Mega Review of the best 8x42... (2 Viewers)

FrankD · Jul 3, 2011

Ok, two initial thoughts after reading the posting on the Cape May review from last summer....

One, Leica sponsors them.

LOL...just kidding. I have no idea who sponsors them.

Two, I agree with the previous comment. A comparison of individual magnifications between the manufacturers would have been more useful. If you break it down that way then it looks like this.....

8x42

1. Zeiss FL
2. Swarovision
3. Leica Ultravid HD
4. Swarovski New SLC
5. Nikon EDG
6. Nikon Premier LXL
7. Steiner Peregrine XP
8. Minox APO HG
9. Leica Trinovid BN
10. Vanguard Endeaver ED...seriously? A Vanguard? WT...?

8x32

1. Leica Ultravid HD
2. Swarovski EL
3. Zeiss FL
4. Nikon EDG
5. Zeiss Conquest

7x42

1. Leica Ultravid
2. Zeiss FL
3. Nikon EDG

Etc......

Not to mention the fact that the review appears to be the cumulative total of ergonomics, mechanics and optics. No offense intended but anyone that puts an 10x32 of any manufacturer above an 8x42 or 7x42 from an optical perspective is potentially delusional.

FrankD · Jul 3, 2011

[email protected] said:
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?

Both actually Dennis. The Trinovid developed a slipping diopter problem after only a day of two of regular use. One Zeiss had an alignment issue within one barrel. Both were new units.

..and then there was the Nikon SE 8x32 that had several dust motes inside the ocular. Thankfully, I was able to correct that issue on my own with a small screwdriver and a can of compressed air...thank you again Henry. That was after two trips to Nikon's repair service did not provide satisfactory results.

brownpelican1 · Jul 3, 2011

Frank,
You are correct! The CMBO tester's evaluated the bins for color bias, resolution, depth of field, close focus, brightness, weight, quality of focus and ergonomics. They also had a category called "field quality"?? ("There were multiple full sheets of newspaper on the wall, for assessing field quality".).
Each reviewers scores were tallied and then an average score was determined for each binocular. A maximum score of 65 was possible. The top rated Leica tallied a score of 59.17. The 8x42 Nikon EDG was #15 with a score of 49.84 so roughly 10 points separated the top 15 bins. Second place was a tie with the Leica Ultravid HD 7x42 and the Swarovski EL 8x32 each garnering a score of 58.67.
Yes indeed, interesting stuff!
Tom

etudiant · Jul 3, 2011

IvanCavallazzi said:
@Ivan Tardio

Thanks for the input!

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. .....

I'm baffled by this reluctance to have the Canon included in the tests.
It is a binocular just like the others, so field of view, sharpness, brightness, ease of focus, color aberration etc remain relevant measures of merit. If the glass works better handheld because of the IS, that should be recognized as a positive factor.

The details of the design, whether porro or roof or whatever, is entirely besides the point, imho. The test is of the performance, rather than of the optical structure.

IvanCavallazzi · Jul 3, 2011

etudiant said:
IvanCavallazzi said:

@Ivan Tardio

Thanks for the input!

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. .....

I'm baffled by this reluctance to have the Canon included in the tests.
It is a binocular just like the others, so field of view, sharpness, brightness, ease of focus, color aberration etc remain relevant measures of merit. If the glass works better handheld because of the IS, that should be recognized as a positive factor.

The details of the design, whether porro or roof or whatever, is entirely besides the point, imho. The test is of the performance, rather than of the optical structure.

Click to expand...

I am sorry but I disagree. I already explained why...
It is important to compare similar things to see the details. If you compare aberrant things their inherent characteristics get in the way of the analysis.

Reason why... comparisons, in my opinion, only make sense if it is roof vs roof... or porro vs porro... or IS vs IS.

About the Canon...
It is porro.
Its prism is hanging.
It uses battery!
Its size and weight is different.
The maintenance is different.
The durability is different.
Even its main characteristic(to avoid a tripod) is different.

It is a complete different device.

It is like comparing Pickups to Compact cars... just because both are cars.

In my mind to place the Canon there makes as much sense as placing a NightVision binocular G4 with IR there... and score it the best at Brightness, because one can see even with no light at all.

