The APM 6.5x32: Mini review (1 Viewer)

[Thotmosis]

Hmm, i still have the IF version of this model and because of the ergonomics (the extreme big eyecups) it didn’t really work for me at all so i was not able to test it thoroughly at all but, but… this glass definitely has huge potential. Unfortunately my facial structure and/or the huge eyecups stand against a happy marriage. If they would make the eyecups smaller and put some effort at QC (!) i really think this could be a perfect binocular. Maybe at a higher price though because of improved QC.

 

[yarrellii]

@Thotmosis Yes, I share a similar impression. The "raw" image is quite amazing, but it's hindered by the terrible QC and the ergonomics. A real pity, given that it's a great 7x35 image-wise. But then, one of the reasons 7x is my favourite magnification is for the ease of view associated with the lower mag, increased depth of field and steady view. So, for me, a nice 7x35 more so than 8x or 10x makes you forget you are using binoculars. Such is the case for many lovely modern 7x (like the FL, UV, Retrovid, or even cheaper ones like the Nikon AEX or the Nikon Action) or classic ones like the plethora of WA or UWA porros from yesteryear.

 

[boboladder]

Hello Everyone!
Let me introduce myself. My name is Andrew. I am a long time anonymous follower of the forum and now is the time to start some activity, because advice is needed. I like binoculars and somehow have collected maybe not many of them but for sure more than I really need. I have realised that I prefer low power binos. The mini review by Mr Hermann at the very beginning of this thread made me decide to pull the trigger for APM 6.5x32 CF which has arrived this Monday from Astroshop. So here I am writing my first post on BF.
What a wonderful glass it is! I think it is on pare with my e2 8x30 optically (even a little bit brighter actually) and I really like it but there is one thing which concerns me considering focusing.
I don't want to make this post to long so here is my question.
Is focusing range beyond infinity so short on your central focus APMs? I wonder if my specimen is defective or it is just this specific beauty of the model. When I focus on clouds or stars I need to turn the focus wheel almost to the very end of the range with just very little room for "over focusing". My other binos has rather excessive range beyond infinity so I can always pass the best focus spot and than turn the wheel back being sure I am focused spot on. With the case of this APM I reach focus near the end of the scale and the view remains sharp even when I go further to the very physical end of focus range and this is only minor micro movement, probably no more than 15 degrees to the left. What may be important, my prescription is about -1.75d for both eyes. The bino can focus as close as about just over 2 m. Should I be concerned and return the bino or everything is right and yours are the same?
Andrzej

 

[Hermann]

However, as soon as I’ve put them to my eyes, two things have become evident. Although I don’t have a particularly large nose, the eyecups are so wide that they pinch my nose and, as has been commented above, you end up resting the binoculars on your nose as if they were some extraordinarily heavy glasses. Not really comfortable, to say the least. Furthermore, with the eyecups twisted all the way up, there is no way I can see the entire field of view. In order to do that I have to use the one but lowest setting (this is, one click up from the bottom).

Just shows how different we all are. I've got an IPD of 69mm, and the 6.5.x32 worked for me almost straightaway, both with my eyeglasses and without. No problems with my nose at all ... Adjusting the eyecups and the IPD was quite easy and fast; I've handled binoculars where I needed a lot more time to get the settings right. In fact, I quite like the ergonomics of this model.

So, unfortunately, after 2 out of 2 (and the "bonus track" of my faulty Sky Rover 8x30 MS ED) I think I can whether call myself really unlucky or simply deduce that the QC of the manufacturer is all over the place. I don’t know if they simply don’t inspect the binoculars before shipping them (the focus wheel on my first 6.5x32 CF unit was just outrageously unacceptable) or their tolerance to faults is puzzling, like in this second unit. Yes, it's not a really expensive binocular, but I would expect more.

It's probably both, actually. I have handled three 6.5x32s (1x IF, 2x CF), and like all binoculars I order I thoroughly checked them upon arrival . All three are very good optically, across the field, no problems at all. As expected the barrels aren't all exactly the same when checked with a 3x booster, but the differences are small. Basically the same result I'd expect with a binocular from one of the so-called "alpha manufacturers". There are also several people on the German forum who've got the 6.5x32. So far I've heard of no complaints.

So yes, I think you're unlucky. Very.

