The APM 6.5x32 ED IF, compared to the APM 6x30 – A Few Thoughts (2 Viewers)

[gcole]

So the bino arrived yesterday, very fast…but im afraid too fast as i got the 8x32 APO IF instead of the one i ordered (6.5x32 IF). The seller responded swiftly and they will send me one i ordered right away with a return label for the 8x32. Good communications with APM so far.

Ofcourse i checked out the one they send me and prima facie i have to say that optically this is very, very nice glass…im biased because i prefer Porro’s over SP but i did some quick comparisons with my Habicht 8x30 IF and Leica UVHD 8x32 and optically you can’t go wrong with the APM. It’s tack sharp, and as i could see it -at least yesterday when the sun was shining- as bright as the Habicht. For some reason this binocular gives a very relaxed and stable view. Today its raining so will do some unscientific observations again.

What I don’t like though are the rubber eyecups….i folded them down and they came loose…bad quality but you can easily fix it. You never know how this MIC will hold after 10 years with heavy field use but so far so good. Even more curious to get the 6.5x32 now.

To be continued…

EDIT: added some quick pictures for size comparison
I really like the padded case it came with. It’s a bigger bino than the handy and trusty Habicht and UVHD.
Nice big eyepieces on the APM btw.

View attachment 1577252
View attachment 1577253View attachment 1577254

Yes, very big eyes indeed.

 

[Canip]

How are the rubber eyecups performing on your models?

I find them actually very comfortable to use. I was a bit afraid of their large diameter, since I have a relatively narrow IPD, but I find the ease of view great.
The only thing I could complain about is that the rubber eyecups come off too easily when I try to fold them down (which I usually don't, but for testing I had to). I may have to glue them on slightly.

 

[Canip]

When I look at the problems with the Sky Rover (apparently oil spots on the prisms in some binoculars)

Ah, that's why the focuser works so smoothly on my sample?
"A spoonful of oil helps the focuser go round" .....

 

[Hermann]

The only thing I could complain about is that the rubber eyecups come off too easily when I try to fold them down (which I usually don't, but for testing I had to). I may have to glue them on slightly.

They do come off rather too easily. That's why I put some tape around them. Works rather well if you use a decent tape ("Tesa Gewebeband" in my case.) I did the same with the APM 6x30.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

Ah, that's why the focuser works so smoothly on my sample?
"A spoonful of oil helps the focuser go round" .....

Probably ... And this problem shows that it's not that easy to make an internal focuser that works reliably. Took Swarovski a few years if I recall the teething troubles of the SV focuser correctly.

Hermann

 

[Thotmosis]

The only thing I could complain about is that the rubber eyecups come off too easily when I try to fold them down (which I usually don't, but for testing I had to). I may have to glue them on slightly.

I have the same experience with the 8x32 they have wrongly send me instead of the 6.5x32. As you said a minor problem that can be easily fixed as Hermann did. I supposed to get them on Saturday and after the reviews of you and Hermann have confidence that they will be great.

 

[limonabe]

Just got notification that my 6.5x32 CF ships today. The release date was pushed back a few times but they are now available, so get them while you can! Very excited about this binocular!

 

[Thotmosis]

It’s really a very good binocular! Only the eyecups are suboptimal for me, too big. I have to find a solution for that.
Other than that the optics are really breathtaking (I have the 6.5x32 ED IF).

​

 

[Hermann]

Just got notification that my 6.5x32 CF ships today. The release date was pushed back a few times but they are now available, so get them while you can! Very excited about this binocular!

I got mine today. Interesting binocular. I'll post my impressions (and maybe later a review) once I used it for some time in the field.

Hermann

 

[Paultricounty]

I got mine today. Interesting binocular. I'll post my impressions (and maybe later a review) once I used it for some time in the field.

Hermann

Excellent. Looking forward to your review and overall opinions. Don’t forget some pictures 😀.

If you have the 6x30 maybe few side by side pictures would be great.

Paul

 

[Hermann]

Excellent. Looking forward to your review and overall opinions. Don’t forget some pictures 😀.

If you have the 6x30 maybe few side by side pictures would be great.

Pictures? Here you are. Two quick and dirty shots without any artistic merit ...

Three things that are obviously different:

1. The 6.5x32 is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the 6x30: 748 gr. without the strap, eyepiece covers and objective covers. That was to be expected, with the bigger prisms and all that. It's heavier than the Habicht 7x42 (leatherette), but then it had got a much wider FOV.
2. The focuser has got a wide focusing wheel, definitely easier to use with gloves. Mine is still a bit stiff though. I'll see how it behaves after a few weeks in the field.
3. The eyecups are "modern" eyecups as opposed to the traditional folding eyecups of the 6x32 (and the 6.5x32 IF). They do feel a bit flimsy though. But then this is a cheap binocular: You can buy 10 (!) for the price of one NL ...

No comments on the optics yet. However, there are already Canip's and my own comments on the 6.5x32 IF on the forum. I will add to that once I got familiar with the 6.5x32 CF. That may take a few weeks; unlike some "reviewers" I don't believe in writing "reviews" after a casual look ...

Hermann

 

[Patudo]

Look forward to your observations H. If APM have done a good job with the bridge construction the optics should hopefully be near identical to the IF version.

I guess there's no getting away from the fact that if you want a wide FOV you'll end up with a larger binocular (unless it's a NL...). It'd be interesting to know what the focus speed is like - moderate (as seems typical with porros) or faster.

Just a quick question... do you prefer the focuser position on the 6.5x or the 6x when not using gloves?

