The APM 6.5x32: Mini review (2 Viewers)

[Hermann]

Over the past few weeks I used the APM 6.5x32 CF quite a lot in the field to see how well it works for me. I also did some brief comparisons with my Habicht 7x42, one of the two binoculars I’ve been using a lot for birding over the past decade. (The other binocular I currently use for birding is the big Canon 10x42 L IS.)

I am a birder, so I will focus mainly on how well the APM CF works for birding. There have already been some comments about the 6.5x32 IF (that is optically identical to the 6.5x32 CF) by Canip in his thread on the 6.5x32 IF (The APM 6.5x32 ED IF, compared to the APM 6x30 – A Few Thoughts) and on his excellent website (APM 6.5×32 ED Apo – Binoculars Today). I also posted my first impressions on the IF (APM 6.5x32 APO - Some first impressions). Some photos of the APMs, both the IF and the CF, can also be found in those threads. And there is a German report on the APM CF by gersi on the German forum (Erster Erfahrungs Bericht) that’s well worth reading. It also has some photos.

Optically the 6.5x32 CF is very good: Very good central sharpness and contrast, a large sweetspot (~75 percent of the image) with some mild field curvature at the edges, excellent colour fidelity. I couldn’t see any CA (but note I’m not very susceptible to CA). Straylight is also very well controlled; I couldn’t produce any veiling glare so far, not even in difficult lighting conditions. Compared to the APM 6x30 the image quality is quite clearly better, not a mean feat as the APM 6x30 is also pretty good. When comparing it to the Habicht 7x42 things are more difficult: I think the Habicht is a bit brighter and has a bit more contrast, especially in the evening just before sunset, but the differences aren’t big. But they are there from what I can see. Please note that the weather over here has been bright and mostly sunny over the past few weeks. I’ll have to see how the binocular performs in dark, murky weather later in the year.

Anyway, the image quality is so good that I can easily imagine using the 6.5x32 CF for “serious” birding.

What makes the 6.5x32 CF stand out against the Habicht is of course the FOV. Canip found a FOV of 159m/1000 against the Habicht’s 114m/1000, so the area you see through the APM is roughly 40 percent bigger than that of the Habicht. That’s quite a difference and very obvious when you switch back and forth between the two binoculars. I’ve been using the Habicht a lot for years now and can happily live with its narrow FOV, but I must admit the bigger FOV of the APM is really nice. BTW, magnification-wise the two binoculars are a bit closer than the specifications suggest. Canip measured the magnification of the APM as 6.7x, so a direct comparison makes sense.

Eye relief is much better than in the Habicht. I think the APM will work for most (if not all) eyeglass wearers. The Habicht 7x42 “works” for me when I wear my eyeglasses but the eye relief is pretty tight, the APM OTOH is very comfortable. In contrast to the 6.5x32 IF (and the Habicht) the CF has screw up / screw down eyecups with four stops. The eyecups could be a bit better made, they are a bit flimsy and not tight enough and like to move on their own. If I had to use one of the intermediate stops I’d use O-rings or even some tape to make sure they don’t move when they shouldn’t. Gaffa tape is your friend …

The focuser is quite slow and stiff, almost as stiff as the focuser of my Habicht. That was to be expected in a waterproof CF porro. And yet the APM’s focuser is easier to use because the APM has a wide focusing wheel. No play at all in my sample. I prefer slow and precise focusers, so I’m happy. BTW, the focuser’s position has got two advantages for me: I always wear a cap or a hat, and a focuser that is close to the eyes can be a hassle. It’s also easier to use with thick mittens. I tried, despite the current temperatures, just for the sake of science. Got some funny looks though … 🙃

The APM is quite a large and heavy binocular. Sure, that’s unavoidable given the large prisms, but there’s another problem: The “hang” of the APM isn’t good, it doesn’t rest flat on the chest when I use a normal strap, it hangs at an angle, the eyepieces are not flush with my chest. I'm not used to that, so after a couple of days I switched to using a harness. That worked better for me although I may yet change back to using a strap.

The weights are:

• 747 gr. (without any accessories)
• 816 gr. (with a Zeiss strap and the OEM rainguard)
• 881 gr. (with a Zeiss harness and the OEM rainguard)

By comparison the Habicht 7x42 (leatherette) weighs with a Zeiss strap and an old Zeiss rubber rainguard only 727 gr. That's quite a difference. The APM is also quite large and bulky and may be a bit big for people with small hands.

