New released Swaro CL Companion 8x30 B (3 Viewers)

Denco,

I have gaffer tape - buy at any photo/video rental place.
I apply this liberally to any stuff I need to carry, including my Ultravid, and it gives me a non-slip grip.
It's fabric and you tear it with the fingers.
Also the place where the textured tape is acts as a touch memory marker when I pick things up.

Edmund

[email protected] said:

Jerry

John, did an excellent summary of the changes on the Field Pro Swarovision. Very interesting. Some things I didn't know. Post#12.

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=377476

I asked Swarovski if they upgraded the armour on the new Field Pro Swarovision and this was their response.

"Good Morning,

The armor on the new Field Pro ELs is an improved texture for comfortable handling compared to the original EL Binocular.
It's definitely very comfortable in the hand!

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance, or if you have any further questions about our products.

Best Regards,

David Eickelmann
Customer Relations Representative

SWAROVSKI OPTIK NA
2 Slater Road
Cranston, RI 02920
T 800-426-3089 ext. 2955
F 877-287-8517
[email protected]
SWAROVSKIOPTIK.COM"

IMO the feel and grippiness of the armour is very important in a binocular but things like that are personal preference and alot of people don't care. I am the kind of person that has to have all the latest "Bells and Whistles". Also, you have to understand Swarovski's product philosophy. Their motto is to "Improve Things that are Already Good." So they are constantly trying to improve their binoculars even if it is a small change. If the armour on the older Swarovision is good enough and you don't care about the newer objective covers and rainguards or the texture of the focus wheel or the newer diopter lock or strap attachments then you can save a lot of money buying the older Swarovision or Generation II. They are the same optically. For me I have to have the Field Pro. There are five types of people in marketing and I know I am an Innovator. I am the first one to adopt and accept something new. Here is a description of these five groups.

The 5 Customer Segments of Technology Adoption

Back to Rogers’ research, we see that not everyone will immediately adopt a disruptive idea despite obvious benefits. Over years of research, Rogers identified some fascinating personality traits that help us organize how people will accept a new innovation. It turns out we approach innovations in the following ways.
(From Diffusion of Innovations)

Innovators (2.5%) – Innovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation. Innovators are willing to take risks, youngest in age, have the highest social class, have great financial lucidity, very social and have closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other innovators. Risk tolerance has them adopting technologies which may ultimately fail. Financial resources help absorb these failures. (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 282)

Early Adopters (13.5%) – This is the second fastest category of individuals who adopt an innovation. These individuals have the highest degree of opinion leadership among the other adopter categories. Early adopters are typically younger in age, have a higher social status, have more financial lucidity, advanced education, and are more socially forward than late adopters. More discrete in adoption choices than innovators. Realize judicious choice of adoption will help them maintain central communication position (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 283)
.
Early Majority (34%) – Individuals in this category adopt an innovation after a varying degree of time. This time of adoption is significantly longer than the innovators and early adopters. Early Majority tend to be slower in the adoption process, have above average social status, contact with early adopters, and seldom hold positions of opinion leadership in a system (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 283)

Late Majority (34%) – Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after the average member of the society. These individuals approach an innovation with a high degree of skepticism and after the majority of society has adopted the innovation. Late Majority are typically skeptical about an innovation, have below average social status, very little financial lucidity, in contact with others in late majority and early majority, very little opinion leadership.

Laggards (16%) – Individuals in this category are the last to adopt an innovation. Unlike some of the previous categories, individuals in this category show little to no opinion leadership. These individuals typically have an aversion to change-agents and tend to be advanced in age. Laggards typically tend to be focused on “traditions”, likely to have lowest social status, lowest financial fluidity, be oldest of all other adopters, in contact with only family and close friends, very little to no opinion leadership.

If we were to graph these groups, we’d see the standard bell shape curve:
How technology gets adopted. Everett Rogers Diffusion of Innovation

Where blue represents the groups of consumer adopting a new technology and yellow is the market share which obviously reaches 100% following complete adoption. This is the point of market saturation.

