The APM 6.5x32: Mini review (2 Viewers)

adhoc said:

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?

Click to expand...

There are several problems with this IMO:

1. The amount of detail you can see through a pair of binoculars depends, at least to some extent, on the light and the particular transmission characteristics of a binocular. In other words: The results of a comparison between two different binoculars may be different in different light conditions.
2. "Very fine detail" isn't a well-defined entity. There's a big difference between, say, the patterns on an USAF chart and the intricate plumage pattern of a bunting. I assume you're mostly interested in plumage patterns.
3. The value of any handheld comparisons is doubtful when it comes to resolution (or the detection of "very fine detail", as you put it), simply because you inevitably lose detail due to physiological tremor. This also means that any binocular one particular observer can hold steadier than another binocular will have a "better result". I myself, for instance, find I can hold a binocular weighing ~800 gr. steadier than lighter or heavier binoculars.
4. There may be huge differences between different binoculars as soon as you look at the areas outside the sweetspot. I assume you meant if there were differences in the image centre, not somewhere closer to the edge.

This means that if you want to really know how well a binocular resolves fine detail, you need to test it in controlled conditions, with the binocular on a stable tripod. You may also need to use a booster. Whether the results are applicable to using the binocular in real life, in birding, is of course a different matter. I personally think they are - to some extent.

That said, I did compare the APM in the field against the binoculars I mentioned (i.e. a Habicht 7x42 and a Leica 7x42 BA) and the other two 7x binoculars I have, a Nikon AE 7x35 and a Baigish/Komz 7x30. The APM did show more fine detail than the Leica and the Action Extreme in the field. The Habicht was on a par and may even have been a bit better, but the differences were minute. The Baigish is also a very sharp binocular, but because of its particular transmission characteristics (fairly low transmission, heavy yellow tint) I felt I could see more detail with the APM.

I also had a chance to make a quick comparison to a Leica Retrovid 7x35. I felt the APM was actually better than the Retrovid, at least optically.

Hermann

Hermann, thank you for your thorough and very useful response. It was more trouble to you than my query deserved, which I should have pre-empted by elaborating a bit more!

Your last two paragraphs are the most useful to me. I wished to know how far the best 6.5xs had improved, vs 7xs of varying optical quality, and this model (maybe in its IF version) is very attractive to me at its price.

Your numbered points 1 and 3: I did know, but valuable to set down here. Point 2, and the paragraph following the 4: What I meant by “in the field” is, as you assume, in actual use, and not in controlled conditions. Point 4: Again, yes, you assume right.

Hermann said:

There are several problems with this IMO:

1. The amount of detail you can see through a pair of binoculars depends, at least to some extent, on the light and the particular transmission characteristics of a binocular. In other words: The results of a comparison between two different binoculars may be different in different light conditions.
2. "Very fine detail" isn't a well-defined entity. There's a big difference between, say, the patterns on an USAF chart and the intricate plumage pattern of a bunting. I assume you're mostly interested in plumage patterns.
3. The value of any handheld comparisons is doubtful when it comes to resolution (or the detection of "very fine detail", as you put it), simply because you inevitably lose detail due to physiological tremor. This also means that any binocular one particular observer can hold steadier than another binocular will have a "better result". I myself, for instance, find I can hold a binocular weighing ~800 gr. steadier than lighter or heavier binoculars.
4. There may be huge differences between different binoculars as soon as you look at the areas outside the sweetspot. I assume you meant if there were differences in the image centre, not somewhere closer to the edge.

This means that if you want to really know how well a binocular resolves fine detail, you need to test it in controlled conditions, with the binocular on a stable tripod. You may also need to use a booster. Whether the results are applicable to using the binocular in real life, in birding, is of course a different matter. I personally think they are - to some extent.