Hermann

 

[Swedpat]

Luckily, companies are actively leaving China and manufacturing elsewhere. And China will always just be playing catch-up to other countries because dictatorships can't innovate. Innovation would require free thinking which isn't allowed there. So everybody can relax again. They don't have some secret sauce. The reasons they can push their garbage cheaply onto the market are obvious to everyone who has at least a minimal understanding of economics. I'm not gonna repeat it here cause I'm getting sick and tired of explaining the very basics over and over again.

I wish that would be true...
Unfortunately China continues to out compete the rest of the world by offering copies of a lot of products at close to the same quality to a fraction of the price.
Soon China will be the leader of high end products.

 

[Hermann]

Is focusing range beyond infinity so short on your central focus APMs? I wonder if my specimen is defective or it is just this specific beauty of the model. When I focus on clouds or stars I need to turn the focus wheel almost to the very end of the range with just very little room for "over focusing". My other binos has rather excessive range beyond infinity so I can always pass the best focus spot and than turn the wheel back being sure I am focused spot on. With the case of this APM I reach focus near the end of the scale and the view remains sharp even when I go further to the very physical end of focus range and this is only minor micro movement, probably no more than 15 degrees to the left. What may be important, my prescription is about -1.75d for both eyes. The bino can focus as close as about just over 2 m. Should I be concerned and return the bino or everything is right and yours are the same?

My eyes are corrected to 0 diopters at infinity when I wear my glasses. With both copies of the 6.5x32 I've got here I've got quite a lot of focusing range left beyond infinity; I can focus beyond infinity until the image gets very fuzzy.

So yes, I think I would probably return that binocular.

Hermann

 

[boboladder]

My eyes are corrected to 0 diopters at infinity when I wear my glasses. With both copies of the 6.5x32 I've got here I've got quite a lot of focusing range left beyond infinity; I can focus beyond infinity until the image gets very fuzzy.

So yes, I think I would probably return that binocular.

Hermann

Thank You for the answer. I tend to look through binos without my correcting glasses except for birding. I will check the bino again as soon as sky gets clear with my glasses on and off and decide. How close can You focus with your APM?

 

[yarrellii]

@Hermann Just for reference, I don't use glasses, my IPD is nearly as yours, around 68 mm, even a tad more, and I usually complain about narrow eyecups, not the oposite But the eyecups on this simply pinch my "regular size" nose. Facial features and binocular ergonomics is a subject that probably could be explained in a 20 volume enciclopedia (basically, going case by case), but I don't think I've encountered a bino with such eyecups. The 7x50 Vixen Foresta porro is near, but using it is easier (as in less compromised in terms of comfort). So comfort is the one area where this model really seems to be a matter of personal taste (or luck), unlike other 7x that are "universally praised" (within the logical limits of personal preferences), like the classic 7x42 Dialyt, the 7x42 UVHD, even the 7x42 Trinovid BA/BN or the FL. In fact, ease of view and comfort are one of the areas I value the most on 7x, and one of the reasons I'm always drawn to this format.

There are also several people on the German forum who've got the 6.5x32. So far I've heard of no complaints.

As you can see from the last two messages here (mine and bobollader's), there does seem to be a noticeable sample variation. In my case, both units (besides the focus wheel on the first one) displayed such a difference between the tubes (no booster needed) that it rendered using them unpleasant. There's people who complain about a certain dizziness (even nausea) when using a flat field with rolling bar effect like the EL, while I have never experienced that, so I wouldn't say I'm the most "easily bothered" user, but in this case it was really remarkable and easily noticeable. Because one eye was watching a large patch of blue, the combined view was not pleasant (I imagine the brain was somehow trying to compensate). I have never used glasses and always enjoyed a pretty good eyesight. Nowadays, at 50, I still don't use glasses (I recently renovated my driving license and I passed the visual acuity test with 100 % points). I tend to use the dioptre compensation wheel on 0 or somewhere between 0 and 0,5. So, let's say, I'm and "easy specimen" in that respect No complicated default to begin with in terms of optical requirements. But, you know how this works, sometimes a binocular you want to like just doesn't work for you.

 

[Hermann]

How close can You focus with your APM?

The problem is my eyes are a bit weird ... Large differences between both eyes (>3 diopters) and so on. So the result wouldn't mean anything, I think.

 

[Hermann]

@Hermann Just for reference, I don't use glasses, my IPD is nearly as yours, around 68 mm, even a tad more, and I usually complain about narrow eyecups, not the oposite But the eyecups on this simply pinch my "regular size" nose. Facial features and binocular ergonomics is a subject that probably could be explained in a 20 volume enciclopedia (basically, going case by case), but I don't think I've encountered a bino with such eyecups.

