Brief review of Kowa genesis 10x33 (In comparison with Swarovski EL 10x32 and others (3 Viewers)

[jackjack]

hello


'Prominar' lettering is feels pretty neat to me



Next to Swaro EL 10x32. Kowa is shorter, but EL has better in hand feel because of open hinge.

1.

Genesis 10x33



EL 10x32



2.

Genesis 10x33

---

EL 10x32



3.

Genesis 10x33



EL 10x32


(Genesis have a tone of orange creamy color, bit like leica trinovid BN, geovid pro 10x32 less vibrant but bit more relaxing)

1. Brightness

Is much lower then EL. Genesis doesn't show an advantage of +1mm lens both in daylight and dark.
It is one of the darkest bino I seen around 1000$ or more.

2. Central sharpness

Also much lower than EL
I think brightness and centeral sharpness of genesis are significantly below it's price point (aprox 1500$+ in South Korea) even lower than 10x30 CL companion and 10x30 Zeiss conquest that cost much less in my country.

2. Edge sharpness

is much worse than EL. blur occurs around 80%.
BUT the blur is much softer than Zeiss conquest, tfl, nikon se, edg and extra. so it's edge sharpness sometimes feelss better than other bino that have around 85% (like zeiss conquest 10x32)

4. CA control

It have more blue - red spectrum of CA then purple, green CA of el, nl
In center, similer with EL but in the edge, Genesis excels at this point.
but it is not CA free bino

5. Pincusion distortion

more then EL but I found it more pleasant then el's overcorrected distortion.
but still have flatter distortion than Leica ultravid, Zeiss conquest & tfl.
3D rendering is less than average 10x32

6. Stray light control and gosting

is much better in genesis.

it is good for average 10x32 but EL 10x32 is also a bad preformer in that category. so the difference is steep.

7. Eye placement

is much better in EL

first, gensis is not an eyeglass - friendly bino.
15mm ER will make optic wearers to push it harder to their glasses in order to get a full FOV

and for naked eyes, it's eyecup is too big for me. big enough for me to somtime have trouble fitting it at my eye soket.
Some Japanese bino such as Nikon edg, Kowa bd and Fujinon HC tends to make their eyecup fatter than European ones. in order to match more average - flatter faces of asian people what thise bino will mostly be sold

but gensis is too thick for some asian too.


8. Focusing

is better in Genesis

genesis have more even focus tension (but not as fluid as nikon edg)
and focus is much faster.
(30~40cm closer focus than EL but approx half a turn less than EL 's rotation)
more easy for me to get focus on fast moving object. such as birds

 

[jackjack]

To Summerize, Kowa genesis 10x33 is not even close to Alpha bino optically to me. you can found brighter and sharper bino in the cheaper range.



but Kowa still stands out in some point.





Contrast

as you see in the photos (also similar in real eyes too)
genesis have more yellow - orange coller and creamy texture.
there are lot of bino that enhance the similar spectrum. (such as nikon se, edg / bushnell legend, vixen forestar, vortex viper and more.)

but it's texteur and color balance between yello - orange is really diffrent from others.
most similar texture with this was Leica trinovid bn (more orange and brown coloring though.)

this color pallet make view even darker but more relaxing.

so it's view - comfort and contrast give nice boost of resolution, somtimes even similar at long distance (200m+- approx) to the bino with more sharpness such as Zeiss conquest ans Canon is 10x32.


 FOCUS

tough looking metal focus with very even (but not as leica noctivid, nikon edg) tension.
it's not THAT fluid. But still have nice and fast focusing that have much benefit during birding than Swaro EL 10x32


Frankly, I only like genesis's CA correction. at that price point.
it's mediocre brightness and sharpness (in the price point.) bothers me much compared to birding experiences with 10x32 of Swaro EL, NL, Leica UV HD, Zeiss conquest, Canon IS

but the reason I didn't sell this bino until today is mostly because of it's color.

I really like it's deep texture personally. feels like old leica such as trinovid bn.
It lacks of color fidelity and sparkle of view but I still have some fun with it's color (personally)

also. faster focusing and better stray light control have more advantages over EL when birding.
so, Kowa Genesis may be falling behind optically than newly made 1000$ around products, but it's unique advantages can be more appealing to some birders.

thanks

 

[Richard D]

Nice comparison

 

[jackjack]

To Summerize, Kowa genesis 10x33 is not a close to Alpha bino optically to me. you can found brighter and sharper bino in the cheaper range.



but Kowa still stands out in some point.





