Can you rest the Maven 7x28 against your eye sockets without black-outs? In other words, are the eye cups long enough for the eye relief, or do you have to hold them in front of your face? How big are they compared to a Nikon M7 8x30?Check out my review on the Maven 7x28
they offer advantages over current pocket binoculars such as more stable views, better exit pupils, relaxing views, sturdy construction. Plus they lay flat in my pants pocket without the bulge trifold binoculars normally cause
Maven 7x28 review
my travel pocket binoculars were stolen and very Very few manufacturers make 7x binoculars anymore so I thought I try the maven 7x28. So far I’m impressed -These have a feel of really well built binoculars and I owned a lot of binoculars over the years. these are very comfortable to look...www.birdforum.net
-
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.
Pocket binoculars that fit in your pocket! (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sprite1275
- Start date
From my experience, Daddy in Germany is not always happy to send the kids all that way for chicken soup.
Maybe it’s better they don’t climb trees, so they don’t fall out of ‘em 🙂
Edmund
Blue72
Well-known member
Yes, I can rest them on my eyes without blackouts
they are slightly smaller then the m7. Small enough to comfortably put in my pants pocket….But, I wear loose pants
I've been following this thread with interest because, as many here, I'm also interested in a "pocketable" carry everywhere pair, for those times when you're not birding, but you don't want to miss an unexpected opportunity. After reading many good things about them, I got the Zeiss Terra ED 8x25. After using them as intended (handlebar bag on the bike, or jacket pocket) for some months, I'm afraid I'm among those who don't find them really pocketable. Image quality is nice, although comparing them with a cheaper 8x32, the Vortex Diamondback HD, I discovered that on a gloomy day (in the middle of the day, no need to wait for twillight), the Diamondback appeared noticeable brighter, so I guess that while I don't see much difference between a good 8x32 and a good 8x42 during day hours, on cloudy days an 8x25 is maybe a threshold.
Furthermore, to my surprise, the 8x25 Terra are not that compact compared to a small 8x32 like the Diamondback (or the Leica Ultravid), in fact, it's 1 or 2 mm taller.
Obviously, when folded the Terra shows its main virtue. Yes, they're smaller, but then again, I don't find the difference massive.
Or maybe I should say that I don't find the difference enough to justify the cons (finicky eye positioning due to double hinge and smaller EP, less FOV, dimmer view). In short, I find that the drawbacks are such that it should be way smaller and lighter to be worth it (this is obviously just a personal opinion based on my experience and my taste/needs).
The 8x25 Terra are 310 g and the 8x32 Diamondback HD are 450 g (the Monarch 7 is even lighter), but because the Terra are smaller when folded, oddly enough they feel heavier than they are (I guess because, when folded, they feel "denser"). So I feel I can carry the 8x32 Diamondback on my jacket pocket more comfortably than the Zeiss. Now that I think about it, there haven't been those many times when I couldn't have carried the 8x32 Diamondback (or the Traveller). Anyway, I'm grateful to the Terra, because they've allowed me to spot some unexpected species, like the other day riding my bike when I spotted a Southern Grey Shrike which is a rare species here in the middle of the winter
As a matter of fact, I think I'll try to get some nice 8x20, and here's where it gets complicated. I have located a not that popular Eschenbach Club 8x20 (the new version) that, according to specs, is phase corrected and has dielectric coatings. Obviously it won't be as nice as a Leica, but I wonder how good they can be for the price. I read a not-so positive comment from a forum member, but he didn't elaborate on what he found lacking on them, so they're a bit of gamble. Let see if I can find a nice 2nd hand unit. Any suggestion of some other nice 8x20 is always welcome.
Furthermore, to my surprise, the 8x25 Terra are not that compact compared to a small 8x32 like the Diamondback (or the Leica Ultravid), in fact, it's 1 or 2 mm taller.
Obviously, when folded the Terra shows its main virtue. Yes, they're smaller, but then again, I don't find the difference massive.
Or maybe I should say that I don't find the difference enough to justify the cons (finicky eye positioning due to double hinge and smaller EP, less FOV, dimmer view). In short, I find that the drawbacks are such that it should be way smaller and lighter to be worth it (this is obviously just a personal opinion based on my experience and my taste/needs).
