I've had a Uvid 8x20 for a while, and Roger Vine's review finally got me to follow through on a Curio purchase. I'm glad I did - it's a keeper. Here are my comments (note I am not sure of the Uvid's age; somewhat unfair to compare an older bin to a brand new one - I do wonder if new and new would show up differently. Also, I've been curious why the 8x20 has never been released in UVHD+ form - coatings? Perhaps with an update there would be differences):
General
A hard comparison between the two made me appreciate all over again just how good the Uvid is. And yet, for my own purposes, overall I like the Curio slightly better and am going to keep it.
To be clear, my own use will be: travelling, on the move birding, jazz and classical music performance, museum, misc. places where I wouldn't always take a bin.
The two bins are nearly the exact same size, open and folded. It's actually rather remarkable.
View
This is the best Swaro view I've seen - I kid you not. I have real issues with glare on the Pure and prior 8x32, but pretty much always thought Swaro was the tops otherwise in terms of everything else (but do not own any because of the glare). The 7x21 is nearly glare free, and just has one of those beautiful crisp views you do not question. Total resolution, immersive(!) for its size, perfect color rendition, no CA, wiped clean look. Really really nice.
I have always found the Uvid 8x somewhat jittery, and the 7x just tones this down by the right amount without giving up much. I did a lot of tests trying to make out numbers on boats about a mile off, and while the 8x brings them in better, the jitter factor offsets by a similar amount.
There is a noticeable difference in glare - looking toward the sun on a mixed cloudy day, very typical viewing in Seattle, the Uvid has some glare where the Curio has none. This is super ironic as I find with my other Leicas (8x32 BN and 7x42 UVHD+), they handle glare better than full size Swaros, but here, it is reversed.
Color rendition is very similar. I find it interesting the colors of both the front and back coatings of each are quite similar.
The Curio has more pop/contrast than the Uvid - but it is possible that is due in part to my Uvid being older/used. The Curio has a "washed clean" view that is really appealing. The Uvid is very slightly washed out, but not significantly so.
Sharpness on both is very very good, but I think the Curio is slightly better. I would look through the Uvid and not feel like anything was missing, and then through the Curio, which seems to have a little extra special something.
Depth of field is better on the Curio but not dramatically so.
Field of view is about 10% bigger on the Curio.
The Swaro is slightly brighter - the 20 vs 21 objective accounts for a 10% difference in surface area, amplified by lower mag. This is a meaningful, positive difference in an inherently small, dark bin.
In spite of all my pro-Curio comments, the differences are not huge - in fact pretty subtle. The test made me appreciate how good the Uvid is, and if I had steadier hands, I might prefer the Uvid view, as I do think ultimate reach/identifiability for distant sightings would be better (not that different between my 7x UVHD+s and my various 8xs...when in the field with more distant viewing like hawks etc.). These are similar bins at the end of the day, with a similar view, but the Swaro is slightly better in several regards.
Functional design
Form is remarkably similar between the two, but different is several aspects. As noted above, the are almost exactly the same size closed and open. Both have a dual hinge design with hinges is similar places.
The Swaro is about an ounce+ heavier. I actually think this functions to stabilize the bins slightly; however for the Uvid, better for backpacking/mountaineering ounce counters.
Gription good on both.
I've mentioned the exposed metal on the Swaros and concerns for me with Reynaud's Syndrome, but I'm going to forge ahead. I tested the bin focus with my chunky electric heated gloves and they are fine (Uvid better however). Despite the Uvid's tiny size, I could completely use them with my heavy heavy insulated gloves - not as much with the Swaros.
Swaro focus is very fine, among the best. Smooth, good speed. Uvid is functional, a bit crunchy in one direction (a service might help).
I love the diopter adjustment on the Swaro. I have an astigmatism and I find myself messing with diopters a lot - it's hardly a set and forget kind of thing. I love the Curio diopter - essentially a one eye focus, no detents, no pop in and out, no fuss. As it should be in my mind. While I think the Uvid diopter/button thing is cool and interesting, you have to catch an internal gear just right to engage the diopter adjustment - meaning it's not totally precise and somewhat fussy.
A consequential difference is the location of the objective relative to the barrel end. I have found the Uvid objective to be too close to the barrel end - less than a couple mm - and it's easy to touch the lens with a pinky. I do have concerns at some point I could nick the objective - it's rather unprotected - and I'm hard on gear. This is a real issue with tiny bins, as I think they often get shoved in pockets without a lot of protection and get beaten around a bit more than bigger bins. I think this also impacts glare (which you can address by shading with your hand). Overall, I like the Swaro objective recess - a couple mm better than the Uvid.
