• 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.

Cornell U: An Unbiased Review site (1 Viewer)

The website essentially reproduces an article that appeared in the Winter 2005 issue of Living Bird. Last spring there was much discussion here about the article, its methodology and conclusions.

Edited to add: Some people in last spring's discussion felt the article was anything but unbiased. The author (Rosenberg) admits a personal fondness for the Swarovski EL models, for which he goes out of his way to say nice things, and some people thought there was bias against the new Nikon Premier LX, noting that Nikon didn't have ads in the magazine, whereas the other big players did. I don't feel that way, but the opinion that the article is "unbiased" is not universal.
 
Last edited:
Many of the people here are familiar with that "study". If any study could be an example of how not to research a product, the Cornell attempt would rate #1.

The sampling of each particular model numbered from 10-40 reviews. Just the spread of users testing one bin and not another throws any reasonable belief that any achieved rating was fair and consistent with the other binoculars.

The testing was performed mostly indoors, and I would assume mostly during daylight hours. Although there is one picture of a group of four "hardcore" testers (numbering 4 in the picture), as the article says, this outdoor testing was done during the morning hours. No mention of dawn or dusk testing. Sunset and sunrise, and the few minutes before and after will say a lot more about a binocular than viewing on a nice bright, day. Some binoculars were tested in different conditions than others. Do you think the group of 5 "hardcore" testers that looked at all of the binoculars viewed them all under the relatively same lighting conditions?

There are just too many reasons why this is just an "article" and not any real evaluation. Methodology was just too inconsistent and sloppy, and the results at least slightly skewed by the lack of sampling control... How many children contributed to the report, and their inclusion into the final results without notation is especially troubling when 'every binocular was tested by at least ten'. Add to it that most of their testing was done indoors through glass.

I'm sure I overlooked many other reasons why thier results may be quite misleading, but overall as a guide, it doesn't conclude with any cold-hard facts and the margin of inconsistent bias between any two given models may be greater than the ratings spread any two close binoculars may have received.
 
Wow, and here I thought I was the only one that found some of the testing results to be a bit misleading and the methodology to be a bit poor.
:eek!:

;)
 
FrankD said:
Wow, and here I thought I was the only one that found some of the testing results to be a bit misleading and the methodology to be a bit poor.
:eek!:

;)

Frank,

There have been several extended discussions of the Cornell article. Most recently see: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38542&page=1&pp=25, in particular Posts #50 and #60 by Henry Link, and my comments on Post #58. Post #60 connects to an earlier thread that discussed it all ad nausium.

Elkcub
 
I disagreed with the ranking methodology but, in all fairness, I think there are several pearls of wisdom in the Cornell article.

Excerpts from http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/winter2005/Age_Binos.html

"For now, the flood of optics is both good news and bad news for a birder in the market for a new pair of bins.
The bad news is that the number of choices can be dizzying, and distinguishing between similar models is increasingly difficult. But the good news is that competition for your hard-earned dollars has resulted in higher and higher quality in binoculars, and many features that were rarely offered only five years ago have now become standard"

"Decide how much you can afford to spend."

"Decide whether you want 10x or 8x (or 7x) binoculars."
"Decide what other features are most important to you."

"After you’ve narrowed your search to a few likely candidates (good luck!), there’s no substitute for testing binoculars with your own eyes and hands. One thing I’ve learned in conducting these reviews is that no two birders hold or look through binoculars exactly the same way. The size of your hands, the shape of your face, how far apart your eyes are, how you focus, all help shape your personal preference. If possible, find a store that will allow you to test many models side by side before laying down your money. This is especially important if, like me, you bird with eyeglasses."

"Other features—image brightness, depth of field, and ergonomics—are more difficult to measure and can vary greatly from person to person."

"It’s safe to say that no clear winner emerged at the top of this heap, and I urge would-be buyers of $1,000-plus binoculars to “test drive” your selections before taking out a second mortgage on the house or sending your kids to work in the mines."

"Finally, worth mentioning because of its exquisite image is Swarovski’s honking big 10x50 SLC—still probably the brightest 10x on the market. At least a few top birders I know insist on carrying these, in spite of their excessive weight, relatively narrow field of view, and poor close focus."
***This bin was ranked near the bottom!!!***


John
 
Sore losers!

John Traynor said:
I disagreed with the ranking methodology but, in all fairness, I think there are several pearls of wisdom in the Cornell article.