The 8x25 Terra are 310 g and the 8x32 Diamondback HD are 450 g (the Monarch 7 is even lighter), but because the Terra are smaller when folded, oddly enough they feel heavier than they are (I guess because, when folded, they feel "denser"). So I feel I can carry the 8x32 Diamondback on my jacket pocket more comfortably than the Zeiss. Now that I think about it, there haven't been those many times when I couldn't have carried the 8x32 Diamondback (or the Traveller). Anyway, I'm grateful to the Terra, because they've allowed me to spot some unexpected species, like the other day riding my bike when I spotted a Southern Grey Shrike which is a rare species here in the middle of the winter
As a matter of fact, I think I'll try to get some nice 8x20, and here's where it gets complicated. I have located a not that popular Eschenbach Club 8x20 (the new version) that, according to specs, is phase corrected and has dielectric coatings. Obviously it won't be as nice as a Leica, but I wonder how good they can be for the price. I read a not-so positive comment from a forum member, but he didn't elaborate on what he found lacking on them, so they're a bit of gamble. Let see if I can find a nice 2nd hand unit. Any suggestion of some other nice 8x20 is always welcome.
Last edited:
14Goudvink
Well-known member
Suggestion for a 8x24 that is (almost?) as compact and light as a Trinovid 8x20:
www.verrekijker-expert.nl
www.vogelbeschermingshop.nl
All these have the same frame. I owned the Vogelbescherming one for a while. The optics were quite good (pretty sharp, transmission not the best, but neutral colours, flare/glare acceptable) and the 3 mm exit pupil is noticably nicer than the 2.5 mm of a 8x20.
These pop up now and then secondhand for around 100 euro.
Best,
George
Bynolyt Seagull 8x24 op verrekijker-expert.nl
Deze Bynolyt Seagull 8x24 kopen voor € 188,30? Dakkantkijker met goede optische prestaties
www.verrekijker-expert.nl
Vogelbescherming Arend Compact 8x24
Zeer helder en kleurecht beeld door Phase coatings en hoge kwaliteit lenzen. Dubbel opvouwbaar en daardoor zeer compact. Geschikt voor brildragers, ook als toneelkijker! Met draagtas en comfortabele draagriem.
All these have the same frame. I owned the Vogelbescherming one for a while. The optics were quite good (pretty sharp, transmission not the best, but neutral colours, flare/glare acceptable) and the 3 mm exit pupil is noticably nicer than the 2.5 mm of a 8x20.
These pop up now and then secondhand for around 100 euro.
Best,
George
Talster
Well-known member
I was asking myself the very same question a few weeks back @Sprite1275 about wanting a pocket sized binocular, that would truly fit in my pocket. After reading lots online and also on this excellent forum, I settled on the Leica Ultravid 8x20 BR. Not sure if you have decided on a pair yet, but I thought this might be useful for others with the same question
Here's my findings so far on them:
I own another pair of Leica binoculars (which are the 10-15x50 Duovid which I got back in 2003). I absolutely love these as for me it's essentially like having two pairs of binoculars in one and the optics are outstanding. Downsides are, they are on the heavy side and the large side, and ideally I only take these when I am taking my backpack and I know I will be out for a while on that given day.
I recently wanted to have a pocket sized binocular, which would enable me to have some binoculars with me when and wherever I was. I have always been really impressed with Leica binoculars, so I began looking at pocket sized binoculars, and the Ultravid 8x20 kept getting mentioned and highly praised time and time again.
After advice read on this forum and also other resources online, I went with the Leica Ultravid 8x20 BR, and have been seriously impressed with them. My partner was also very impressed after using my pair, that she decided to get herself a pair too.
For me the pocket sized binoculars that I would be purchasing would need to be:
1: Clarity wise, colour wise and general image quality wise, would need to match that of my larger Duovid (which from my comparison do indeed match).
2: Be totally pocket sized for either a jacket pocket, shorts pocket (for the warmer months). I was able to make them even more pocket size friendly by following the excellent advice in the thread I have previously mentioned, on using a sunglasses/spectacle micro fibre drawstring pouch, that often come with sunglasses etc.