Build quality is very good, apart from the eyecups. In fact, I’ve seen so-called “alphas” with lesser build quality. The bridge is fine, there’s no play. The inside is clean (I checked with a flashlight), the collimation of my sample is perfect, the dioptre markings on the right eyepiece are correct (“0” is “0”). Be careful though if you need a wide adjustment range: I think the adjustment range is probably no more than +/- 3 diopters.

A quick word on the accessories: I normally don’t even mention the accessories as I usually use different straps, rainguards and so on. However, the APM’s eyepieces have got such a large diameter that no other rainguard fits. At least I couldn’t find any. And unfortunately the OEM rainguard is a bit tight and flimsy.

In conclusion, the APM is a really nice pair of binoculars with no real weaknesses apart from the eyecups. I can see myself using it quite a lot in the future. And remember: For the price of one Habicht 7x42 you can buy four APM 6.5x32s (or 9 for one NL 8x32) … What’s more, none of the European manufacturers offers a porro with such features.

I got the APM from, well, APM. The service was as good as always. Highly recommended iif you’re in Europe.

Hermann

 

[tenex]

Given a fairly comparable field of view, why would one (birding or otherwise) carry the APM rather than the E II? (By the way, I found I could just get used to the "hang".)

 

[Hermann]

Given a fairly comparable field of view, why would one (birding or otherwise) carry the APM rather than the E II?

That's an interesting question. From my point of view a few things stand out: The APM is waterproof and the EII isn't. That's a biggie if you live in a climate with a lot of rain. And the eye relief of the EII is borderline for eyeglass wearers. The APM is much better in that respect. I also think the APM is a good choice for people who like low-power binoculars with their greater depth of field (the difference between 8x and 7x, or, in the case of the APM, 6.7x is quite noticeable), and because they're easier to hold steady for long periods of time.

Other than that ... I don't know, especially since the last time I handled an EII was a long time ago. I had one on loan from a friend for a week to compare it to my 8x32 SE. I found the SE better in every respect except for the FOV: Better resistance against stray light, larger sweetspot, more even sharpness across the FOV, better handling (the EII is too short for my hands). The whole works. Ever since then I haven't been interested in the EII anymore.

(By the way, I found I could just get used to the "hang".)

That's good to hear. I had actually taken the harness off and put a strap on before I read your post. I'll see how it works out. I don't really like harnesses, even though I find one essential for the big Canon. I carried the Canon on several long hikes in Norway this summer, in difficult terrain. Couldn't have done that with the whole weight hanging on my neck.

Hermann

 

[Canip]

Over the past few weeks I used the APM 6.5x32 CF quite a lot in the field to see how well it works for me. I also did some brief comparisons with my Habicht 7x42, one of the two binoculars I’ve been using a lot for birding over the past decade. (The other binocular I currently use for birding is the big Canon 10x42 L IS.)

I am a birder, so I will focus mainly on how well the APM CF works for birding. There have already been some comments about the 6.5x32 IF (that is optically identical to the 6.5x32 CF) by Canip in his thread on the 6.5x32 IF (The APM 6.5x32 ED IF, compared to the APM 6x30 – A Few Thoughts) and on his excellent website (APM 6.5×32 ED Apo – Binoculars Today). I also posted my first impressions on the IF (APM 6.5x32 APO - Some first impressions). Some photos of the APMs, both the IF and the CF, can also be found in those threads. And there is a German report on the APM CF by gersi on the German forum (Erster Erfahrungs Bericht) that’s well worth reading. It also has some photos.

Optically the 6.5x32 CF is very good: Very good central sharpness and contrast, a large sweetspot (~75 percent of the image) with some mild field curvature at the edges, excellent colour fidelity. I couldn’t see any CA (but note I’m not very susceptible to CA). Straylight is also very well controlled; I couldn’t produce any veiling glare so far, not even in difficult lighting conditions. Compared to the APM 6x30 the image quality is quite clearly better, not a mean feat as the APM 6x30 is also pretty good. When comparing it to the Habicht 7x42 things are more difficult: I think the Habicht is a bit brighter and has a bit more contrast, especially in the evening just before sunset, but the differences aren’t big. But they are there from what I can see. Please note that the weather over here has been bright and mostly sunny over the past few weeks. I’ll have to see how the binocular performs in dark, murky weather later in the year.