That said, I did compare the APM in the field against the binoculars I mentioned (i.e. a Habicht 7x42 and a Leica 7x42 BA) and the other two 7x binoculars I have, a Nikon AE 7x35 and a Baigish/Komz 7x30. The APM did show more fine detail than the Leica and the Action Extreme in the field. The Habicht was on a par and may even have been a bit better, but the differences were minute. The Baigish is also a very sharp binocular, but because of its particular transmission characteristics (fairly low transmission, heavy yellow tint) I felt I could see more detail with the APM.

I also had a chance to make a quick comparison to a Leica Retrovid 7x35. I felt the APM was actually better than the Retrovid, at least optically.

Click to expand...

I find that to be shocking. The optics on a $200 Chinese optic to be better than a $1200 optic, I guess it’s time to sell all the Zeiss , Leica, Nikon and Swarovski upper mid level glass. I’ll be letting customer service know that they’ll have to either lower their prices substantially, or be aware than once word gets around about APM’s $200 bins they’ll be losing a large chunk of business.

The 6.5 must be a giant leap forward in quality than the 6x30 APM , that compared to a dozen or so bins. Even the Nikon E2’s seemed better to me. Markus does do good work, I didn’t it was that good.

Hermann said:

Hermann

Click to expand...

Paultricounty said:

I find that to be shocking. The optics on a $200 Chinese optic to be better than a $1200 optic, I guess it’s time to sell all the Zeiss , Leica, Nikon and Swarovski upper mid level glass. I’ll be letting customer service know that they’ll have to either lower their prices substantially, or be aware than once word gets around about APM’s $200 bins they’ll be losing a large chunk of business.

Click to expand...

Nice sarcasm. However, I'd go even further than that: If the Chinese continue on the path they seem to have taken lately, the traditional manufacturers must get their act together real quick. We've seen (too) many industries go down the drain because manufacturers believed the Chinese would never get close to the quality of their products. And then they did.

Paultricounty said:

The 6.5 must be a giant leap forward in quality than the 6x30 APM , that compared to a dozen or so bins. Even the Nikon E2’s seemed better to me. Markus does do good work, I didn’t it was that good.

Click to expand...

The 6.5x32 is a huge step forward. It also shows how much you can achieve with a plain old porro with modern glass types and modern eyepieces.

Want to hear about another comparison? I compared the APM to my Nikon 8x32 SE (last production run) in the field. I know, different magnifications and all that. But guess which binocular was better optically.

Hermann

Hermann said:

Nice sarcasm. However, I'd go even further than that: If the Chinese continue on the path they seem to have taken lately, the traditional manufacturers must get their act together real quick. We've seen (too) many industries go down the drain because manufacturers believed the Chinese would never get close to the quality of their products. And then they did.

Click to expand...

Ive been saying that for over ten years. I figured they would match the best at some point at possibly half the price, I never thought they'd do better at five times less. I would say, and I have, it doesn't matter what the many industries do, they will all lose because theres no stopping this train.

Hermann said:

The 6.5x32 is a huge step forward. It also shows how much you can achieve with a plain old porro with modern glass types and modern eyepieces.

Click to expand...

Not to mention water proof.

Hermann said:

Want to hear about another comparison? I compared the APM to my Nikon 8x32 SE (last production run) in the field. I know, different magnifications and all that. But guess which binocular was better optically.

Click to expand...

No, I don't want to guess. 🙏

Hermann said:

Hermann

Click to expand...

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.

Hermann said:

However, I'd go even further than that: If the Chinese continue on the path they seem to have taken lately, the traditional manufacturers must get their act together real quick. We've seen (too) many industries go down the drain because manufacturers believed the Chinese would never get close to the quality of their products. And then they did.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with that sentiment in general, but with regard to high-end binoculars specifically, to paraphrase from a post I made back in March: Euro watch makers seem to be doing just fine (even though the advent of digital watches should have killed them off), Euro luxury car makers don't seem to be doing too badly either. The high end binocular market strikes me as being more like those industries and products - in other words, more like fashion. What Europe is really good at is making things seem sexy, stylish and desirable, and catering to the high end market with highly refined and sophisticated (and expensive) products. So long as they can keep doing that, and there's a market for their products, Leica et al will be in business.

