Cornell Review Ratings of Audubon Image Quality (1 Viewer)

If anyone here has read the Cornell Lab Review, do you agree with the findings on the Audubon 8.5X44 for image quality? Cornell gave the Audubons a 3.8 out of a possible 5.0 for Image Quality, while S. Ingraham in BVD rated them even with the 8.5X42 Swaro EL's. From other reviewers or forums comments on these binoculars, I would have expected a much higher Image Quality ratings. Does anyone have any comments on the image quality of these binoculars? I would like any comments on the image quality of these binos. Was it possible the Cornell review had some flaws in the review, or possibly had a poor qulity Audubon?

Hogjaws

Hogjaws said:

If anyone here has read the Cornell Lab Review, do you agree with the findings on the Audubon 8.5X44 for image quality? Cornell gave the Audubons a 3.8 out of a possible 5.0 for Image Quality, while S. Ingraham in BVD rated them even with the 8.5X42 Swaro EL's. From other reviewers or forums comments on these binoculars, I would have expected a much higher Image Quality ratings. Does anyone have any comments on the image quality of these binoculars? I would like any comments on the image quality of these binos. Was it possible the Cornell review had some flaws in the review, or possibly had a poor qulity Audubon?

Hogjaws

Click to expand...

I did not agree.

I compared a new Swift 820 to a Nikon SE 8X32 and the only thing I did not like about the Swift was the shallow useable eye relief. The Swift image was excellent.

John

Hogjaws said:

If anyone here has read the Cornell Lab Review, do you agree with the findings on the Audubon 8.5X44 for image quality? Cornell gave the Audubons a 3.8 out of a possible 5.0 for Image Quality, while S. Ingraham in BVD rated them even with the 8.5X42 Swaro EL's. From other reviewers or forums comments on these binoculars, I would have expected a much higher Image Quality ratings. Does anyone have any comments on the image quality of these binoculars? I would like any comments on the image quality of these binos. Was it possible the Cornell review had some flaws in the review, or possibly had a poor qulity Audubon?

Hogjaws

Click to expand...

I concur with John, the swifts are great optically, though have noticable chromatic aberration and are a handful, even for me at 6'0". Otherwise, hands down the best optics for the buck--I had a pair for 7 years before they were stolen and probably would have used them for ten more. The cornell rating could have been the result of a bad pair, the bulky handling shading peoples impressions, or people responding to the CA.

Cheers,
C

I agree with John. My Audubon's have very good optical quality, but the useable eye relief is very shallow, not the 17mm claimed by Swift.
You have to like holding and using Porro bins (which I do) to really enjoy using these every day. Strong focus fingers help. I also am over 6ft tall, so maybe they are easier for me than for someone with smaller hands.
As for the Cornell optics review. I think it is not a well-designed study. The 1-5 ratings are, in the end, just a subjective survey of a handful of people who tried some of the bins for a few minutes each indoors. They were asked to rate certain qualities with 1-5 afterwards. As information, it's better than nothing, but not by much. However, the objective information on the chart is useful to facilitate quick comparisons.
Sorry I dont have a link to the chart handy. This is just a quick note based on my impressions reading the chart and article last week.
Marc

I would take Ingraham's word over the CLO's on this one. My experience with the Audubon binoculars is that they are optically very good, certainly worth a higher rating than 3.8/5. Now, I say that as one who has studiously avoided looking through expensive binoculars for fear of getting optics envy, so take that with a grain of salt. ;-) But in several years of using them, I have had no reason to complain about the image.

I think the latest Cornell review rated the 820 Audubon. In that regard I agree with the earlier posts and think it got a bum deal. The earlier 804 HR/5 Audubon was equal or better than the 820, IMO, and can still hold its own with just about anything out there in the roof prism world.

Ed

I would like any comments on the image quality of these binos. Was it possible the Cornell review had some flaws in the review, or possibly had a poor qulity Audubon?

Click to expand...

Yes, the review was quite flawed as has been discussed ad nausium in previous threads. Not to start another round of "debate," of course.

dendroica_john said:

Now, I say that as one who has studiously avoided looking through expensive binoculars for fear of getting optics envy...

Click to expand...

Ahh, the rare wise one among us...

Cheers,
C

Hogjaws said:

If anyone here has read the Cornell Lab Review, do you agree with the findings on the Audubon 8.5X44 for image quality? Cornell gave the Audubons a 3.8 out of a possible 5.0 for Image Quality, while S. Ingraham in BVD rated them even with the 8.5X42 Swaro EL's. From other reviewers or forums comments on these binoculars, I would have expected a much higher Image Quality ratings. Does anyone have any comments on the image quality of these binoculars? I would like any comments on the image quality of these binos. Was it possible the Cornell review had some flaws in the review, or possibly had a poor qulity Audubon?

Hogjaws

Click to expand...

I agree with the Cornell review after owning the Audubon 8.5X44's. I have owned many of the binoculars in the Cornell Review and I think the ratings are pretty damn good! Compare your Audubon's to the top rated Nikon Monarch 8x42(In the mid-priced category) and you will see that the Monarch's will blow them away. People think there binoculars are great but you have to compare them side by side with something better to see the difference. I think the 3.8 rating is pretty much right on in my opinion.

Dennis

[email protected] said:

I agree with the Cornell review after owning the Audubon 8.5X44's. I have owned many of the binoculars in the Cornell Review and I think the ratings are pretty damn good! Compare your Audubon's to the top rated Nikon Monarch 8x42(In the mid-priced category) and you will see that the Monarch's will blow them away. People think there binoculars are great but you have to compare them side by side with something better to see the difference. I think the 3.8 rating is pretty much right on in my opinion.

Dennis

Click to expand...

Dennis,

The Monarch is a nice binocular. However, after examining several samples in the past year I can say with certainty that not one would beat a decent Swift 820 in overall optical performance. For starters, the Monarch 8X42 has a very narrow 330' FOV and its image lacks the same level of crispness found in excellent porros like the Swift. The Monarch also suffers from significant CA. It's one of the best mid-priced bins, but there are many bins that surpass it in overall quality.

John