• 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.

Audubon Guide to Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Thanks for posting. I generally do not agree with the rankings but they are fun to read. The value in it for me is to sometimes bring recognition to a model that I may have not considered.

The second tier ($1,000 - $2,000) sure took a shellacking in the scoring compared to the next two lower groups! The mighty Zeiss Terra 8X42 from the lower group outscored (4.15) the second tier first place winner Leica Ultravid HD Plus 8X32 (3.93) and the remaining even lower scoring models in the second tier group. Now that is going to leave a mark. :king:

Another thing that caught my attention was the rankings in the midrange group. First was the Vortex Viper HD 8X42 (4.33) yet fourth was the Eagle Optics Golden Eagle HD 8X42 (4.02). These are the same binocular other than the armor color and brand labels. I guess green earns some bonus points. It is also strange that whoever put the test together would put in two of the same binocular.

Finally, considering this is an evaluation of binoculars for birding, how does the Vortex Viper 8X42 with only a 347 ft FOV get first in class when the other models (excluding the identical Eagle) range from 372 ft ot 388 ft. I would have thought the tunnel like view would have been a real score killer.
 
Last edited:
They have the FOV's of both the Nikon Monarch 7 and Monarch Prostaff 3S seriously wrong!

Clearly nobody proof read the specifications.

They have the Monarch7 with a FOV of 351'@1000 yards. It is 420'@1000 yards and the Prostaff 3S is 330'@1000yds not 413'@1000yards.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Hi,

I think the methodology of the test leaves sth to be desired... they had testers choose a price group (color coded) and test all the bins in there which makes comparison of the marks between the groups difficult at best...

Joachim
 
I guess it's at least SOMETHING for a novice to go on. Top two tiers are all really good binoculars as we all know as well as the middle group.

Vortex Viper HD 8X42...IMO...it's FOV has ALWAYS kinda held it back. For an 8X42 it's really towards the back of the pack where FOV is concerned although I will agree it's a nice binocular.
 
With such brief overviews of each model, i think you have to regard such surveys as a shop window for those who can't access a shop window. A guide at best, and somewhere to start from - as such, useful but not essential.
 
If the Swarovski SLC gets a score of 3.70 below Nikon Monarch 7 you can safely assume these guys don't know what they are doing. The SLC was even scored lower than Celestron Nature DX 8x42:brains: It's not like they are adding the cost benefit ratio into the scores. The top of the line category bins SV, SF and NV all scored over 4.6/5.0
 
Subzero888 said:
If the Swarovski SLC gets a score of 3.70 below Nikon Monarch 7 you can safely assume these guys don't know what they are doing. The SLC was even scored lower than Celestron Nature DX 8x42:brains: It's not like they are adding the cost benefit ratio into the scores. The top of the line category bins SV, SF and NV all scored over 4.6/5.0
Click to expand...

By the scoring, it's safe to assume they never looked through them...:-O
 
james holdsworth said:
Ummm,[IMO] no, I've used the SLC quite a bit and it is superb - to my eye better than any of the SV series and certainly better than the mid-tiers that bested it in this ''test.''
Click to expand...

I'd agree the SLC is a good very good binocular, but I've come to doubt that the majority of the buying public would recognise it's merits without being told.

I often try review binoculars on the birders down the local reserve and most only comment on differences in field of view, or glare if it was an issue. "They look the same to me" is the most common comment. On one occasion I was at a well known UK store comparing a couple of mid priced models and using a SLC neu as reference and got chatting to an experienced birder who had decided he was finally giving up his Swift Audubons in favour of a roof. The salesman had been handing him random, low to mid range models and we sas settling towards a fairly inexpensive binocular so I suggested he look at the ones I was trying. He quite liked the "wider" (actually flatter) view of one but decided it was too heavy. The SLC was too heavy as well and had a rough focus and looked "a bit glarey". I asked what he thought about the colour and sharpness and he declared the cheap one was better. He definitely didn't like it..... until I showed him the badge. It had an ex-demo price tag and he was trying to negotiate a deal by the time I left.

I thought the incident very revealing when it happened about 4 years ago, but I've witnessed many similar things since. A lot of people only appear to see more with an alpha when they know the make. There are total exceptions of course. I've also met an absolute novice who in minutes had described effective resolution, CA, astigmatism, colour rendition and field curvature differences, and announced the top priced model on show as "the best" in about two seconds use. Seriously impressive!

David
 
Those were (nearly) all birders that had used binoculars, for decades in some cases. Wouldn't that be just the same as the Audubon test group and a good percentage of visitors to the forum? It looks like putting a piece of tape over the logo is not enough to disguise the best known top models, but maybe it is lower down the order?

David
 
Last edited:
typo said:
I'd agree the SLC is a good very good binocular, but I've come to doubt that the majority of the buying public would recognise it's merits without being told.

I often try review binoculars on the birders down the local reserve and most only comment on differences in field of view, or glare if it was an issue. "They look the same to me" is the most common comment. On one occasion I was at a well known UK store comparing a couple of mid priced models and using a SLC neu as reference and got chatting to an experienced birder who had decided he was finally giving up his Swift Audubons in favour of a roof. The salesman had been handing him random, low to mid range models and we sas settling towards a fairly inexpensive binocular so I suggested he look at the ones I was trying. He quite liked the "wider" (actually flatter) view of one but decided it was too heavy. The SLC was too heavy as well and had a rough focus and looked "a bit glarey". I asked what he thought about the colour and sharpness and he declared the cheap one was better. He definitely didn't like it..... until I showed him the badge. It had an ex-demo price tag and he was trying to negotiate a deal by the time I left.

I thought the incident very revealing when it happened about 4 years ago, but I've witnessed many similar things since. A lot of people only appear to see more with an alpha when they know the make. There are total exceptions of course. I've also met an absolute novice who in minutes had described effective resolution, CA, astigmatism, colour rendition and field curvature differences, and announced the top priced model on show as "the best" in about two seconds use. Seriously impressive!

David
Click to expand...

My experoences are actually fairly similar. I find people tend to care more about weight, durability, and mechanics than anything else as the optics, especially when conducting in store tests, are "tough to distinguish between". A lot of older birders tend to have alphas of varying ages (I see a lot of original ELs, FLs, and Trinovids), but I'd estimate the two most common models I see in the field are the Nikon Monarch and Vortex Viper series, and the most common alpha is some variant of the EL series.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top