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

Jan Meijerink measures eye relief from the plane of the eyecup rim when fully retracted, not from the lens surface. He states this in his reviews, including this one. I measured the eye relief of an 8x30 CL Companion today, also from the eyecup rim plane, and got 13.5-14 mm, so consider Jan's measurement accurate. There's quite a bit of distance from the eyecup rim plane to the surface of the eye lens. I did not measure that but it looks like it could easily be 2 mm, so the specifications and Gijs' measurements are also correct. However, there's more difference between effective (usable) and nominal eye relief in these than in most binoculars.

When I tested the original CL, I noticed more colour fringing in the centre of the image than in some 300-500 euro HD binoculars I compared them to. With the CL Companion, to my eyes there is markedly less, and to me the image looks like that of most high-quality HD binoculars. Colour fringing is the only part where I don't agree with Jan's review.

Kimmo
 
Hi,

Can someone describe the northern lights case and strap for me? Looking at the photo of it, it appears to be almost wool/felt like... fuzzy maybe. Or, is that just an illusion I'm having with the mottled/flecked appearance.
Guess what I am wondering is, if I had it out in a field of weeds in October, would it get full of those pesky little pieces of weeds that tend to fill your shoes, socks, and pant cuffs? The ones that hang tight to your fleece and don't come out/off very easily. Ok, thanks in advance...

CG
 
Kimmo, post 261,
I measure the eyerielf as it was taught to me by Dr. Caroline Bleeker, founder and owner of the optical company named after her and I actually use the instrument designed and made for these measurements by her.
The method she uses is to measure eyelief from the surface of the eyepiece lens to the actual plane of the outcoming sharp image. That is a clean method and is valid for comparison of different binocular brands. It does not take into account the rimthickness of the eyepieces, since they vary for different binoculars and different brands. Anyhow, my experience is that everybody wearing spectacles should try a binocular first before deciding to buy it, since there is quite a bit of physiological variation among users.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
cycleguy said:
Hi,

Can someone describe the northern lights case and strap for me? Looking at the photo of it, it appears to be almost wool/felt like... fuzzy maybe. Or, is that just an illusion I'm having with the mottled/flecked appearance.
Guess what I am wondering is, if I had it out in a field of weeds in October, would it get full of those pesky little pieces of weeds that tend to fill your shoes, socks, and pant cuffs? The ones that hang tight to your fleece and don't come out/off very easily. Ok, thanks in advance...

CG
Click to expand...

Hi CG,

Both the bag and the strap are made of wool. We call it "loden" down here. It's the same material the loden coats are made of. The color is grey and the strap has a nylon/polyester woven lining on both side of the edges.
The material is absolutely silent but the bag has a magnetic lock which is some kind of a contradiction. One of the reasons why it is so popular as a clothing material for hunters is it silentness during movements. Can't imagine it would get dirty like you described, considering it's practical use over centuries but I have no experience with the material.

Jan
 
Last edited:
Gijs,

Presumably, for a concave surfaced eyepiece lens, her measurement is not from the entire but from the edge???

I would wish that all manufacturers measured from the plane of the rim to the sharp focus AND the depth from the rim to the ocular's centre surface, (which is c. 5mm on my ELs and way too much). Eyeglasses wearers would then be able to compare effectiveness for any given frame and prescription assuming equivalent refractive indices.
 
Last edited:
Gijs, (#268)

Your method is good and in accordance with how most of the industry measures ER. However, what Jan and myself do is more relevant for eyeglass wearers, since you cannot push your glasses any closer to the eye lens than what the eyecup allows. There is a lot of difference between various models in how much the eyecup designs subtracts from effective eye relief. Actually, a good example of this are Swarovski CL and CL Companion, where the former has a rather small eye lens and an eyecup that goes almost flush with the plane of the lens, and the Companion, where the lens is set much deeper in - the centre of the lens is 2,75 mm deeper than the rim plane of the fully retracted eyecup.

