Curio Whoopsie! (2 Viewers)

[Mac308]

"The fact they let an amateur design them is liekly the real problem."

Firstly Newson is not an amateur designer he's a professional designer.

There is nothing particularly unique about the way the focusing knob is recessed - why is it likely to be the real problem? The recessing wouldn't stop the manufacturer adding a spline or going for a square spindle inside the knob? I honestly can't see that the design of the body could force a compromise on the designers in any way - certainly I would not use the word likely.

Do you have any engineering or product design background, to make the assertion that Newson's overall design is likely to be the real problem?

We don't even know whether it's a design fault or simply materials failure - glue can occasionally fail under quite low torque. Other binoculars have the same issue, particularly smaller ones (there are similar reports about Zeiss Victories for example). It could even be a batch issue with the adhesive.

My question is WHY would Swarovski turn to a name designer to design a binocular? I think I know the answer, but I'd like to hear others thoughts. It would have been brilliant had Swarovski just added a 7x21 to the CL lineup. I'd be an owner right now and my 8x20 Leica UV's would be sold.

I love good design, but it shouldn't wag the dog. The late Tapio Wirkkala designed a beautiful Puukko knife years ago. I had one (foolishly sold it). Wirkkala's design was a beautiful integration of modernist form. But the design didn't impede function in anyway. Another example is a Puukko designed for Marttiini by Harri Koskinen. It follows in the same tradition of Wirkkala's design.

Newson's Swarovski design certainly did the product no favors as the Swarovski in-house designers seemingly had to create workarounds for it (think of the plastic bottom plate that has caused problems). Holding slippery bare steel is another design issue, and while it doesn't impede the binocular's function, it's still plainly bad design - unless you just like cold, slippery metal. Someone well versed in binocular design would likely not have chosen that route (which is why I called Newson an amateur).

I suppose I'd compare Newson's Swarovski involvement like I would if Winchester Arms had contacted Herman Miller to design a rifle. - it would create a "what the heck" moment.

Also, I think relying on just glue to hold a focus knob is another example of shoddy design.

Yes - I have a design/art background, though not industrial design.

John Robinson on this thread has done industrial design. His work would be well known to many on this forum, and those products have been used world wide.

Anyway, it's just a meandering conversation and I have a habit of wondering out loud about things. Apparently this has confused you, and offended others. My apology.

 

[Mono]

As regards ergonomics I have no problem with the Curio, it sits well in the hand. When I first got mine I did think the diopter knob should have a centre detent, but it has never been a problem.

 

[Rg548]

My question is WHY would Swarovski turn to a name designer to design a binocular? I think I know the answer, but I'd like to hear others thoughts. It would have been brilliant had Swarovski just added a 7x21 to the CL lineup. I'd be an owner right now and my 8x20 Leica UV's would be sold.

I love good design, but it shouldn't wag the dog. The late Tapio Wirkkala designed a beautiful Puukko knife years ago. I had one (foolishly sold it). Wirkkala's design was a beautiful integration of modernist form. But the design didn't impede function in anyway. Another example is a Puukko designed for Marttiini by Harri Koskinen. It follows in the same tradition of Wirkkala's design.

Newson's Swarovski design certainly did the product no favors as the Swarovski in-house designers seemingly had to create workarounds for it (think of the plastic bottom plate that has caused problems). Holding slippery bare steel is another design issue, and while it doesn't impede the binocular's function, it's still plainly bad design - unless you just like cold, slippery metal. Someone well versed in binocular design would likely not have chosen that route (which is why I called Newson an amateur).

I suppose I'd compare Newson's Swarovski involvement like I would if Winchester Arms had contacted Herman Miller to design a rifle. - it would create a "what the heck" moment.

Also, I think relying on just glue to hold a focus knob is another example of shoddy design.

Yes - I have a design/art background, though not industrial design.

John Robinson on this thread has done industrial design. His work would be well known to many on this forum, and those products have been used world wide.

