Is there a CL 7x21 Curio in my future? (1 Viewer)

[mfunnell]

I am wondering this because I’m thinking I might have good use for optically excellent but truly pocketable bins, to go with travel plans I’ve locked in or am making (multiple trips, mostly here in Oz but also NZ).

I’ve “ummed and aahed” about the Zeiss Victory 8x25s. Lots of people say many wonderful things about those, and I in no way doubt them. But..

I’m not sure they make it as “truly pocketable”. More “jacket pockets”, maybe. I have 8x25 Terras (which I like well enough) and that size is not what I’m after.

I have some very small, cheap and cheerful, Carson 7x18s I take cycling. But they are hardly optically excellent. More: “better than nothing”, yet, still: tiny.

I’m hoping the Curios might split the difference, size-wise yet still give some (plenty of!) optical excellence.

I’d be interested in hearing opinions - especially from those who have assessed Curios vs Victories. Thanks in advance…

…Mike

 

[pm42]

Several people posted the comparison already. They are both excellent, the Curio are really pocketable and some people prefer them for this. Other find them too small and prefer the VP.

I have both and I do not use the VP anymore as I prefer having the Curio in my pocket and something bigger when I'm sure I'm gonna use binoculars (8x32 or 8x40).

 

[Trinovid]

The two pocketable models I have are the Curio and the Ultravid, with the latter being both my first and now present all-the-time-in-pocket binocular. The Curio took over that spot briefly for about two weeks and if I didn't have the Ultravid I'd once again happily carry the Curio instead. Wonderful binocular that actually bests the Ultravid for brightness, ease of eye alignment and has absolutely perfect twist up eyecups.

 

[Aicman]

I am wondering this because I’m thinking I might have good use for optically excellent but truly pocketable bins, to go with travel plans I’ve locked in or am making (multiple trips, mostly here in Oz but also NZ).

I’ve “ummed and aahed” about the Zeiss Victory 8x25s. Lots of people say many wonderful things about those, and I in no way doubt them. But..

I’m not sure they make it as “truly pocketable”. More “jacket pockets”, maybe. I have 8x25 Terras (which I like well enough) and that size is not what I’m after.

I have some very small, cheap and cheerful, Carson 7x18s I take cycling. But they are hardly optically excellent. More: “better than nothing”, yet, still: tiny.

I’m hoping the Curios might split the difference, size-wise yet still give some (plenty of!) optical excellence.

I’d be interested in hearing opinions - especially from those who have assessed Curios vs Victories. Thanks in advance…

…Mike

I am wondering this because I’m thinking I might have good use for optically excellent but truly pocketable bins, to go with travel plans I’ve locked in or am making (multiple trips, mostly here in Oz but also NZ).

I’ve “ummed and aahed” about the Zeiss Victory 8x25s. Lots of people say many wonderful things about those, and I in no way doubt them. But..

I’m not sure they make it as “truly pocketable”. More “jacket pockets”, maybe. I have 8x25 Terras (which I like well enough) and that size is not what I’m after.

I have some very small, cheap and cheerful, Carson 7x18s I take cycling. But they are hardly optically excellent. More: “better than nothing”, yet, still: tiny.

I’m hoping the Curios might split the difference, size-wise yet still give some (plenty of!) optical excellence.

I’d be interested in hearing opinions - especially from those who have assessed Curios vs Victories. Thanks in advance…

…Mike

The Curios are the best in two categories, ‘pocketable’ size and optics (excellent resolution, no CA). Handling wise they are also excellent due to their 3mm exit pupil, good ER and good eye cups.

The Curios split no difference, they are currently the best compact usable binos in the market.


Aic

 

[mfunnell]

Several people posted the comparison already. They are both excellent, the Curio are really pocketable and some people prefer them for this. Other find them too small and prefer the VP.

I have both and I do not use the VP anymore as I prefer having the Curio in my pocket and something bigger when I'm sure I'm gonna use binoculars (8x32 or 8x40).

That’s encouraging, because that’s the way I think I’ll likely use them. Thanks.

…Mike

 

[mwhogue]

I am wondering this because I’m thinking I might have good use for optically excellent but truly pocketable bins, to go with travel plans I’ve locked in or am making (multiple trips, mostly here in Oz but also NZ).

I’ve “ummed and aahed” about the Zeiss Victory 8x25s. Lots of people say many wonderful things about those, and I in no way doubt them. But..

