Eagle Optics Raven, First Impressions (1 Viewer)

Well I just got these this morning, mine are the 6.5x32. I will use them more over the long weekend and post a more complete set of observations in a few days. I now have on hand the following 6-7x binoculars for comparison.

6x30 Yosemite
6.5x32 Raven
6.5x32 Minox IF
6.5x32 Vortex Fury
7x36 Bushnell EX
7x36 Vortex Diamondback
7x36 Swift Eaglet
7/12x32 Leupold Switch Power

My first impression was they felt bigger than the Yosemite. They are, but not by as much as they feel. They are (without measuring) about 1/8" both longer and wider than the Yosemite.

I went home over lunch break and did a quick comparison, mostly with the Yosemite. The extra magnification of the 6.5 Raven does show a larger image than the 6x Yosemite. The image appears brighter than the Yosemite as well. The center field resolution is very good. The image seems at this point to go to the Raven by a bit. But that might well be due to the bit of extra magnification as much or more than anything else.

The IPD is the same as the Yosemite, 50-70mm. The focus will win the Raven the most friends. It is very quick and quite precise. It operated through only 0.8 turns of the wheel, and is noticeably smoother and operates with noticeably less friction than the Yosemite. I have not yet measured the close focus, but this Raven focuses closer than my Yosemite, by maybe 4'.

It seems clearly superior in image to both the Diamondback and Bushnell EX. Both of those appear to be the same binocular with different eye cups in different housings.

So for now I give it a thumbs up. My first impression is that it is worth the extra few $$ over the Yosemite and will, I think, give the Yosemite a hard run for the money. I think that it was a wise idea on the part of the folks at Vortex to put in the extra .5x magnification. It looks like it balances out the tendency of the porro to give a bit smaller image.

Very interesting, Steve.

The focus will win the Raven the most friends. It is very quick and quite precise. It operated through only 0.8 turns of the wheel, and is noticeably smoother and operates with noticeably less friction than the Yosemite.

Click to expand...

I think the "viscous" friction in the focuser action of the Yosemite makes people think the focuser rate (as opposed to speed) is slower than it really is. I was surprised when I recently realized the Yosemite is a less than 1t bin.

I wonder if they just changed the focal length of the objectives a little to bump the magnification as the ER specs seem to track the Yosemites almost exactly (20mm and 14mm). Or perhaps the change is just lost in rounding (it is only 8% different but even then you might expect a mm or two difference. The specs say they're 0.1" longer (that's only a couple of percent).

I guess for buyers the question is are the $120 Ravens worth 50% more than the $80 Yosemites ...

Thanks for the preview, Steve. I'm looking forward to hearing how you think they stack up against the Fury and the Minox (I sure wish those had twist-up eyecups.....) Not to mention against the Custom Compact, which curiously you left off your list, although I know from previous posts you own and like it.

PS: I think someone on BF was getting the 8.5X....? If so, I'm wondering whether it's brighter than the 8X Yosemite, and how it would rate against the 8x32 SE...... I definitely like that good porro view.

Steve,

Thank you for sharing your initial impressions. Both your and Kevin's subsequent comments have me interested. I did not realize the Yosemite was a less than one turn bin though I have to say that I enjoy the focusing tension. If I am reading your comments correctly it sounds like the Raven not only has a similar focusing speed but less focusing tension?

That might be an issue for me. I have a difficult time with fast focus and low tension. I skip right by "perfect focus"...though with such a lower power porro prism binocular that might not be as much of an issue as with others.

Thanks, Steve. I have a couple of those and am interested to hear how the new Raven stacks up against the 6.5 Fury and the new Diamondback. Do you see keeping any of the new acquisitions?

BTW, the more I use the lower powered glass, the happier I am. I used 7X for years before 'graduating' to the more in vogue 8X & 10X. I have even taken to using my old Hertl & Reuss 6X30 a bit these nice days on walks. They seem just a bit better than my 6X30 Yosemites and are quite good for their age. Now my wife and I each carry glass nearly equally light and compact on our walks.

Here is a quick rating on image as it stands now.

1 Leupold Gold Ring 7/12x32 Switch Power.
Sharpest image with good contrast and very good color rendition. Very decent control of edge distortion and good CA and Fringing Control. Plus that handy 12x Switch function.

