Sorry, 13 x 29. We had a Minox HG aswell but this bino got bad scores because it was a bad sample. So we did not put it on ranking.
About your method, give me some time
thank you.greets
-
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.
Mega Review of the best 8x42... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter binomania
- Start date
About your method, give me some time
thank you.greets
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
I hadn't looked at the gallery photos before, but guess what? There's some porros in there including the 8x32 SE and a Swaro. There's also a ?x50 Swarovision. Interesting.
Mark
Mark
Yep, we had the best bino on market, dont forget the Zeiss 20x60, the Kowa Highlander FL, the Docter Aspectem 40x80 :t:
You saw the new Swarovski Swarovision EL 12x50.
For others, the gallery is here: http://www.binomania.it/gallery/index.htm
greets
David Swain
Well-known member
Although you did not rank it, where would the 8x32 SE have ranked?
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Sorry, 13 x 29. We had a Minox HG aswell but this bino got bad scores because it was a bad sample. So we did not put it on ranking.
About your method, give me some time
greets
Sure. Let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Ed
I have come to the conclusion many years ago that Nikon seems to have no interest in selling these products in Europe. That holds both for scopes and binoculars. Not only are the prices so much higher than in the US, but there is also very little service, and the availability of many models is poor as well. However, I have not followed this up recently, and the actual variations in exchange rates may have altered the price levels a bit.
Last edited:
I think this is a view that is purely academic. Most of us buy binoculars to get to see things with. And for that, we don't care which type of prism there are. We may consider bulk, just as we may consider waterproof of lack thereof. But excluding binoculars for their type of prism is absurd. It is a fact that porros optically provide more for the buck than roofs. Yet, they are rarely waterproof and definitely less compact. That is why most brands concentrate on what sells better. But part of such a test is exactly to let readers know what the trade-offs are. And it may even encourage the (re-)appearance of high quality porros. The Nikon SE would definitely be a very attractive option for many if it would become available again.
Edit: Just noticed that Hermann in post #46 and etudiant in post #64 had the same objections. Thus, this supports their views!
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
I'm happy to see that Ed has entered this discussion. He knows far more than the rest of us about about the behavioral pitfalls of a group test like this.
Looking at the charts just now I didn't have to go any further than the first two binoculars to find an odd result in both the "Center Field Performance" and the "Chromatic Aberration, Sharpness, and Contrast" charts. Why are there such significant performance differences between the SV and SLC-HD in categories limited to on-axis performance? As far as I can tell from examining cutaway diagrams and the binoculars themselves there is virtually no difference in the optical designs of the objectives. The only real difference between these binoculars is the addition of a field flattener group in the SV eyepiece. So, what could cause the SLC-HD to lose points to the SV in purely axial performance categories like "sharpness"?
I've noticed odd results like this in other group tests like the one from Cornell/Living Bird. At least a few possibilities suggest themselves to me. The first one would be behavioral, something Ed would understand much better then me. Perhaps the testers expected the junior Swarovski to be inferior to the flagship model, so that's what they "saw", even in performance areas where there is no apparent reason for the SV to be superior. A second possibility, more in my line, is that perhaps there was something a little off about the SLC-HD specimen tested, not enough to be obviously defective but just enough to cause the very downgrades we see in the charts. Of course, it's also possible that the SLC-HD really is optically inferior to the SV on axis. If that's so, then a star-test at boosted magnification should find some difference in the axial aberrations between the two. Without some basic optical tests we have no way to explain the reported subjective differences.
As for the inclusion of the Canon, my objection is that it's at a disadvantage when tested in the same way as the other binoculars. I think everyone knows about its ergonomic problems, but it's also at an optical disadvantage because the IS works by de-collimating the optical train in a way that compensates for movements. Only a lucky resting alignment would allow it to compete with properly aligned conventional binoculars mounted on a tripod. Hand held, however, it will always show finer details (but probably a lower image quality) than those same conventional binoculars. That is its one and only reason for existing.
I noticed that one of the testers mentioned the stopdown of the Canon aperture by an internal baffle. That was largely corrected in later production by substituting a larger baffle, something that would have been known if the effective aperture of the tested binoculars had been measured.