I’m not sure they make it as “truly pocketable”. More “jacket pockets”, maybe. I have 8x25 Terras (which I like well enough) and that size is not what I’m after.

I have some very small, cheap and cheerful, Carson 7x18s I take cycling. But they are hardly optically excellent. More: “better than nothing”, yet, still: tiny.

I’m hoping the Curios might split the difference, size-wise yet still give some (plenty of!) optical excellence.

I’d be interested in hearing opinions - especially from those who have assessed Curios vs Victories. Thanks in advance…

…Mike

Mike,

For "truly pocketable", yes it's the Curio over the VP. With either, I'm still always always surprised by the quality of the image to size ratio. The Terra are similar in size to the VP and both are much larger than the Curio. See pics below, sorry about the quality.

Mike

 

[[email protected]]

"The Curios split no difference, they are currently the best compact usable binos in the market."

That pretty much says it all right there. I have tried all the pocket binoculars and I like the Curio's the best because they have a bigger FOV and the 7x is easier to hold steady which is important with a compact, they have a bigger EP which makes eye placement easier, and they have sharper edges and are brighter than either the 8x20 Leica Trinovid BCA or 8x20 Ultravid BR. The Swarovski CLP 8x25 and Zeiss Victory 8x25 are not truly pocketable, being too big.

 

[Swissboy]

I am wondering this because I’m thinking I might have good use for optically excellent but truly pocketable bins, to go with travel plans I’ve locked in or am making (multiple trips, mostly here in Oz but also NZ).

I’ve “ummed and aahed” about the Zeiss Victory 8x25s. Lots of people say many wonderful things about those, and I in no way doubt them. But..

I’m not sure they make it as “truly pocketable”. More “jacket pockets”, maybe. I have 8x25 Terras (which I like well enough) and that size is not what I’m after.

I have some very small, cheap and cheerful, Carson 7x18s I take cycling. But they are hardly optically excellent. More: “better than nothing”, yet, still: tiny.

I’m hoping the Curios might split the difference, size-wise yet still give some (plenty of!) optical excellence.

I’d be interested in hearing opinions - especially from those who have assessed Curios vs Victories. Thanks in advance…

…Mike

As a side effect of my Zeiss SFL evaluation I today had first contact with both the Victory 8x25 and the Curio 7x21. Both seemed optically excellent, but I did not like the one-hinge asymmetrical shape of the Zeiss. They felt uncomfortable in the hands. The Curios, on the other hand, felt superb both in handling and optics, and I liked their compactness when folded up.

 

[BabyDov]

mfunnennel,

I had the Curio but after 3 weeks of using them, exchanged them for the VPs. I liked them both, but the VPs won out.

Why?

1.The Curios were TOO small for me. I found it very difficult to keep them steady, in spite of the 7x. The VPs were much easier to handle for me. Having a single hinge makes them easier to adjust. (Getting used to the assymetrical design took about 10 minutes) . The focusing on the VP was easier with the placement of its bigger knob comfortably in reach of my extended index finger.
2. I liked the FOV of the Curio, which was about the same as the VP. Howevet, the Curio had an AFOV of only 51 compared to 60 of the VP. Therefore, the view through the Curio was compsratively, tunnel like and much less immersive than that of the VP. I thought that the flatter field of view on the Curio might make up for some of that APOV difference, but it didn't. (I guess the reason AFOV was so Important to me, was that that I already owned the 8x42 NL and 12x42 Nl. I have gotten used to AFOV of 69 and 72 with them. So going down to an AFOV of 51 was a shock of difference)
3. The close focus on the Curios was about 8 ft. The VPs focus down to slightly under 5 ft. That is a big difference.
4. The Curios are smaller than the VPs, but weigh just as much. Both, folded, can fit into a shirt pocket, but the VPs won't, if you have rain covers on with objective covers. To reduce the added bulk of covers, I usually carry my VP in a thin, velvet drawstring bag, where I won't need any covers. I can fit this in a sweater pocket or even cargo pants pocket and not worry about scratches from keys, etc.
5. The build quality, IMO, of the Curio seems to be lackimg in certain respects. I didn't like its metal bridge with a cheap plastic under belly. The unprotected metal made for worrying about scratches, not mentioning it being exposed to the cold and feelimg cold to the touch. I.much preferred the warmer, rubber armored bridge on the VP. The diopter adjustment on the VP had a detent in the middle, whereas the Curio's did not. The focusing knob on the VPs seems smoother than on the Curio and being a bit bigger, easier to operate with gloves. (However, I did prefer the eye cups on the Curios. They were completely removable, unlike the VP's, making occular lens cleaning easier.)
6. The Curios have a slightly brighter view on a bright day, probably because of its better light transmission (93% vs 90%).However, in lower light there is no difference, or the slightly bigger EP on VP favors the VP in low light.