Neither have I ... Yes, the 6.5x32 has got most unusual eyecups, and I think it may well have been designed with Asian facial features in mind. Certainly not for long-nosed Europeans. Still, I don't find the eyecups uncomfortable. Unusual, even strange, but hey, I don't mind. BTW, with eyeglasses I find the APM almost perfect.

As you can see from the last two messages here (mine and bobollader's), there does seem to be a noticeable sample variation. In my case, both units (besides the focus wheel on the first one) displayed such a difference between the tubes (no booster needed) that it rendered using them unpleasant.

I didn't want to imply you're a "difficult" user at all. Sorry if I gave you that impression. I don't doubt there's some noticeable sample variability, and that some binoculars get through whatever "QC" there is that never should. I reckon I just got lucky with the samples I examined. You didn't. If I had gotten one of the binoculars you got I would have sent them back as well. It wouldn't have been the first binoculars that didn't pass my initial testing.

Hermann

 

[boboladder]

To be honest I really really like the bino. Great DOF, clarity. I didn't notice differences between the tubes. I like the ergonomy of the eyecups although my nose is rather prominent. Size and weight of the bino is just right for me. I wonder maybe I can live without this exceeded beyond infinity focus range. I will see.

 

[yarrellii]

I didn't want to imply you're a "difficult" user at all. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

No offense taken My point was trying to give a background as a "regular"/average user without any obvious hindrances that could prevent me from enjoying the view (and what a view this is!). Funnily enough a pet peeve of mine are narrow eyecups However, I measured the inner diameter of the APM and I got something around 33 mm (give or take), which is actually pretty normal por a full size binocular (IIRC the 7x42 FL are 32), so what spoils it for me is the plastic "cup" of the eyecup, that protrudes outwards. It must be a very precise design/production/development decision, because otherwise I guess they could have gone with the already existing eyecups of the family from the Vixen Foresta porro (sold under many other brands). Maybe they needed it to accommodate some eyepieces large enough to make the most of the FOV? (Just guessing). After the IF and the CF I'm not sure if there will be any further iterations of this model/concept, but I'll keep my eyes peeled. Thanks again for all the detailed information.

 

[Patudo]

There's nothing wrong in having individual quirks in the way one uses binoculars. No two of us use binoculars in exactly the same way, have quite the same facial features, etc.

Incidentally (and not intending to suggest you are a "difficult" user at all... ) @yarrellii - I recall your really interesting post about not being able to see the full field of view in your 8x30 EII and some other binoculars (link). It reminds me that I am maybe a bit lucky that seeing the full field of view of pretty much every binocular I have tried has not really been a problem.

@Thotmosis, if you're not using your IF 6.5x32, maybe we can work something out. PM to follow...

 

[yarrellii]

@Patudo Yes, it's something I've just learned to live with (and I don't wear glasses!!!): if it's wide angle or ultra wide angle... and it's a porro, then you can bet that I won't be able to see the entire field of view, I just won't make it to the field stop. Maybe I have a strange proportion between wide and depth of my eye sockets that just don't allow me to see it. I've made a quick sketch to illustrate it:



Take a WA binocular like the 8x30 E2, image A. My eyes don't see the entire field of view, the limit of the image I see is a "false field stop" closer to my eyes, probably on the eyepiece. But there is a proportion of the FOV that is simply missing (I've marked on the sides of the objective in image A with a zigzag line). If I lower the eyecup, the thing can get a little better, but even with my eyelashes brushing the glass of the eyepiece, I won't be able to see the field stop comflortably.

Now, if I somehow move my eye laterally, as if it was sliding (image B, in blue), then I can see the field stop of the opposite side. Say I slide to the left, like in image B, I will be able to see the right side of the field stop... but then the left part of the image is blacked out. Not sure if this makes sense, but it's what I've seen over the years in many similar binoculars. I've tried to play with every conceivable variable (IPD, eyecup height, "eyebrow position", degree of inclination of my head/neck in relationship to the binoculars, etc.) to no avail. Some roof WA binoculars allow me to see the entire FOV (I can clearly see the field stop), so not sure if roof vs porro plays any role in this issue. With "intermediate" FOV binoculars, say up to 60º AFOV, there's usually no problem, but some narrow FOV binoculars with very tall eye relief are surprisingly difficult as well.

 

[Bentley03]

@boboladder I think what you're experiencing with your binocular is most likely nothing more than sample variation, which is clearly an issue with this product. The difference between my eyes is approximately 3 dioptres and there is plenty of rotation remaining in the focus movement beyond infinity, considerably more than with many older designs of Leica bins (BA/BN/Ultravid) which leave me regularly hitting the stop in normal use.

