BVD keeps being "blind" on Leica

[Swissboy]

I keep noticing references to Steve Ingraham's BVD (Better Views Desired) web site. He had done a beautiful job for a long time. However, we should now always keep in mind that - apparently being linked to Zeiss - he is no longer the impartial guy he at least claimed to be. And in particular, since the store that sponors his site does not carry Leica, it is no real surprise that he now seems to have a blind spot for Leica products. For one thing, he still has not managed to review or even just to mention the existence of such a thing as the Leica 62 Televid scope. And on the latest entry with that (brief) review of Pentax binoculars the same "blindness" exists. When talking about "high-end" brands, the name Leica is the only one that is not mentioned! Thus, whenever BVD is cited now, we should keep in mind that it is no longer the "authority" it used to be.

[gunvald]

Swissboy,

Are you aware of any sites from the German-speaking countries with good and useable reviews? It takes some skill in the German language, but sometimes I have stumbled over photo-related sites in German with such excellent content that it is well worth to make use of my rusty, but still existing, skills in the German language.

[JB in SC]

Swissboy,

For a number of years, BVD was an independent source supported by "donations" from users. Originally a magazine of a few pages (I still have several issues), before it was web-based, I suspect that lack of capital was its' demise.

Steven has been the contibutor for Birding magazine (ABA) for the "Tools of the Trade" column for a few years. He may just be too busy with making a living to update his website on a continous basis.

Seems like allegiances change with the prevailing winds. I noted that Peter Dunne was recently quoted on the NJAS website that the Leica Ultravid may be the finest birding binocular made, even after his contributions on the design of the Swaro EL. Just like all writers, no matter the subject, they depend on manufacturers' advertising for revenue. Sometimes reviews are skewed I'm sure. caveat emptor

Regards,
JB

[Swissboy]

Swissboy,

Are you aware of any sites from the German-speaking countries with good and useable reviews? It takes some skill in the German language, but sometimes I have stumbled over photo-related sites in German with such excellent content that it is well worth to make use of my rusty, but still existing, skills in the German language.

Hi gunvald,

I don't know of any such sites. But then, i have not really done any hard search either. Thus, if you do know of such sites, I'd appreciate if you could let me know. Maybe I could do a bit of translating every now and then, for the benefit of whoever might be interested. Often, fortunately, even a translation with the help of a machine provides sufficient information. But in those cases where a translation is misleading or downright wrong, I would certainly be willing to help.

Concerning photographic topics (but unfortunately not binoculars or scopes) www.photozone.de is a very interesting German site; however that one is already in English.

[Leif]

I keep noticing references to Steve Ingraham's BVD (Better Views Desired) web site. He had done a beautiful job for a long time. However, we should now always keep in mind that - apparently being linked to Zeiss - he is no longer the impartial guy he at least claimed to be. And in particular, since the store that sponors his site does not carry Leica, it is no real surprise that he now seems to have a blind spot for Leica products. For one thing, he still has not managed to review or even just to mention the existence of such a thing as the Leica 62 Televid scope. And on the latest entry with that (brief) review of Pentax binoculars the same "blindness" exists. When talking about "high-end" brands, the name Leica is the only one that is not mentioned! Thus, whenever BVD is cited now, we should keep in mind that it is no longer the "authority" it used to be.

I agree that his reviews are generally excellent: the best around IMO. I don't think he ignored Leica. A year or two ago he reviewed the Leica 8x42 BN binoculars from Leica and gave a very balanced assessment:

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/BVD10O1/index.html

He also reviewed the Leica APO Televid 77 and recommends it. He used to recommend the Leica 8x32 BN as the best waterproof general birding binocular, but he now believes that the new Nikon 8x32 HG has much better optics - and most people seem to agree with him.

I suspect he found it hard to get hold of optics for long term tests. The Ultravids and the Televid 62 are recent additions and I think they appeared after his Zeiss conversion.