 

[Hermann]

Look forward to your observations H. If APM have done a good job with the bridge construction the optics should hopefully be near identical to the IF version.

From what I can see the bridge is OK. Not quite as solid as the bridge of the old Zeiss West porros but good enough.

I guess there's no getting away from the fact that if you want a wide FOV you'll end up with a larger binocular (unless it's a NL...). It'd be interesting to know what the focus speed is like - moderate (as seems typical with porros) or faster.

Moderate, allows for very presice focusing. But then the focus speed isn't that important in a binocular with low magnification anyway.

Just a quick question... do you prefer the focuser position on the 6.5x or the 6x when not using gloves?

I don't really care either way. However, the focuser position of the 6.5x has got one real advantage for me: I always wear a cap or a hat, and focusers that are close to the eyes can be a hassle, especially if they're a bit on the stiff side, like the focusers of the Habicht.

Hermann

 

[Thotmosis]

No comments on the optics yet. However, there are already Canip's and my own comments on the 6.5x32 IF on the forum. I will add to that once I got familiar with the 6.5x32 CF. That may take a few weeks; unlike some "reviewers" I don't believe in writing "reviews" after a casual look ...

Hermann

Thank you Hermann, for me me it takes years of use in different countries to really understand a binocular, i also like your sunglasses btw 😎

 

[Canip]

That may take a few weeks; unlike some "reviewers" I don't believe in writing "reviews" after a casual look ...

But you will take your sunglasses off before that casual look, won‘t you?

 

[Ruub Gomez]

I’ve got the cf version since some days now. It offers sharp and crystal clear views across most of the field and is a real pleasure to look through.

(For fun I also compared it also to a “vintage” Tasco no. 400 (7x35); that is quite a difference: the APM shines)

 

[Paultricounty]

Pictures? Here you are. Two quick and dirty shots without any artistic merit ...

Three things that are obviously different:

1. The 6.5x32 is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the 6x30: 748 gr. without the strap, eyepiece covers and objective covers. That was to be expected, with the bigger prisms and all that. It's heavier than the Habicht 7x42 (leatherette), but then it had got a much wider FOV.
2. The focuser has got a wide focusing wheel, definitely easier to use with gloves. Mine is still a bit stiff though. I'll see how it behaves after a few weeks in the field.
3. The eyecups are "modern" eyecups as opposed to the traditional folding eyecups of the 6x32 (and the 6.5x32 IF). They do feel a bit flimsy though. But then this is a cheap binocular: You can buy 10 (!) for the price of one NL ...

No comments on the optics yet. However, there are already Canip's and my own comments on the 6.5x32 IF on the forum. I will add to that once I got familiar with the 6.5x32 CF. That may take a few weeks; unlike some "reviewers" I don't believe in writing "reviews" after a casual look ...

Hermann

Hi Herman,

Have you spent anymore time with the 6.5? Can you elaborate a little more about the focuser? I’ve noticed on a few of these MIC low cost porros I’ve tried, they tend to be mushy or spongy. Some have inconsistent focus travel throughout the turning. For me this can be deal killer.

Thank you

 

[Hermann]

Have you spent anymore time with the 6.5? Can you elaborate a little more about the focuser? I’ve noticed on a few of these MIC low cost porros I’ve tried, they tend to be mushy or spongy. Some have inconsistent focus travel throughout the turning. For me this can be deal killer.

Unfortunately I didn't have the chance to use the 6.5x32 as much as I would have liked. Had to spend too much time at the dentist lately. However, I used it in the field for a whole day yesterday. The focuser is quite stiff, not as stiff as the focuser of my Habicht 7x42, but quite stiff. Focus travel seems me to be quite consistent. No complaints there. The focuser is pretty slow and allows very precise adjustments. I'm quite happy with the focuser, I really like slow focusers myself.

A word on the the optics: I find the optical quality very good. Perhaps not quite as bright as the Habicht 7x42, but contrasty and with excellent sharpness across about 70 to 75 percent of the field, with some field curvature near the edges. The optical quality is clearly better than that of the APM 6x30, and the 6x30 is already quite good as you know.

Hermann

 

[Paultricounty]

Unfortunately I didn't have the chance to use the 6.5x32 as much as I would have liked. Had to spend too much time at the dentist lately. However, I used it in the field for a whole day yesterday. The focuser is quite stiff, not as stiff as the focuser of my Habicht 7x42, but quite stiff. Focus travel seems me to be quite consistent. No complaints there. The focuser is pretty slow and allows very precise adjustments. I'm quite happy with the focuser, I really like slow focusers myself.

A word on the the optics: I find the optical quality very good. Perhaps not quite as bright as the Habicht 7x42, but contrasty and with excellent sharpness across about 70 to 75 percent of the field, with some field curvature near the edges. The optical quality is clearly better than that of the APM 6x30, and the 6x30 is already quite good as you know.

Hermann

I feel for you. I have to have some laser periodontal surgery I’ve been putting off ,and the need for two to three implants, if the crowns won’t be viable. Wish you the best.

I’m glad to hear the focuser is nice considering the price point. The curvature is expected on a wide field with no field flatteners. Being nicer that the 6x30 is also very nice to know, because I think they’re pretty good, and better than a few costing substantially more.

​

 

[Hermann]

I’m glad to hear the focuser is nice considering the price point.

"Considering the price point" sounds so negative. I've seen so-called "alphas" with worse focusers.

The curvature is expected on a wide field with no field flatteners.

I actually like some field curvature. Can be quite useful in the field. Not really a fan of flat field binoculars, especially not if they have some weird distortion profile.

Hermann