Sorry, but to compare drastically different devices makes no sense to me.
Just my opinion.

denco@comcast.n · Jul 3, 2011

ivan86 said:
You are right, but let me point out this (my opinions):
- even with 3 sample for each bino the outcome will be about the same;
- we received 1 sample for each bino from optical shops BUT we also had our personal bino. We had 3 Leica, 3 Swarovision, 3 Zeiss.
- we knew the bino before the challenge, so we know what to expect from them;
- as humans, we use the eyes + brain, so which is the limit between an objective problem of the bino and our vision? If our vision has a tolerance bigger then small/tiny problems of the bino then you can have tons of sample that nothing change. Let me say that mid and big problems should be affordable for us, we did not look in a bino for the first time
- this is an amateur review, get it as it is... Even magazines when test binos use 1 single sample

I would like to read some comment about the outcome, if you agree with the scores and if not why.

greets,
Ivan

Ivan
I thought your review was very good and very well done. Don't let the critics bother you. I agree with what you said above. The outcome would not have been that different with three different binoculars as you say. I have had alot of these binoculars and I have also compared them and I agree with your results totally. My favorite is the Swarovision 8.5x42 and my second favorite is the Zeiss FL. There is nothing wrong with testing the Canon IS and I feel it was good that you did include it in the group because it is an excellent binocular although not quite as good as the top few in my opinion. Too bad you couldn't get a real person to translate your reviews. Somebody that is bilingual in Italian and English so you could get an accurate translation because your reviews are quite excellent and I think alot of people besides Bird Forum members would enjoy reading them. I too would love to be in Italy with you doing this evaluation as the country side and the binoculars you tested look great! Your choice of binoculars was right on so you obviously have had alot of experience with top quality binoculars. I will really look forward to reading your next review of the porro-prisms because there are some excellent ones out there including the Nikon 8x32 SE and the Nikon 8x30 EII. Looks like alot of fun!

ivan86 · Jul 3, 2011

I am fine Denco, im open to criticism, and i agree with Cavallazzi because his argument are logical.

My intent is to try to explain the fact that we know the methodological problems in the reviews, but the ability to do things right, often collides with reality.
So our review is a compromise, is always possibile do better, but just for example, get 3 sample from optical shops for each bino is very difficult !
Another:
If mr.X test 10 binoculars he can give to each bino a score based on a personal ranking.
But if mr.X test 5 binoculars and mr.Y test the other 5, then the two personal ranking can clash because the two tester could not make a "mind ranking" based on all binoculars.
Example: mr.X give to Kowa 5 point on 5 for chromatic aberration, he could not test the Zeiss because is used by mr.Y. So mr.X leaves 5/5 for the Kowa.
what happened? if mr.X could try the Zeiss, maybe he could changes the scores, for example give to Zeiss 5/5 and Kowa 4/5 because he found Zeiss to be better...
For these reasons we decided that all participants test all binoculars.

I hope that you all could understand something of what i said

greets

FrankD · Jul 3, 2011

ivan86 said:
You are right, but let me point out this (my opinions):
- even with 3 sample for each bino the outcome will be about the same;
- we received 1 sample for each bino from optical shops BUT we also had our personal bino. We had 3 Leica, 3 Swarovision, 3 Zeiss.
- we knew the bino before the challenge, so we know what to expect from them;
- as humans, we use the eyes + brain, so which is the limit between an objective problem of the bino and our vision? If our vision has a tolerance bigger then small/tiny problems of the bino then you can have tons of sample that nothing change. Let me say that mid and big problems should be affordable for us, we did not look in a bino for the first time
- this is an amateur review, get it as it is... Even magazines when test binos use 1 single sample

I would like to read some comment about the outcome, if you agree with the scores and if not why.

greets,
Ivan

Ivan,

I have no problem with your scores or your methodology. All of us approach binocular choices from different perspectives. We put weight in different issues/characteristics. I do like the break-down in the different bar charts. It allows the consumer to pick and choose based on what they deem important.

As for the overall ranking...I don't have any real issue with it. I half expected the Swarovisions to come out on top. Swarovski has had several years to determine where the other competitors were going with their designs. It seems only logical that an ED design had to enter the equation for their upgrade. It seems further logical that they would key in on edge performance since that is what they are known for (in comparison to their major competitors).

