Roger Vine's thoughts on the 7x21 Curio? (1 Viewer)

[mbb]

Dorubird, post 27,
This morning I made a car drive of about 40 km to House of Outdoor to check the differences bewteen the Curio 7x21 and Zeiss Victory 8x25 and it is crystal clear to me that the Curio 7x21 produces a much more brilliant image then the Zeiss Victory 8x25 while I can not observe a difference in light gathering properties between both binoculars. It was a sunny day and the subject of observation consisted of brick walls with different coloured stones, a green wooden panel, white structures and a dark corner with a stone structure. The image of the Curio sparkles while the Zeiss image is "duller"so to speak..
Gijs van Ginkel

That is interesting. I am wondering how a late version of the Swarovski 8x20 would have compared if included in the comparison, considering your latest measurement showed a near identical transmission curve a for the 7x21 (of course witha smaller exit pupil).
What could be the reason for one out of two binoculars of (almost) identical exit pupil and transmission figures, both from top of the line series of binoculars, to have a more ‘brilliant’ image than the other? Could that have something to do with e.g. control of internal reflections, blackening etc. enhancing contrast? It does remind me about vague discussions in some threads about the “sparkle” of some binoculars.
I have to say that I had the same surprise when comparing my Habicht 8x30 with my Zeiss FL 7x42 on sunny day, observing birds on and near a lake. It was immediately obvious under those specific conditions. Of course, those are very different binoculars: porro vs. roof prisms, different exit pupil size, not the same transmission curve etc. And in many cases I prefer the FL for birding. Still, the Habicht had some kind of brilliantness that I really liked and that the FL did not have, which had nothing to do with the “3D” character of the porro prisms, and the FL has very high transmission figures (though less flat).
Your hands-on findings about the VP8x25 and Curio, combined with your measurement suggest it is not that much related to the transmission curves. I am wondering if a common cause would explain also what I noticed comparing the (much more different) Habicht and FL.

 

[mwhogue]

That is interesting. I am wondering how a late version of the Swarovski 8x20 would have compared if included in the comparison, considering your latest measurement showed a near identical transmission curve a for the 7x21 (of course witha smaller exit pupil).
What could be the reason for one out of two binoculars of (almost) identical exit pupil and transmission figures, both from top of the line series of binoculars, to have a more ‘brilliant’ image than the other? Could that have something to do with e.g. control of internal reflections, blackening etc. enhancing contrast? It does remind me about vague discussions in some threads about the “sparkle” of some binoculars.
I have to say that I had the same surprise when comparing my Habicht 8x30 with my Zeiss FL 7x42 on sunny day, observing birds on and near a lake. It was immediately obvious under those specific conditions. Of course, those are very different binoculars: porro vs. roof prisms, different exit pupil size, not the same transmission curve etc. And in many cases I prefer the FL for birding. Still, the Habicht had some kind of brilliantness that I really liked and that the FL did not have, which had nothing to do with the “3D” character of the porro prisms, and the FL has very high transmission figures (though less flat).
Your hands-on findings about the VP8x25 and Curio, combined with your measurement suggest it is not that much related to the transmission curves. I am wondering if a common cause would explain also what I noticed comparing the (much more different) Habicht and FL.

mbb,

Pending input from Gijs, I'll take the Curio, VP 8x25, SW 8x20, SW 6x30 Habicht and the Nikon E II 8x30 to the beach tomorrow. The 6x Habicht is from 1955. While it is still in excellent condition it has a slight but noticeable yellow tint and the newer (8x ) models are probably better so I'll take the Nikon to possibly get some ideas. Also, the 8x20 is not the latest version as it included the older thin envelope style belt case but I've never checked the date for that one.

Regarding image "sparkle" I instinctively use that term to describe the image of the Curio, UV HD+ 7x42 and a new Habicht 10x40 I tried on the beach for a couple of hours several years ago courtesy of a fellow BF member. On your question re the 8x20 v 7x21, in addition to the factors you mention, generally images of 7s appear more brilliant to me than 8s in comparable bins. I can confirm based on prior A-B testing that the Curio image is more "brilliant" than the older Habicht. If I understand you have the opposite experience with the FL 7x42 vs the Habicht 8x30. My concern is if I add the FL to the beach bag for comparison as well, my wife will likely kill me.