The Nikon SE are great and now classic binoculars, but even the most recent ones must have been manufactured more than a decade ago now. I was reminded how time has marched on when I brought my own personal pair (10x42) to the Birdfair one year. They are still good and I very much still enjoy using them, but I'm not at all convinced they are better than the modern sub-alphas, and the true alphas are a small but noticeable step ahead in all respects - notably colour rendition/contrast and (albeit less so) perceived sharpness as well as field of view, in which respect the SE has always fallen short. It shouldn't be a total surprise that more modern optical design, coatings etc could better them. I know most SE owners have tended to treat Nikon offering to replace SE with MHG with something akin to derision, but if it came to that, I would have to think really hard about the offer.

@Hermann
Just keep laughing. I've read enough of your posts to not take you serious anyway .
But here's some explanation for the people still capable of critical thinking.
1) Today's manufacturing is automated to such an extent that the machines really don't care where they are located.
2) the only reason Chinese products are cheap are therefore:
lack of QC
lack of workers' rights -- so working long hours for low pay is standard
lack of concern for the environment
lack of distribution networks
lack of warranty
copycat products
etc.
If you think that is fine with you -- great, enjoy your China binos while they are still cheap. They certainly won't be cheap anymore once the rest of the bino industry worldwide is gone. I wonder who will be laughing then.

1. There will always be people who buy stuff at the dollar store (Ein-Euro-Laden) and others who don't.
2. Believing that the Chinese cannot innovate because they live in a nominally 'communist' command economy is beyond stupid. If one looks at the growth of Shanghai after 1949 and especially after the 1990 economic reforms, one knows that the Chinese regime is capable of some very serious economic Realpolitik.

The only challenge, apart from maybe tariffs, that Chinese products will face is rejection on political or gut-feeling grounds, and because Sunrise Pigeon doesn't quite have the ring of say Zeiss or Swarovski. Plus the lack of trust in newcomers from the far East. But then we can always return to the first sentence.

Ignatius said:

2. Believing that the Chinese cannot innovate because they live in a nominally 'communist' command economy is beyond stupid.

Click to expand...

lol. Certainly not. It is the main reason they failed over and over again. They are their own biggest enemy. Read the relevant literature and see for yourself.

Binocollector said:

lol. Certainly not. It is the main reason they failed over and over again. They are their own biggest enemy. Read the relevant literature and see for yourself.

Click to expand...

Not exactly what I would term 'failing over and over again'. Since Xi Jinping they have indeed returned to more Maoist attitudes and policies, but I believe they are realistic enough to adjust the course in the future.

Binocollector said:

@Hermann
Just keep laughing. I've read enough of your posts to not take you serious anyway .
But here's some explanation for the people still capable of critical thinking.
1) Today's manufacturing is automated to such an extent that the machines really don't care where they are located.
2) the only reason Chinese products are cheap are therefore:
lack of QC
lack of workers' rights -- so working long hours for low pay is standard
lack of concern for the environment
lack of distribution networks
lack of warranty
copycat products
etc.
If you think that is fine with you -- great, enjoy your China binos while they are still cheap. They certainly won't be cheap anymore once the rest of the bino industry worldwide is gone. I wonder who will be laughing then.

Click to expand...

Points two and three which you're making under your no. 2 are exactly why American and other companies are producing over there. They can reduce their production costs while still charging high prices over here. It is not the Chinese stealing jobs - it is highly praised CEOs exporting them.
And the lack of QC might apply to their own products (don't know, don't knowingly buy Chinese products), but anything they produce for western companies has to pass those companies' QC. And then there is BYD.

Anyway. I'm not pulling a Trump here, but this is a bino/birds forum, not one for international poilitics/economics, so I'm out of this because I don't need aggro from the mods.