A small thing - but I really appreciate the stainless steel (vs plastic on the Uvid) eyelets on the Swaros - however I don't use these tiny bins with a strap, so it doesn't matter.
The Swaro screw up/down eye cups are just phenomenal - how is it that Swaro has this so nailed down and noone else does? The Uvids are decent. but require supplemental o-rings to stop them at the right location. I mean, come on, can't everyone figure this out? I can't believe Swaro still has a valid patent on this design.
A major item, subjective here, that goes to the Uvid, is apparent durability. I really have no grounds for saying this, but I just sense that the Uvids are tougher. They feel more like a military or field device, whereas the Swaro feels more like a fine deluxe good. The Swaro doesn't seem fragile, but if I had to bet on one over a long term trip in the field (hiking the Pacific Crest trail, motorcycling around the world), hands down I'd take the Uvid. And that by itself might be the decider for a lot of people.
Aesthetic design
I really, really like both. This is up to the individual obviously. Both designers knew what they were doing.
I think the silver/orange Curios are faintly ridiculous and would never buy them due to theft fears. I was a bit worried the anthracite would be too two-tone - but really they are just two versions of black (the powdercoated exposed sections blacker). As Roger Vine mentioned, the Curios look better in person than in photos. Overall, they exude a sense of luxury, at home at the theatre, museum, travelling, birding, etc. The Swaro falcon is lovely and feels special. This is a funny item, but I find the sound the plastic underfascia on the Swaro makes to be unappealingly plasticy - the only (literally) false note. Also, I really wish Swaro would quit doing the cheap looking model/size on the front of the focus with cheap white silkscreening- I'm sure Marc Newsom argued hard against it, and lost. Easily located on the underbelly like everyone else? Very odd.
The Leicas just feel/look like the superb field instruments they are. I could totally see a field biologist having a set of these as backup in their kit. The Leica red dot similarly is cool and feels special. It's telling my note here is really about function - as it's fundamentally the vibe they exude. Love the center chassis.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, for me it's about the view. I do think overall the Swaro is better in this dept. However, it's by an increment, and the Uvid's maintain their own special place. Everyone will need to draw their own conclusions. We are lucky to live in a time with such an abundance of choices.
General
A hard comparison between the two made me appreciate all over again just how good the Uvid is. And yet, for my own purposes, overall I like the Curio slightly better and am going to keep it.
To be clear, my own use will be: travelling, on the move birding, jazz and classical music performance, museum, misc. places where I wouldn't always take a bin.
The two bins are nearly the exact same size, open and folded. It's actually rather remarkable.
View
This is the best Swaro view I've seen - I kid you not. I have real issues with glare on the Pure and prior 8x32, but pretty much always thought Swaro was the tops otherwise in terms of everything else (but do not own any because of the glare). The 7x21 is nearly glare free, and just has one of those beautiful crisp views you do not question. Total resolution, immersive(!) for its size, perfect color rendition, no CA, wiped clean look. Really really nice.
I have always found the Uvid 8x somewhat jittery, and the 7x just tones this down by the right amount without giving up much. I did a lot of tests trying to make out numbers on boats about a mile off, and while the 8x brings them in better, the jitter factor offsets by a similar amount.
There is a noticeable difference in glare - looking toward the sun on a mixed cloudy day, very typical viewing in Seattle, the Uvid has some glare where the Curio has none. This is super ironic as I find with my other Leicas (8x32 BN and 7x42 UVHD+), they handle glare better than full size Swaros, but here, it is reversed.
Color rendition is very similar. I find it interesting the colors of both the front and back coatings of each are quite similar.
The Curio has more pop/contrast than the Uvid - but it is possible that is due in part to my Uvid being older/used. The Curio has a "washed clean" view that is really appealing. The Uvid is very slightly washed out, but not significantly so.
Sharpness on both is very very good, but I think the Curio is slightly better. I would look through the Uvid and not feel like anything was missing, and then through the Curio, which seems to have a little extra special something.
Depth of field is better on the Curio but not dramatically so.
Field of view is about 10% bigger on the Curio.
The Swaro is slightly brighter - the 20 vs 21 objective accounts for a 10% difference in surface area, amplified by lower mag. This is a meaningful, positive difference in an inherently small, dark bin.