Anyway, the image quality is so good that I can easily imagine using the 6.5x32 CF for “serious” birding.

What makes the 6.5x32 CF stand out against the Habicht is of course the FOV. Canip found a FOV of 159m/1000 against the Habicht’s 114m/1000, so the area you see through the APM is roughly 40 percent bigger than that of the Habicht. That’s quite a difference and very obvious when you switch back and forth between the two binoculars. I’ve been using the Habicht a lot for years now and can happily live with its narrow FOV, but I must admit the bigger FOV of the APM is really nice. BTW, magnification-wise the two binoculars are a bit closer than the specifications suggest. Canip measured the magnification of the APM as 6.7x, so a direct comparison makes sense.

Eye relief is much better than in the Habicht. I think the APM will work for most (if not all) eyeglass wearers. The Habicht 7x42 “works” for me when I wear my eyeglasses but the eye relief is pretty tight, the APM OTOH is very comfortable. In contrast to the 6.5x32 IF (and the Habicht) the CF has screw up / screw down eyecups with four stops. The eyecups could be a bit better made, they are a bit flimsy and not tight enough and like to move on their own. If I had to use one of the intermediate stops I’d use O-rings or even some tape to make sure they don’t move when they shouldn’t. Gaffa tape is your friend …

The focuser is quite slow and stiff, almost as stiff as the focuser of my Habicht. That was to be expected in a waterproof CF porro. And yet the APM’s focuser is easier to use because the APM has a wide focusing wheel. No play at all in my sample. I prefer slow and precise focusers, so I’m happy. BTW, the focuser’s position has got two advantages for me: I always wear a cap or a hat, and a focuser that is close to the eyes can be a hassle. It’s also easier to use with thick mittens. I tried, despite the current temperatures, just for the sake of science. Got some funny looks though … 🙃

The APM is quite a large and heavy binocular. Sure, that’s unavoidable given the large prisms, but there’s another problem: The “hang” of the APM isn’t good, it doesn’t rest flat on the chest when I use a normal strap, it hangs at an angle, the eyepieces are not flush with my chest. I'm not used to that, so after a couple of days I switched to using a harness. That worked better for me although I may yet change back to using a strap.

The weights are:

• 747 gr. (without any accessories)
• 816 gr. (with a Zeiss strap and the OEM rainguard)
• 881 gr. (with a Zeiss harness and the OEM rainguard)

By comparison the Habicht 7x42 (leatherette) weighs with a Zeiss strap and an old Zeiss rubber rainguard only 727 gr. That's quite a difference. The APM is also quite large and bulky and may be a bit big for people with small hands.

Build quality is very good, apart from the eyecups. In fact, I’ve seen so-called “alphas” with lesser build quality. The bridge is fine, there’s no play. The inside is clean (I checked with a flashlight), the collimation of my sample is perfect, the dioptre markings on the right eyepiece are correct (“0” is “0”). Be careful though if you need a wide adjustment range: I think the adjustment range is probably no more than +/- 3 diopters.

A quick word on the accessories: I normally don’t even mention the accessories as I usually use different straps, rainguards and so on. However, the APM’s eyepieces have got such a large diameter that no other rainguard fits. At least I couldn’t find any. And unfortunately the OEM rainguard is a bit tight and flimsy.

In conclusion, the APM is a really nice pair of binoculars with no real weaknesses apart from the eyecups. I can see myself using it quite a lot in the future. And remember: For the price of one Habicht 7x42 you can buy four APM 6.5x32s (or 9 for one NL 8x32) … What’s more, none of the European manufacturers offers a porro with such features.

I got the APM from, well, APM. The service was as good as always. Highly recommended iif you’re in Europe.

Hermann

Good review, Hermann, thank you!
Canip

 

[Hermann]

Good review, Hermann, thank you!

I have to thank you. You do some incredible work here and on your website.

Hermann

 

[Patudo]

Very informative read H, thanks! I was going to ask what habitats you were birding in, typical species/behaviour seen, distances viewed over, times of day, etc. I'm impressed not only by the FOV (which you would expect from a large binocular - there just weren't many manufacturers willing to produce an oversized x32mm porro), build and optical quality you describe, but also your inability to induce veiling glare. That has been a weakness of pretty much every 8x30 classic porro I've tried.