Looking at the charts just now I didn't have to go any further than the first two binoculars to find an odd result in both the "Center Field Performance" and the "Chromatic Aberration, Sharpness, and Contrast" charts. Why are there such significant performance differences between the SV and SLC-HD in categories limited to on-axis performance? As far as I can tell from examining cutaway diagrams and the binoculars themselves there is virtually no difference in the optical designs of the objectives. The only real difference between these binoculars is the addition of a field flattener group in the SV eyepiece. So, what could cause the SLC-HD to lose points to the SV in purely axial performance categories like "sharpness"?
I've noticed odd results like this in other group tests like the one from Cornell/Living Bird. At least a few possibilities suggest themselves to me. The first one would be behavioral, something Ed would understand much better then me. Perhaps the testers expected the junior Swarovski to be inferior to the flagship model, so that's what they "saw", even in performance areas where there is no apparent reason for the SV to be superior. A second possibility, more in my line, is that perhaps there was something a little off about the SLC-HD specimen tested, not enough to be obviously defective but just enough to cause the very downgrades we see in the charts. Of course, it's also possible that the SLC-HD really is optically inferior to the SV on axis. If that's so, then a star-test at boosted magnification should find some difference in the axial aberrations between the two. Without some basic optical tests we have no way to explain the reported subjective differences.
As for the inclusion of the Canon, my objection is that it's at a disadvantage when tested in the same way as the other binoculars. I think everyone knows about its ergonomic problems, but it's also at an optical disadvantage because the IS works by de-collimating the optical train in a way that compensates for movements. Only a lucky resting alignment would allow it to compete with properly aligned conventional binoculars mounted on a tripod. Hand held, however, it will always show finer details (but probably a lower image quality) than those same conventional binoculars. That is its one and only reason for existing.
I noticed that one of the testers mentioned the stopdown of the Canon aperture by an internal baffle. That was largely corrected in later production by substituting a larger baffle, something that would have been known if the effective aperture of the tested binoculars had been measured.
Last edited:
The likelihood of small random variations in the precision of construction, what Henry would call defects, influencing tests like this is annoying but part of the game. An investigator would naturally want to understand the nature of the issue. But, no fair forgiving a binocular because it is a bad sample, any more than an apple for being a bad apple. Most people would just tolerate the substandard performance, never taking investigative nor corrective action, and remain disappointed. If bad samples are being sold, and the reviewers get ahold of one, then the review should be mercilessly scathing.
I am reminded of Henry's fiasco with Zen-Ray ED spotting scopes. What was it, three in a row that he deemed untestably defective? But hey, a good one would be very good, riiiight.
Ron
I am reminded of Henry's fiasco with Zen-Ray ED spotting scopes. What was it, three in a row that he deemed untestably defective? But hey, a good one would be very good, riiiight.
Ron
Last edited:
I dont think so. Is not an addition of a field flattener group, is a completely different eyepiece design.
Eye relief change a lot between the SLC HD 10x42 (16mm) and the Swarovision EL 10x42 (20mm).
Looks here:
http://www.swarovskioptik.it/upload/media/media/90/K09_EL_cut_mechanik_Schnitt[2291].jpg
and here:
http://www.swarovskioptik.it/upload/media/media/90/SLC_HD_cut_mechanik_Schnitt[2314].jpg
Lens have different thickness in every group and different position.
greets
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
All,
I think now is a good opportunity to return to methodology and the pitfalls of score merging.
In this study, each of nine strong minded experts were asked to evaluate 12 binoculars using 29 7-point Likert ratings. The numbers on such scales are ordinal, i.e., they reflect direction, but not distance. In other words, we have no way to know whether the psychological distance between 1 and 2 is the same as the distance between 3 and 4, or 6 and 7. And, in fact, the underlying psychological distances may be assumed to vary between observers. If we assume each observer is self-consistent, however, we can add such ratings within his own questionnaire, but not between observers.
To illustrate what can happen, in the attached table I've constructed a simplified set of ratings from three hypothetical observers. If we assume the score totals were obtained from 10 7-point Likert ratings, the max possible score for a binocular is 10x7 = 70, and the min. possible score is 10x1 = 10. I've given the binoculars real names just to keep it interesting.
