High-end Binoculars Round Up 2008

[Gorgo]

Found today following review of high-end binoculars, including Nikon's not yet available EDG model, but unfortunately without the improved Minox Apo HGs and Swarovski's announced new EL model.

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2008roundup/binoculars_high-end.html

Markus

[Kevin Purcell]

The summary chart is at

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2008roundup/chart_main.html

The Bushnell Elite's do rather well!

Just below the big 4 at half the price beating the other big names (e.g. Vortex Razor, Pentax ED, Minox HG, Kowa Genesis and Meopta). That might put the Felix amongst the Columba.

Though I note that they haven't posted their review comments for the Elite yet (even though they would be alphabetically at the top of the list). I guess they're too declassé: the Rodney Dangerfield of binoculars. I'm thinking loud check sports jacket, white belt and white shoes ;).

[J. Moore]

Thanks Markus! This is the first time I have seen that article; I believe it was only just recently posted on the website. Really just a popularity poll among several different users, but I think useful nevertheless. Here is my favorite part from the text of the review:All the high-end binoculars have superb optical quality. In fact they're so good that readers should take the image quality scores with a grain of salt. Although it would be a mistake to say there are no differences, the differences grow increasingly subtle as you approach the top. Reasonable, intelligent people could differ about which one was best.

Every binocular provided excellent resolution, brightness, contrast, freedom from chromatic aberration, and color fidelity. Such is to be expected, considering the enormous effort of optical research and development that these objects embody.

Degrees of perfection

The good news it that it's difficult to make a bad choice among the highest-rated of these binoculars. However, you probably shouldn't decide on the basis of a small difference in the image quality scores. The judges did not agree perfectly on the image quality rankings. If you had been there to compare the binoculars yourself, your ranking might not have been quite the same as the composite scores shown in the chart.

Among binoculars of such high optical quality, other features will likely determine which binocular will bring you the greatest satisfaction.
This coincides with my own thinking that with most quality binoculars $500 and up or so, the optical differences are really quite minor (even though a reader of this forum might conclude otherwise from the rhetoric used here if they had not actually looked through many of these binoculars). And people pay more and more for less and less optical improvement.

Best,
Jim

[marcus]

Found today following review of high-end binoculars, including Nikon's not yet available EDG model, but unfortunately without the improved Minox Apo HGs and Swarovski's announced new EL model.

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2008roundup/binoculars_high-end.html

Markus

Marcus to Markus
Thanks! I'm going to have to print all of that and it will probably the favorite thing I will enjoy reading over and over again. Thanks again.

[Kevin Conville]

I tend to agree with you and the excerpts you quote Jim.
It does strike me that "Birdwatching" have a bent toward Zeiss however to the degree that it tops their ratings in "Fit and Feel" over Swaro and Leica.

Regardless of how I would rate the binoculars overall, based on their categories, I would never place FLs above S or L for ergonomics or craftsmanship. Does ANYONE here see the FLs this way?

Frankly, my $200. Brownings are a model of mechanical craftmanship compared to the FLs I've sampled.

[Kevin Conville]

Though I note that they haven't posted their review comments for the Elite yet (even though they would be alphabetically at the top of the list). I guess they're too declassé: the Rodney Dangerfield of binoculars. I'm thinking loud check sports jacket, white belt and white shoes ;).


3:-) Very funny KP!

[OwenM]

That was a fun read, thanks:t:
Like Jim and Kevin, I appreciated the disclaimer about the scores, and the explanation for how much the different scores counted toward the total.
Sometimes reviews or comparisons of different products seem to involve a bit of brand influence, hype, or just unexplained differences, but it seems like they made an effort to make the results more objective. Also that it was all done in fairly simple terms that I had no problem following.

One of the things I noticed when reading the article was that "image quality" covered a lot of ground. FOV, something I did not personally(utter novice that I am, notwithstanding) relate to the quality of the image, was factored into the score, which lost points for the full-size 8x Pentax ED and 8.5x Minox HG.
The Razors also got max points for the crappy diopter and eyecups that prompted me to return both my original pair and their replacement.