Which One Are You?
It is important to note that individuals do not always line up as “Innovators” in all areas of their decision making processes. For example, a person may adopt cutting-edge green technologies for their home with solar heating and yet not belong to an online social network or own a smartphone. We bounce back and forth across the curve in large part based on the pain points we are trying to solve and our interest in the underpinnings of the change presented.
Bonus: While this research can seem a bit high-level, it has profound real-world impacts on how technology products and services get adopted. Many entrepreneurs and marketers fail to take into account that you must move from left to right in the adoption curve. As a result, they drastically overestimate their market size and how much work and time will go into getting a disruptive idea into the mainstream. For a detailed must-read in this area that builds on Rogers’ research with real-world examples from the tech space, check out Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey Moore.

Click to expand...

I prefer the FP strap system on my EL 10X42 Range to the older style on my EL 8x32. I have never had the FP strap twist and it gets are a reasonably hard life out deer hunting in some very mountainous, rugged terrain.

The new rubber body coating feels slightly better than the non FP to me. Not a huge difference. However, what I find the biggest improvement in the FP is the way the objective lens covers attach.

I also have a new 8x30 CL Companion and was disappointed that it doesn't have the same objective cover attachments as the FP models.

I will be short. I have had the old (first) Companion 8 x 30. I didn't like it. To much blurring at the edge of the FOV. Not sharp at all, at about 50% of the field. I sold it.
The new Companion 8 x 30? It's top!! Sharp until almost 90% of the field. What a positive difference. Super optical quality. Especially for the price. I use the Companion (I also have the SLC 10 x 42 last version, top binocular) every day. It's a joy to look through. Far out the best binocular in it's price class.

All,

I've been with the new version CL 8x30 for about a year and a half and feel much the same about it now as I've reported earlier.

In May of 2019 Allbinos did their review of the new version 8x30 CL and it received very high marks overall; placing 4th on the list of 8x30/32 they have reviewed. (Interesting that after all this time, they don't have a review of the newer EL 8x32. I suspect they did but found the glare and rolling ball issues people have mentioned and chose not to report... but that is pure speculation on my part, and could be material for a separate post).

My downfall with the CL's optics are off center chromatic abberation which I had mentioned early on yet found no other posters reporting similar experiences. Finally I've found someone else mentioning the same. Allbinos sees it as I did and reports high off center CA. I even dinged the forum indicating if it was Lieca product, they would be all over the CA with their postings but since it is Swarovski they are not. If you compare Allbinos off center CA; the Leica 8x32 scores medium and the Swaro CL scores high. You decide if this is a credible source or not.

My other downfall with the unit is the diopter adjustment: not being able to hold the unit to your face and being able to make the adjustment while holding steady.

There has been considerable mention about the CL's revolutionary and almost magical "optical box". I find the CL a little more user friendly with eye placement compared to another 8x30 I have, however, I've never found it to be as user friendly as most 8x32 binoculars I have used.

It is a nice instrument and the build quality appears top notch and the ergonomics are impressive as well. Had the off center CA and diopter adjustment been done a bit better, it may have achieved favorite status.

MY .02,

CG

Hmm, CA is a personal thing. It doesn't matter me at all. In comparison with my SLC 10 x 42 the Companion has slightly more CA at the edge. But it is minimal.

The binocular with the least CA I have (and I have about 60 binoculars) is the Carl Zeis Jena Octarem 8 x 50 (1988). There is no Swarovski, Zeiss or Leica with less CA.

But the new Companion is for it's price the best binocular I ever had.

kabsetz said:

Getting back to topic

I'll give a few preliminary impressions of the Swaro CL Companion, albeit mostly based on the 10x30 version. I got an early specimen on loan from Swarovski, and have been using it on a few birding outings as well as toying with at home and on our balcony. I will do some resolution testing and other measurements eventually, but thus far it's all been rather more casual.

Firstly, I agree with Jan: these are what the original 8/10x30 should have been like. To put it another way, these are like a scaled-down and sleeker/fancier looking version of the current SLC series rather than some entry level stuff.

