• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Best Binoculars of 2013: The Cornell Lab Review (2 Viewers)

Boy, I can find absolutely nothing on Cornell's site. Interested in reading this but why do I guess that the HT 8x42 is the new top pick? :D
 
They probably tested only one bin of each type. If it was a lemon then....
They missed that the Prime is waterproof.
I guess the warranty column is mostly valid for bins bought in the USA.

Anders
 
Last edited:
Calling the 8x32 SV 4.8 and the 8x32 FL 5.0, in terms of optical "crispness" is nutzo. Not so. I've had them both for over a year. The FL drags far behind. Give it a try.

Keep in mind that Cornell is under a budgetery gun, nationwide gun really, so what can we do to drum up some bucks?? Yup, I know 'bout that crap. Wallowing in it for years. Ugh. It's got not so much to do with reality.

Mark


....shoot the messenger, if the message delivered isn't party-line.....

Anyway, we know that sample variation is probably enough for such differences to be noticed - so, maybe a poor Swaro sample, or a cherry Zeiss. I have little doubt that the SV does indeed best the FL in some categories.

I'm a bit chuffed that the FL bested the HT in clarity, crispness but, then again, the FL has always been a super-sharp bino.
 
Last edited:
Did they use a random number generator to get these values?
Just a look at the figures for eyeglass friendliness arouses this suspicion - absolutely absurd!

John
 
....shoot the messenger, if the message delivered isn't party-line.....

Anyway, we know that sample variation is probably enough for such differences to be noticed - so, maybe a poor Swaro sample, or a cherry Zeiss. I have little doubt that the SV does indeed best the FL in some categories.

I'm a bit chuffed that the FL bested the HT in clarity, crispness but, then again, the FL has always been a super-sharp bino.

This is weird as you quoted a reply to the thread by Kammer that I don't see. Was it deleted or something?
 
I suspect it tells us rather more about the testers than the binoculars but since we don't know the controls (if any) in the study or the distribution of the raw data it's probably best to ignore it all together.

David
 
This is weird as you quoted a reply to the thread by Kammer that I don't see. Was it deleted or something?

Yes, whats going on? Nothing really objectionable about Mark's post.

Are the thought police on BF active again and hiding under a similar cloud of anonymity to the NSA?

John
 
This is a complete test, and the typical ones are placed as they should.
I did not know EO made so many binoculars, they all must be in the test.

Zeiss has done well here, and as they have redesigned the whole
lineup, it shows.

One thing I noticed is they have the weights of many of the binoculars in
error. I quickly counted 8 that are off by 5 oz. or so. They are off on 6 of
the Zeiss models. They posted much less than actual mfr. posted weights.
That should have been caught by anyone doing a proof.

Jerry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top