A timely article, as I hope to compare several of these models tomorrow, continuing the search for that perfect binocular for me, and will add the Elites to the list, too, if they're available. I'm thinking I'll take a monopod or tripod with a rest so I can get the best out of all of them. I just hope it won't be limited to indoor viewing, that I've learned enough to make a more objective and intelligent comparison from the last time I got my hands on the "upper echelon" bins...and that I fall in love with something cheaper than the EL!

[denco@comcast.n]

It's pretty much the conclusion we all know anyway. Swarovski EL's, Zeiss FL's, or Leica Ultravids are the ones to shoot for and if you are smart get them in 7x42 or 8x42. Don't mess around with the 8x32's. Any one of these is absolutely made by god. If you want to save some money get the Trinovids.7x42's are the best! The Zeiss and the Swarovski's are absolutely wonderful! Zeiss 7x42 FL's are wonderful!

Dennis

[oleaf]

Be careful of retailers posting "reviews". Funny that Meopta is at the bottom of the list
and oh... they don't carry or sell Meopta products. Funny how that is. Seems most posts from Meopta users place the brand at the top and comparable to the best.

But I am biased! I love my 7x Meostars.

Cheers

[J. Moore]

It's pretty much the conclusion we all know anyway. Swarovski EL's, Zeiss FL's, or Leica Ultravids are the ones to shoot for and if you are smart get them in 7x42 or 8x42.

I do not see anything in the review that comes to that conclusion. (Read my excerpt above). Though the big three/four rank at the top, other much less expensive binoculars are very close behind them. This suggests that the big three are not giving you a lot of bang for the buck.

Best,
Jim

[J. Moore]

Be careful of retailers posting "reviews".

I agree the review is not completely independent, but it is more than just a retailer posting a review. The review is a summary of a review that appeared in Birdwatchers Digest, a magazine that has been around since 1978. Moreover, the judges included a team of Iowa birdwatchers, who were presumably not employees of the retailer. And I think if the retailer did not want to promote brands that it did not sell, it would not have included them in the review in the first place rather than risk being discovered rigging a review to cast them in an unfavorable light.

Best,
Jim

[fugl]

Be careful of retailers posting "reviews".

Exactly. Some people are so anxious to validate their preferences that they'll clutch at any straw. Otherwise no sensible person would pay any attention at all to such "reviews".

[J. Moore]

Exactly. Some people are so anxious to validate their preferences that they'll clutch at any straw.

I agree. Lots of people make speculative ad hominem attacks on the motivations of reviewers simply because they do not validate their preferences.

Jim

[fugl]

I agree. Lots of people make speculative ad hominem attacks on the motivations of reviewers simply because they do not validate their preferences.

Jim

As opposed to what? Taking the views of obviously interested parties at face value? You have a touching faith in business ethics. Re my personal "preferences" I haven't even read the article so they're hardly relevant here.

[J. Moore]

I haven't even read the article

So you are condemning as worthless a review you have not even read? I prefer to read reviews before I decide whether they are helpful or not. I do not think the mere fact that a reviewer has some commercial interest or hypothetical bias means the review is ipso facto worthless. These particular folks -- Michael and Diane Porter -- have been writing optics reviews for magazines since the mid-90s. They have a long and public track record, and I have compared their evaluations to lots of other different reviews, including "independent" reviews and opinions expressed on this forum. Their recommendations seem to be quite in line with other reviews, and display no clear bias.

I have no problem with oleaf's expressing caution in interpreting the review. That makes sense with respect to pretty much any review. It always makes sense to check multiple sources. But I see no sense to completely rejecting a priori a review simply because the reviewer has some commercial interests.

Cordially,
Jim

P.S.: My previous post was not intended to be a comment about you or your preferences in particular.

[oleaf]

The review is a summary of a review that appeared in Birdwatchers Digest, a magazine that has been around since 1978.

Sorry... Or advertise in their magazine.

Cheers

[Kevin Purcell]

Sorry... Or advertise in their magazine.

Cheers

Perhaps the ad in ad hominen? ;)

Like all reviews (and all information I receive) I weight them with reputation (based on previous accurate information received and perhaps sometimes other peoples views of them depending upon how I weight the referrers).

Of course for that to be true they would have to get their reviewer group to all agree to rate bins in the way that most suits their advertisers. And as that seems less likely this sort of review rates higher. Compared say to a single person review in Birdwatching in the UK.