Image quality appears excellent, with really good central sharpness and a large sweet spot. Edge sharpness is unusually good for a binocular without a field flattener mentioned in its advertising literature. In fact, since what I see is just a tiny bit of field curvature and almost no astigmatism at the edge, I suspect that the eyepiece is in fact some kind of a field flattener design. For a younger viewer with decent accommodation, these will be almost sharp to the edge. There is only modest angular magnification distortion, and to my eyes no RB. FoV in the 10x is decent (108m/km) but not great. I'll measure it later, but hand-held it is a bit less than my 10x42 Canon as the specs suggest it would be. Eye lens diameter is 22 mm (Nikon 10x42 SE has 21mm and my Canon 23 mm). This is a big improvement over the original CL series, which has rather tiny eye lenses.

I cannot quite agree with Jan's opinion that there would be no kidney beaning at all with these. In normal viewing I get none, but if I have the eyecups retracted it is easy enough for me to bring my eyes close enough to get kidney beans out of the shadows.

Colors are rich and natural, and contrast is excellent. There is some veiling glare, but nothing alarming. Image snaps to focus well, and, once set, diopter is set and does not need to be second-guessed. I haven't seen any mention of ED lenses in the literature about these, but whereas I saw distinct and somewhat annoying CA in the original CL series, these look to me just like the current SLC: I can see CA in them if I look for it but generally find it unobtrusive. My Nikon 10x42 SE has much more, my Canon a little bit less.

There was a lengthy exchange over the aesthetics of the new CL Companion earlier on this thread. Looks are a matter of taste (pun intended), but I like the looks of these. Handling is also fine. Eyecups are very solid and comfortable, but lack intermediate click-stops. Their rounded edge is rather high and seems to unnecessarily rob some potential eye-relief. Focus wheel is well placed, easy to reach and has no play. Its movement is a bit on the stiff side and typically for Swarovski rather on the slow and accurate side of things. Because of this relative stiffness, it also tends to stay where you left it.

I have encountered a couple of other small annoyances (for me):

- The diopter setting wheel is situated in the middle of the focus knob, and needs to be pressed down and twisted at the same time in order to change the setting. This isn't really possible while viewing, so one needs to check the view, make an adjustment, and check again. The markings on the knob are also just this side of invisible. But, as the optics are good enough that adjustments don't need to be made often, this is not much of a problem for general use unless there are more than one person regularly using the instrument.
- The supplied eyepiece rain guard is very tight-fitting and only suitable for protecting the eyepieces during transportation. For actual birding in the rain, it takes way too long to put on and take off. I know this is a matter of preference and there are two schools of thought here with no real compromise possible, but when a design is so far in one camp there ought to be an option available.
- The fancy "Fieldpro" -type carrying strap attachments look neat and are easy to install etc., but since they allow the strap attachment to freely turn around, the strap frequently ends up being twisted and in need of unwinding.
- There is no finnstick attachment integrated into the binocular body.

Overall, Swarovski's new CL Companion is a really good little binocular. It is very easy on the eye and relaxing to use, and the image has no obvious shortfalls. It has the potential to become a class leader, and could very well also snatch quite a few sales away from the 32 mm EL SV's.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Kimmo,

A great review which bears re-posting.

A small tip: The rain guard for the previous Companion fits the new model perfectly, is sleeker and much easier to use.

Mike

So I finally opted for the little 8x30 CL Companion (instead of the EL 8x32, which was my other option, once the Nikon MHG 8x30 where ruled out due to unease of view/use). I found the 8x32 EL a bit bulky and heavy for a x32 (provided that you can have something like a Nikon MHG 8x42 for a mere 50 g more and a little more bulk... Actually, the CL 8x30 and the MHG could be a nice combo; maybe pairing the 8x30 CL with a 10x42 MHG).

I've been using the CL (in anthracite colour) for some time now, and here are some thoughts. I hope it can be of reference/help for someone (or else spark conversation).

