• 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.

the pros, marketing binos, pentax sp and the rest (1 Viewer)

iambirding

Well-known member
i spent a week with some very serious birders/ ornithologist. and the guys that take this seriously all had swarovski el 8.5 x 42 , 10 x 42 or the B&L Elite 8x42 or 10x42. the people that had the B&L's had bought theirs over 5 or 6 years ago. And were thinking of moving up to the EL but really enjoyed looking through my "very bright" pentax binos. the swarovski guys all had pentax as a back up. Pentax was a second choice no matter what even when it comes to scopes for these birders. swarovski are amazing but Minox, Kahles and the rest is very second rate they agreed. I look at a lot of recent bino reviews and not one ever mentions Kahles or Minox. They all mention Pentax SP, Nikon LX and of course Swarovski EL and lately the new Zeiss FL.

swarovski is still pushing the limits and right behind them is nikon and pentax. I belive B & L will eventually go away or fall in the mid range due to the selling over to bushnell.

I bought my pentax first and eventually will get a nikon or swarovski pair in the future. either way i am safe i have a great safe bet and eventually the bino view i have to look forward to will be excellent with swarovski or nikon. I am waiting for Swarovski to get rid of their slow focus problem on the EL. And then I will buy them. And i still have a great back up pair. My major complaint with Pentax is a narrow field of view.

I would stay away from Minox and Kahles, so far I've found them to be mediocre and not outstanding. I believe Minox and Kahles are secondary brands that work off marketing to everyone that wants swarovski but cant afford it. these companies let everyone know that its there company so people feel safe. the reason why there less expensive is the optics are not top notch. I believe that Zeiss in mid range are some the worst binos I've ever looked through for the price.

i believe pentax is trying to distinguish themselves to be the best optics that they can possibly make for the best price. I do not believe that to be the case with any of the other secondary companies of Leica or Swarovski.

The pentax really caught my attention when I saw a house sparrow eating a cheetoh in the parking lot. No matter what- realize that there is a compromise in every optics. And price does play a part. And we will never be satisfied and thats what created this thread, this market. So go out and look at some birds.

i hope i've helped or given some perspective.
 
iambirding said:
i spent a week with some very serious birders/ ornithologist. and the guys that take this seriously all had swarovski el 8.5 x 42 , 10 x 42 or the B&L Elite 8x42 or 10x42. the people that had the B&L's had bought theirs over 5 or 6 years ago. And were thinking of moving up to the EL but really enjoyed looking through my "very bright" pentax binos. the swarovski guys all had pentax as a back up. Pentax was a second choice no matter what even when it comes to scopes for these birders. swarovski are amazing but Minox, Kahles and the rest is very second rate they agreed. I look at a lot of recent bino reviews and not one ever mentions Kahles or Minox. They all mention Pentax SP, Nikon LX and of course Swarovski EL and lately the new Zeiss FL.

swarovski is still pushing the limits and right behind them is nikon and pentax. I belive B & L will eventually go away or fall in the mid range due to the selling over to bushnell.

I bought my pentax first and eventually will get a nikon or swarovski pair in the future. either way i am safe i have a great safe bet and eventually the bino view i have to look forward to will be excellent with swarovski or nikon. I am waiting for Swarovski to get rid of their slow focus problem on the EL. And then I will buy them. And i still have a great back up pair. My major complaint with Pentax is a narrow field of view.

I would stay away from Minox and Kahles, so far I've found them to be mediocre and not outstanding. I believe Minox and Kahles are secondary brands that work off marketing to everyone that wants swarovski but cant afford it. these companies let everyone know that its there company so people feel safe. the reason why there less expensive is the optics are not top notch. I believe that Zeiss in mid range are some the worst binos I've ever looked through for the price.

i believe pentax is trying to distinguish themselves to be the best optics that they can possibly make for the best price. I do not believe that to be the case with any of the other secondary companies of Leica or Swarovski.

The pentax really caught my attention when I saw a house sparrow eating a cheetoh in the parking lot. No matter what- realize that there is a compromise in every optics. And price does play a part. And we will never be satisfied and thats what created this thread, this market. So go out and look at some birds.

i hope i've helped or given some perspective.

After several hours of wearing out eyeballs looking at bins, the group I was with Friday agreed Leica Ultravid's provided the sharpest, clearest, easiest, and most pleasing image. It's interesting to pick up a mid-range bin and think it can't get any better...until you pick up something better!