The vast amount of the time I use my Ultravids, are during daylight hours, but on some occasions I can be out and about when the light starts to fade. After reading about small objective lenses (20-25 mm) been better suited for daylight hours, I was expecting the image quality and brightness to suffer, but in all honesty, the brightness of the thing I was looking at with my own eyes, was just the same brightness level when I looked through the Ultravids. I really was pleasantly surprised yet again at these little beauties.
Just to add, not sure if you have seen the below thread, but someone on there, was wanting a low profile pouch for their binoculars (Leica Ultravid 8x20) that would be smaller than the supplied case. Someone on that thread suggested one of the drawstring micro fibre bags that you get with some sunglasses, spectacles.
I use this option and the Ultravid fit perfectly in it (so would any other similarly sized binoculars I would expect). I've attached a couple of pictures to show how low profile this method is.
Here's the thread:
Ultravid 8x20 BR - help me find a low profile pouch!\
Here's my findings so far on them:
I own another pair of Leica binoculars (which are the 10-15x50 Duovid which I got back in 2003). I absolutely love these as for me it's essentially like having two pairs of binoculars in one and the optics are outstanding. Downsides are, they are on the heavy side and the large side, and ideally I only take these when I am taking my backpack and I know I will be out for a while on that given day.
I recently wanted to have a pocket sized binocular, which would enable me to have some binoculars with me when and wherever I was. I have always been really impressed with Leica binoculars, so I began looking at pocket sized binoculars, and the Ultravid 8x20 kept getting mentioned and highly praised time and time again.
After advice read on this forum and also other resources online, I went with the Leica Ultravid 8x20 BR, and have been seriously impressed with them. My partner was also very impressed after using my pair, that she decided to get herself a pair too.
For me the pocket sized binoculars that I would be purchasing would need to be:
1: Clarity wise, colour wise and general image quality wise, would need to match that of my larger Duovid (which from my comparison do indeed match).
2: Be totally pocket sized for either a jacket pocket, shorts pocket (for the warmer months). I was able to make them even more pocket size friendly by following the excellent advice in the thread I have previously mentioned, on using a sunglasses/spectacle micro fibre drawstring pouch, that often come with sunglasses etc.
The vast amount of the time I use my Ultravids, are during daylight hours, but on some occasions I can be out and about when the light starts to fade. After reading about small objective lenses (20-25 mm) been better suited for daylight hours, I was expecting the image quality and brightness to suffer, but in all honesty, the brightness of the thing I was looking at with my own eyes, was just the same brightness level when I looked through the Ultravids. I really was pleasantly surprised yet again at these little beauties.
Just to add, not sure if you have seen the below thread, but someone on there, was wanting a low profile pouch for their binoculars (Leica Ultravid 8x20) that would be smaller than the supplied case. Someone on that thread suggested one of the drawstring micro fibre bags that you get with some sunglasses, spectacles.
I use this option and the Ultravid fit perfectly in it (so would any other similarly sized binoculars I would expect). I've attached a couple of pictures to show how low profile this method is.
Here's the thread:
Ultravid 8x20 BR - help me find a low profile pouch!\
Mike Crawley
Emeritus President at Burnage Rugby Club
Since retiring just over a year ago, this type of binocular has been on my mind.
I finally got round to doing some proper research and last week went to visit my local optics shop (only an 30 minute’s drive away).
The manager and I had had a conversation a few days earlier, as under the current health situation they request that you book an appointment/time slot.
We had a telephone discussion w.r.t. magnification and objective size and cost with a view that the binoculars are to go in a jacket or trouser/shorts pocket.
I arrived to find a decent array of products which I soon narrowed down to Opticron v Hawke.
In the end I bought a pair of Hawke Endurance ED 8x25.
Supplied with a sturdy nylon case.
Also included are objective covers, rain guard and neck strap (all of which now live in the original box).
They fit my budget (less than £150), my face and my hands.
Baring in mind I don’t imagine using them extensively, no point in hitting a higher price bracket.
Fantastic advice at the shop but no pushy sales, no pressure, no "hurry up".
I used them on a 10 km stroll yesterday, using a wrist strap intended for a compact camera, rather than the neck strap.