Image
Nice, crisp, really sweet, although I think the Habicht were sharper/crispier on axis. But then, the CL have a much wider sweetspot than the Habicht. Colours are natural and shapes pop boldly as you scan the landscape. My favourite use for these so far is following little passerines among the branches: the sharpness of both birds and the bark and branches of trees (and the texture of leaves and cones) makes for a really enjoyable experience.
I am not particularly sensitive to CA, but I can tell you there is a noticeable amount of it here, even in the centre of the image if the conditions are challenging (bird on a branch with sun on its back, swallow on a wire). I don't usually care about CA, but I could see this being a deal breaker for someone who is easily bothered by it. One minor (but interesting) thing: I use the binos together with my smartphone for ID/reference/date purposes (obviously, I don't have any aspirations about image quality). The pictures from the CL show the biggest amount of CA (by a large margin) I've seen on a picture taken through a medium/high quality binocular. A bit disappointing given the prize. Again, not the end of the world, but it's remarkable how the camera can pick up CA quite dramatically on these (pictures through the Habicht were just stunning).

Comfort
I tried these in a shop and found the viewing comfort exceptional; really easy to find the right position. The "optical box" (whatever that means) seemed to work. However, over time I'm becoming a little concerned, because I seem to find the eyecup a bit too narrow/small. I had the same issue with the 8x32 Meopta Meostar (otherwise a device with a really sweet view, although a little on the heavy side). It's probably the shape and size of my eyelashes, but I wish the eyecups where a couple of millimeters wider. I had a similar experience with the 8x30 Habicht, until I wrote to Swarovski and they sent me the green wider eyecups from the rubber GA version. I'm afraid the CL won't have a similar solution, but I've written to Swarovski asking about it either way (if anyone has a hint or idea about this, do chime!).
Another less-than-ideal bit about the eyecups is that they only have one position, with no intermediate stops: it is fully up or nothing. Just like I discovered with the 8x32 Victory FL, I find that an intermediate position gives me greater viewing comfort with these, so I usually have them halfway through. This is not ideal, but kind of works for me.
The strap is really comfortable, and the size is a very good compromise; it would be a bit silly to make a light and small binocular and fit it with a huge and fluffy strap, but I hate when the strap provided is really tiny and you get marks on your neck. This one just nails it for me. As for the FP system, well, I don't think it gives me anything a good old metal loop and strap didn't provide. Personally I wouldn't pay a cent for it.

Build/handling
One has to read and re-read the weight figure on the spec sheet in order to believe it, because the binoculars do seem heavier than the advertised 490 g. When you hold them in your hands, you get a feeling of quality materials, a hefty piece of equipment (I'm not sure I've seen such a thread on BF, but we could start one about binoculars that feel lighter/heavier than they actually are). The magnesium bridge feels very solid and reassuring, and the rubber armour oozes quality. Really, it is something worth mentioning. The attention to detail is remarkable. You feel you paid a considerable amount of money but you get a considerable amount of quality. For example (little details that leave you in awe): the tethered objective covers are made of not one, but two different materials. A harder-than-usual rubber for the bending bit (with two different thicknesses on the ring around the tube) plus a hard plastic on the center of the lid itself (which is hard, like plastic hard). Understated, classy. No one would notice, but someone thought about it. BTW, the objective covers work great (the rain guard is a bit on the narrow side, so it's not 100 % ideal).
While using the binoculars, the barrels are slim enough to allow for very comfortable grip. They feel a little longer than the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 which I really enjoy using, and those are really pricy millimeters that pay back in ease of use; the CL really ticks the box for me when it comes to holdability.
The focus wheel is on the slow side (I prefer the Nikon M7 approach), but again, not the end of the world.

I have read strong opinions about the diopter setting: yes, it's true, it's not the best solution, but it doesn't bother me particularly.