Of course, what is most important is to state clearly what and how you measure and to be able to compare between measurements. For what is worth, my measurements tend to agree with Jan's to about 0.5 mm.

Kimmo
 
Cycleguy,

I haven't been with the Northern Lights case in any pesky weeds, but the felt material certainly looks and feels like stuff that would attract thistle like a magnet. I also find the magnetic clasp annoying, since the bag is a bit tight when the binocular has its strap bundled around it in the bag, and then the clasp needs to be centred to lock, and snaps open rather more easily than necessary.

My recommendation would be to go with the Wild Nature set.

Kimmo
 
Gijs van Ginkel said:
Kimmo, post 261,
I measure the eyerielf as it was taught to me by Dr. Caroline Bleeker, founder and owner of the optical company named after her and I actually use the instrument designed and made for these measurements by her.
The method she uses is to measure eyelief from the surface of the eyepiece lens to the actual plane of the outcoming sharp image. That is a clean method and is valid for comparison of different binocular brands. It does not take into account the rimthickness of the eyepieces, since they vary for different binoculars and different brands. Anyhow, my experience is that everybody wearing spectacles should try a binocular first before deciding to buy it, since there is quite a bit of physiological variation among users.
Gijs van Ginkel
Click to expand...
Would have been awesome to have met her in real life. Stalwart in the industry..... :)
Dr. Caroline Emilie Bleeker (1897-1985)
 
About the eye relief of the Companion.

Just for fun, I unscrewed the eyecups on the 10x30 and measured the ER without them. 16 mm just as Gijs and the data sheet suggest. This is not a surprise, of course. If I view with the binocular without the eyecups, I easily get full field of view despite my less-than-binocular-friendly glasses that have distance correction of + 1.75 dpt right and + 2.25 left. With eyecups fully twisted in, full field is not possible and the binocular needs to be pressed against the glasses.

It would not be difficult to re-design the eyecups to allow for nearly 2 mm of extra eye relief, and this would make a meaningful difference for many eyeglass wearers.

Kimmo
 
Kimmo,
You are right that the thickness of the eyecup rims differ and that they have effect on the full accessibility of the image for users wearing spectacles. Another complication may be that some eyes are deep in the heads while that is not the case for others and the distance (thickness/curvature) of spectacles lenses between the eye and the lenses differ, so all these peronal features are strong arguments for users: try before you buy.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
kabsetz said:
About the eye relief of the Companion.

Just for fun, I unscrewed the eyecups on the 10x30 and measured the ER without them. 16 mm just as Gijs and the data sheet suggest. This is not a surprise, of course. If I view with the binocular without the eyecups, I easily get full field of view despite my less-than-binocular-friendly glasses that have distance correction of + 1.75 dpt right and + 2.25 left. With eyecups fully twisted in, full field is not possible and the binocular needs to be pressed against the glasses.

It would not be difficult to re-design the eyecups to allow for nearly 2 mm of extra eye relief, and this would make a meaningful difference for many eyeglass wearers.

Kimmo
Click to expand...


Well ............................. :smoke:

Didn't Zeiss have to redesign eye cups for their Conquests to make their ER longer or something like that


http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=266432

Maybe Swarovski's will work OK for most people?

Bob
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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

M
Versions of 8x30 CL
Replies
2
Views
769
Gijs van Ginkel
G
MaunaKea
Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 vs CL Companion 8x30
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Dr. K
D
E
Comparative review - Swarovski CL B 8x30 vs Kowa Genesis 8x33 vs NL Pure 10x42
2 3
Replies
45
Views
12K
KC Foggin
KC Foggin
A
New guy, new Swaros: Comments on CL Pocket, CL B Companion, and EL 8x32 Fieldpro
2
Replies
29
Views
7K
tenex
tenex
C
Could someone who's compared both discuss why one would choose the Swaro CL Companion 8x30 vs Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 or vice versa?
Replies
18
Views
5K
Jason Bugay Reyes
Jason Bugay Reyes

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top