Better View Desired is Back!!!!!

[dickiebird]

Hello Birders- Just a note to let you know that the well known website "Better View Desired" sponsored by Simpson Optics, which for years has provided readers with excellent reviews of sports optics by Steve Ingraham, is now back with lots of reviews scheduled for the near future. The new reviewers are Wayne Mones of the National Audubon Society in the United States and Tom Lester of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, a conservation biologist and avid birder with a number of years of experience in wildlife habitat inventory and surveys. Wayne and Tom plan to carry on the excellent tradition set by Steve of providing readers with valuable information on binoculars, spotting scopes and related sports optics equipment to assist birders and other naturalists in their serach for the "best view desired".....

Regards,
Tom Lester
Vancouver, B.C.

[eliaszuniga]

Hello Birders- Just a note to let you know that the well known website "Better View Desired" sponsored by Simpson Optics, which for years has provided readers with excellent reviews of sports optics by Steve Ingraham, is now back with lots of reviews scheduled for the near future. The new reviewers are Wayne Mones of the National Audubon Society in the United States and Tom Lester of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, a conservation biologist and avid birder with a number of years of experience in wildlife habitat inventory and surveys. Wayne and Tom plan to carry on the excellent tradition set by Steve of providing readers with valuable information on binoculars, spotting scopes and related sports optics equipment to assist birders and other naturalists in their serach for the "best view desired".....

Regards,
Tom Lester
Vancouver, B.C.

Thanks for the tip! As someone who's now shopping for a bin, I can't wait to see it.

[Swissboy]

Hello Birders- Just a note to let you know that the well known website "Better View Desired" sponsored by Simpson Optics, which for years has provided readers with excellent reviews of sports optics by Steve Ingraham, is now back with lots of reviews scheduled for the near future. The new reviewers are Wayne Mones of the National Audubon Society in the United States and Tom Lester of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, a conservation biologist and avid birder with a number of years of experience in wildlife habitat inventory and surveys. Wayne and Tom plan to carry on the excellent tradition set by Steve of providing readers with valuable information on binoculars, spotting scopes and related sports optics equipment to assist birders and other naturalists in their serach for the "best view desired".....

Regards,
Tom Lester
Vancouver, B.C.

OK Tom, here you have done it right! Thanks, and I am looking forward to read your and Wayne's new reviews on BVD.

[Pileatus]

With all due respect, I question why the reviewers simply don't create a new website for their optics reviews. It's incredibly easy and inexpensive.

Betterviewdesired was the creation of one man, Stephen Ingraham, and it will always appear to me as if his name and reputation were hijacked for some yet to be discovered reason. Steve's reviews are unique classics and I, for one, would have been content to see the site remain untouched.

John

[WmCCO-5]

Hello Birders- Just a note to let you know that the well known website "Better View Desired" sponsored by Simpson Optics, which for years has provided readers with excellent reviews of sports optics by Steve Ingraham, is now back with lots of reviews scheduled for the near future. The new reviewers are Wayne Mones of the National Audubon Society in the United States and Tom Lester of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, a conservation biologist and avid birder with a number of years of experience in wildlife habitat inventory and surveys. Wayne and Tom plan to carry on the excellent tradition set by Steve of providing readers with valuable information on binoculars, spotting scopes and related sports optics equipment to assist birders and other naturalists in their serach for the "best view desired".....

Regards,
Tom Lester
Vancouver, B.C.


Tom,

I wish you and Wayne the very best in your pursuit. We will be eagerly awaiting your reviews.

Bill

[Keith Reeder]

John,

is it not reasonable to assume that the "new" BVD is carrying on with the blessing of Steve I?

Steve's so well-respected that I can't imagine for a nanosecond he's simply given up the domain name to the first person who waved a few dollar bills under his nose.

He's worked so hard for so long in earning that kind of credibilty, that it beggars belief that he'd simply throw his good name away.

Personally I'm delighted that BVD has new blood and a new lease of life.

[jedku]

Hello all,
I am glad this site will be revived.
Just like a periodical/journal might have a new management, a website with a following might change hands. As long as the new reviewers intend to maintain the standards of objectivity & impartiality pioneered by Ingraham, they should retain one of the most discriminating list of "subscribers" for optics reviews. There is a strong community built around betterviewdesired and it is good that it should be kept alive. Everyone knows they have a reputation to maintain. Any changes they make, including the change in "ownership," should be stated up front on the website. By using the name, the new reviewers intend to keep alive the high standards.
Cheers,
Marc

[elkcub]

With all due respect, I question why the reviewers simply don't create a new website for their optics reviews. It's incredibly easy and inexpensive.

Betterviewdesired was the creation of one man, Stephen Ingraham, and it will always appear to me as if his name and reputation were hijacked for some yet to be discovered reason. Steve's reviews are unique classics and I, for one, would have been content to see the site remain untouched.

John

John,

I fully agree with you and believe that ideally BVD would be better left a separate body of work by Steve Ingaham. My suspicion, however, is that financial benefits derive to him this way, since he probably retains certain copyright or registered trademarks — like "BVD" itself. Hopefully, this is the case as he deserves compensation for all those years of work. It shouldn't be too difficult to separate what he wrote from the new material.

Ed

[Alexis Powell]

I'm always happy to see more activity in the way of binocular and scope evaluations by folks who have experience using these optics and who are good writers, but I hope the new authors of BVD have given (or will give) some thought as to how they can make high impact, meaningful contributions with their efforts.