Excerpts from http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/winter2005/Age_Binos.html

"For now, the flood of optics is both good news and bad news for a birder in the market for a new pair of bins.
The bad news is that the number of choices can be dizzying, and distinguishing between similar models is increasingly difficult. But the good news is that competition for your hard-earned dollars has resulted in higher and higher quality in binoculars, and many features that were rarely offered only five years ago have now become standard"

"Decide how much you can afford to spend."

"Decide whether you want 10x or 8x (or 7x) binoculars."
"Decide what other features are most important to you."

"After you’ve narrowed your search to a few likely candidates (good luck!), there’s no substitute for testing binoculars with your own eyes and hands. One thing I’ve learned in conducting these reviews is that no two birders hold or look through binoculars exactly the same way. The size of your hands, the shape of your face, how far apart your eyes are, how you focus, all help shape your personal preference. If possible, find a store that will allow you to test many models side by side before laying down your money. This is especially important if, like me, you bird with eyeglasses."

"Other features—image brightness, depth of field, and ergonomics—are more difficult to measure and can vary greatly from person to person."

"It’s safe to say that no clear winner emerged at the top of this heap, and I urge would-be buyers of $1,000-plus binoculars to “test drive” your selections before taking out a second mortgage on the house or sending your kids to work in the mines."

"Finally, worth mentioning because of its exquisite image is Swarovski’s honking big 10x50 SLC—still probably the brightest 10x on the market. At least a few top birders I know insist on carrying these, in spite of their excessive weight, relatively narrow field of view, and poor close focus."
***This bin was ranked near the bottom!!!***


John

You guy's are just a bunch of sore losers! I've tried almost all of the "Top Gun" binoculars in the Cornell test and I agree with it 95%. It is an excellent test of binoculars and I totally agree with the results. You probably have Leicas and your mad because they came in third place. Bite the bullet and trade them in and get the Zeiss Fl.

Dennis
 
You guy's are just a bunch of sore losers! I've tried almost all of the "Top Gun" binoculars in the Cornell test and I agree with it 95%. It is an excellent test of binoculars and I totally agree with the results. You probably have Leicas and your mad because they came in third place. Bite the bullet and trade them in and get the Zeiss Fl.

Dennis

I have Swift Audubons, Nikon SEs, amongst other things. I would put them optically with anything. Of course you like the test because it agrees with your PREFERENCE.

I do work as a research scientists in a labratory setting. If I tried to perform an evaluation or test as they did, I would not be asked back into the lab and probably never get work as anything other than a tech slave the rest of my life.

Added: The way these "tests" usually pan out is the most recent top model is the favorite unles it is an abosulte flop.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that tests are of much value for the high-end bins anyway. All are of excellent optical quality, and choice usually comes down to handling, weight, perceived construction quality, etc. In the lower price ranges there are some clunkers, and I think tests are more useful there.
 
Curtis Croulet said:
I'm not sure that tests are of much value for the high-end bins anyway. All are of excellent optical quality, and choice usually comes down to handling, weight, perceived construction quality, etc.

Amen.
 
Bill Atwood said:
The latest Cornell bin review article is the most informative one ever published in a North American birding magazine.


I thought it was good, but I agree with the previous comments in that at that level ergonomics come into play a lot more
 
Scope City??

DavidP said:
I thought it was good, but I agree with the previous comments in that at that level ergonomics come into play a lot more

At any rate, it got me on to Celestron Noble 8x42's, as they were the highest rated for the lowest price -- at least where my eyes found the balance to be right.

Is Scope City a reputable dealer? They may be the only place in San Francisco that has most of the brands I want to look through.
 
You guy's are just a bunch of sore losers! I've tried almost all of the "Top Gun" binoculars in the Cornell test and I agree with it 95%. It is an excellent test of binoculars and I totally agree with the results. You probably have Leicas and your mad because they came in third place. Bite the bullet and trade them in and get the Zeiss Fl.

Dennis

Wow... You keep stomping your feet every time someone doesn't think like you and agree with whatever you say. Are you ever going to let go of your brand name fanboyism? lol
 
One more time from a very content SE 8X32 owner...a bin that hasn't been on anyone's list for quite sometime.

***************************
Poignant remarks found in the Cornell review that we might focus on in lieu of endlessly debating dubious rankings.

Excerpts from http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/winter2005/Age_Binos.html

“The bad news is that the number of choices can be dizzying, and distinguishing between similar models is increasingly difficult. But the good news is that competition for your hard-earned dollars has resulted in higher and higher quality in binoculars, and many features that were rarely offered only five years ago have now become standard.”