I heard 6 months ago that he was searching for someone to take over his site as he was of the opinion that he would not be seen as impartial. I believe that the two latest reviews were written before his acceptance of the Zeiss silver shilling.

At the end of the day his reviews were the opinions of one man, albeit a very intelligent and thoughtful one, and hence his personal biases will have coloured everything.

I am happy to meet with a few people from BF to compare and test binoculars and/or scopes, though I suspect everyone is too busy birding.

[iporali]

I heard 6 months ago that he was searching for someone to take over his site as he was of the opinion that he would not be seen as impartial.

Wouldn't you be interested, Leif?

;)

Ilkka

[Leif]

Wouldn't you be interested, Leif?

;)

Ilkka

Ilkka: I'm flattered, but ignoring other issues, I do not have ready access to binoculars and scopes. Anyway, my suggestion that a few people get together and compare some instruments that they own has the advantage that at least one person has had long term use of each instrument, and hence they can pick up on any misconceptions. It also smooths out the bias from one person. (I am biased against instruments that show marked chromatic aberration.) I think I might get trampled in the stampede to volunteer. (Irony intended.)

[Swissboy]

I don't think he ignored Leica. A year or two ago he reviewed the Leica 8x42 BN binoculars from Leica and gave a very balanced assessment.
He also reviewed the Leica APO Televid 77 and recommends it. He used to recommend the Leica 8x32 BN as the best waterproof general birding binocular, but he now believes that the new Nikon 8x32 HG has much better optics - and most people seem to agree with him.

I meant that in recent times, like the past year or so, that "blindness" had come upon the BVD site. Before the connection with Simpson's store there was no bias. But we tend to deal with BVD as if it were still up to date with its reviews.

It is very true that the Nikon 8x32 HGs have long been declared the best. In fact, it was Steve Ingraham who first made me realize that roof prisms are inherently worse than porros! And that has explained to me why my old porro type binoculars even today are still pretty good by the present essentially "roof prism" standards. Now, if only that weight (and bulk) factor did not spoil it. Plus the problem that they are not waterproof.

[Leif]

I meant that in recent times, like the past year or so, that "blindness" had come upon the BVD site. Before the connection with Simpson's store there was no bias. But we tend to deal with BVD as if it were still up to date with its reviews.

It is very true that the Nikon 8x32 HGs have long been declared the best. In fact, it was Steve Ingraham who first made me realize that roof prisms are inherently worse than porros! And that has explained to me why my old porro type binoculars even today are still pretty good by the present essentially "roof prism" standards. Now, if only that weight (and bulk) factor did not spoil it. Plus the problem that they are not waterproof.

I pretty much agree with you.

I guess we shall not hear what Steve Ingraham thinks of the Leica APO 62, the Ultravids, or the Nikon 82 ED which is a shame. Maybe the Alula 'gang' will have a go?

[pruitthall]

Well, if anyone has hit BVD recently, Steve did recently review the Leica 8x42 Ultravids (Part of a 'Leica, Brunton and Pentax' update). However, as usual, it still doesn't displace his beloved Nikons as the BVD Reference Standard. I think the thing about BVD that frustrates me so much is the duality of Steven being so darned technically astute but never coming off the Nikon soapbox. Two of his comments just annoyed me so much I actually wanted to write the man. First, he states that even though he has big hands, he finds the Leica focus wheel 'a reach'. Now I'm all of 150 pounds, 5'4" tall and I don't even begin to notice a problem such as this! Secondly, he makes no qualms about devoting sufficient space to harp on Leica's 'considerable distortion at the edges of the field' ending it with 'I find the Leica's distortion disconcerting in many birding situations'. That had to be the icing on the cake as to 'Objective and Unbiased Reporting'. I own the Ultravids in 8x42 and Trinovids in 10x50. I'm only a beginning birder and certainly not up to Steven's technical knowledge, but I haven't even begun to see 'bowing' lines. I can't even make myself see it!