As we can see, the individual rankings of our three experts is different, although A and C probably come from a similar opinion pool, and B is obviously a contrarian. But now see what happens to the total ranking when their scores are totaled. (I did this purposely) Lo and behold, the Swaro SV comes out number 1, while none of the individual observers actually rated it first. And, the Swaro HD, which was #1 in the eyes of experts A and C, now drops into the dust bin of history because it "lost."
Essentially, that's why I've asked the authors of the article to unscramble the egg and let us see what the individual ratings are. Trying to make sense of aggregates could be bad for your brain, to say nothing about the reputation of the binocuars. :eek!:
Ed
PS. I've added a .pdf attachment to make it easier.
I think now is a good opportunity to return to methodology and the pitfalls of score merging.
In this study, each of nine strong minded experts were asked to evaluate 12 binoculars using 29 7-point Likert ratings. The numbers on such scales are ordinal, i.e., they reflect direction, but not distance. In other words, we have no way to know whether the psychological distance between 1 and 2 is the same as the distance between 3 and 4, or 6 and 7. And, in fact, the underlying psychological distances may be assumed to vary between observers. If we assume each observer is self-consistent, however, we can add such ratings within his own questionnaire, but not between observers.
To illustrate what can happen, in the attached table I've constructed a simplified set of ratings from three hypothetical observers. If we assume the score totals were obtained from 10 7-point Likert ratings, the max possible score for a binocular is 10x7 = 70, and the min. possible score is 10x1 = 10. I've given the binoculars real names just to keep it interesting.
As we can see, the individual rankings of our three experts is different, although A and C probably come from a similar opinion pool, and B is obviously a contrarian. But now see what happens to the total ranking when their scores are totaled. (I did this purposely
) Lo and behold, the Swaro SV comes out number 1, while none of the individual observers actually rated it first. And, the Swaro HD, which was #1 in the eyes of experts A and C, now drops into the dust bin of history because it "lost." Essentially, that's why I've asked the authors of the article to unscramble the egg and let us see what the individual ratings are. Trying to make sense of aggregates could be bad for your brain, to say nothing about the reputation of the binocuars. :eek!:
Ed
PS. I've added a .pdf attachment to make it easier.
Attachments
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
Ivan,
Thanks for the links. I'm aware that the SLC-HD uses a 2-2-1 eyepiece (similar to Zeiss Leica and others). The lack of a field flattening doublet ahead of the focal plane is certainly explanation enough for the difference in edge performance between it and the SV, but an eyepiece design like the one in the SLC-HD shouldn't have compromised axial performance. Even if the eyepiece design turns out to be the cause of the problem (if there is a problem), it can't it blamed before it and other possible explanations have been tested.
Ron,
The third Zen-ray was good enough. It also took three specimens to get a good Takahashi Sky-90 and Zeiss 8x42 FL. I guess three's the charm.
Henry
Thanks for the links. I'm aware that the SLC-HD uses a 2-2-1 eyepiece (similar to Zeiss Leica and others). The lack of a field flattening doublet ahead of the focal plane is certainly explanation enough for the difference in edge performance between it and the SV, but an eyepiece design like the one in the SLC-HD shouldn't have compromised axial performance. Even if the eyepiece design turns out to be the cause of the problem (if there is a problem), it can't it blamed before it and other possible explanations have been tested.
Ron,
The third Zen-ray was good enough. It also took three specimens to get a good Takahashi Sky-90 and Zeiss 8x42 FL. I guess three's the charm.
Henry
Last edited:
Steve C
Well-known member
This is an interesting observation, and I think it is valid. I happen to think we see it a lot. I see a lot of posts from somebody floating on cloud nine with a big "...WOW..." I am always happy for their experience, but I always tend to take that with a couple of large grains of salt. We also see other posts where I wonder if the poster is really trying to convince somebody that they need to do what they did and drop the big $$$ on an alpha, or maybe they are trying to convince themselves they didn't spend too much. Conversely, I suppose the same could be said for somebody thinking what they have is better than some would think it could be. At any rate, I would like to see some deeper discussion of this "placebo" effect.