Contrast

as you see in the photos (also similar in real eyes too)
genesis have more yellow - orange coller and creamy texture.
there are lot of bino that enhance the similar spectrum. (such as nikon se, edg / bushnell legend, vixen forestar, vortex viper and more.)

but it's texteur and color balance between yello - orange is really diffrent from others.
most similar texture with this was Leica trinovid bn (more orange and brown coloring though.)

this color pallet make view even darker but more relaxing.

so it's view - comfort and contrast give nice boost of resolution, somtimes even similar at long distance (200m+- approx) to the bino with more sharpness such as Zeiss conquest ans Canon is 10x32.


 FOCUS

tough looking metal focus with very even (but not as leica noctivid, nikon edg) tension.
it's not THAT fluid. But still have nice and fast focusing that have much benefit during birding than Swaro EL 10x32


Frankly, I only like genesis's CA correction. at than price point.
it's mediocre brightness and sharpness (in the price point.) bothers me much compared to birding experience with 10x32 of Swaro EL, NL, Leica UV HD, Zeiss conquest, Canon IS

but the reason I didn't sell this bino is because of it's color.

I really like it's deep texture personally. feel like old leica such as trinovid bn.
It lacks of color fidelity and sparkle of view but I still have some fun with it's color (personally)

also. faster focusing and better stray light control have more advantages over EL when birding.
so, Kowa Genesis may be falling behing optically than newly made 1000$ arounf products, but it's unique advantages can be more appealing to some birders.

thanks

other comparison

against Leica UV HD 10x32. Kowa Genesis has

1. much lower center sharpness

2. much lower 3D rendering

3. much better CA control

4. much better distortion control.

5.less rugged build quality

6. less sparkle of view but the color pallet is similar (golden yellow orange hue)


aganist Zeiss conquest HD 10x32. Kowa Genesis has

1. darker view.

2. much lower central sharpness

3. bit less 3D rendering

4. much less eye relief

5. much better CA control

6. better distortion control

7. slower but more pleasant focusing

8. much eye - relaxing view and colors (less green, more red spectrum.)


against Nikon HGL 10x32. Kowa Genesis has

1. bit darker view.

2. similar central sharpness

3. much less edge sharpness

4. less eye relief

5. less relaxing view (hgl's view comfort is still one of the best in the market.)

6. larger fov (65 vs 68)

7. better CA control

8. better distortion control

9. heavier but better focus feel to me

10. bit better stray light control

11. deeper color in my eyes (HGL has dry yellow feel while Genesis has cream yellow feel)

12. better eye placement in naked eyes (for my face shape)

13. bit ruggedly built


against Kowa BD2 10x32. Kowa Genesis has

1. similar brightness (BD2 seems bit brighter at daylight because of better color fidelity.)

2. better central sharpness, but not much than expected

3. better edge sharpness (sweetspot percentage is similar but BD2 has much stronger fallouts.

4. much better CA control (BD2 10x32 is not really a CA low bino - even at it's price point )

5. lower color fidelity but much deeper colors and contrast between white and black.

6. better distortion control

7. much better stray light control

8. better focusing

9. bit better build quality (BD2 has good build quality for it's price point.)

 

[Rg548]

As always, you get what you pay for.... clear step up with the Swaros as one would expect.
Wether it's worth it is down to the individual.

 

[jackjack]

As always, you get what you pay for.... clear step up with the Swaros as one would expect.
Wether it's worth it is down to the individual.

in korea, genesis is 600$ expensive then zeiss conquest and 300$ cheap than EL so.
to Korean user, genesis doesn't have a price value advantage even compared to EL.
It's more like Leica products... inferior image quality for the price, but take advantage of good build quality and iconic color satuation...

 

[kwikstaart]

Hi, thanks for the comparison but to meet is not obvious at all that the swaro has a sharper image except for the edges. Of course the swaro is brighter. Could you explain why the the swaro's central sharpness is better to your eyes?

 

[jackjack]

Hi, thanks for the comparison but to meet is not obvious at all that the swaro has a sharper image except for the edges. Of course the swaro is brighter. Could you explain why the the swaro's central sharpness is better to your eyes?

