-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
New BVD Nikon HG review (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter FrankD
- Start date
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
FrankD said:
Too cautious.
Wayne, line them up and tell us which one you like best and why, and tell us the strengths and weaknesses of each.
One of those NEED tests would be welcome.
Stewart J.
Well-known member
Photo downloads a pain even with broadband, agree with the findings though, more than happy with mine.
Good birding in 2006 all
Stewart
Good birding in 2006 all
Stewart
Again, this review (like the review of the Zeiss FL) is conspicuously devoid of any definitive, useful, comparative information. All he really said was "I like them." Only, he used a lot more words than I have here.
Otto is also correct in saying the review was "too cautious." "Damning with faint praise" was a phrase that kept coming to mind as I read.
Here's the big thing for me. The Nikon Venturer was the BVD "reference standard." Now, the Zeiss Vicotory FL has been given that title. The first two new reviews for BVD are for these very two binoculars (O.K. so the Nikon is a somewhat modified version of the original Venturer) and I after reading both reviews, I still have no idea why the Zeiss was deemed as better and the Nikon as inferior (even if it was only marginally so.)
Otto is also correct in saying the review was "too cautious." "Damning with faint praise" was a phrase that kept coming to mind as I read.
Here's the big thing for me. The Nikon Venturer was the BVD "reference standard." Now, the Zeiss Vicotory FL has been given that title. The first two new reviews for BVD are for these very two binoculars (O.K. so the Nikon is a somewhat modified version of the original Venturer) and I after reading both reviews, I still have no idea why the Zeiss was deemed as better and the Nikon as inferior (even if it was only marginally so.)
There's an easy answer.lucznik said:
The Zeiss FL 8X42 has a marginally sharper, sweeter, more intriguing centerfield than the Nikon 8X42 LXL. Where the Zeiss struggles to maintain perfection across a magical 405’ field of view, the Nikon effortlessly transports the viewer, edge-to-edge across a field-worthy 366’ field of view. If your birding style demands the absolute finest centerfield resolution, put the Zeiss FL on your short list. If you’re willing to trade a seemingly imperceptible amount of centerfield perfection for a relaxed, uniform view the Nikon LXL is a perfect choice.
Colors are faithfully represented in both binoculars to the point that each will command legions of loyalists.
The Zeiss FL minimizes chromatic aberration (CA) better than the Nikon LXL. If CA is a major concern, the Zeiss is a better choice.
Zeiss wins the review on two counts: (1) superior centerfield resolution and (2) near absence of chromatic aberration. Forget about butterflies, brightness and everything else you read. Parallax will kill your close ups and both models are bright enough for most users. The FL magically suppresses CA and has a near-perfect centerfield that is intoxicating the first time you see it. That’s what makes people fall in love with the FL.
John
PS
If I had to choose between the Nikon 8X42 LXL and the Zeiss 8X42 FL I’d buy the Nikon 8X32 SE or the Leica Ultravid 7X42 or both. I told you there was an easy answer!
Last edited:
FrankD
Well-known member
Though I agree that it was not as critical or as comparitive as I would have liked he did at least mention some features he found less than desirable...or that needed some work yet.
John,
An excellent comparison of the optical qualities of the bins in question.
On another note, I tried replying to your PM but your PM box is full. I sent you an email. Hope you received it.
Thank you John, that is actually a useful comparison. Which just serves to punctuate my point that the two BVD reviews were useless because despite being individually and collectively significantly longer than your post here, neither of them gave 1/10th the amount of useable information. And certainly not a bonefide comparison on why the Zeiss might be somehow better than the Nikon.
(Maybe you should go write for BVD and let Wayne and Tom spend some quality time learning how to write better.)
(Maybe you should go write for BVD and let Wayne and Tom spend some quality time learning how to write better.)
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
FrankD said:
No disrespect to anyone, but that is a wonderful insight, Frank. Re-views are essentially constrained by the prism of the reviewer, which Steve embodied in transient "reference standards." This establishes performance hurdles to meet or exceed for new products, but also tends to limit what is taken into consideration holistically.
If I have a constructive critcism for the new BVD reviewers, it is that they seem to be using Steve Ingraham's old prism rather than grinding one of their own.
Ed
Last edited:
angelo225544
Well-known member
We all owe a great debt to Mr. Ingraham. His insightful and often sharply critical reviews have been, at least in part, responsible for the current crop of wonderful birding glasses.
Last edited:
I often wonder how much "paralysis by analysis" results from pseduo-scientific reports. The moment I bring an optical instrument to my eyes I bias the outcome and to pretend that my analysis is objective-based is utter nonsense. Human perception is far too complex and variable to think otherwise.angelo225544 said:
John
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
John Traynor said:
Basically, a reviewer should attempt to be fair and objective by using scientific method and personal discipline. Logically, there is no requirement that a "best product" emerge, so it is well advised that empty rhetoric be avoided.
* Scientific method: (noun) a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
Scientific method is the common denominator that allows humans to discuss their thoughts rationally. The rest is ... not worth very much.
Ed
Last edited:
Hi BF
I will say that in my small opinion I tried several Zeiss FL's that were less than pefect (collimation, etc) and my LXL was perfect and others at B&H were too. Nikon may have better quality control in my opinion. Nikon for my eyes has a better view. So far haven't found the Zeiss FL that makes me say WOW.
Carlos
I will say that in my small opinion I tried several Zeiss FL's that were less than pefect (collimation, etc) and my LXL was perfect and others at B&H were too. Nikon may have better quality control in my opinion. Nikon for my eyes has a better view. So far haven't found the Zeiss FL that makes me say WOW.
Carlos
|JF|Cpl.eagle
New member
I tried it too, it works very good. Upper class.