Being a Swarovski fan, I had hoped the Curios would have worked out for me. I had waited nearly 5 months to get mine, as they were on back order. So when I first got them, I was very excited. So, it was very difficult for me to accept they might not be for me. As much as I tried, after 3 weeks, I just couldn't get used to handling them. One size does not fit all. Perhaps they will be a better fit for you. You should definitely give them a try, as I did. If you love them, don't look back. If you are unsure, as I was, by all means, try them both.
Bill

 

[[email protected]]

mfunnennel,

I had the Curio but after 3 weeks of using them, exchanged them for the VPs. I liked them both, but the VPs won out.

Why?

1.The Curios were TOO small for me. I found it very difficult to keep them steady, in spite of the 7x. The VPs were much easier to handle for me. Having a single hinge makes them easier to adjust. (Getting used to the assymetrical design took about 10 minutes) . The focusing on the VP was easier with the placement of its bigger knob comfortably in reach of my extended index finger.
2. I liked the FOV of the Curio, which was about the same as the VP. Howevet, the Curio had an AFOV of only 51 compared to 60 of the VP. Therefore, the view through the Curio was compsratively, tunnel like and much less immersive than that of the VP. I thought that the flatter field of view on the Curio might make up for some of that APOV difference, but it didn't. (I guess the reason AFOV was so Important to me, was that that I already owned the 8x42 NL and 12x42 Nl. I have gotten used to AFOV of 69 and 72 with them. So going down to an AFOV of 51 was a shock of difference)
3. The close focus on the Curios was about 8 ft. The VPs focus down to slightly under 5 ft. That is a big difference.
4. The Curios are smaller than the VPs, but weigh just as much. Both, folded, can fit into a shirt pocket, but the VPs won't, if you have rain covers on with objective covers. To reduce the added bulk of covers, I usually carry my VP in a thin, velvet drawstring bag, where I won't need any covers. I can fit this in a sweater pocket or even cargo pants pocket and not worry about scratches from keys, etc.
5. The build quality, IMO, of the Curio seems to be lackimg in certain respects. I didn't like its metal bridge with a cheap plastic under belly. The unprotected metal made for worrying about scratches, not mentioning it being exposed to the cold and feelimg cold to the touch. I.much preferred the warmer, rubber armored bridge on the VP. The diopter adjustment on the VP had a detent in the middle, whereas the Curio's did not. The focusing knob on the VPs seems smoother than on the Curio and being a bit bigger, easier to operate with gloves. (However, I did prefer the eye cups on the Curios. They were completely removable, unlike the VP's, making occular lens cleaning easier.)
6. The Curios have a slightly brighter view on a bright day, probably because of its better light transmission (93% vs 90%).However, in lower light there is no difference, or the slightly bigger EP on VP favors the VP in low light.

Being a Swarovski fan, I had hoped the Curios would have worked out for me. I had waited nearly 5 months to get mine, as they were on back order. So when I first got them, I was very excited. So, it was very difficult for me to accept they might not be for me. As much as I tried, after 3 weeks, I just couldn't get used to handling them. One size does not fit all. Perhaps they will be a better fit for you. You should definitely give them a try, as I did. If you love them, don't look back. If you are unsure, as I was, by all means, try them both.
Bill

1.1. The Curios were TOO small for me. I found it very difficult to keep them steady, in spite of the 7x. The VPs were much easier to handle for me. Having a single hinge makes them easier to adjust. (Getting used to the asymmetrical design took about 10 minutes). The focusing on the VP was easier with the placement of its bigger knob comfortably in reach of my extended index finger.

The double hinge of the Curio allows them to fold to a much smaller size than the Zeiss, making them a true pocket binocular. Of course, a bigger binocular is going to be more comfortable to use, but that bigger size defeats its purpose of being pocketable. You might as well use an 8x30 or 8x32.