Last (and least), aesthetics and brand experience.
Honestly, for a brand that pays so much attention to detail and the look and feel of binoculars, the CL look too bling (for me at least). The font they used on the metal bridge feels like it's going to look outdated already by next year (let alone in 5 - 10 years)... it looks outdated for me just now. The naked metal bridge is so in-your-face, a complete lack of understatement (something that one can otherwise feel in other parts of the binocular and in the brand strategy as a whole). So: I don't especially like the look of the binoculars, but hey, I want to look through them, not at them (in this respect, I much prefer the look of the Nikon MHG 8x30, not to mention a Leica Ultravid).
Packaging and unboxing experience of these make Apple products feel dodgy and somewhat cheap. Mind you, this is something I wouldn't pay for (I like what comes in the box, I don't care about the box itself), but I think it is worth mentioning,because it can be important for some people (or it can be important if these were a gift: and what a gift experience this would be for the person who received it).

Hi Yarrellii,

Thanks for the thorough review. It's very helpful since I'm in the process of choosing a small, lightweight binocular and the new CL b is a consideration. However, I already have the original CL 8x30 and I really enjoy using it. I've decided to keep my current CL and will have it as backup to whatever new binocular I eventually buy.

The previous model CL also has some CA even in the central view at times. It's not bothersome to me, as I find it subtle and minor.

The focus on the new CL b seemed stiff when I tried it at the store a few weeks ago, but seemed precise. I agree it's slow , but it's also slow on the old CL.

I think both the old and new CL's have excellent ergonomic feel and possibly the best I've experienced with any binocular.

I didn't think the CL b felt heavy. It felt very noticeably lighter than the EL 8x32 which was there in the store as well. I had the EL on my short list, but like you I'm also thinking it's a bit big and heavy for 32mm, so I'm not too sure. I think I would like to keep my new binocular under 20 ounces.

Yes, the CL b is a bit blingy, but I thought it looked worse in product photos and a little better when I finally saw it in person at the store. I do find the old CL more attractive than the new design.

I want to try the Ultravid HD+ 8x32 first and I'm hoping it works with my eyeglasses. That's the bino I really want. If not, then I may go with FL 8x32, but I would like to give the CL b 8x30 another try too. I barely had any time with it last time.

Gilmore Girl said:

I think both the old and new CL's have excellent ergonomic feel and possibly the best I've experienced with any binocular.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, I find the Monarch 7 8x30 (with its cheapo soft-n-sticky rubber and plastic body) a joy to carry and use. Really, I mean it. I've seen so many people complaining about its plasticky feeling... It is of inferior optical quality, but I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a medium-quality binocular where weight and shape were of utmost importance. If not for its tendency to gather glare and the obvious improvement in terms of optical performance that the new CL offers, the M7 would be it for me (that is, actually... the MHG!! For some reason, even though I tried to love it, the MHG simply hasn't worked for me the two times I've tried it; a terrible disappointment).

I didn't think the CL b felt heavy.

Click to expand...

Well, everything feels heavy after the 8x30 M7 It is probably the feeling of "quality" and that beefy/hefty sense of a piece of machinery well put together. There's something strangely reassuring about holding them. I think it belongs in the same category as the reassuring noise some car doors make when being shut. If you know what I mean.

It felt very noticeably lighter than the EL 8x32 which was there in the store as well... [] I want to try the Ultravid HD+ 8x32 first and I'm hoping it works with my eyeglasses. That's the bino I really want. If not, then I may go with FL 8x32...

Click to expand...

I had the FL 8x32, and I enjoyed using it but... good as it is, it simply didn't blow me away. I found it a bit to chubby/thick, and the performance just didn't gave me the unforgettable wow I got from its 7x42 sibling (the one binocular I regret selling). For me, if it has to be a light binocular, the limit would be more within the 17 oz/490 g range than within 20 oz/565 g. The latter is already on the heavy side for trekking and long walks. I don't mind a +40 oz night binocular behemoth for a short walk (on these last nights of full moon I've been using a 8x56 Steiner Nighthunter with great joy) or for taking with me in the car, but I can tell quite a difference between the 21 oz/610 g of a EL 8x32 and the 17 oz of a CL (let alone the 15,3 oz /435 g of an M7 8x30).