Absolutely delighted with my purchase.
I finally got round to doing some proper research and last week went to visit my local optics shop (only an 30 minute’s drive away).
The manager and I had had a conversation a few days earlier, as under the current health situation they request that you book an appointment/time slot.
We had a telephone discussion w.r.t. magnification and objective size and cost with a view that the binoculars are to go in a jacket or trouser/shorts pocket.
I arrived to find a decent array of products which I soon narrowed down to Opticron v Hawke.
In the end I bought a pair of Hawke Endurance ED 8x25.
Supplied with a sturdy nylon case.
Also included are objective covers, rain guard and neck strap (all of which now live in the original box).
They fit my budget (less than £150), my face and my hands.
Baring in mind I don’t imagine using them extensively, no point in hitting a higher price bracket.
Fantastic advice at the shop but no pushy sales, no pressure, no "hurry up".
I used them on a 10 km stroll yesterday, using a wrist strap intended for a compact camera, rather than the neck strap.
Absolutely delighted with my purchase.
Hi Yarrellii,…
I'm afraid I'm among those who don't find them really pocketable. Image quality is nice, although comparing them with a cheaper 8x32, the Vortex Diamondback HD, I discovered that on a gloomy day (in the middle of the day, no need to wait for twillight), the Diamondback appeared noticeable brighter, so I guess that while I don't see much difference between a good 8x32 and a good 8x42 during day hours, on cloudy days an 8x25 is maybe a threshold.
Furthermore, to my surprise, the 8x25 Terra are not that compact compared to a small 8x32 like the Diamondback (or the Leica Ultravid), in fact, it's 1 or 2 mm taller.
…
Obviously, when folded the Terra shows its main virtue. Yes, they're smaller, but then again, I don't find the difference massive.
…
Anyway, I'm grateful to the Terra, because they've allowed me to spot some unexpected species, like the other day riding my bike when I spotted a Southern Grey Shrike which is a rare species here in the middle of the winter
As a matter of fact, I think I'll try to get some nice 8x20, and here's where it gets complicated.
…
Let see if I can find a nice 2nd hand unit. Any suggestion of some other nice 8x20 is always welcome.
I agree with your main findings. A compact(!) 8x30/32 like the Ultravid that I have bought from you (not like a Zeiss SF etc.) is not much bigger than a 8x25 when unfolded. A 8x25 is a bit lighter and mainly more compact when folded, but not very pocketable still. That’s where a 8x20 enters, but with the inevitable compromises.
It’s exactly to have some « carry anywhere just in case » binoculars and noticing my 8x25 didn’t seem to achieve that purpose that I have bought a second hand Swarovski 8x20 recently. It is a recent one from 2013 (thus with the newer eyecups and the latest coatings) and I’m very happy with it. I can recommend them. They are waterproof (as opposed to the Trinovid 8x20), there is the Swarovski after-sale service, and they can be found second hand for considerably less than what second hand Leica UV8x20 are selling for. (I haven’t compared them myself though.)
I am really positively surprised by it. I think optical quality pays off at such a small size, considering the obvious limitations.
If you end up buying that Eschenbach 8x20, I would be really interested in your experience with it.
Swarovski’s new 7x21 is better than the older 8x20 that I have bought (I have briefly compared them at Jan’s shop when I was in the area), the 7x21 is amazing for its size, but I really couldn’t justify its high price for the purpose.
Regarding a compact case, I have found some cheap +/-€8 hard case that fits really well (showed in another thread in the Swarovski binoculars forum). It adds a little bit of bulk again, but it is worth it for my purpose.
I think I will end up using these 8x20 more than my 8x25, especially once covid measures will go away and I will move around more often, for/to work etc. But that is because I also have great 8x32 and 7x42 for normal walking/nature/birding moments.
I recently bought the Zeiss 8x25 VP to complement my 8x42 SF in times where I don't want to carry the x42 around. I can definetly confirm the raving reviews on optical performance, this this is outstanding! 3D Look, clarity and PoV are really really great. It takes a little for getting the right way to hold it to get the right viewpoint - but after a while I just do it unconciously without any problem (I don't wear glasses...).