2. I liked the FOV of the Curio, which was about the same as the VP. However, the Curio had an AFOV of only 51 compared to 60 of the VP. Therefore, the view through the Curio was comparatively, tunnel like and much less immersive than that of the VP. I thought that the flatter field of view on the Curio might make up for some of that AFOV difference, but it didn't. (I guess the reason AFOV was so Important to me, was that that I already owned the 8x42 NL and 12x42 Nl. I have gotten used to AFOV of 69 and 72 with them. So going down to an AFOV of 51 was a shock of difference)

The FOV is actually bigger than the VP, being 405 feet for the Curio and 390 feet for the VP. True, the AFOV is larger on the VP, but 15% of it is fuzzy near the field stop, so the usable AFOV is the same. You will see more at one time with the Curio, even though the magnification is less.

3. The close focus on the Curios was about 8 ft. The VPs focus down to slightly under 5 ft. That is a big difference.

The close focus on the Curio is 8.2 ft. and the VP is 6.2 ft. Not too big of a difference in the real world.

4. The Curios are smaller than the VPs, but weigh just as much. Both, folded, can fit into a shirt pocket, but the VPs won't, if you have rain covers on with objective covers. To reduce the added bulk of covers, I usually carry my VP in a thin, velvet drawstring bag, where I won't need any covers. I can fit this in a sweater pocket or even cargo pants pocket and not worry about scratches from keys, etc.

The Curios are almost an ounce or 10% lighter. Pretty significant when you are at 10 oz. and less. You must have big shirt pockets for the VP to fit. The VP is way bigger than the Curio, especially when folded due to the single hinge design. The VP is not really pocketable for most normal size pockets. That is a big difference between the two.

5. The build quality, IMO, of the Curio seems to be lacking in certain respects. I didn't like its metal bridge with a cheap plastic under belly. The unprotected metal made for worrying about scratches, not mentioning it being exposed to the cold and feeling cold to the touch. I much preferred the warmer, rubber armored bridge on the VP. The diopter adjustment on the VP had a detent in the middle, whereas the Curio's did not. The focusing knob on the VPs seems smoother than on the Curio and, being a bit bigger, easier to operate with gloves. (However, I did prefer the eye cups on the Curios. They were completely removable, unlike the VP's, making ocular lens cleaning easier.)

The VP is outsourced to Japan and the Curio is made in Austria like the rest of the Swarovski's. The precision and build quality of the Curio far surpasses the plasticky feel of the VP. The Curio has no indent on the diopter, but it doesn't need one because it never moves, The VP diopter has been known to move when you fold and unfold the binoculars. It is a weak point of the binoculars.

6. The Curios have a slightly brighter view on a bright day, probably because of its better light transmission (93% vs 90%). However, in lower light there is no difference, or the slightly bigger EP on VP favors the VP in low light.

I agree on the brightness. The VP will also have a little better Twilight Factor due to the higher magnification.


The biggest advantage of the Curio is the much smaller size, especially when folded. Also, a well known problem with the VP is the fact that the eye cups are way too short for the eye relief, making you hold the binoculars away from your face to avoid blackouts if you don't wear glasses. For people that don't wear glasses, this is a real deal killer. The Curio's eye cups match their eye relief much better, allowing a person that doesn't wear eyeglasses to comfortably rest the eye cups on their eye sockets. Another big advantage of the Curio is common to all 7x binoculars, but even more important with a pocket binocular. Pocket binoculars because of their small size are hard to hold steady, and a 7x is way easier to hold steady than an 8x, especially with a binocular this tiny. Also, the 7x has much better DOF than the 8x, making focusing almost unnecessary in most cases.


They are not really in the same class when it comes to size and pocketability! The Curio is much smaller!

 

[BabyDov]

Dennis,
I lived with both. I hope you have.
I can only give my experience.
Each person can judge for himself.

Roger Vine thought the VP was a better choice for birding because of its magnification and more immersive experience its larger AFOV privided. He favored the Curios for its size and for its use in taking in landscapes and nature. He liked both, based on use.

Close focus is important to me. Actual testing (not specs) say it focuses at 4ft 9in.. (So Zeiss is very conservative when they state that spec.)

While size is important for a compact bino, I didn't want to give up viewing comfort (large AFOV) and straining to hold a tiny objrct steady, just for a little difference in size. I can still carry the VP anywhere I could the Curios, unlike.my Nls.