Anyway, it's just a meandering conversation and I have a habit of wondering out loud about things. Apparently this has confused you, and offended others. My apology.

I kinda think Swarovski has dropped the ball of late.
We have armour issues...
Fogging issues now on Habichts...
Very split opinions on the Field Pro straps... it was not necessary, and over complicated.
And I have to agree with Mac 308.... I feel the Curios were as much about this special design, as opposed to just producing optics that work, which is a shame because they really are quite special.
I hope Leica and Zeiss don't go down the same route, and just keep producing optics that simply do their job.
It's not a fashion show is it???

 

[Richard D]

My question is WHY would Swarovski turn to a name designer to design a binocular? I think I know the answer, but I'd like to hear others thoughts. It would have been brilliant had Swarovski just added a 7x21 to the CL lineup. I'd be an owner right now and my 8x20 Leica UV's would be sold.

Broadening the appeal - trying to tap into the luxury lifestyle market where Leica have previously dominated would be my guess. I don't buy optics on looks, but some people do.

I love good design, but it shouldn't wag the dog. The late Tapio Wirkkala designed a beautiful Puukko knife years ago. I had one (foolishly sold it). Wirkkala's design was a beautiful integration of modernist form. But the design didn't impede function in anyway. Another example is a Puukko designed for Marttiini by Harri Koskinen. It follows in the same tradition of Wirkkala's design.

Newson's Swarovski design certainly did the product no favors as the Swarovski in-house designers seemingly had to create workarounds for it (think of the plastic bottom plate that has caused problems). Holding slippery bare steel is another design issue, and while it doesn't impede the binocular's function, it's still plainly bad design - unless you just like cold, slippery metal. Someone well versed in binocular design would likely not have chosen that route (which is why I called Newson an amateur).

I really didn't have a problem with handling and didn't find them remotely slippery to use, with the rubber barrels giving plenty of grip. Ergonomically they felt absolutely fine to me - I can't think of a way of holding them where the barrels wouldn't form the principal areas of contact.

I suppose I'd compare Newson's Swarovski involvement like I would if Winchester Arms had contacted Herman Miller to design a rifle. - it would create a "what the heck" moment.

I know nothing about firearms or their buyers. It's common enough for camera manufacturers to have brought in external designers/design teams though.

Also, I think relying on just glue to hold a focus knob is another example of shoddy design.

It's pretty commonplace on binoculars and cameras from many manufacturers - why there have been a few failures I don't know. Appropriate glue should cope with such limited torque.

Anyway, it's just a meandering conversation and I have a habit of wondering out loud about things. Apparently this has confused you, and offended others. My apology.

It was the 'likely' rather than 'may have' that confused me - I read it as an unfounded assertion rather than wondering out loud.

I didn't end up buying the Curios - they're nicer than my existing 8x25 CLs but not dramatically so. If I didn't own the CLs I would have bought the Curios in preference though and really wouldn't have worried about the knob.

 

[Richard D]

I kinda think Swarovski has dropped the ball of late.
We have armour issues...
Fogging issues now on Habichts...
Very split opinions on the Filed pro straps... it was not necessary, and over complicated.
And I have to agree with Mac 308.... I feel the Curios were as much about this special design, as opposed to just producing optics that work, which is a shame because they really are quite special.
I hope Leica and Zeiss don't go down the same route, and just keep producing optics that simply do their job.
It's not a fashion show is it???

Armour issues - yes.

I've not heard of any new fogging issues on the Habichts - what have they changed? The eyepieces on short eye-relief porros has always meant you need to be more careful not to breath on them, but I wasn't aware that they'd changed the design recently?

I can't say I have a need for fieldpro, but I can see the benefits for those who like to swap between harness and neck-strap in the field.

Leica went down the designer route year's ago, again not to the detriment of the products.

 

[Mac308]

I have a lot of thoughts on this subject, but just to start, the focus wheel...