In spite of all my pro-Curio comments, the differences are not huge - in fact pretty subtle. The test made me appreciate how good the Uvid is, and if I had steadier hands, I might prefer the Uvid view, as I do think ultimate reach/identifiability for distant sightings would be better (not that different between my 7x UVHD+s and my various 8xs...when in the field with more distant viewing like hawks etc.). These are similar bins at the end of the day, with a similar view, but the Swaro is slightly better in several regards.
Functional design
Form is remarkably similar between the two, but different is several aspects. As noted above, the are almost exactly the same size closed and open. Both have a dual hinge design with hinges is similar places.
The Swaro is about an ounce+ heavier. I actually think this functions to stabilize the bins slightly; however for the Uvid, better for backpacking/mountaineering ounce counters.
Gription good on both.
I've mentioned the exposed metal on the Swaros and concerns for me with Reynaud's Syndrome, but I'm going to forge ahead. I tested the bin focus with my chunky electric heated gloves and they are fine (Uvid better however). Despite the Uvid's tiny size, I could completely use them with my heavy heavy insulated gloves - not as much with the Swaros.
Swaro focus is very fine, among the best. Smooth, good speed. Uvid is functional, a bit crunchy in one direction (a service might help).
I love the diopter adjustment on the Swaro. I have an astigmatism and I find myself messing with diopters a lot - it's hardly a set and forget kind of thing. I love the Curio diopter - essentially a one eye focus, no detents, no pop in and out, no fuss. As it should be in my mind. While I think the Uvid diopter/button thing is cool and interesting, you have to catch an internal gear just right to engage the diopter adjustment - meaning it's not totally precise and somewhat fussy.
A consequential difference is the location of the objective relative to the barrel end. I have found the Uvid objective to be too close to the barrel end - less than a couple mm - and it's easy to touch the lens with a pinky. I do have concerns at some point I could nick the objective - it's rather unprotected - and I'm hard on gear. This is a real issue with tiny bins, as I think they often get shoved in pockets without a lot of protection and get beaten around a bit more than bigger bins. I think this also impacts glare (which you can address by shading with your hand). Overall, I like the Swaro objective recess - a couple mm better than the Uvid.
A small thing - but I really appreciate the stainless steel (vs plastic on the Uvid) eyelets on the Swaros - however I don't use these tiny bins with a strap, so it doesn't matter.
The Swaro screw up/down eye cups are just phenomenal - how is it that Swaro has this so nailed down and noone else does? The Uvids are decent. but require supplemental o-rings to stop them at the right location. I mean, come on, can't everyone figure this out? I can't believe Swaro still has a valid patent on this design.
A major item, subjective here, that goes to the Uvid, is apparent durability. I really have no grounds for saying this, but I just sense that the Uvids are tougher. They feel more like a military or field device, whereas the Swaro feels more like a fine deluxe good. The Swaro doesn't seem fragile, but if I had to bet on one over a long term trip in the field (hiking the Pacific Crest trail, motorcycling around the world), hands down I'd take the Uvid. And that by itself might be the decider for a lot of people.
Aesthetic design
I really, really like both. This is up to the individual obviously. Both designers knew what they were doing.
I think the silver/orange Curios are faintly ridiculous and would never buy them due to theft fears. I was a bit worried the anthracite would be too two-tone - but really they are just two versions of black (the powdercoated exposed sections blacker). As Roger Vine mentioned, the Curios look better in person than in photos. Overall, they exude a sense of luxury, at home at the theatre, museum, travelling, birding, etc. The Swaro falcon is lovely and feels special. This is a funny item, but I find the sound the plastic underfascia on the Swaro makes to be unappealingly plasticy - the only (literally) false note. Also, I really wish Swaro would quit doing the cheap looking model/size on the front of the focus with cheap white silkscreening- I'm sure Marc Newsom argued hard against it, and lost. Easily located on the underbelly like everyone else? Very odd.
The Leicas just feel/look like the superb field instruments they are. I could totally see a field biologist having a set of these as backup in their kit. The Leica red dot similarly is cool and feels special. It's telling my note here is really about function - as it's fundamentally the vibe they exude. Love the center chassis.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, for me it's about the view. I do think overall the Swaro is better in this dept. However, it's by an increment, and the Uvid's maintain their own special place. Everyone will need to draw their own conclusions. We are lucky to live in a time with such an abundance of choices.
Last edited:
, there is a small dent at the end of one of the barrels near the objective and it is slightly oval now... also i hear some noise from the inside if i move the binocular fast. Optically everything is ok and the focuser works flawless but i will try to be more careful with this little fellow. It's the black leatherette version, it looks beautiful but i think the rubber version is more rugged. Does anybody else hear this rattle in his UV?