It can still have problems. The write ups are not great and they seem to have missed some old features: the Nikon No-fault policy appears not to be new!

Often were not quite sure what people are actually deciding on? Should they include say FOV in the view rating that actually changes ranking order? I'[d prefer it if they ranked bins on a series of common parameters and published those and let me provide the weightings.

One useful thing to determine the reliability of the review is comparing it to other reviews.

I note in this case the bins at the top (including the bins that "don't get no respect" but comes in fifth regularly even though the street price is about half the top four) place in the same order in say the Cornell review.

I do the same for reviews and reviewers here. And reviews at other magazines.

But the "all reviewers are biased" is both true (we're all biased) and not true (we don't all have hidden agendas to sell Zeiss to the planet when "clearly" Brand X is better).

And the solipsist point ("I've not read the review but it's clearly worthless") is the most unreliable viewpoint of all.

One fundamental problem is "price bracketing" reviews with the emergence of the Chinese EDs. I have an Bushnell Elite and the Promaster and Hawke. And the Promaster and Hawke EDs (aside from stray light handling) have a better view. So that would place them up there with the top four. As others have already commented. That's a problem with the way people do reviews in general. They should ignore price and review on "quality" in it's many, many forms.

As I (and others point out) try out multiple bins and use your own eyes and hands to make your own decision. It's not difficult.

[Sancho]

As I (and others point out) try out multiple bins and use your own eyes and hands to make your own decision. It's not difficult.
:t: Agreed. Ever read theatre, book or cinema "reviews"? So why should optics reviews be any different? There isn´t any objective standard, all opinions are relative and the bottom line is the only review that means anything to you is the one you do yourself.

[buff]

Ultravid a roff prism has 3D view? can someone confirm this!

[FIDDLER]

Ultravid a roff prism has 3D view? can someone confirm this!

Buff,
Having just traded in a pair off zeiss 10x56 fls for a pair of Leica Ultravid 10x42 HD bins I don't think either pair had a better 3D effect than each other.They both give stunning views in all light conditions,both giving as sharp a view as you could wish for,the Leica's are smaller and lighter ,that was my reason for changing models.
I know it been said many times before,but I don't think the image quality of the very best binoculars is better than each other just different.
fiddler.

[J. Moore]

:t: Agreed. Ever read theatre, book or cinema "reviews"? So why should optics reviews be any different? There isn´t any objective standard, all opinions are relative and the bottom line is the only review that means anything to you is the one you do yourself.

I agree also. But most of us who do not spend a lot of time comparing all sorts of binoculars (which leaves out many posters here I realize), usually need to rely on other people's reviews to narrow the field of consideration.

Sorry... Or advertise in their magazine.

Cheers

This link indicates that the Thompson family, not the Porters, started and run Birdwatchers Digest: http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/site/bwd_story.aspx According to the link, Roger Tory Peterson himself provided a lot of input into the magazine in the early days.

Best,
Jim

[Kevin Purcell]

I agree also. But most of us who do not spend a lot of time comparing all sorts of binoculars (which leaves out many posters here I realize), usually need to rely on other people's reviews to narrow the field of consideration.

Even those who review a lot of bins do this too.

That's why reputation rating the reviews is useful. The more info you have the bigger the picture. But it takes time. But if you are going to spend $1500 or £1000 how much effort should you put in?

With the top end bins optics isn't the issue under consideration (and even for less expensive bins too) it's how well the bins perform for you. But the only way to do this is to try bins out. You don't have to own them. You can borrow them for a screening. And with companies like Eagle Optics that give you 30 days to try the bin or return them for a full refund you can compare three (even expensive bins) at your leisure for a percent or two interest on the credit card.

Of course people who are satisficiers (who enjoy the "good enough" without worrying about the better) have a much better time than the "optimizers". And I say that as an optimizer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing

[fugl]

[QUOTE=Kevin Purcell;1337820]And the solipsist point ("I've not read the review but it's clearly worthless") is the most unreliable viewpoint of all.QUOTE]

"Solipsist"?. Come on, do you know what the word means? I'm not making claims about the nature of reality, but simply expressing skepticism about the value of reviews by interested parties. What's solipsistic (or even controversial) about that? And solipsistic or not, where does "unreliability" come into it?