There are all sorts of focus knobs/wheels, and of course some (Leica UV's) are fairly complicated. Often I've seen simple focus wheels, like the Curio's, use a "ribbed" brass stem which the plastic wheel is pressure fitted into. Glue is applied, but not necessary for the knob to remain functional.

You'd think a binocular of this quality and expense would no rely just on simple glue... crap design IMO.

 

[John M Robinson]

"The fact they let an amateur design them is liekly the real problem."

Firstly Newson is not an amateur designer he's a professional designer.

There is nothing particularly unique about the way the focusing knob is recessed - why is it likely to be the real problem? The recessing wouldn't stop the manufacturer adding a spline or going for a square spindle inside the knob? I honestly can't see that the design of the body could force a compromise on the designers in any way - certainly I would not use the word likely.

Do you have any engineering or product design background, to make the assertion that Newson's overall design is likely to be the real problem?

We don't even know whether it's a design fault or simply materials failure - glue can occasionally fail under quite low torque. Other binoculars have the same issue, particularly smaller ones (there are similar reports about Zeiss Victories for example). It could even be a batch issue with the adhesive.

You guys kind of got waylaid on a debate about who actually is responsible for the overall design of the product. It’s funny as I always thought Leica was the absolute best at combining the highest function with incredibly attractive industrial design. Going all the way back to the fifties and their first Leitz Trinovid, what an awesome looking binocular. Their rangefinder cameras have always been elegant and recently they have expanded their look with exotic colors. They even built really cool versions of their BN, BL and BRs.

But even with a strong emphasis on looks, I never for a second thought Leica would sacrifice any function. I trust their ability to walk and chew gum. I believe the same for Swarovski. My only issue with the Curio is the weak focusing knob, though mine is hanging in there. I don’t think it’s a particularly attractive design, but it works for me, and fingers crossed, will continue to do so.

 

[Samuele]

... Often I've seen simple focus wheels, like the Curio's, use a "ribbed" brass stem which the plastic wheel is pressure fitted into. Glue is applied, but not necessary for the knob to remain functional.
...

I think it is incorrect.
From what we can see in the image attached to post #1, the focus wheel is screwed to what you call ""ribbed" brass stem", and everything is held in place by a "threadlocking" paste, or glue, if you want call it so

 

[Ignatius]

My question is WHY would Swarovski turn to a name designer to design a binocular? I think I know the answer, but I'd like to hear others thoughts. It would have been brilliant had Swarovski just added a 7x21 to the CL lineup. I'd be an owner right now and my 8x20 Leica UV's would be sold.

I love good design, but it shouldn't wag the dog. The late Tapio Wirkkala designed a beautiful Puukko knife years ago. I had one (foolishly sold it). Wirkkala's design was a beautiful integration of modernist form. But the design didn't impede function in anyway. Another example is a Puukko designed for Marttiini by Harri Koskinen. It follows in the same tradition of Wirkkala's design.

Newson's Swarovski design certainly did the product no favors as the Swarovski in-house designers seemingly had to create workarounds for it (think of the plastic bottom plate that has caused problems). Holding slippery bare steel is another design issue, and while it doesn't impede the binocular's function, it's still plainly bad design - unless you just like cold, slippery metal. Someone well versed in binocular design would likely not have chosen that route (which is why I called Newson an amateur).

I suppose I'd compare Newson's Swarovski involvement like I would if Winchester Arms had contacted Herman Miller to design a rifle. - it would create a "what the heck" moment.

Also, I think relying on just glue to hold a focus knob is another example of shoddy design.

Yes - I have a design/art background, though not industrial design.

John Robinson on this thread has done industrial design. His work would be well known to many on this forum, and those products have been used world wide.

Anyway, it's just a meandering conversation and I have a habit of wondering out loud about things. Apparently this has confused you, and offended others. My apology.

Dieter Rams, former head of the Braun design department, summed it up in his 10 principles of good design:

1. Good design is innovative
2. Good design makes a product useful
3. Good design is aesthetic
4. Good design makes a product understandable
5. Good design is unobtrusive
6. Good design is honest
7. Good design is long-lasting
8. Good design is thorough down to the last detail
9. Good design is environmentally-friendly
10. Good design is as little design as possible

I have a Curio and I do enjoy it, but I must agree with Mac308.