I wear glasses and have no problem with the VP. Without glasses I can still use them and have had no blackout issues.

FOV slightly favoring the Curio can't really be appreciated at much less than a 1000 yards especially with its lower magnification and with its narrow AFOV. (More on that later.)

In no way is the VP appreciably fuzzy at the periphery even though the Curio ihas a flatter field. Furthermore, normal vision without binoculars favors clarity in the center. So unless you are attempting to move your eyes to the periphery within the AFOV of the binocular, you aren't going to be aware of a difference in sharpness with the Curio or VP. If there was bothersome periphersl fuzxiness, most people, unless the bino is fixed on a tripod, would just move the binocular a bit to the center to clear it up. Or they would just adjust the focus without moving the bino.
In other words normal, unaided vision takes in a scene with attention to the center. The less focused periphery frames the center, which is the focus of our attention. That's why some people don't like flat field binos, which, to them, give an unnatural view. However, owning two Nls, I DO like the "unnatura" view. For example, it is this flat field, a large real FOV, combined with sharp optics, and a large AFOV, that gives the unmeasurable WOW factor to the Nls that can't be appreciated with natural vision. Sadly, the Curios, in spite of its great optics, great FOV and flat field, lack for me the WOW of the NLs. Why? It boils down to the AFOV of only 51. (Perhaps, that's why Swarovski couldn't call this binocular the 7x21 Nl? )

So why does the Curio have AFOV of 51 vs 60 of the VP when the FOV of the Curio is slightly more? It's because the Curio is 7x and not 8x. IAFOV (roughly) equals Magnification x Real FOV, so the lesser magnification by 1X becomes rather sugnificant. That difference. Of 1 gets magnified by the RFOV expressed in degrees. So it turns out that there is a much bigger impact than you might have thought when going from 8X down to 7X.

Quality of construction in the Curios bares to be proven. Just because it is made in Austria doesn't guarantee the Curio is better made than the VP made in Japan. Better feel in the hands for me with the VP doesn't guarantee better build, either. BTW, a one ounce difference in weight is insignificant. Adding the neck strap or lens covers will make a bigger difference. I prefer not to.do so.
Fortunately, they both have life time warrenties in the USA. Zeiss even offers a one time no fault repair or replacement no matter what you do to damage your bino in the first 5 years of ownership. . (You must register it during the first 60 days of ownership fir this to apply.) Swarovski has been known to be more generous regarding damage witout time.limits. Is that because they are more rugged and less susceptible to damage? Perhaps.

Dennis, I am glad you love your Curio. Whether you agree with my assessment or.not shouldn't matter. Obviously, the Curio is best for you. I hope you can continue to enjoy them for many years to come. However, the Curio may not be the best choice for everyone.as the quote you gave in your earlier post would suggest. That's all I.am saying.
Bill

 

[Joe H]

I will chip in with my limited experience with 8x20 sized bins. For me size was the primary factor when choosing a companion for my 8x32s. I wanted dress-shirt pocketable, premium views and waterproof. When I was buying that meant the Leica 8x20 Ultravid. Today it means the little Leica and the Swarovski Curio. Yes, there are other 8x20s but for any number of reasons they weren't for me (rear focus wheels, poor FOVs, dim views). Between the two, it boils down to 8x vs 7x, or a slightly better view (whatever that means to your eyes), or brand preference. All are valid reasons to pick either one. You won't go wrong with either.

 

[glennd]

i've spent time with the vp, 10x25 cl which swaro sent when my daughter's curios were in for focuser service, as well as her curios. all of them provide superb views imo for such tiny packages. both the vp and the pocket cl felt better in my hand (advantage vp because of the offset focus knob was well positioned for my right index finger fully extended - like a full size binocular), but my daughter who generally refuses to carry optics with her anywhere despite spending much of her life in high in the andes, will only carry the curios because of their size advantage. to each their own.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,
I lived with both. I hope you have.
I can only give my experience.
Each person can judge for himself.

Roger Vine thought the VP was a better choice for birding because of its magnification and more immersive experience its larger AFOV privided. He favored the Curios for its size and for its use in taking in landscapes and nature. He liked both, based on use.

Close focus is important to me. Actual testing (not specs) say it focuses at 4ft 9in.. (So Zeiss is very conservative when they state that spec.)

