the traffic signs are hardly (or even not) readable. The very small water droplets interfere with the light pattern (from the headlamp beam) and light is scattered “all over the place”. All main manufacturers are struggling to find the appropriate coatings to battle this problem. There are potentially two possible approaches. Theoretically a hydrophilic (water liking) coating could do the job. A hydrophilic coating would force the condensation droplets to spread and result in a thin but uniform, homogeneous “water layer”, no longer interfering with the light pattern. This approach has some disadvantages for traffic signs and as far as I know none of the larger manufacturers have been successful with this approach. I think it will not work for binoculars either for a few reasons. The second approach is indeed the hydrophobic, water repellant coating and as far as I know all successful anti-dew coatings in the traffic sign industry follow that approach. Water (vapour) molecules simply are not attracted as much to these coatings as they are to glass or to other coatings on the glass.
As far as I know all hydrophobic coatings in the industry are Fluor based coatings. It could be that price is not as much of an issue in the “alpha binocular industry” as it is in the traffic sign industry and more expensive coatings potentiaaly could be developed, but I’m not aware of non-fluo chemistry that could do the job. I'd be curious to learn if there are more options.....
 
Loddar said:
I have VP and Leica UV also and can only confirm this.
For me much more pleasant are the Swaro Curio and Swaro CL Pocket and also Kowa Genesis 22.
Loddar
Click to expand...
The Curio has eyecups that provide support, and the bag is just big enough for the binos with strap on. As I found out today when unboxing mine😃
Lovely optics, great handling, wonderful design.
Very bright and sharp image.
Tiny, until, that is, you look through them. They really work well.
 
Thotmosis said:
The Zeiss is a very interesting option but too big for my use of a pocket binocular im afraid. In hindsight a UV 8x20 would maybe have been even a better choice because my main criterium is that is has to be as small as possible. But the UV 10x25 in leatherette is a real joy to use and I got attached to it so I will keep it. But im still curio(us) for the new petite Swarovski for its FOV.
Click to expand...

Thotmosis,

I recently added a 10x25 UV BR to my pocket collection - love it. It is a bit smaller than the Zeiss VP 8x25 to the point that yes, the VP may be too large for your purposes or preferences. I do prefer the Curio 7x21 to the excellent 8x20 UV BR including handling, much bigger FOV, greater DOF, bigger EP and steadier image. There is no meaningful difference in size between those two. I recently spent half a day comparing the UV 10x25 with the Curio on the beach including in some very harsh lighting conditions. To my eyes both offered excellent all around performance. With the standard caveat that you should compare the Curio with the UV 8x20 if possible to see which ultra compact version of a pocket model you prefer, I think you will find the Curio 7x a better compliment to your UV 10x25. Another reason, whether in pockets, mid or full size, IMO having a 7 and a 10x in similar bins covers more ground than pairing an 8 with a 10x.

Mike
 
Hi all. I recently purchased the CL 8x25. Really enjoying the compact size as I can hang around the neck and not feel like it is an issue. Keeps my hands free when taking photos. I can stuff it into a large pocket but the pocket will protrude out a lot.

I am looking for an even smaller form factor like the Curio 7x21. Only a few ounces lighter and I know the specifications. I'm guessing you will not notice the few ounces of weight difference. In real day to day use, how much of a difference is there size-wise between the CL 8x25 and 7x21? Is it that much more compact? Does anyone have a side by side photo of the two bins?

What I really need to do is get my hands on a pair and see for myself. If they impress me, I am getting the 7x21 even though I just got the 8x25. Both will have a use. But the 7x21 must be very noticeably more compact or there's no point to have both.
 
Last edited:
NatureLvrCanada said:
Hi all. I recently purchased the CL 8x25. Really enjoying the compact size as I can hang around the neck and not feel like it is an issue. Keeps my hands free when taking photos. I can stuff it into a large pocket but the pocket will protrude out a lot.

I am looking for an even smaller form factor like the Curio 7x21. Only a few ounces lighter and I know the specifications. I'm guessing you will not notice the few ounces of weight difference. In real day to day use, how much of a difference is there size-wise between the CL 8x25 and 7x21? Is it that much more compact? Does anyone have a side by side photo of the two bins?

What I really need to do is get my hands on a pair and see for myself. If they impress me, I am getting the 7x21 even though I just got the 8x25. Both will have a use. But the 7x21 must be very noticeably more compact or there's no point to have both.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the quality/distortion in the pics below. For us pocket fans, yes the Curio is noticeably more compact than the 8x25 CL.

Mike
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0377.jpg
    IMG_0377.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 126
  • IMG_0378.jpg
    IMG_0378.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 123
  • IMG_0384.jpg
    IMG_0384.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 123
I took my new 7x21 Curio on a walk in the woods accompanied by a Zeiss 10x25B T*
The Curio is better (subjectively, of course 😄), and will be the preferred tool as the "always there" binos.
Surprisingly clearer and sharper image.
 
NaturelvrCanada, post 296,
In my investigation of different compact binoculars in comparison with the 7x21 Curio, you can find many pictures so you can compare the different sizes. The test can be found on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

R
8x20 in possession. Which one to add?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
Rg548
R
C
Swarovski Curio 7x21 shaky image
Replies
13
Views
1K
chill6x6
chill6x6
John A Roberts
Fungus as Art?
Replies
5
Views
509
Foss
Foss
Joe H
Random Ramblings on the CL 7x21 Curio
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
Sky2goflying
Sky2goflying
John A Roberts
Swarovski’s That Never Were!
Replies
9
Views
2K
ticl2184
ticl2184

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top