Yes, the CL b is a bit blingy, but I thought it looked worse in product photos and a little better when I finally saw it in person at the store. I do find the old CL more attractive than the new design.

Click to expand...

Ab-so-lu-te-ly. I like understatement. While most people seem to agree that the new CL is optically "what the CL should have been in the first place", I think the previous CL is what an Swarovski should look like

Do try it, I think you will like it a lot, since you already like the original CL. However, I think that can actually be your biggest problem with the new CL, will it represent enough of a change to get the new one? Hmmm, I think that's not an easy one (I mean, provided you already have the old one; if you didn't have it, I'd say the new CL is quite a tempting 8x30 offer).

yarrellii said:

Oddly enough, I find the Monarch 7 8x30 (with its cheapo soft-n-sticky rubber and plastic body) a joy to carry and use. Really, I mean it. I've seen so many people complaining about its plasticky feeling... It is of inferior optical quality, but I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a medium-quality binocular where weight and shape were of utmost importance. If not for its tendency to gather glare and the obvious improvement in terms of optical performance that the new CL offers, the M7 would be it for me (that is, actually... the MHG!! For some reason, even though I tried to love it, the MHG simply hasn't worked for me the two times I've tried it; a terrible disappointment).



Well, everything feels heavy after the 8x30 M7 It is probably the feeling of "quality" and that beefy/hefty sense of a piece of machinery well put together. There's something strangely reassuring about holding them. I think it belongs in the same category as the reassuring noise some car doors make when being shut. If you know what I mean.


I had the FL 8x32, and I enjoyed using it but... good as it is, it simply didn't blow me away. I found it a bit to chubby/thick, and the performance just didn't gave me the unforgettable wow I got from its 7x42 sibling (the one binocular I regret selling). For me, if it has to be a light binocular, the limit would be more within the 17 oz/490 g range than within 20 oz/565 g. The latter is already on the heavy side for trekking and long walks. I don't mind a +40 oz night binocular behemoth for a short walk (on these last nights of full moon I've been using a 8x56 Steiner Nighthunter with great joy) or for taking with me in the car, but I can tell quite a difference between the 21 oz/610 g of a EL 8x32 and the 17 oz of a CL (let alone the 15,3 oz /435 g of an M7 8x30).


Ab-so-lu-te-ly. I like understatement. While most people seem to agree that the new CL is optically "what the CL should have been in the first place", I think the previous CL is what an Swarovsky should look like

Do try it, I think you will like it a lot, since you already like the original CL. However, I think that can actually be your biggest problem with the new CL, will it represent enough of a change to get the new one? Hmmm, I think that's not an easy one (I mean, provided you already have the old one; if you didn't have it, I'd say the new CL is quite a tempting 8x30 offer).

Click to expand...

Just a week ago or so I thought I'd sell my current CL for a new top tier bino , but using it last weekend made me realize I don't want to part with it. I really like it too much and decided I'll keep it. So, I'll have two binoculars ultimately. I doubt I'll want 2 CL's , so I think you're right to suggest it could pose a problem to consider the new CL when I already have the old model. But, if the store finally gets the 8x30's in (they only had the 10x30) I'd like to try it out.

I think the little Ultravid 8x32 could be great due to it's tiny size and it's under 19 oz I believe which is manageable for me. I just really like Ultravids and hoping it works for me.

Yes, I agree the CL's are built beautifully and really I think they are just as nice as EL in this regard. Swarovski makes great binoculars that are a joy to hold.

I think the word I'd use to describe the feel of the new 8x30 CL is "dense" - in that it feels very dense and solid in the hands - and that, despite its (actual) modest weight gives it a reassuring feel of solidity and quality - just like the reassuring "thunk" of a quality, German-made car door closing. I also have the Monarch 7 that Yarellii endorses - and I agrre with his words of praise: it's a great little binocular for the money.

As a sidenote, I took my Swaro CL 8x30s with me on a walking holiday a few weeks ago. They were absolutely enjoyable and satisfying, and never felt heavy to carry - even on long, hilly days.