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

I love my Curio's. They are perfect for me size wise and thus far I have not experienced any problems with them. But the constant reports of how fantastic the UV 8x20's are started an itch which needs scratching so...........I have been looking for a S/H pair.

There was none on the recent Black Friday listings on EBay but an 'as new' 1 year old pair of Companion CL 8x30's were on EBay with a 20% cashback offer on TopCashBack and I took a punt. They are fantastic and worked out at half the current UK price.

Bargain, and they have replaced my SW Pocket CL 8x25's which Grandson No1 has liberated.

The UV's will have to wait but they are still on the radar and it will be interesting to compare them to the Curio's.

Are those the 8x30 CL the B version? CL-B?

How did you like your SW Pocket CL 8x25 compared to your Nikon HGL ?

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

Fogging issues now on Habichts...

Do you mean on the EP side? It is really possible to eliminate fogging up though when the ER is low? Seems like you're working against physics/body heat there.

 

[Rg548]

Do you mean on the EP side? It is really possible to eliminate fogging up though when the ER is low? Seems like you're working against physics/body heat there.

It's only from what I've read on here from Habicht owners.... I don't own any Habichts (yet)

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

It's only from what I've read on here from Habicht owners.... I don't own any Habichts (yet)

They're definitely worth getting but I'm biased in that department...

I can confirm they definitely do fog up and it does get annoying and makes non-short sessions possibly annoying or takes you away from the view during an important moment. But that said, they do so much right it's hard to hold it against them.

My other issue with them was the really stiff focuser but that's improved over time. And from what I understand is a design limitation that allows them to be waterproof. It's my understanding the fogging on the habicht happens because of the low ER. However I've read that other high end swaro binoculars have some kind of anti-fog coating so I wasn't sure what was in the realm of possibility. Also maybe I read the anti-fog coating was removed due to contaminant concerns. (?)

The point, if there is one, is that design sometimes has compromises. Such as if you want ultra-waterproof then maybe you will have to use a stiff focuser.

Regarding the curio, I have no idea what's happening there but I'm very tempted to try a pair. They seem like an engineering marvel given their wide fov. My only drawback in wanting to get them is that they don't have a good close-focus distance. However I've always wondered if their non-good close focus distance allows them to have their reportedly good depth of focus. (Again a design limitation -- it seems like you can't win.)

 

[Richard D]

It's only from what I've read on here from Habicht owners.... I don't own any Habichts (yet)

They're no worse than any other porros with limited eye-relief They're more prone to fogging than roofs with adjustable eyecups and long eye-relief, but no worse than other traditional porros in my experience.

However I've read that other high end swaro binoculars have some kind of anti-fog coating so I wasn't sure what was in the realm of possibility. Also maybe I read the anti-fog coating was removed due to contaminant concerns. (?)

There's a lot of confusion promulgated on the forum - it's not an anti-fog coating that's been discontinued on most Swaro's - they no longer have the swaroclean coating that promoted beading of rain (PFAS are being phased out across Europe).

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

Thank you for the clarification.

Also someone feel free to check my comment about non-short minimum focus distance giving a better depth of field. I think I just assumed that to be honest.

 

[PatR]

Are those the 8x30 CL the B version? CL-B?

How did you like your SW Pocket CL 8x25 compared to your Nikon HGL ?

Yes the 8x30's are the latest CL Companion B's.

I have the Nikon HGL 10x25's so cannot compare to the Pockets which have now gone to my eldest son. But I do have the Pocket 10x25's and if I am honest the ancient Nikon's have only been retired as one of the eyecups was loose and the body was getting a bit tired. Optically they are a match for the Swaros but the field of view is narrower and they are not a bright as they once were. Ergonomically I prefer the focus wheel position on the SW and the armour provides a better grip but again there is not much in it.