Otherwise I find little to disagree with in what you say.

[Robert / Seattle]

Did you get a look at the picture of the alleged reviewers? They all seem like nice enough folks, but ALL are wearing glasses! Think eye relief (where Zeiss excels) might have trumped true optical resolution and performance considerations?

[Kevin Conville]

Did you get a look at the picture of the alleged reviewers? They all seem like nice enough folks, but ALL are wearing glasses! Think eye relief (where Zeiss excels) might have trumped true optical resolution and performance considerations?

Wow. Good catch Robert.

Still doesn't explain their "Fit and Feel" scores being tops for Zeiss |=\|.... unless...this is how they quantify their approval of satisfactory eye relief with glasses. We may need a decoder ring to get to the bottom of this.

[Robert / Seattle]

... Still doesn't explain their "Fit and Finish" scores being tops for Zeiss |=\|

Now that part seems purely subjective -- and, I must submit, totally irrelevant to optical (i.e., meaningful) considerations.

[Kevin Conville]

I dunno Robert. Outside of the measurable dimensions, it all seems rather subjective. As to the merit of including "Fit and Feel", I think it can be quite meaningful in the context of binoculars, if it's well defined. In this report we don't know what they mean by fit and feel. It could mean adequate eye relief for all we know.

[OwenM]

Did you get a look at the picture of the alleged reviewers? They all seem like nice enough folks, but ALL are wearing glasses!
Hmmm. That could make for some snappy advertising.
People who can't see....choose Zeiss. Zeiss. You won't know what you're missing!:-O

[ThoLa]

I dunno Robert. Outside of the measurable dimensions, it all seems rather subjective. ....

Quite right !

Unfortunately there is frequently no distinction between hard, measurable features and personal "impressions". It would help all discussions if that line be drawn more sharply.
Tom

[ThoLa]

Did you get a look at the picture of the alleged reviewers? They all seem like nice enough folks, but ALL are wearing glasses! ....


Now that's fine with me .... as long as they are wearing proper ED glasses.

What makes me more wary about this "review" is the fact that these people also sell binos. It's just one click away from the shop (two clicks to the "give your credit card number, if your card still works" option, I guess).

Doubtful about people who judge & sell,
Suspicious Tom

[Nick Elliston]

Outside of the measurable dimensions, it all seems rather subjective.

Absolutely. Everyone's eyes are slightly different, and the combination of factors (and weighting that we apply to them) we use in arriving at our own choice of binos is extensive.

I think it is useful to read/hear different reviews/thoughts but you really do have to hold and look through as many as you can and weigh up the factors before reaching a decision.

Whatever you choose is right for you and it doesn't really matter what others think providing you are happy. A number of people will have the same binos as me, but there will be a lot of variation in the reasons why we made the choice we did.

Anyway, enough of this rambling. Read reviews, look through binos but make your own choice.

[Alexis Powell]

...Think eye relief (where Zeiss excels) might have trumped true optical resolution and performance considerations?

No, because it isn't true that Zeiss excels at eye-relief, except maybe if you are only comparing Zeiss to Leica, and even then, only especially w/respect to the 8x32 models. Moreover, some other brands fairly consistently outperform Zeiss eye-relief specs (e.g. Nikon, Pentax).

--AP

[michaelboustead]

I looked at the article and thought "that's nice" -opinion and not sure how it would apply to me.

I wear glasses when I bird. If I don't a Powerful Owl could land three feet from me and I would miss it. I am nearsighted (I think that means I can see things really near) and astigmatic. I have often thought that how well my sight is corrected has as much to do as anything in what I see through my bins. I don't know if that is right or wrong.

As to "fit and feel" I always kind of figured that has a lot more to do with the size of one's hand and nose as anything else.

[Fernando np]

As a happy user of a pair of 8.5X42 ELs, I consider the quality of their optics is a bit overrated, the same is true for the FLs IMHO. Where would go the 8X32SE? Over 5?

[jrwilton]

Now that manufacturers have the optics part figured out I'm waiting for a pair that definitively ID's the bird. That would help me a lot. I can already see more than I can understand. (c:

jrwilton