1. this is how I check center sharpness. scraped from my comment from the review of meostar.

(I measure center sharpness it many ways.
Indoor, outdoor, short range(under 30m), long range...
some time see artifects like antenna poles, cement blocks, lettering.
some times natural thing like tree barks, rocks... but it have to stay still, so I avoid testing against tree leaf and grass.and of course animals.

long range resolution not only differs with image sharpness but also contrast, 3D rendering ,eye comfort and more. so I usually do passionate mesuring at short distance.)

2. as I still have genesis 10x33 and el 10x32. I have many time to show both of the bino to fellow Korean manias and birders
score of the centeral sharpness between two is

about 11 : 0 win by el

3. I only use digiscoping for taking photos of birds.
genesis has fabulous colors but over 90% of digiscoping result ov center image resolution is significantly lower then EL 10x32
there will be not same light issue
but more then 90% of the 200 digiscop each that have been taken at same place under 1min time difference is better in EL? It more then just coincidence.

genesis / el

 

[Patudo]

I have to admit the two binoscopes above seem very close to me, the EL is slightly sharper, but not to the point where I would describe the Kowa as having "mediocre brightness and sharpness". Your binoscopes almost seem to show (from what I'm seeing of your binoscopes) that alpha and sub-alpha are really pretty close - which, for what it's worth, does match my own experience. The last few percent is sometimes not so easy to spot, and you pay a lot for it.

(I measure center sharpness it many ways.
Indoor, outdoor, short range (under 30m), long range...
some time see artifacts like antenna poles, cement blocks, lettering.
some times natural thing like tree barks, rocks... but it have to stay still, so I avoid testing against tree leaf and grass. and of course animals.

long range resolution not only differs with image sharpness but also contrast, 3D rendering, eye comfort and more. so I usually do passionate measuring at short distance.)

This is interesting. In my own experience, I find most binoculars very satisfactory in terms of sharpness at short distances in the range that you mention (30m and less). I get the feeling most manufacturers optimize the optics of their binoculars for these distances, which of course are typical birding distances for most people. It's when you start looking further afield that differences start to become more obvious. I do most of my observation at quite long distances (often over 1km) so detail at distance is one of my most important tests. How a binocular deals with distance and all the things that affect the perception of detail at distance (atmospheric conditions and so on) is important to me. This is all perceived sharpenss/detail, of course.

It would be really interesting (puts optics geek hat on) to do resolution tests at 50m, 200m and (say) 1000m to see if binoculars that have similar resolution at the shorter distance are still closely matched at longer distances. They ought to be (I think?), but it would be interesting to know.

 

[jackjack]

I have to admit the two binoscopes above seem very close to me, the EL is slightly sharper, but not to the point where I would describe the Kowa as having "mediocre brightness and sharpness". Your binoscopes almost seem to show (from what I'm seeing of your binoscopes) that alpha and sub-alpha are really pretty close - which, for what it's worth, does match my own experience. The last few percent is sometimes not so easy to spot, and you pay a lot for it.



This is interesting. In my own experience, I find most binoculars very satisfactory in terms of sharpness at short distances in the range that you mention (30m and less). I get the feeling most manufacturers optimize the optics of their binoculars for these distances, which of course are typical birding distances for most people. It's when you start looking further afield that differences start to become more obvious. I do most of my observation at quite long distances (often over 1km) so detail at distance is one of my most important tests. How a binocular deals with distance and all the things that affect the perception of detail at distance (atmospheric conditions and so on) is important to me. This is all perceived sharpenss/detail, of course.

It would be really interesting (puts optics geek hat on) to do resolution tests at 50m, 200m and (say) 1000m to see if binoculars that have similar resolution at the shorter distance are still closely matched at longer distances. They ought to be (I think?), but it would be interesting to know.

I have to admit the two binoscopes above seem very close to me, the EL is slightly sharper, but not to the point where I would describe the Kowa as having "mediocre brightness and sharpness". Your binoscopes almost seem to show (from what I'm seeing of your binoscopes) that alpha and sub-alpha are really pretty close - which, for what it's worth, does match my own experience. The last few percent is sometimes not so easy to spot, and you pay a lot for it.