John
 
Pleeeze!
Why don't a lot of members respond to this thread. And...hey, has anyone seen the story in the latest BIRDWATCHER'S DIGEST, (I guess that you've all heard of that, right?) with their latest list of the best birding binoculars? If you can, go see it. Giving opinions of it will be something good for this forum.
 
marcus said:
Pleeeze!
Why don't a lot of members respond to this thread. And...hey, has anyone seen the story in the latest BIRDWATCHER'S DIGEST, (I guess that you've all heard of that, right?) with their latest list of the best birding binoculars? If you can, go see it. Giving opinions of it will be something good for this forum.

BWD? The porters seem to like products that advertise heavily in BWD. The last set of reviews (not the porters) rated some products the Porters didn't like above those they did. Its hard for us Brits to comment as many of the products don't sell over here.

I never see Pentax stuff in the field
 
Last edited:
I can be happy using a fifty year old binocular, but today's top of the line binoculars, offer a lot more, for a much higher cost. I suppose we would all like the sharpest, widest field, most brilliant, contrasty optics, with easy, precise focussing, in a shockproof and waterproof package. Eyeglass wearers want all that and a full field. Finally, we would all be delighted to have everything for US$200. Some of us want some of the above more than others. Since we are unlikely to find our ideal ,we compromise.
I like and use the following: an 8x32 Leica BN, a 7x42 Zeiss ClassiC and a Zeiss Victory 8x40. The three were all purchased in the last three years, which means I am in no hurry to retool. In about ten years, I'll think about replacing one of them. The Leica is handy, the 7x42 Classic is superb, the Victory for cloudy days and star gazing.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scrbe:
 
Last edited:
marcus said:
Pleeeze!
Why don't a lot of members respond to this thread. And...hey, has anyone seen the story in the latest BIRDWATCHER'S DIGEST, (I guess that you've all heard of that, right?) with their latest list of the best birding binoculars? If you can, go see it. Giving opinions of it will be something good for this forum.


I've already given my opinion of this review in a previous post. To put it mildly, it was 14 pages of suck.

I emailed BWD about this "nonreview". They replied that negative comments just upset manufacturers, and that since everyone has a different opinion, there was no need to rank one bin over the next.

To top it off, they are planning one or two more such tripe ridden revews in the near future.

Due to this and other factors I doubt I will renew my subscription.
 
Bill Atwood said:
I've already given my opinion of this review in a previous post. To put it mildly, it was 14 pages of suck.

I emailed BWD about this "nonreview". They replied that negative comments just upset manufacturers, and that since everyone has a different opinion, there was no need to rank one bin over the next.

To top it off, they are planning one or two more such tripe ridden revews in the near future.

Due to this and other factors I doubt I will renew my subscription.

so they are only going to say nice things about bins where the manufacturer puts advertising in the mag????? weird.
 
Bill Atwood said:
I've already given my opinion of this review in a previous post. To put it mildly, it was 14 pages of suck.

I emailed BWD about this "nonreview". They replied that negative comments just upset manufacturers, and that since everyone has a different opinion, there was no need to rank one bin over the next.

To top it off, they are planning one or two more such tripe ridden revews in the near future.

Due to this and other factors I doubt I will renew my subscription.
Really? '14 pages of suck'?
Well, to be honest, I just bought that BWD from a Barnes & Noble in Baltimore yesterday, Saturday, 11/13, and haven't read all of it yet. I just looked through it and thought that it would be something that a lot of BF members would find, at least, pretty good. Well, it seems I was mistaken.
Oh, by the way, where is your post about the review? I guess I'd better read that.
marcus
 
Last edited:
Bill Atwood said:
I've already given my opinion of this review in a previous post. To put it mildly, it was 14 pages of suck.

I emailed BWD about this "nonreview". They replied that negative comments just upset manufacturers, and that since everyone has a different opinion, there was no need to rank one bin over the next.

To top it off, they are planning one or two more such tripe ridden revews in the near future.

Due to this and other factors I doubt I will renew my subscription.

Bill,

Thanks...I really had a good laugh over their "negative comments just upset manufacturers" remark. They should investigate how negative comments affect owners!

John
 
Greetings!

I posted this on the other thread as well, but since there is a lot of talk on this thread about the same topic (the Porters reviews) I'll post a copy here.