@yarrellii I'm really sorry to read about your experiences with this binocular. Unlucky or a victim of sample variation? There are arguments to support either, but the latter feels increasingly likely.

@Thotmosis the ergonomics of this binocular, to me, are extraordinary, unlike anything else I own apart from the SRBC's which just happen to be manufactured by the same company. To say that the optics are outstanding, would in my opinion be true, but those huge eyecups make set up awkward to the point of many giving up trying before assessing the optics, which is totally understandable. I've handed mine to six or seven different people to try and not one of them who didn't where glasses was able to intuitively set them up as you would a 'normal' binocular. With glasses, no problem, but without glasses you need to go into battle with them, to find a set up which makes them usable. They are very, very awkward, due to those huge eyecups which need to be set according to the width and size/length of the bridge of your nose, in conjunction with finding acceptable eye relief and IPD. Me, I have the eyecups twisted down one stop from fully extended, with index and middle finger on the focus wheel, and can operate them as comfortably like that as any other binocular. I still HATE anticlockwise direction of focus to infinity as much as ever, but hey ho, the view through them justifies that particular irritation.

 

[Dave_J]

I have a question maybe for someone who owns both SRBC 8x42 as well as APM 6.5x32, which I am now considering buying. In your opinion, is there any major reason for having both of these instruments? Especially considering the fact that they both have similar FOV and both are relatively heavy as portable tourist binoculars. I generally tend to gravitate towards porro design, but isn't that a bit insufficient as an argument?

 

[Patudo]

those huge eyecups make set up awkward to the point of many giving up trying before assessing the optics, which is totally understandable. I've handed mine to six or seven different people to try and not one of them who didn't where glasses was able to intuitively set them up as you would a 'normal' binocular. With glasses, no problem, but without glasses you need to go into battle with them, to find a set up which makes them usable. They are very, very awkward, due to those huge eyecups

This thread actually is a useful reminder just how important "haptics"/ergonomics (call them what you will is). I get the impression that how a binocular fits you is considered somehow "woke" and inconsequential compared to optical performance (see the jibes about "geriatrics"). But things like this do make a big difference.

I remember similar issues being voiced by eg. Holger re Fujinon FMTs, which also have large eyepieces.

 

[Hermann]

This thread actually is a useful reminder just how important "haptics"/ergonomics (call them what you will is). I get the impression that how a binocular fits you is considered somehow "woke" and inconsequential compared to optical performance (see the jibes about "geriatrics"). But things like this do make a big difference.

True. Another important factor is weight, of course. In the end everyone has to find a binocular that works for him/her, and, contrary to what many people here seem to suggest, optics are but one factor.

I remember similar issues being voiced by eg. Holger re Fujinon FMTs, which also have large eyepieces.

Sure, but OTOH Holger likes the SRBC and apparently also the APM ...

Hermann

 

[Bentley03]

I have a question maybe for someone who owns both SRBC 8x42 as well as APM 6.5x32, which I am now considering buying. In your opinion, is there any major reason for having both of these instruments? Especially considering the fact that they both have similar FOV and both are relatively heavy as portable tourist binoculars. I generally tend to gravitate towards porro design, but isn't that a bit insufficient as an argument?

I own both, but don't think I can add anything to what has been said already on the many and various threads concerning these two instruments. Similar field of view maybe, but otherwise like chalk and cheese, in terms of optical character and ergonomics (ENORMOUS eyecups notwithstanding!).

Ergonomically, I would suggest both are very much an acquired taste, especially if you don't wear glasses. Try before you buy has never been a more appropriate piece of advice, especially as the forum is littered with reports of unacceptable quality control and sample variation, for both instruments. I'm also not convinced that either is a strong candidate as a travel binocular. So, to turn your question on it's head, is there actually any major reason for you to consider purchasing either of these instruments?

 

[Bentley03]

This thread actually is a useful reminder just how important "haptics"/ergonomics (call them what you will is). I get the impression that how a binocular fits you is considered somehow "woke" and inconsequential compared to optical performance (see the jibes about "geriatrics"). But things like this do make a big difference.

Yes, this, haptics/ergonomics which work for me are paramount. If a binocular doesn't fit me well enough to enable me to access and enjoy their optical abilities/qualities to the full, I'm not interested, it's pointless owning/using them, in my opinion.