While size is important for a compact bino, I didn't want to give up viewing comfort (large AFOV) and straining to hold a tiny objrct steady, just for a little difference in size. I can still carry the VP anywhere I could the Curios, unlike.my Nls.

I wear glasses and have no problem with the VP. Without glasses I can still use them and have had no blackout issues.

FOV slightly favoring the Curio can't really be appreciated at much less than a 1000 yards especially with its lower magnification and with its narrow AFOV. (More on that later.)

In no way is the VP appreciably fuzzy at the periphery even though the Curio ihas a flatter field. Furthermore, normal vision without binoculars favors clarity in the center. So unless you are attempting to move your eyes to the periphery within the AFOV of the binocular, you aren't going to be aware of a difference in sharpness with the Curio or VP. If there was bothersome periphersl fuzxiness, most people, unless the bino is fixed on a tripod, would just move the binocular a bit to the center to clear it up. Or they would just adjust the focus without moving the bino.
In other words normal, unaided vision takes in a scene with attention to the center. The less focused periphery frames the center, which is the focus of our attention. That's why some people don't like flat field binos, which, to them, give an unnatural view. However, owning two Nls, I DO like the "unnatura" view. For example, it is this flat field, a large real FOV, combined with sharp optics, and a large AFOV, that gives the unmeasurable WOW factor to the Nls that can't be appreciated with natural vision. Sadly, the Curios, in spite of its great optics, great FOV and flat field, lack for me the WOW of the NLs. Why? It boils down to the AFOV of only 51. (Perhaps, that's why Swarovski couldn't call this binocular the 7x21 Nl? )

So why does the Curio have AFOV of 51 vs 60 of the VP when the FOV of the Curio is slightly more? It's because the Curio is 7x and not 8x. IAFOV (roughly) equals Magnification x Real FOV, so the lesser magnification by 1X becomes rather sugnificant. That difference. Of 1 gets magnified by the RFOV expressed in degrees. So it turns out that there is a much bigger impact than you might have thought when going from 8X down to 7X.

Quality of construction in the Curios bares to be proven. Just because it is made in Austria doesn't guarantee the Curio is better made than the VP made in Japan. Better feel in the hands for me with the VP doesn't guarantee better build, either. BTW, a one ounce difference in weight is insignificant. Adding the neck strap or lens covers will make a bigger difference. I prefer not to.do so.
Fortunately, they both have life time warrenties in the USA. Zeiss even offers a one time no fault repair or replacement no matter what you do to damage your bino in the first 5 years of ownership. . (You must register it during the first 60 days of ownership fir this to apply.) Swarovski has been known to be more generous regarding damage witout time.limits. Is that because they are more rugged and less susceptible to damage? Perhaps.

Dennis, I am glad you love your Curio. Whether you agree with my assessment or.not shouldn't matter. Obviously, the Curio is best for you. I hope you can continue to enjoy them for many years to come. However, the Curio may not be the best choice for everyone.as the quote you gave in your earlier post would suggest. That's all I.am saying.
Bill

You must have deep eye sockets if the VP works for you without glasses. They don't work for a lot of people. Roger Vine says the VP has about 15% distortion. "The field, like most recent Zeiss bino’s, isn’t as perfectly flat and well-corrected to the edge as a pair of Swarovski, but it’s not far off, with just some minor curvature and a trace of astigmatism towards the very edge. The numbers on a meter rule just blur into unreadability in the last 15% or so, but can easily be focused back in., and I agree with that". There is no way the VP is as sharp to the edge as the Curio. if you think it is, you need your eyes tested! I can easily see the difference in sharpness between the two when I am using them in a normal manner. I don't have to look at the edges. That is BS when people say they don't see the edges in a binocular. The Curios are not as WOW as an NL 8x32, but they still have the trademark Swarovski sharp edges and the VP have the trademark Zeiss fuzzy edges. I understand AFOV and the VP is greater, but with the fuzzy edges in the VP it still comes out about equal to the Curio to what you can see clearly in the FOV. The build quality of the Curio is much more precise with the way parts fit and move than the VP. "The build quality of the Curios feels to me on a higher level, more recognizably artisanal and ‘high-end’" Swarovski has the best warranty around and not because their binoculars are less well built. The BIG difference between the Curio and the VP is the size. The Curio is truly a pocket binocular, and the VP is not. If you are going to get a VP 8x25, you might as well move up to a real binocular and get an 8x30 CL or 8x30 MHG.