I was a subscriber to BVD back when it was a paper newsletter (still have all the back issues). It was one of the very few sources of meaningful COMPARATIVE information about available binos. It was also a good source of information about which binocular models were actually suitable for birding; back then, the optics companies weren't focused on the birding market, so when a bino was good for birding it was often by happy accident. In addition, Steve identified what qualities were desireable in birding binoculars (to help fostrer consumer consciousness, and in case any optics companies were listening). Finally, he did a good job of identifying which binoculars at various price points were optically excellent, and which were mediocre (there used to be much more variation than there is now).

But as time went on, Steve Ingraham did two things which I thought were distractions from his earlier contributions. First, he started putting undue emphasis on NEED testing of the centerfield, to the detriment of thorough discussion of the other (in my opinion more important) optical qualities of binoculars. Second, he did too many articles on individual models, and these seemed to get increasingly "friendly" over time. I still can't reconcile his review of the optical properties of the Bausch & Lomb Elite 8x42 with the actual binocular.

I think that the most useful reviews of binoculars are careful qualitative descriptions, written in a consistent and thorough style from review to review. The most meaningful of these are COMPARATIVE reviews of several similar models (several brands of 8x42 models for example) at once. That is what I like so much about Kimmo's reviews in Alula, and Mike McDowell's review of the Stokes, Leupold, B&L Elite. I find numerical ratings mostly worthless, so I don't consider multiple binocular reviews that numerically rank the models but provide no head to head qualitative descriptions to be very helpful.

I'd encourage the new reviewers at BVD to do these head to head reviews--so useful for readers who have limited opportunities to do their own side-by-side comparisons, or who don't know what to look for when doing those comparisons. Otherwise, all the reviews are going to be something along the lines of "binocular X was really sharp and had a nice field of view, its color was very close to neutral but we did notice a hint of Y. It felt very good in the hands..." Even with this online forum, there is a need for good bino reviews (real reviews are amazingly scarce here considering the volume of discussion that goes on), even of the ultra premium models, though we could especially benefit from more critical/thorough reviews of the cheaper binos, and the mid range--I'd like to see the Pentax 8x32 SP compared to the $300 and the $1200 models.

Best wishes to Wayne and Tom,
--AP

[zuiko]

Well it's revival was announced on the Zeiss section with some fanfare by an anonymous appearing post from 'dickiebird' who is apparently from this thread one of the new reviewers.

The post and the nature of it got and I believe deserved some criticism.

The new article on the Zeiss FL does seem to be a 'puff piece' that is overly flattering. I think some people who are posting against BVD's resurrection are perhaps wary of this seeming bias. The site even with it's old material seems to have a real paucity if not absence of reviews of Leica binoculars.

The new review seems to augur poorly for any degree of impartiality in reviews.

I think they've gotten off on the wrong foot; but hope that a few fair reviews of Leica binoculars might address this seeming bias.

Regards.

[FrankD]

I was one of those folks that was less than thrilled with the new review of the Zeiss FLs. I would like to clarify that a bit.

On the one hand I am very happy to see folks such as Tom taking the time to put forth an effort to continue the exceptional work done by Mr. Ingraham. I think further reviews of newer model binoculars needs to continue to be done in order to keep much of that particular website current.

On the other hand I believe that the reviews need to offer more comparative data, as has been mentioned. Lets face it, when we, as consumers, are in the market for a new binocular we specifically go out to compare one model to another. We do not go out with just one model in mind. If we do then how are we to know that we aren't missing out on another model that might offer a more attractive package.

Though I do agree with Alexis in that the NEED score was overstressed at times I also think that the it was a good way of continuing to compare one binocular to the next. Sort of like the thread that tied the entire piece together. A NEED score initiated at this point though would not hold the same value since everyone's eyes are different and we subsequently would need to have all of the new models reviewed by just one new individual in order to again have some way of comparing one model to the next.

All in all I am glad to see BVD resurrected but would like to see a bit more comparitive data involded. Henry Link's comparison of some of the Nikon porro models is an excellent example.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202

[henry link]

I've decided that geeky nit picking of the BVD 8x42 FL review is not what anybody wants to read, so I'll just join the chorus here. I agree with John about preserving the integrity of Stephen Ingraham's 10 year labor of love (like Alexis I've got all the back issues too). I also agree with Alexis and Frank about the usefulness of comparative reviews. There is nothing I'm more inclined to tune out than the use of superlatives without comparison to the competition. Perhaps the time for a single "authoritative" review source has simply passed. It's pretty clear that the two guys doing BVD now don't know anymore about reviewing optics than many of us who post on BF and we are perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves among the many opinions offered here.

[GaryT]

I would just like to see more consideration given to eyeglass wearers in future assessments. It strikes me that that was a terrible weakness of the past reviews, especially when you consider the enormous percentage of people who have to wear them.

[dickiebird]

With all due respect, I question why the reviewers simply don't create a new website for their optics reviews. It's incredibly easy and inexpensive.

Betterviewdesired was the creation of one man, Stephen Ingraham, and it will always appear to me as if his name and reputation were hijacked for some yet to be discovered reason. Steve's reviews are unique classics and I, for one, would have been content to see the site remain untouched.