Perhaps I'd better get off MY soapbox, lest the group think I'm a total Leica fanatic. Oh, make no mistake, I am, but I'm also cognizant of good optics from Zeiss and Swaro. But I'm not an editor of an optical review site, either. It just strikes me as strange that Steven acts as if it would be the hardest thing in the world to just admit, Leicas are world class and DO compare to his beloved Nikons. It's almost as if he has an underlying belief in the snobbery of owning Leicas or something. And is going out of his way to term any potential Leica owner away.

Okay, I'm better now. Have followed his site for over 3 years now, biting my tongue on every review.

[henry link]

I think the review you saw is actually an old one of the 8X42 Trinovid Ultra rather than the 8X42 Ultravid. I can understand the confusion. What will Leicas' next binoculars be called? Ultravid Ultras?

[pruitthall]

I think the review you saw is actually an old one of the 8X42 Trinovid Ultra rather than the 8X42 Ultravid. I can understand the confusion. What will Leicas' next binoculars be called? Ultravid Ultras?

I think I got so caught up (read: about to pop) reading his usual anti-Leica stance, I failed to notice that he was reviewing the Ultras, not the Ultravid. Thanks for the correction. Whereas it did feel good to get that off my chest, it forced me to re-read his review and I think I'm even more frustrated at his stance on Leicas, in general. If you really want the ultimate reference to this, check out his review on spotters (Pentax, Swaro, Zeiss & Leica). Naturally it had the reference to (and this is getting soooo tiresome), '...it's still not as bright as my Nikon Fieldscope' ! And claiming that the Nikon's lenses, '....while not APO, are very, very close'. Just to be technical, the wording is mine; close to his, but I can't keep his page up while I'm typing, I get too frustrated!

I'm finally resolved that the Simpson Optics aren't the only tilt; Nikon includes in their Fieldscope literature a reference to BVD. I think he's Nikon staff!

Finally, great question on what Leica will ever call the follow-ons to the Ultravid. My vote goes for 'BVD RS-VID' ! (only cause they should be :)

[william j clive]

[QUOTE=pruitthall]I think I got so caught up (read: about to pop) reading his usual anti-Leica stance, I failed to notice that he was reviewing the Ultras, not the Ultravid. Thanks for the correction. Whereas it did feel good to get that off my chest, it forced me to re-read his review and I think I'm even more frustrated at his stance on Leicas, in general. (Quote)


Man, you are going to give yourself an ulcer or a heart attack for no good reason.

OK, so Steve prefers Nikon to Leica, so do I.

Birdwatching magazine loves Leica, dont really rate Nikon.

Steve works for Zeiss.

Such is life.

Chill.


Clive

[pduxon]

welcome to the site pruitthall

if memory serves me right he rated the Leica's second at the time to the Nikon's hardly a poor review.

The comment about 'Leica's 'considerable distortion at the edges of the field' was made in a recent review of the Ultravid 10x42 in the Finish magazine Alula.

[mpedris]

I'm even more frustrated at his stance on Leicas, in general. Please help me understand why Steve should be SO anti-Leica? What purpose does it serve him to be prejudiced? Shouldn't professional reviewers be impartial in their assessments? Couldn't Steve's comments, whether for or against brand X, be genuine opinion according to his evaluation data?

Please help me understand.
Thanks.

[pduxon]

Please help me understand why Steve should SO "anti-Leica", as you put it? What purpose does it serve him to be prejudiced? Shouldn't professional reviewers be impartial in their assessments? Couldn't Steve's comments, whether for or against brand X, be genuine opinion according to his evaluation data?

Please help me understand.
Thanks.

if I remember rightly until recently he rated the 8x32 Trinovids(Ultras) the best overall bin didn't he?

[pduxon]

I pretty much agree with you.

I guess we shall not hear what Steve Ingraham thinks of the Leica APO 62, the Ultravids, or the Nikon 82 ED which is a shame. Maybe the Alula 'gang' will have a go?

Alula have just reviewed the 82 comparing it with the zeiss and swaro.