I'm suddenly remembering a time around 1990 when everyone was sure Japanese manufacturing was going to eat the West's lunch. Not that this situation is the same, it really isn't at all, just observing that for various reasons that did not happen. Within a few years Japan's entire economy was in deep trouble... as it seems China's is headed for too. So it's not just about the manufacturing, although it is interesting to wonder whether we're willing to start doing that again ourselves.

Actually on reading Ignatius's post #29 I couldn't help but think that there have been some pretty decent binoculars produced by communist regimes! The Zeiss Jena Nobilems, Komz 6x24, Baigish 7x30 (?) ... all showed interesting optical designs, and the DDR and USSR weren't as in tune with modern Western consumer demands as PRC manufacturers are.

@tenex - I've observed exactly the same thing with regard to Japan, complete with much of the same paranoia.

Binocollector said:

@Hermann
Just keep laughing. I've read enough of your posts to not take you serious anyway .
But here's some explanation for the people still capable of critical thinking.
1) Today's manufacturing is automated to such an extent that the machines really don't care where they are located.
2) the only reason Chinese products are cheap are therefore:
lack of QC
lack of workers' rights -- so working long hours for low pay is standard
lack of concern for the environment
lack of distribution networks
lack of warranty
copycat products
etc.
If you think that is fine with you -- great, enjoy your China binos while they are still cheap. They certainly won't be cheap anymore once the rest of the bino industry worldwide is gone. I wonder who will be laughing then.

Click to expand...

What happened to
“I'm not gonna repeat it here cause I'm getting sick and tired of explaining the very basics over and over again”

I was with you all the way without this post 😉✌.

Being you went there, I’d like to ad a little more food for thought or consideration. There’s a 3) the companies like Vortex (although the mid grade are now Philippines & UHD’s Japan) Zeiss, Nikon to name a few are now making there mid level M7 bins in China, and waiting be seen the upper mid level MHG’s. These companies to some degree are requiring a minimum standard of QC (better than no name MIC gear). Case in point the Nikon M7 , good glass made well, same with Zeiss Terra. If Nikon is going there with MHG , how long before Leica, Swaro license some manufacture in the China. I’m certainly not saying china on their own will design and manufacture better than the alpha four. Unless we want to throw in the APM 6.5x32 porro , which appears to some to better than upper mid level Leica and Nikon.

Paultricounty said:

how long before Leica, Swaro license some manufacture in the China

Click to expand...

It seems that Swaro's My Junior model is manufactured in China. Will be interesting to see whether they offshore more of their production or retain most in Absam.

Cavendish said:

It seems that Swaro's My Junior model is manufactured in China. Will be interesting to see whether they offshore more of their production or retain most in Absam.

Click to expand...

yes, these discussions are so ridiculous IMO. Zeiss Nikon Swaro all investing and buying into China optical industry which by now is probably the largest in the world. The company making Sky Rovers is enormous, Kunming United Optical. They're a global behemoth of the optical industry. Swaro and Leica are tiny niche players.

I'm typing into a China-made computer. That's the way Apple and their investors like it. This de-industrializattion thing is so far gone, the horse has been running wild out of the barn for decades now. I remember reading 20 years ago that China is graduating 10 to 15 times as many engineers out of their colleges & universities than the USA is. Where do you think that is going to lead?

Scott98 said:

I remember reading 20 years ago that China is graduating 10 to 15 times as many engineers out of their colleges & universities than the USA is. Where do you think that is going to lead?

Click to expand...

Unemployment? They do have 4x the population, but command economies are not known for their efficiency.

@Scott98 - to a place near you (or a click or two away) to undercut your kids, fully aided and abetted by our corporate masters?

I took mine with me today, first 'proper' use in the field (was originally intending to take 8x30 EII, but it was forecast to drizzle all afternoon, so). Up until today, I'd only used the binoculars with my glasses on, their suitability for which was my main incentive when purchasing them. Without glasses, however, it took me forever to work out the optimum combination of IPD and eye relief, but after a lot of experimentation, I found a setting which enabled me to see the full field of view without any blackouts. It's worth reinforcing Hermann's observation that the eyecups are of poor quality and easily pushed inadvertently to the next click stop in. Those eyecups are also HUGE, like those of the Sky Rover Banner Cloud, which is manufactured in the same factory. The result, for me, is that they sit on my nose and I literally wear them like a pair of glasses.