Between the SRBC range and this, it does look as though Kunming is turning out some good products.

 

[Hermann]

I was going to ask what habitats you were birding in, typical species/behaviour seen, distances viewed over, times of day, etc.

Varied habitat, mainly on my local patch with some woodland and a number of small lakes, but also at one of the large rivers in Northern Germany. The usual variety of birds to be seen in such habitats, although it's pretty quiet at the moment: Kingfishers, woodpeckers, ducks, geese, swallows, some gulls and so on. Observations mainly during the day and in the evening.

I'm impressed not only by the FOV (which you would expect from a large binocular - there just weren't many manufacturers willing to produce an oversized x32mm porro), build and optical quality you describe, but also your inability to induce veiling glare. That has been a weakness of pretty much every 8x30 classic porro I've tried.

Well, for instance the Nikon 8x32 SE didn't really have problems with glare. The "classic" porros (Zeiss, Leitz, Hartmann and so on) all had simple coatings. Still, some of them were actually pretty good. I'd quite like to see a new edition of the Zeiss 8x30 B (version II) with modern multicoatings. Or a modernized Binuxit.

Hermann

 

[Patudo]

I suppose SEs are a classic porro now, but I don't really see them as such - they're significantly more modern in terms of optical train design and (of course) coatings than the true classics eg. Deltrintem.

Your post reads as though simple coatings = inferior performance against glare, and I suppose that should be correct, but I've also read some commentary that suggested the move from single to multi-coatings in the Deltrintem made for greater brightness but an overall less appealing image (colour rendition, and possibly susceptibility to glare too?). I've not tried single-coated Deltrintems myself, so would be grateful for your thoughts. Do the multi-coated Hartmanns perform better against glare?

The problem, in terms of making a business case for re-issuing the Zeiss 8x30B porro, is that ... you end up with just another 130m FOV 8x30 with long eye relief, and while it may offer a more pleasing image to the connoisseur, it's not going to really be any better as a birding tool than current or recent offerings eg. SFL 8x30, or Conquest/FL/SF 8x32 as to justify the cost of production. The only real selling point is nostalgia, and Leica discontinuing the Retrovids, I think, shows that the market for nostalgia offerings isn't that big.

I think the porro concept has "moved East" and is really now being taken forward by PRC companies that are more able to produce smaller runs catering to niche demands (not totally unlike the JB era manufacturers in Japan). I can't deny I'd really like to see (although I don't think I would purchase) this 6.5x32.

 

[Hermann]

I suppose SEs are a classic porro now, but I don't really see them as such - they're significantly more modern in terms of optical train design and (of course) coatings than the true classics eg. Deltrintem.

True.

Your post reads as though simple coatings = inferior performance against glare, and I suppose that should be correct, but I've also read some commentary that suggested the move from single to multi-coatings in the Deltrintem made for greater brightness but an overall less appealing image (colour rendition, and possibly susceptibility to glare too?). I've not tried single-coated Deltrintems myself, so would be grateful for your thoughts. Do the multi-coated Hartmanns perform better against glare?

Coatings are just one factor, there are several others, like baffles. Example: The Habicht 8x30 has excellent coatings - and yet the straylight performance is pretty abysmal. The Deltrintem had not only worse coatings than the Habicht - the T3M coating was even at the time pretty mediocre compared to others - but also wasn't very well baffled. The Hartmanns were better, no doubt.

But the Deltrintems and the Hartmann binoculars are really only collector's item today.

The problem, in terms of making a business case for re-issuing the Zeiss 8x30B porro, is that ... you end up with just another 130m FOV 8x30 with long eye relief, and while it may offer a more pleasing image to the connoisseur, it's not going to really be any better as a birding tool than current or recent offerings eg. SFL 8x30, or Conquest/FL/SF 8x32 as to justify the cost of production.

I know. I'd still like a new edition of the 8x30B porro, and especially the 8x50B porro, an excellent binocular (and IMO better than the 8x30B). But I know it won't happen.

I think the porro concept has "moved East" and is really now being taken forward by PRC companies that are more able to produce smaller runs catering to niche demands (not totally unlike the JB era manufacturers in Japan). I can't deny I'd really like to see (although I don't think I would purchase) this 6.5x32.