Mike

 

[Aquaplas]

A 7 time Bino is mostly more brilliant than a 8 or 10 time because there is less atmospheric magnification included.
I think on the shiny colors and brilliant view of the old Dialyt 7x42. The later FL Binos where very bright but don’t have this clearness of the Dialyt. I always prefers the Dialyt. And the sort of glass was used is also a different.
For me the nearest clearness to the Dialyt is a Zeiss HT or a NL Pure. And the NL Pure is a Roof an not a Abbe. Swarovski did a very good Job here.
I never compared the CL Curio with the VP 8x25, but I have the CL Curio and can say the clearness and Color reproduction is near my NL Pure 8x42 and in some lights better than my NL Pure 10x32.
It is a very fine and small Bino.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Aquaplas, post 43,
The Zeiss Dialyts are supplied with Abbe-König roof prisms and the NL pures with Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms, so both with roof prisms. As I have reported before and also in my test report of compact binoculars: the Curios have a sparkling image quality, the Zeiss 8x25 is in my view much more dull, some call it saturated, but that would not be my conclusion. The difference is really striking.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

In addition to my post 44:
In binocular literature the following roof prism types are described (and all are used in binoculars):

• Schmidt-Pechan roof prism
• Abbe-König roof prism
• Uppendahl roof prism
• Sprenger-Leman roof prism
• Möller roof prism
• Daubresse roof prism
• Hensoldt roof prism
• Amici-Abbe roof prism

And the different binoculars supplied with these prisms are really interesting.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[mbb]

...
Regarding image "sparkle" I instinctively use that term to describe the image of the Curio, UV HD+ 7x42 and a new Habicht 10x40 I tried on the beach for a couple of hours several years ago courtesy of a fellow BF member. On your question re the 8x20 v 7x21, in addition to the factors you mention, generally images of 7s appear more brilliant to me than 8s in comparable bins. I can confirm based on prior A-B testing that the Curio image is more "brilliant" than the older Habicht. If I understand you have the opposite experience with the FL 7x42 vs the Habicht 8x30. My concern is if I add the FL to the beach bag for comparison as well, my wife will likely kill me.

Mike

Looking forward to your 'report'!
(I know the risk for comments when bringing several binoculars on a trip ;-) )

For me the nearest clearness to the Dialyt is a Zeiss HT or a NL Pure. And the NL Pure is a Roof an not a Abbe. Swarovski did a very good Job here.
I never compared the CL Curio with the VP 8x25, but I have the CL Curio and can say the clearness and Color reproduction is near my NL Pure 8x42 and in some lights better than my NL Pure 10x32.

Interesting to heat that you have experienced the HT to have a more brilliant view than the 7x42 FL. I have never tried a HT, but based on Gijs van Ginkel's measurements, from memory (! thus with a disclaimer on my side !) they seem to have comparable transmission curves. (except at the lowest wavelengths).

Aquaplas, post 43,
The Zeiss Dialyts are supplied with Abbe-König roof prisms and the NL pures with Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms, so both with roof prisms. As I have reported before and also in my test report of compact binoculars: the Curios have a sparkling image quality, the Zeiss 8x25 is in my view much more dull, some call it saturated, but that would not be my conclusion. The difference is really striking.
Gijs van Ginkel

I have just taken my binoculars to our little garden for a quick comparison on this sunny day.
The difference was not nearly as striking as that other day along the lake, fields, etc. in open terrain.
Yet, the Habicht (from 2017) had the most brilliant view, but also the 'busiest' view (somehow sometimes distracting), less 'easy' to the eye than e.g. my Ultravid 8x32. The Zeiss 8x25 didn't seem to render the same feeling of brilliant 'sunny day' as well as the Habicht. The small Swarovski 8x20 (from 2013) was somewhere in between the Habicht and the Zeiss Pocket regarding 'brilliancy' I think, but the viewing comfort is clearly worse due the smaller exit pupil: more finicky to align pupils. In that sense, the Zeiss 8x25 is clearly more easy to use for longer watching. I'm actually not sure if the Swarovski 8x20 was really less brilliant than the Habicht 8x30, or if it was some kind of mind-game due the smaller exit pupil, more finicky eye placement etc.
When putting the FL 7x42 to the eyes, you directly see their strength: a direct 'fit', such a more easy view than the 8x20-25 or even Habicht 8x30, yet indeed a bit less brilliant than the Habicht. (And of course, in fading light the FL 7x42 is way brighter than the other ones... Those dimm light hours are when they shine.) Somehow the FL 7x42 and UV 8x32 directly 'fit' to my eyes more than the others, probably due their exit pupils combined with a good tension of the hinge, keeping them at their perfect position for me. I have no Idea why the Habicht 8x30 doesn't have it like the UV 8x32 does, while having similar exit pupil, also a short eye relief and a good hinge tension.

I realize this is really comparing apples with oranges!!!
Still, some quick pseudo-conclusions :

• Íf(...) the Curio 7x21 is as brilliant as the Habicht 8x30, while having the viewing comfort of the Victory 8x25 in the size of the 8x20, maybe I should sell my 8x25 and 8x20 to get the 7x21... But not before trying!
• The FL 7x42 is just a totally different experience, also with a different purpose.
• I just like the UV 8x32
• Maybe I should try the UV 7x42 HD+ (But that would be to choose between it and the FL. I couldn't justify keeping both.)
• Maybe I should part with some binoculars to reduce their number

 

[mwhogue]

Looking forward to your 'report'!
(I know the risk for comments when bringing several binoculars on a trip ;-) )




Upon reflection, most of this seems subject to consensus. It was fun comparing. Regarding the pockets, IMO Curio, VP and SW 8x20 are some of the best choices assuming usual prices. Differences in optical quality were more or less noticeable throughout the day as the extent of cloud cover varied.