John

John- Well said. Unfortunately Stephen was hired by Zeiss and thus could no longer write reviews for BVD. I too valued his straight forward simple, yet very informative writing style. We'll do our best to uphold the excellent tradition established by Steve.

[dickiebird]

I would just like to see more consideration given to eyeglass wearers in future assessments. It strikes me that that was a terrible weakness of the past reviews, especially when you consider the enormous percentage of people who have to wear them.


No problem with this request. I wear glasses myself and have always found it frustrating to read sports optics reviews that don't adequately consider the needs of eyeglass wearers!

TL

[dickiebird]

I was one of those folks that was less than thrilled with the new review of the Zeiss FLs. I would like to clarify that a bit.

On the one hand I am very happy to see folks such as Tom taking the time to put forth an effort to continue the exceptional work done by Mr. Ingraham. I think further reviews of newer model binoculars needs to continue to be done in order to keep much of that particular website current.

On the other hand I believe that the reviews need to offer more comparative data, as has been mentioned. Lets face it, when we, as consumers, are in the market for a new binocular we specifically go out to compare one model to another. We do not go out with just one model in mind. If we do then how are we to know that we aren't missing out on another model that might offer a more attractive package.

Though I do agree with Alexis in that the NEED score was overstressed at times I also think that the it was a good way of continuing to compare one binocular to the next. Sort of like the thread that tied the entire piece together. A NEED score initiated at this point though would not hold the same value since everyone's eyes are different and we subsequently would need to have all of the new models reviewed by just one new individual in order to again have some way of comparing one model to the next.

All in all I am glad to see BVD resurrected but would like to see a bit more comparitive data involded. Henry Link's comparison of some of the Nikon porro models is an excellent example.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202

Frank-

Thanks very much for this feedback. I appreciate your suggestion for taking a more "comparative" approach to doing reviews. Others have suggested using a comparative approach including the use of a matrix rating system in which several binoculars can be compared across a series of variables (eg. eyerelief, field of view, chromatic aberration, color neutrality, etc). This would also include a rating of performance relative to cost, a critical consideration when deciding what binouclar to buy.

[dickiebird]

I've decided that geeky nit picking of the BVD 8x42 FL review is not what anybody wants to read, so I'll just join the chorus here. I agree with John about preserving the integrity of Stephen Ingraham's 10 year labor of love (like Alexis I've got all the back issues too). I also agree with Alexis and Frank about the usefulness of comparative reviews. There is nothing I'm more inclined to tune out than the use of superlatives without comparison to the competition. Perhaps the time for a single "authoritative" review source has simply passed. It's pretty clear that the two guys doing BVD now don't know anymore about reviewing optics than many of us who post on BF and we are perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves among the many opinions offered here.

Henry-

Thanks for your constructive feedback. As indicated in another post, several people have suggested taking a more "comparative" approach to writing reviews. That makes a lot of sense. I'll definitely foward your suggestion on to Greg Simpson the owner of the website.

[lucznik]

In joining the call for comparative testing, might I also interject that one of the things most missing from optics reviews are actual, measured, quantitative data? Things that give unbiased measurements from which to make judgements.

For example, lots of people like to say that their particular favorite binocular provides the "brightest" image. But what does that really mean? Did they measure it somehow? Is it so impossible for someone to develop a test to actually measure the amount of light being "transmitted" to the eye? (It's done for riflescopes.)

People talk a lot about resolution, but never have I seen an objective measurement of just how much detail is really being seen and how much is just brand loyalty/bias (both positive and negative) skewing the results. For example, you could have 100 people look through each binocular (preferably having each one somehow disguised similar to a blind taste test for cola drinks) under indentical/controlled lighting conditions and read off the smallest details visible on some kind of resolution charts. I realize this would be complicated and would require a lot of work to set up and to get each binocular properly focused to each person's eyes, etc. But the alternative is to continue with the current style of review which typically involve nothing more than some guy arbitrarily assigning a numbered value to each model ("I give model X a 9 out of 10 for...") Those are useless. They're just rantings of personal preference that often result in arguments. I want something that is truly objective.

Chromatic Abberation you say? Measure it, or find some way to illustrate it under controlled conditions where each binocular is looking at the same thing, under the same conditions, from the same distance, etc. The same with pin cushion, bending of the field, flare, etc. If it's really there, then it should be able to be illustrated, measured, and compared.

Show me proof!!

In short, what I want to see are reviews that involve testing designed to eliminate as much as possible any oportunity for personal preference, bias, or brand loyalty to intrude upon the results. After that we can spend forever arguing the subjective merits of handling, style, etc.

Until then, I will look at all reviews with a huge "grain of salt."

[AlanFrench]

One thing that has always disturbed me about reviews, this one included, is that the author or authors often reveal a lack of understanding about basic optics. I hardly consider myself an expert, but almost every review I read has some comments that simply make no sense. From this review, for instance - "However, when looking at targets consisting of black and white horizontal and vertical lines, I did note a very slight amount of spherical aberration at the extreme margins of the image."

Spherical aberration is an on-axis aberration, and even on-axis it is not something that can simply be eyeballed at 8 power and under normal viewing conditions. The decreased sharpness at the edge of the field is generally astigmatism and field curvature, and the eyepiece is the main culpert.

It may be that the comment was not really about spherical aberration, but about distortion. Distortion is actually not a true aberration, but rather an error in image placement.