“Today’s mid-priced binoculars in many cases seem better than the top-of-the-line models of a decade ago.”

“Decide how much you can afford to spend. There’s no point in lusting over optics you can’t afford. On the other hand, remember that if you buy inexpensive binoculars that don’t hold up, you may be purchasing another pair soon. An investment in quality binoculars today may last you a lifetime and will definitely enhance your enjoyment of birding.”

“Decide whether you want 10x or 8x (or 7x) binoculars. People’s preference in magnification is highly subjective and depends in part on the kind of birding you do.”

“Decide what other features are most important to you.”

“Two of my Sapsucker teammates from the World Series of Birding, for example, insist on carrying the heaviest (by far) binoculars in this review, because to them nothing surpasses their bright image.”

“After you’ve narrowed your search to a few likely candidates (good luck!), there’s no substitute for testing binoculars with your own eyes and hands. One thing I’ve learned in conducting these reviews is that no two birders hold or look through binoculars exactly the same way.”

“Five of us die-hards looked at every single pair.”

“At least a few top birders I know insist on carrying these, in spite of their excessive weight, relatively narrow field of view, and poor close focus.”

“The stiff competition between these manufacturers has resulted in a superb set of choice models that not only provide almost unbelievable optical quality but are simply a joy to hold and use. It’s safe to say that no clear winner emerged at the top of this heap, and I urge would-be buyers of $1,000-plus binoculars to “test drive” your selections before taking out a second mortgage on the house or sending your kids to work in the mines.”
 
cab1024 said:
Is Scope City a reputable dealer? They may be the only place in San Francisco that has most of the brands I want to look through.

Scope City is a reputable dealer. Last year the San Diego store let me play with the Leica Ultravids as much as I wanted. Had I decided to go with the Ultravid, I would have bought there.
 
Last edited:
Frank,

There have been several extended discussions of the Cornell article. Most recently see: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread...42&page=1&pp=25, in particular Posts #50 and #60 by Henry Link, and my comments on Post #58. Post #60 connects to an earlier thread that discussed it all ad nausium.

Elkcub

Thanks. I looked up the previous threads dating back from last February after I made my comment. I am definitely not alone in my opinion of the review.

However, admittedly, I am bitter (marginally) that the LXLs didn't place higher. I wish I had my copy of the last Cornell review (2000) handy as I would love to quote some of the positive comments regarding the handling and image quality of the original LXs. It seems that their opinions of them changed almost 180 degrees and yet just about everyone that has compared the LXLs to the LXs has commented favorably on how the image quality remained the same yet the lighter weight of the newer models made them more attractive than the originals.

Has Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica improved their coatings that much over the last five years to result in such a huge turnaround in opinion?....or was the testing methodology a bit different from the last test they did?
 
Last edited:
FrankD said:
Thanks. I looked up the previous threads dating back from last February after I made my comment. I am definitely not alone in my opinion of the review.

However, admittedly, I am bitter (marginally) that the LXLs didn't place higher. I wish I had my copy of the last Cornell review (2000) handy as I would love to quote some of the positive comments regarding the handling and image quality of the original LXs. It seems that their opinions of them changed almost 180 degrees and yet just about everyone that has compared the LXLs to the LXs has commented favorably on how the image quality remained the same yet the lighter weight of the newer models made them more attractive than the originals.

Has Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica improved their coatings that much over the last five years to result in such a huge turnaround in opinion?....or was the testing methodology a bit different from the last test they did?

Frank,

I think I see your dilemma. I don't have it on hand but the previous Cornell review had all the same faults. Basically, what Dr. Rosenberg comes up with each time is a few time-worn "wisdoms" and rating numbers to support the newest binoculars of the day. The older models get pushed down in the stack. It's really not hard to do that if the audience is first willing to believe that a single composite number can be used to rank binoculars of very different optical/physical designs. Couple that with an audience that believes "how can so many be wrong?" and the illusion is complete. (Take a look at what he/they did with my precious Swarovski 8x30 and 10x42 SLCs.)

In the end it becomes a matter of self-discipline to discard what doesn't make sense and not be bothered by published foolishness. So, I hope you don't give in to being aggravated by last year's "best" becoming this years "beast." It's a game they're playing.

You and I both own fantastic binoculars — and we don't need a Cornell report to tell us that.

Elkcub
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 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