Everything I read from the Porters continues to decrease my opinion of them as binocular reviewers. In fact, I can confidently say at this point that they are not reviewers at all, but corporate mouthpieces who try to sell as many binoculars (from their own website, of course!) as possible. I have yet to see an objective evaluation from them that has the end-user's best interests at heart, they seem to be too afraid that they might lose a sale or "upset a manufacturer" to say anything bad about any of the binoculars they review.

Just my 0.02...

Best wishes,
Bawko
 
iambirding,

Regarding this:


iambirding said:
i spent a week with some very serious birders/ ornithologist. and the guys that take this seriously all had swarovski el 8.5 x 42 , 10 x 42 or the B&L Elite 8x42 or 10x42. the people that had the B&L's had bought theirs over 5 or 6 years ago. And were thinking of moving up to the EL but really enjoyed looking through my "very bright" pentax binos. the swarovski guys all had pentax as a back up. Pentax was a second choice no matter what even when it comes to scopes for these birders. swarovski are amazing but Minox, Kahles and the rest is very second rate they agreed. I look at a lot of recent bino reviews and not one ever mentions Kahles or Minox. They all mention Pentax SP, Nikon LX and of course Swarovski EL and lately the new Zeiss FL.

swarovski is still pushing the limits and right behind them is nikon and pentax. I belive B & L will eventually go away or fall in the mid range due to the selling over to bushnell.

I bought my pentax first and eventually will get a nikon or swarovski pair in the future. either way i am safe i have a great safe bet and eventually the bino view i have to look forward to will be excellent with swarovski or nikon. I am waiting for Swarovski to get rid of their slow focus problem on the EL. And then I will buy them. And i still have a great back up pair. My major complaint with Pentax is a narrow field of view.

I would stay away from Minox and Kahles, so far I've found them to be mediocre and not outstanding. I believe Minox and Kahles are secondary brands that work off marketing to everyone that wants swarovski but cant afford it. these companies let everyone know that its there company so people feel safe. the reason why there less expensive is the optics are not top notch. I believe that Zeiss in mid range are some the worst binos I've ever looked through for the price.

i believe pentax is trying to distinguish themselves to be the best optics that they can possibly make for the best price. I do not believe that to be the case with any of the other secondary companies of Leica or Swarovski.

The pentax really caught my attention when I saw a house sparrow eating a cheetoh in the parking lot. No matter what- realize that there is a compromise in every optics. And price does play a part. And we will never be satisfied and thats what created this thread, this market. So go out and look at some birds.

i hope i've helped or given some perspective.


I'm not sure what you are saying exactly, but summing up your points I think you are saying (very paraphrased):

#1 - All serious birders/ornithologists use Swarovski EL's or B&L Elites
#2 - All serious birders/ornithologists prefer Pentax as a 2nd choice
#3 - Swarovski is the leading edge of technology, Pentax and Nikon are close 2nd
#4 - All the rest of the brands are mediocre binoculars not worth buying - except for the Zeiss FL, which serious birders/ornithologists "talk about" but don't seem to be using.

I hope I'm not missing anything... or over simplifying your post.

If the above is what you are saying, in essence, then I would have to question several of your points.

First off, I recently saw a documentary on PBS (National Geographic - The Last Stand of the Great Bear) about serious scientific naturalists who were studying bears, birds, wolves, and other wildlife in the west coast Canadian wilderness. The thing that struck me was that they were ALL using binoculars in their work, and they were all using either Canon IS (from the boats) or black rubber armored 50mm binoculars that I didn't recognize the brand or model (in the field). I didn't see even ONE pair of EL's, Elites, or Zeiss. These guys were VERY well equipped, with two heavily outfitted scientific yachts... it looked as if they could afford any gear they wanted (and the Canon IS binoculars used from the boats seemed to confirm that they knew about high-end equipment and using the right tools for the task at hand).

OK... I'll continue the ranting and hope to not offend you... that is not my intent.

I have made it a pretty serious part time job recently to put together a website on binoculars. I am not yet ready to release it to the public, there is still a lot of work left to be done. However, the salient point in this case is that most of my spare time in the last month has been spent looking through as wide an array of binoculars as possible... and taking as detailed notes as I can about each model, it's strengths, it's weaknesses, etc.

So far, the thing that has struck me the most is how absolutely magnificent some "2nd rate" binoculars are optically when compared to the "high-end" models like the Swarovski EL's. I have seen models costing 1/2 or even 1/3 as much as high-end Leica, Swarovski, and Zeiss optics that have image quality within 5% of the image quality of the expensive brands. It seems that up to about $700 you will see a wide variation in the quality of the optics you can buy, but above $700 the differences seem to get incrementally VERY small as you invest more and more money. I'm not arguing that the high-end binoculars are NOT the best that money can buy, but rather that the 2nd best optics are just NOT that much worse in most cases, and ABSOLUTELY do NOT fall into the category of "mediocre" or not worth buying.