I think it's not just the porro concept that has moved East. If the SRBC and the APM 6.5x32 have proven anything, it's that Kunming United Optics has finally arrived on the world stage. A line of roofs that are optically close to the best roofs produced in the West, according to Canip, Holger and Piergiovanni, reviewers I trust? What if they sort out the remaining weaknesses and/or bugs in the next few years? Roofs are quite difficult to make, think of the problems Swarovski had when they introduced the open bridge. And KUO now makes a porro that is not only unique due to its specifications but also optically quite close to the Habicht 7x42 - but with a far larger FOV?

I honestly believe the European (and Japanese!) manufacturers will have to up their game. Holger made a short list of the improvements he thinks are still possible in the future, and the "key feature" (Holger's words) is image stabilization. (Cf. post #11, Zeiss uses new findings from perception theory to optimize distortion in binoculars). Now, Kamakura has started developing IS binoculars, with limited success so far as far as I can see. Good for them. Canon is still resting on their laurels, so is Zeiss (how old is that 20x60S?). Fujinon is a strange case. What Nikon does is anybodies guess. And where are the European manufacturers?

Anyway, I digress. You know, you really should get an APM. It's a fun binocular. And a very, very good one.

Hermann

 

[Thotmosis]

Comprehensive review and interesting read 👍.

 

[Ignatius]

... The only real selling point is nostalgia, and Leica discontinuing the Retrovids, I think, shows that the market for nostalgia offerings isn't that big.

...

Are they indeed?

 

[yarrellii]

@Hermann Thanks for a very interesting and real-life-down-to-earth review. I'm always in the lookout for viable 7x binoculars (and I've tried a bunch!!). After reading your review, I'm even more curious about the APM 6.5x32 CF. A modern porro that is waterproof, nearly 7x and that delivers a better view than the APM 6x30. However, in the back of my mind I see a few cloudy patches.

First of all, while I understand that sample variation is a matter of pure luck (this is, for you to get the odd bad sample), I can't forget my bad experience with the Sky Rover 8x30 ED that I posted here. I guess I could simply return the 6.5x32 CF should I also receive a faulty sample, but the entire process is a bit of a hassle, plus the disappointment of it all.

Second, the reason I love 8x30-32 (like the EII, SE, etc.) is because of the size and weight... and it turns out that the 6.5x32 is basically as heavy as a full 7x42 like the FL, and even heavier than another 7x42 porro like the Habicht. This somehow puts a blur in the otherwise shining prospect of getting a contemporary porro 7x32, which in paper is just a dream come true.

As a side note, I wonder how different in performance the APM 6.5x32 would be to something like the Pentax 7x32 which seems to get pretty positive reviews. Although the Pentax only has a 7,8º FOV (still acceptable for a 7x in my opinion), it weights 585 g, which fits better in the idea of a compact 32 mm binocular (the main reason I have close to 0 interest in the 8x32 Oberwerk ED.

Thanks again for sharing your experiences, looking forward to an update as you clock more hours of field use with the APM.

 

[Hermann]

There’s not a lot going on here at the moment, so I did some more comparisons between the APM 6.5x32 CF and the Habicht 7x42 today. The weather was bright, partly sunny, with some clouds. The photo attached shows the habitat. I was watching across a small lake, with the light coming from the left around noon:

• Circle 1 includes the branches of two dead trees, in full light, against white clouds. Birds seen in this area were Common Buzzard, Woodpigeons, Green Woodpecker and Eurasian Jay.
• Circle 2 is the edge of the lake below the two trees, in deep shadow. Birds seen there were Grey Heron, Mallard and Coot.

First of all, I couldn’t see any resolution differences between the two binoculars. Colour reproduction was also quite similar, in other words it was very good. I couldn’t see any differences in image brightness (Circle 2). When viewing against the bright sky (Circle 1) I could not detect any CA, even though the conditions were pretty conducive to CA. (Interestingly, when I was briefly joined by a local birder who carried his new Companion CL (10x30), we both agreed we could see some faint CA on the branches of the trees that we couldn’t see though the APM and the Habicht. Not a fair comparison, of course, since 10x binoculars usually show more CA than low magnification binoculars.)