Clear skies, Alan

[AlanFrench]

In joining the call for comparative testing, might I also interject that one of the things most missing from optics reviews are actual, measured, quantitative data? Things that give unbiased measurements from which to make judgements.
[SNIP]
Until then, I will look at all reviews with a huge "grain of salt."

I certainly agree, but there are other factors at work that really complicate matters. With low power optics, the eye enters the picture in a large and variable way. Under daylight conditions, the eye acts as a stop, which tends to improve the performance of any optics. With less light, the eye opens wider, increasing the aberrations it contributes to the view. (I once tried my nice 7x42s while my pupil was still dilated from an eye exam, and there was simply no sharp focus). With the eye in the picture, your own optics are likely to bias any measurements.

There is considerable variation in the minimum and maximum pupil opening among individuals, and these values change with age, increasing up to age 15 or so, and then gradually decreasing with age. Folks with smaller minimum pupils might well find better optical performance than those with larger minimum pupils.

Visual acuity starts declining after about 40, and the decline accelerates as we grow older. The age of the tester could well change the measurements, as could the normal variation in visual acuity in the population.

Clear skies, Alan

[Curtis Croulet]

Visual acuity starts declining after about 40, and the decline accelerates as we grow older.

Yeah, tell me about it! |:(|

[maitreya]

Hello Birders- Just a note to let you know that the well known website "Better View Desired" sponsored by Simpson Optics, which for years has provided readers with excellent reviews of sports optics by Steve Ingraham, is now back with lots of reviews scheduled for the near future. The new reviewers are Wayne Mones of the National Audubon Society in the United States and Tom Lester of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, a conservation biologist and avid birder with a number of years of experience in wildlife habitat inventory and surveys. Wayne and Tom plan to carry on the excellent tradition set by Steve of providing readers with valuable information on binoculars, spotting scopes and related sports optics equipment to assist birders and other naturalists in their serach for the "best view desired".....

Regards,
Tom Lester
Vancouver, B.C.

Your first "review" was nothing but marketing spiel filled with rhetoric.

“The Zeiss 8x42 has plenty of eye relief to satisfy all viewers (16mm).”

This is flat out wrong. Many eyeglass wearers cannot see the whole field with only 16 mm of eye relief.

“As for depth of field (the ability to view objects in space from foreground to background without having to adjust the focus), the Zeiss 8x42 T*FL is the equal of any binocular I've used with the possible exception of the Swarovski 8.5x42 which is only marginally better.”

This is an opinion supported by any data. If there was a scientific test to establish depth of field, my opinion is that the Nikon 8x32 Premier SE would test the best.

“As most birders or hunters will agree, the true test of optical excellence in a binocular is to provide maximum image clarity and resolution at daybreak or nightfall. In my field assessments, the 8x42 T*FL binoculars consistently generated an exceptionally bright, clear image with lots of resolution and contrast whether it be at mid-day or at dawn and dusk when ambient light was minimal.”

This birder and ex-hunter does not agree. The true test of optical excellence in a binocular is the degree to which all optical aberrations and distortions are corrected. In my field assessments, the view presented by Nikon 8x32 SE’s is so well corrected that there often seems to be no glass in the bins at all. And yes I am well aware that this is a TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE opinion.

“However, when looking at targets consisting of black and white horizontal and vertical lines, I did note a very slight amount of spherical aberration at the extreme margins of the image.”

I have no doubt that objective testing would prove that the eyepieces of the Nikon 8x32 SE are far better corrected for all optical distortions and aberrations than the eyepieces of the Zeiss 8x42 FL.

“As you may have guessed by now, the rumor mill is indeed correct. Zeiss has created a true state-of-the-art series of binoculars with its Victory T*FL lineup, led by the outstanding and versatile 8x42 T*FL model.”

This is a weakly stated opinion, not supported by the facts of optical science. As I said, lets do objective optical testing of the eyepieces and see who really is providing birders with state of the art optics.

“Is it better in every respect than any other binocular in the world? Not quite. But it's pretty darn close!”

I doubt it. Let’s go birding all day. You bring the Zeiss 8x42 FL. I’ll bring my 7 year old Nikon 8x32 SE. I will do better work all day, my eyes will be less stressed at the end of the day, and I will be less tired at the end of the day.

[Tannin]

I feel very uncomfortable with the level of naked vitriol in this thread, and ask Bird Forum members to post with a little courtesy and decency.

[zuiko]

John- Well said. Unfortunately Stephen was hired by Zeiss and thus could no longer write reviews for BVD. I too valued his straight forward simple, yet very informative writing style. We'll do our best to uphold the excellent tradition established by Steve.

The fact that Stephen was hired by Zeiss is a good reason why review of the Zeiss FL should NOT have been the first binocular reviewed.

Just my opinion.

[zuiko]

Visual acuity starts declining after about 40, and the decline accelerates as we grow older.


Yeah, tell me about it! |:(|


I think you both mean ACCOMODATION is what declines; and in fact it declines way before 40 - in fact the decline is happening all through your life.

At 40 the near point of accomodation typically gets beyond an arm's stretch and therefore becomes problematic as your arm isn't long enough to hold something you want to see clearly far enough away.

That's called PRESBYOPIA.

People can and do have excellent visual acuity at 80+ years.

Regards.

[zuiko]

Just a wild guess, but you really like your Nikon 8x32 SE binoculars don't you?