 

[pm42]

Today it means the little Leica and the Swarovski Curio.

I agree. I prefer the Curio because of the wider field and because they work better for me with glasses.
But the Leica are still excellent and their design & ergonomics are better.

 

[[email protected]]

I agree. I prefer the Curio because of the wider field and because they work better for me with glasses.
But the Leica are still excellent and their design & ergonomics are better.

The Leica UV BR 8x20 and Trinovid BCA 8x20 do have an excellent design and ergonomics, but the Curio has the advantage of a bigger exit pupil and higher transmission, so it is brighter especially in low light and the eye placement is much easier. The Curio's magnification of 7x gives it much better DOF than the Leica's and most importantly you can hold them steadier. Very important with a tiny binocular. The Curio has the trademark Swarovski flat field with sharp edges, but the Leica's have more field curvature with fuzzy edges. The Curio also has a much larger FOV than either Leica. Optically, the Curio is superior to either Leica unless you prefer the additional magnification of 8x in the Leica's. Swarovski was wise in making the Curio a 7x21.

 

[Trinovid]

I will chip in with my limited experience with 8x20 sized bins. For me size was the primary factor when choosing a companion for my 8x32s. I wanted dress-shirt pocketable, premium views and waterproof. When I was buying that meant the Leica 8x20 Ultravid. Today it means the little Leica and the Swarovski Curio. Yes, there are other 8x20s but for any number of reasons they weren't for me (rear focus wheels, poor FOVs, dim views). Between the two, it boils down to 8x vs 7x, or a slightly better view (whatever that means to your eyes), or brand preference. All are valid reasons to pick either one. You won't go wrong with either.

If only all reccommendations could be as equal-handed as yours. There's nothing 'bad' about users stating their preference, but far too many are variations on 'what I like is the best and nothing else should be considered.

So, which one do you carry, or do you also have both?

 

[kimmik]

The curio is 258g bare on my scales. Slightly above advertised.

The leica pockets are lighter than advertised, especially the trinovids. Noticeable in pocket. Worth considering.

Zeiss in on spec.

 

[Joe H]

I will chip in with my limited experience with 8x20 sized bins. For me size was the primary factor when choosing a companion for my 8x32s. I wanted dress-shirt pocketable, premium views and waterproof. When I was buying that meant the Leica 8x20 Ultravid. Today it means the little Leica and the Swarovski Curio. Yes, there are other 8x20s but for any number of reasons they weren't for me (rear focus wheels, poor FOVs, dim views). Between the two, it boils down to 8x vs 7x, or a slightly better view (whatever that means to your eyes), or brand preference. All are valid reasons to pick either one. You won't go wrong with either.

"So, which one do you carry, or do you also have both?"


I had the 8x20 Ultravid about 18 years. They were stolen and I replaced them with the Swaro Curio. To my eyes/glasses combination, the wider FOV, slightly brighter view, and the quicker establishment of a good view (due to the larger exit pupil diameter) makes me prefer the Curios. I don't know that I would have replaced the Ultravids with the Curios if they hadn't been stolen. The Ultravids gave a very usable view, and we traveled a lot of miles together, and I'm a very frugal guy. But the Curio would be (and was) my first choice if I was buying one today.

I will echo and highlight one of Denco's comments above about the greater depth of field of the Curio. It is astounding compared to my wife's Zeiss 8x20s, and even my Swaro 8x32 ELs. A really nice bonus when only getting quick glimpses of multiple birds.

 

[ReinierB]

I read good thing about the Curio. How are the eyecups? Narrower than the eyecups of for instance the CL 8x25? I read comments that the 8x25's aren't real pocket bins, but isnt it true that the viewing comfort of a bit bigger bins with wider eyecups and a bit more weight is better?
So in case your pockets are big enough, the CL 8x25 would be the one to pick? The AFOV and the exit pupil a a little bigger too. A 7 power has more DOV. That would be nice af course.
But for me: I have big pockets, I do not care about a bit more weight, I liker higher magnifications, I do care about viewing comfort. I even read that the viewing comfort of the Terra 8x25 is a bit better compared with the CL 8x25, because they have a bit more volume. That's what counts for me as well.
I know, it's all about personal reference. But what about the viewing comfort? Isn't the Curio too little in that respect, if weight and size doesn't matter that much?