There was also no obvious veiling glare, neither in Circle 1 nor in Circle 2. However, there was some difference between the two binoculars: In Circle 1 the Habicht showed consistently slightly better contrast, the branches were a bit darker, the plumage of the birds seen also showed more contrast. In the APM the colours looked a bit weaker, more “washed out”. This was quite obvious after a while, e.g. in the plumage of the Woodpigeons. But note that this difference was still pretty slight, and the Habicht is very good at showing such details in difficult light. This difference wasn’t quite so obvious when looking into the shadows (Circle 2), but it was there.

Another thing I noticed was that the Habicht was a bit sharper at the edge. But then the difference in the FOV is so great this doesn’t really matter. The edges of the APM were still good enough to notice e.g. House Martins in the sky.

Some final words on the APM:

• The focuser is stiff, as I wrote in the review. It’s also quite slow. This isn’t a pair for birding the bushes at some migration hotspot. However, it’s very precise, with no play at all.
• Use with (my) eyeglasses is no problem. The Habicht works as well, however, it’s a bit more difficult to “hit the right spot”.
• The big eyepieces may be a problem for people with a small IPD. Mine is 68mm; I can fit in my nose without any difficulty.
• I find the weight and the bulk of the APM “difficult”. Sure, the big Canon is even heavier, but with the Canon I get something I can’t get with other binoculars: 10x magnification with a stable image of very high quality. With the APM I can easily switch to the lighter and slimmer Habicht. I’d lose a lot of FOV, of course, but I’m quite used to that after 10 years or so of using the Habicht. Maybe I’ll get used to the APM, maybe not. Time will tell.

I may do another write-up on the differences in low light, depends on when I can get away. In that case I may to do a three-way comparison with the big Hensoldt Fero D17 7x50. Just for fun.

Hermann

 

[yarrellii]

Thanks for posting this, keep it coming, I really enjoyed reading your observations. I can't help thinking that for 250 € the APM seem to hold their own pretty well against a seasoned model like the Habicht, which is quite remarkable. Obviously a 7x42 APM would surely be more expensive, but still. In my mind, the Habicht is really a great reference point.

I had a 2018 8x30 Habicht which was simply mind-blowing, but I had to let it go due to usability issues (narrow eyecups, slow focus for birdwatching, etc.), but the memory of the amazing view still remains, blindingly bright and sharp. However, I later on bought a 7x42 from the year 2000 (s/n was A7021) and the "magic" wasn't there. Yes, it was a nice 7x42 Porro (which for me is lovely by nature), but it didn't wow me like the 8x30. I wonder if the 18 years of difference in coatings were the culprit.

Anyway, the fact that the Habicht doesn't run circles around the APM, but simply beats it in some areas (which is to be expected, given the difference in price) but doesn't seem to humiliate the APM is frankly amazing. Yes, there's still the matter of durability and reliability, which also are unknown yet. As for the weight, honestly is my biggest concern, since I know I can only tolerate a certain weight. Just like you, if I carry something bulkier and with awkward ergonomics (mind you my 12x36 IS III is lighter than the APM) I can somehow put up with it because I know I'm getting an amazing 12 stabilized view that gives me so much detail, but that kind of weight in a 32 mm remains a big concern.

Thanks again, very interesting!

 

[yarrellii]

I am starting to think I have some sort of "optical curse" when it comes to the new Porro family from SkyRover/APM (is that all Kunming?), because after my faulty SkyRover 8x30 ED (I wrote about it here) now I also have the pleasure of having a faulty APM 6.5x32 APO

I know sample variation is a fact, even in high quality optics (I got a hair inside the lenses of my very first quality binocular, a Zeiss Conquest HD, which was obviously exchanged by Zeiss under warranty), but here, this is 2 out of 2. If not for other forum members who seem to have gotten units in proper working order, I would think that their quality control is all over the place. Turn your volume up and be prepared...

View attachment APM65x32FaultyFocus.mp4

I had read other forum members how hard the focus wheel on this APM is, well, it turns out mine isn't. Mine is quite soft actually, but the worst thing is that the movement is not even, it's very irregular with a part of the throw (when the bridge is down, this is binoculars focusing far away) where the movement becomes grainy and there is a very worrying noise coming from the inner mechanism of the focus wheel. Once passed that first half, the second half (focusing at medium to close range) doesn't sound or feel grainy, but it kind of slips in an uneven movement. I have tried turning it back and forth for a while to see whether it got any better and it was just the original grease settling on the nooks and crannies of the mechanisms, but to no avail. It has not gotten any better.