:)



Your first "review" was nothing but marketing spiel filled with rhetoric.

“The Zeiss 8x42 has plenty of eye relief to satisfy all viewers (16mm).”

This is flat out wrong. Many eyeglass wearers cannot see the whole field with only 16 mm of eye relief.

“As for depth of field (the ability to view objects in space from foreground to background without having to adjust the focus), the Zeiss 8x42 T*FL is the equal of any binocular I've used with the possible exception of the Swarovski 8.5x42 which is only marginally better.”

This is an opinion supported by any data. If there was a scientific test to establish depth of field, my opinion is that the Nikon 8x32 Premier SE would test the best.

“As most birders or hunters will agree, the true test of optical excellence in a binocular is to provide maximum image clarity and resolution at daybreak or nightfall. In my field assessments, the 8x42 T*FL binoculars consistently generated an exceptionally bright, clear image with lots of resolution and contrast whether it be at mid-day or at dawn and dusk when ambient light was minimal.”

This birder and ex-hunter does not agree. The true test of optical excellence in a binocular is the degree to which all optical aberrations and distortions are corrected. In my field assessments, the view presented by Nikon 8x32 SE’s is so well corrected that there often seems to be no glass in the bins at all. And yes I am well aware that this is a TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE opinion.

“However, when looking at targets consisting of black and white horizontal and vertical lines, I did note a very slight amount of spherical aberration at the extreme margins of the image.”

I have no doubt that objective testing would prove that the eyepieces of the Nikon 8x32 SE are far better corrected for all optical distortions and aberrations than the eyepieces of the Zeiss 8x42 FL.

“As you may have guessed by now, the rumor mill is indeed correct. Zeiss has created a true state-of-the-art series of binoculars with its Victory T*FL lineup, led by the outstanding and versatile 8x42 T*FL model.”

This is a weakly stated opinion, not supported by the facts of optical science. As I said, lets do objective optical testing of the eyepieces and see who really is providing birders with state of the art optics.

“Is it better in every respect than any other binocular in the world? Not quite. But it's pretty darn close!”

I doubt it. Let’s go birding all day. You bring the Zeiss 8x42 FL. I’ll bring my 7 year old Nikon 8x32 SE. I will do better work all day, my eyes will be less stressed at the end of the day, and I will be less tired at the end of the day.

[FrankD]

Frank-

Thanks very much for this feedback. I appreciate your suggestion for taking a more "comparative" approach to doing reviews. Others have suggested using a comparative approach including the use of a matrix rating system in which several binoculars can be compared across a series of variables (eg. eyerelief, field of view, chromatic aberration, color neutrality, etc). This would also include a rating of performance relative to cost, a critical consideration when deciding what binouclar to buy.

Tom,

Thank you for taking my post constructively, as it was intended. Sorry to see you are going to take a bit more hazing. As with most equipment oriented activities I think you will find that folks are very enthusiastic about their choices and reasons for them.

On a related note, somehow I just can't fit "vitriol" into any statement that I make. It just doesn't roll off the tongue for me. ;)

[pduxon]

Your first "review" was nothing but marketing spiel filled with rhetoric.

“The Zeiss 8x42 has plenty of eye relief to satisfy all viewers (16mm).”

This is flat out wrong. Many eyeglass wearers cannot see the whole field with only 16 mm of eye relief.

“As for depth of field (the ability to view objects in space from foreground to background without having to adjust the focus), the Zeiss 8x42 T*FL is the equal of any binocular I've used with the possible exception of the Swarovski 8.5x42 which is only marginally better.”

This is an opinion supported by any data. If there was a scientific test to establish depth of field, my opinion is that the Nikon 8x32 Premier SE would test the best.

“As most birders or hunters will agree, the true test of optical excellence in a binocular is to provide maximum image clarity and resolution at daybreak or nightfall. In my field assessments, the 8x42 T*FL binoculars consistently generated an exceptionally bright, clear image with lots of resolution and contrast whether it be at mid-day or at dawn and dusk when ambient light was minimal.”

This birder and ex-hunter does not agree. The true test of optical excellence in a binocular is the degree to which all optical aberrations and distortions are corrected. In my field assessments, the view presented by Nikon 8x32 SE’s is so well corrected that there often seems to be no glass in the bins at all. And yes I am well aware that this is a TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE opinion.

“However, when looking at targets consisting of black and white horizontal and vertical lines, I did note a very slight amount of spherical aberration at the extreme margins of the image.”

I have no doubt that objective testing would prove that the eyepieces of the Nikon 8x32 SE are far better corrected for all optical distortions and aberrations than the eyepieces of the Zeiss 8x42 FL.

“As you may have guessed by now, the rumor mill is indeed correct. Zeiss has created a true state-of-the-art series of binoculars with its Victory T*FL lineup, led by the outstanding and versatile 8x42 T*FL model.”

This is a weakly stated opinion, not supported by the facts of optical science. As I said, lets do objective optical testing of the eyepieces and see who really is providing birders with state of the art optics.

“Is it better in every respect than any other binocular in the world? Not quite. But it's pretty darn close!”

I doubt it. Let’s go birding all day. You bring the Zeiss 8x42 FL. I’ll bring my 7 year old Nikon 8x32 SE. I will do better work all day, my eyes will be less stressed at the end of the day, and I will be less tired at the end of the day.

pick up bins look through them buy the ones you prefer end of story. There are a number of inaccuracies in your post including the fact that this was his first review on BVD.