This is interesting. In my own experience, I find most binoculars very satisfactory in terms of sharpness at short distances in the range that you mention (30m and less). I get the feeling most manufacturers optimize the optics of their binoculars for these distances, which of course are typical birding distances for most people. It's when you start looking further afield that differences start to become more obvious. I do most of my observation at quite long distances (often over 1km) so detail at distance is one of my most important tests. How a binocular deals with distance and all the things that affect the perception of detail at distance (atmospheric conditions and so on) is important to me. This is all perceived sharpenss/detail, of course.

It would be really interesting (puts optics geek hat on) to do resolution tests at 50m, 200m and (say) 1000m to see if binoculars that have similar resolution at the shorter distance are still closely matched at longer distances. They ought to be (I think?), but it would be interesting to know.

it's my own thought, but longer the view distance gets on, higer the chances of 'other things' such as eye comfort, color, atmosphere, hand shake, lens diameter...etc have much larger influence then short distance.

those other things + sharpness + magnification is call resolution.
sharpness and resolution is different words.

So I compare bino usually at short to mid distance (up to 300m?)
and close distance under 30m
as you know, bino with longer apature of lenses (such as porro prism) seems smaller magnification then roof and reverse porro at close distance.
so when I compare porro and roof under 30 ~ 50m, I compare each tubes individually.
an also do that in comparison of roofs.
to lower the percentage of resolution differ (bad sample)of two tubes fools me on the view combined.

 

[jackjack]

I have to admit the two binoscopes above seem very close to me, the EL is slightly sharper, but not to the point where I would describe the Kowa as having "mediocre brightness and sharpness". Your binoscopes almost seem to show (from what I'm seeing of your binoscopes) that alpha and sub-alpha are really pretty close - which, for what it's worth, does match my own experience. The last few percent is sometimes not so easy to spot, and you pay a lot for it.



This is interesting. In my own experience, I find most binoculars very satisfactory in terms of sharpness at short distances in the range that you mention (30m and less). I get the feeling most manufacturers optimize the optics of their binoculars for these distances, which of course are typical birding distances for most people. It's when you start looking further afield that differences start to become more obvious. I do most of my observation at quite long distances (often over 1km) so detail at distance is one of my most important tests. How a binocular deals with distance and all the things that affect the perception of detail at distance (atmospheric conditions and so on) is important to me. This is all perceived sharpenss/detail, of course.

It would be really interesting (puts optics geek hat on) to do resolution tests at 50m, 200m and (say) 1000m to see if binoculars that have similar resolution at the shorter distance are still closely matched at longer distances. They ought to be (I think?), but it would be interesting to know.

I miss to respond at the first paragraph.
the price differ on genesis and el in korea is only 400$. and genesis is about 700$ more expensive then conquest, companion and mhg at same price.
so, genesis 10x33 has clearly mediocre central sharpness at it's price point. because it's sharpness is lower then 700$ lower products.

and diffrence between el 10x32 and genesis 10x33 is bigger then you thought.
at least in my perception

but genesis has pros too. much better CA, focusing, stray light control, view comfort then conquest, companion, mhg.

price diffrence usually can lead to the overall satisfaction of the binocular. but in detail optical parts like CA control, central sharpness, edge sharpness differ in every optics even if the price is same.
as you look at the swaro el and zeiss ht. which is the similar price.
ht has much better brightness, 3D rendering, stray light control and color satuation of green (and more)
but el overcome ht by center and edge sharpness, CA control in center, pincusion distortion control. and color satuation in red and yellow (and more)

evey users have their own likes. some will like ht over el because it is brighter, more 3d rendering and less rolling ball effects.

in contrast, some other will like el more because ht has much more fall out at edge, and CA appears more.
also high pincusion distortion can lead to unease feeling as low pincusion distortion (rolling ball) does it.

so, I think the phrase, 'all the bino at the same price point are same' is very insensible.

eventually they can have similar quality optics, but difference of the details will lead to amount of personal satisfaction the users feel.
because every users have his taste.

(saying about 10x42 ht, it's sweetspot, pincusion distortion is significantly worse then 10x42 conquest which is lower level of the same company. some thinks that more bothering then the advantage of ht's higer brightness, 3D fidelity, CA control, stray light control. and they have lot different colors not only in the view but also the CA. ht shows blue - red spectrum and conquset is purple - green)

thats why I'm writing my review on detail parts such as CA (even color of the ca), color hue&texture, central & edge image sharpness (and how strong the fallout is) and more.