Furthermore, there is an obvious difference in performance between both tubes, I am not talking about something revealed by a boosted test or any technical trial. Simply while using the binoculars there is something odd. I thought it was misalignment, but the lower part of the left tube is simply way more blurry which is obvious while in use.

So, these are going back, not sure if I want to have a third go, so will probably be requesting a refund, unfortunately. Otherwise, the view is just as-to-ni-shing for the price. I have briefly compared them to two well respected binoculars (both more expensive), the Nikon E2 8x30 and the Vixen Foresta Porro 7x50 (the one with the triplet) and the APM delivers an image that seems sharper, brighter and vibrant, so engaging. Really amazing, to be honest.

Edit: Here's the serial number in case this unit gets bounced back to someone (or in case APM is reading): 83 178. I don't think I've seen any s/n on the binocular itself, but this is printed on a sticker on the bag holding the box together with the details of the model and a code 1-G-029-02, not sure what that is. I hope it helps.

 

[Hermann]

I am starting to think I have some sort of "optical curse" when it comes to the new Porro family from SkyRover/APM (is that all Kunming?), because after my faulty SkyRover 8x30 ED (I wrote about it here) now I also have the pleasure of having a faulty APM 6.5x32 APO

Wow, that's just amazing. I never had a focuser of a porro that made such noises ... That's obviously a binocular that should never have left the factory. Never ever. Seems to happen to every manufacturer from time to time. You gave the example of your Conquest HD. I had two such cases over the past 40 years, both "alphas" (a hair inside one of the eyepieces, one binocular that wouldn't focus to infinity in one barrel). This year a friend got a "waterproof" alpha that leaked in a heavy shower (there was water on one of the objectives, on the inside), another friend bought an alpha in the >2000 € class where the focuser stopped working after a few weeks.

The question is of course if such problems are more widespread with the APMs. I honestly don't know. I can only say I've got a second 6.5x32 here at the moment, and it's exactly the same as my own one - perfect. Nobody on the German forum who got one has any problems.

So I would send it back to Markus, asking for a replacement, and asking him to carefully check it before sending it out to you.

Otherwise, the view is just as-to-ni-shing for the price. I have briefly compared them to two well respected binoculars (both more expensive), the Nikon E2 8x30 and the Vixen Foresta Porro 7x50 (the one with the triplet) and the APM delivers an image that seems sharper, brighter and vibrant, so engaging. Really amazing, to be honest.

The view is really quite something. The APM will probably replace my Habicht 7x42 as one of my go-to binoculars. It's that good.

Hermann

 

[yarrellii]

Yes, @Hermann as you say it happens to every manufacturer. I guess (or I want to believe so) that the lower you go on the price scale the less QC there is, and the higher you climb up the price ladder, the more strict QC is, but a percentage of binoculars simply carry that burden. How much of that percentage? Who knows (well, I guess manufacturers at least should have an estimate, also to base their price policy on, taking into account the percentage of returns, etc.). But the moment you start buying binoculars, you realise this is a thing, and in my case I've been quite unlucky with this 2 in-a-row series with SkyRover/APM.

On the other hand, come to think about it, one thing that has always amazed me is that every single Nikon I've had (just checked and it amounts to a total of 20 models, from the cheapest to top-of-the range) have always had perfectly working focus wheels, in some cases true masterpieces in others more mundane mechanism as the price would suggest. Nikon is by far the brand I've bought the most often and yet I think every other brand has let me down on the focus wheel department at some point (Zeiss, Vixen, Leica, Swarovski and Opticron are my most bought brands after Nikon, and I've had issues with all of the at some point). Isn't that amazing? I mean, what an incredible consistency. I'm sure Nikon binoculars have focus wheel problems (in fact, it's not uncommon to read no other than the mighty EDG struggling with focus wheel and diotpre correction wheel issues), but in my experience they have their QC sorted out quite well there. As you say, this unit should never have left the factory. It's clear that it wasn't (properly) inspected. In fact, now that I think about it, I'm going to add the serial number to my previous entry in case the unit gets bounced back to someone (or in case APM is reading).

I've bought them in Astroshop and the return process has been simple and they have not had any trouble providing a free return label to send the binoculars back.