Just my two cents.

binomania · Jul 3, 2011

Hello everyone. I'm sorry. It's my fault. I decided to also enter the Canon 10x42. I have done this because many readers, of binomania.it ,know of my decision to compare different binoculars. Many of them have asked me to also use the 10x42 because it is the best optical proposed by Canon. only for this, there is no other question. Of course I know it is a different lens design, but for many readers it was not important. We also could compared some porro of 32mm but we have decided to not insert in review because they are the 30mm of diameter and because it would have been difficult to test too many instruments..By the way if i've the opportunity to receive a Swift Audubon ED 8.5x44, certainly i've insert it without doubt.
Every sector has its own pair of binoculars, I own a 8.5x42 swarovision in addition to many other binoculars . Last year when I went to the beach I put the Swaro in the tray and I used it every day a Steiner Marine

But with Steiner 7x50 Marine certainly i do not look in the woods

mooreorless · Jul 3, 2011

Quote:
Every sector has its own pair of binoculars, I own a 8.5x42 swarovision in addition to many other binoculars . Last year when I went to the beach I put the Swaro in the tray and I used it every day a Steiner Marine

But with Steiner 7x50 Marine certainly i do not look in the woods

__________________
Piergiovanni Salimbeni

End of Quote:

I would agree with you 100% to do this!!! Excellent reviews Pier! Thanks for taking the time to do all!

Kammerdiner · Jul 3, 2011

binomania said:
Hello everyone. I'm sorry. It's my fault. I decided to also enter the Canon 10x42. I have done this because many readers, of binomania.it ,know of my decision to compare different binoculars. Many of them have asked me to also use the 10x42 because it is the best optical proposed by Canon. only for this, there is no other question. Of course I know it is a different lens design, but for many readers it was not important. We also could compared some porro of 32mm but we have decided to not insert in review because they are the 30mm of diameter and because it would have been difficult to test too many instruments..By the way if i've the opportunity to receive a Swift Audubon ED 8.5x44, certainly i've insert it without doubt.
Every sector has its own pair of binoculars, I own a 8.5x42 swarovision in addition to many other binoculars . Last year when I went to the beach I put the Swaro in the tray and I used it every day a Steiner Marine But with Steiner 7x50 Marine certainly i do not look in the woods

No need to apolgize. I'm not quite sure I understand the objection to the Canon. It did what you would expect a really good 10x with image stabilization to do compared to an 8x field without. I think most of us would take that into consideration. I mean really: objecting because it uses a battery? Sell your car and buy a horse in that case. Maybe it didn't quite "belong" in there, but it is what it is. I still have little interest in the Canon by the way--size, weight, etc. Yeah, and I'm enough of a purist to eschew batteries when I can.

I still don't know what "corrected field" is. Any clues?

And thanks again for a stimulating review.
Mark

Steve C · Jul 3, 2011

binomania said:
Hello everyone. I'm sorry. It's my fault. I decided to also enter the Canon 10x42. I have done this because many readers, of binomania.it ,know of my decision to compare different binoculars....

No need to apologize. Even for including the Canon, and certainly not for anything porro vs roof either. While I might have used some different methodology, anything I might have done would be subject to discussion as well. Reviews, by their nature are mostly subjective anyway. As reviews go this one was informative and useful.

IvanCavallazzi · Jul 3, 2011

ivan86 said:
I would like to read some comment about the outcome, if you agree with the scores and if not why.

greets,
Ivan

About the score.
Actually I never tested many of those bino. (I only tested the SwaroEL, Nikon, Razor, Bushnell and the Canon)
Comparing those 4 first... from the back of my memory... all results seems pretty coherent and precise.

But its kind of hard for me to say because I was not in direct comparison. But their overall performance match exactly how would I rate them in terms of preference.

