• 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.

Mega Review of the best 8x42... (1 Viewer)

Sorry, dennis, that's not true. Perform a few basic optical tests and you'll find plenty of defects in alpha level binoculars. Binomania apparently didn't do any technical tests for sample defects so they and we can't know whether some of their test binoculars were cherries and some lemons.

Give me some documented cases where you have tested a Swarovski binocular and found optical defects and what were they. I would be very interested in hearing what kind of optical defects you have observed on them because Swarovski prides themselves on quality control and 100% testing of all binoculars being shipped to assure no problems. This would be very interesting because it could alert us to defects that we should look for when we buy binoculars that perhaps the normal consumer would not notice. Or anybody else reading this thread let's hear the defects you have had with Swarovski or perhaps any other alpha level binocular so we can find out if this really is a common problem.
 
Last edited:
The idea that the Alpha level binoculars vary that much in quality is a bunch of baloney.

Sorry but I have to agree with the others as well. In my relatively small sampling of Alphas that I have owned they can, and do, suffer from quality control issues...be it optical or mechanical. Granted, it does seem more well controlled than some less expensive models that I have handled but the QC issues are still there. A Leica Trinovid 7x42 comes to mind as does a Zeiss FL and one or two others.

I have only owned 4 Swarovskis and, dare I say it?....I didn't notice any QC issues with any of them in regular use.
 
Sorry but I have to agree with the others as well. In my relatively small sampling of Alphas that I have owned they can, and do, suffer from quality control issues...be it optical or mechanical. Granted, it does seem more well controlled than some less expensive models that I have handled but the QC issues are still there. A Leica Trinovid 7x42 comes to mind as does a Zeiss FL and one or two others.

I have only owned 4 Swarovskis and, dare I say it?....I didn't notice any QC issues with any of them in regular use.

What kind of problems did you have with the Leica and the Zeiss FL? Were they optical or mechanical? I can see mechanical problems happening more frequently than optical. Were they used binoculars or new?
 
My comment there was not to start a brand conflict... it is just that, for us consumers and such it is normal to do 1 sample-1 observer comparisons, because well... it is as technical as we can possibly put out.

But for a test like that... I think they were supposed to be more careful on the methodology.

Too many observers for single sample... is just a way to multiply wrong results.

It is like if I tested/analyzed 10 times the same single blood sample.

It is not how it works... as far more precise results are achieved by simply testing 2 times, 2 blood samples(recheck exams; they don´t use the first sample, they collect another).

Also, if maybe I am asking too much on the samples things, far more complicated is the fact that they included an IS Bino. That is something so strange that really put in risk all the technical aspect of the test.
And look at the canon scores... it is very high.
Don´t get me wrong that IS system is brilliant, and the Canon bino is great... but we know that against tripoded binos an IS Canon can´t hold it self, there is a moving prism inside that, and we know their glass is not on par of the others.
The impressive result is mainly because of the IS system... what lead me to the conclusion that some of the testers were REALLY doing it handheld. And that alone in my opinion already throw all pure precision on the floor.

They even may be right about the end result... but the method is fumbled. Or, to put in better words, it is more subjective than objective, considering the careless method.
 
Last edited:
I know someone who claims he's seen new Zeiss bins with internal fingerprints, and that he owns one with a dust particle or hair visible when looking through it.
FWIW, I have seen a new and never opened Omega wristwatch with a tiny hair between the glass and the face.
 
Hello, i am Ivan Tardio, the guy at binomania's challenge.

Mr Cavallazzi, i think that we can recognize a bad sample of bino, every tester at the challange has enought experience.
For example, we had a Minox HG with some optical problem, indeed you cannot see the score of that bino on graphs ;)

We had 3 sample of Leica, one with some minor problem at focus and dioptrix, we chosen the best for the test.
For us the Leica HD is obviously a good binocular, but is not as sharp as the Swarovision.
The Leica HD has more chromatic aberration than a Kowa Prominar that is significantly cheaper. For these reasons Leica's score is lower.

The Canon IS ofc has been tested without IS, the performance optical seems to me very good, not a Swarovision but better then a Kowa/Meopta. At the center field, as you can see, it score a bit more then Leica but less then a SLC HD.
Canon win on Leica especially for chromatic aberration, sharpness and contrast are at the same level.

Everyone used a tripod, especially me, you just saw few pics of the two days ;)

As we said in the review, we did our best and ofc we know that this scores cannot be perfectly objective. We are not computers :)

greets from Italy,
sorry for my bad English.
 
Last edited:
I know someone who claims he's seen new Zeiss bins with internal fingerprints, and that he owns one with a dust particle or hair visible when looking through it.
FWIW, I have seen a new and never opened Omega wristwatch with a tiny hair between the glass and the face.

Hello, first of all, thanks for the comments, and excuse me for my poor english As I wrote in the article, this review is simple a visual test and it is obviously opinable. I am also write that they have had the opportunity to test only a pair of exemplar ( i write "a pair" because some of the tester owned similar binocular, for example Ugo Lazzara has all the TOP THE GAMMA so we have also done some comparation. . I wanted to organize this test to show only that, many times, the choice of a binocular depends on very personal tastes. Sure it's very difficult to test these binoculars together. Anyway I tested for my website, all these binoculars, using them for many months and I must say, in my humble opinon, that the boys have done a good job. A clarification: the binoculars were used both by hand and then were mounted on a tripods. In the picture you see only one or two tripod, but there were others. We used the heads of berlebach, because, being universal, we could fix all binoculars. The Canon 10x42 IS has been used either freehand , on a tripod with IS off and also freehand with IS OFF. The main problem, using Canon, is the panning use to chasing birds. When the animal moves, often you must move the focus knob and the VAP system goes crazy. Again there were different opinions. We also had a copy of Swarovski SLC 10x42 HD. I tried it against the Canon IS. On the tripod Swarovski SLC HD had more contrast and sharpness. but if I want , by free hand, to observe the colors of a bird "standing" on a branch, with the IS active ,the canon permit to me to see more particulars.. By contrast, the SLC HD was better during the panning and with i do rapid movement.Besides, at night the Swaro SLC HD was much brighter, respect the Canon, but the Zeiss 10x42 of Ugo Lazzare, was even better!. In short, the choice of binoculars is very, very personal, I hope you have understood what I have written;) I can hardly write in English.
Piergiovanni
 
Last edited:
We had 3 sample of Leica, one with some minor problem at focus and dioptrix, we chosen the best for the test.
For us the Leica HD is obviously a good binocular, but is not as sharp as the Swarovision.
The Leica HD has more chromatic aberration than a Kowa Prominar that is significantly cheaper. For these reasons Leica's score is lower.

hello mr.Tardio! ^_^

thank you very much for the clarification...:-O

again, its a great review indeed!:t:

best regards
Galih
 
We all agree it is easy to measure the characteristics of a photographic or other lens system against a specification by defining a standard test setup, and by sampling enough copies you can define the characteristics of your production.
Depending on the price point this sampling and the allowed variations will change, and there will always be greater or lesser variation depending on the manufacturers process and policies.
We also agree that every binocolar design is a compromise that may suit different individuals.
My main question is - is there any properly conducted research or documentation of any kind that gives any sort of guidance for the number of human testers that are needed to give a statistically supportable result when the final (non-standard) optical element is added - our eyes (also possibly glasses) and the translation given by our brains?
Without this I have no confidence (statistical or otherwise) that a single human observer will (or won't) arrive at a solution that is meaningful for me.
If, as I suspect there is no such research, then multiple observer testing - as in this case (thank you Piergiovanni and all others involved) is a worthwhile and valuable addition to listening to everyones views on this forum and personally trying the things.

As an ageing industrial mathematician I am interested to know if there is an answer to my question!
 
Last edited:
I know someone who claims he's seen new Zeiss bins with internal fingerprints, and that he owns one with a dust particle or hair visible when looking through it.
FWIW, I have seen a new and never opened Omega wristwatch with a tiny hair between the glass and the face.

Yes. But a defect like that would be noticed don't you think and the binocular would have been replaced before the competition began.
 
Give me some documented cases where you have tested a Swarovski binocular and found optical defects and what were they. I would be very interested in hearing what kind of optical defects you have observed on them because Swarovski prides themselves on quality control and 100% testing of all binoculars being shipped to assure no problems. This would be very interesting because it could alert us to defects that we should look for when we buy binoculars that perhaps the normal consumer would not notice. Or anybody else reading this thread let's hear the defects you have had with Swarovski or perhaps any other alpha level binocular so we can find out if this really is a common problem.

I've left a long trail of posts here describing aberrations and sample defects in alpha binoculars and scopes. You're welcome to examine it, but I don't think you'll find what you're looking for because I've tried not to single out any particular manufacturer for condemnation or praise. That would require a very large test sample. It wouldn't be based on the self-congratulations of marketing material.

Returning to the Binomania tests, there are numerous examples of binoculars judged to be more or less sharp than others. What causes that, design or sample defect? A defective specimen is the first possibility that needs to be eliminated. Sample defects in binoculars are usually visually subtle because the magnification is so low, but they can cause a loss of sharpness and contrast. I know it's impractical to test many samples, but it's not so tough to bench test single specimens before they are submitted to the group.

I also agree with Ivan that the Canon doesn't belong in this test group.
 
Last edited:
"For example, we had a Minox HG with some optical problem, indeed you cannot see the score of that bino on graphs"

As a Minox Hg owner I'm dissapointed to hear about this, Hopefully Minox sent a good one to test as they are an excellent bin. Except the bad example that ye had.;) Ger.
 