Contrary to my previous experience with a number of roof and porro bins where I find lower x equals a more brilliant view, I agree with your experience regarding the FL 7x42 and Habicht 8x30 at least based on analogy or extrapolation. The Nikon 8x30 E II image (and probably the Habicht image as well?) is more brilliant than the FL 7x42. It seems more color saturated but more accurate than the FL. Other factors that contributed for me are the wider FOV and AFOV combined with the 3 D effect and wide sweet spot.




"I realize this is really comparing apples with oranges!!!
Still, some quick pseudo-conclusions :

• Íf(...) the Curio 7x21 is as brilliant as the Habicht 8x30, while having the viewing comfort of the Victory 8x25 in the size of the 8x20, maybe I should sell my 8x25 and 8x20 to get the 7x21... But not before trying!
• The FL 7x42 is just a totally different experience, also with a different purpose.
• I just like the UV 8x32
• Maybe I should try the UV 7x42 HD+ (But that would be to choose between it and the FL. I couldn't justify keeping both.)
  
  
  
• Maybe I should part with some binoculars to reduce their number

Choosing between the FL and HD+ 7x42 may be difficult.


Mike

 

[Trinovid]

I'll take the Curio, VP 8x25, SW 8x20, SW 6x30 Habicht and the Nikon E II 8x30 to the beach tomorrow.

How did your comparison trip go?

 

[Floriano]

Lee,

With dual hinge pockets, IME it's a matter of finding the right relationship between
(1) Focusing tension and enough hinge tension to prevent movement of IP setting during focusing.
(2) Hinge tension which allows the user to easily set the IP distance symmetrically, and
(3) Sufficient hinge tension to keep the IP setting in place in reasonable use.

For me the Curio, the 8x20 and 10x25 UV, and the Opticron 8x21 and 10x25 work best checking all three. Conversely, SW 8x20 Habicht and previous gen 8x25 CL have slightly looser hinges making it fiddly for me to easily set IP, and IP tends to move in normal use. But the IP on the SW's does not move when focusing.

Mike

hi, can you give me a few infos about the curio vs the 10x25..
Bet for birding the 10 bringing in more, but the overall picture and viewing quality is better on the curio? Would be interesting, thank you!

 

[mwhogue]

The 10x25 UV is bigger and heavier of course. The Curio image is slightly brighter but the UV image is very bright for a 10x25. For me the UV handles really well and I can get a vey stable image although the Curio handles well for me too so the 7x image is even more stable. Eye placement is easier on the Curio because of the 3mm EP. Both work well for me with our without glasses. Both images are sharp to the edge. As expected the Curio has a greater DOF and a much larger FOV. The true FOV of the 10x25 UV is somewhat low compared to other 10x25 models but the 10x magnification and sharp to the edge image of the UV gives an enjoyable AFOV in actual use. If you want more magnification than the Curio, I can recommend the UV 10x25 which is smaller and lighter than the Victory Pocket or Swaro 10x25. Hope this helps.

Mike

 

[gweller]

hi, can you give me a few infos about the curio vs the 10x25..
Bet for birding the 10 bringing in more, but the overall picture and viewing quality is better on the curio? Would be interesting, thank you!

I have the Curio 7x21 and the Swaro 8x25. I've also owned/used the Ultravid 10x25 and a Nikon 10x25 High Grade. Although the 10 time bins are very nice, particularly the Ultravid I always found them very difficult to hold still enough because of their size and light weight. This is really where the 7x21 comes into it's own - the 7x mag is just right for birding and it's very easy to hold and use.

 

[John A Roberts]

Of the three European premium x25’s, the Leica is the most compact, though with tradeoff’s in terms of the optical spec’s.

To get an idea of the physical sizes:
a) Swaro vs Leica, from: Swarovski CL Pocket 10x25 VS Leica Ultravid 10x25 BL AquaDura - Hunting Binoculars Blog *




b) And Zeiss vs Swaro, from: ツァイス Victory Pocket展示スタート！ - 営業日は毎日更新！ホビーズワールドスタッフブログ




John


* Despite the name, it really seems to be: Hunting for Binoculars? Blog.

 

[Floriano]

Thx!

Today we had a grey heron on a lil lake here out of the door, had the el832 and the curio with me.... the lil thing is so good, but the magnification power is of course welcome too..
Maybe i just keep the curio, or i take a look through the cl pocket 825 or 1025 this week if i will be able to get one, to make a final decision.

 

[Trinovid]

In binocular literature the following roof prism types are described (and all are used in binoculars):

• Schmidt-Pechan roof prism
• Abbe-König roof prism
• Uppendahl roof prism
• Sprenger-Leman roof prism
• Möller roof prism
• Daubresse roof prism
• Hensoldt roof prism
• Amici-Abbe roof prism

Had no idea there were that many and it would be fascinating to see them listed with a pros and cons table.