The way I use it during short walks no longer than 10k with my dog is that I put it around my neck unfolded all the time. This thing is so small and light, I almost don't feel it at all. In order to not let it swing around, I usually put it in the left "brest" pocket in my jacket - also unfolded, and also almost without any burden.
When not hanging around my neck I put it in a small case for protection - but during use it almost always is around my neck and in the pocket of my jacket.
Hence for me, it is enough and very satisfactorable pocketable!
All the best!
Andreas
The way I use it during short walks no longer than 10k with my dog is that I put it around my neck unfolded all the time. This thing is so small and light, I almost don't feel it at all. In order to not let it swing around, I usually put it in the left "brest" pocket in my jacket - also unfolded, and also almost without any burden.
When not hanging around my neck I put it in a small case for protection - but during use it almost always is around my neck and in the pocket of my jacket.
Hence for me, it is enough and very satisfactorable pocketable!
All the best!
Andreas
More on pocket binoculars that are, well, pocketable.
Since everyone's pockets are different, here's what makes a pocket binocular in my case.
I've finally got hold of what appears to be a quality 8x20, a 2007 Swarovski Habicht.
Vortex Diamondback HD, Zeiss Terra ED, Swarovski Habicht. Comparing these three different 8x in 32, 25 and 20 mm I find it interesting that, although the 32 and 25 are separated by 7 mm in apreture, they seem to be akin than the 25 and 20, even though the difference in this case is only 5 mm.
The weights are 445 g for the Vortex, 315 g for the Zeiss and 220 g for the Swarovski. Unfortunately, the Swaro I've been able to purchase is the bling-blingy version with dark crystals (ouch... so much for my preference for understated binoculars, clothes and things in general), wonder if the "normal" 8x20 Habicht can snatch a few grams from those 220 g compared to this one.
Dual hinges open (all set to my IPD):
Comparing the Terra to the Diamondback I'm beginning to think that what the Zeiss designers had in mind is a 8x25 that handled as closely to a 8x32 as possible. So much so, that when "on service" mode, there's hardly any difference in overall dimensions between Vortex and Zeiss. I guess for some this could be seen as a great achievement, but then when I'm looking for small, I tend to think it isn't. Yes, so I can carry something that tries to behave like an 8x32 in a smaller package... but on the other side, the difference in comfort and ease of use (as well as FOV) is massive and favours the Vortex.
In use, again, the Zeiss is closer to the Vortex than to the Habicht. Comparing only the Vortex and the Zeiss, I noticed a huge difference in comfort, but when adding the Habicht to the mix, surprisingly the Vortex and the Zeiss are part of a more "uniform" group, while the Habicht sits on its own. It is way smaller and lighter, also the eye placement is more delicate, and the fact that the focus wheel is no the far end does not make things easier to begin with.
Eyecup diameter is roughly 40, 32 and 29 mm, really borderline in the Habicht. So, with a truly pocketable device you get truly obvious compromises, but then it is what it is. In fact, what frustrates me about the Terra 8x25 is that is so long and bulky I don't find it pocketable at all (say, it's basically nearly as uncomfortable as carrying a 8x32 Traveller or Diamondback). The Habicht folds to a really compact package that fits the micro fibre bag of a pair of sunglasses, the Terra doesn't.
Daily cyclist's note. While on my commuter bike, I would simply carry the binoculars on my handlebar bag (there, 8x32, 8x25 or 8x20 make no difference), but when going light or on my road bike, I can squeeze the Habicht (in the picture without the pouch) on one of those "tool bottles" that you carry on a holder on the frame, basically a water bottle without the spout.
I live in the countryside, and cycling usually involves open spaces with plenty to see, so it's always great to have a little companion just in case.