[Leif]

if I remember rightly until recently he rated the 8x32 Trinovids(Ultras) the best overall bin didn't he?

Definitely not! He used to rate them as the best waterproof mid-sized binocular, but then the Nikon 8x32 HG came along, and knocked them off their perch. He hasn't tested the Swaro 8x32 EL though my subjective biased opinion is that the Nikon would beat 'em.

[pduxon]

Definitely not! He used to rate them as the best waterproof mid-sized binocular, but then the Nikon 8x32 HG came along, and knocked them off their perch. He hasn't tested the Swaro 8x32 EL though my subjective biased opinion is that the Nikon would beat 'em.

From BVD.....

"Binoculars choice is, of course, an intensely personal decision and, despite all our attempts at science, still a very subjective one. Given that, I am ready to say, that unless your birding style, habits, or needs are considerably out of the ordinary, the Leica 8X32 Ultras will satisfy you for years to come. They are, simply, the best all-around birding binoculars that I have yet had the privilege to use. They are so good that I am creating a new category in the Reference Set for them: Best Overall!"

[pruitthall]

One thing is certain: We've all got opinions on this subject!

First, to William Clive: Thank you for your concern. I'm actually far more 'chilled' about the subject than my email wording would suggest. Hey, it's only an opinion...we've all got them. And since it's entirely subjective, I wouldn't ever suggest to anyone that one piece of optical anything is overall better than another, without them first testing it with their eyes.

To everyone else, thanks for an informative journey down the high-end roof lane. I do respect Steve's work (a lot!), far more than my email may have indicated. :bounce:

[Avron]

Alula have just reviewed the 82 comparing it with the zeiss and swaro.

___________


Hi Pete,

The Alula review is not (yet?) available on their web site. Would you have the time to provide a summary of their findings? If so, I'd be grateful.

Thanks.

Avron

[Leif]

From BVD.....

"Binoculars choice is, of course, an intensely personal decision and, despite all our attempts at science, still a very subjective one. Given that, I am ready to say, that unless your birding style, habits, or needs are considerably out of the ordinary, the Leica 8X32 Ultras will satisfy you for years to come. They are, simply, the best all-around birding binoculars that I have yet had the privilege to use. They are so good that I am creating a new category in the Reference Set for them: Best Overall!"

Pete: Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were suggesting that he currently rates the Leica 8x32 as the best overall, whereas you said that he used to.

What's this Alula review of the Nikon 82mm scope you mention?

[pduxon]

trudge trudge

He does report some unit to unit differences but says this is the same for the other brands.

All scopes were only tested with zooms.

ok in summary.
Resolution - Nikon = Zeiss and better than Swaro.
Contrast - Nikon better than Swaro "which means that it is better than in any scope I have tested"
Brightness - on comparable mags. Zeiss, with Nikon close and then Swaro.

with respect to flare and backlight Nikon on a par with swaro and better than Zeiss.

He comments that general ease of viewing on the Nikon is below the others "since eye placement with the small eyepiece lens of the zooms is more critical". There is also a comment about the narrow field of views and lack of eye relief. Although the wide angle eyepieces are "fully comparable" to the zeiss and swaro.

In conclusion he reckons its "optical performance is top class" and that its a choice of wider fields of view or higher magnifcations. I got the impression that build quality was a little below the others. He reckons its a marked improvement over the ED78

Anyone keen for the whole review PM me with your address..........

[Pinewood]

I discovered that BVD's opinions were too highly subjective to match my desires in a glass. I am happy with a binocular he panned: the Zeiss Victory I. It has a bright image, in a lightweight package, that is ergonomically fine. A friend tells me that the resolution of that Zeiss is indistinguishable from the Nikon Venturer LX 8x42, a glass which BVD gives great accolades. He gives the Nikon better colour but poorer brightness. It would seem that the Abbe Koning prisms more than make up for the smaller objectives

Happy birding,
Arthur

[Leif]