After further inspection, I can say that I've found the eyecups really large (when twisted up, they displayed some leftover grease on the exposed areas). I mean, the 7x50 Vixen Foresta Porro has some seriously chunky eyecups, but this APM has even larger ones, to the point where they are not that confortable. My IPD is around 68-69 mm, so not on the narrow side, and I don't have a particularly large or prominent nose, but even then I haven't found the ease of view remarkable. For some reason, I've found eye placement to be a little more finicky that what a 6.5x32 configuration might suggest, probably due to the long eye relief too, I don't know. A few days ago we were discussing in another thread how ease of view (or a finicky eye position, to be precise) was not only a matter of exit pupil, and the Vixen Foresta Porro 7x50 (and now this APM) are a clear example to me. In spite of the 7 mm EP, the Vixen are by no means the easiest and most relaxed binos to use, I had the same with a 6 mm Optolyh 7x42 Alpine NG, which displayed an otherwise very nice image.

One thing that has surprised me, even after reading about it, is the weight: 744 g on my scale (the bare binocular). In fact, I've found it to be more compact than I anticipated (maybe in my mind +700 g have a larger footprint). I mean, it is by no means small or "compact", but I thought it was going to be even larger. Maybe it's because of the "density"; if I hadn't weighted them, I would have said that the weight was less than 700 g. I can't say anything about the way they hang or how comfortable they are to carry for obvious reasons.

 

[Hermann]

Replying to myself, that's bad style, I know. However, some of the points I made in my original review need some further comment now that I used the APM a lot over the past few weeks.

Optically the 6.5x32 CF is very good: Very good central sharpness and contrast, a large sweetspot (~75 percent of the image) with some mild field curvature at the edges, excellent colour fidelity. I couldn’t see any CA (but note I’m not very susceptible to CA). Straylight is also very well controlled; I couldn’t produce any veiling glare so far, not even in difficult lighting conditions. [...] When comparing it to the Habicht 7x42 things are more difficult: I think the Habicht is a bit brighter and has a bit more contrast, especially in the evening just before sunset, but the differences aren’t big. But they are there from what I can see.

The more I use the APM, the more I like it. The optical quality is quite superb. I had a chance to do a pretty thorough comparison with a Leica 7x42BA, and the APM beat it easily: Better contrast, better sharpness, less glare, brighter image, the whole works. And yes, the Habicht is a bit better in the image centre. A bit. I also did a comparison to my Nikon 8x32 SE (even though they're a different magnification), and I found I preferred the APM. Only by a small margin, but still.

The focuser is quite slow and stiff, almost as stiff as the focuser of my Habicht.

This has changed. The focuser isn't as stiff as it was in the beginning, it's now "just right" - for me. Definitely not as stiff as the Habicht's, even though I've used the Habicht a lot for a decade. It's still slow of course, but that's fine with me, I like slow focusers. No play, no stickiness. Just nice. I only hope the focuser stays like this.

The APM is quite a large and heavy binocular. Sure, that’s unavoidable given the large prisms, but there’s another problem: The “hang” of the APM isn’t good, it doesn’t rest flat on the chest when I use a normal strap, it hangs at an angle, the eyepieces are not flush with my chest. I'm not used to that, so after a couple of days I switched to using a harness. That worked better for me although I may yet change back to using a strap.

I'm back to using a strap, a Zeiss strap, to be precise. I finally got used to the "hang", just like tenex predicted, and I really try to avoid harnesses whenever I can. They're too much of a hassle.

Hermann

 

[adhoc]

Thank you for all that, Hermann, also Yarrellii!

H., Y., others: Has this instrument shown more detail, or shown very fine detail better, than a 7x which you have used alongside, in a side-by-side test, handheld, in the field, done by you?

(a) I have noted the 7xs named in the thread so far. The above applies also to them, and further any 7x you may not have mentioned till now. (b) I do note that this is actually 6.7x, and also that "7x" too may vary a bit. Thanks.

 

[yarrellii]

@Hermann You are seriously making me consider getting another unit to see if I get a little luckier!
Right now I am waiting for a pair of the Pentax 7x32 AD that are underway, so it could be nice to compare them both and see what a 400 € modern 7x32 roof can do against a modern 260 € porro 6.5x32. Each one seems to deliver on the obvious strengths of the given configurations: the Pentax is lighter and more compact, the APM has a much wider field of view, the lovely porro stereopsis and quite likely a better sharpness and overall image quality.