As for pure optical performance, it's hard to forget all the quirks and drawbacks of the Terra, but I'd say it's probably the sharpest of the three, surely sharper, brighter and more contrasty than the Swarovski. This was a bit of a disappointment, I hoped the Swarovski to perform at least as well as the Terra, but I must admit that the MIC cheaper device simply has a better view. Switching from the Terra to the Diamondback what really surprises is the huge FOV of the latter, I'm not sure if this creates a magnification effect, or maybe the Terra is not fully "8x" (or maybe the Diamondback HD is +8x), but I get the same feeling you get when switching from a 8x porro to a 8x roof, there seems to be a higher magnification, although it is a purely subjective perception. So, between the Diamondback and the Terra, although the Zeiss is probably better, the Diamondback surprises with a really "inviting" view, the kind that puts you in the scene, for some reason it has a hugely larger "3D/immersive" effect, it's hard to describe. But then, comparing the 8x25 Terra to the 8x20 Habicht, optically there's little the Austrian can do, the Zeiss is more comfortable, brighter, sharper and has a better contrast, and probably a "purer" colour representation. So, from 8x32 downwards is all an incremental set of drawbacks of compromises, as is to be expected. So, the 8x20 Swaro fits in what I'd call pocketable, while the 8x25 Terra's size/weight do not justify its many drawbacks. By all accounts, the 8x20 Ultravid and the 7x21 Curio have great optics and improved handling/ease of use, but then their prices are really out of what I'm ready to spend in a device which sees limited use (although a really pleasing one).
Since everyone's pockets are different, here's what makes a pocket binocular in my case.
I've finally got hold of what appears to be a quality 8x20, a 2007 Swarovski Habicht.
Vortex Diamondback HD, Zeiss Terra ED, Swarovski Habicht. Comparing these three different 8x in 32, 25 and 20 mm I find it interesting that, although the 32 and 25 are separated by 7 mm in apreture, they seem to be akin than the 25 and 20, even though the difference in this case is only 5 mm.
The weights are 445 g for the Vortex, 315 g for the Zeiss and 220 g for the Swarovski. Unfortunately, the Swaro I've been able to purchase is the bling-blingy version with dark crystals (ouch... so much for my preference for understated binoculars, clothes and things in general), wonder if the "normal" 8x20 Habicht can snatch a few grams from those 220 g compared to this one.
Dual hinges open (all set to my IPD):
Comparing the Terra to the Diamondback I'm beginning to think that what the Zeiss designers had in mind is a 8x25 that handled as closely to a 8x32 as possible. So much so, that when "on service" mode, there's hardly any difference in overall dimensions between Vortex and Zeiss. I guess for some this could be seen as a great achievement, but then when I'm looking for small, I tend to think it isn't. Yes, so I can carry something that tries to behave like an 8x32 in a smaller package... but on the other side, the difference in comfort and ease of use (as well as FOV) is massive and favours the Vortex.
In use, again, the Zeiss is closer to the Vortex than to the Habicht. Comparing only the Vortex and the Zeiss, I noticed a huge difference in comfort, but when adding the Habicht to the mix, surprisingly the Vortex and the Zeiss are part of a more "uniform" group, while the Habicht sits on its own. It is way smaller and lighter, also the eye placement is more delicate, and the fact that the focus wheel is no the far end does not make things easier to begin with.
Eyecup diameter is roughly 40, 32 and 29 mm, really borderline in the Habicht. So, with a truly pocketable device you get truly obvious compromises, but then it is what it is. In fact, what frustrates me about the Terra 8x25 is that is so long and bulky I don't find it pocketable at all (say, it's basically nearly as uncomfortable as carrying a 8x32 Traveller or Diamondback). The Habicht folds to a really compact package that fits the micro fibre bag of a pair of sunglasses, the Terra doesn't.
Daily cyclist's note. While on my commuter bike, I would simply carry the binoculars on my handlebar bag (there, 8x32, 8x25 or 8x20 make no difference), but when going light or on my road bike, I can squeeze the Habicht (in the picture without the pouch) on one of those "tool bottles" that you carry on a holder on the frame, basically a water bottle without the spout.
I live in the countryside, and cycling usually involves open spaces with plenty to see, so it's always great to have a little companion just in case.