The only surprise for me there was the high scores of the Canon in categories like: Ergonomics, Overall Quality, Mechanics Performance, Paning...
... when I tested it against tripod-ed binos... the canon, even optically, could not hold a candle. Maybe my Canon was a lemon...

elkcub · Jul 3, 2011

binomania said:
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

Hello Piergiovanni,

I hope my earlier comments about survey research and analysis are understood as being made with the best of intentions. As you can see I feel your data may contain more interesting information than was presented. Based on what you've said here, I gather that some of the observers had their own copies of several instruments, so the test comparison was not simply limited to the specimens brought in for the study. Unless you say otherwise, I also assume that there was open discussion among the experts during the comparison period, although it was stated that each made data entries independently. Even though this procedure could have been more disciplined, because the evaluations were probably influenced by a social process, there was still a complete evaluation provided by each participant.

Would it be possible to further analyze the data to provide a ranking of the binoculars for each participant? As your comments imply, it would seem very likely that they rated the binoculars differently.

Your response would be appreciated.

Many thanks,
Ed

FrankD · Jul 3, 2011

We should send him one of the Zen Ray ED models. I would have been curious to see how it faired. Maybe the new ED3? I don't expect it to be on top but would like to have seen where they would have placed it.

ivan86 · Jul 3, 2011

IvanCavallazzi said:
The only surprise for me there was the high scores of the Canon in categories like: Ergonomics, Overall Quality, Mechanics Performance, Paning...

high scores ? i think there is a mistake, the Canon 10x42 have BAD scores for Ergonomics, Over Quality and Mechanics Performance.

Check the graphs again:

Ergonomics: Swarovski 138 vs Canon 99
Over Quality: Swarovski 162 vs Canon 124
Mechanics Performance: Swarovski 640 vs Canon 546

40 or more point of difference is a LOT, in mechanics performance the difference is almost 100 point

The Canon for these characteristics is very far from the top binos on the market.

Greets

ivan86 · Jul 3, 2011

Kammerdiner said:
I still don't know what "corrected field" is. Any clues?

is the portion of the field of view which is enought good to make pleasant observations.

greets

bearclawthedonut · Jul 3, 2011

These evaluations are silly and stupid. Unless blind testing is employed, personal biases and/or preconceptions render the results invalid.

For example, blind tasting wines requires a minimum of three samples just for difference testing and that is to compare two wines. It is impossible to perform open comparision testing of 62 binoculars. Every time, the personal favorites of the testers will win out. The order is simply determined by who yells the loudest for their particular favorite. Silly.

ivan86 · Jul 3, 2011

elkcub said:
I would also assume that there was open discussion among the experts during the comparison period, although it was stated that each made data entries independently.

There was some discussion during the comparison but everyone is enought headstrong to take his own idea. (just kidding :t

Honestly, probably some influence among us there was but nothing big enought to profoundly change the outcome.
As you said, everyone made data entries independently.

elkcub said:
Would it be possible to further analyze the data to provide a ranking of the binoculars for each participant? As your comments suggest, it would seem very likely that they rated the binoculars differently.

It is a lot of works, each participant completed a table of 14 columns and 29 rows, but ofc is possible.
I will talk to Piergiovanni, i think we can put in the review the 3 table most interesting.

greets

IvanCavallazzi · Jul 3, 2011

ivan86 said:
high scores ? i think there is a mistake, the Canon 10x42 have BAD scores for Ergonomics, Over Quality and Mechanics Performance.

Check the graphs again:

Ergonomics: Swarovski 138 vs Canon 99
Over Quality: Swarovski 162 vs Canon 124
Mechanics Performance: Swarovski 640 vs Canon 546

40 or more point of difference is a LOT, in mechanics performance the difference is almost 100 point

The Canon for these characteristics is very far from the top binos on the market.

Greets

In my opinion those are high scores. Very high scores.
Ergonomics and mechanic performance... Canon should be rated at 0, at most, compared to the others.

Its ergonomics compared to the other binos there... is like a catastrophe.

For example, in the result.

Canon outperformed Bushnell Elite in ergonomics! And it is right beside the vortex and others. ... and this with two AA inside.

Canon outperformed Bushnell elite again in mechanics performance! And it is right beside the others. How can that be? A hanging loose prism outperforming a roof fixed prism in mechanics?
Its not electronic performance... its mechanical performance. And in that point Canon should take a 0 too, at most.

Just my opinion.

But again. Honestly, if you ignore the Canon... all the results on the other binos seems coherent and precise with the few I have tested.

Mega Review of the best 8x42... (2 Viewers)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread