More on pocket binoculars. Some weeks ago
@eronald sparkled my curiosity in the Nikon Aculon 8x21.
I've made a very quick note of reference, a mini review of the Nikon Aculon 8x21 (in case it can be of use for someone in the future).
Got me a 8x21 Aculon to compare with my (so far) reference in pocket binoculars, the Nikon CF III 7x20 (for a bit of background, you can check previous posts on my quest for "my ideal pocket", going through Zeiss Terra, Swarovski Habicht and Leica Ultravid).
The Aculon has a nice "shape factor" (well, I force myself to forget about the colour and glossy finish), it rests well in the hands and allows for a secure grip, in my opinion more so than double hinge designs. Focus action is soft and surprisingly adequate for the price. Seriously. It's really very soft, no play, nice. Yes, most probably it will be death in little time if you use it intensively. But, anyway, from this 70 $ Aculon to the A, E, SE and EII lines, the 1000 € MHG and the previous top of the range HGL, through different ranges of Monarch 5 and 7 I'm always surprised by how well Nikon gets focusing over and over again. I think this is remarkable and deserves praise.
The Aculon are lighter than the CF III, at 195 g they're really feather light, and also quite thin. The CF are shorter, but thicker.
Both binoculars set at my 68 - 70 mm IPD
So, shape, handling and weight seem very nice for a pocket device. It comes with a little thick cloth bag that closes with a cord. For pocket binoculars I find this solution actually better than a hard case (I find the hard one on the Terra 8x25 useless; the one on the 8x20 Ultravid literally fits 2 8x20 binoculars,
as shown here).
And what about the optics? Well, this is a tough case when it comes to expressing the view, because price and size are very important parts of the whole experience and I don't think they can be left aside without being unfair. So bear that in mind while reading the following.
The view is reasonably bright, but it has some serious drawbacks. First, the sweet spot is really small, I find it difficult to quantify, but as soon as you reach half the radius of the image circle, it's pretty blurry. Compared to the CF III is noticeably worse. There's a sign some 100 m away from my window, if I place the text on the edge of the FOV, with the Aculon it's just a blurb, with the CF I can more or less guess what it says. Well, you obviously don't buy a 70 $ and sub 200 g device for edge performance, but this is just to give you an idea: the CF is simply better.
Sharpness is a real trouble, the image is flat and lacks "spark", when going back and forth between the Aculon and the CF, the CF is sharper, brighter and has way more engaging image (yes, it is unfair to compare a 7x to an 8x, but worth mentioning). As a matter of fact, and this could be my unit, getting a snap focus is really hard. Getting a sharp image to snap is really hard, it's somehow vague, you end up rocking the focuser back and forward, like if you were using a high mag device with an extremely shallow depth of field. It's probably the biggest flaw, it's quite frustrating.
Again, a short line to remind you that this is an extremely cheap device. Probably if you give it as a present to someone who has never used binoculars, they'll be seduced by the nice "quality feeling" of the body and focus wheel and would find the image pleasing, since it is reasonably bright (no apparent vignetting or dark edges). However, if they ever look through a Kowa YF or a Vortex Diamondback, they'll be spoiled.
And now for some "user experience". I've talked about it a lot in previous posts (even opened
a thread about it), but eyecup comfort can be a deal breaker for me in any binoculars, and pockets are a very sensitive group, given their size limitations. And the Aculon is no exception.
The inner diameter of the eyecups is around 21,5 mm, give or take. While a little wider than both the Leica Ultravid 8x20 and the Swarovski Habicht 8x20, they're still too narrow for me. Switching from the Aculon to the CF III is like going from a tight fitting shoe to a pair of sleepers you've been using for a long time: pure comfort and ease of use. Over and over again, when using pockets or binoculars with small exit pupils I come to the same conclusion when hearing/reading about "finicky eye position": it's not the exit pupil size, it's the eyecups. I've been recently using a Canon 8x20, with a smaller exit pupil than these Aculon, but with "full size binoculars" eyecups and... you've guessed it, the 2,5 mm exit pupil of the 8x20 Canon IS is perfectly OK, while the view through these 8x21 Aculon feels more claustrophobic and compromised.
I don't wear glasses, but it's worth mentioning that eye relief is pretty short in the Aculon.
So a personal list of pros and cons. As always, YMMV:
PROS
- Cheap
- Very light
- Pretty small for a single hinge (won't fold as tiny as double hinge obviously)
- Focus action is good
- Handling and "grip" feel nice, a sense of quality and reassurance
CONS
- Poor image quality: lack of sharpness and small sweet spot
- Vague focus action, difficult to snap into focus (deal-breaker, for me)
- Small eyecups (again, deal-breaker for me).
Comparing the CF III to the Aculon, I like my CF even more. And confirm several preferences.
- I love 7x (in x35, x42, x50), but think that in binoculars with as many "compromises" as pocket binoculars, 7x is even more interesting, a great choice.
- Eyecup size is crucial for me in compact/pocket binoculars.
- Reverse porros are really well thought devices.
