• 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 Lab Review - Zeiss Did Very Well Here (1 Viewer)

I for one don't look forward to them, Frank. I've been irritated by the transparent shoddiness of these things since the first one I saw about 1987. Unfortunately, the association with a respected university seems to have the desired effect of bamboozling the unwary into believing they are reading the results of something that deserves to be called a "study" with a "research design".

I am sorry to hear that Henry. I don't fault you for feeling that way. As I mentioned in my previous post I have been critical of their methods/findings as well but I still appreciate the fact that at least one group took the time to try to review so many current models. It is that which I look forward to reading.....despite the fact that I disagree with their rankings evaluations as much as I agree with them. ;)
 
I have to agree that this (in bold) looks pretty bad:

Note
that all of these scores are subjective and reflect
the opinions and impressions of a diverse set of
bird watchers. [3]In the end, we gave greater weight
to our own (Jessie’s and Ken’s) scores, so we claim
a greater responsibility for the final rankings
!

I think Jessie and Ken should have done the review themselves.
What's the point of having other reviewers if their scores aren't given equal treatment?
 
Last edited:
I for one don't look forward to them, Frank. I've been irritated by the transparent shoddiness of these things since the first one I saw about 1987. Unfortunately, the association with a respected university seems to have the desired effect of bamboozling the unwary into believing they are reading the results of something that deserves to be called a "study" with a "research design".

Henry

Well said. At least you have one supporter for your point of view.

Stan
 
Am I correct in my reading of the "Overall Methodology" section:

For example, one $1000 8x42 might have been reviewed by 5 (or more, the number remains unspecified) people and a different $1000 8x42 might have been reviewed by 5 (or more, the number remains unspecified) completely different people? If so, that would easily explain the screwy results.
 
I only brought this up because money and recommendations are hard to part.

...

And I feel for all of them, because they're doing the best work on Earth and are strapped for cash anyway. I support them. Maybe it's simply time for all of us to put our money where our binoculars are.

Mark
 
Last edited:
And I feel for all of them, because they're doing the best work on Earth and are strapped for cash anyway. I support them. Maybe it's simply time for all of us to put our money where our binoculars are.

Mark

Yeah, they need to take money wherever they can get it b/c it's hard to come by.
I give them money each year and received a new envelope in the mail just the other day. I'll give them a little more.
I took that Cornell home study bird biology course. It was fun and I've been giving each year ever since.
 
Feeling slightly obligated to comment. Yes, Zeiss has been a longtime supporter of Cornell Lab. Youth birding, conservation, research... as have the other Alpha competitive optics companies. Comments that we have contributed to this review to influence results couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is that Zeiss has reinvented itself with a completely new portfolio of products. This portfolio has received similar recognition in all channels of trade. Prior years when the competition had an array of new products, the results were different. Just felt it was appropriate to defend the Lab.
 
Looks like Audubon has a new binocular guide article as well. It's not a comprehensive review, but just recommendations from the author. He prefers 7x which should automatically give the author some degree of credibility with some of you. :)

Pages 2 and 3 are his recommendations:

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/birds/2014-audubon-guide-binoculars

I'm pretty certain I didn't need to be told 7X is the most suitable all-around magnification by some academic.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty certain I didn't need to be told 7X is the most suitable all-around magnification by some academic.

Well, Mac, perhaps you are not the target audience. Clearly you have been around long enough to have worked out what magnification works best for you.

Other folks just starting out (and everyone 'started out' sometime) could maybe use a guiding hand. When I started out I just thought more magnification was better and went straight to a 10x. Thirty years later I had (finally) learned something and changed to an 8x.

Don't be too quick to put down what looks like basic advice: we have all been beginners.

Lee
 
I'm pretty certain I didn't need to be told 7X is the most suitable all-around magnification by some academic.

Sheesh...why so defensive? The author who is a bird watcher , not an "Academic" (Audubon organization is not a University) is not telling people they should use 7x. He states that he prefers 7x for various reasons. He merely
recommends and suggests (provides tips) for people less knowledgeable.

Btw...it is not a universal fact that 7x is the most suitable power for bird watching...it's an opinion.
 
Sheesh...why so defensive? The author who is a bird watcher , not an "Academic" (Audubon organization is not a University) is not telling people they should use 7x. He states that he prefers 7x for various reasons. He merely
recommends and suggests (provides tips) for people less knowledgeable.

Btw...it is not a universal fact that 7x is the most suitable power for bird watching...it's an opinion.

I think you're reading into what I said... and I'm pretty sure I understand the difference between Cornell and Audubon.

Obviously Mones is not an academic in the strictest sense. Little "how to's" can be helpful to the uninitiated.. I just find it unlikely those are Audobon members.

But thanks for the lecture.
 
I think you're reading into what I said... and I'm pretty sure I understand the difference between Cornell and Audubon.

Obviously Mones is not an academic in the strictest sense. Little "how to's" can be helpful to the uninitiated.. I just find it unlikely those are Audobon members.

But thanks for the lecture.

You're welcome :)
 
I think most of us agree, but we don't take any of this too seriously.
Criticize the Cornell Review all you want. They are correct about the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32. It is the best value I have ever seen in ANY binocular. It is TOO good for the money. Zeiss made a mistake and made it TOO good. It is remarkable. That is the best binocular I have EVER purchased for $675.00 from Cameraland as a Demo.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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