• 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 (1 Viewer)

I agree that the relative merits for a test of this type are questionable - but to all the detractors - seriously, let's see your version of the same test. And I say seriously as there are a few posters to this thread that I would really like to see do a comprehensive bino. test as I value their opinions and methods.

Without tests like these, this place would be a ghost-town so I appreciate the fodder they provide - even if the fodder is along the lines of ''this test is useless.''8-P
 
Thing I found most interesting is the spread of "the new mid range" catagory... $700 to $1999.

That's a big price range.

Also nice to see the 8x32 conquest hd high on the list.

CG
 
Bushnell elite 8x42 cost $750, legend 10x25 $275, if that's what they paid I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.
 
Thing I found most interesting is the spread of "the new mid range" catagory... $700 to $1999.

That's a big price range.

Also nice to see the 8x32 conquest hd high on the list.

CG
What surprises me is how poorly the EDG's did. The Monarch 7 according to them is just as good. They must not value sharp edges as in the EDG and Swarovision.
 
I agree that the relative merits for a test of this type are questionable - but to all the detractors - seriously, let's see your version of the same test. And I say seriously as there are a few posters to this thread that I would really like to see do a comprehensive bino. test as I value their opinions and methods.

Without tests like these, this place would be a ghost-town so I appreciate the fodder they provide - even if the fodder is along the lines of ''this test is useless.''8-P

You're just saying that because they weighted Zeiss a tenth of a point more than Swaro. If it had been the other way around, you'd be singing a different tune. ;)

<B>
 
Zeiss came out looking pretty good. It's worth checking the pdf of the overall scores for every binocular. The Conquest ranks with the best for 1/2-1/3 the price. The terra didn't score badly. either. A shame though that some of the models we have discussed recently here are absent (Hawthorne, ED3, etc.)
 
I went through it more thoroughly, what happened is they gave everybody (60 reviewers!) a couple binoculars and asked them to rate it. So you ended up with a bunch of very subjective ratings that doesn't compare at all, they even admit to that.

So there's nothing scientific, or useful about the review.
 
Last edited:
I've tried to come up with an analogy to illustrate the problem with such a test.

The TV show Top Gear is an entertainment program not a scientific study but they do try to illustrate the relative performance of different cars by using racing drivers to do timed laps. If you look down the list below you will see three Formula-1 drivers in a Suzuki Liana managed times between 1:42.00 and 1:44.30 (minutes:seconds) compared to the fastest car/driver combination at 1:10.6. An informative if not scientific comparison you might think.

They also put 65 random celebrities in the same Suzuki and got times between 1:46.7 and 2:06.0. I'd call that a test of the driver not the car, but that's pretty much what Cornell did and lumped those results with random other parameters to give an meaningless score.

Eyesight and particularly personal preference are probably a lot more variable than driving skills.

David

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/top_gear_track.html
http://topgear.wikia.com/wiki/Star_in_a_Reasonably-Priced_Car
 
I went through it more thoroughly, what happened is they gave everybody (60 reviewers!) a couple binoculars and asked them to rate it. So you ended up with a bunch of very subjective ratings that doesn't compare at all, they even admit to that.

So there's nothing scientific, or useful about the review.

If that's the case then yea the review will be just too subjective.

But the little CL ranking high IS accurate...muwahaha!
*kidding* :0)
 
Thing I found most interesting is the spread of "the new mid range" catagory... $700 to $1999.

That's a big price range.

Also nice to see the 8x32 conquest hd high on the list.

CG


While overall I liked the run-down and article, I have to agree with this.
 
I went through it more thoroughly, what happened is they gave everybody (60 reviewers!) a couple binoculars and asked them to rate it. So you ended up with a bunch of very subjective ratings that doesn't compare at all, they even admit to that.

So there's nothing scientific, or useful about the review.


If that is true it explains the "random number generator" feel of some of the scores. For example compare the Vortex Viper HD and Eagle Optics Golden Eagle HD scores. Both in 8x42. These are, literally, the same binocular, just in different colors and a different brand logo. Yet significantly different scored for eyeglass friendliness, for example, despite having literally identical eyecups and eye relief.

It would have been nice to see at least a shred of objectively quantifiable stuff; even the Porters use boosted resolution tests in their scoring.

But I did enjoy it and it's always fun to read these, despite the flaws. Almost as enjoyable reading as some of the self righteously outraged comments by some here 8-P
 
Last edited:
I've tried to come up with an analogy to illustrate the problem with such a test.

The TV show Top Gear is an entertainment program not a scientific study but they do try to illustrate the relative performance of different cars by using racing drivers to do timed laps. If you look down the list below you will see three Formula-1 drivers in a Suzuki Liana managed times between 1:42.00 and 1:44.30 (minutes:seconds) compared to the fastest car/driver combination at 1:10.6. An informative if not scientific comparison you might think.

They also put 65 random celebrities in the same Suzuki and got times between 1:46.7 and 2:06.0. I'd call that a test of the driver not the car, but that's pretty much what Cornell did and lumped those results with random other parameters to give an meaningless score.

Eyesight and particularly personal preference are probably a lot more variable than driving skills.

David

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/top_gear_track.html
http://topgear.wikia.com/wiki/Star_in_a_Reasonably-Priced_Car

When it comes to scientific parameters then I agree 100% David.

But when it comes down to it, much of what is attractive (or not) about a pair of bins is subjective and a test like this one is as useful as 50% of what is posted on BF.

Oh.

I see.

Right you are...:-O

Lee
 
I've taken and enjoyed this review at face value ; it's just a consumer magazine article !!

Highly and quite justifiably subjective, and why not ?

Clearly a great deal of time and effort was put into the review, and clearly for manufacturers and products not represented ... if they're not sent they cannot be reviewed.

It's a great snapshot of consumer opinion, nothing more.
 
Frankly, what this review shows is that at various price points, other than the obvious objective differences, the top rated bins are pretty much interchangeable and based on reviewer preferences and perceptions. The edge that one reviewer gives to one of the top six alphas vs. another is insignificant. We all know that the top bins from Zeiss, Swaro, and Leica are superb and the subjective differences on these reviews were fractional.

I understand this would have been a much more scientific review to the Swaro and Leica fanboys if their bins had taken the #1 and #2 spot. As a Zeiss fanboy, it seemed just about right to me!

;)
 
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