As for pure optical performance, it's hard to forget all the quirks and drawbacks of the Terra, but I'd say it's probably the sharpest of the three, surely sharper, brighter and more contrasty than the Swarovski. This was a bit of a disappointment, I hoped the Swarovski to perform at least as well as the Terra, but I must admit that the MIC cheaper device simply has a better view. Switching from the Terra to the Diamondback what really surprises is the huge FOV of the latter, I'm not sure if this creates a magnification effect, or maybe the Terra is not fully "8x" (or maybe the Diamondback HD is +8x), but I get the same feeling you get when switching from a 8x porro to a 8x roof, there seems to be a higher magnification, although it is a purely subjective perception. So, between the Diamondback and the Terra, although the Zeiss is probably better, the Diamondback surprises with a really "inviting" view, the kind that puts you in the scene, for some reason it has a hugely larger "3D/immersive" effect, it's hard to describe. But then, comparing the 8x25 Terra to the 8x20 Habicht, optically there's little the Austrian can do, the Zeiss is more comfortable, brighter, sharper and has a better contrast, and probably a "purer" colour representation. So, from 8x32 downwards is all an incremental set of drawbacks of compromises, as is to be expected. So, the 8x20 Swaro fits in what I'd call pocketable, while the 8x25 Terra's size/weight do not justify its many drawbacks. By all accounts, the 8x20 Ultravid and the 7x21 Curio have great optics and improved handling/ease of use, but then their prices are really out of what I'm ready to spend in a device which sees limited use (although a really pleasing one).
Thank you for the comparison!
I mostly have the same experience comparing 8x30/32, 8x25 and 8x20 binoculars.
8x20 are really pocketable when folded (main advantage), 8x30/32 is a very nice balance when in use/unfolded (main advantage,great all round birding format), 8x25 is something in between (actually achieving neither of the two objectives as well,obviously,still great viewing possible).
However,I tend to be more positive optically regarding my Swarovski 8x20. Obviously,when light is a bit dim,they are not as bright anymore as the larger exit pupil binoculars,and the smaller exit pupil make them a bit less comfortable/easy,especially for longer watching or for someone less used to binoculars. However their contrast,sharpness,are really great. Maybe I got lucky with mine (though I don't know if there is much difference to be expected between a 2007 and a 2013 model). Or maybe I just didn't do a thorough one-on-one comparison with my 8x25 and I am just amazed at what the 8x20 achieves in such small (folded) size, not aiming for it to be my main birding binoculars: it just fits its purpose in a great way. I will try a closer one-on-one comparison if I find some time.
If you would like to,I could also weight them.
And I also agree: the Sw 7x21 are amazing,but just too expensive for me for the purpose they would serve me. I don't see the UV 8x20 bringing me significant enough of an upgrade though,but I haven't been able to do a direct one-on-one comparison yet.
John A Roberts
Well-known member
😄
(Just to be clear: I wasn't really lauding the Curio for its design (preferring something less flashy) but for its optics (image quality amd viewing comfort for its size).)
Dipperdapper
Well-known member
Interesting discussion.
I'm a huge fan of quality pocket binos. I've spent a great deal of time with my Leica Ultravid 8 x 20 BR, and I'm constantly amazed at its versatility. They can be slightly fiddly to get the tubes lined up properly, that's for sure, but I've found the best way to get them going quickly is to keep the eyecups up at all times, even when stored. After unfolding, I push the left barrel to the end of its travel and swing the right barrel down until the images merge perfectly. I use it so often that I simply don't register its fiddly nature any more. It's all about practice!
I was reminded of just how good this little binocular is this very afternoon, when I watched a young Cormorant take off from the branch of a fallen tree at my local freshwater pond. I followed its every move as it circled the pond a few times, slowly and comically gaining altitude with each lap. The images the little Ultravid was throwing up were just sublime in the brilliant February sunshine; beautiful contrast and tack sharp, from edge to edge. It never ceases to amaze me how good this small binocular can be!
I love the 32mm format too, but I would never be without my little, quirky Leica glass. It's a keeper!
Neil.
I'm a huge fan of quality pocket binos. I've spent a great deal of time with my Leica Ultravid 8 x 20 BR, and I'm constantly amazed at its versatility. They can be slightly fiddly to get the tubes lined up properly, that's for sure, but I've found the best way to get them going quickly is to keep the eyecups up at all times, even when stored. After unfolding, I push the left barrel to the end of its travel and swing the right barrel down until the images merge perfectly. I use it so often that I simply don't register its fiddly nature any more. It's all about practice!