While I don't raise any particular objection to the Mega Review, I do think Ed's statistical points are valid and I am grateful to him for raising the issue. I also tend to think that a strong minded observer (maybe they all were) who has a particular binocular and likes it, will naturally gravitate to the same glass in the test(the more that do it, the more skewed the results). I have long thought something like this being done "blind" where no observer knows what make or model they have is the best way to go. However I have no blasted idea of how to accomplish this with enough really experienced people so that somebody would not recognize their favorite, even if disguised. I also wondered how any sort of pre concieved notions of Chinese optics might have affected the scoring of the GHT ED in the test. Experienced users of alpha glass, in my experience, ALWAYS have some preconcieved derogatory notion of the quality of this or that particular Chinese "clone".
Last edited:
Of course, i agree. Just to let you know, when i tested SV vs SLC i saw that SV has better performance at the center field when i watch an high contrast object on light background in backlight conditions, it show a bit more contrast. Is hard to explain for me, but seems that SLC gives images a bit bit bit bit softer when compared to SV.
greets
Last edited:
eheh
well, for this i have tried to resolve with a little description. For example, 5 mean good, 6 mean very good, 7 mean "perfect".I know that is not enought, but better then nothing.
Honestly, i have not another idea.
True BUT Swaro SV is the bino that got overall better scores, even if noone rated it first.
This is the purpose of the review :t:
I think that this method can ALMOST eliminate "psychological effects" of partecipants. Who agree with me ?
greets
Sorry Ivan I'm with Ed on this one. I believe his example shows that you can't say the SV is best. I have no doubt that individuals had preferences, but you can't put a number on preference just place it in order and give it a ranking. The valuable information is in the variability of the preference. There are a number of ways you can extract information from that example including 2/3 think the HD is best. Or perhaps just that observer B is very odd and results could be potentially ignored.
Please don't take this is a criticism. I'm sure we all appreciate your efforts and would encourage you to continue. Just trying to help you and us extract more valuable information from your work.
David
Please don't take this is a criticism. I'm sure we all appreciate your efforts and would encourage you to continue. Just trying to help you and us extract more valuable information from your work.
David
I agree that is similar to what I noticed when I compared the SV to the SLC HD. It is almost like the SV makes things pop a little more than the SLC. I feel it is probably the difference in eyepiece design between the two. They probably have similar coatings and similar objective lens designs and prisms so what else could it be. A different eyepiece design could make the centerfield sharpness better in the SV.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
eheh
I know that is not enought, but better then nothing.
Honestly, i have not another idea.
Hi Ivan,
Everyone is assumed to have a different psychological scale for good, very good, and perfect. That's why one shouldn't merge Likert scores across raters as if they were interval- or ratio- variables. At best they are somewhere between category and ordinal variables. See: http://www.graphpad.com/faq/viewfaq.cfm?faq=1089
The category descriptors are fine, but how you have used the resulting numbers to reach conclusions about the binoculars is not.
No offense intended, but I wouldn't dignify what you have as a legitimate "method." Of course, one is free to add and subtract numbers as one wishes, make charts, and rationalize at will. It's not like this hasn't happened before, as Henry mentioned regarding the Cornell study a few years ago, but it is something that can be done better in this case.
If you're referring to my hypothetical example, I don't know what you mean by "better overall scores," since the hypothetical SV ranked 3, 3, and 2, but came out first on an aggregate basis. Make sense to you?
Similar misleading conclusions could be true in your study, and I'm simply suggesting it would be worthwhile finding out. In any case, I'm afraid no amount of opinion pooling eliminates the underlying psychological differences between raters, or produces any meaningful information about the binoculars themselves. Basically, you can't get more out than you put in, and if nine independent expert evaluations were put in, then, by golly, nine expert conclusions must come out. For all we know they collectively support everything you said.
Again, no offense intended.
Regards,
Ed
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
David,
Sure, it's OK, and I would lend a hand if Ivan and company were really enthusiastic to pursue it. It should be fairly straight forward in Excel.
I fully concur with the points you made in your earlier post.
Thanks,
Ed
Last edited:
Similar threads