2. Swift 7x36 Eaglet.
Image is maybe a bit behind the Leupold, although resolution seems about the same. The colors, particularly yellow, appear not quite as bright as the GR. This has the best CA and color fringing control of the lot

3. Dead Heat; 6.5x32 Raven, 6.5x32 Fury, and 6.5x32 Minox. I'd have to see it to believe it that somebody could consistently separate the images. Very good, just a very little less sharp in center field than the other two. The Minox is hampered by loss of versatility of the IF feature, but there is nothing wrong with the image of any of the three, unless you are a very highly image conscious person, in which case the GR is even a bit (a very little bit) below the alphas as far as I can tell. In a bit of an apples and oranges, the 7x26 B&L probably belongs here too. The fov of the Fury will elevate this in the eyes of some viewers, I think.

4. Leupold 6x30 Yosemite. The only reason it is not tied with the above three is that, for me anyway, the image appears noticeably smaller than the 6.5x above.

5. Vortex Diamondback 7x36, Bushnell Birder EX 7x36. Neither are keepers. The Diamondback is unusable for eyeglass wearers, there is 5mm of space between the collapsed eye cup and the lens. The Bushnell EX is unusable without glasses. Fully extended, the eye cup is only 13mm above the lens (unless there is sample error in mine). As far as I can tell, they are the exact optics (all light reflections and lens colorings are exactly the same) in different frames, one traditional (DB) and one open bridge (EX). The image is decent for a $200 ish binocular, but the edge distortion and field curvature will be distractions for some. The EX was advertised initially as having a 488' fov. It is really 409'. The DB is 410'.

Very nice comparative review Steve. I think this gives a fair handle on how each of these bins compares to the others.

Putting image quality aside for a second what are your thoughts on handling of the various models?

Obviously this is going to be highly subjective but I would still like to hear what you have to say on it.

Frank,

The only poor handling binocular of the bunch is the Bushnell EX. It is just too short for me to like. Mostly that is because there is only room for one finger (actually 1 1/2 fingers) between the bridge hinges. The GR, Swift, and the DB are fairly typical of how 32mm roof prism compacts handle, The GR is the shortest and most compact of the lot, but not by much. The Swift is in the middle, The DB is a bit larger than the other two, but that seems to be because it has lots of armor. The Swift has always had too little focus tension for my personal tastes. The focus is fast on both the Swift and GR. The focus is very stiff on the DB. Gotta put two fingers on the wheel and growl a little to move it (maybe sample error).

The Raven and the Yosemite feel just alike in use. The Raven is just a little bigger than the Yosemite, but not enough to make an immediately obvious field comparison (for me at least). There is also the obvious primary ergonomic difference between the porro and roof. Focus tension better in the Raven. The Raven should get rid of the sticky focus comments I have seen on the Yosemite.

The Minox and the Fury are the biggest of the lot, so will have less appeal if the user is after a compact roof prism as a primary selection factor. They are still noticeably smaller than the x42 mm family of binocular.

Steve, I find it interesting you rate the Fury and Raven pretty much equal. That's pretty high praise but since I have the Fury and Yosemite, the Raven is off the shopping list for now.

The 7X36 Zen Ray is next on my search for the ideal low X binocular. If they really blow the 6.5X32 Fury away, the Fury is gifted to a friend who's admired them and can't afford good glass.

Thanks for your reviews.

Steve, I find it interesting you rate the Fury and Raven pretty much equal.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiousity, why do you say that? The "conventional wisdom" has usually been that porros typically perform two to three times their price optically in comparison to roofs.

What I find sort of interesting is the Vortex rating of their own binoculars. For the Raptor it is 82, for the x36 Diamondback it is 88.9, for the x32 Fury it is 93.5. That would lead one to perhaps surmise that there would have been some noticeable lag in the performance of the Raptor. But I guess it would be hard for them to admit a binocular they sell for $120 is as good as another they sell for 3x that. However, that seems to be the case.

That said I would suspect that the way less expensive bins have improved that multiplier is coming down to two or less.

e.g. how much does a porro that's competitive with the ZR ED roof sell for?