I was reminded of just how good this little binocular is this very afternoon, when I watched a young Cormorant take off from the branch of a fallen tree at my local freshwater pond. I followed its every move as it circled the pond a few times, slowly and comically gaining altitude with each lap. The images the little Ultravid was throwing up were just sublime in the brilliant February sunshine; beautiful contrast and tack sharp, from edge to edge. It never ceases to amaze me how good this small binocular can be!
I love the 32mm format too, but I would never be without my little, quirky Leica glass. It's a keeper!
Neil.
Attachments
More on pocket binoculars... more specifically on their cases. Just got me an 8x20 Ultravid, given the apparent consensus that it's one of the nicest pocket optics. Still too soon to say anything about its performance (other than the perception of build quality is really impressive, and that the focus wheel sets them apart from any other pocket-size bino I've used). But let's talk about the case of the UV. I think this has been dealt with in the past, but it simply doesn't cease to amaze me how it's possible that after the meticulous engineering effort to make as small and as good a binocular as possible... then very little attention is payed to the case. I mean... why would you buy an 8x20 instead an 8x25? Well, most likely because you really want a small binocular (given that 8x25 is easier on the eye, brighter, etc.). I'm just guessing, but I don't think it's too adventurous to say that if you buy an 8x20 you want something to carry in an understated way, hidden in a pocket, forgetting that it's there, given its diminutive size. And then... you get a case where you can literally carry not one but two 8x20 binoculars. It's not a metaphor, have a look:
Yes, it's a really snug fit, but it's doable: the first picture shows you the case of the 8x20 Ultravid carrying two 8x20's, the UV and the 8x20 Swarovski Habicht, both on their side, tilted 90º.
I'm at a loss of why a company like Leica, renowned by the attention to detail, from the lovely texture of the rubber armour, to the sleek and perfect industrial design to its impeccable packaging can sell what appears to be a masterpiece of miniature optics in a case that's just huge for its size (and probably for the intended use of the final customer). Frankly, I find it really surprising.
Yes, it's a really snug fit, but it's doable: the first picture shows you the case of the 8x20 Ultravid carrying two 8x20's, the UV and the 8x20 Swarovski Habicht, both on their side, tilted 90º.
I'm at a loss of why a company like Leica, renowned by the attention to detail, from the lovely texture of the rubber armour, to the sleek and perfect industrial design to its impeccable packaging can sell what appears to be a masterpiece of miniature optics in a case that's just huge for its size (and probably for the intended use of the final customer). Frankly, I find it really surprising.
Talster
Well-known member
If you want something smaller to make them really pocket friendly. Use one of the microfibre drawstring bags that sunglasses, glasses sometimes come in. If you don't have one, you can usually pick them up on Amazon for not that much. I always carry my Ultravid's around in one of these and it's easy to forget you have them in your pocket sometimes.
See my post above:
Pocket binoculars that fit in your pocket!
@Talster Yes, I remember reading your post about I think about the same time that I had figured out that the old pouch of some sunglasses that I had lying around could be a good alternative. I tried it with the 8x25 Terra and they're just too thick to fit (for the 8x25 I use a similar, albeit bigger, pouch that comes with some Bushnell binoculars), but when I got my first 8x20 I saw that it was possible, it was a great suggestion. In fact, I like your pouch better than mine, mine is too flashy, the one you show on the picture is really understated, no one would know what hides inside. As a matter of fact, for carrying the binoculars in a pocket, I think a soft fabric pouch is a great alternative; since al you want is to avoid it getting scratched or rubbed. I wonder why Leica or other brands simply not add a similar (or even more stylish) pouch as an alternative, just like Bushnell does. In fact, I understand Maven also sends its binoculars in a pouch (although without a proper protective carrying case in this particular case). Thanks!
@dorubird That looks really up to the job, and the fact that you can wear it on your belt really adds up to the convenience. However, when it comes to pocket binoculars I really think a pocket is their natural habitat. Mind you, I usually wear my 8x32 on my belt I have to investigate a similar case, just in case.
@dorubird That looks really up to the job, and the fact that you can wear it on your belt really adds up to the convenience. However, when it comes to pocket binoculars I really think a pocket is their natural habitat. Mind you, I usually wear my 8x32 on my belt
I have to investigate a similar case, just in case.
