Hermann
Well-known member
-
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.
The APM 6.5x32: Mini review (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Hermann
- Start date
Hermann
Well-known member
CF. Photos will have to wait. BTW, I can't find the CF version on the APM website today ...
Hermann
This is exactly what happened to my 2nd unit. Mine was received back by APM on 28.11.24, so (based on the date of your comment) I don't think it could be the very same unit, but the way you describe it is exactly what happened to mine. Do you think it is possible that a recurrent flaw in the same area could be attributed to a particular step of the manufacturing process or design, or simply a matter of coincidence. When I first got the "ring of reflection" on my Diamondback HD I was surprised to see such a thing, but I later on discovered that it's not an uncommon flaw with that model.One piece of advice though: Check both barrels carefully to see if there are any differences. The pair I got will be back on its way to APM because the left barrel is not ok. The centre is sharp, but outside the centre circle the image gets soft quite rapidly. The difference to the right barrel is very obvious. This softness is most pronounced at the lower edge of the image circle. Seems like I got a lemon this time ...
I'm curious about the new eyecups, and at 185 € it is really really tempting!!! However, after my two faulty units, I think I'll wait for the model to be more thoroughly tested and "matured".
Hermann
Well-known member
I don't know, however, I think it's most likely just a sloppy manufacturing process and a lack of QC. By now I've handled five 6.5x32s (1xIF and 4xCF), and one out of these five was faulty. If it were a design problem, I'd expect more faulty units. BTW, I haven't heard of any more faulty units on the German forum, and there are a few people who also got either the IF or the CF.
Well, basically it is "you get what you pay for", and at that price level I don't think you can expect some really vigorous QC. The problems my faulty unit had weren't immediately obvious at first sight, so that pair could easily have passed a casual check.
BTW, I think I'm done with muggle binoculars for the time being. What I really want now is another decent and reasonably light pair of IS binoculars with decent optics ...
Hermann
I couldn't have said it better. Lately I've been very busy with work, with fewer chances of going birdwatching, despite the migration and the stormy weather (which usually brings along some nice birds). So, when getting the opportunity to do so, and facing the decision of which binocular to bring... going there just a few moments and not wanting to miss any possible chance of ID (or getting as much info as possible), I simply grabbed the IS.
It seems that IS is gaining momentum (so are very nice and reasonably price porro binoculars), let's see if it results in more nice models. Let's hope the Chinese OEM manufacturers see a business opportunity and catch up in that area too
has530
Well-known member
Have you tried the canon 8x20? They are quite light and have nice optics (if you don't mind the small exit pupil and narrow fov...small lenses and prisms help keep the weight down after all!).
Hermann
Well-known member
I've actually got the Canon 8x20. I use it mainly as my EDC binocular on days when I don't expect to do any "serious" birding. Quite a nice pair, however, for birding I find the exit pupil too small. 3mm is really the lower limit as far as I'm concerned. And interestingly I find the FOV somehow too "restrictive", even though I very much like a Habicht 7x42 very much for birding, and the AFOV of the Habicht is even narrower than that of the Canon. Go figure.
Hermann
Sorry for the late response. Outside diameter is about 45 mm, center of rubber about 44 mm. The upper thin eyecup is slightly conical, very soft, flexible, with the height about 14 mm. Hope it helps.
I picked up this binocular from Amazon for a trial run and was very disappointed. But not by the optics, which are apparently excellent, but by the fact that the binoculars regularly, with even some gentle manipulation, somehow loosened the optics inside to the point that they were almost impossible to look through, plus the enormous CA. After activating the IS button, everything fixed immediately and lasted for some time even when the IS was off. The unit also rattled audibly when in the unadjusted state. I returned them.
Hermann
Well-known member
Hi Dave, I'm sure the unit you got was defective. I've actually got two of the Canons, and neither of them shows the problems you describe. The image quality is the same with the stabilizer on and off, no obvious rattle at all. The pair I've got here has survived quite a lot of use and some rough handling (living in my EDC can be pretty hard on binoculars). No change, works as it should.
Seems like you got a lemon.
Hermann
Thanks, Hermann. Yes, that's exactly what I originally wanted to use it for too - EDC binoculars! I personally hope it must have actually been a defective piece. I have other two IS binos myself but I haven't seen this one yet. It's like the activated stabilization got and kept some optical member temporarily in the correct position, and then it stayed in that position for a while (even at IS off) before it loosened up again and started rattling. However, you could still see through the binoculars afterwards but the overall sharpness was poor, visible CA on all edges and a milky veil on top of that. To loosen it up all you had to do was shake the binoculars gently or sometimes just flip them on their backs. That's how the brand new unit worked right out of the box - strange. Since Amazon has a good return policy, I took advantage of it immediately. It's a shame because otherwise the image was really very good, and I knew about the relatively narrow field of view in advance.
I'm already scared to take a second risk with this particular model to be honest, but I'm glad anyway that someone is confirming its normal functionality and I was just unlucky and got a lemon.