Again, I hope I haven't offended you in any way with this post, it is not my intention. I only wanted to offer another point of view based on a LOT of personal evaluations and comparisons. Hopefully this won't end up in a flame war or other unpleasantness.

Best wishes,
Bawko
 
stephen ingraham and birders digest bin review

stephen ingraham of BVD (www.betterviewdesired.com) has been revieming bins and scopes for years he seems to really know what he's looking through. last year zeiss hired him to become a major consultant. he never really liked zeiss. he seems to be honest and not promoting one co. over the other.

i agree that birders digest bins review really sucked. and those alpen bins also suck.

as far as leica ultravid there very nice but not that nice to be the top choice.

remember... here for the birds.

*
 
Bill Atwood said:
I've already given my opinion of this review in a previous post. To put it mildly, it was 14 pages of suck.

I emailed BWD about this "nonreview". They replied that negative comments just upset manufacturers, and that since everyone has a different opinion, there was no need to rank one bin over the next.

To top it off, they are planning one or two more such tripe ridden revews in the near future.

Due to this and other factors I doubt I will renew my subscription.
I hanen't read it but I enjoyed your review!!! :clap:
 
Bausch & Lomb Elites

iambirding said:
i spent a week with some very serious birders/ ornithologist. and the guys that take this seriously all had swarovski el 8.5 x 42 , 10 x 42 or the B&L Elite 8x42 or 10x42. the people that had the B&L's had bought theirs over 5 or 6 years ago. And were thinking of moving up to the EL but really enjoyed looking through my "very bright" pentax binos. the swarovski guys all had pentax as a back up. Pentax was a second choice no matter what even when it comes to scopes for these birders. swarovski are amazing but Minox, Kahles and the rest is very second rate they agreed. I look at a lot of recent bino reviews and not one ever mentions Kahles or Minox. They all mention Pentax SP, Nikon LX and of course Swarovski EL and lately the new Zeiss FL.

swarovski is still pushing the limits and right behind them is nikon and pentax. I belive B & L will eventually go away or fall in the mid range due to the selling over to bushnell."

Bushnell, once a division of Bausch & Lomb, is a separate company that has licensed the use of the Bausch & Lomb name for its higher end binoculars, including the Elites. It now looks as if the Elites are discontinued, which is a shame as they are really excellent waterproof glasses, not as bright as the current crop from Swaro, Leica, Zeiss, but very sharp with a remarkable edge to edge sharp and flat field. I would think current stock and recent used models would be really great deals as a back-up glass. Stephan Ingraham's Better View Desired review of the 8 x 42 Elite is both accurate and interesting regarding optics, unusual ergonomics and ultra fast focus control. The Elite was a predecessor Better View Desired "Reference Standard" bin, and in my view, deservedly so.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
iambirding, I believe you have a somewhat distorted view based on what you have read rather then tried on your own. Other than an occasional optics review in "Gun Test" magazine, I have yet to find what I belive to be a reliable source for optics reiews. Stephen Ingraham has appeared in ads for a number of optics manufacturers, including pushing that relatively low quality Leupold Wind Rivers. Advertising and sponsorship dollars are the driving force behind reviews. As far as your criticism of Kahles and Minox, I would say that you have never used either for any length of time. I own both and others that cost even more. I have found both of these brands to outperform the Pentax SPs, especially in low light conditions. Are they as good as top of the line Swaros, Zeiss, and Leica? No. Do I expect a $750-$800 bino to be as good as a $1,500-$1,600 bino? No. Are the big three twice as good as Kahles and Minox? No. Also, I would have to say that the Pentax are no where near as rugged as MInox and way below the ruggedness of Kahles. If you want to argue that you prefer Pentax SPs over Kahles and Minox, I could see where some people might feel that they were better to their particular eyes under ideal conditions. In my own low light testing Minox out performed the Pentax by more than 20 minutes and the Kahles kept performing more than another 10 minutes past the Minox. Hunters rarely choose Pentax due to a lack of ruggedness and poor low-light performance. Minox and Kahles are widely used in hunting circles and considered best buys. I think you should go back and do some testing of your own.

ranburr
 
the reviewer of bins

Atomic Chicken said:
iambirding,

Regarding this:


I'm not sure what you are saying exactly, but summing up your points I think you are saying (very paraphrased):

#1 - All serious birders/ornithologists use Swarovski EL's or B&L Elites
#2 - All serious birders/ornithologists prefer Pentax as a 2nd choice
#3 - Swarovski is the leading edge of technology, Pentax and Nikon are close 2nd
#4 - All the rest of the brands are mediocre binoculars not worth buying - except for the Zeiss FL, which serious birders/ornithologists "talk about" but don't seem to be using.

