Even some sheep guides are going for the Swaro CL Pocket 8X25s and 10X25s. Optically they are right with the Ultravids and they have a very durable housing. 17 mm of eye relief. People who have not tried them might be in for a surprise if you compare them to many 2nd tier full size binoculars. Everybody seems to go on and on about the Cabelas or the Minox or the Pentax full size binoculars- Those little guys can put them to shame with a dollar test. They have less light gathering than full size optics but they are very good. This year, Swaro looked at what they were delivering in the CLs and changed their name to mountain compacts and increased their price by $300.00.
I really like my 8x25 CL, but they are not really pocket size. I don't mind the size/performance trade off.
I compared my 8x25 CL to a coworker's 8x25 Terra (made in Japan) and an older 8x30 SLC (not the 'neu') owned by a buddy. Below are my notes, if anyone is interested.
I was able to try the 8x25 CL by Swarovski and the 8x25 Terra by Zeiss today.
They are basically the same physical size with the same FOV and similar weight. The Terra has a plastic body but feels good to hold for such a small bino, with grippy exterior. The eye cups lock in the outer position. The CL exterior is harder and slicker and the eye cups don't lock in any position (but stay where you put them and won't collapse). They do come off without much trouble (threaded alloy), which is really nice. Overall, for feel, I think the Terra is my favorite.
The image in the CL is clear nearly to the edge. In the Terra it drops off but very gradually and you really have to try hard to find it. In normal use, it would never be noticed. Color fringing is the same with both... just a freckle and you really need to look for it. Depth of field seems the same.
Now compared to the 8x30 SLC...
The SLC is definitely easier to use. Bigger eye cups, bigger FOV. More stable, due to mass, but still jitttery. Not that much more stable as I would have guessed though. I thought the biggest advantage was the cups, which do sit against the brow better.
I think the CL has the best resolution, followed very, very closely by the SLC, then the Terra. This is tricky to test though, as the SLC appears to have slightly more magnification than the other two. The image is bigger. Perhaps due to the larger oculars? I don't know the physics behind it. At any rate, there was little if anything that could be seen by one bino that couldn't be seen by another.
Still, very fine detail could be seen with the CL that couldn't with the SLC and Terra but it is really, really hard to find a difference. In one case, the CL and SLC showed twigs in front of an orange cone that was hard to see with the Terra at several hundred yeards. I 'think' the better resolution of the CL showed them, while the bigger image of the SLC also showed them. So, they both got to the same place, but in different ways. The Terra didn't quite get there. But this is really, really nitpicking to the nth degree. At closer ranges, looking for detail, the CL is just every so slightly sharper than the SLC. Again, very hard to detect.
In terms of brightness or light transmission, they seem the same in good or normal overcast ambient light. In the Ops with low light, the SLC was obviously brighter than the other two. If I had to guess, the CL had 95% of the light transmission of the SLC. The Terra would be 92%. In other words, the jump from the CL to the SLC was bigger than the Terra to the CL. New lenses and coatings don't make up for the extry 5mm objective.
Overall, during 'typical use' I had to really work hard to find a difference between the three other than the FOV. I think most people would call it a wash in terms of image. The main difference would be ease of use vs. compactness. Based on cost, the Terra seems like the winner unless that last little bit of resolution or brightness are needed.