I discovered that BVD's opinions were too highly subjective to match my desires in a glass. I am happy with a binocular he panned: the Zeiss Victory I. It has a bright image, in a lightweight package, that is ergonomically fine. A friend tells me that the resolution of that Zeiss is indistinguishable from the Nikon Venturer LX 8x42, a glass which BVD gives great accolades. He gives the Nikon better colour but poorer brightness. It would seem that the Abbe Koning prisms more than make up for the smaller objectives

Happy birding,
Arthur

Author: I don't think he panned the Victory I, but he did say that in his opinion they had some shortcomings which he did not like i.e. eye tubes, strap lugs and slightly lowered contrast. Zeiss did subsequently 'rectify' these 'faults'. Although I agree with the BVD review, as I hated the strap lugs and the armour, many people on this forum have said the same as you. Interestingly there is a review of the Victory I on the Cloudy Nights site which concludes that it beats the Leica 8x42 BN optics in most issues e.g. contrast. At the end of the day it really is important to try them for yourself if at all possible. I use reviews to eliminate the dogs, to find out which ones I need to test, and to pick up hints on what to look out for e.g. flare, slow focus etc.

[Tim Allwood]

as far as i'm concerned (in all walks of life) once you take the money your opinion is worthless to me. That's not to say i blame the guy, mind. Just that i wouldn't expect to be taken seriously if i were being paid by one major player......

[pduxon]

as far as i'm concerned (in all walks of life) once you take the money your opinion is worthless to me. That's not to say i blame the guy, mind. Just that i wouldn't expect to be taken seriously if i were being paid by one major player......

Valid point Tim but these reviews were written long before he went to work for Zeiss.

[Pinewood]

Arthur: I don't think he panned the Victory I, ...Interestingly there is a review of the Victory I on the Cloudy Nights site which concludes that it beats the Leica 8x42 BN optics in most issues e.g. contrast. At the end of the day it really is important to try them for yourself if at all possible. I use reviews to eliminate the dogs, to find out which ones I need to test, and to pick up hints on what to look out for e.g. flare, slow focus etc.
Absolutely! Binoculars are a personal choice. My biggest complaint about shops, is the inablity in some places to use try them outside the shop, where I intend to use them.
I maintain that among the first quality marques, there is little to chose, mostly personal preferences,as we analyze each design compromise. Indeed, many of us seem to have several glasses to fit the circumstances of the day.
Cloudy Nights has a slightly different perspective as its viewpoint is that of astronomy enthusiasts. What is clear is that knowledgeable people may have rather different opinions.
As others have suggested, a fox cannot run with the hounds. Our opinion of Ingraham's comments are now colored by his employment status.
With warm wishes for happy birding,
Arthur

[Leif]

as far as i'm concerned (in all walks of life) once you take the money your opinion is worthless to me. That's not to say i blame the guy, mind. Just that i wouldn't expect to be taken seriously if i were being paid by one major player......

As Pete points out, the reviews were all written before Steve Ingraham accepted the Zeiss shilling. I believe that he no longer writes reviews for exactly the reasons you suggest i.e. loss of impartiality.

[Tim Allwood]

Good for him....he's obviously got some integrity.

[Jay Turberville]

as far as i'm concerned (in all walks of life) once you take the money your opinion is worthless to me. That's not to say i blame the guy, mind. Just that i wouldn't expect to be taken seriously if i were being paid by one major player......

There are many factors - in addition to money - that can color someone's opinion. Maybe its the nation of origin. Or perhaps its the brand that the reviewer first fell in love with. Who knows? Show me a fully impartial reviewer and then we can take blood samples to verify if she is actually human.

Years ago I read a review of the early 1970s Firebird (automobile) in Consumer Reports. That publication never accepted advertisement in order to mainain its objectivity. But their review was extremely biased toward a "family car" point of view - something that the Firebird simply didn't fit - and they wrote a very biased article that probably said pretty much what most of their readership wanted to read.

I take ALL opinions with a grain of salt. I prefer objective measurments and evidence. But which scope reviews have that?