I hope I'm not missing anything... or over simplifying your post.

If the above is what you are saying, in essence, then I would have to question several of your points.

First off, I recently saw a documentary on PBS (National Geographic - The Last Stand of the Great Bear) about serious scientific naturalists who were studying bears, birds, wolves, and other wildlife in the west coast Canadian wilderness. The thing that struck me was that they were ALL using binoculars in their work, and they were all using either Canon IS (from the boats) or black rubber armored 50mm binoculars that I didn't recognize the brand or model (in the field). I didn't see even ONE pair of EL's, Elites, or Zeiss. These guys were VERY well equipped, with two heavily outfitted scientific yachts... it looked as if they could afford any gear they wanted (and the Canon IS binoculars used from the boats seemed to confirm that they knew about high-end equipment and using the right tools for the task at hand).

OK... I'll continue the ranting and hope to not offend you... that is not my intent.

I have made it a pretty serious part time job recently to put together a website on binoculars. I am not yet ready to release it to the public, there is still a lot of work left to be done. However, the salient point in this case is that most of my spare time in the last month has been spent looking through as wide an array of binoculars as possible... and taking as detailed notes as I can about each model, it's strengths, it's weaknesses, etc.

So far, the thing that has struck me the most is how absolutely magnificent some "2nd rate" binoculars are optically when compared to the "high-end" models like the Swarovski EL's. I have seen models costing 1/2 or even 1/3 as much as high-end Leica, Swarovski, and Zeiss optics that have image quality within 5% of the image quality of the expensive brands. It seems that up to about $700 you will see a wide variation in the quality of the optics you can buy, but above $700 the differences seem to get incrementally VERY small as you invest more and more money. I'm not arguing that the high-end binoculars are NOT the best that money can buy, but rather that the 2nd best optics are just NOT that much worse in most cases, and ABSOLUTELY do NOT fall into the category of "mediocre" or not worth buying.

Again, I hope I haven't offended you in any way with this post, it is not my intention. I only wanted to offer another point of view based on a LOT of personal evaluations and comparisons. Hopefully this won't end up in a flame war or other unpleasantness.

Best wishes,
Bawko

Bawko,
didnt you accuse someone of working for swarovski (conspiracy) for having an opinion- on a pair of bins that you didnt agree with?

but yes you did oversimplify and no i did not give kudos to other brands because i was talking about a small group of birders that i know and not the state of bins around the world for all naturalists. so far leica or zeiss have not caught up with swarovksi overall there always a miniscual fraction behind; that is what i see. so i'll go with swarovski el when the time comes. nikon does very well but has no quality control.

you seem confused on what I said and somehow proved my point for me. thanks for making my point in your second argument and getting the message across- mid range bins get very close to the best. the rest is marketing and a bit of optics.

i will be a bit wary of your website when it comes to the public because you've given very high marks on 8x32 HG and several people like myself have found the focus to be a problem. also nikon HG quality control seems to be a problem- all things to account for as a reviewer. another one of your recommendations is the B&L discoverer- marginal at best when it comes to mid range bins.

no one should ever review bins by watching what you see scientists on PBS hang around their necks.

keep at it but just remember the review does not end with you.

i have not taken offense to anything you've said. please take no offense to what i have written.
:hippy:
 
iambirding said:
i will be a bit wary of your website when it comes to the public because you've given very high marks on 8x32 HG and several people like myself have found the focus to be a problem. also nikon HG quality control seems to be a problem- all things to account for as a reviewer. another one of your recommendations is the B&L discoverer- marginal at best when it comes to mid range bins.


Bawko has a website? Where???
 
iambirding said:
Bawko,....i will be a bit wary of your website when it comes to the public because you've given very high marks on 8x32 HG and several people like myself have found the focus to be a problem. also nikon HG quality control seems to be a problem- all things to account for as a reviewer.

A reviewer can only review what he can get his hands on. Anything else is hearsay.

Andy.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 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