Had I not got the 8x30's at such an attractive price I would have bought the 8x25 Nikons as the HGL's are truly excellent bino's and can be bought for about £300 less than the 8x25 Pockets.

 

[tenex]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupiter omnipotens, audacibus annue cœptis

Meister (Magister) Eckhart:: "I declare truly that as long as anything is reflected in your mind which is not the Eternal Word [Logos] or which looks away from the Eternal Word [Logos] then good as it may be, it is not the right thing."

"For centuries we have held to a wrong idea of life. We have thought that life is material; but life is spiritual, it is the invisible within me which is eternal, which is God. Many still believe that life is material and matter, instead of mind and spirit. I no longer hold that conception. I believe that all is mind and Spirit.
When I am sick I know that it is the material of me that is sick, not the God Spirit; it is my physical being which is out of harmony, it is this Tabernacle of which Paul speaks, housing my spirit, which gives me pain and suffering. The real "me" is not sick, it is my body." - David V. Bush, The Silence: What It Is and How to Use It

I just worked out the CSS code to avoid displaying any individual member's message signature on BF. If other Firefox users would like to have the code, just PM me.

 

[Coloradodipper]

Ah, nothing like walking into a neighborhood brow-beating session, reminds me of the time I was on assignment for a major magazine and walked into a coal mining bar to find a bottle rocket war going on. I had one hit the side pocket of my Carhartt's and it blew up next to my then iPhone 3 putting a nice shallow crater in the backside of it but literally saving my own. My pair of Leica M6 TTL cameras came away unscathed...

What brings me here? My wife is spending almost a month at her late father's small ranch in Northern California to help the family get things in order. There are lots of birds there and she forgot to pack a pair of binoculars when she left yesterday. I thought about shipping one of our two pairs of inexpensive Athlon Midas 8x42's that normally live in our car and truck, but then I got to thinking why not look for an entirely different type of binocular, one she could take with her everywhere?

So I looked at Zeiss, Leica and then came across a different thread that sang the praises of the Curios. My wife and I are both big design fans, especially mid-century modern and love the clean look of European / Scandinavian designs. We also love our Swaro 8x42 EL's and our recently acquired ATX95 and 1.7X ME.

The focus knob problem on the Curio certainly seems like functional design issue but I also see people otherwise love these tiny binos so I ordered the pair in orange and she will get them this week. We'll watch for anything odd related to the focus knob and hopefully, it will be fine.

 

[Rg548]

Ah, nothing like walking into a neighborhood brow-beating session, reminds me of the time I was on assignment for a major magazine and walked into a coal mining bar to find a bottle rocket war going on. I had one hit the side pocket of my Carhartt's and it blew up next to my then iPhone 3 putting a nice shallow crater in the backside of it but literally saving my own. My pair of Leica M6 TTL cameras came away unscathed...

What brings me here? My wife is spending almost a month at her late father's small ranch in Northern California to help the family get things in order. There are lots of birds there and she forgot to pack a pair of binoculars when she left yesterday. I thought about shipping one of our two pairs of inexpensive Athlon Midas 8x42's that normally live in our car and truck, but then I got to thinking why not look for an entirely different type of binocular, one she could take with her everywhere?

So I looked at Zeiss, Leica and then came across a different thread that sang the praises of the Curios. My wife and I are both big design fans, especially mid-century modern and love the clean look of European / Scandinavian designs. We also love our Swaro 8x42 EL's and our recently acquired ATX95 and 1.7X ME.

The focus knob problem on the Curio certainly seems like functional design issue but I also see people otherwise love these tiny binos so I ordered the pair in orange and she will get them this week. We'll watch for anything odd related to the focus knob and hopefully, it will be fine.

The view from them is astonishingly good.

 

[Trinovid]

…I ordered the pair in orange and she will get them this week. We'll watch for anything odd related to the focus knob and hopefully, it will be fine.

My bet is that she’s going to be really happy with you and the 7x21 over the 8x42 in her luggage.