At the end of the day there are a number of people who love the Nikon 8x32SE there are a number of people who hate it. You love it good for you. I frankly couldn't care less although I'm pleased you are happy with them.

The last point about days work is tosh. How do you know you'll do better work? The better birder will do "better work".

Even if we accept that the Nikon's were handed down by god and are optically perfect I wouldn't buy them since I suspect that in a tropical rain forest or when its pounding down with rain (I don't live somewhere relatively dry alas) that any of the top waterproof roofs would be a better. I accept I may be wrong.

I do own a pair of Zeiss 8x42. Are they the best bin in the world? dunno, don't care I like 'em and that's all that matters. I was birding with some folk recently one of whom owned an Ultravid. The two neutrals in the group were split 1-1. Who is right ? both parties are happy with there purchase so who cares. Both bins are superb.

You may want to check out this review of the Zeiss 8x42 FL check out the post by Leif who compares it to the 8x32 SE which he owns

http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php?product=86&sort=7&cat=9&page=1

happy christmas.

[henry link]

It's going to get tiresome if loyalists for particular binoculars begin to line up behind their favorites.

[Tannin]

On a related note, somehow I just can't fit "vitriol" into any statement that I make. It just doesn't roll off the tongue for me. ;)

There has been some quiet thread editing going on, Frank, whether by the mods or perhaps the poster in question self-edited, I don't know which. But it was just as well, it was shading over into outright abuse, and clearly not up to the usual standards of friendliness and civility we normally maintain here.

[AlanFrench]

I think you both mean ACCOMODATION is what declines; and in fact it declines way before 40 - in fact the decline is happening all through your life.

At 40 the near point of accomodation typically gets beyond an arm's stretch and therefore becomes problematic as your arm isn't long enough to hold something you want to see clearly far enough away.

That's called PRESBYOPIA.

People can and do have excellent visual acuity at 80+ years.

Regards.

Yes, older folks can have excellent visual acuity. In general, however, visual acuity declines with age, mostly due to optical changes in the eye.

According to a chart in Oyster's "The Human Eye - Structure and Function," the mean Snellen decimal acuity at age 40 is 1.2, with 80 percent of the population falling between about 0.85 and 1.55. By the age of 80, the mean Snellen decimal acuity is about 0.42, with 80 percent of the population falling between 0.0 and 0.85.

Snellen decimal acuity is the numerator of the Snellen fraction divided by the denominator. So 20/20 [6/6] vision becomes 1.0, and 20/40 [6/12] becomes 0.5.

Clear skies, Alan

[lucznik]

I certainly agree, but there are other factors at work that really complicate matters. With low power optics, the eye enters the picture in a large and variable way...

There is considerable variation in the minimum and maximum pupil opening among individuals, and these values change with age, increasing up to age 15 or so, and then gradually decreasing with age. Folks with smaller minimum pupils might well find better optical performance than those with larger minimum pupils.



I completely agree with all you've said here, which is why I want more objective, measurable testing.
Just because someone else looks through a particular binocular and thinks it's "bright and clear" doesn't mean I will experience the same when I look through it. So, what I want is testing that places quantitative, measurable data on exactly how much light (as a function of the percentage of available light) the binocular actually "transmits" under various controlled conditions. If For example (and I'm just making up these numbers so don't take them as anything but an illustration of the idea,) if I know that a Swarovski EL "transmits" 95% of available ambient light and the Zeiss FL transmits 96%, then I can OBJECTIVELY state that the Zeiss is in fact, brighter. How my eye, with its various and sundry imperfections perceives this brightness would then not be a factor.

This is the kind of testing I want to see. And I want it for all aspects of optical performance: resolution, field curvature, depth of field, chromatic abberation, etc. Then, once we have good numbers to work from in relation to optical performance, we can happily spend forever arguing the more subjective aspects of style, ergonomics, etc.

Alas, it's probably just a pipe dream.

[Mike Penfold]

Standard comparisons for eye relief, focus speed, depth of field, resolution, brightness, contrast, quality variation, warranty, and service would be nice.

Also a review of the improved ELs.

Mike

[lucznik]

On a related note, somehow I just can't fit "vitriol" into any statement that I make. It just doesn't roll off the tongue for me. ;)

Really? That's kind of funny because it is one of my very favorite words ever.

I laughed when I read it being used by Tannin because it was the first time I had ever seen it used by anyone but me in "normal conversation."

[Swissboy]

The fact that Stephen was hired by Zeiss is a good reason why review of the Zeiss FL should NOT have been the first binocular reviewed.

Just my opinion.

I fully agree, that was about the most unfortunate way to restart BVD. Leica's Ultravid as a starter would have been a way to signal a change of (perceived) attitude. I say this as one who loves his new FL.

[henry link]

I completely agree with all you've said here, which is why I want more objective, measurable testing.
Just because someone else looks through a particular binocular and thinks it's "bright and clear" doesn't mean I will experience the same when I look through it. So, what I want is testing that places quantitative, measurable data on exactly how much light (as a function of the percentage of available light) the binocular actually "transmits" under various controlled conditions. If For example (and I'm just making up these numbers so don't take them as anything but an illustration of the idea,) if I know that a Swarovski EL "transmits" 95% of available ambient light and the Zeiss FL transmits 96%, then I can OBJECTIVELY state that the Zeiss is in fact, brighter. How my eye, with its various and sundry imperfections perceives this brightness would then not be a factor.