The closest I have is the EO Raptor that sold for $250ish new (I think).

But of course this is a trick question as no one really sells porros that good right now except perhaps the more expensive Swift 8.5x44 ED (modulo its issues of ER and eyecup size).

I guess in a lot of ways that's a shame. I could see a $199 hypothetical ED porro beating it: think Legend/Cascade/Nikon EX with ED objectives and a better EP (less field curvature).

The other route would be to "uprate" a Raven/Yosemite with some changes to improve stray light issues and perhaps a wider EP design.

Of course no one is going to do this ... so perhaps the real competitor are second-hand Nikon SEs 8x32?

Steve C said:

What I find sort of interesting is the Vortex rating of their own binoculars. For the Raptor it is 82, for the x36 Diamondback it is 88.9, for the x32 Fury it is 93.5.

Click to expand...

And the Diamondback's have a Weatherproofing rating of 9.6. But their description says the Diamondbacks are waterproof. Come on, is it waterproof or not? lol.

Kevin..
Is the EO raptor a renamed Vixen Foresta 8x42?...I f it is ,I dont think It compares with the Zen ED,Or the Swift 820#...
The swift 820# (non ED),compares VERY well with the ZEN or the SE series,..The Vixen Foresta( I dont Know the Raptors),is a step or two behind,..Is not as sharp,and has more distortion .
The 820# non ED can be found for around 250$ New,and It seems to offer a better deal,price /performance,than the ED version...(I have only compared the 804 HR5 ED with the 820# Non ED,but saw not much performance difference,I imagine even less difference between the 820 Ed and non-ED)
But It is already a 10 year old model!..Swift should revive it a little bit,with some little design changes,and make it universally ED,instead of having two versions,now that ED glass seems to be more inexpensive,,Change that flexible bridge, Add better baffling( I suspect that the oversized prisms,have something to do with some veiling glare issues,similar to the issues you mentionede with the Yosemite)and you will have that Hypothetical perfect Porro,because the 820 is pretty darn close....

I guess in a lot of ways that's a shame. I could see a $199 hypothetical ED porro beating it: think Legend/Cascade/Nikon EX with ED objectives and a better EP (less field curvature).

Click to expand...

I could see that too Steve. Now lets see who will actually step up to the plate and produce such a bin.

Despite all the marketing hurdles a company would have to overcome there still exists a really nice niche for a porro with the features and at the price you describe. A $200 waterproof porro with ED glass and similar image quality to a Zen ED. Heck if you throw in the Cascade porro's handling and internal focus design then I would easily pay $300. The difference in 3D effect alone would negate the moderate price difference there between ED roof and ED porro.

1 Leupold Gold Ring 7/12x32 Switch Power.
Sharpest image with good contrast and very good color rendition. Very decent control of edge distortion and good CA and Fringing Control. Plus that handy 12x Switch function.

Click to expand...

How much do you end up using the 12x in the field? And is the 32mm big...heavy.. enough to hold steady at 12x?

Tero said:

How much do you end up using the 12x in the field? And is the 32mm big...heavy.. enough to hold steady at 12x?

Click to expand...

Probably 25-30% of the time. The Switch power is a rather typical size 32mm compact glass, but surprisingly it is pretty easy to hold steady. That sort of surprised me. The binocular weighs 23 oz.

The 12x image is not as good as the 7x.

I think back to my 7-15x zoom. It was not the worst, and at 7-9x it was pretty good, then the image "broke up" fast and dimmed as well. At 32mm, the 12x should be relatively bright, still. So, somewhat useful I would think.

I am leaning towards the 8.5x in place of the 9x36 Diamondback I planned to get in May. Then I already did my Europe trip with just 8x, so no urgent need now.

Tero said:

I think back to my 7-15x zoom. It was not the worst, and at 7-9x it was pretty good, then the image "broke up" fast and dimmed as well. At 32mm, the 12x should be relatively bright, still. So, somewhat useful I would think.

Click to expand...

Really the 12x is useful, probably better than useful. However, people need to get the "zoom binocular" mindset behind them. The 7x image is very close to the alpha in quality.

Sure, the zooms are just toys. But they demonstrate dimness very effectively!