What a field of view they provide! The majority of 7x roof prism binoculars are shackled, to an extent, with a relatively narrow FOV. But not these 6.5(7)x porros. Very, very wide field of view, which once in a woodland habitat, makes a huge difference when trying to locate birds you can hear, but cannot locate with the naked eye.

Their form factor seems large, for a x32, they are relatively heavy and I found them a little awkward in the hands, although everything fell into place when I realised placing both index and third fingers on the focus wheel sorted both grip and the stiff focus movement (which did ease somewhat after three or so hours of use in the field).

Optically, I'm happy to bow 100% to Hermann's assessment, I agree with all of his observations, although I do feel the need to compare them with my 7x35 Retrovid, before agreeing the APM's optics are superior...from memory alone, I feel the reverse, but very happy to stand corrected.

Those are my initial thoughts. These binoculars work well either with or without glasses and are an absolute joy to use, once a comfortable set up is found. Smooth and even (if rather stiff) focus movement, faster in practice than my initial impressions suggested (maybe the stiff focus movement compounded that), sharp and contrasty with plenty of 3D, glare appears to be well suppressed and I have been unaware of CA corrupting the view. All in all, a relaxed and cracking little binocular. I'm really very impressed with mine.

After returning my faulty unit, the stunning image quality of the APM kept coming back (reading BF didn’t help ), so I had to get me a second unit. This time, I’ve ordered it directly from APM and I must say that they’ve sent me the best protective packaging I’ve seen so far buying +120 binoculars. Really a work of art in terms of protection: 10/10

This time, the focus wheel is, as expected and as explained by all other users, pretty stiff, as is the central hinge. Except for the eyecup twisting mechanism (which is really flimsy) everything in these binoculars feels really solid and well made.

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). But then, I get the very familiar feeling of using a “classic” ultrawide 7x35 Porro with the classic shallow eye relief. I’ve handed them to my partner (she’s no bino-geek, but over the years has seen many and developed an unexpected taste for fine optics, even when she doesn’t know the price, she usually chooses the more expensive ones ). Anyway, as soon as she has used them, I expected her to praise the sharpness (just as she did whenever I handed her my 8x32 ELSV… which made me eventually gave her a pair of ELSV as a special present), but everything she has muttered was “these are very uncomfortable”. “Yeah, but what about the view?”, I’ve asked… and she has just left them on the table saying “I’ve been unable to enjoy the view”. Which is quite close to my impression. The image is amazing in terms of sharpness, contrast and FOV… but the APM work hard to make everything they can so you cannot enjoy the view. I get the awkward feeling that it’s a device fighting against itself, so to speak.

Anyway, after some tweaking of the IPD and eyecup settings, I’ve finally managed to get a reasonably comfortable view, and instantly noticed something odd. First I thought it was again a flaw setting the dioptre compensation, but no. Just like in my first unit, there is a noticeable (and bothersome) difference between the two tubes. The lower part of the image on the left tube is so blurry that it becomes evidently annoying as soon as you use them.



On the first one (right tube) I can clearly see the red car is an Opel Astra, and I can read Repsol on the oil barrel in the centre of the image. Besides, I can see a lot of detail on the branches of the dry almond tree (for example, I could probably not only spot a bird there, but even identify it). The second image (left tube) shows that nearly the entire lower third of the image is just blur. I can't identify the car, nor read the brand on the oil barrel, and the branches on the tree have no detail. This is hard to get in a picture, but it has taken me 10 seconds to get these two images. They somehow convey what I see, but the reality is worse, and when you look at both images at the same time (one eye each as you do with binoculars), then the result is annoying and simply makes you not wanting to use the binoculars.

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.

So, sadly I'll be returning this unit as well and have not further desire to get a third one.