This is the kind of testing I want to see. And I want it for all aspects of optical performance: resolution, field curvature, depth of field, chromatic abberation, etc. Then, once we have good numbers to work from in relation to optical performance, we can happily spend forever arguing the more subjective aspects of style, ergonomics, etc.

Alas, it's probably just a pipe dream.

I agree, particularly about light transmission figures. There are a few examples of actual lab measurements that have appeared here. Most recently Walter Wehr made some German tests available by e-mail which might still be accessable through him. What you will see is that even lab measurements are subject to variation, depending on what lab does the measuring and the particular specimen being measured. I would love to see light transmission graphs with transmission percentage curves plotted by wavelength, which would also indicate color accuracy.

As for resolution, you can measure that yourself by boosting the magnification of the binocular with a low power telescope behind the eyepiece and examining a resolution chart like the USAF 1951 pattern, available from Edmund Optics. You will see differences among binoculars, but you will also find that even mediocre binoculars have higher resolution than the eye can see at low binocular magnifications.

You can roughly measure or at least objectively evaluate longitudinal chromatic aberration with boosted magnification and a high contrast target, and at the same time detect and evaluate the presence of other aberrations and sample defects by star testing with an artificial star. Lateral chromatic aberration is probably best evaluated by eye, since it is so dependant on pupil positioning.

There was a long thread here and at cloudy nights on the subject of depth of field. I was eventually convinced that "real" DOF in binoculars is determined by only one factor; magnification. However, the illusion of more or less DOF can be created by a number of factors which were discussed on the threads.

If it has an accurate diopter scale, the diopter adjustment can sometimes be used to measure field curvature (at least for your own accomodation) by focusing on a distant object at the center, then using the diopter adjustment to bring it to focus at the edge, if that is possible. I think astigmatism (which will combine with field curvature) is usually a bigger problem at the field edge and that can be roughly measured by focusing on a star at the center, then moving it to the edge. If the star changes to a line parallel to the field edge that indicates astigmatism. Refocus the edge and note the length of the lines that form a small cross at best focus. The closer you can come to refocusing to a point the milder the astigmatism.

When you can't afford an optics lab you just have to improvise. ;-))

[Pinewood]

Actually, these missteps are rather useful for the restart. Readers of this forum will take any new postings with a grain of salt. A single, authoritative, universally applicable review was never possible. BVD was too positive for me on one glass, and too negative for another. Fortunately, I bought the latter on my own before I ever heard of BVD.
As Pete wrote, "Pick up bins look through them buy the ones you prefer end of story." We need a place to start our search, not some stranger prescribing something for us.
Binoculars are generally compromises, including the price point, which will allow the user to optimise his enjoyment of bird watching. Often times, we have a peculiar need or demand, which is not shared, or valued, by another expert. I demand at least an 8 degree FOV in an eight power glass which would eliminate some other's favourite.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :egghead:

[zuiko]

Yes, older folks can have excellent visual acuity. In general, however, visual acuity declines with age, mostly due to optical changes in the eye.

According to a chart in Oyster's "The Human Eye - Structure and Function," the mean Snellen decimal acuity at age 40 is 1.2, with 80 percent of the population falling between about 0.85 and 1.55. By the age of 80, the mean Snellen decimal acuity is about 0.42, with 80 percent of the population falling between 0.0 and 0.85.

Snellen decimal acuity is the numerator of the Snellen fraction divided by the denominator. So 20/20 [6/6] vision becomes 1.0, and 20/40 [6/3] becomes 0.5.

Clear skies, Alan

Thanks for the refresher course Alan.

I'm actually an optometrist and perhaps you are too. Visual acuity declines due to cataract and that is correctable. Loss of accomodation is permanent.

The underlying visual acuity decline is very small when disease states and cataract are adjusted for. Many of my patients over 65 readily achieve 6/6 vision with refraction and or cataract surgery.

Just a little correction 0.5 = 20/40 = 6/12 - not 6/3 which is the visual acuity an eagle tends to have - just to keep it birding related :)

Regards.

[AlanFrench]

Thanks for the refresher course Alan.

I'm actually an optometrist and perhaps you are too. Visual acuity declines due to cataract and that is correctable. Loss of accomodation is permanent.

The underlying visual acuity decline is very small when disease states and cataract are adjusted for. Many of my patients over 65 readily achieve 6/6 vision with refraction and or cataract surgery.

Just a little correction 0.5 = 20/40 = 6/12 - not 6/3 which is the visual acuity an eagle tends to have - just to keep it birding related :)

Regards.

No, I am not an optometrist. My interest in the eye and optics comes from an interest in telescope making, amateur astronomy, and birding, and hanging out with folks who share these interests.

Oyster writes "Even after refractive errors have been corrected, visual acuity begins to decline slowly in the mid-50s, then declines more rapidly with increasing age (Figure 10 [which I got my numbers from]). Although the data includes individuals with cataracts, macular degeneration, and other pathologies, removing these individuals from the sample does not make much difference; acuity declines with age, pathology or no."

He continues that much of the decline is due to transmission losses in the eye, and that the contrast sensitivity of older eyes is reduced.

Thanks for the correction on my metric Snellen fraction. I guess it was wishful thinking on my part <g>. I am going to fix it in the original post to avoid confusion.