I remember getting a brand new Swarovski EL32 and that had collimation problems which needed it to be sent back to Austria, they didn't repair it though they just sent me a fresh one, so yes i believe any alpha can come from the factory with a defect.

Anyway thats history, i have my 12x50SV now and i am going out to get my eyeballs high on the majestic views this baby gives, 8x magnification?, hehehe not for me anymore 3:)
 
Returning to the Binomania tests, there are numerous examples of binoculars judged to be more or less sharp than others. What causes that? A defective specimen is the first possibility that needs to be eliminated. I know it's impractical to test many samples, but it's not so tough to bench test the single specimens before they are submitted to the group.

I also agree with Ivan that the Canon doesn't belong in this test group.

They must have gotten a bunch of lemons, then? You seem to suggest that all these bins should be equal in terms of sharpness. They should be darn close of course (that's an impressive selection) but differences do exist and the results aren't really surprising are they? Well, maybe the Leica, but apparently they had multiple samples of that one. I have to think there was some serious splitting of hairs involved as well. Overall, though, the results aren't too surprising.

A question: what is "corrected field"?

A comment: The Edg is clearly priced way too high over there. How does Nikon expect to sell ANY at that price?

Mark
 
They must have gotten a bunch of lemons, then? You seem to suggest that all these bins should be equal in terms of sharpness. They should be darn close of course (that's an impressive selection) but differences do exist and the results aren't really surprising are they? Well, maybe the Leica, but apparently they had multiple samples of that one. I have to think there was some serious splitting of hairs involved as well. Overall, though, the results aren't too surprising.

A question: what is "corrected field"?

A comment: The Edg is clearly priced way too high over there. How does Nikon expect to sell ANY at that price?

Mark
Hi folks!
Mark, i don't know because Nikon has fixed that price in Italy, in Germany, for example, it costs 1600-1800 euro!!!! i have some friend that has bought these binoculars in Germany..
I've received late a new Minox APO HG 8x42.(The copy we have received from an optical shop, not directly from Minox, had a doublet moved, perhaps for a big shock)
For now, I can tell you that if we had had this copy, it'd placed very, very well in comparison. It is also very light, like all products Minox. i'll write a review in the next week..
By the way,in my humble opinion,many factors involved in the visual observation that it is very difficult to say a thing with certainty In addition, the system "eye-brain" varies from person to person. I notice this often when I organize events and workshops, or when we get together with friends to observe the planets through the telescopes. Using the same instrument, there are, always, different results. .In addition to this i think that using a 8X binoculars,where you can not use all their power of resolution, the personal visual acquit is very important. Even with the telescopes, there are people who need high magnification to see planetary detail , while some people need to low magnifications.
I also noticed that some people perceive the chromatic aberration in a different way ,from one eye to another! or that some peolpe fail to notice the differences of tonality of colour. In short, we all take only personal impressions. no MTF tests. .-)

We don't want to "teach others" what to buy. As Piero Pignatta, wrote in his impressions: I will not choose the binoculars that have the highest score, I 've always chosen my binoculars for other factors, often "very, very human
so..." I call this "feeling" :)
piergiovanni
 
They must have gotten a bunch of lemons, then? You seem to suggest that all these bins should be equal in terms of sharpness.

No, More likely the usual spread of strong, average and weak specimens. I'm suggesting that the reasons for the differences in sharpness are important to know.
 
@Ivan Tardio

Thanks for the input!
And please don´t ask sorry for the English, because I am dual-citizen... Brazilian-Italian... and for my shame I can´t speak 1 word in Italian =(. I hope I fix that in the years to come^^.

It is good to know that you people had more samples. And obviously I trust your and the others expertise.

But sorry to insist on the Canon. Even without IS it is too aberrant for comparison.
For start: It is porro, its prism is different, ergonomics-weight-maintenance-durability. So many things different... in my opinion the fact that it is porro, alone, already makes the comparison ... awkward.

But thanks a lot for the tests!


@Kammerdiner
A comment: The Edg is clearly priced way too high over there. How does Nikon expect to sell ANY at that price?

The exactly same thing happens to their scopes. I don´t know how Nikon manage to sell those... the prostaff, the 60 and 82 fieldscope and their EDG series!! They all look so overpriced that I wonder if their mix some diamonds in their prism.
 
I personally love this type of test, even with the inherent methodology limits.

What I would really love, though, is a member here [Henry?] conducting a simliar test to their own high standards [multiple samples, boosted resolution tests, transmission tests etc.]

I want tests with imperical data and less opinion, as personal opinion is completely variable.

BTW - I have no problem with the results of this test and it proves the SV is a very fine piece of kit. I also find it remarkable that the 8 year old FL's are still so close! [and good value too]
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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