Clear skies, Alan

[dickiebird]

Just a wild guess, but you really like your Nikon 8x32 SE binoculars don't you?

:)


Thanks for your insightful comments......

Regrettably, after 6 years of using my Nikon 8x32 SE's (recommended by Stephen) I put them on the shelf in favor of the Zeiss 8x42 T*FL's.

However, does that mean the Zeiss are necessarily better in all respects than many other binoculars, including models by Nikon, Leica?

Absolutely NOT!

To suggest that there is one binocular better than any other is flat out absurd and misleading.

From my experience, based on 30 years of field experience and thousands of hours doing bird counts and tracking various species of wildlife, I prefer the Zeiss to any other binocular I've used. That's my opinion. You obviously differ in your opinion......

As diversity is healthy in biological systems, so is diversity healthy when it comes to opinions....... : )

Thanks again for your constructive feedback and have a happy holiday season.

TL

[Grousemore]

For what it's worth, I recently met Steve Ingraham, by chance whilst we were both birding and he was very positive about the new reviewers on the BVD website.

I also agree with Tannin in that by all means disagree with opinions, but leave the vitriol out. They're only binoculars!

[maitreya]

From my experience, based on 30 years of field experience and thousands of hours doing bird counts and tracking various species of wildlife, I prefer the Zeiss to any other binocular I've used. That's my opinion. You obviously differ in your opinion.


I was raised as a hunter and fisherman. I have been looking at wildlife throught the best available optics for 40+ years.

In the past ten years I have spent about 10,000 hours in the field studying birds; sometimes for pleasure and often while providing avian research for government and non-government agencies. During this time, I have taught bird identification skills to hundreds of people.

I began seriously studying optical science in relation to photography and astronomy about 20 years ago. I have owned nikon cameras and lenses, leica cameras and lenses, and televue telescopes and eyepieces. For years, I ran a photography business and sold approximately 8,000 prints.

What I found absurd, was your labeling the new Zeiss as the Reference Standard without providing one iota of independently produced scientific data to support your claim. This is what marketing people do, not scientists.

[Tannin]

I'm just pleased that I managed to spell "vitriol" - apparently correctly, since no-one has complained yet. I've used the word in conversation now and again, but never in writing before, and my spelling is notorious! As for binoculars, my view is entirely one-eyed — and I mean that literally.

[Leif]

I was raised as a hunter and fisherman. I have been looking at wildlife throught the best available optics for 40+ years.

In the past ten years I have spent about 10,000 hours in the field studying birds; sometimes for pleasure and often while providing avian research for government and non-government agencies. During this time, I have taught bird identification skills to hundreds of people.

I began seriously studying optical science in relation to photography and astronomy about 20 years ago. I have owned nikon cameras and lenses, leica cameras and lenses, and televue telescopes and eyepieces. For years, I ran a photography business and sold approximately 8,000 prints.

What I found absurd, was your labeling the new Zeiss as the Reference Standard without providing one iota of independently produced scientific data to support your claim. This is what marketing people do, not scientists.

At the end of the day, it comes down to what you like the best, based on experience in the field.

Leif

[AlanFrench]

At the end of the day, it comes down to what you like the best, based on experience in the field.

Leif

Leif,

Absolutely. In my lengthy and extensive hunt for new "high end" binoculars five years ago or so one stood out in both optical performance and "fit and feel" in my hands and against my face. There were quite a few that just didn't quite satisfy me as well for one reason or another, yet they were perfectly fine instruments, and certainly do make many other birders happy. Indeed, a couple could have satisfied me, had not my "perfect" pair been around.

I do use one pair that I bought knowing I had some issues with, but it has one feature - image stabilization - that, for me, outweighs its shortcomings. Sometimes we just can't get quite everything we want in our "perfect" binocular. That's why finding something new on the market is always fun.

Actually, after many years of use, I can think of at least two ways my "perfect" pair would be even better (closer minimum focus and lighter weight), but neither has been much of an issue and I am not actively looking for something new.

Clear skies, Alan

[mooreorless]

I certainly agree, but there are other factors at work that really complicate matters. With low power optics, the eye enters the picture in a large and variable way. Under daylight conditions, the eye acts as a stop, which tends to improve the performance of any optics. With less light, the eye opens wider, increasing the aberrations it contributes to the view. (I once tried my nice 7x42s while my pupil was still dilated from an eye exam, and there was simply no sharp focus). With the eye in the picture, your own optics are likely to bias any measurements.

There is considerable variation in the minimum and maximum pupil opening among individuals, and these values change with age, increasing up to age 15 or so, and then gradually decreasing with age. Folks with smaller minimum pupils might well find better optical performance than those with larger minimum pupils.

Visual acuity starts declining after about 40, and the decline accelerates as we grow older. The age of the tester could well change the measurements, as could the normal variation in visual acuity in the population.

Clear skies, Alan
Hi Alan,Thanks for posting about this subject.I did the same thing after I came home from an eye exam with dilated pupils and like you there was not a sharp focus in my Nikon 10 SE.I also noticed while doing some testing on a spotting scope using an Edmund resolving power chart on a very bright day,I would go inside to write stuff down etc. and then go right out to the eyepiece after being inside for a while and it would take a little bit before anything would really be sharp.The scope was on my covered back porch.I also noticed more CA at these times.
Steve